GL Employees Quiting Left and Right

I'll admit I have nothing of real value to contribute to the original topic as my trip to the midwest had to factor out GL this year, but oldschool, a friendly CB word of advice:

Don't mess with 'Playa. His sarcasm is a force of nature: unpredictable and unchangeable. Trust me, I've tried. Been there, done that, and you're not winning either.

---

Jeff smacks his own forehead in disbelief... -J

---

I was unaware I was in a battle of the smackdown Banana Splits all-stars.(I believe there might be re-runs on Nick at Nite, but not sure) Funny thing about forces of nature. You bet they are unpredictable and unchangeable. I believe one such force is exhibited everytime one heads to the room marked "Mens" or "Womens". Was that the force you were referring to? hehe

Have a good one. *** Edited 5/4/2004 10:42:41 PM UTC by Jeff***

No--more like keyboard diarrhea from folks who love watching themselves type.

Do you really think people can't read the post directly above yours? Cut that out already! Yeesh!

Speak directly and clearly or don't speak at all. If I was at the head of a boardroom table I'd cut you off, send you out of the room immediately and chastise your supervisor for letting you in my sight.

I'm not even saying you're full of crap--just kindly PLEASE save the "bluh bluh bluh" and CUT...TO...THE...CHASE. Now.

-CO

PS - Laughter is not masculine or gender-specific.

Will make a note the next time in the boardroom to see if there is any "playas" in the house. Have not seen any to this date, but will keep an eye out for you.

PS - People oftentimes do not chastise when they are aware of what is being spoken in context to the referenced point.

PPS - Would have to expound on your laughter PS. Wondering how it is "directly" related to the post you are referencing.

Jeff, i certainly didn't say spite. I don't think there's any malice or ill-will in any of your posts. I can;t imagine any of this stuff really bothers you any more than it does me. It is all rather funny. The constant CF does no wrong stuff gets old and the needless putting down of people who disagree with you, and rebuttling that you were quoted somewhere to support your point all get a little old. I'd look up some examples but there are plenty of them and i don't really have the time.

oldschool has made his points time and again, rather clearly i thought. I may not agree with all of them, but they at least have some logic. The funniest part is that Redman is argueing the same line (i think) as oldschool just from a differnet angle.

Get a grip. No one is putting down anyone. You confuse spirited debate with personality issues. You can't find any examples because you don't have any. Resorting to "Jeff's a big bully because he owns the site" is a cop out for people who can't argue back.

And no one thinks CF can do no wrong. You're practicing selective listening. Even big fanboys like me have something to say when they do something really stupid.

Cedar Fair does a lot of stupid things. Of course I have never encountered a company (or government) that was perfect.

Gene, Oldschool and I do not agree...

From his post on 5/3 at 12:12..
"For somebody to state that a company has the right to pay anybody whatever they want is just not correct."

Employers can OFFER to pay anyone any dollar amount they deem appropriate. The prospective employee can say, "Yes, thank you for offering me that pay rate." Or they could say, "You're nuts! I'll go flip burgers instead." Nobody is FORCING them to take the job. Now note, if different rates are offered due to discrimination, THAT is wrong, but that is not the case here so that line of argument is moot.

From his post on 5/3 at 2:38...
"They do not however, have the ability to change that policy at will without substantiating those reasons, nor in a subjective manner at different times."

Yet again he argues a point that is moot in regards to this topic. CF just bought GL. The employees that were there are technically employees of the previous owner. They can decide to keep, not offer positions or offer different pay rates to individuals without repercussions based on the old company's policies.

From his response to me on 5/3 at 11:11...
"...you should not have been allowed to hire whoever you wanted at whatever wage you felt like at the time of the hire. Nor were you probably allowed to give them a raise or adjustment whenever you felt like."

REALLY? Then how do you explain the different wages earned by my staff at my Chicago facility. I had a pay range of $36 to $50k for the same position description. I also gave some of my employees mid-year raises (which were not part of the employee handbook) when they went above and beyond the call or met certain goals that I set personally.

Heck, he even disagrees with himself on 5/4 at 10:30...
"...an employer can and should be able to hire in people at the pay structure they deem necessary..."

I'm not going to argue with this point but this zebra must have changed his stripes as he directly disagreed with his prior statement(s).

---

oldschool said:
Will make a note the next time in the boardroom to see if there is any "playas" in the house. Have not seen any to this date...

---

First of all, it's 'there are any playas.' The English language: Get to know it.

And would this be a reference to my ethnicity or to particular racial stereotypes evoked by the word 'Playa?'

Pull your ass from your mouth and speak up. We're listening...

-'Playa
*** Edited 5/5/2004 2:22:39 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

Hey, here's a question:

What the fark is everybody arguing? I think I was left behind somewhere around page 3. ;) *** Edited 5/5/2004 3:57:29 PM UTC by matt.***

Jeff: I have not felt slighted or not willing to read other posts in this subject because they may or may not agree with what I posted about. That is in part, how one learns.

Playa: Can not say that I even gave an inkling to using ethnicity in any of my posts. Merely using your cute slang handle and wording. My reference was directed toward people in boardrooms I have been in not acting in the fashion or manner that you came across. Nothing more or less. I am the last person that would consider using ethnicity, gender, or race. Just a point of questioning; Since you found it necessary to correct my english. Would I not find any slang, or improper use of words on any of your posts?

Redman: My main points on employment and wages were indeed directed toward general HR/corporate policies. Those policies are enacted to prevent negative outcomes pertaining to gender, race, age. That was my thrust on those topics. Indeed, if there is not a defined wage scale, job descriptions, and incentive structure, then any company is open to possible EEOC action as well as civil lawsuits.

