[Rhodes22-list] Reduce your CODB for personal monetary gains

[Rik Sandberg]

Brings to mind the question ...... who is John Galt.

Rik

Brad Haslett wrote:
> Philip,
>
> Government interferes with business?  You mean like this?
>
> Brad
>
> ----------------
>
>
> June 28, 2006 When Sexism Claims Are a Real Hoot*By* *John
> Stossel*<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/john_stossel/>
>
> You've probably heard of Hooters -- the restaurant chain known for
> attracting male customers by hiring waitresses who are well-endowed and
> dressed to show it.
>
> The firm now employs more than 30,000 people. Some would consider this a
> success story, but our government didn't. Not because Hooters is using 
> sex
> to sell -- but because its waitresses are -- get ready -- women!
>
> "Discrimination!" cried the federal government's Equal Employment
> Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
>
> The business of Hooters is food, said the government, and "no physical 
> trait
> unique to women is required to serve food." EEOC lawyers demanded Hooters
> produce all its hiring data, and then grilled Hooters for four years. 
> Mike
> McNeil, Hooters' vice president of marketing, told "20/20" the EEOC
> bureaucrats demanded to look at reams of paperwork. "Employee manuals,
> training manuals, marketing manuals -- virtually everything that's 
> involved
> in how we run our business . . . "
>
> The EEOC then issued a set of demands. First, it defined a class of
> disappointed males who had not been hired by the company. The EEOC said,
> according to McNeil: "We want you to establish a $22-million fund for 
> this
> mythical 'class' of dissuaded male applicants. We want you to conduct
> sensitivity training studies to teach all of your employees to be more
> sensitive to the needs of men."
>
> I suspect Hooters' customers are mostly men who think the firm is quite
> sensitive to their needs, thank you -- and that there would indeed be a
> class of disappointed males if the government insisted men do the jobs of
> Hooters girls.
>
> Typically, companies assaulted by EEOC lawyers just pay up to avoid 
> ruinous
> legal fees, but Hooters fought back, cleverly, not just in court, but 
> in the
> court of public opinion. Hooters waitresses marched on Washington, 
> chanting,
> "Save our jobs." A burly Hooters manager dressed as a Hooters waitress 
> posed
> for cameras, beard and all, demonstrating what a "Hooters Guy" might look
> like.
>
> That was a hoot, and it may have worked. Lawyers representing male
> applicants accepted an out-of-court settlement of $3.75 million, a 
> fraction
> of the $22 million that had been demanded. The EEOC dropped its 
> demands for
> sensitivity training; Hooters agreed to create more jobs like busboys and
> managers, which didn't have to be performed by women.
>
> Sears found itself in the EEOC's cross hairs because more men than women
> held jobs selling things like lawn mowers and appliances. The disparate
> numbers themselves were proof, said the government, that Sears 
> discriminated
> against women.
>
> Sears denied discriminatiing: "We asked women to do those jobs. It's just
> that few women want to sell things like lawn mowers."
>
> Is that too politically incorrect a concept for government lawyers to 
> get?
> Men and women do have different interests. Go to any Wal-Mart and 
> you'll see
> women looking at clothes, men in the hardware department. There are
> exceptions, of course, but the sexes do tend to have different interests.
>
> More men selling lawn mowers and more women selling cosmetics does not 
> imply
> evil discrimination that requires armies of lawyers from the State. 
> Show me
> women who want to sell lawn mowers but are being required to sell 
> cosmetics
> instead -- or men who want to sell cosmetics but have to sell lawn 
> mowers --
> and we have grounds for discussion. But if the women choose the cosmetics
> counter, any discrimination is their own.
>
> The EEOC was unable to produce any women who would complain that 
> they'd been
> discriminated against, so Sears finally won the suit. The $20 million the
> litigation cost was passed on to us customers.
>
> Have these and other EEOC excesses embarrassed the government into 
> shrinking
> the EEOC? Of course not. It now has 2,400 employees, and spent $326.8
> million in 2005 -- millions more than the year before. Government keeps
> growing, and as it grows, it feeds on our money, erodes our freedom and
> defies our common sense.
>
>
>
> On 6/28/06, 3drecon at comcast.net <3drecon at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> As you businessmen know, a major part of the cost of doing business 
>> is the
>> interference of government in the contract between the employer and
>> employee.  Other than necessary safety rules, government should stay 
>> out of
>> that contract.  They drive up prices, drive businesses out of states 
>> or the
>> country as a whole and gum up the system.  Unions lobbied the feds 
>> for years
>> for "benefits".  Now that most of those benefits are laws, the people 
>> don't
>> want to join unions and pay them for benefits that are mandated by 
>> law, and
>> the unions whine (I am a 28 year union member so I am not anti-union).
>> Maryland is currently doing their best to destroy Walmart.  The idea 
>> that
>> a company has to "give back" to the community is nonsense.  You pay 
>> for a
>> product or service (like a Rhodes 22) and you get the product or
>> service.  The only other obligations the company should have is to 
>> pay the
>> prevailing wage (which is whatever the market will bear) pay their 
