Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marek_wojna who wrote (86035)	5/29/2002 7:33:45 AM
From: Andrew	Respond to of 116825

I suppose if their arms get ripped off because the jewelry they are wearing gets caught in machinery its their employers fault right? Really though they should have been asked to leave and return to work when the bracelets were removed. The supervisory staff involved in having the bracelets removed should be reprimanded or fired.

To: marek_wojna who wrote (86035)	5/29/2002 8:53:48 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116825

I agree that employee adornment can be removed by management. This is not for reasons of safety, as workplace accidents have already been factored into the cost struvure and jewelry fatalities are almost vanishingly small in frequency anyway. The reason is to diminish employee individuality and reinforce the ability to herd or group-influence the employee. If employees are allowed to wear individual symbols, distinctive clothing and other things to make them stand out, then they lose the identity as chattel of the factory owner. (The principle is stated to be based on the likelihood of attached items to catch on machinery and tear off limbs, or employee tearorism.) In armies and similar groups it is necessary to perpetrate top down peer pressure dominance to create an atmosphere of obedience. It is especially dangeours to authority if symbols and identity is forme groups that are stronger in cohesiveness than the group that the leader wishes to make dominant. That is why they must make religious symbols verboten in non religious groups. When I joinde the eclectic circle Err Kaddison Mining and Smelting company in the great northwoods of Canada I was required to remove my head ring, (halo) and was fitted with a company nose ring. I objected because the head ring or halo, was proof of my divinity, but the company pointed out that their motto, Companius Reginorum Dei Gratia, proved that their existence was the only divine one, and it was unecessary to accept two all-encompassing divinities. They asked me to prove my divinity by bidding me to jump down the mineshaft, and if I survived, they would accept my rite-to-wear a halo. When I challenged them to do it first, they said that the company, being a multi-corpus being, could be at the bottom and the top of the shaft at once, and did not have to jump. Employee suitability is not measured by intelligence, capability or ingenuity, not by loyalty, truthfullness or work ethic and production. It is measured by the willingness to appear and the subjugation servility co-efficient and belongingness to the group. The more the employee is willing to "be a good guy" and obey the group, at all costs to himself, (throwing himself on a hand grenade) or bending or breaking other company exterior rules, at no benefit to himself at all the more valued he is at as an employee. That is why Enron found no shortage of people who could gleefully shred documents which was high fraud. They sacrificed themselves for the good of the company or the implicit wishes. They probably recieved no order to do so at all, but knew after long yes-man experience that the only employee rewarded with recommendations is the loyal to a a default employee. That is why it is safe to ignore all employees who come highly recommended from other companies. Such recommendations only prove two things possibly. 1. That the company was loooking to get rid of them and does not want them back, and is overjoyed that they will ruin the other person's business, or 2. that they are competent and ethical and as such would see the corruption or incompetence in the business and complain. (They don't fit in) (BTW whistleblowers or creative people are almost never very religious. Religious people say nothing about bad bosses as they view them as a god that is good, (writes checks but is hard to understand in his good (steals money ) All the whistle blowers of the Reagan era, were irreligious people, this is because a person of independent views cannot live in a dualistic world that requires suspension of disbelief, inherently promoting moral hypocracy.) EC<:-}