The City on Fire

Here, you can discuss whether she should work under this name. I'd probably elect her President (but she isn't eligible)

Quote:

A series of emails between the professor and student shared on social media reveals that Hubbard reached out to a student named Phuc Bui Diem Nguyen, and wrote, "Could you Anglicize your name. Phuc Bui sounds like an insult in English."

In a response, Nguyen stated Hubbard's request "feels discriminatory" and warned the professor she would file a complaint if he refuses to refer to her by her given birth name. Despite the student's warning, Hubbard doubled down and repeated the request.

"Your name in English sounds like F— Boy," he wrote back. "If I lived in Vietnam and my name in your language sounded like Eat a D—, I would change it to avoid embarrassment both on my part and on the part of the people who had to say it. I understand you are offended, but you need to understand your name is an offensive sound in my language. I repeat my request.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/laney-college-professor-put-on-leave-after-demanding-student-named-phuc-bui-anglicize-her-name/ar-BB15IUgV?ocid=spartanntp

Quote: Mission146

Références or previous employers? .

Somebody you can call to ask
how many times you caught
the guy stealing.

Quote: Mission146

Références or previous employers? I’ve never called a reference and never would. I can’t imagine they’d be putting someone on there who has anything bad to say.

You often call to make sure they worked there. You really do this if the person is in a position where they go into homes or have contact with sensitive info. One place I worked they did such a check I had to hunt down a closed business. Most employers will not say anything anymore.

One girl I remember I was no way going to hire but called to find out the story as it was our sister company who was right across the street and I was both curious and bored. Guy says, "She was good at first but near the end there were problems." I told him "She was there six weeks. There is no "near the end. Six weeks is a beginning and maybe a middle."

He still would not say. I imagine it was a whopper as she had her boyfriend with her also filling out an application. It took them like 90 minutes to fill out what should take 15, and they were making out in the doorway waiting for their ride.

Yeah, I miss dem days. Not.

Quote: aceofspades

So we are now firing relatives of people who are alleged to have committed a crime

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8440383/Stepmom-Atlanta-cop-charged-Rayshard-Brooks-death-fired-job.html

Doesn't look like that. Did you read the article? Created hostile work environment according to the company.

Quote: terapined

Doesn't look like that. Did you read the article? Created hostile work environment according to the company.

Yeah hostile because she supported her step-son and the other employees didn't

Quote: Evenbob

Somebody you can call to ask
how many times you caught
the guy stealing.

Well, yeah, previous employers. References are handpicked.

Quote: Mission146

Exactly, but it being free for everyone won't do anything to alleviate their ability to charge essentially whatever they want to the Government. Anytime any institution is more or less directly run by the Government, the answer always seems to be, "We need more money!"

Even then, if you made it only for the public schools, then that sets an unfair standard for the private schools to have to compete with. Even if the private institutions were better, which itself is highly debatable, there's nothing inherently there that's going to cause them to get the best students because they would cost a non-zero amount compared to zero for the state places.

But, again, if it's all handled in-state and you get the Federal Government out of education, at every single level and in every single conceivable way, then I don't have a problem with anything that you're saying. Let the taxpayers of individual states and the market decide what education looks like and should cost.

I mostly agree, but lets be realistic, it is not changing anytime soon. Even when the Conservatives controlled all branches of government there were no moves to change it. Do you think the democrats will? Neither side will, its the ingrained system we now have. So we need to work to improve it to help more people.

Quote: Mission146

Terrible workplace, hated the job. Didn't matter, I was married (at the time) and had first one then two kids in what is not the most economically privileged area. It paid enough that I would have had to have two jobs just to match it anyway. Also, I made the place a lot of money, so my job was extremely safe.

I am glad you are happier now.

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, and to what degree a system does exist it's essentially a Ponzi scheme, which is basically what health insurance is in the first place. The healthy pay a LOT more than they could have, on direct, in a free market while the insurance companies inevitably lose money on the infirm. That's why I think something along the lines of a specialty insurance for long-term care would be a good idea. If you want the insurance, you get the insurance. If you don't get the insurance and can't afford long-term treatments on your own, then you die. Everyone is going to die anyway, so I really don't see any reason to delay it unless people are willing to do what it takes to do so.

