[Guest post by DRJ]
Arizona wants to get control of illegal immigration so it can remain fiscally solvent and help its neediest citizens. California has spent itself to the point of bankruptcy and may not be able to help anyone.
Which is more responsible? Which is more humane?
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Powered by WordPress.
I have to make similar decisions sometimes at work.
I need to let the low performers go. Then I need to let the mediocre go too.
They may have families, be nice people etc. and they get some credit for that.
But my primary concern has to be with the big picture… by protecting the corporation as an ongoing concern by cutting the payroll,, the jobs of the best employees are secured, their families protected.
The others can go on to make another company successful if they are good.
The ones that are not so good need to look in the mirror and decide to build their value as employees.
The best them accept the challenge, but without any adversity they’d stay stuck at mediocre.
I cannot let the lowest 20-30% take down the other 70%. That is unfair and inhumane.
I can’t run a company’s finances into the ground and jeopardize the jobs of everyone, so I have to pick and choose the best performers.
That is my job, and my obligation to those high achievers.
Once I have cut the lowest performers out, then if I have cut my own pay, I will.
In past recessions, I have noticed that getting rid of the lowest 20% actually can increase productivity and profitability.
My feelings about cutting federal, state and local low performers is that it won’t be done.
Unions
Plus the losers will show up on the rolls as “unemployed”.
No way the Obama administration wants federal, state and local public employee payrolls trimmed by 10-15% of the worst and crappiest employees… it’d push unemployment to 12%
It is the basic law of reaping and sowing.
Steve G (7d4c78) — 5/16/2010 @ 5:40 pmIf you “sow” little or nothing at your job, you will not have anything to “reap”. Go figure.
If the illegals hate Arizona for our new law, guess they will have to find another state of run to when CA can’t take care of them anymore.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 5/16/2010 @ 5:51 pmI’m ready to move to Arizona.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 5/16/2010 @ 7:17 pmToo bad my wife isn’t.
Arizona Bob (e8af2b) — 5/16/2010 @ 7:18 pmAre these trick questions?
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/16/2010 @ 7:34 pm#5 daleyrocks:
I don’t think so.
I also don’t think that California is familiar the story of the gold, the goose, and the egg sammich.
Or something like that.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 5/16/2010 @ 7:58 pmSigh. Why must you slavishly adhere to “facts” when revoluntary facts are available? Once again: no person is illegal, therefore those in violation of our immigration laws should not be bound by our laws, unless you violate their rights under our laws – then they will sue you and seek redress under the very system of law that they explicitly and unilaterally decree does not apply to them. Understand? If yes, then for the love of GOD explain it all to me…….
Californio (03e3cd) — 5/16/2010 @ 9:09 pmOh, and Buenas Dias! (in case anyone thinks I could be a racist.)(and if you do – don’t speak to me or make direct eye contact, you 12inch hoe using peasant.)