Worthy News: Ford to cut 25,000-30,000 jobs, close 14 plants - AFP

[Kabowd]

Bernie, how does your view fit with the concept of grace? And how do you reconcile it with the lesson taught in Matthew 20:1-16?

[Kabowd]

Bernie, how does your view fit with the concept of grace? And how do you reconcile it with the lesson taught in Matthew 20:1-16?

Kerdos idea, is that compassion for the poor? "Here is a raise, you have 6 months to live up to it or you're otta here!" This is a compassionate alternative to what I am currently doing? $7.50 / hr isn't much but it's more than nothing and if he wishes to "Pay" others to do his fork lift work for him, that is his choice. He can wait the 90 days and complete his probation period before he gets his first raise. Where is this idea that the poor are totally balmeless? That has become the cause of modern day liberalism. "There are no eveil people, people only rape, rob, and murder because society doesn't pay them enough to be good".

Second, you don't know weather or not, and to what degree I am willing to help in this matter, you excuse his behavior and assume that I am witholding what you believe is rightfully his.

Um, I didn't assume or excuse anything. I simply asked two questions. Incidentally, you didn't really answer either of them.

[apothanein kerdos]

Bernie, how does your view fit with the concept of grace? And how do you reconcile it with the lesson taught in Matthew 20:1-16?

Kerdos idea, is that compassion for the poor? "Here is a raise, you have 6 months to live up to it or you're otta here!" This is a compassionate alternative to what I am currently doing? $7.50 / hr isn't much but it's more than nothing and if he wishes to "Pay" others to do his fork lift work for him, that is his choice. He can wait the 90 days and complete his probation period before he gets his first raise. Where is this idea that the poor are totally balmeless? That has become the cause of modern day liberalism. "There are no eveil people, people only rape, rob, and murder because society doesn't pay them enough to be good".

Second, you don't know weather or not, and to what degree I am willing to help in this matter, you excuse his behavior and assume that I am witholding what you believe is rightfully his.

What you're doing is developing a straw-man. It's a false image of the argument presented. It is false because it does not adequately explain the position given. The reason for this is so it is easier to take down. Hence the term "straw man" (something easily built up and easily taken down).

The proper position I offered was that your worker would be given the raise and the help needed to obtain his job as a forklift opperator. It forces him to either develop as a person or fail. All you are doing right now is using him and allowing him to be lazy. This does not develop him and it does not benefit you; thus if this method fails under both a Darwinian paradigm and a christian paradigm. If you force him to work, force him to get over being lazy, then he develops as a person. He learns to work for what he wants instead of relying on it to be given to him. He is given full knowledge that if he doesn't live up to his end of the deal, he is out of a job. That is fair because you fulfill your obligation to help develop him and it provides him an absolute reason to become better. Either way, the employer has fulfilled his Christian duty.

No one is saying all poor are blameless. What we are advocating is that it doesn't matter. We are to take care of them anyway. I once again challenge you to bring up scripture that actually contradicts this point.

[apothanein kerdos]

Bernie, how does your view fit with the concept of grace? And how do you reconcile it with the lesson taught in Matthew 20:1-16?

Good one, but this is a case of a grumbling worker.

Did he not agree to work for the wage agreed upon?

Did he not agree to the conditions for a raise?

Now, he grumbles saying "My wage is not enough! give me more!"

My reply is along the lines of the landowner.

My "Grace" is that I am willing to provide wahtever help he needs. We copied the instructions in Spanish, One of my workers are willing to tutor him wherever he has trouble. I am willing to take whatever time is needed in order so that he can practice and operatre a forklift safely.

I am only a department supervisor and can only recommend a raise, not automatically give one. Although I did make the rules within my department, I will not do "A song & dance" in front of the owner and give him a raise outside the agreed upon policy. I am willing to help him, the ball is in his court.

Can he read?

[apothanein kerdos]

Can he read?

You don't give up do you? Talk about constantly excusing the poor and blaming everbody else!

