"Oh fer fuck's sake. You just can't be everywhere all the time."
Of course YOU cannot. But your bosses CHOSE to short-staff you, and put you in this position.
"I worked at a Border's that was well-staffed, but we still had this kind of theft. There were days when I'd leave the children's section for ten minutes after being in there for two hours, and when I got back there'd be a stack of empty DVD boxes shoved behind a row of books."
Then you weren't "well-staffed", were you?
"They bring in razors, slice them open, and take the discs. And because of the strange layout of the store, the children's section was hard to see unless someone was standing right in or by it, so they'd do it there as soon as a customer asked you to help them find something in another section."
Too bad your bosses at Borders didn't care enough about YOU to hire enough people to provide proper coverage. I'm guessing they like YOU less than the money they make by screwing you over.
"Y'know, "BEING THERE for the customer and making sure they get what they need, and up to the checkout in the shortest possible time" rather than making them wait while you track down another staffer to keep an eye on the section for you."
If they gave a shit about you, and the customer, they'd admit 1) the largest vector for shrink is their own disgruntled staff and 2) they're not hiring enough people to permit you to do your job.
If you NEED to hunt down someone, you're not "well-staffed" regardless of your incorrect perception. Maybe well staffed for a piece of shit Borders, but not for anyplace I'd care to shop.
"The theives aren't customers."
The customers aren't thieves. The disgruntled employees are. Why are you treating the customers as thieves?
This is just like checking receipts on the way out the door. Free People don't go along with the show.
"They're not there to buy or to be helped. They want as little interaction with the staff as possible, which is why asking anyone suspicious if you can help them usually scares them away. But you're going to miss it sometimes."
If you were really "well staffed", you wouldn't miss it. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"Yes, the store used the reusable plastic lock boxes on some DVDs, but they didn't have enough of them at that point to cover every single box. Customers hate those, too, btw."
And I guess SPENDING THE MONEY to get the boxes is more expensive than the loss the company experiences. That's the perspective you should keep in mind. You're making yourself tense over something THE COMPANY ACCEPTS.
Providing that thing called "CUSTOMER SERVICE", and thereby preventing shoplifting by simply BEING THERE for the customer and making sure they get what they need, and up to the checkout in the shortest possible time.
I guess when a company makes a CHOICE not to provide PROPER staffing levels, they'll lose merchandise, ( albeit, still LESS merchandise than their EMPLOYEES are nicking... ), but don't saddle the CUSTOMER with a lot of bullshit.
"My friend is having a C-section today because her baby is breach. If you can explain to me how to deliver a breach baby without killing it, I'm all ears."
I'll reitierate: This is not a religious issue. EVERY pregnancy and EVERY labor and EVERY delivery are different. You do what you have to do, but as a general principle, doing LESS is better for everyone around. Your mileage WILL vary.
Oh, we're NOT religious nuts about it, despite having 2 kids using the basic principles of the Bradley Method.
No Drugs is a function of the Wife being MORE scared of someone sticking a needle into her spinal sac than a "Drugs are BAD" issue, and the idea of "Fewer Interventions DIRECTLY translate into shorter recoveries" SEEMS TO ME to have born fruit, so to speak.
Are OUTCOMES different? I don't think so. But the EXPERIENCE is a whole lot better without the added b.s. of surgery.
BTW: A lot of practices won't touch VBAC ( Vaginal birth after a C-Section), for a lot of reasons. Your mileage WILL Vary, and every pregnancy/birth is different.
Well, you know, I don't think you can have TOO MUCH privacy.
Now if I'd like to obtain credit, there's no reason I couldn't come to an agreement with a potential creditor to CONFIDENTIALLY and WHILE RETAINING SECRECY review the relevant financial records. I'd bring in my paperwork, let the boss see it, he's say "Approved", and we'd all move on with our lives.
As we've seen, it's been proven to be not broad enough for our needs.
How about this:
Amendment $NEXT_AMMENDMENT_NUM
The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body.
(That should take care of the damned Corporations. )
"An HSA is a great way to build more tax-deferred savings if you've hit the limits on other tax-deferred savings programs."