If you did have a difference of 40% in initial salaries, one would hope that you at least could document why you had such a large spread for the same position. IE, one particular race is hired in at $36k and another race for the same position is hired in at $50K. There is defin. something there that would leave open the potential for problems if there is not documented reasoning to that.

In your raise example, you had stated that specific goals were met or exceeded. If that were the case, and a previous pattern can be shown that raises are given when that happens, then there is more often than not, nothing wrong with that.

I believe I have stated previously that my points were of a general employment nature vs. the specifics of CF and/or GL. Thus, not making them moot in their general context. If that did not come across as such, then I apologize for that.

Sorry to say, but I am not a zebra. Just a mere mortal.

Well, the one main reason we had hired the person at $36k was because their pay at their previous company was less so we didn't have to "bid" as high to get them to join our team. I know that sounds snarky, but there is nothing illegal or wrong about it.

I am facing the same problem myself right now. I am in IT and there is still a glut of unemployed IT people in the Chicago market. I am having a hard time finding a new job because I keep getting under-cut in regards to salary.

Who will a company hire when all candidates are equal? Me - who is getting paid decently - or a person who is unemployed due to downsizing and will take 30% less than me?

It's simple economics. Why pay full price when you can get something "on sale"? *** Edited 5/5/2004 6:46:21 PM UTC by redman822***

OlFoo: Anyone with the faintest clue how to write will note that I use Spoken English in my posts. Since a reader can 'hear me speak,' my words have power and immediacy that you will never, ever, ever possess.

Here's a bluh bluh bluthering case in point:

---

oldschool said:
Jeff: I have not felt slighted or not willing to read other posts in this subject because they may or may not agree with what I posted about. That is in part, how one learns.

---

Bah-Whaa? Huh?

Let's look again in slow motion:

---

I have not felt slighted

---

Okay...he's not upset because...

---

or not willing to read other posts

---

Or? Where does 'or' fit here? Are you saying that you're not slighted and you're not reading other posts either? That either you're not slighted or you're not reading? One or the other but not both? What are you trying to say? For the love of all that's sacred, spit it out. You can't even make sense for a full sentence! Yeesh!

Look--if you're translating from Spanish to French Pig-Latin back to Engrish, let us know. We'll applaud your valiant efforts to chat with us here. But otherwise, say what you gotta say in three sentences or less. I dare you.

-CO

*** Edited 5/5/2004 7:17:07 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

In IT, companies I have worked with have had to do some rather unique offers several years ago to get top quality. They were of course always documented as to why a certain bonus was offered, and/or a perk was offered to a specific new hire.

I still do not believe we are reading from different books here. More like reading the same book, but different chapters. To be honest, most of the hiring practices that I have been involved in were non IT.

In your $36K example, it would seem that that would be documentable as to why there was a defined pay difference in jobs with similar requirements.

I hate to say this, but you may be surprised at the number of companies that will still pay "full price" vs. a sale just to not get into problems. Employers have to have so much documented these days. Of course, the corporate track record goes far in seeing how they are going to handle pay.

Here is to you finding something that you feel good about when you wake-up and get ready for work.

CP: At least you are backing-up my post as to why I will probably not be seeing individuals with your thinking in boardrooms.

I do not know why you act the way you do. Nor am I aware you feel a need to interject ethnicity into subjects. A shame. Have a nice day.

Now let's squeeze the fluff outta that response to redman822:

Sometimes IT companies offered the best guys bonuses. As long as we documented our reasons it was fine. A good work history always helped. Good luck!

See how easy it is?

Review what you write and ask yourself, "Where do I wanna take my reader?" Then drop everything that wanders from that point.

Lesson over. You're welcome.

-CO *** Edited 5/5/2004 7:26:54 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***

I have to confess to not reading many posts on CoasterBuzz until recently, so you will have to forgive me for not being in awe with your propensity to fit people into your posting style box.

Sorry, I also can not remember asking for a lesson. If you find enjoyment from that, then keep at it. Guess we all need hobbies.

Oldschool,

I believe the problem that started all of this is that you are misunderstanding Jeff's original argument. He was saying that a company can vary its pay scales based on location and other factors. My dad works for the government in Cleveland, and receives a cost of living increase based on how much it costs to live in Cleveland. Obviously, someone in New York City, Chicago, or LA would receive a higher increase, because it is more expensive to live in those cities. A company can pay the same job different fees because of factors like those, regardless of whether the job is seasonal or not. The fact that we are talking about part time jobs makes the entire thing irrelevant, because the regulations on those are: at least minimum wage for someone over 16, nothing more.

Oldschool,

You are the only one here who seems to understand your arguement. We have had posts from many people here who have significant experiance and knowledge in the area or business and wage law. I am not trying to Flame you, but it seems that besides your posted creditials of experiance, you truly do not know what you are talking about.

It seems that you chose to argue a viewpoint without truly researching it first.

You also seem to have a complex where you think the boardroom is a great almighty place to be. Well guess what, It isn't. I have been in many boardrooms in my short time on this earth, and have worked with many executives of million dollar companies. I could care less.

I have learned a few things in my life about people. One is that a person's job does not determine thier status in society. You seem to think that making to "the boardroom" makes you better then some of us. Or that because you have sat in a boardroom you have more knowledge. I have also learned that some of the dumbest people I have ever met prided themselves on their executive status. (i.e. Enron, Kmart)

Also, you never mention, or at least I did not notice, what your position is. For all we know, you could be a stenographer.

edited to gather my thoughts, and to delete information posted earlier by others *** Edited 5/5/2004 8:02:36 PM UTC by James K***

Uh oh! More folks reading thru the piffle...