[Kabowd]

I am not answerable to you. You believe that the poor are blameless and every person who is not poor is to blame.

Sorry, but I will not accept your rabuke or blame.

Can you please quote where he stated this? What post number was it? Where did he say this?

[apothanein kerdos]

I am not answerable to you. You believe that the poor are blameless and every person who is not poor is to blame.

Sorry, but I will not accept your rabuke or blame.

Where did I say that? In fact, if you look back a few posts you'll see I stated:

No one is saying all poor are blameless. What we are advocating is that it doesn't matter. We are to take care of them anyway. I once again challenge you to bring up scripture that actually contradicts this point.

The scriptures deal with the poor and never addresses the issue of those who are poor on their own account. Yes, people are sometimes poor because they put themselves in that situation. Yet the scriptures tell us to treat them the same no matter what. I have already given scripture on this.

Furthermore, you're right, you aren't accountable to me (in that I cannot judge you). You're accountable to God, so with that in mind you may want to follow what I've been preaching...seeing how it is out of the Bible and all.

As a side note though, you are accountable to me in that you do have to listen to what I have to say. I am, after all, a fellow Christian. That's scripture too.

[ted]

AK, I might be missing something in all of this, but I fail to see how what Bernie is doing is unscriptural.

He told the guy how much the job pays, and the guy agreed and started working there. Bernie also told him that if he wanted to learn the forklift, that there would be a raise involved.

Also, there is a way for him to make even more than that, if he learns how to do something else.

Under your theory, the man is told that there is a raise involved, and he gets it right now, but has six months to be qualified on the fork lift, or he's let go.

I actually see that both systems are viable.

What is so wrong about Bernie's?

Now that I have the good fortune of seeing both theories, I would actual have combined them both, and told the new guy that there was a requirement to drive the forklift as part of the job, and require all applicants to show proof of forklift training from the outset.

Still, what Bernie is doing is setting some standards and giving the worker a chance to earn more. If he can't read, then he better speak up quick so that provisions can be made for alternate training.

We get this a lot in Gov't work. Some guys will get hired, quickly figure out the best way to do the least amount of work, and then they ride the system out.

In the civilian sector, it's a little easier to boot the guy.

In our case, after the year of probation, it's very hard to fire a Gov't worker. Now, they have recently changed that, and have imposed a performance based pay system. Now, a work super visor has much more power to fire if need be, and raises are no longer automatic. Before this, workers would automatically get raises based on time, if they hadn't messed up too bad. The supervisor would have to fill out all kinds of paperwork to stop the raise, in fact.

Now, it's the opposite. People of similar wage grade levels increase in step if they are working well, and raises are based on performance, not simply time there.

I say all this to link it up to what Bernie is doing. I think what he is doing is fair. He gave a guy a chance by hiring him, and told him specific ways in which he can increase his pay. Thus far, he has not taken the bait.

We can't bring up things like "he can't read" and other similar things, because we have no way of knowing. If it was the case, I'm sure the guy would have raised that point already, if he really wanted to get passed that obstacle.

I like Bernie's approach, and I like yours, as well. Either one would work for me.

I just don't see what's so bad about Bernie's.

He didn't try to hire him at the lowest wage, he is providing a chance for the guy to improve, and he is willing to train someone to step up, as well as providing better wages for doing so.

What's wrong with that?

He even keeps the offer on the table for any of the employees, if I remember correctly.

So far, no one has stepped up. That's not Bernie's fault.

I don't know. I see the good and bad of each way. Either way is cool.

The only thing I would change would be to make those extra things actual job requirements for applicants and boost the pay accordingly. That way, there is no question about the job, and Bernie doesn't have to worry about it.

t.

[Marnie]

Man, we are sure getting mileage out of this one. This is almost as good as the old Wal Mart thread.

[ted]

You should check out the "last" thread in the Fellowship Hall!

It's called "Is it just me...."

t.