Hi,
I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
as well as the things they do.
Thanks for any info or suggestions!
David
In article <[email protected]>, Nate B
<[email protected]> wrote:
> seems happy and well paid for what he does
Anyone who uses "retail" and "well paid" in the same sentence can't be
taken seriously. ;-)
I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail job,
Home Depot or otherwise. The poor (pun intended) devils are working for
the same kind of money that I earned in my twenties, back when it was
actually a living wage /and/ /you/ /could/ /even/ /save/ /a/ /little/.
Now, a young, single person couldn't possibly live on the hourly rate
HD pays, /even/ /if/ /they/ /could/ /get/ /forty/ /hours/ /a/ /week/.
The suits who run these corporations wouldn't get out of bed for the
kind of money they pay their front-line workers. Then, those same
arseholes bitch about how impossible it is to find /and/ /keep/ good
staff. Duh!
Maybe if they paid less for never-ending training for constantly
quitting workers and used the same money for living wages...
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Mark
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The first was earning $16/hour
Even *if* he were getting 40 hours a week, that's only about $32K a
year. Even at that, the suits wouldn't get out of bed.
> the second $13
Same as above, about $25K. You called these "former tradesmen who are
reasonably compensated for their knowledge of the trades"? We'll have
to agree to disagree on this one.
People need to start referring to earnings in amount/year to really get
a better basis for comparisons.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Robert Boucher
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Charles Spitzer wrote:
> >
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > What I'd really like (I think) is the kind of job where you go
> > > *live* it for periods of time like a couple weeks or a month, and
> > > then you're off for a week or so at a time. I
> >
> > try an oil rig, or the alaska pipeline. that's how they work.
>
> My son, a petroleum engineer, worked 12 hours a day for 29 straight days
> while on an oil rig in the gulf. At the end, I think he would have been
> happy to work for Lowe's <g>
I spent 117 days straight in the Indian Ocean aboard an aircraft
carrier but STILL don't want to work for Lowes! :)
Allen
In article <[email protected]>, Mark
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Bullshit.
> Now that you've been shown to have your head up your ass
> and generally have no idea what you're talking about
>
> Be a nice Liberal and crawl back into your hole.
In place of a reasoned, thought-out response, you spew out NOTHING but
insults and you say that I have no idea. You obviously have *no*
*ideas* at all to share.
I guess this NG had to have a pissant like you who basks in the
anonymity and invulnerability that USENET provides for mental midgets.
BTW, I think there's a village looking for you.
Gerry
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:30:20 -0800, "Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think you know what HD employees make. At least
>down here in Northern California they do ok. A buddy of
>mine went to work doing exactly what the OP was asking
>about and he started out somewhere between $10 and $11
>per hour.
That's the impression I got from someone a few years ago.
>This was about 2 years ago and since then he
>mentioned a raise at least a couple of times. He has a lot
>of forklift experience but had never worked in a place like
>that before. He likes it and most of the other employees
>at the store seem to like their jobs ok.
That's another thing...every HD or Lowe's employee I've
talked to has liked their job, which means a lot to me. The
only real complaint I've heard was from a guy in a paint
dept. who said they are understaffed in his oppinion, so he
can't get things accomplished the way he feels they should
be. He was considering transferring to another store, but
wanted to stay with the company.
>Minimum wage here
>is $6.75/hr, (I think) so he may be coming close to doubling
>that by now. Not going to get rich doing that but he has good
>benefits and room for advancement.
Thanks for all that...those are all things that are very
important to me.
>I doubt that any HD
>anywhere would actually pay minimum wage.
So do I, and wonder why someone would present such
an ignorant bit of "information" to anyone else, especially
in a public forum.
>Around here
>if you run a forklift you will definitely get above minimum
>wage.
> And in response to the rest of your rant...Damn The Man!
>The Man is always trying to get me down! Workers unite!
>Damn The Man!
>
>Bruce
>Redding, Ca.
Damn the SOB I'm currently working for...a greedy,
dishonest asshole who lies to and about his employees
for no apparent reason other than to hurt them, who
never realizes his own mistakes meaning that he makes
a lot of them (since he can't try to get over making them
if he won't even acknowledge them), at the expense of
those who are trying to work for him (as well as himself).
Not damn him to Hell, but damn him to what he deserves!!!
I don't think you know what HD employees make. At least
down here in Northern California they do ok. A buddy of
mine went to work doing exactly what the OP was asking
about and he started out somewhere between $10 and $11
per hour. This was about 2 years ago and since then he
mentioned a raise at least a couple of times. He has a lot
of forklift experience but had never worked in a place like
that before. He likes it and most of the other employees
at the store seem to like their jobs ok. Minimum wage here
is $6.75/hr, (I think) so he may be coming close to doubling
that by now. Not going to get rich doing that but he has good
benefits and room for advancement. I doubt that any HD
anywhere would actually pay minimum wage. Around here
if you run a forklift you will definitely get above minimum
wage.
And in response to the rest of your rant...Damn The Man!
The Man is always trying to get me down! Workers unite!
Damn The Man!
Bruce
Redding, Ca.
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:030420041400332146%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nate B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > seems happy and well paid for what he does
>
> Anyone who uses "retail" and "well paid" in the same sentence can't
be
> taken seriously. ;-)
>
> I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
> Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail
job,
> Home Depot or otherwise. The poor (pun intended) devils are working
for
> the same kind of money that I earned in my twenties, back when it
was
> actually a living wage /and/ /you/ /could/ /even/ /save/ /a/
/little/.
> Now, a young, single person couldn't possibly live on the hourly
rate
> HD pays, /even/ /if/ /they/ /could/ /get/ /forty/ /hours/ /a/
/week/.
>
> The suits who run these corporations wouldn't get out of bed for the
> kind of money they pay their front-line workers. Then, those same
> arseholes bitch about how impossible it is to find /and/ /keep/ good
> staff. Duh!
>
> Maybe if they paid less for never-ending training for constantly
> quitting workers and used the same money for living wages...
>
> Gerry
Ok, so what does that mean? Most businesses that use
forklifts have good drivers and bad ones. Just like any other
job. The guy I know used to load my steel hauling truck
and was one of the best I've ever seen. I'm not too shabby
with a forklift myself. Have you ever ran a forklift? Ever
screw up and bump something or dump something? Anyone
who has used a forklift for a while and says they haven't
screwed up is lying.
Bruce
Redding, Ca.
"Tom Eller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One of my friends delivers to HD and lowes here in Columbus, OH.
He's
> always showing me huge gouges in his trailer, where the guys cant
work a
> forklift and dig into the bed. He said every once in a while
they'll dump a
> pallete over the side.
>
>
> "Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > A buddy of
> > mine went to work doing exactly what the OP was asking
> > about and he started out somewhere between $10 and $11
> > per hour. This was about 2 years ago and since then he
> > mentioned a raise at least a couple of times. He has a lot
> > of forklift experience but had never worked in a place like
> > that before.
Snip
>> Around here
> > if you run a forklift you will definitely get above minimum
> > wage.
> > Bruce
> > Redding, Ca.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:30:20 -0800, "Bruce"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> >This was about 2 years ago and since then he
> >mentioned a raise at least a couple of times. He has a lot
> >of forklift experience but had never worked in a place like
> >that before. He likes it and most of the other employees
> >at the store seem to like their jobs ok.
>
> >Minimum wage here
> >is $6.75/hr, (I think) so he may be coming close to doubling
> >that by now. Not going to get rich doing that but he has good
> >benefits and room for advancement.
>
> Thanks for all that...those are all things that are very
> important to me.
>
You bet. I'm sure HD's are a little different depending upon
where it's located.
> >I doubt that any HD
> >anywhere would actually pay minimum wage.
>
> So do I, and wonder why someone would present such
> an ignorant bit of "information" to anyone else, especially
> in a public forum.
>
Because some people on this forum want to think they
know something about every topic and post accordingly.
In this case the guy is obviously a bitter old man, (or at
least thinks like one) and really thinks that if it ain't a
"Mom and Pop" store it must be evil. Probably still
shops at the stores he hates too.
> >Around here
> >if you run a forklift you will definitely get above minimum
> >wage.
> > And in response to the rest of your rant...Damn The Man!
> >The Man is always trying to get me down! Workers unite!
> >Damn The Man!
> >
> >Bruce
> >Redding, Ca.
>
> Damn the SOB I'm currently working for...a greedy,
> dishonest asshole who lies to and about his employees
> for no apparent reason other than to hurt them, who
> never realizes his own mistakes meaning that he makes
> a lot of them (since he can't try to get over making them
> if he won't even acknowledge them), at the expense of
> those who are trying to work for him (as well as himself).
> Not damn him to Hell, but damn him to what he deserves!!!
>
Yeah, well, welcome to the world of working for someone else.
I've had good bosses and bad ones in all sorts of types of work.
Some lines of work lend themselves to having a disproportionate
number of assholes compared to others. The best boss I've ever
had has been myself. But then I have to deal with customers and
just like bosses, some are nice and some aren't. But without
those pesky customers all my job would be is a hobby.
Bruce
Redding, Ca.
My 2 cents...
They seem to be all English speaking so the pay cannot be that bad. :)
Compare that with the Sears that is next door to our local BORG that I
visited last night and spoke to an individual in the tool department.
Me : "Could you tell me the ACTUAL HP on this drill-press"
Tool Manager: "Yes, it saiz richt there 2HP", as he points to sign reading
'2HP maximum developed"
Me: "No, not the maximum HP, but the true HP of the drill press"
Tool Manager : "ajh jyes, 10 inches"
Me: "Thanks"
I do not know why I keep going to Sears.......
I am sure the pay scale corresponds between the two as well.
Roger.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
> Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
> off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
> for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
> anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
> Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
> into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
> better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
> to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
> but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
> as well as the things they do.
>
> Thanks for any info or suggestions!
> David
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <1gbvbql.2hduxf1jnclrjN%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
> > > is a hallmark of a true Liberal.
> >
> > You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
> > founded by liberals using liberal principles.
>
> liberals, not statists. Your views are statist, not liberal in the
> classical sense. You don't espouse individual liberty for anything
> other than personal gratification or moral depravity.
>
> >
> > That's all pretty much dead now, but I think its worth keeping the ideas
> > floating around in case somewhere else others want to live with the rule
> > of law and rights granted to individuals rather than what is going on
> > now.
> >
>
> Yep, pretty much dead now, you can't critcize the sitting president
> (see your comment below) without dire reprisals, you can't worship where
> you please, you can't travel anywhere within this country without
> government permission. [Note to the irony impaired, the prior was
> sarcasm]
>
> Let's look at your other statements above, " ... want to live with the
> rule of law" Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
> to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
> accordingly. Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
> more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
> industry, to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
> political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
> member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
> office or a member of the press). Not at all what the founders had in
> mind. "... and rights *granted* to individuals" The founders are
> spinning in their graves over that one. The fundamental thought in the
> Constitution and even before that, the Declaration of Independence, was
> that individuals are *endowed* with inalienable rights and that
> repressive governments take away those God-given individual rights. The
> constitution does not *grant* individual rights, it affirms them and
> limits the governments ability to take away those rights.
>
> The things you are decrying as removing freedoms are actually laws
> that were enacted to make sure that those seeking to really destroy
> those freedoms and most likely yourself
are thwarted. [Dang, hate it when I do that]
> The laws you are indirectly
> referring to are directly aimed at the groups who are seeking to destroy
> the way of life you claim we have already lost and help prevent those
> groups from being successful in their quest.
>
>
>
> > When you mention evasion, I can't help but think of Bush. He has done it
> > his whole life and it is working pretty well for him.
