Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think that a liberal's opinion would be any different? All police organiz (right wing orgs) also put their officers on PAL when accused of wrongdoing. It is WRONG. I think that it might have more to do with the unions they belong to.
Kudos to you for realizing that is wrong. But if you look through this thread, I think you'll see that most if not all of the apologists are liberal posters. That said, maybe my headline was an overly broad brush to impugn ALL liberals.
I would dispute characterizing police as right wing orgs. And it is not limited to union jobs. It seems to be public sector jobs in general (see the above example of the DHS deputy chief, which I doubt would have been a unionized job.
Again, how do you figure that FMLA and sick leave do not entail action taken by administration? That's what you implied in your previous post. Remember...the one that took you .5 seconds?
Uhh, because it's the individual and not the administration that initiates such action?
Either you are shockingly stupid or doing a very bad job of being obtuse. For your sake, I hope it's the later.
Uhh, because it's the individual and not the administration that initiates such action?
Either you are shockingly stupid or doing a very bad job of being obtuse. For your sake, I hope it's the later.
Oh boy, yet another lib poster with mommie dearest syndrome. For your sake I hope these are PUI's.
So where do you come up with the notion that this is the meaning behind 'administrative?' Link, quote? Or is it sourced via posterior? Why is so crucial which party initiates? Any kind of leave is going to have to be processed and approved by an administrator, so why is it all not "administrative leave?" You're just running around in circles with semantics. Then, laughably, you have the gall to claim that I'm being "shockingly stupid or doing a very bad job of being obtuse" (what does that even mean? Is there such a thing as doing a good job of being obtuse?).
Oh boy, yet another lib poster with mommie dearest syndrome. For your sake I hope these are PUI's.
Not a liberal...except on most social issues.
Quote:
So where do you come up with the notion that this is the meaning behind 'administrative?' Link, quote? Or is it sourced via posterior?
From the definition you posted. I believe this is now the second time I've said it.
Quote:
Why is so crucial which party initiates? Any kind of leave is going to have to be processed and approved by an administrator, so why is it all not "administrative leave?" You're just running around in circles with semantics.
Wow, I literally just lost 5 IQ points from reading that stupid comment.
If you can't figure out why it's important who initiates the leave, then you are simply past the point I could help you and frankly, not intelligent enough to engage in this level of conversation.
Show me where the question was ever answered. What is the meaning and purpose of that adjective, "administrative?" What are the other categories of leave? And why would anyone feel compelled to defend this gobblygook?
Here was your original question:
"Can any liberals out there explain and justify the concept of "administrative leave?" Do you think that private sector employers should be required to have the same policy, or do you agree with the current dual-class structure?"
It was answered in the third post of the thread. The rest has been an argument of shifting goal posts which amounts to nothing more than trolling.
"Can any liberals out there explain and justify the concept of "administrative leave?" Do you think that private sector employers should be required to have the same policy, or do you agree with the current dual-class structure?"
It was answered in the third post of the thread. The rest has been an argument of shifting goal posts which amounts to nothing more than trolling.
post #3 answered nothing. Nor does name-calling--"trolling"--constitute an argument.
Meanwhile, liberals have been smoked out as being in support of 10 month's salary for the DHS lady with the PhD from a motel 6.
Well, the private sector is the one that has by and large abandoned unionization and numerous benefits and protections that go with it, so in a sense it's a "reap what you sow" type thing.
Ideally, however, we'd see a mass resurgence in unionization so the middle class can step up and take back their share of the pie that they've been surrendering since the middle of the 20th century.
Unbelievable.
You think the working class walked away from their benefits? Not everyone has the option to join a (Mob-run) Union, even if we approved of a system where merit is out the window and only seniority matters. In any case, lack of unions are not what cause the catastrophic collapse of the value of labor in this nation.
But government worker unions DID explode the compensation of public sector workers, to the point of absurdity. It should NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, since government unions are an absolute perversion of the very idea of a union--instead of company owners and workers bargaining for an equitable share of profits, government employees "negotiate" with themselves to maximize pay, with the bill being sent to the taxpayer who has absolutely no say in the matter. Already government worker pensions and retirement costs are crippling many states and local governments, and the problem will have to be addressed since there's a LIMIT to how much you can tax the lowly working class, and we're just about there.
The working class has been SLAUGHTERED by mass immigration, jobs sent overseas, productivity increases that are not shared one iota with the worker who works harder and longer to achieve them--ALL TRENDS aided and abetted by the Washington bureaucracy that serves ONLY the elite upper class--and you blame the workers for their betrayal by Washington? All Washington had to do was NOT throw out all limits on immigration in 1965, and most of the destruction would never have happened.
Furthermore, you think PUBLIC servants, who are paid for by this working class, should not only get paid FAR MORE than their private sector counterparts, should work far LESS hours per week and per year, should get FAR more generous benefits, should pay far LESS as their "share" of said benefits, and should retire early with great wealth--and on top of all this should be able to continue to collect all these great taxpayer-funded benefits while they are under investigation for CRIMES AGAINST THE TAXPAYERS?
Just keep it up, government. Not even buying up all the ammo in the world is going to save you WTSHTF.
There is nothing illegal about the IRS "targeting". That is what they do. They target wealthy people. They target people with home businesses. They target those who are generous to charities. It would be improper if the targeting were for political purposes but there is no evidence of that at this point in time. It looks like they were just trying to do their jobs and were not sensitive to the political repercussions of targeting these conservative groups. That may fall under incompetence. She should have known better, and she could be dismissed for that eventually.
HAVE YOU PAID ANY ATTENTION AT ALL TO WHAT HAS ALREADY COME OUT?
They were targeting ONLY conservative applications--while liberal group applications--doing the exact same activities--were immediately approved without any review at all.
Do you simply deny what has already been admitted by numerous people? Or do you simply not understand right from wrong because THIS TIME you think "your side" benefitted?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