Until a catastrophic illness empties the HSA. Is an Accrued Potential Liability actually "Savings", until you're sure the accrued funds won't be needed ( i.e.: After you're dead? )
No ID? In a restricted area? Refusing to cooperate? Sounds like a criminal to me. And since I'm not allowed to look in your big bag that could or could not have a TAP bomb in it...
No ID card you're out of the building at time + 1 minute, sharp. Refuse, you're trespassing. When you trespass, you're a criminal.
Sounds simple."
Well, YEAH, for Nazis and Commies.
Of course, we're better than those totalitarian states, aren't we?
"Lastly, those officers were in a hostile situation with a mob closing in around them. They've a job to do and that was to remove someone purporting to be a student who had refused to exit the premise"
Actually, they were removing someone who WAS a student.
I wonder why we hanged those Nazis at Nuremberg if not to prove that "Just doing your job" isn't an excuse.
"In other words, the six or twelve people deciding whether you go to jail for violating $UNJUST_LAW are either unwilling to practice jury nullification, or they're dishonest enough to lie under oath."
Is lying under oath about in order to do your moral duty to see JUSTICE done, wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
"It is the job of the courts to assure the public that this does not occur without probable cause."
We have a 2nd Amendment to make sure the WE can enforce the 1st.
RELYING on a court to provide for your Freedom and Liberty, when you have NO RIGHT to a Writ of Habeas Corpus is just plain dumb.
You might NEVER SEE A COURT.
"Oh fer fuck's sake. You just can't be everywhere all the time."
Of course YOU cannot. But your bosses CHOSE to short-staff you, and put you in this position.
"I worked at a Border's that was well-staffed, but we still had this kind of theft. There were days when I'd leave the children's section for ten minutes after being in there for two hours, and when I got back there'd be a stack of empty DVD boxes shoved behind a row of books."
Then you weren't "well-staffed", were you?
"They bring in razors, slice them open, and take the discs. And because of the strange layout of the store, the children's section was hard to see unless someone was standing right in or by it, so they'd do it there as soon as a customer asked you to help them find something in another section."
Too bad your bosses at Borders didn't care enough about YOU to hire enough people to provide proper coverage. I'm guessing they like YOU less than the money they make by screwing you over.
"Y'know, "BEING THERE for the customer and making sure they get what they need, and up to the checkout in the shortest possible time" rather than making them wait while you track down another staffer to keep an eye on the section for you."
If they gave a shit about you, and the customer, they'd admit 1) the largest vector for shrink is their own disgruntled staff and 2) they're not hiring enough people to permit you to do your job.
If you NEED to hunt down someone, you're not "well-staffed" regardless of your incorrect perception. Maybe well staffed for a piece of shit Borders, but not for anyplace I'd care to shop.
"The theives aren't customers."
The customers aren't thieves. The disgruntled employees are. Why are you treating the customers as thieves?
This is just like checking receipts on the way out the door. Free People don't go along with the show.
"They're not there to buy or to be helped. They want as little interaction with the staff as possible, which is why asking anyone suspicious if you can help them usually scares them away. But you're going to miss it sometimes."
If you were really "well staffed", you wouldn't miss it. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
"Yes, the store used the reusable plastic lock boxes on some DVDs, but they didn't have enough of them at that point to cover every single box. Customers hate those, too, btw."
And I guess SPENDING THE MONEY to get the boxes is more expensive than the loss the company experiences. That's the perspective you should keep in mind. You're making yourself tense over something THE COMPANY ACCEPTS.
Providing that thing called "CUSTOMER SERVICE", and thereby preventing shoplifting by simply BEING THERE for the customer and making sure they get what they need, and up to the checkout in the shortest possible time.
I guess when a company makes a CHOICE not to provide PROPER staffing levels, they'll lose merchandise, ( albeit, still LESS merchandise than their EMPLOYEES are nicking... ), but don't saddle the CUSTOMER with a lot of bullshit.
"My friend is having a C-section today because her baby is breach. If you can explain to me how to deliver a breach baby without killing it, I'm all ears."
I'll reitierate: This is not a religious issue. EVERY pregnancy and EVERY labor and EVERY delivery are different. You do what you have to do, but as a general principle, doing LESS is better for everyone around. Your mileage WILL vary.