The fact that poor people get any level of healthcare for free artificially creates demand, and due to that, the medical profession can charge whatever the hell it wants to because it has a captive market in place. If they go into debt, then they can just file bankruptcy.

Also, I would think that people who aren't paying for it would tend to use it a lot more---which further drives up the costs by creating an artificial base market.

Medicare is similarly a Ponzi scheme, given how long people are living these days. Not to mention the fact that saving them (in long-term care terms) is nothing more than a totally sunk cost because they are beyond the point of creating wealth or value. Every resource expended on them, unless they are paying or have paid for it themselves (and are not net negative on Medicare) is a loss for which there will never be positive returns. IOW, waste of money.

The clear answer is to get the Federal Government completely out of healthcare and let the states handle it individually.

That argument can apply to almost any type of insurance.

I have been an advocate of two polar opposite systems:

100% cash based where there is no insurance except for maybe extreme critical care that would bankrupt most people. This would allow clear pricing upfront and no strange inflated then negotiated insurance bills.

Or single payer. This would have the benefits of everyone having the same access. I know you don't support this. But, it works well in many countries.


However, the system we have now, private insurance based, with many people having government supplements (Medicare or Medicaid), is so obtuse and complicated, it is a huge drain of resources just on the paperwork. The people hurt the most are working young middle class people that either have to rely on employer insurance or try to buy their own.

Quote: Mission146

Which the Army probably never will need, thereby making it a complete waste of money. Again, I don't blame you at all for taking advantage of it and doing it. It seems you're getting good training, experience, education reimbursement, a little extra money and that you enjoy it.

I love it.

I respect your feelings on the position. But, I love learning new things, so I have no issue going to just about any training program.
Is it a critical position that will ever get used in the Reserves? Honestly probably not (unless something crazy happens), but it is what it is. I enjoy it.

But, I also think it is important to have well rounded people in the Army (really any job). So I support combinations of civilian and military education to build your knowledge base.

Quote: Mission146

I don't have a problem with the military, conceptually speaking.

Except for your desire to make it as unappealing as possible (minimum wage and no benefits)

Quote: Mission146

Definitely more efficient, but even more importantly, less costly for all involved. Even the students save money not having to worry about transportation, and what have you.

I agree completely on libraries. If I was running for any level to actually do something about it, the first thing I would do is defund and close any non self-sustaining libraries immediately and sell the building/land for whatever I could get. Hell, maybe the community itself would just come together (in a way having nothing to do with tax) and buy it---continue to run it as is. Awesome if that happens.

I don't care about the environment at all.

I was mostly speaking about campus libraries on University campuses (which are largely massive ghost rooms), the internet pretty much made them irrelevant, even though they are still open until 0200 to accommodate studying (for the like 1 person who uses it, probably mostly for change of scenery lol)

I care deeply about the environment as well though. And, I think encouraging digital reading is fiscally and environmentally responsible.

Quote: Mission146

I don't care if the states follow through or not, that's the entire point. Let California enact all of the policies that they clamor for on the state-level, without using the Federal Government to force every single state to do it---and watch what happens. Do you have any idea what the tax structure would have to be to support every one of these initiatives simultaneously? That's why they want the Federal Government to do everything, because if they really pushed that envelope as a state, anyone with money is getting the hell out of Dodge. Hollywood (the industry) is located in Georgia---tomorrow.

California will socialize itself straight into oblivion without the Federal Government making it all the same thing for everyone. In that event, the only way to escape the tax structure would be to escape the country----which is precisely why they want to use the Federal Government to do it.

They do have the right to attempt an education; they just have to find a way to do it. Also, there could be charitable organizations created for the purpose, individual schools could take the initiative---which they essentially do with scholarships---but I mean having scholarships specifically for less advantaged people.

Maybe. I don't think the current system will change. This is all speculative.

