Jim Beam not letting their employees use the bathrooms!

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT
"May i go to the bathroom, massa?"

Oooooonly in America... and the third world...

And on every production line job in the world. A production line worker MUST be replaced when they take a break. If the line workers abuse this policy, set breaks are scheduled so that there are enough replacement workers to go around.

Does that really make sense to you? Wouldn't it be more fair to warn the people who abuse the policy? Maybe the people who do "abuse" the policy actually have a reason to do so?

If they have a valid reason, they should have no trouble getting a medical waiver, right? And obviously they had been warned many times. The management didn't just pull a policy like this out of their ass.

You still don't get my point? It's about respect... It's about punishing the guilty, not everyone... it's about not having to ask permission if i need to use the bathroom more times than my employer has decided that i can...

It's about having the respect and trust for me as a grown individual... I should be able to go to the toilet when i need to... nobody should be able to tell me if i can or cannot go... If my employer thinks i am abusing that right... he should take it up with me, if i have a reason, i will tell him, otherwise, he may warn me...

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT
"May i go to the bathroom, massa?"

Oooooonly in America... and the third world...

And on every production line job in the world. A production line worker MUST be replaced when they take a break. If the line workers abuse this policy, set breaks are scheduled so that there are enough replacement workers to go around.

Does that really make sense to you? Wouldn't it be more fair to warn the people who abuse the policy? Maybe the people who do "abuse" the policy actually have a reason to do so?

If they have a valid reason, they should have no trouble getting a medical waiver, right? And obviously they had been warned many times. The management didn't just pull a policy like this out of their ass.

You still don't get my point? It's about respect... It's about punishing the guilty, not everyone... it's about not having to ask permission if i need to use the bathroom more times than my employer has decided that i can...

It's about having the respect and trust for me as a grown individual... I should be able to go to the toilet when i need to... nobody should be able to tell me if i can or cannot go... If my employer thinks i am abusing that right... he should take it up with me, if i have a reason, i will tell him, otherwise, he may warn me...

Does that make sense to you?

Of course it does. But you are not considering the legal climate in the US. If they were to have different policies in place for different workers, they'd get sued. You have to have one arbitrary policy in place for all your workers, or none at all. This has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with legal equality ... which has come to mean businesses must make policies that address the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

In the US, and most western nations, the innocent often lose their freedoms because of the crimes of the guilty. Gun control is but one example of this. And it gets worse when you look at how businesses must cover their butts.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

You totally missed my point...

As a grown man i should have the right to decide when i need to use the bathroom, NOBODY should decide when i need to use the bathroom but me...

If grown men and women weren't exploiting the previous unlimited bathroom break policy, the new policy would not exist. Believe it or not, companies don't just institute policies like this because of a sadistic bent, rather they resort to them as a last recourse when supposedly mature adults take advantage of and abuse more permissive policies. The workers created the necessity for this policy. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

ZV

Read my answer to AmusedOne... To punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a few is not very smart... in the end, i think this policy will prove to be counterproductive...

How are you going to respect your employer when he has no respect for you?

That's the point. You cannot single out workers and make different policies for different workers unless thay have a verifiable special need. To do so will invite discrimination lawsuits. Therefore you must make your policies arbitrary and have them apply to everyone equally.

It's the same anywhere.

Trust me AmusedOne... NO company would get away with a policy like that in Sweden...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

You totally missed my point...

As a grown man i should have the right to decide when i need to use the bathroom, NOBODY should decide when i need to use the bathroom but me...

If grown men and women weren't exploiting the previous unlimited bathroom break policy, the new policy would not exist. Believe it or not, companies don't just institute policies like this because of a sadistic bent, rather they resort to them as a last recourse when supposedly mature adults take advantage of and abuse more permissive policies. The workers created the necessity for this policy. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

ZV

Read my answer to AmusedOne... To punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a few is not very smart... in the end, i think this policy will prove to be counterproductive...

How are you going to respect your employer when he has no respect for you?