> >
>
> Just can't avoid adding those little hate-Bush digs, can you?
>
> > --
> >
> > "There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
> > without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
> > mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
> > prevent its ascendency." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams
> >
>
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
> is a hallmark of a true Liberal.
You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
founded by liberals using liberal principles.
That's all pretty much dead now, but I think its worth keeping the ideas
floating around in case somewhere else others want to live with the rule
of law and rights granted to individuals rather than what is going on
now.
When you mention evasion, I can't help but think of Bush. He has done it
his whole life and it is working pretty well for him.
--
"There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
prevent its ascendency." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams
Bill Everette <[email protected]> wrote:
> "p_j" wrote
> >
> > You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
> > founded by liberals using liberal principles.
>
> Now THAT is a stretch. I'm sure the ACLU would have prospered in the 18th
> century!
No stretch at all. The ACLU fights the SAME BS that went on in the 18th
century. Against the same "conservatives."
>
> But I'm sure you'll provide a link from moveon.org or guardian.co.uk to
> prove that.
I could provide links from lots of places, but what's the point. I could
limit it to life long republicans, but what's the point.
--
"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and
impartial justice to all its citizens." - Thomas Jefferson
"We've got a dictatorial president and a Justice Department that does
not want Congress involved... Your guy's acting like he's a king." - Dan
Burton
"The Justice Department... seems to be running amok and out of
control... This agency right now is the biggest threat to personal
liberty in the country." - Dick Armey
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
> > > is a hallmark of a true Liberal.
> >
> > You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
> > founded by liberals using liberal principles.
>
> liberals, not statists.
Yeah, liberals.
> Your views are statist, not liberal in the
> classical sense.
You can't provide a single post or response by me that is remotely
statist. You are a typical talibano, who not surprisingly supports
statist policies.
> You don't espouse individual liberty for anything
> other than personal gratification or moral depravity.
Examples coward? Beyond the fact that you just invent BS to defend the
worst president in history and a party that is remarkably like the
Fascists, I don't want some complete hypocrite determining whether my
liberties are for gratification or "depravity."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their consciences." - C.S. Lewis
>
> >
> > That's all pretty much dead now, but I think its worth keeping the ideas
> > floating around in case somewhere else others want to live with the rule
> > of law and rights granted to individuals rather than what is going on
> > now.
> >
>
> Yep, pretty much dead now, you can't critcize the sitting president
> (see your comment below) without dire reprisals,
Absolutely true for some and indeed ALL can't criticize the person in
power during his visits unless they visit the communist style "free
speech zones."
> you can't travel anywhere within this country without
> government permission.
Some can't. Did you think that you, if you have all the requisite
papers, can do something, nobody else matters? Rights for some.
> [Note to the irony impaired, the prior was
> sarcasm]
Actually ignorance... astonishing ignorance of current affairs actually.
>
> Let's look at your other statements above, " ... want to live with the
> rule of law" Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
> to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
> accordingly.
... and the rule of law, the exact opposite of the current rulers.
> Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
> more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
> industry,
Sounds republican to me.
> to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
> political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
> member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
> office or a member of the press). Not at all what the founders had in
> mind.
You sure have swallowed the RNC talking points hook, line and sinker. I
doubt the founding fathers would have supported the gross corruption
that leads to the current government/media cabal, but if you really
cared about free speech, you could go and read the SC decision and
precedents. You will find that even republicans understand the sort of
gross corruption going on and why and how it is limited. Your post
doesn't even mention relevant issues and sounds like the endless
regurgitation from disinformation sources like the junkie whore
Limbaugh.
> "... and rights *granted* to individuals" The founders are
> spinning in their graves over that one. The fundamental thought in the
> Constitution and even before that, the Declaration of Independence, was
> that individuals are *endowed* with inalienable rights and that
> repressive governments take away those God-given individual rights. The
> constitution does not *grant* individual rights, it affirms them and
> limits the governments ability to take away those rights.
So now you're saying that Ashcroft and Bush are against God! That's the
first logicial thing I've heard from you.
>
> The things you are decrying as removing freedoms are actually laws
> that were enacted to make sure that those seeking to really destroy
> those freedoms and most likely yourself.
Right, freedoms must be eliminated in order to have freedom from a few
guys with box knives or fertilizer bombs. Gottya.
> The laws you are indirectly
> referring to are directly aimed at the groups who are seeking to destroy
> the way of life you claim we have already lost and help prevent those
> groups from being successful in their quest.
BS. Pure BS. Using nazi thinking like the anti-American "patriot" act
against sick people smoking pot ain't pure or justice or goodness or
whatever Orwellian label you want to call it.
>
>
>
> > When you mention evasion, I can't help but think of Bush. He has done it
> > his whole life and it is working pretty well for him.
> >
>
> Just can't avoid adding those little hate-Bush digs, can you?
I think it is normal for moral people and those who love the principles
the country was founded on to hate Bush. For that matter anyone who
believes in meritocracy or democracy hate him.
And, he has evaded responsibility his entire life. At least my remarks
are based in reality, rather than the mouth foaming lunatics who blamed
Clinton for the sun rising every day. Blame, blame, blame and now the
RNC spin on 9/11 is "don't blame" anybody. Ah, the party of situational
ethics.
Hey, when is justice gonna be done for the hundreds of people that
Clinton had killed? Republicans have control of every part of the
government? Whatsup?
> > "There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
> > without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
> > mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
> > prevent its ascendency." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams
Too late.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
> > around with an intern and lied about it.
>
> Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
> politician lied about it while under oath
Come again? As usual, you propagate BS from talk radio. He used the
definition provided by the prosecution.
Given the Jihad against him, he would have been convicted in a
heartbeat. He wasn't because he didn't commit perjury.
Besides, lying under oath CLEARLY is NOT an issue with the talk radio
crowd. Bush ADMITTED to filing a false affadavit - the same as perjury -
when he escaped doing jury duty. A felony. Do you care? Of course not.
Funeralgate is yet another can of worms.
> while testifying in a trial
> accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman.
A laugher of a fake trial.
> Funny thing
> was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
> among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
> of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
> as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
> such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
> aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
> ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
> throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.
Funny thing is that your side of the aisle is repeatedly involved in
sexual nastiness but never considers it of significance.
Why not long ago, the Bush brother who was in the center of a BILLION
dollars in fraud at Silverado SnL admitted to sleeping with young women
who appeared at his door while peddling influence in Asia. He couldn't
remember how many of them there were and evaded any estimation of their
ages. I guess using situational ethics as republicans do, nobody should
assume that they were children or that they were used as a payoff or
that they could be used as blackmail. Response from your type - silence.
>
>
> > We wouldn't expect him to be
> > honest about it.
>
> Not even in a legal proceeding?
Quit propogating lies.
Hey, did you hear what happened to the woman who was suing George W.
Bush for sexual harassment? Heck, did you even know that he was being
sued?
--
"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai Stevenson
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:00:33 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:
...accidentally sent the first reply too soon.
>In article <[email protected]>, Nate B
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> seems happy and well paid for what he does
>
>Anyone who uses "retail" and "well paid" in the same sentence can't be
>taken seriously. ;-)
I think it really depends on the store you're in. Most companies have
good policies, it really does come down to whether the manager of the
store is a complete moron or not. Finding one that isn't is rare. To
the original poster: your best bet is to talk to people at the store
you're planning on working at.
>I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
>Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail job,
>Home Depot or otherwise. The poor (pun intended) devils are working for
>the same kind of money that I earned in my twenties, back when it was
>actually a living wage /and/ /you/ /could/ /even/ /save/ /a/ /little/.
>Now, a young, single person couldn't possibly live on the hourly rate
>HD pays, /even/ /if/ /they/ /could/ /get/ /forty/ /hours/ /a/ /week/.
I always find it amusing when someone in one of these jobs takes it
overly seriously, as if this is the only job they'll ever have. That's
not to say one shouldn't try to do a good job. I worked at a craft
store for minimum wage and tried to keep on top of what most of the
major items in the store were for so I could help customers out, but
when you're spending every free second making sure every item is
perfectly placed, brown nose with management all the time, and
complain about any coworker that doesn't live up to your standard of
perfection, your time would be much better spent going to business
school so you can at least get paid well for acting like a manager.
>The suits who run these corporations wouldn't get out of bed for the
>kind of money they pay their front-line workers. Then, those same
>arseholes bitch about how impossible it is to find /and/ /keep/ good
>staff. Duh!
I have yet to work at a retail store/low end job where the management
actually cares about the employee, or has any clue how to run the
business they're in. I don't deal well with idiots telling me what to
do [i.e. a manager telling me to run credit cards from people who
didn't own them, to not have line holdups and keep people happy "Oh,
it's all right, my wife/brother/boss said I could use their/company
card to buy this!". Or assistant managers telling us to do things the
manager above them told us not to do], thus I never could hold a job
down at one of these places.
>Maybe if they paid less for never-ending training for constantly
>quitting workers and used the same money for living wages...
I was told at one of the companies I worked for that they were losing
money for the first 90 days of an employee working there due to
training, etc. I lasted a little longer than that, but not much. The
average employee turnover there was about 3 weeks. They're replaced
all the managers there now, and there's still a huge turnover.
>Gerry
Charles Spitzer wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > What I'd really like (I think) is the kind of job where you go
> > *live* it for periods of time like a couple weeks or a month, and
> > then you're off for a week or so at a time. I
>
> try an oil rig, or the alaska pipeline. that's how they work.
My son, a petroleum engineer, worked 12 hours a day for 29 straight days
while on an oil rig in the gulf. At the end, I think he would have been
happy to work for Lowe's <g>
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:10:34 GMT, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:44:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
>>Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
>>off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
>>for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
>>anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
>>Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
>>into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
>>better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
>>to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
>>but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
>>as well as the things they do.
>>
>>Thanks for any info or suggestions!
>>David
>
>I've known people working for HD a long time and they enjoy it. You
>don't always get (nor should you expect) to always get a particular
>shift, nor a particular department. A person who stocks prolly should
>not expect more than $10 an hour, if that. Working at the
>headquarters, is very very different, and HD has won awards for "a
>good place to work." Personally, I'd prefer to work close to where I
>live to avoid the (wasted) commute time.
That's a definate consideration. I could get a job working in
lighting production (which I did for about the past 7 years, and
off and on for about 20 years), paying a good bit better, but
that would require driving 1 hour+ each way every day, and I
would pretty much have to be married to it. I want to get away
from that, and just have a simple job I go do, and then go home
and try to enjoy my own life for a change.
What I'd really like (I think) is the kind of job where you go
*live* it for periods of time like a couple weeks or a month, and
then you're off for a week or so at a time. I wanted to get on
with a big local lighting company that did a lot of touring and
offered such opportunities (I'd been thinking about that for 15
years), but they closed their location in this area just about the
time I finally wanted to go to work for them :-( That's life...oh
ain't it!
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:030420041400332146%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nate B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Anyone who uses "retail" and "well paid" in the same sentence can't be
> taken seriously. ;-)
>
> I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
> Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail job,
> Home Depot or otherwise. The poor (pun intended) devils are working for
I tend to agree with Gerry, although Home Depot may be the exception. I'm
Canadian too and am familiar with the retail industry and the low wages that
the front line workers get. As to the people that work at Home Depot in
stores that I've gone to in Toronto, they appear to be typically more
experienced and knowledgeable that your average employee. Haven't asked, but
their outlook suggests that they're a little better compensated. They remind
me a little of the employees at Lee Valley Tools who are *all* extremely
experienced and knowledgeable. Don't know what they make either, but work
attitude goes a long way to making the premise true.
im going to tell you a short story that taught me a valuable lesson.
i wanted to get out of the high stress business of emergency computer
support and went to a future shop thinking i could get a job there no
problem. i ended up talking with the owner of the company. after spending
15 minutes talking about what i knew about electronics and computers, he
told me the one thing i will never forget.
he told me he didnt give a rats ass what i knew about computers or
electronics. he wanted to know what i knew about SELLING computers and
electronics.
expect the same at lowes or home depot.
randy
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
> Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
> off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
> for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
> anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
> Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
> into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
> better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
> to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
> but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
> as well as the things they do.