Quote: Mission146

$4500/year for school. Take that $200/month and almost triple it.

You are obsessed with 4500 a year for TA. Its a nothing burger on the budget (even if 100% of soldiers used 100% of the TA every year, which never even comes close to happening, like a tiny fraction of soldiers use any at all....) I am pretty sure a single bombing mission costs more than TA for everyone all year.... And, compared to Pell Grants it is an even bigger nothing burger.

I don't know why you are so against Soldiers getting some incentive to expand their education….

Let's take it back to the States. I used to be in the NJ National Guard. While a member of the NJ Guard (Army or Air) you could attend any state college 100% tuition free, this was of course all paid for by the state.
Are you against state level military benefits for the military of a state? (you seem to be big on all benefits being state level)….

Quote: AZDuffman

You often call to make sure they worked there. You really do this if the person is in a position where they go into homes or have contact with sensitive info. One place I worked they did such a check I had to hunt down a closed business. Most employers will not say anything anymore.

One girl I remember I was no way going to hire but called to find out the story as it was our sister company who was right across the street and I was both curious and bored. Guy says, "She was good at first but near the end there were problems." I told him "She was there six weeks. There is no "near the end. Six weeks is a beginning and maybe a middle."

He still would not say. I imagine it was a whopper as she had her boyfriend with her also filling out an application. It took them like 90 minutes to fill out what should take 15, and they were making out in the doorway waiting for their ride.

Yeah, I miss dem days. Not.

I think you guys are talking about previous employers. That’s not what a reference is, hiring experts. A reference can be someone you worked for, or with, but doesn’t necessarily have to be. For instance, a college student with no work history might use a professor as a reference. If they do some sort of charity work, then they might use the head of that as a reference. I don’t call references because it’s a given they’re going to say positive things, or they wouldn’t be on there.

Previous employers would mainly only verify start date, end date and eligibility for rehire, because that’s all they are supposed to verify. Therefore, that’s usually all I would ask, and only if something about it didn’t smell right. If it was another local hotel, well, we weren’t as by the book with that. You weren’t going to knowingly let someone catch a problem employee. Mostly call off of problems, but even then, you wouldn’t be super direct, “Yeah, let me check those dates for you, I think those are about right...when he was here, anyway.”

Lots of applicants buried themselves by going into WAY too much detail about why they left the previous job that I could never have otherwise discovered.

Anyway, I didn’t mind. In all that time, I only made one super problematic hire.

Quote: Mission146

I think you guys are talking about previous employers. That’s not what a reference is, hiring experts. A reference can be someone you worked for, or with, but doesn’t necessarily have to be. For instance, a college student with no work history might use a professor as a reference. If they do some sort of charity work, then they might use the head of that as a reference. I don’t call references because it’s a given they’re going to say positive things, or they wouldn’t be on there.

Previous employers would mainly only verify start date, end date and eligibility for rehire, because that’s all they are supposed to verify. Therefore, that’s usually all I would ask, and only if something about it didn’t smell right. If it was another local hotel, well, we weren’t as by the book with that. You weren’t going to knowingly let someone catch a problem employee. Mostly call off of problems, but even then, you wouldn’t be super direct, “Yeah, let me check those dates for you, I think those are about right...when he was here, anyway.”

Lots of applicants buried themselves by going into WAY too much detail about why they left the previous job that I could never have otherwise discovered.

Anyway, I didn’t mind. In all that time, I only made one super problematic hire.

Have you ever tried to talk an employee of another employer into coming to work for you. I've seen it happen. Or at least overheard the conversation.

The guy, as a customer, simply saw how hard the guy was busting his ass with his current job. I'm not even sure if he was being asked for a similar job.

Quote: Gandler

I mostly agree, but lets be realistic, it is not changing anytime soon. Even when the Conservatives controlled all branches of government there were no moves to change it. Do you think the democrats will? Neither side will, its the ingrained system we now have. So we need to work to improve it to help more people.