That's the point. You cannot single out workers and make different policies for different workers unless thay have a verifiable special need. To do so will invite discrimination lawsuits. Therefore you must make your policies arbitrary and have them apply to everyone equally.

It's the same anywhere.

Trust me AmusedOne... NO company would get away with a policy like that in Sweden...

Like I said before, I'll bet you money any production line job in your country has strict rules about when workers may take breaks.

At the very least, I'll bet they cannot leave the line until replaced. Scheduled or not, they are still having to get permission to go.

You cannot have a production line with workers getting up and leaving any time they feel like it. I don't care how liberal you think your country is.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
The problem with the policy is that it is obvious that Managment doesn't trust the staff to make even the most simplist decisions. Maybe management is justified in their mistrust, and maybe not. The point is that to have a healthly and productive organization, workers have to have a minimal amount of autonomy.

When a worker leaves the line, they have to be replaced. What happens if all of them decide they have to go pee at the same time?

Has anyone here ever done production line work before? The breaks are staggered for a reason. This is nothing new.

You tell your employees that they can take a break when needed BUT they need to have their position covered. You give the line the autonomy to oversee the minor problems that arise during production. This makes a more interesting work environment and a less rigid management structure. You have to cover their absence anyways. If a person is abusing the system then you deal with that person, rather than making the whole line suffer. People were literally pissing themselves. That isn't good management... that is unless you like to have a unhygenic and very unhappy work force.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT
"May i go to the bathroom, massa?"

Oooooonly in America... and the third world...

And on every production line job in the world. A production line worker MUST be replaced when they take a break. If the line workers abuse this policy, set breaks are scheduled so that there are enough replacement workers to go around.

Does that really make sense to you? Wouldn't it be more fair to warn the people who abuse the policy? Maybe the people who do "abuse" the policy actually have a reason to do so?

If they have a valid reason, they should have no trouble getting a medical waiver, right? And obviously they had been warned many times. The management didn't just pull a policy like this out of their ass.

You still don't get my point? It's about respect... It's about punishing the guilty, not everyone... it's about not having to ask permission if i need to use the bathroom more times than my employer has decided that i can...

It's about having the respect and trust for me as a grown individual... I should be able to go to the toilet when i need to... nobody should be able to tell me if i can or cannot go... If my employer thinks i am abusing that right... he should take it up with me, if i have a reason, i will tell him, otherwise, he may warn me...

Does that make sense to you?

Of course it does. But you are not considering the legal climate in the US. If they were to have different policies in place for different workers, they'd get sued. You have to have one arbitrary policy in place for all your workers, or none at all. This has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with legal equality ... which has come to mean businesses must make policies that address the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

In the US, and most western nations, the innocent often lose their freedoms because of the crimes of the guilty. Gun control is but one example of this. And it get's worse when you look at how businesses must cover their butts.

But that is not what i said... how would people who abuse the system and get warned sue? it's not like they are taking away something that anyone else has...

Of course, there had to be reasons to warn the employee and if the employee had a valid reason, he wouldn't recieve a warning...

Communication between employer and employees is more productive than making rules that impose on the employees rights..

This is, of course, only my opinion and i am not trying to shove it down your throat...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
The problem with the policy is that it is obvious that Managment doesn't trust the staff to make even the most simplist decisions. Maybe management is justified in their mistrust, and maybe not. The point is that to have a healthly and productive organization, workers have to have a minimal amount of autonomy.

When a worker leaves the line, they have to be replaced. What happens if all of them decide they have to go pee at the same time?

Has anyone here ever done production line work before? The breaks are staggered for a reason. This is nothing new.

You tell your employees that they can take a break when needed BUT they need to have their position covered. You give the line the autonomy to oversee the minor problems that arise during production. This makes a more interesting work environment and a less rigid management structure. You have to cover their absence anyways. If a person is abusing the system then you deal with that person, rather than making the whole line suffer. People were literally pissing themselves. That isn't good management... that is unless you like to have a unhygenic and very unhappy work force.

First: People are CLAIMING they are pissing themselves. There's a difference there. As with anything, I'll bet the reports are greatly exaggerated.