Good Luck.
Oh, we're NOT religious nuts about it, despite having 2 kids using the basic principles of the Bradley Method.
No Drugs is a function of the Wife being MORE scared of someone sticking a needle into her spinal sac than a "Drugs are BAD" issue, and the idea of "Fewer Interventions DIRECTLY translate into shorter recoveries" SEEMS TO ME to have born fruit, so to speak.
Are OUTCOMES different? I don't think so. But the EXPERIENCE is a whole lot better without the added b.s. of surgery.
BTW: A lot of practices won't touch VBAC ( Vaginal birth after a C-Section), for a lot of reasons. Your mileage WILL Vary, and every pregnancy/birth is different.
Good Luck.
Well, you know, I don't think you can have TOO MUCH privacy.
Now if I'd like to obtain credit, there's no reason I couldn't come to an agreement with a potential creditor to CONFIDENTIALLY and WHILE RETAINING SECRECY review the relevant financial records. I'd bring in my paperwork, let the boss see it, he's say "Approved", and we'd all move on with our lives.
As we've seen, it's been proven to be not broad enough for our needs.
How about this:
Amendment $NEXT_AMMENDMENT_NUM
The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body.
(That should take care of the damned Corporations. )
It is SO MUCH More cost effective, recovery times are shorter, and everyone seems happier all around, excepting the surgical team, of course...
It's the only way to make sure the Legislators even PRETEND TO TRY to give a shit about us.
We're fucked.
"An HSA is a great way to build more tax-deferred savings if you've hit the limits on other tax-deferred savings programs."
Until a catastrophic illness empties the HSA. Is an Accrued Potential Liability actually "Savings", until you're sure the accrued funds won't be needed ( i.e.: After you're dead? )
They usually team with some of their members who are Insurance Brokers to offer Group Health/Dental/Life.
A nominal annual fee for membership, networking opportunities, and access to reasonably ( for some values of reasonable )... Such a deal!
"How do they find out who is a terrorist and who is not? "
Without a right to a Writ O Habeas Corpus, that's not a relevant issue.
Elmo killed him.
"Prove he was a student.
No ID? In a restricted area? Refusing to cooperate? Sounds like a criminal to me. And since I'm not allowed to look in your big bag that could or could not have a TAP bomb in it...
No ID card you're out of the building at time + 1 minute, sharp. Refuse, you're trespassing. When you trespass, you're a criminal.
Sounds simple."
Well, YEAH, for Nazis and Commies.
Of course, we're better than those totalitarian states, aren't we?
Oh, damn. I guess we aren't.
"Lastly, those officers were in a hostile situation with a mob closing in around them. They've a job to do and that was to remove someone purporting to be a student who had refused to exit the premise"
Actually, they were removing someone who WAS a student.
I wonder why we hanged those Nazis at Nuremberg if not to prove that "Just doing your job" isn't an excuse.
"In other words, the six or twelve people deciding whether you go to jail for violating $UNJUST_LAW are either unwilling to practice jury nullification, or they're dishonest enough to lie under oath."
Is lying under oath about in order to do your moral duty to see JUSTICE done, wrong?
I need a rabbi and a drink.
Everyone wants to change their bathroom.
"...that this topic is in the 'Politics' section. That may say more about /. than it does about Clear Channel."
Or perhaps it's just well known that ClearChannel is a big tool of the Bush Administration?
Neil Young did a tour about it...
First, they completely screwed up with win95, and missed the entire Internet thingy.
And now they prove they have no clue.
Good Luck Guys.
Does even the head of the RNC hate their platform that much?
You don't HAVE to wear your seatbelt, but WHEN you crash, you're gonna get really banged up.
And if you're SURE you're NEVER going to crash, WHY do you have INSURANCE???
"And we're trusting NASA to send astronauts to the moon and beyond over the next 20 years?"
No.
Only thing *I* trust NASA to do is waste money.
Now where exactly in the Constitution are these No-Fly Lists delegated to the Feds?
It's not like any hijackers will EVERY be able to take a plane anymore, is it?
Sometime's it's nice to let other people do the work.
The whole monarchy thing makes no sense to those of us who believe that ALL men are created equal.