>
> Thanks for any info or suggestions!
> David
randy writes:
>i wanted to get out of the high stress business of emergency computer
>support and went to a future shop thinking i could get a job there no
>problem. i ended up talking with the owner of the company. after spending
>15 minutes talking about what i knew about electronics and computers, he
>told me the one thing i will never forget.
>
>he told me he didnt give a rats ass what i knew about computers or
>electronics. he wanted to know what i knew about SELLING computers and
>electronics.
>
>expect the same at lowes or home depot.
>
True. But what most retail management manages (sorry about that) to overlook is
the fact that knowing about something makes selling it easier, supporting it
much easier, and finding out what the customer needs even easier. Result: more
sales and better sales support, which eventually results in even more sales. It
is the "eventually" that seems to baffle today's managers, "Ya mean, not this
week (month or month for the real long term planners)? Feggedaboutit. We can't
afford to wait."
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Charlie ...
<<True. But what most retail management manages (sorry about that) to
overlook is
the fact that knowing about something makes selling it easier, supporting it
much easier, and finding out what the customer needs even easier. >>
Well, yes and no. If you know a lot about what you are selling, and what
you are selling is crap (and if you happen to have some scruples), that
combination of circumstances can actually hinder the process.
Perhaps that's why so many of the folks in those orange or blue aprons are
as clueless as they seem. If they really knew about some of those the
products on the shelves, when you asked them where to find something they
might point you in the direction of the exit.
Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"
In article <030420041400332146%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nate B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > seems happy and well paid for what he does
>
> Anyone who uses "retail" and "well paid" in the same sentence can't be
> taken seriously. ;-)
>
> I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
> Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail job,
> Home Depot or otherwise.
You speak of that which you know not.
Many of the people at HD (can't speak to Lowes specifically,
but they would have to be market competitive to survive) are
former tradesmen who are reasonably compensated for their
knowledge of the trades.
I've personally spoken to two at a local HD (U.S.) that were
willing to disclose their wage. One had retired from his
trade, the other was moonlighting. The first was earning
$16/hour, the second $13 (he was part time evenings, the
easiest shift to staff for these stores).
That's a far cry from minimum wage.
--
Mark
The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.
Triple Z is spam control.
In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 18 bucks an hour
That hourly rate, even *IF* it is fulltime, sounds so much more
impressive than $35K a year. As I said in another post, if everyone
discussed *dollars* *per* *year*, we could compare salaries/wages a lot
more simply especially since a lot of jobs deliberately keep workers
well under the forty limit to avoid having to provide benefits.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
> not all of it is the fault of the insurance companies by any stretch
Up here, the auto insurers continue to cry the blues and raise rates by
leaps and bounds. A few weeks ago however, the newspapers announced
that the insurance companies' profits were up over *800%* /in/ /one/
/year/. They are among the biggest, most obscene bandits in our
economy.
Gerry
Gerry writes:
>Up here, the auto insurers continue to cry the blues and raise rates by
>leaps and bounds. A few weeks ago however, the newspapers announced
>that the insurance companies' profits were up over *800%* /in/ /one/
>/year/. They are among the biggest, most obscene bandits in our
>economy.
Not just there. 60 Minutes, I think, looked over some malpractice insurance
costs. Seems the companies are making plenty of money, not losing as they say,
but are raising rates at a tremendous pace...reason: they screwed up with their
investments, which lost as massive percentage in the past few years, so now
they're gobbling it all back at once. You can bet your ever-lovin' that they
won't lower rates at the end.
But it still isn't all the insurance companies fault. First, government lets
them get away with thieving, and so do we when we don't storm our legislators'
offices and demand reform. Next up, tort lawyers go for the wallet every time,
even in cases where a deep into the change purse is more sensible. Juries too
often go along.
Systemic, instead of being the fault of one type of company or person.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
> My insurance rate actually barely increased at my last renewal in
> December.
With NO tickets or accidents, my two commercial vehicle policies
increased 25% two weeks before the 800% announcement. And I had to pay
the usual $150 brokerage fee as well on top of the new premiums. They
are gouging thieves.
Gerry
GERRY responds:
>In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 18 bucks an hour
>
>That hourly rate, even *IF* it is fulltime, sounds so much more
>impressive than $35K a year. As I said in another post, if everyone
>discussed *dollars* *per* *year*, we could compare salaries/wages a lot
>more simply especially since a lot of jobs deliberately keep workers
>well under the forty limit to avoid having to provide benefits.
I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference. There's not a lot of effort
involved in converting hourly wages to annual (multiply by 2080 for a full week
every week), but, as you note, there may not be much point. I don't know how
many hours Marvin worked or works, but it wasn't full time, nor did he wish to
work full time. Setting him up as earning 35K per year would have been a lie.
It is far easier for most hourly wage jobs to provide the hourly rate than it
is to extrapolate because of the variable hours. I've got another friend who
makes about $16 an hour, but almost never drags down less than 50K a year. He
puts the time in, does the work, and makes pretty decent money. How do I
specifiy his salary? Well, I say he makes 16 bucks an hour, except when he's
making 24.
At the start of the year, neither he nor his boss has any idea of how many time
and a half hours he'll get, so specifying his earnings at 55K is not correct.
He may only make 45, but is more likely to tap 60, sometimes a touch more.
The only time a company has to keep workers under xx hours to avoid providing
benefits is when they provide benefits for those working a full week (which the
company may designate as 35, 37-1/2 or 40 hours a week). If no one is paid
benefits, there is no need to worry about hours. Admittedly, this tends to be
the case in small companies. I've seen a lot of it with small contractors and
builders. An extra buck or two an hour is supposed to make up for the lack of
benefits.
It doesn't work if you check out health care costs today, which have reached
thelevel of criminal (and not all of it is the fault of the insurance companies
by any stretch).
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> writes:
>that the insurance companies' profits were up over *800%* /in/ /one/
>/year/. They are among the biggest, most obscene bandits in our
>economy.
Have you compared insurance company profits by year from 2000 to 2003?
I'll bet the total dollars of profit compared between 2000 and 2003 isn't
much different. Insurers made little profit in 2001/2002. An 800%
increase could be because they are now back to normal.
I don't like the rate of insurance increases any more than anyone else.
My insurance rate actually barely increased at my last renewal in
December.
Brian Elfert
On 8-Apr-2004, Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
> An 800%
> increase could be because they are now back to normal.
No, the profits were an all-time record. Insurance=theft
a lot of the time, IMNSHO.
Mike
Mark responds:
>>
>> I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
>> Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail job,
>> Home Depot or otherwise.
>
>You speak of that which you know not.
>
>Many of the people at HD (can't speak to Lowes specifically,
>but they would have to be market competitive to survive) are
>former tradesmen who are reasonably compensated for their
>knowledge of the trades.
>
>I've personally spoken to two at a local HD (U.S.) that were
>willing to disclose their wage. One had retired from his
>trade, the other was moonlighting. The first was earning
>$16/hour, the second $13 (he was part time evenings, the
>easiest shift to staff for these stores).
>
>That's a far cry from minimum wage.
Some of the clerks may be at minimum, but I don't think many are. And those
with woodworking or contracting experience tend to do better. Know a guy in
Virginia who had retired as a contractor, moved to VA, built his house, his
daughter's house, was bored spitless. HD opened up and he got a job doing
demonstrations. 18 bucks an hour for about all the hours he wanted the work. He
didn't really need the money, but he had gone through hydorponic gardening
(commercially, small scale) and a couple other hobbies, so decided to keep
busy.
Not exactly minimum wage. Not what he made as a contractor, either, but
certainly better than $5.15. an hour.
Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the help
there?
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
> >$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
> >less than that!
>
> What kind of nurses? RNs and LPNs are on widely varying pay scales, and my
> recent experience tells me most nurses are LPNs, not RNs.
LPN?
Low Pressure Nurse?
Large Prehistoric Nurse?
Low Paid Nurse?
Let's Party Nurse?
mp asks:
>>
>> What kind of nurses? RNs and LPNs are on widely varying pay scales, and my
>> recent experience tells me most nurses are LPNs, not RNs.
>
>LPN?
>
>Low Pressure Nurse?
>
>Large Prehistoric Nurse?
>
>Low Paid Nurse?
>
>Let's Party Nurse?
Licensed practical nurse. Two year course. Registered nurse: I think currently
a 4 year course, used to be 3.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
>Licensed practical nurse. Two year course. Registered nurse: I think
>currently
>a 4 year course, used to be 3
Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years in
college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
John
JP Lipe responds:
>>Licensed practical nurse. Two year course. Registered nurse: I think
>>currently
>>a 4 year course, used to be 3
>
>Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years in
>college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
>license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
Ouch. Watched 60 Minutes last night and that was scary enough. OK. My mother
was an RN, but she started in, IIRC, 1931, maybe 1930, with 3 years at Yonkers
General Hospital as a training field. Got a granddaughter who is an LPN, 2 year
course. My mother was in NY, Kathy in VA, but both seem to have fairly
stringent licensing standards. Mom retired, many years ago now, as acting
adminstrator (would not title her "administrator" because she lacked a BS). She
was also nursing services director and a major motivator of the campaign to
build a new hospital, helping collect an awful lot of money in a few years. The
hospital board's gratitude extended so far that they didn't cancel her health
coverage over and above Medicare for the first year she was retired.
The blessings of Westchester County and environs.
Long time ago now.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Charlie Self wrote:
> Ouch. Watched 60 Minutes last night and that was scary enough. OK. My mother
> was an RN, but she started in, IIRC, 1931, maybe 1930, with 3 years at Yonkers
> General Hospital as a training field. Got a granddaughter who is an LPN, 2 year
> course. My mother was in NY, Kathy in VA, but both seem to have fairly
> stringent licensing standards. Mom retired, many years ago now, as acting
> adminstrator (would not title her "administrator" because she lacked a BS). She
> was also nursing services director and a major motivator of the campaign to
> build a new hospital, helping collect an awful lot of money in a few years. The
> hospital board's gratitude extended so far that they didn't cancel her health
> coverage over and above Medicare for the first year she was retired.
RNs take a national registry board test. It's the same everwhere with
the possible exception of California, but they have reciprocity with the
rest of the country. Dentists and PAs have to recredential when they
cross state lines. RNs just fill out a paper and pay the charge to get
state credentials.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to-is-disabled-due-to-spam
use:
daveldr at att dot net
Member:
America Associaton of Woodturners
www.woodturner.org
http://www.woodturner.org/community/chapters/aawlocal.cfm
Capital Area Woodturners
http://capwoodturners.org
Potomac Antiqe Tools and INdustries Association
www.patinatools.org
John wrote:
> >Licensed practical nurse. Two year course. Registered nurse: I think
> >currently
> >a 4 year course, used to be 3
> Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years in
> college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
> license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
LPNs and community colleges have 2 year degrees, hospitals (if you can
find one still doing it) give 3 year degrees, colleges give 4 year
degrees unless you already have a degree, in which case the extra is 17
months to 2 years. The 4 years gets you a Bachelors of Science in
Nursing (BSN).
