Continue to Site

Censorship on PMQ?

gregjohnson84

New member
So I guess I’m a little concerned about the censorship that has taken place on the minimum wage issue. While I am in total disagreeance on the point of view of that has caused so much chaos amongst the members, I still think that he has a right to voice his opinion. I guess I just don’t see why we would blockout people that have a completely different view point. That just seems kind of, big brotherish? Anyways, I would think that as long as people are acting appropriately they should be able to participate in this forum and that’s coming from someone that is in complete disagreeance of the particular person that has caused all of this rucus.
 
Last edited:
I don’t feel it’s censorship when action is taken against a poster that continuously trolls for arguments with the membership of this board (or any moderated board for that matter). It wasn’t his viewpoint that was in question; it was his the continuous insults and ridicule that led to the lockdown of those threads. Bottom line was they were going no where in a positive manner.

I think Bodeghwy said it best when he began this thread… invited Gregster to become an active contributor. But Gregster never responded, nor discontinued his condescending and repetitive posts.
48.png
bodegahwy:
Gregster,

I want to address a point and not bogg down the other threads with either my point or your agenda.

Despite the fact that you are annoying to correspond with, you have important points. What may suprise you is that the long term readership of this board consists mostly of solid operators who agree with you on important things like complying with all the relevant labor laws and responsible insurance practices. We regularly take posters to task about not having insurance, cheating on labor laws and taxes etc because we all realize that these irresponsible operators give the industry a bad name and raise our costs.

I can only guess where it is that you have worked that abused staff, and drivers in particular, with wage practices, but my guess is that most of my colleages on this board are in full compliance with the law which is why we rise to baiting from a newcomer implying that we are not.

No doubt there are operators like the ones you assume represent the majority. Perhaps they are the majority. They are not the majority of well-run businesses. In my store, drivers make more than the minumum wage counting tips. They drive my cars and burn my gas for about 80% of the deliveries from my business. For the other 20%, on big nights when we need more drivers than we have cars, we are so busy that the drivers are making quite a bit more than the minimum wage counting tips. I would not have to pay them ANY mileage at all to be in oompliance with the law, but I do. I pay 5.5% of the value of the deliveries they make. On a night like that the payment amounts to about $50, sometimes more. On a night like that they would make about 10 runs, each with three orders/stops and an average ticket of $35+. The average distance in our delivery area is about 3 miles round trip. We track mileage on our company vehicles every night. A driver would drive about 50-70 miles on a night like that.

In a succesful delco the minimum wage and mileage issue that you are beating the drums about are not relevant because the drivers are making more than the minumum wage. All of our business practices are above-board and in compliance with the law. We are proud of our buisiness and proud of the fact that we meet our obligations. After corresponding with the other regular posters on this board, I am confident that they do as well.

When you post, over and over things like:

“You can also pay at least minimum wage plus at least the current IRS mileage rate of 58.5 cents per mile (or actual costs) so the drivers can afford proper insurance”

“Reasonable to who… You? Is it at least the IRS rate?”

“Is compliance with minimum wage law a ‘pain in the butt’ for you?”

“Not a single poster here has shown that they pay the required compensation for use of drivers vehicles. Not one!”

you imply that your correspondants on this forum do not meet obligations or comply with the law and that is insulting which is why you get some of the responses that you do.

If you would like to hang around and be a responsible voice and advocate for employees and drivers in the ongoing dialog we have here, please do so. Broaden your horizons and move beyond your “issue”. There are plenty of things to talk about, many are more important and more interesting than regulations which we already comply with. I am sure that many of the owners and managers here would welcome a responsible participant representing the views of staff. For example, there have been many threads on benefits and incentives where owners are exploring ways to pay staff more money or provide more benefits in ways that make busisness sense. Feedback on which ideas sound interesting to you would be welcomed I am sure,… if you could find a way to do it that was not insulting.
 
Last edited:
Look, some of you are also responsible for turning it into a not very nice discussion.

I don’t know if anyone noticed, but gregster and I were having a reasonable discussion in one of those threads as they were simply deleted. I’m not too happy about that. I took the time to get a decent discussion going and it was just yanked out because someone decided that was the way to go.