Now, if 5% of the line is abusing the policy, that means 95% of the line gets fewer breaks because they can't go when they need to, the replacement workers are all catering to the policy abusers.

And as I've said, you CANNOT limit one worker's breaks without limiting ALL workers breaks. If you single out people with policy you WILL get sued. Do I agree with this? NO. But that is the legal climate we live in now in the US.

I have a strong feeling, (experience from the few years I spent on production line work at Kimberly Clark) that the most egregious violators are smokers. The fact that this is in Kentucky only make that suspicion stronger.

 

[Zenmervolt]

if there is an issue with people abusing the bathroom, making a ludicrous and draconian policy will not solve the problem. It may cover it up so that the management can more easily ignore it, though.

If the policy stops the abuse of the bathroom break, then it has solved the problem of bathroom break abuse. Look up the definition of "solve". It may not have solved the problem in a manner that is most congenial to everyone, but it's a helluva lot more economical than intense monitoring of a few problem employees. Plus as Amused One points out, it also does not leave the company open to discrimination lawsuits, which individual monitoring does. Unfortunately, the most economical and most easily practicable solution is not always the best one for making the employees feel good. But it's not like anyone is forcing them to work for the company anyway. They can leave any time they please if the policy offends their dignity that much.

ZV

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

You totally missed my point...

As a grown man i should have the right to decide when i need to use the bathroom, NOBODY should decide when i need to use the bathroom but me...

If grown men and women weren't exploiting the previous unlimited bathroom break policy, the new policy would not exist. Believe it or not, companies don't just institute policies like this because of a sadistic bent, rather they resort to them as a last recourse when supposedly mature adults take advantage of and abuse more permissive policies. The workers created the necessity for this policy. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

ZV

Read my answer to AmusedOne... To punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a few is not very smart... in the end, i think this policy will prove to be counterproductive...

How are you going to respect your employer when he has no respect for you?

That's the point. You cannot single out workers and make different policies for different workers unless thay have a verifiable special need. To do so will invite discrimination lawsuits. Therefore you must make your policies arbitrary and have them apply to everyone equally.

It's the same anywhere.

Trust me AmusedOne... NO company would get away with a policy like that in Sweden...

Like I said before, I'll bet you money any production line job in your country has strict rules about when workers may take breaks.

At the very least, I'll bet they cannot leave the line until replaced. Scheduled or not, they are still having to get permission to go.

You cannot have a production line with workers getting up and leaving any time they feel like it. I don't care how liberal you think your country is.

Actually, i have been living here for a long time, i have worked in a production line too... Here the employer tends to trust the employees enough to let them take responsibility of their work, if someone cannot do so, he will be asked what happened and perhaps be warned, if he continues to abuse the system, he will be fired...

You can say what you want to, but NO company in Sweden has a policy regarding bathroom visits... if any company tried to enforce such a policy, there would be an outrage...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT
"May i go to the bathroom, massa?"

Oooooonly in America... and the third world...

And on every production line job in the world. A production line worker MUST be replaced when they take a break. If the line workers abuse this policy, set breaks are scheduled so that there are enough replacement workers to go around.

Does that really make sense to you? Wouldn't it be more fair to warn the people who abuse the policy? Maybe the people who do "abuse" the policy actually have a reason to do so?

If they have a valid reason, they should have no trouble getting a medical waiver, right? And obviously they had been warned many times. The management didn't just pull a policy like this out of their ass.

You still don't get my point? It's about respect... It's about punishing the guilty, not everyone... it's about not having to ask permission if i need to use the bathroom more times than my employer has decided that i can...

It's about having the respect and trust for me as a grown individual... I should be able to go to the toilet when i need to... nobody should be able to tell me if i can or cannot go... If my employer thinks i am abusing that right... he should take it up with me, if i have a reason, i will tell him, otherwise, he may warn me...

Does that make sense to you?

Of course it does. But you are not considering the legal climate in the US. If they were to have different policies in place for different workers, they'd get sued. You have to have one arbitrary policy in place for all your workers, or none at all. This has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with legal equality ... which has come to mean businesses must make policies that address the lowest common denominator, not the highest.