Dave in Fairfax (RN, BSN)
--
reply-to-is-disabled-due-to-spam
use:
daveldr at att dot net
Member:
America Associaton of Woodturners
www.woodturner.org
http://www.woodturner.org/community/chapters/aawlocal.cfm
Capital Area Woodturners
http://capwoodturners.org
Potomac Antiqe Tools and INdustries Association
www.patinatools.org
JPLipe wrote:
> Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years in
> college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
> license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
>
> John
It depends on which state is issuing the license. In New York State the minimum
score is 80%, which is one reason the NYS license is recognized throughout the
country. According to my daughter, who has taken the test twice, the NCLEX test
is computerized, zeros in on you weakest area and hammers you.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
On 05 Apr 2004 04:03:33 GMT, [email protected] (JPLipe) wrote:
> The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
>license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
>
>John
Do you think she told you the truth?
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
On 05 Apr 2004 04:03:33 GMT, [email protected] (JPLipe) brought forth
from the murky depths:
>>Licensed practical nurse. Two year course. Registered nurse: I think
>>currently
>>a 4 year course, used to be 3
>
>Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years in
>college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
>license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
Q: What do you call a man who leaves medical school with
a grade of "D-"?
A: Doctor.
Half of the dotors out there graduated in the bottom half
of their classses.
-------------------------------------------------------------
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design
* * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPLipe wrote:
>
> Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years in
> college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
> license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
I know several people who flunked the exam who wished that were so.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
In article <[email protected]>, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote:
>mttt wrote:
>> What's that old Joke? What do you call the guy who graduated *last* in his
>> medical school class?
>>
>> Doctor...
>
>Or last in his class at Annapolis?
>
>"Sir".
>
Or last in his class at West Point?
"General Custer".
And that's a fact.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Half of the dotors out there graduated in the bottom half
> of their classses.
Of course they did...it would be impossible to state otherwise, on the other
hand the other half of the doctors out there graduated in the top half of
their classes.
--
© Jon Down ®
My eBay items currently listed:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=lamblies&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> So? All that means is that 50% of the test is made up of questions
> that they don't expect you to be able to answer. What's 50% of a
> bunch? "JPLipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two
>> years
> in
>> college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's
>> nursing license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
>>
>> John
>
>
>
It's also not accurate. The nursing board exam is and has been for the
last several years adaptive. The exact number of questions asked and the
number required as well as their relative difficulty varies for each test
taker. The test "adapts to your individual responses in an effort to
judge competancy. The actual minimum scores are not published.
So? All that means is that 50% of the test is made up of questions that they
don't expect you to be able to answer. What's 50% of a bunch?
"JPLipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years
in
> college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
> license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
>
> John
mttt wrote:
> What's that old Joke? What do you call the guy who graduated *last* in his
> medical school class?
>
> Doctor...
Or last in his class at Annapolis?
"Sir".
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
"JPLipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Not necessarily. SWMBO is a surgical nurse, and got her RN with two years
in
> college. The frightening thing she told me is that to get one's nursing
> license, one only has to score 50 % on the licensing exam.
What's that old Joke? What do you call the guy who graduated *last* in his
medical school class?
Doctor...
Gary35619 states:
>
>$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
>less than that!
What kind of nurses? RNs and LPNs are on widely varying pay scales, and my
recent experience tells me most nurses are LPNs, not RNs.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Now, y'all know damned well that's a Licensed Practical Nurse.
I have known (in the biblical sense ) some of these erstwhile
companions of the medical trade - and found them to be perfectly
suitable to the task at hand. Of course, this is all past tense - as
is most of my life.
YMMV (Lord, I miss seeing that here).
I'i'll agree up front that the licensing is suspec t.On Sun, 4 Apr
2004 14:31:02 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
>> >less than that!
>>
>> What kind of nurses? RNs and LPNs are on widely varying pay scales, and my
>> recent experience tells me most nurses are LPNs, not RNs.
>
>LPN?
>
>Low Pressure Nurse?
>
>Large Prehistoric Nurse?
>
>Low Paid Nurse?
>
>Let's Party Nurse?
>
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
mp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
> > >less than that!
> >
> > What kind of nurses? RNs and LPNs are on widely varying pay scales, and my
> > recent experience tells me most nurses are LPNs, not RNs.
> LPN?
Licensed Pratical Nurse. They have about 2 years of formal training
compared to 4 years for an RN. RNs are in pretty high demand.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
[email protected] wrote:
> mp <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> $13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
>>>> less than that!
>>>
>>> What kind of nurses? RNs and LPNs are on widely varying pay scales, and my
>>> recent experience tells me most nurses are LPNs, not RNs.
>
>> LPN?
>
> Licensed Pratical Nurse. They have about 2 years of formal training
> compared to 4 years for an RN. RNs are in pretty high demand.
Your experience is that most nurses are LPNs? Do you live in a nursing home?
<G>
I have always worked in a hospital setting (been a RN since 1992). While our
LPNs are grandfathered, they don't seem to be hiring any more. We have two of
them on my unit. Of course, we also have about 34 others who are all RNs.
As for educational preparation, I have an associates degree in nursing (ADN).
Maybe half of my peers at work have the same. I earned it in two years. BSNs
generally spend the first two years leaning liberal arts stuff, then start with
the clinical nursing curriculum during their third year, completing it all in
their fourth year.
Irregardless of how one earns a degree in nursing, we all take the same national
exam. These days it's all computerized. There are not different scores
acceptable for different states. You either pass the NCLEX or you don't. The
days of different scores required in different states ended before I became a
nurse. My mother remembers those days though... but then again she's 80 and
remembers when Wyatt Earp died.
Once you pass, you can apply for licensure to individual states. One of the
Dakotas requires a BSN to go along with the NCLEX but as far as I know that's
the only one. Several states belong to the Nursing Compact, where a license
from one can be used in any of the others (similar to a NY driver's license
being acceptable to drive in Connecticut). Most of the states require their own
license for practice. If you move from another state then it's just a formality
to get that state's license (requiring 2-3 weeks of wating and a check).
Generally speaking, a license from any one state will qualify you for a license
in any other state.
They pay us the same no matter how we were prepared for the NCLEX. I've heard
of places that might pay 25 cents per hour more for a BSN but I've never worked
in one. Work experience (as a RN) has much more influence on what rate you're
paid. I'm making roughly double what I did when I first graduated now.
As for demand.... man, it's a seller's market these days, and the nurses are
what's selling. 3-10 thousand dollar sign-on bonuses are the rule in my neck of
the woods. We don't grow on trees any more, though the jobs sure do.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
On 03 Apr 2004 23:11:44 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the help
>there?
And do we have the right?
As we get older and wiser, we often find that there's more important
aspects to a job than wages.
You can often tell a good employer by the attitude and friendliness of
its employees. I've always gotten good vibes from Wal-Mart and Home
Depot.
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
> Phisherman wrote:
> > My college sweetheart graduated the same time I did. I started out
> > making more money as a computer programmer than she did as a
> > registered nurse. But in the end, she wins, and I'm out of a job for
> > months and months.
> Yep. when one of us loses our job, we're out of work for hours and hours.
It's really annoying to have my mailbox filled by places that want to
pay me to come work for them. %-) And the sign on bonuses are
insulting, $3-5K. Really am sorry about your being out of work
Phisherman. I was talking to Silvan about a career change to PT or
Radiology, they take 2 years and pay OK to start.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to-is-disabled-due-to-spam
use:
daveldr at att dot net
Member:
America Associaton of Woodturners
www.woodturner.org
http://www.woodturner.org/community/chapters/aawlocal.cfm
Capital Area Woodturners
http://capwoodturners.org
Potomac Antiqe Tools and INdustries Association
www.patinatools.org
Dave in Fairfax writes:
>It's really annoying to have my mailbox filled by places that want to
>pay me to come work for them. %-) And the sign on bonuses are
>insulting, $3-5K. Really am sorry about your being out of work
>Phisherman. I was talking to Silvan about a career change to PT or
>Radiology, they take 2 years and pay OK to start.
Heh. When we had our fire last year and lived in temp housing a few months, the
place next to ours had a young husband and wife, with the wife a radiology
tech, IIRC. She was high enough up the training scale to be doing contract work
through an agency. They moved every year or two according to job availability.
The guy worked at relatively low pay construction and rode off-road
motorcycles, which is what he enjoys, while the wife worked at a local hospital
at a rate that probably pushed 100K a year, but that also included that temp
housing (2 bedroom full furnished and equipped apartment, with maid service)
and some other bennies. I know for a fact that the housing goes for at least
$1400 a month (but that includes local telephone bill, utilities, heat, even
the detergent for the dishwasher and the washing machine. It's rough, though:
you have to share the washing machine and dryer with the apartment next door).
It pays OK. To start.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
B a r r y <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 05:58:38 -0500 (CDT), [email protected] (GARY)
> wrote:
>
> >$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
> >less than that!
> >
> >Gary
>
> Come to the northeast. I have several nurse acquaintances that are
> almost to the point of being able to fill in their own numbers on the
> paycheck. <G>
>
Yup, the northeast. My wife's friend is an operating room nurse and
her W-2 this year was in excess of $100,000.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark responds:
>
> >>
... snip
> Not exactly minimum wage. Not what he made as a contractor, either, but
> certainly better than $5.15. an hour.
>
> Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the help
> there?
>
Walmart has help? :-)
> Charlie Self
> "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
>
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message > Not exactly minimum wage. Not what he made as a contractor, either, but
> certainly better than $5.15. an hour.
>
> Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the help
> there?
Actually my wife was recently looking for a part time job, and Walmart
paid about $1 more an hour than anywhere else. About $2 more than
target and penneys...
-she passed on the walmart job anyway....
Phisherman wrote:
>
> My college sweetheart graduated the same time I did. I started out
> making more money as a computer programmer than she did as a
> registered nurse. But in the end, she wins, and I'm out of a job for
> months and months.
Yep. when one of us loses our job, we're out of work for hours and hours.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:24:30 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 18 bucks an hour
>
>That hourly rate, even *IF* it is fulltime, sounds so much more
>impressive than $35K a year. As I said in another post, if everyone
>discussed *dollars* *per* *year*, we could compare salaries/wages a lot
>more simply especially since a lot of jobs deliberately keep workers
>well under the forty limit to avoid having to provide benefits.
>
>Gerry
Not everybody works for the money and/or benefits.
And even THOSE folks are often happy.
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
On 03 Apr 2004 23:11:44 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the help
>there?
I always thought it was funny that for all the people who complain
about how little Walmart pays, Walmart always has a long line of
people who are dying to work there.
Walmart doesn't pretend to pay big bucks. Why pretend that they do?
Brian Henderson writes:
>
>>Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the
>help
>>there?
>
>I always thought it was funny that for all the people who complain
>about how little Walmart pays, Walmart always has a long line of
>people who are dying to work there.
>
>Walmart doesn't pretend to pay big bucks. Why pretend that they do?
Huh? I see no pretense anywhere about Walmart paying big bucks. Unless things
have changed, the Bedford, VA store, where some people I know work, start
everyone at $5.30 an hour. I think that's just to be able to say they're paying
above minimum wage. I don't know if that's chain policy, but it seems likely.
That long line of people is essential, as the turnover is enormous. But I've
heard it's a pretty good place for retirees who need a few extra bucks to work.
It gets them out and involved and brings in some money to supplement SS.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
On 06 Apr 2004 10:25:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Huh? I see no pretense anywhere about Walmart paying big bucks. Unless things
>have changed, the Bedford, VA store, where some people I know work, start
>everyone at $5.30 an hour. I think that's just to be able to say they're paying
>above minimum wage. I don't know if that's chain policy, but it seems likely.
A couple weeks ago there was some guy on the radio who wanted Walmart
sued because they weren't paying a family wage to their employees.
