Here is a crazy question I thought up, who would you hire for a job. Someone who works hard but is already wealthy and has a good life, or someone who slacks off but is barely hanging on financially?
I wanted to put a bullet in between the eyes of every panda that wouldnt screw to save its own species. - Tyler Durden - Fight Club
Being a Liberal voter I'd obviously choose the person who works hard. No employer would choose someone who slacked off, even if they needed money. I'm only going to choose someone who really wants the job (not just for financial reasons) and not putting an effort in isnt the way to go about getting employed.
Though Labor supporters would probably hire the slacker (hey, that's what the Labor party consists of, why would they turn down one of their own kind?)
Mike
"Now I guess we're... 'Path-E-Tech Management'" -Dilbert
I wouldn't pick some who needs or wants it...i'd pick someone who is right for the job, ie, has the skills, the motivation and can work with others and well as indepenantly...man, i sound like someone off one of those finacial planning ads
MUGGUS
Come and annoy me more at
www.muggus69.tk STOUT ANGER!!!
I think i'd let them have a boxing match to decide, and get th rest of my workers to bet on it, then fire whoever won after 2 weeks if they werent working really hard.. that or put them in another boxing match with the second crappest worker, loser gets fired more betting on this of course
(Note: Like I am ever gonna decide who is employed)
Pix
Twas brillig, and the slivey toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the momewraths outgrabe.