In the US, and most western nations, the innocent often lose their freedoms because of the crimes of the guilty. Gun control is but one example of this. And it get's worse when you look at how businesses must cover their butts.

But that is not what i said... how would people who abuse the system and get warned sue? it's not like they are taking away something that anyone else has...

Of course, there had to be reasons to warn the employee and if the employee had a valid reason, he wouldn't recieve a warning...

Communication between employer and employees is more productive than making rules that impose on the employees rights..

This is, of course, only my opinion and i am not trying to shove it down your throat...

I understand your opinion and actually agree with it. Unfortunately the US has become the land of entitlement. People here sue at the drop of a hat, and win. In an atmosphere such as this, rules MUST conform to the lowest common denominator. The REALLY bad thing is, that is exactly what is happening in our schools, too.

It's sad, but that's the reality that is our tort system.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

You totally missed my point...

As a grown man i should have the right to decide when i need to use the bathroom, NOBODY should decide when i need to use the bathroom but me...

If grown men and women weren't exploiting the previous unlimited bathroom break policy, the new policy would not exist. Believe it or not, companies don't just institute policies like this because of a sadistic bent, rather they resort to them as a last recourse when supposedly mature adults take advantage of and abuse more permissive policies. The workers created the necessity for this policy. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

ZV

Read my answer to AmusedOne... To punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a few is not very smart... in the end, i think this policy will prove to be counterproductive...

How are you going to respect your employer when he has no respect for you?

That's the point. You cannot single out workers and make different policies for different workers unless thay have a verifiable special need. To do so will invite discrimination lawsuits. Therefore you must make your policies arbitrary and have them apply to everyone equally.

It's the same anywhere.

Trust me AmusedOne... NO company would get away with a policy like that in Sweden...

Like I said before, I'll bet you money any production line job in your country has strict rules about when workers may take breaks.

At the very least, I'll bet they cannot leave the line until replaced. Scheduled or not, they are still having to get permission to go.

You cannot have a production line with workers getting up and leaving any time they feel like it. I don't care how liberal you think your country is.

Actually, i have been living here for a long time, i have worked in a production line too... Here the employer tends to trust the employees enough to let them take responsibility of their work, if someone cannot do so, he will be asked what happened and perhaps be warned, if he continues to abuse the system, he will be fired...

You can say what you want to, but NO company in Sweden has a policy regarding bathroom visits... if any company tried to enforce such a policy, there would be an outrage...

BUT, what you seem to not want to admit is that a worker cannot leave the line until replaced. To do so requires permission, and to wait for the replacement.

There is very little different between that, and simply scheduling the breaks so that they are staggered uniformily.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: Dhruv

The company, which consulted a urologist before imposing the limits

hahaahahahahaah

Workers can be exempted with a doctor's note.

rotflmao

don't think i'll drink from that company for at least a year. let all the 'bad' bottles get out of the system. i'm sure some of the employees found other places to piss in than their pants. and it would blend perfectly.

*gags* You just HAD to say that, didn't you? *pours remainder of perfectly good bottle o'Beam down the sink*

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

You totally missed my point...

As a grown man i should have the right to decide when i need to use the bathroom, NOBODY should decide when i need to use the bathroom but me...

If grown men and women weren't exploiting the previous unlimited bathroom break policy, the new policy would not exist. Believe it or not, companies don't just institute policies like this because of a sadistic bent, rather they resort to them as a last recourse when supposedly mature adults take advantage of and abuse more permissive policies. The workers created the necessity for this policy. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

ZV

Read my answer to AmusedOne... To punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a few is not very smart... in the end, i think this policy will prove to be counterproductive...

How are you going to respect your employer when he has no respect for you?

That's the point. You cannot single out workers and make different policies for different workers unless thay have a verifiable special need. To do so will invite discrimination lawsuits. Therefore you must make your policies arbitrary and have them apply to everyone equally.

It's the same anywhere.

Trust me AmusedOne... NO company would get away with a policy like that in Sweden...