The radio hosts kept asking him "since when did Walmart ever claim
they were going to pay a family wage?"
I have no idea what the local pay is like, but a lot of the people I
see in the local Walmart have been there for years, at least as long
as I've been going into the store (coming up on 5 years now). That's
not just retirees, it's cashiers and the like.
On 07 Apr 2004 09:50:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
>in college.
It is ludicrous. It's the same nonsense that the recent grocery
strike pointed out. These union assholes think that they're special
and deserve benefits that NO ONE ELSE GETS! These people are
basically unskilled labor but they think they deserve as much money as
people who spent 12 years in college.
Forget that.
>As I said, from what I've seen the number of retirees working at various
>Walmart stores is high (or apparent retirees. They are all people who look
>older than I do). I'm sure most of them would like $10 an hour for smiling at
>customers, but I doubt any of them would believe it if it was offered.
Where else are you going to get paid to stand at the front door and
say hi? $10 is pretty decent money for not really doing anything,
isn't it?
>And, of course, your radio twerp didn't specify what a "family wage" might be.
>I know people who need 100K a year to barely maintain their family's life style
>and I know others who do pretty well on 10K, net. Depends a lot on what the
>"family" expects and how large it is.
Oh, I'm sure he wanted $50k or so, but that's ridiculous. The people
who end up at Walmart aren't employable at $50k. Most of them are
lucky they can get hired anywhere at all. It's ridiculous to claim
that they deserve more money because they aren't making enough in an
unskilled job to buy a new BMW.
In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> These union assholes think that they're special and deserve benefits
> that NO ONE ELSE GETS!
Plenty of people get benefits. Why are union members assholes for
wanting benefits? Or, are they assholes because you don't like unions?
> These people are basically unskilled labor but they think they
> deserve as much money as people who spent 12 years in college.
Those 12 years have cost the taxpayers A LOT MORE than they cost the
grads. Their "sacrifice" was their choice so they could sit in an
office instead of a factory floor.
The unskilled labour you mention work just as hard as anyone else. It's
just that society has decreed that they should earn so much less. The
sad part is that many times the work they do is more important to
society than the college types. Unfortunately, the college types are
the ones who are setting the policies in society as to value of work.
> $10 is pretty decent money for not really doing anything, isn't it?
Look up instead of down for a change. There are many people *up* the
food chain getting a lot more than $10 for just as much nothing.
Politicians come to mind quickly.
> The people who end up at Walmart aren't employable at $50k. Most of
> them are lucky they can get hired anywhere at all.
That's an unfair comment. Most of them *can't* do any better because
MOST of the jobs created or available these days are parttime McJobs.
There are even your college types out there with no work available who
have to take on these retail, near-minimum-wage jobs or drive taxis
because of the lack of real jobs.
> It's ridiculous to claim that they deserve more money because they
> aren't making enough in an unskilled job to buy a new BMW.
Why do you feel the need to ridicule unskilled labour's need for a fair
wage? They are *NOT* asking for a new BMW.
BTW, maybe you need to drop the term "unskilled" from your vocabulary.
Some of those jobs at the "bottom end" take more skill than you
realise.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where is my subsidized health care? Why should transit workers get
> subsidized health care when the taxpayers paying their wages don't get the
> same?
Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".
TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
universal, public health care system.
Get angry at those private (and government) parasites instead of people
at the bottom of the food chain trying to better their conditions.
Gerry
"Grant P. Beagles" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!
Well, as a bona fide Canadian, I can only speak from a selfish point of
view. I'm glad we have the health care that we do have. My health issues
have mandated my using our health system extensively and I figure that
there's dozens and dozens of other countries where if I'd have been a
resident, I would have died years ago. Here, I'm alive and thriving with my
own business. I might well have done the same down in the US, but my
understanding is that getting full health assistance in the US means that
you're too poor to pay for any of it, so then it's free, otherwise you're on
the hook for vast amounts of money.
Of course, if you've got the cash, then better/faster medical assistance is
at hand, up here or down there, but that's the same with most everything in
our North American society.
Upscale writes:
>
>Of course, if you've got the cash, then better/faster medical assistance is
>at hand, up here or down there, but that's the same with most everything in
>our North American society.
>
Or any other.
Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are Canadians who come to USA and pay cash for health care as
> the waits are so long in Canada.
Watch out for the corporate/media propaganda! In the last few weeks, I
have undergone blood work, cardiogram, carotid echo cardiogram, CT
scan, and followup GP dicussions on test results. ALL of this work was
done virtually immediately. The ONLY delays were in scheduling around
my weird availability. Don't believe all you read.
Corporate America wants no part of public health care. The corporate
world up here are lobbying trying to get their hands on all that creamy
taxpayer money. Remember, the two biggest sources of untapped MEGA
bucks are health care and education. Some corporations must get all
moist just dreaming about them.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> the unions felt that their employees shouldn't have to pay a penny,
> that they should somehow be special and above every other industry.
That's rubbish. There are many industries that get free healthcare
benefits.
> They earn what they deserve, which frankly isn't a whole lot. Most of
> them could be replaced by self-checkout machines quite easily.
That's exactly the point that I was making. Society has decided who
makes what and that a lot of the pay rates are way out of whack with
so-called professionals. You personally seem to think that they are
worth almost nothing whereas I think politicians, lawyers, and many
other "professions" should be worth a lot less than they are paid.
That's my personal opinion.
> Most of them simply aren't qualified to do any better. They do not
> have the education or experience necessary to do better. They can
> gain said experience through hard work, but they do need to start at
> the bottom.
> It's too bad so many people aren't willing to start at the bottom and
> move up, they want to start at the top.
They're already at the bottom. I also think that education is highly
overrated as a criterion for determining pay levels. I am sorry that
you seem to see something intrinsically wrong with people who have very
little wanting more from a society that rewards some others obscenely.
Corporations, big business executives, and politicians who control
society with their bottom-line mentality all have a vested interest in
keeping poor people poor. They don't have much buying power or
political savvy. Witness the widening gap in North America between the
working poor and the wealthy especially in the last thirty years or so.
The people at the bottom end are not your enemy. Don't let TPTB
propagandise you into thinking that they are.
Gerry
In article <[email protected]>, Brian
Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Really? Name one that provides 100% health coverage for not only the
> employee but the employees entire family. That means the employee
> doesn't pay one penny in health co-pay or insurance costs.
>
> We'll wait.
Sorry, you had some problem with the 100% figure. While I'm sure there
are people who do have 100% coverage, I can't name any off the top of
my head but there are MANY who come *very* close. So, I guess you *can*
piss farther than me.
Some get 80% or 90% paid by the employer and the insured employees pay
the difference, but the WHOLE families are also covered. There is
usually a $50 or a $75 deductible on the first medical event of the
year. Certain levels of dentist, orthodontist, and optical coverage are
included. Teachers and civil servants are some that come easily to
mind. Auto workers among others have first-rate benefits as well. All
of the above also have good retirement benefits packages.
There, you didn't have to wait too long.
Gerry
Brian Henderson writes:
>A couple weeks ago there was some guy on the radio who wanted Walmart
>sued because they weren't paying a family wage to their employees.
>The radio hosts kept asking him "since when did Walmart ever claim
>they were going to pay a family wage?"
Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
in college.
It's a ludicrous concept, IMO.
I seem to recall an old idea, "work your way up", that may have gone by the
boards now.
As I said, from what I've seen the number of retirees working at various
Walmart stores is high (or apparent retirees. They are all people who look
older than I do). I'm sure most of them would like $10 an hour for smiling at
customers, but I doubt any of them would believe it if it was offered.
And, of course, your radio twerp didn't specify what a "family wage" might be.
I know people who need 100K a year to barely maintain their family's life style
and I know others who do pretty well on 10K, net. Depends a lot on what the
"family" expects and how large it is.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
>in college.
>It's a ludicrous concept, IMO.
>I seem to recall an old idea, "work your way up", that may have gone by the
>boards now.
I'm 32 years old now. It wasn't until I was 28 years old that I really
made enough money to support myself. I doubled my salary at age 29 so I
could easily support a family now.
There were years after college that I was only taking home $500 or $600 a
month after taxes. At age 29 I sold a business for 6 figures and got a
new higher paying job.
I lived through a lot of lean years to get where I am now with a new
house, RV, and a new car.
Brian Elfert
Brian Henderson <[email protected]> writes:
>On 07 Apr 2004 09:50:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>wrote:
>>Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
>>in college.
>It is ludicrous. It's the same nonsense that the recent grocery
>strike pointed out. These union assholes think that they're special
>and deserve benefits that NO ONE ELSE GETS! These people are
>basically unskilled labor but they think they deserve as much money as
>people who spent 12 years in college.
The local bus drivers have been on strike for a month now.
They are upset because the government transit operator wants to raise the
employee cost for retiree health care and raise the eligibility to 25
years of service. Until 8 or 9 years ago, they only had to work 10 years
for health care. The expired contract specifies 17 years for health care.
Where is my subsidized health care? Why should transit workers get
subsidized health care when the taxpayers paying their wages don't get the
same?
Unless something changes in the next 35 years, I will never be able to
retire. My employer will be paying as much for my health care as my
wages, and I make a pretty good hourly rate.
Brian Elfert
Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!
"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Brian
> Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Where is my subsidized health care? Why should transit workers get
> > subsidized health care when the taxpayers paying their wages don't get the
> > same?
>
> Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
> adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
> transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
> "subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".
>
> TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
> affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
> Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
> universal, public health care system.
>
> Get angry at those private (and government) parasites instead of people
> at the bottom of the food chain trying to better their conditions.
>
> Gerry
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> writes:
>Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
>adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
>transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
>"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".
>TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
>affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
>Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
>universal, public health care system.
Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.
I'm guess Canada is trying to save too much money with their universal
health care system.
Universal health care would probably work in the USA if congress funded it
properly. If health care is nationalized, politicians will always look at
cutting health care as way to save money.
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert responds:
>>TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
>>affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
>>Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
>>universal, public health care system.
>
>Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
>to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.
The waits are long in Canada, or so I'm told, on some kinds of "health" care:
cosmetic plastic surgery and similar procedures. Voluntary surgery may often
take a long time, but my understanding is that there is little or no back-up in
necessary procedures.
>I'm guess Canada is trying to save too much money with their universal
>health care system.
Probably not. The Canadian government, like all governments, has its problems
and inherent injustices, but I have not heard that many bad things about
Canadian health care.
>Universal health care would probably work in the USA if congress funded it
>properly. If health care is nationalized, politicians will always look at
>cutting health care as way to save money.
You mean the way they look at underfunding defense requests?
Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>Brian Elfert responds:
>>>TPTB make way too much money from keeping Americans away from public,
>>>affordable health care. The last figures I read in 1991 said that
>>>Americans would save /over/ /$67/ /billion/ /a/ /year/ by going to a
>>>universal, public health care system.
>>
>>Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
>>to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.
>The waits are long in Canada, or so I'm told, on some kinds of "health" care:
>cosmetic plastic surgery and similar procedures. Voluntary surgery may often
>take a long time, but my understanding is that there is little or no back-up in
>necessary procedures.
Why should any health care system pay for cosmetic plastic surgery unless
required due to accident or injury?
Isn't cosmetic platic surgery always a cash only type of health care
option?
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert asks:
>Why should any health care system pay for cosmetic plastic surgery unless
>required due to accident or injury?
>
>Isn't cosmetic platic surgery always a cash only type of health care
>option
Well, I dunno. A few years ago, a guy in Roanoke was trying to collect money,
while castigating his health insurance company for not paying, for experimental
treatment for his wife's cancer. I can understand the desparation that drives
such a desire, but with absolutely no known chance of success, should all the
other policyholders be forced to bear that expense?