I’m usually not good with trying to do things knowing I’ll fail, so I’ll at least stick to it with my politics. Besides, we’re just shooting ideas. I’ll always just be a vote, never more or less. Anyway, even if confined to the pragmatics of the current structure, I’d still just favor whatever reduces Federal spending on it.

Quote:

I am glad you are happier now.

Thanks! It wasn’t the worst thing in the world, like I said, I did like the job/check security, especially in that labor market.

Quote:

That argument can apply to almost any type of insurance.

Can and should be, with the two key differences being that my version is voluntary AND that the Federal Government is not involved.

Quote:

I have been an advocate of two polar opposite systems:

100% cash based where there is no insurance except for maybe extreme critical care that would bankrupt most people. This would allow clear pricing upfront and no strange inflated then negotiated insurance bills.

Or single payer. This would have the benefits of everyone having the same access. I know you don't support this. But, it works well in many countries.


However, the system we have now, private insurance based, with many people having government supplements (Medicare or Medicaid), is so obtuse and complicated, it is a huge drain of resources just on the paperwork. The people hurt the most are working young middle class people that either have to rely on employer insurance or try to buy their own.

I agree to the extent that the optimal system, in this case, is mostly one way or all the other way. Half measures create layers and complexity, which creates costs, costs that benefit neither the patients nor the medical practitioners.

Of course, we seem to disagree on which of the two we would choose, but seem to basically agree that either one or the other would be an improvement.

Quote:

I love it.

I respect your feelings on the position. But, I love learning new things, so I have no issue going to just about any training program.
Is it a critical position that will ever get used in the Reserves? Honestly probably not (unless something crazy happens), but it is what it is. I enjoy it.

But, I also think it is important to have well rounded people in the Army (really any job). So I support combinations of civilian and military education to build your knowledge base.

I know, and I couldn’t be happier for you. Far be it from me to criticize someone for taking what is being offered to them.

Quote:

Except for your desire to make it as unappealing as possible (minimum wage and no benefits)

I just don’t think it should be more attractive than a similarly situated position in the private market.

Quote:

I was mostly speaking about campus libraries on University campuses (which are largely massive ghost rooms), the internet pretty much made them irrelevant, even though they are still open until 0200 to accommodate studying (for the like 1 person who uses it, probably mostly for change of scenery lol)

I care deeply about the environment as well though. And, I think encouraging digital reading is fiscally and environmentally responsible.

Those too, I guess, but they can basically do whatever they want to. It’s not taxpayer money, at least, not so much on direct. Neither of the institutions I attended would have them open nearly that late, with the second institution having a sizable 24/7 computer lab instead, and that was in 2004-2006. There was no shortage of quiet seating accessible elsewhere in the area, though, pretty much that whole area (but not classrooms or library) was open 24/7. It’s a very uniquely designed campus, though.

Quote:

Maybe. I don't think the current system will change. This is all speculative.

Definitely true. We’re just shooting the breeze.

Quote:

You are obsessed with 4500 a year for TA. Its a nothing burger on the budget (even if 100% of soldiers used 100% of the TA every year, which never even comes close to happening, like a tiny fraction of soldiers use any at all....) I am pretty sure a single bombing mission costs more than TA for everyone all year.... And, compared to Pell Grants it is an even bigger nothing burger.

I don't know why you are so against Soldiers getting some incentive to expand their education….

Let's take it back to the States. I used to be in the NJ National Guard. While a member of the NJ Guard (Army or Air) you could attend any state college 100% tuition free, this was of course all paid for by the state.
Are you against state level military benefits for the military of a state? (you seem to be big on all benefits being state level)….

Don’t worry, I’m certain I could find plenty of other things to 86 to reduce spending. TA probably wouldn’t make the Top 20 list, just happened to come up. I’ve already said Pell Grants are gone.

I’ll put it this way: Suppose it wasn’t the case and came up for public vote, I would vote, “No,” but I would not be vocal about it at all. I’d just go and quietly vote No. If my side of the vote lost, I’d probably never think about it again, much less complain. I see no reason they should get any benefits that aren’t a standard offer for part-timers in the private market.