I’m not defending him or his facts. But I was trying to get to the bottom of the truth - and to see if what he was saying had any validity whatsoever. I have reason to believe that he might in fact be right - if not at least partially as I have seen the dominos in my area totally change the way they are paying driver compensation - more along the lines of the model that gregster was talking about.

If you didn’t like what he had to say - or even HOW he said it - then just stay away from the threads, simple as that. It always takes two to tango, eh?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think he was being abusive, but I might not of read every post. It wasn’t like he was ‘spamming’ or taking up every thread. No one forced any of you to respond to his argument or ‘facts’, even though he was completely off base. I totally disagree with the removal of that thread.
 
Last edited:
The man had a axe to grind. This is a public forum and he crossed the line. You can always pm.
 
Last edited:
48.png
papajoe:
I must of missed a couple of his posts. What line did he cross?
For me, it was the THIRD thread that was routed over to minimum wage/compensation jihad. It started as a single thread that was initiated by the poster in question. Then, the subject matter was thrust into a discussion about insurance liability and a driver complaint. Then, it was fired up into a third that I do not remember the subject matter.

You want to talk about a topic, start a thread. You start hijacking other threads to take more audience and maybe try to dominate more of the conversation, then it becomes rude and invasive. You start making unfounded accusations and statements to arouse emotional response on all three threads, then you are out of line.

Just look at how much time, space and energy is being spent dealing with this one person and his impact on this discussion board. Scant few other people have had this disruptive an effect here since I joined. Does this look and fee like productive, solution oriented discourse among professionals? It does not to me. That is what lets me know that the topics and direction of discussion needed to be stopped, and that the originator of the discussions needs a different approach when entering an established group.

Your opinions may vary, and that is a good thing. Just don’t call me stupid or misquote my statements because I disagree . . . see what I mean?
 
Last edited:
yep - agree with Nick also.

I don’t actually think the post should have been deleted as there was some merit in what the guy was saying. The plain fact was he took any post which questioned his points (many of which were valid) as an attack and point blank that the other persons views were wrong. To end up accusing anyone of not complying with any law without knowing anything about our business is just asking for trouble.

Add to the fact he would misquote people and took ‘snapshots’ of comments, many times out of context, the post should have been locked and moved on with.
 
Last edited:
48.png
papajoe:
I must of missed a couple of his posts. What line did he cross?
He accussed several people, including me, of violating various laws. He does not know me, has never worked in my store and does not have access to payroll records. The only communication I had concerning him was to suggest that people quite responding to him because of his tone. His proof I was not in compliance with the law. ? I did not prove, to him, to his satifasfaction, that I was in compliance with the law. I also did not prove to him that I do not beat my wife, I also have not proven on this board that I was not involved in the 9-11 plot, I was not involved in either the RFK or MLK shootings (I was to young to plot when JFK was shot) or the development or spread of the aids virus. Using Gregster logic I must be guilty of all of these. Back in the day we used to require evidence before declaring people guilty.

I spent ten years in uniform defending the constitution of this country and take the rights we have here very seriously. Freedom of speech does not include the right to make false accusations of illegal activity in the public forum. Had Gregster taken a different approach a conversation may have been possible. The starting point of You are making an unfair profit by cheating your employees (My words, not a direct quote) made a reasonable conversation unlikely. Furthermore, if you disagree with him or question him in any way, you are obviously guilty.

Tank Tank is well within their rights to restrict the conversation in this forum just as I restrict conversation in my store. If an employee is being confrontational and causing problems I point out the problem. If it continues I point it out more clearly and sternly, if it continues I eliminate the problem. gregster was informed several times that his confrontational approach and unfounded accusations were not appreciated. When he continued in the same way, moderators were asked to deal with him. If TT members or the moderators believe that I am creating an environment hostile to the free exchange of ideas they have the right, and the responsiblty to address it. Mr Gregster also has the right to express his opinion in any forum that will have him, or he can create his own. If he continues making false accusations about people in public, someone with more time than I have may take legal action.

Just my opinion and hopefully it is worth more than you paid for it.

Rick G
 
Last edited:
Directly accusing someone of breaking the law is wrong and so is calling someone stupid. If he couldn’t get his point across in a more respectable manner then the posts should of been deleted. I guess I must of missed those (there were so many)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top