As I recall, he did collect the necessary $150,000 plus from the community, but
the treatment didn't work, or if it did,it gave her six months of extra life
(possibly extra).
But I'd guess some cosmetic surgeries are more apt to be covered than others,
as you say, starting with accident and injury types and going on to those that
might improve quality of life. I might better have said "non-life threatening"
conditions take longer to treat.
Just as they do in the U.S. in many parts of our "voluntary" pay system.
But it probably takes longer to line up something like non-critical knee
replacement surgery, joint clean-up for arthritic conditions (which some
surgeons don't approve of anyway), and similar surgeries, while treatment for a
broken leg is going to be immediate.
I'd actually like to find some more information on this and may go do so. It
doesn't much matter to me (Medicare and VA cover my needs pretty well for the
moment), but my curiosity is piqued. I am more than slightly certain that
Canadian nationalized medical care gets a bad rap which I do not hear when I
question Canadians. But maybe they haven't been in the position of using our
marvelous U.S. health care system, where an insured knee surgery costs $1800 or
less, and the hospital, surgeon and gas passer bills the uninsured patient a
total of almost $9000. And the surgeon mildly screws up the procedure, so the
joint has to be re-done 4 years later.
Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
> >>
> >>Canada has a universal health care system. There are Canadians who come
> >>to USA and pay cash for health care as the waits are so long in Canada.
>
> >The waits are long in Canada, or so I'm told, on some kinds of "health"
care:
> >cosmetic plastic surgery and similar procedures. Voluntary surgery may
often
> >take a long time, but my understanding is that there is little or no
back-up in
> >necessary procedures.
A friend in Vancouver BC needed a back operation. He could barely walk and
was in a lot of pain. It was considered non-critical and he was put off at
least three times over a two year period. He was contemplating coming to
the US and paying himself. Last time surgery was scheduled in Canada he
died before the date. He said this was common in the system.
I'm insured and have no worries of that. Good family coverage in the US is
$550 to $900/month. Kind of pricey for a low to medium wage earner that
does not have it as a job benefit.
Ed
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:01:31 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Sorry, Brian, I'm not trying to p*ss you off, but maybe you should
>adjust the direction of your anger. Instead of getting angry at the
>transit workers, maybe you should be asking why you don't get
>"subsidized health care" and why taxpayers "don't get the same".
The reason taxpayers don't get the same is because taxpayers have to
live in the real world. Businesses can't afford to spend money left
and right, they have to make a profit and they have to offer
comparable benefits and pay to their competitors. In cases like the
bus drivers or the dock workers from the strike last year in
California, these are government jobs and the unions see government
jobs as bottomless money pits. Unions want their employees to have
superior income and benefits (mostly so more people will be come union
members).
It just doesn't work that way. Everyone has to compete and a company
can only afford to pay what they can pay.
you subscribe to the theory that the one who dies with the
most toys wins?
dave
Brian Elfert wrote:
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>
>
>>Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
>>in college.
>
>
>>It's a ludicrous concept, IMO.
>
>
>>I seem to recall an old idea, "work your way up", that may have gone by the
>>boards now.
>
>
> I'm 32 years old now. It wasn't until I was 28 years old that I really
> made enough money to support myself. I doubled my salary at age 29 so I
> could easily support a family now.
>
> There were years after college that I was only taking home $500 or $600 a
> month after taxes. At age 29 I sold a business for 6 figures and got a
> new higher paying job.
>
> I lived through a lot of lean years to get where I am now with a new
> house, RV, and a new car.
>
> Brian Elfert
twerp??? you are dating yourself there, charlie-boy. :) I'm
supposed to be the big name caller around these parts.
don't try to usurp my place in the scheme of things.
do professional writers usually write in the manner that you
have sunk to? I'm just wondering. I think you are the only
one I know.
How about those "HAND" drills? Was it REALLY the editor
that mucked up the title of your article? Seems kinda
cowardly to blame him...
dave
Charlie Self wrote:
> Brian Henderson writes:
>
>
>>A couple weeks ago there was some guy on the radio who wanted Walmart
>>sued because they weren't paying a family wage to their employees.
>>The radio hosts kept asking him "since when did Walmart ever claim
>>they were going to pay a family wage?"
>
>
> Everyone is supposed to get a "family" wage from day one? Maybe after 6 years
> in college.
>
> It's a ludicrous concept, IMO.
>
> I seem to recall an old idea, "work your way up", that may have gone by the
> boards now.
>
> As I said, from what I've seen the number of retirees working at various
> Walmart stores is high (or apparent retirees. They are all people who look
> older than I do). I'm sure most of them would like $10 an hour for smiling at
> customers, but I doubt any of them would believe it if it was offered.
>
> And, of course, your radio twerp didn't specify what a "family wage" might be.
> I know people who need 100K a year to barely maintain their family's life style
> and I know others who do pretty well on 10K, net. Depends a lot on what the
> "family" expects and how large it is.
>
In article <pmkierst-93C092.14383309042004
@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, [email protected]
says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Grant P. Beagles" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!
>
> Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
> (some would disagree, of course):
>
... snip
>
> I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.
>
> Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
> around with an intern and lied about it.
Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
politician lied about it while under oath while testifying in a trial
accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman. Funny thing
was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.
> We wouldn't expect him to be
> honest about it.
Not even in a legal proceeding?
> Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
> are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
> out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
> religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
> of the same religion.
>
> Canadian political discussion:
> Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
> Guy B) "Yeah."
> Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"
>
> But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
> then you could blink. It is sacred.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:54:40 GMT, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <pmkierst-93C092.14383309042004
> >@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "Grant P. Beagles" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!
> >>
> >> Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
> >> (some would disagree, of course):
> >>
> >... snip
> >>
> >> I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.
> >>
> >> Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
> >> around with an intern and lied about it.
> >
> > Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
> >politician lied about it while under oath while testifying in a trial
> >accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman. Funny thing
> >was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
> >among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
> >of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
> >as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
> >such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
> >aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
> >ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
> >throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.
>
>
> some, maybe. certainly not all. what I saw most of from the liberal
> community was disgust and a sense of betrayal.
>
Certainly the ones that would have been expected to have expressed
outrage in the past were guilty of this, in particular, those over in
the NOW gang who were lambasting and crucifying corporate figures and
politicians like Bob Packwood were not only silent, but actually vocally
defending the actions. What was most telling was that those who had a
voice and the ear of the media (as well as the media itself) did not
express that disgust or sense of betrayal, but rapidly fell in line
with, "it was only sex, everybody lies about sex" and "it was his
private life, it shouldn't matter".
I certainly believe that others who had previously supported that
administration but did not have a public voice did have the feelings you
indicate above. It would not surprise me that rank and file voters and
others would have felt this sense of betrayal. What was disappointing
(or confirming, depending upon one's viewpoint) was the public support,
the media push that villified those who were pursuing the perjury
charges, and lack of public condemnation.
>
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:54:40 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <pmkierst-93C092.14383309042004
>@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, [email protected]
>says...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Grant P. Beagles" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!
>>
>> Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
>> (some would disagree, of course):
>>
>... snip
>>
>> I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.
>>
>> Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
>> around with an intern and lied about it.
>
> Most of us in the US wouldn't have cared either except that said
>politician lied about it while under oath while testifying in a trial
>accusing him of having sexually harrassed another woman. Funny thing
>was that prior to that time, sexual harrassment was a huge cause celebre
>among his side of the aisle, leading to huge lawsuits, the resignation
>of a couple of politicians on the other side of the aisle, and serving
>as a rallying cry against "evil CEO's and others in authority" using
>such harassment to dominate their subordinates among that side of the
>aisle until *he* was accused of said act. Then the same people who were
>ready to "burn the witches" when they were CEO's were all of a sudden
>throwing their backs out flip-flopping around to come to his defense.
some, maybe. certainly not all. what I saw most of from the liberal
community was disgust and a sense of betrayal.
>
>
>> We wouldn't expect him to be
>> honest about it.
>
> Not even in a legal proceeding?
>
>> Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
>> are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
>> out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
>> religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
>> of the same religion.
>>
>> Canadian political discussion:
>> Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
>> Guy B) "Yeah."
>> Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"
>>
>> But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
>> then you could blink. It is sacred.
>>
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:27:30 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>That's rubbish. There are many industries that get free healthcare
>benefits.
Really? Name one that provides 100% health coverage for not only the
employee but the employees entire family. That means the employee
doesn't pay one penny in health co-pay or insurance costs.
We'll wait.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip...on some guy who lied about fooling around with an intern...>
> > We wouldn't expect him to be
> > honest about it.
>
> Not even in a legal proceeding?
I can recall very few times I ever heard a fellow canadian differentiate
between "life" and "court". In all those cases, as far as I can recall,
it was that a defendant would be expected to lie in court, as after all
the whole point of pleading not guilty is to keep your ass out of
trouble. Note that I am not saying they felt that all people lie in
court, just that you can't believe what a defendant says. And that you
would be a moron for not lying if you can get away with it. Beating "the
man" (especially taxes) is somewhat of a sport in Canada, particularly
in some areas like the province I was brought up in (Newfoundland).
People in Canada (or at least an awful lot of them) really did think
that it was just sex. And it is still at least somewhat taboo to probe
politicians private lives too closely here, unless the politician makes
a point of it. Most keep their private lives, including religion,
family, etc, very private and that is respected for the most part.
Pretty funny. One of our politician hopefuls, Stockwell Day (party
leader who couldn't shut his mouth when he should and got the boot from
his own party) was, by Canadian standards, extreme right wing. He went
the the US of A to meet Newt and hopefully swap notes and get some
synergy. He talked in management speak a lot when he wasn't sounding
like an idiot. Anyway, when he returned he looked somewhat in shock and
didn't say much at all. I expect Newt thought this "right-wing" canuck
was a pinko-commie.
This might give you some idea of why Dubya's "approval" rating in canada
approaches zero. The mouse often measures such things when he lives by
an elephant. The party in power (Liberal, but actually centrist in
position currently) had to threaten its members to keep them from bad
mouthing dubya (they kept calling him a moron amongst other things)
cause it was making weak relations even worse.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Grant P. Beagles" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ask the Canadians what they think about universal public health!
Well, I think, as a Canadian, I can sum it up reasonably accurately
(some would disagree, of course):
a) Most Canadians think our health care system is broken
b) The huge majority of Canadians think it is vastly better then our
neighbours to the south.
Canadian politics are night and day from American politics. I get sucked
into reading these diatribes on politics here; just can't help myself.
It is sort of like watching an accident. In Canada, we generally expect
out politicians to be somewhat corrupt, a little dim and a few other
things. Afterall, if they were smart and corrupt, they would be CEOs.
Better pay and more power. Basic Canadian voting strategy, outside of
Alberta:
a) Vote for the lesser evil. There is no good guy.
b) If you cannot determine (a), vote for the guy least likely to screw
things up. This is probably the most common case. We strongly reward
pollies who do the minimum possible to stay in power.
c) If you cannot determine (b), vote for the current guy. Better the
devil you know then the demon you don't.
I don't know WTF they are up to in Alberta. That is a foreign country.
Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
around with an intern and lied about it. We wouldn't expect him to be
honest about it. Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
of the same religion.
Canadian political discussion:
Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
Guy B) "Yeah."
Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"
But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
then you could blink. It is sacred.
Paul Kierstead responds:
>Most canadians are baffled at the outraged fuss 'cause a polly fooled
>around with an intern and lied about it. We wouldn't expect him to be
>honest about it. Nor would we expect him to be faithful. Most canadians
>are extremely baffled that people still go on about it. Out of sight,
>out of mind, that is the canadian motto. Politicians who espouse excess
>religious ideals are looked upon with a lot of suspicion, even by those
>of the same religion.