Like I said before, I'll bet you money any production line job in your country has strict rules about when workers may take breaks.

At the very least, I'll bet they cannot leave the line until replaced. Scheduled or not, they are still having to get permission to go.

You cannot have a production line with workers getting up and leaving any time they feel like it. I don't care how liberal you think your country is.

Actually, i have been living here for a long time, i have worked in a production line too... Here the employer tends to trust the employees enough to let them take responsibility of their work, if someone cannot do so, he will be asked what happened and perhaps be warned, if he continues to abuse the system, he will be fired...

You can say what you want to, but NO company in Sweden has a policy regarding bathroom visits... if any company tried to enforce such a policy, there would be an outrage...

Arguing that management was justified in making ANY policy change isn't the same as arguing that management implemented a GOOD policy change. Obviously this is a bad policy. Half the people on that line are PISSED OFF, and the other half are PISSED ON.

How is management going to control quality now? How is management going to maintain a safe work environment? How is management going to keep costs down? Answer: THEY AREN'T because all those things REQUIRE worker buy-in and participation, and you aren't going to get anything but lip-service from that workforce. Management should of figured this out better before making any changes. They screwed up. Its that simple.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

You totally missed my point...

As a grown man i should have the right to decide when i need to use the bathroom, NOBODY should decide when i need to use the bathroom but me...

If grown men and women weren't exploiting the previous unlimited bathroom break policy, the new policy would not exist. Believe it or not, companies don't just institute policies like this because of a sadistic bent, rather they resort to them as a last recourse when supposedly mature adults take advantage of and abuse more permissive policies. The workers created the necessity for this policy. They have no-one to blame but themselves.

ZV

Read my answer to AmusedOne... To punish everyone for the wrongdoings of a few is not very smart... in the end, i think this policy will prove to be counterproductive...

How are you going to respect your employer when he has no respect for you?

That's the point. You cannot single out workers and make different policies for different workers unless thay have a verifiable special need. To do so will invite discrimination lawsuits. Therefore you must make your policies arbitrary and have them apply to everyone equally.

It's the same anywhere.

Trust me AmusedOne... NO company would get away with a policy like that in Sweden...

Like I said before, I'll bet you money any production line job in your country has strict rules about when workers may take breaks.

At the very least, I'll bet they cannot leave the line until replaced. Scheduled or not, they are still having to get permission to go.

You cannot have a production line with workers getting up and leaving any time they feel like it. I don't care how liberal you think your country is.

Actually, i have been living here for a long time, i have worked in a production line too... Here the employer tends to trust the employees enough to let them take responsibility of their work, if someone cannot do so, he will be asked what happened and perhaps be warned, if he continues to abuse the system, he will be fired...

You can say what you want to, but NO company in Sweden has a policy regarding bathroom visits... if any company tried to enforce such a policy, there would be an outrage...

Arguing that management was justified in making ANY policy change isn't the same as arguing that management implemented a GOOD policy change. Obviously this is a bad policy. Half the people on that line are PISSED OFF, and the other half are PISSED ON.

How is management going to control quality now? How is management going to maintain a safe work environment? How is management going to keep costs down? Answer: THEY AREN'T because all those things REQUIRE worker buy-in and participation, and you aren't going to get anything but lip-service from that workforce. Management should of figured this out better before making any changes. They screwed up. Its that simple.

No, a small, but very vocal minority is pissed off. The majority are probably happy that the policy abusers aren't keeping replacement workers tied up all the time.

Those with a valid medical excuse can go any time they want. The rest are simply whining, because the sweet ride they had before has come to a screeching halt.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: guyver01
personally... i see nothing wrong with that policy.

i use the bathroom maybe twice at work.... once on my lunch and once before i go home.... and i drink like a fish at work. (soda and water)

as the article states... if you can get a medical waiver, you can get unlimited bathroom breaks.

anyone who has to go 10 times a day needs to see a doctor, and can get medical waiver.

dude you need to see a dr. your kidneys arent working.

 

[Lucky]

BUT, what you seem to not want to admit is that a worker cannot leave the line until replaced. To do so requires permission, and to wait for the replacement.

