I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

I've accidentally rubbed fresh habanero juice in my eyes...I was incapacitated for a whole two minutes!

I'd be upset if my dog bit people for just because it made her happy; I'm totally cool with her when finds more creative ways to entertain herself, like playing with a tennis ball; if she bit a bugler or someone attacking me, I'd be fin with that too.

Sometimes cutting jobs is necessary, and the right thing to do, other times, it's just the lazy way for a CEO or owner to save money.

Sometimes, you're overstaffed for what you really need and people are just inefficient. Sometimes, those cuts simply take you to the appropriate workforce in the first place. That's not an increase in workload, it's actually making them work the workload they were supposed to work in the first place.

You fire a guy who was earning $30000 a year. It results in a marginal workload increase for ten people, so you increase their salary by $1000 a year. Suddenly you still aren't making ends meet. Do you now fire a second person to make up for the shortfall you introduced in the name of "decency"?

As Ugly said above (and I know you probably haven't had a chance to read yet), sometimes it just isn't practical to keep a business running that way. Not every business is running with huge profit margins.

It can replace french fries in school lunches.

Bacon Flavored Pepper Spray: Drive 'em off but keep 'em coming back for more!

That doesn't add up. Giving 10 people an extra 1K for having to run a few more reports apiece is draining your $30K cost savings?

Sometimes it isn't a matter of total workload, its a matter of needing people to handle special things. You don't fire your lone IT guy and now ask your head art guy who knows Macs inside and out to take over the Windows network. Inversely, you don't fire an art guy and then ask your IT person to take over some of the graphic design duties since they're all done on computers anyway.

Despite what some businesses believe, human beings are not always interchangeable cogs. You should have as many people with specializations as needed to get your work done efficiently, and as many with overlapping abilities to be able to fill in for others in a pinch. I know if I quit my job tomorrow my office would continue to function, but they'd suddenly be weeks or months behind because they'd have to train someone else to do everything I do. Yet if I'm off for one day or even a week, someone could handle my everyday tasks or the office could just not have them done and it wouldn't matter in the long run.

No. You cut someone to save $30k, but only ended up saving $20k as a result. Now, if that $20k isn't enough of a savings to keep from losing money, you've got to cut another person.

Sounds like your girlfriend should market herself to other prospective employers for an increased salary.

Or stop complaining and get back to work.

The fact that your business is losing money points to "infrastructure problems" and nothing else to you? It couldn't possibly be due to employee redundancies, or a recession, or any number of factors that you can't just handwave around and say "look, we reorganized everything, we're in the black again!"?

If my company is losing $25000 a year, and I can identify an employee who I can eliminate without loss of net income to return the company to a net profit, then yes, that's the proper course of action (in the absence of alternatives). To say that in this situation, it's due to "infrastructure problems", is willful blindness.

I think you are missing the point of the discussion.

I think you lack the mental capacity to understand the relevance of my comments to the discussion.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Frankly, I think rdm should just be glad that she can afford to buy him so much weed that he can just sit on his *** all day and talk about how great it is being high.