Yes, well there are those of us who feel pretty much the same way down here.
It's the Catch 22, though, that enough emphasis on that kind of thing created
enough expense and stir that people will be screaming about the results, such
as they were, for decades, when, of course, the basic thing was a guy lying
about screwing around so his wife and kid wouldn't find out...in his case, that
he was still at it.
Politicians who espouse any religion at all except in church make my skin
crawl, whilst my eyeballs start searching to see if that pin stripe is covering
red skin and horns with a tail curled up the back of the jacket. I guess cowboy
boots will do to cover the cloven hooves.
>Canadian political discussion:
>Guy A) "Government sucks, eh?"
>Guy B) "Yeah."
>Guy A) "Watch the hockey game last night?"
>
>But, mess with the health care too much; you are out the door faster
>then you could blink. It is sacred.
One could wish.
Charlie Self
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:35:08 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Brian
>Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> These union assholes think that they're special and deserve benefits
>> that NO ONE ELSE GETS!
>Plenty of people get benefits. Why are union members assholes for
>wanting benefits? Or, are they assholes because you don't like unions?
No, they tried to get free healthcare, not only for the employee, but
for their entire family. They were one of the last industries where
completely free healthcare existed and the grocery companies were
still offering very low-cost payments for their employees under the
new proposed agreement. The unions felt that their employees
shouldn't have to pay a penny, that they should somehow be special and
above every other industry.
>The unskilled labour you mention work just as hard as anyone else. It's
>just that society has decreed that they should earn so much less. The
>sad part is that many times the work they do is more important to
>society than the college types. Unfortunately, the college types are
>the ones who are setting the policies in society as to value of work.
They earn what they deserve, which frankly isn't a whole lot. Most of
them could be replaced by self-checkout machines quite easily.
>That's an unfair comment. Most of them *can't* do any better because
>MOST of the jobs created or available these days are parttime McJobs.
>There are even your college types out there with no work available who
>have to take on these retail, near-minimum-wage jobs or drive taxis
>because of the lack of real jobs.
Most of them simply aren't qualified to do any better. They do not
have the education or experience necessary to do better. They can
gain said experience through hard work, but they do need to start at
the bottom.
It's too bad so many people aren't willing to start at the bottom and
move up, they want to start at the top.
On 7-Apr-2004, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
> I know people who need 100K a year to barely maintain their family's life style
> and I know others who do pretty well on 10K, net. Depends a lot on what the
> "family" expects and how large it is.
A recent study in Canada found that folks who earned in the $100k-$250k range
found life "tough" because of economic issues. Folks who were in the lower
wage ranges didn't see life as that bad, since they got by. Yer view depends
entirely on how far yer head is shoved up yer ass :-)
Mike
On 06 Apr 2004 10:25:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Brian Henderson writes:
>
>>
>>>Now, Walmart does pay that kind of low end bucks. Do we complain about the
>>help
>>>there?
>>
>>I always thought it was funny that for all the people who complain
>>about how little Walmart pays, Walmart always has a long line of
>>people who are dying to work there.
>>
>>Walmart doesn't pretend to pay big bucks. Why pretend that they do?
>
>Huh? I see no pretense anywhere about Walmart paying big bucks. Unless things
>have changed, the Bedford, VA store, where some people I know work, start
>everyone at $5.30 an hour. I think that's just to be able to say they're paying
>above minimum wage. I don't know if that's chain policy, but it seems likely.
>
>That long line of people is essential, as the turnover is enormous. But I've
>heard it's a pretty good place for retirees who need a few extra bucks to work.
>It gets them out and involved and brings in some money to supplement SS.
So...you must mean turnover because of death. Just so people don't
get the idea that there's a turnover because they're disgruntled
employees.
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
On 4 Apr 2004 18:25:10 -0700, [email protected] (Mutt) wrote:
>B a r r y <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 05:58:38 -0500 (CDT), [email protected] (GARY)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
>> >less than that!
>> >
>> >Gary
>>
>> Come to the northeast. I have several nurse acquaintances that are
>> almost to the point of being able to fill in their own numbers on the
>> paycheck. <G>
>>
>
>Yup, the northeast. My wife's friend is an operating room nurse and
>her W-2 this year was in excess of $100,000.
My college sweetheart graduated the same time I did. I started out
making more money as a computer programmer than she did as a
registered nurse. But in the end, she wins, and I'm out of a job for
months and months.
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 05:58:38 -0500 (CDT), [email protected] (GARY)
wrote:
>$13? $16? What is your location? Here in Alabama I know nurses making
>less than that!
>
>Gary
Come to the northeast. I have several nurse acquaintances that are
almost to the point of being able to fill in their own numbers on the
paycheck. <G>
One of them works as a Cardiac Care nurse, assisting procedures like
angioplasty, for a staffing company. He works 3-6 month temp
assignments, takes 3 months off to fly his r/c planes, and moves on to
another, nicely compensated, assignment.
Barry
In article <050420041245340693%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The first was earning $16/hour
>
> Even *if* he were getting 40 hours a week, that's only about $32K a
> year. Even at that, the suits wouldn't get out of bed.
>
> > the second $13
>
> Same as above, about $25K. You called these "former tradesmen who are
> reasonably compensated for their knowledge of the trades"? We'll have
> to agree to disagree on this one.
>
> People need to start referring to earnings in amount/year to really get
> a better basis for comparisons.
>
Bullshit.
Your claim was that the employees of HD/Lowes earned minimum
wage, which is virtually Always expressed in dollars per
hour.
Now that you've been shown to have your head up your ass
and generally have no idea what you're talking about, you're
trying to nuance your claim by saying it's no longer an
issue of minimum wage, but a comparison to upper management
(which is a completely specious argument, and you Know it).
Nice try. No dice.
Be a nice Liberal and crawl back into your hole.
--
Mark
The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.
Triple Z is spam control.
In article <060420041104398411%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> > Now that you've been shown to have your head up your ass
> > and generally have no idea what you're talking about
> >
> > Be a nice Liberal and crawl back into your hole.
>
> In place of a reasoned, thought-out response,
Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
is a hallmark of a true Liberal.
--
Mark
The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.
Triple Z is spam control.
Mark responds:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Mark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>> > Now that you've been shown to have your head up your ass
>> > and generally have no idea what you're talking about
>> >
>> > Be a nice Liberal and crawl back into your hole.
>>
>> In place of a reasoned, thought-out response,
>
>Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
>is a hallmark of a true Liberal.
>
And your style of reasoning is one reason I dislike spending time around
Conservatives.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
"Nate B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "xrongor"
>
> > he told me he didnt give a rats ass what i knew about computers or
> > electronics. he wanted to know what i knew about SELLING computers and
> > electronics.
> >
> > expect the same at lowes or home depot.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is or how the heck you came to want to post
> what you did based on the question other than a sharp paternal need to
offer
> trivial career advice. I'm pretty sure anyone capable of posting to
Usenet
> can probably figure out how to stock a shelf.
why are you so agressive nate? sheesh. if you werent in attack mode you
may have learned something too.
randy
One of my friends delivers to HD and lowes here in Columbus, OH. He's
always showing me huge gouges in his trailer, where the guys cant work a
forklift and dig into the bed. He said every once in a while they'll dump a
pallete over the side.
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't think you know what HD employees make. At least
> down here in Northern California they do ok. A buddy of
> mine went to work doing exactly what the OP was asking
> about and he started out somewhere between $10 and $11
> per hour. This was about 2 years ago and since then he
> mentioned a raise at least a couple of times. He has a lot
> of forklift experience but had never worked in a place like
> that before. He likes it and most of the other employees
> at the store seem to like their jobs ok. Minimum wage here
> is $6.75/hr, (I think) so he may be coming close to doubling
> that by now. Not going to get rich doing that but he has good
> benefits and room for advancement. I doubt that any HD
> anywhere would actually pay minimum wage. Around here
> if you run a forklift you will definitely get above minimum
> wage.
> And in response to the rest of your rant...Damn The Man!
> The Man is always trying to get me down! Workers unite!
> Damn The Man!
>
> Bruce
> Redding, Ca.
>
> "G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:030420041400332146%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Nate B
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > seems happy and well paid for what he does
> >
> > Anyone who uses "retail" and "well paid" in the same sentence can't
> be
> > taken seriously. ;-)
> >
> > I don't know how low minimum wage is where you are, but, up here in
> > Canada, I could weep for anyone dead-ended in any kind of retail
> job,
> > Home Depot or otherwise. The poor (pun intended) devils are working
> for
> > the same kind of money that I earned in my twenties, back when it
> was
> > actually a living wage /and/ /you/ /could/ /even/ /save/ /a/
> /little/.
> > Now, a young, single person couldn't possibly live on the hourly
> rate
> > HD pays, /even/ /if/ /they/ /could/ /get/ /forty/ /hours/ /a/
> /week/.
> >
> > The suits who run these corporations wouldn't get out of bed for the
> > kind of money they pay their front-line workers. Then, those same
> > arseholes bitch about how impossible it is to find /and/ /keep/ good
> > staff. Duh!
> >
> > Maybe if they paid less for never-ending training for constantly
> > quitting workers and used the same money for living wages...
> >
> > Gerry
>
>
In article <1gbvbql.2hduxf1jnclrjN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Your evasion of a comment on the facts by selective editing
> > is a hallmark of a true Liberal.
>
> You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
> founded by liberals using liberal principles.
liberals, not statists. Your views are statist, not liberal in the
classical sense. You don't espouse individual liberty for anything
other than personal gratification or moral depravity.
>
> That's all pretty much dead now, but I think its worth keeping the ideas
> floating around in case somewhere else others want to live with the rule
> of law and rights granted to individuals rather than what is going on
> now.
>
Yep, pretty much dead now, you can't critcize the sitting president
(see your comment below) without dire reprisals, you can't worship where
you please, you can't travel anywhere within this country without
government permission. [Note to the irony impaired, the prior was
sarcasm]
Let's look at your other statements above, " ... want to live with the
rule of law" Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
accordingly. Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
industry, to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
office or a member of the press). Not at all what the founders had in
mind. "... and rights *granted* to individuals" The founders are
spinning in their graves over that one. The fundamental thought in the
Constitution and even before that, the Declaration of Independence, was
that individuals are *endowed* with inalienable rights and that
repressive governments take away those God-given individual rights. The
constitution does not *grant* individual rights, it affirms them and
limits the governments ability to take away those rights.
The things you are decrying as removing freedoms are actually laws
that were enacted to make sure that those seeking to really destroy
those freedoms and most likely yourself. The laws you are indirectly
referring to are directly aimed at the groups who are seeking to destroy
the way of life you claim we have already lost and help prevent those
groups from being successful in their quest.
> When you mention evasion, I can't help but think of Bush. He has done it
> his whole life and it is working pretty well for him.
>
Just can't avoid adding those little hate-Bush digs, can you?
> --
>
> "There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
> without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
> mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
> prevent its ascendency." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams
>
Mark & Juanita writes:
>Your modern definition of liberal seeks to impose more and
>more laws to limit individual freedoms to engage in commerce or
>industry, to regulate political speech by limiting the ability to air
>political speech more than 90 days before an election unless you are a
>member of a specific protected group (i.e. a politician running for
>office or a member of the press).
What I'd like is to see the entire electoral process reduced to 90 days.
Period. Nominate and elect. Screw this nonsense now: try to watch news or
sports, and here's some fumblewit telling you how great he'll be at a job no
sane many would want.