This is the key folks!

 

[OutHouse]

[/quote]No, a small, but very vocal minority is pissed off. The majority are probably happy that the policy abusers aren't keeping replacement workers tied up all the time.

Those with a valid medical excuse can go any time they want. The rest are simply whining, because the sweet ride they had before has come to a screeching halt.[/quote]

amusedone: from your post on this subject and from others i have seen. I have come to the conclusion that you look down on all workers. From your statement above it shows that you think all employees are lazy, non-productive scumbags.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Citrix

No, a small, but very vocal minority is pissed off. The majority are probably happy that the policy abusers aren't keeping replacement workers tied up all the time.

Those with a valid medical excuse can go any time they want. The rest are simply whining, because the sweet ride they had before has come to a screeching halt.[/quote]

amusedone: from your post on this subject and from others i have seen. I have come to the conclusion that you look down on all workers. From your statement above it shows that you think all employees are lazy, non-productive scumbags.[/quote]

Some are, most aren't. The problem is, it's VERY difficult, if not next to impossible to fire a lazy, non-productive scumbag if they are in a union.

And that's a fact.

I don't look down on all workers. In fact, I lament that the vast majority of good, productive workers have to suffer under arbitrary rules put in place because of those who try to get over on everything and everybody. But the problem is not the sh!tty workers. It's sh!tty laws and unions that make it very difficult to fire them without getting sued.

It doesn't matter if they win or lose the suit. What matters is that you have to fight it, or settle. Both cost an ass and an arm.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

AmusedOne isn't so amused at the moment...


You seem to have your mind made up on so many issues I am wondering if its a waste of energy engaging in dialouge with you.

 

[ElFenix]

here i thought kentucky was a right-to-work state

i wouldn't work there. i drink so much water that i have to piss every hour or so. keeps me hydrated.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
AmusedOne isn't so amused at the moment...


You seem to have your mind made up on so many issues I am wondering if its a waste of energy engaging in dialouge with you.

Yes, it is. Now go whine to someone else.

What amazes me are that people with NO experience in employing people (or being an employee for that matter) beyond what jobs they have in school think they know better than somnone who has 20+ years of experience as both an employer, and employee.

 

[waggy]

heh while i think this is a BAD move i can half way understand why they did it. but the negative backlash from consumers and workers is going to hurt more then this silly rule will help.


but anyway the reason i am posting is amusedone keeps saying when it stops it cost the company thousands of dollers a minute. uhh NO it dont.

lets see there are 60min in an hour 8 hours in a day so thats 480min in a day at "thousands" say 2000 thats $960,00 a day. oh roughly $19mill amonth. somehow i doubt they make that that much


heh see what happens when you are bored and the baby is sleeping?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
here i thought kentucky was a right-to-work state

i wouldn't work there. i drink so much water that i have to piss every hour or so. keeps me hydrated.

No. Kentucky is not a right to work state. It's join the Union, or don't work.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: waggy
heh while i think this is a BAD move i can half way understand why they did it. but the negative backlash from consumers and workers is going to hurt more then this silly rule will help.


but anyway the reason i am posting is amusedone keeps saying when it stops it cost the company thousands of dollers a minute. uhh NO it dont.

lets see there are 60min in an hour 8 hours in a day so thats 480min in a day at "thousands" say 2000 thats $960,00 a day. oh roughly $19mill amonth. somehow i doubt they make that that much


heh see what happens when you are bored and the baby is sleeping?

Yeah, you'ree probably right. I'm thinking of larger production lines like auto and paper plants. Still, it's VERY expensive to stop the line.

 

[Pliablemoose]

A lot of union/management issues are settled once someone notices they don't pass the smell test.

The fact that this policy got national media attention pretty much proves that this policy doesn't pass the smell test.

I fill out Dr's notes for folks in the ER frequently, and this is one I'd fill out & never bother to pass along the patient to the physician...

Lets see enlarged prostate, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, lactose intolerance, kidney stones, I can name a million reasons to allow folks to go to the bathroom...