How admirable of McDonalds. :)

We don't have those sort of ads here for McDonalds. They do have this one where little people pop out of the stomachs of big people and go get them Macca's for lunch and bring it back. Very cute...with a lovely jingle too.

Generally speaking, I agree. I think it's been a mistake to put them in charge of the Human Resources department, though.

You've noticed that too, eh?

:(

They just gravitate there on their own. "I like working with people!!!!!!"

A little bitter, are we, Wolf? That's what you get for not reading the posts properly. ;)

On that note I went to a DELARC meeting on Wed night. DELARC is a countywide association of parents with disabled children. There were about 20 parents there discussing young adults with varying degrees of physical and/or mental disability. Many of them have been unemployed since graduation.

The talk centered around the different types of jobs. 'Real world' jobs, sheltered employment, volunteer work, and jobs just to give them a sense of accomplishment.

Jeffrey and another young adult were the only people there with disabilities. The rest of the audience was parents and a few siblings. Some of these parent's children are so disabled that getting them there would require an effort. It was just as well since 20 people were packed into a conference room that could fit 10.

The fact is that the supermarket, convenience store, and dry goods chains are hiring disabled where small businesses will not. Maybe some of them are just doing it for PR, but at least they are doing it. Jeffrey has one advantage over a 'normal' adult. He does not get bored with the tasks he is given. Even at home he insists on cleaning and vacuuming his room, which is a huge difference from his brother.

Personally, I don't like the word 'retard'. It is a pejorative and if one is really talking about retarded individuals, it implies that one is blaming them for being retarded.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/headshake.gif

I'm even a little uncomfortable making 'retarded' jokes about others, although I can do so if I really want to.

Example:
Why does President Bush ride to work in a limousine?
Because the Secret Service couldn't figure out how to armor plate a short bus.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

No hard feelings, that's just how I see things.

I apologize.

My intention was to insult the people at WalMart in charge of HR decisions, like taking out life insurance policies on their employees, or how they decide who gets health care and such.

No such insult was intended toward anyone else, I promise.

As I see it, we're dealing with two fundamentally opposite ways of looking at issues like minimum wage.

One side believes that a person is owed a living — that, independent of all other factors, no human being should ever have less money than is required to meet basic needs. Regardless of whether a person works, how hard, with whatever level of conscientiousness, he should never be denied the opportunity to buy a new shirt if he wants one. While personal responsibility is a good thing, someone who lacks it shouldn't be punished by not getting a check from SOMEONE.

The other side thinks that if someone wants a living, it is their responsibility to find it for themselves. Although there are certainly people who are down on their luck, this is in nearly every case a temporary state, if that person will cowboy the fuck up and go to work. We should build our social system based on providing opportunity, not taking from those who work to distribute to those who will not. The person who decided to start smoking crack, have 8 babies from 8 different fathers before the age of 30, and drop out of high school to hang with her friends is not my responsibility. She is an idiot. If she wants to turn her life around, that's great. But it's going to be an uphill battle, and the reason isn't because the rest of us are mean or selfish. It's because she did a bunch of stupid stuff.

I just realized that sounded pretty harsh. There is definitely no excuse for being callous. However, charity should come from individuals, and it should be freely given. It's our responsibility as fellow humans to make sure the other humans in our sphere of influence are taken care of.

It's not the job of government nor of corporate entities.

Corporate entities are in the business of making money. Period. The purpose of government is something else again. Why do we have a local police force? To try to prevent law abiding citizens from being harmed by criminals. Why do we have an army? To protect our citizens from foreign aggression. We have government to "promote the general welfare," bottom line.

I am not going to argue that people should have a social conscience or an imagination or feel empathy. Been there, done that on this board.

What I have discovered is that arguing social conscience is like arguing religion. It seldom gets one anywhere. I find it especially interesting that so many fundamentalist Christians actually have very little compassion for the disadvantaged. Noodle's If she wants to turn her life around, that's great. But it's going to be an uphill battle, and the reason isn't because the rest of us are mean or selfish. It's because she did a bunch of stupid stuff. is a nice summation of the religous right's outlook (and the conservative outlook, in general).

I have often wondered why this should be so. I think people want to beleive that somehow life is fair and God rewards the good and punishes the guilty. This outlook allows a person to beleive he can remain safe from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune by working hard enough and being good enough. It also has the by product of allowing the person who is well off to feel superior to those who are not - be they retards, drug addicts, whatever.

Whatever floats your boat, folks. I happen to disagree with this point of view. And I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Over and out. :headshake

I fail to see how a company should be allowed to profit by making the state pick up things they don't cover, if they're employed but still eligible for food stamps and free medical, the company should be paying it.

That said, if you didn't have such a stupidly inefficient and unfair medical system in the first place it probably wouldn't be such an issue.

"Employed" in this case counts part-time employment, which a large number of Wal-Mart's employees are. They're willing to let you work 10 hours a week if that's what you want.

Heh! Don't know about other states, but here in Colorado, many outfits get around providing health insurance, etc. by only giving employees 35 or 36 hour work weeks which makes them "part time." I worked for a place that gave me 38 hours of work a week spread out over 6 days a week and I was considered a part time employee. I'd have loved to have those two extra hours but they wouldn't give them to me. I found another job, but if there's an economic downturn or a person lacks the skills, its not always that easy to find something else.

What was the name of this place? Beestie needs to know.