>> taxes and
>> clean up after themselves (enter the government).  If there are 
>> benefits to
>> be had, then it should be a part of the collective bargaining process 
>> or the
>> competition for labor.  Some regulation is necessary to prevent
>> environmental dumping, inherently unsafe products (this has been 
>> carried too
>> far too) or products that do what they are supposed to do etc.  
>> Otherwise
>> the government needs to step out and do what the Constitution 
>> allows.  That
>> goes for the States too.  However; if the feds follow the 
>> Constitution and
>> don't interfere, the States can do what they want.  If they go too 
>> far, the
>> citizens can vote their will t
>> here o
>> r as one President put it, "vote with their feet".
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>> From: "stan" <stan at rhodes22.com>
>>
>> > everyone ( and congress people ) please listen to Brad and even 
>> Bill on
>> > this one - stan/gbi
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Brad Haslett"
>> > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:03 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Reduce your CODB for personal monetary
>> gains
>> >
>> >
>> > > Warren,
>> > >
>> > > The issue for us is not cheap labor, it is labor period. They are
>> there
>> > > and
>> > > willing to work. You don't see locals lined up at Home Depot at five
>> am
>> > > looking for a job. We pay the prevailing labor wage, now $15 per 
>> hour,
>> > > because they demand it. My brother, who is the real brains of the
>> > > company,
>> > > is used to working in a union environment. In Illinois, unskilled
>> labor
>> > > gets $30 per hour plus benefits. No problem, you just build the cost
>> into
>> > > the job and pass it on to the customer. No doubt there are some
>> abusing
>> > > employers out there, but any one with half a brain for business 
>> treats
>> > > their
>> > > employees well, legal or not. We operate on the Louis Haslett
>> principle
>> > > (my
>> > > father), don't ask a man to do something you wouldn't do 
>> yourself. We
>> > > just
>> > > hired another full time local and are always on the lookout for more
>> who
>> > > show on time, sober, and are not looking for a workmans comp injury.
>> You
>> > > wouldn't believe how difficult finding a good empoyee can be.
>> > >
>> > > Brad
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 6/28/06, Bill Effros wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Your point is well taken, Warren.
>> > >>
>> > >> The country votes with its credit cards, and it is taking its 
>> credit
>> > >> cards to Wal-Mart despite the fact that Wal-Mart is killing all the
>> > >> American businesses by hiring illegals, importing everything, and
>> > >> teaching its employees how to free load their medical bills off the
>> > >> taxpayer supported system.
>> > >>
>> > >> Everyone likes to talk a good game, but when it comes to their own
>> > >> money, other people's jobs are just another cost of doing business.
>> > >>
>> > >> Bill Effros
>> > >>
>> > >> Foy, Warren wrote:
>> > >> > CODB "cost of doing business"
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Note Subject line change:
>> > >> > Was "Reduce your federal income tax (political humor)"
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Brad wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > "It pisses me off every time I go to an ATM or call a phone tree
>> and it
>> > >> > asks
>> > >> > whether I want English or Spanish."
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Amen Brad.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > However, your dream implies that you are willing to support 
>> such a
>> > >> > necessity whether they are illegal or not. In your "dream", 
>> how did
>> > >> > you
>> > >> > pay your immigrant labor? Cash, Check, minimal cash with promises
>> of
>> > >> > additional work? If by check, do you expect them to use a bank or
>> do
>> > >> > you also own a check cashing service so that you can get your 20%
>> back?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -----Original Message-----
>> > >> > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>> > >> > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On Behalf Of Brad
>> Haslett
>> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:13 PM
>> > >> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
>> > >> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Reduce your federal income tax
>> (political
>> > >> > humor)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Bill,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It pisses me off every time I go to an ATM or call a phone 
>> tree and
>> it
>> > >> > asks
>> > >> > whether I want English or Spanish. That being said, most 
>> cabbies in
>> > >> > Beijing
>> > >> > are torqued over having to learn english for the 2008 Olympics.
>> Here
>> > >> > is
>> > >> > an
>> > >> > interesting perspective on native language. BTW, I've ordered the
>> > >> > Spanish
>> > >> > for Contractors CD for the boys on the beach.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Brad
>> > >> >
>> > >> > ------------------
>> > >> >
>> > >> > __________________________________________________
>> > >> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> __________________________________________________
>> > >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> > >>
>> > > __________________________________________________
>> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> > >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>