> Actually, those who founded this country wanted to be able
>to live with a minimum of laws and controls and set up the constitution
>accordingly.
Within reason. It is in the interpretation of that within reason that problems
arise. No one group or philosphical concept has the entire answer and all of
those I've checked are wrong on significant areas.
We now have the most repressive government we've had since the '50s, yet the
guy and gal on the street thinks it's a good thing, that government is doing
what it can to protect us. Not so. The current growing tendency to think that
growth of government is a good thing is frightening to anyone, Liberal or
Conservative, who takes time to think. Government in its growth phase is not
benign. But, then, when you read the "man on the street" responses in polls and
articles, it's a wonder things aren't worse than they are. Regardless of
agreement or disagreement, the lack of thought that goes into most responses is
astonishing. We can probably be grateful that no more than about 50% of the
populace bothers to vote.
Charlie Self
"Adam and Eve had many advantages but the principal one was that they escaped
teething." Mark Twain
"xrongor"
> he told me he didnt give a rats ass what i knew about computers or
> electronics. he wanted to know what i knew about SELLING computers and
> electronics.
>
> expect the same at lowes or home depot.
I'm not sure what your point is or how the heck you came to want to post
what you did based on the question other than a sharp paternal need to offer
trivial career advice. I'm pretty sure anyone capable of posting to Usenet
can probably figure out how to stock a shelf.
To actually answer the question, I've never heard an employee complain about
their job at Home Depot when I talk to them (seems like too often...). My
tenent's boyfriend works there as well and seems happy and well paid for
what he does. Lowe's, OTOH, doesn't seem to have the same faces around as
long as Home Depot - at least at the ones near me. Just my somewhat
uninterested and passive observations, though. Maybe apply to both and see
what you find out for yourself.
- Nate
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What I'd really like (I think) is the kind of job where you go
> *live* it for periods of time like a couple weeks or a month, and
> then you're off for a week or so at a time. I
try an oil rig, or the alaska pipeline. that's how they work.
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:44:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
>Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
>off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
>for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
>anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
>Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
>into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
>better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
>to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
>but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
>as well as the things they do.
>
>Thanks for any info or suggestions!
>David
I've known people working for HD a long time and they enjoy it. You
don't always get (nor should you expect) to always get a particular
shift, nor a particular department. A person who stocks prolly should
not expect more than $10 an hour, if that. Working at the
headquarters, is very very different, and HD has won awards for "a
good place to work." Personally, I'd prefer to work close to where I
live to avoid the (wasted) commute time.
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:44:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
>Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
>off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
>for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
>anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
>Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
>into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
>better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
>to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
>but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
>as well as the things they do.
>
>Thanks for any info or suggestions!
>David
Check with one of the stores, David. I'm not sure that the stock
clerks even work for the store. The last time I checked (years ago,
at one of my local HD) they contracted with an inventory company to
stock the shelves.
Many of the large retail stores in my area have gone this route.
Their employees no longer do stocking.
Good luck.
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
Hmm... 1 mile north is the Borg. 1 mile south is the ACE. Am I looking to
buy a tool, bit, roll of duct tape or shower door?.. go North. Am I trying
to find a slightly smaller thingy that will fit my existing thingy and still
allow me to use the bigger thingy on Thursdays?..Go south.
Would you be happier at "the Borg" or the Ace? That's where you should look
to work. IMHO.
Pat..
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
> Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
> off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
> for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM. Can
> anyone tell me about what it pays, how they compare with
> Home Depot, or anything else you think should be taken
> into consideration? Maybe there are places that would be
> better to try to work? Can anyone suggest a better place
> to inquire about such things? I know about their websites,
> but want to learn about the things they don't tell you there
> as well as the things they do.
>
> Thanks for any info or suggestions!
> David
>Hmm... 1 mile north is the Borg. 1 mile south is the ACE. Am I looking to
>buy a tool, bit, roll of duct tape or shower door?.. go North. Am I trying
>to find a slightly smaller thingy that will fit my existing thingy and still
>allow me to use the bigger thingy on Thursdays?..Go south.
>
>Would you be happier at "the Borg" or the Ace? That's where you should look
>to work. IMHO.
Better hope to get a job with the one that has an opening. If either one does
in today's market.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:04:57 GMT, "Jerry Gilreath" <[email protected]> wrote:
><RANT ON>
>Seems to me like every one of you all read something into the OP that just
>wasn't there. The guy doesn't want to sell or manage, he wants to work the
>night shift stocking. No customers, no asking if anything is on sale, just
>stocking shelves when every one else is in bed.
>
> <I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
>Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
>off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
>for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM.>
>
>Every damn one of you all read stuff that isn't there!!
That's what I was wondering about....and still am....
>I contend with the
>night stocking crew at Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Target, and I can go on and on, in
>my line of work, but that's not the point. You all read something about BORG
>and then start a useless pissing match. Let's face it, they're here and
>they're here to stay. Aint a damn thing you, me or anybody else can do about
>it. Wal-Mart keeps getting thrown in amongst the mix, but where do you all
>buy your food??? Kroger, Winn-Dixie, Piggly-Wiggly, or any number of other
>major food chains. Are they not of the same BORG manner in which you speak?
>They have taken many independent little grocery/general stores over. Nobody
>bitches about them. Why? Because every last one of you go to them and buy
>food for the table. So the OP may not have used the proper judgment in
>asking his question here,
Well, I did ask if anyone could suggest a better place since I know my
subject isn't what this group is about, but it's the best I could find to begin
with. I'd still like to find a better place btw, if anyone can suggest one. Or
even what to search for at Google or someplace. Searching for "night stocking
Lowe's" at http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search is what brought
this group to my attention. It came up many times...6 times on the first page, and
it also said "Related groups: rec.woodworking". The "job" related ngs I looked
at appear to be full of the same type of spam I trash from my email all the time.
>but he just wanted a simple answer, then everybody
>tells him things completely off the original question. The "leaders" of this
>group do it more often than not, right along with their shills. Give the guy
>a break.
><RANT OFF>
Maybe people tend to want to know more than they really do, or something
like that?
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 03:04:57 GMT, "Jerry Gilreath"
<[email protected]> wrote:
><RANT ON>
>Seems to me like every one of you all read something into the OP that just
>wasn't there. The guy doesn't want to sell or manage, he wants to work the
>night shift stocking. No customers, no asking if anything is on sale, just
>stocking shelves when every one else is in bed.
>
> <I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
>Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
>off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
>for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM.>
>
>Every damn one of you all read stuff that isn't there!! I contend with the
>night stocking crew at Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Target, and I can go on and on, in
>my line of work, but that's not the point. You all read something about BORG
>and then start a useless pissing match. Let's face it, they're here and
>they're here to stay. Aint a damn thing you, me or anybody else can do about
>it. Wal-Mart keeps getting thrown in amongst the mix, but where do you all
>buy your food??? Kroger, Winn-Dixie, Piggly-Wiggly, or any number of other
>major food chains. Are they not of the same BORG manner in which you speak?
>They have taken many independent little grocery/general stores over. Nobody
>bitches about them. Why? Because every last one of you go to them and buy
>food for the table. So the OP may not have used the proper judgment in
>asking his question here, but he just wanted a simple answer, then everybody
>tells him things completely off the original question. The "leaders" of this
>group do it more often than not, right along with their shills. Give the guy
>a break.
><RANT OFF>
Excellent post, Jerry.
And it all started with xronger. He had to tell us 'a little story'.
lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.
<RANT ON>
Seems to me like every one of you all read something into the OP that just
wasn't there. The guy doesn't want to sell or manage, he wants to work the
night shift stocking. No customers, no asking if anything is on sale, just
stocking shelves when every one else is in bed.
<I am considering trying to get on a night stocking crew with
Lowe's or Home Depot. I like working at night and being
off during the day, and at the moment Lowe's seems best
for me if the hours really are from 4:00AM-1:00PM.>
Every damn one of you all read stuff that isn't there!! I contend with the
night stocking crew at Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Target, and I can go on and on, in
my line of work, but that's not the point. You all read something about BORG
and then start a useless pissing match. Let's face it, they're here and
they're here to stay. Aint a damn thing you, me or anybody else can do about
it. Wal-Mart keeps getting thrown in amongst the mix, but where do you all
buy your food??? Kroger, Winn-Dixie, Piggly-Wiggly, or any number of other
major food chains. Are they not of the same BORG manner in which you speak?
They have taken many independent little grocery/general stores over. Nobody
bitches about them. Why? Because every last one of you go to them and buy
food for the table. So the OP may not have used the proper judgment in
asking his question here, but he just wanted a simple answer, then everybody
tells him things completely off the original question. The "leaders" of this
group do it more often than not, right along with their shills. Give the guy
a break.
<RANT OFF>
--
"Cartoons don't have any deep meaning.
They're just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh."
Homer Simpson
Jerry© The Phoneman®
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Hmm... 1 mile north is the Borg. 1 mile south is the ACE. Am I looking to
> >buy a tool, bit, roll of duct tape or shower door?.. go North. Am I
trying
> >to find a slightly smaller thingy that will fit my existing thingy and
still
> >allow me to use the bigger thingy on Thursdays?..Go south.
> >
> >Would you be happier at "the Borg" or the Ace? That's where you should
look
> >to work. IMHO.
>
> Better hope to get a job with the one that has an opening. If either one
does
> in today's market.
>
> Charlie Self
> "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Jerry Gilreath rants on:
>hy? Because every last one of you go to them and buy
>food for the table. So the OP may not have used the proper judgment in
>asking his question here, but he just wanted a simple answer, then everybody
>tells him things completely off the original question. The "leaders" of this
>group do it more often than not, right along with their shills. Give the guy
>a break.
Jaysus, mon. Take me to your leaders. If this group has leaders, I'll take
anarchy.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:49:43 GMT, [email protected] (Xane T.)
wrote:
>I have yet to work at a retail store/low end job where the management
>actually cares about the employee, or has any clue how to run the
>business they're in.
Try a locally owned store.
I have this funny habit of finding part time jobs in the current hobby
I'm in. In high school, I worked in a music store (instruments, not
recorded), and at other times I've worked in radio control shops and
bicycle shops. All of these jobs enabled me to buy my fun stuff at or
near wholesale, and meet others with the same passions.
Every one of these stores had the owner(s) on premise, and all but one
was considered to be the best in the area at what they did. Besides
the involved owner, all of them shared the idea of hiring those who
were known well to the shop, employees were never drawn from a stack
of applications. The full timers at these places NEVER seem to leave,
all of them are paid well and treated well.
I've enjoyed every minute working in these places, even if it's just
"lackey" work like unloading a tractor trailer full of bicycles. <G>
Barry
"p_j" wrote
>
> You keep capitalizing Liberal. I like that. After all America was
> founded by liberals using liberal principles.
Now THAT is a stretch. I'm sure the ACLU would have prospered in the 18th
century!
But I'm sure you'll provide a link from moveon.org or guardian.co.uk to
prove that.
--
********************************************************************
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is
softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with
the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the
most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
On 4-Apr-2004, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As to the people that work at Home Depot in
> stores that I've gone to in Toronto, they appear to be typically more
> experienced and knowledgeable that your average employee. Haven't asked, but
> their outlook suggests that they're a little better compensated. They remind
> me a little of the employees at Lee Valley Tools who are *all* extremely
> experienced and knowledgeable. Don't know what they make either, but work
> attitude goes a long way to making the premise true.
I'd have to agree. Lots of the HD folks (and LV) are older and many have real
experience. Not at all like retail in other areas. I'd be curious to know
what range of salaries they make, since they seem to attract and hold onto
good staff. I noticed on the HD in-store recruiting ads that they offer a
bunch of benefits as well.
Mike