Wizzle_Wassell
New member
he has, thats why his own posts have no responce.
Last edited:
Continue to Site
he has, thats why his own posts have no responce.
Nahh, while I agree that the tumbleweed is an excellent logo for the Pizza Crafters site, I think we’ve seen enough of it here, it is sort of a one trick pony you know.
from my perspective I wasn’t refering to you at all - it was gregster who started this issue and I was hoping would come in correct himself but obviously not.
What would you call someone cross posting me from a different web site with the intent to discredit me? Or the post in this thread that was moderated to remove a personal attack? Or the anonymous attacks on myself and Gregster posted in other threads? Or how about how many people persist in calling me a troll, despite my repeated pointing out of all the ways that I could be much more effectively trolling this site if that was my goal. Even you have to acknowledge the amount of hostility that I get here even when I post something completely innocuous, and true to form no one has responded to my actual address of the original car topper wire issue, but gone after me personally instead.
quoting evidence from a different website in order to discredit someone?? hmmm where might we have learnt that one from?
great but it doesn’t cover the different situations does it.
yes, yes i can :twisted:Integraoligist:
You can’t ‘one size fits all’ every situation can you?
Not me, and not even Gregster, all he did was cross-post Charle’s thread about working as a driver for PJ’s over on TTPG because he was impressed that he actually went out and got a job there, and admitted that they’re mileage pay was what Gregster said it was. That’s hardly the same thing as digging through hundreds of posts at a different website to dig up a quote that really has nothing to do with the current topic, with the obvious intent of attacking another poster’s credibility.
from this thread:
I didn’t see anyone leaping to our defense when this was posted, and it’s still there on page one of the thread.
I know that, and my quarrel really isn’t with you WW, I just find it frustrating that whenever this sort of thing comes up here, some people here will go through the most amazing logical contortions to justify dinging their employees for some cost of doing business. I think you’ve got the legal side pretty well covered in your posts in this thread, my point is more that even if done legally, charging an employee would cost more in the long run than simply eating the cost of the cord. When it comes right down to it, a certain amount of equipment attrition should be figured into your costs, and the prices adjusted accordingly. Unless you’ve caught someone red handed sabotaging equipment (in which firing is the proper solution), it’s much more efficient to simply shrug and buy a new one than alienate your staff by making accusations and trying to squeeze them for chump change.
While I can’t speak for Gregster, but my guess would be that he’s researching this oft mentioned “page 39” that keeps coming up, and will reply when he feels that he has a firm basis to argue from. Wouldn’t you prefer to be hearing from someone who takes the time to know what they are talking about than from someone who likes to go off half cocked?
Again, I go into greater detail above, but it’s my feeling that it’s counter-productive to try to make the drivers pay for the cords, even if it seems like the loss/damage is their fault. Better to pay the $10 and have happy and productive drivers than to risk the much greater loss that an upset one can cause.
He already did his research on the “oft mentioned page 39” and just chooses to ignore it. It doesn’t fit his arguement.
Unless it is $100 car signs that you condone stealing and reselling! BTW can I deduct the income the driver gets from selling my stolen sign from their pay?
I really didn’t have to dig through posts as I read most of the stuff at TTPG, and I thought it was quite relevant to the topic at hand.
So that is the reason you are here?
Theft? Food tampering? You said it not me, I just included the bit about ebaying a car sign because I deemed it was relevant to the topic.
What are you talking about? Greg’s quote that you are linking to directly addresses this “page 39”, and he specifically explains to you how it works and what the effect on his understanding of the law is. I had forgotten that he’d explained it so directly before, so I am wrong about what he’s up to, but I don’t see how this page 39 thing is even relevant to what we are talking about, it only applies to people earning more than MW. He even uses your exact wording about ignoring things that don’t fit his argument, yet here you still are ignoring what he said despite linking to it yourself…
When it comes to employers that rip off their workers, I “condone” a whole lot more than stealing car signs, but my personal code of ethics has nothing to do with the conversation here, it’s just another red herring. IF you could prove a worker actually stole your sign, you could fire them or charge them with the theft, but you could not deduct the cost from their wages if doing so dropped their income below MW. I know it’s complicated, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
You just happened to recall something I posted a full month ago that is buried several pages back on TTPG and with the quote itself pages into the thread? Or you just couldn’t get enough of me here so you decided to relive my greatest hits over on TTPG? I mean I appreciate the fandom and all, but cyber-stalking is just kinda creepy…
What does my motive in posting here have to do with anything? If I was just here to yank people’s chains, I certainly wouldn’t have used the same user name I use everywhere else, and there are much better ways of going about it than what I post. Regardless, why I post is much less important than what I post, which is my unvarnished opinion.
You would have if you’d dug further my posting history, and since you seem to be such a devoted fan and so dedicated to publicizing my posts, I figured I’d beat you to the punch. I’m closing in on 1k posts at TTPG and I’ve said a lot of crazy things about a lot of different topics, sometimes more seriously than others, one post out of context doesn’t say a whole lot about me, and the only relevance it had to this conversation was that you thought it would damage my credibility with this audience. Whether it has your desired effect or not remains to be seen, but nevertheless I prefer to meet such things head on, I’m not a mea culpa sort of guy. Plus, every time someone attacks me and not my message, it just reinforces the fact that I’ve got a point that isn’t easily discounted, so have at it.
Thanks for pointing that out Dox. The question has been asked and answered. Paul disagrees with my answer. Fine. He is welcome to his opinion also.paul7979:
What are you talking about? Greg’s quote that you are linking to directly addresses this “page 39”, and he specifically explains to you how it works and what the effect on his understanding of the law is. I had forgotten that he’d explained it so directly before, so I am wrong about what he’s up to, but I don’t see how this page 39 thing is even relevant to what we are talking about, it only applies to people earning more than MW. He even uses your exact wording about ignoring things that don’t fit his argument, yet here you still are ignoring what he said despite linking to it yourself…
it IS as simple as that when you make a correct statement. Saying ANY expense incurred as a requirement of the business is not though. Nice to see you’ve taken the comments on board though!