Lawmakers hear how forfeiture laws work in theory, in reality

[ForReal]

Let me Explain wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, My last raise was in 1997 (2 years earlier than the legislature) Since then, I've been required to take 2 "temporary" pay cuts (neither of which have been rescinded.

If you were not getting pay raises in the late 90's it may have something to do with your performance.

[Clueless]

ForReal wrote:

<quoted text>
If you were not getting pay raises in the late 90's it may have something to do with your performance.

I try pretty hard not to do this very often, but that may be the dumbest
thing I have read here. If you are not getting raises for 12 years due
to poor performance, you don't last 12 years in the organization. Period.
If you can last 12 years (or longer) in ANY organization, it is not you
that is struggling, it is the organization.

Or am I clueless?

[ForReal]

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
I try pretty hard not to do this very often, but that may be the dumbest
thing I have read here. If you are not getting raises for 12 years due
to poor performance, you don't last 12 years in the organization. Period.
If you can last 12 years (or longer) in ANY organization, it is not you
that is struggling, it is the organization.
Or am I clueless?

You said it not me.

What industries/jobs were not giving at least 3-5% cost of living increases in the boom years of the late 90's? Since 2001, sure raises were tougher. If you didn't catch at least part of the wave I think you need to look within.

[Clueless]

ForReal wrote:

<quoted text>
You said it not me.
What industries/jobs were not giving at least 3-5% cost of living increases in the boom years of the late 90's? Since 2001, sure raises were tougher. If you didn't catch at least part of the wave I think you need to look within.

I might hate myself for this, but I'll bite.:)

Name one company; seriously, one, that keeps poor performing
employees for 12 years unless forced to by unions..........
no, wait, then they would get automatic raises..........
one organization of any kind that could let a poor performing
employee go but just leaves it at not giving them a raise?

Any decade, any economic period. I've never seen one; maybe
you have. I'm curious.

[ForReal]

Clueless wrote:

<quoted text>
I might hate myself for this, but I'll bite.:)
Name one company; seriously, one, that keeps poor performing
employees for 12 years unless forced to by unions..........
no, wait, then they would get automatic raises..........
one organization of any kind that could let a poor performing
employee go but just leaves it at not giving them a raise?
Any decade, any economic period. I've never seen one; maybe
you have. I'm curious.

Are you the same person as "Let Me Explain"? That's who I originally replied to. You are the one who introduced the phrase "poor performing employee". Although I think there are lots of mediocre employees out there that are not out and out bad and wind up there a long time due to apathy or personal relationships. What good employee would stay in a situation not getting increases during good economic times when employers were looking for good employees?

My point was that during the late 90's business was booming in almost all sectors. I am not aware of a situation where a good employee would not have gotten raises during that time. I asked you for an example and you have yet to provide one.

[Clueless]

ForReal wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you the same person as "Let Me Explain"? That's who I originally replied to. You are the one who introduced the phrase "poor performing employee". Although I think there are lots of mediocre employees out there that are not out and out bad and wind up there a long time due to apathy or personal relationships. What good employee would stay in a situation not getting increases during good economic times when employers were looking for good employees?
My point was that during the late 90's business was booming in almost all sectors. I am not aware of a situation where a good employee would not have gotten raises during that time. I asked you for an example and you have yet to provide one.

Nope, Let Me Explain can answer for themselves. I happen to
have spent the last many years for 3 different organizations
that struggled and either laid people off or went under due to
no fault of the employees so I took a little offense to a couple
of your remarks, too. Namely: "if you were not getting pay
raises in the late 90's it may have something to do with your
performance"; and "if you didn't catch at least part of the wave
I think you need to look within." Pretty snide remarks for
someone who doesn't have a clue how the places we all work have
gone for the last 12 (or more) years. And "poor performing
employee" was just a condensed version of your first quote; YOU
introduced it.

I worked for Macalester College who either dropped altogether,
or outsourced 3 depts. in the 5 years I was there (the last
one being mine). I know a bunch of people who work at the
Wilder Foundation who haven't gotten raises since they have
been there and are now out of jobs.

Now give me examples of places that knowingly keep poor
performing employees and, as their only consequence, just
don't give them a raise. Again, places that COULD let them
go, just don't.

Business was booming in almost all sectors? Define "almost all".
In any decade, I have know dozens of people laid off through
no fault of their own. Maybe you don't.

I don't usually take offense to very much and, as I said I
might hate myself for this, but those comments couldn't go
unanswered by someone who doesn't know a thing about where
we are at.

[Let me Explain]

ForReal wrote:

<quoted text>
If you were not getting pay raises in the late 90's it may have something to do with your performance.

All right, you got me. I was offered a raise in 98, and another in 99, but turned them down, because the company couldn't afford it. They would have had to let someone go in order to pay me.

I could have quit when the first 'Temporary Pay Cut' came around, but I honestly ENJOY working for the company.

[JL Morgan]

Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

US Constitution – Bill of rights…. 4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

~~~
We continue to dilute and pervert the original premises and simple intent of our contitution... Forgetting that Freedom is a greater tool for a societis well being than the rule of fear and and its bed-mate - security......