Yet one wonders where the role of bosses or that of supervisor staff came into play or into the limelight ?????
At the worst it could be said that at least the women of the night are performing an important social function and have some value in life , and as well are performing an honest days work

Not so with most politicians ( especially the current crop) and most bosses or supervisors

It might be well said that America and American politicians are not involved in a true “democracy”
I voted Republican / Democrat because my father / pappy did is the  refrain of most

It can be said that the situation is not unlike that in a country town with two drugstores

Troublesome customers can go back and forth between the two establishments with their imagined woes

On top of that , when problems arise ( as they are bound to do in life) , the customer can go to the “other one” to come back later

Thus if problems do happen on the job , or in interactions the establishment / management is never held to task or asked to be truly accountable

Some form of management

Fire Your mean and incompetent boss

Winnipeg Hotel Reservations

http://www.jerkbossesihaveknown.com/page/2/

• www.jerkbossesihaveknown.com

• Ortho’s Home Repair Problem Solver By Robert J. Beckstrom, Jeff Beneke, Matt Phair, Naomi Wise Ever sat up half the night worried about what the heck was making that noise? Need quick help in figuring...
• Hot or Not, Managed Equity Funds not Worth the Expense I believe in index funds over managed funds for several reasons. In today's market, the number one reason is cost....
• Is Software Development Slowly Killing Me? When I was 8 years old, my parents bought the family an IBM PCjr. It was a great computer and...
• Lifestyle Design: The Pros And Cons Of Being Different photo credit: somegeekintn Many people would like you to believe that lifestyle design is the route to nirvana - and...

It might be said that the purpose of a memo often is to show staff  “who is boss” or alternatively put to make an appearance to either pretend that the writer is around important  or is around or in the limelight

In many cases   ( if not most) , the writer of the memo should either of stayed in bed or followed the adage – attributed to Abraham Lincoln that it is better to keep one’s mouth shut and have people think that you are an idiot rather than open one’s mouth and reaffirm this. (paraphrased)

Here are some points and pointers for writing a memo dealing with “legal opinions”.  Follow these and check out , as well as verify if any of  the current memos that you have received or been the victim of have followed these rules and precepts ?

Remember the adage “I am the Boss and the rule are mine”

Its not all unlike a two year old holding in their bowel movements as a show of force

1) Don’t lapse into gibberish intelligible only to your occupational species

2) Don’t write in the abstract to “Everyman”".  Picture your readers and write to them as you would explain the situation for their specific applications

3) Don’t bury important ideas in long sentences and paragraphs

4) Don’t simply restate a law or the contract’s wording.  Make application to the question at hand

5) Don’t make the reader look elsewhere for contract details to understand the basic message

6) Lastly do not be wordy.  Cut the legalisms from your memo;  redundant synonyms ( last will and testament, maintenance and upkeep, null and void):  ready made subject introductions that could fit into any number of opinions on the same subject matter , unnecessary quotes that you could paraphrase, formal -isms  ( party of the first party) ,   plain old everyday repitition

The list goes on and on

Ultimately it must be always remembered and noted – most memos are seldom read or at the best given one short cursory look over

It is as if the person the person who writes the memo does so to hear themselves “talk”  not to make any valid or useful point or add value to the conversation or to the world

Fire Your Boss

Winnipeg Hotels

Its a Bosh Job

www.jerkbossesihaveknown.com

Related Websites

• Basic Link Building Tactics The most common aspect of being a webmaster or blogger which people have trouble with is link building. As the...
• Boosting Your Internet Site Traffic With Backlinks Auto Traffic Tycoon ReviewBuilding backlinks to your internet site is among the most efficient and established ways in getting your...
• 5 Elements for Successfully Writing a Blog When you finally make the decision to begin writing a blog, it is likely that you are going to want...
• Be Sure To Budget Fun Into Your Family Finances [The following is a guest post by Miranda Marquit, about the need to budget fun into our finances] Budget Fun...

It continues to be an amazement that in comparison to most of the rest of the world America is looked up to as the model of efficiency and effectiveness – productivity that most other places in the world can only look up to and emulate.  It reminds one of Winston Churchill’s remark that “Democracy is the worst form of government by far…. except for the others”.

If what we all put up with in terms of doing our jobs in spite of management , red tape and government bureaucrats who just smile , implement “strict privacy laws”  which seem to have great penalties – but are only applied to taxpayers and citizens – while not being applied in any measure to the day to day activities of those same departments.

Appeal treatment , you may get reams of policy statements , your rights as a taxpayer , ratepayer etc etc, yet the agencies have “Ombudsman”   to deal with such issues.  Yet these individuals are part of the whole same system , who want to stay out of the limelight , keep their budgets and obtain their valued promotions and raises.  It seems they can not be counted on any in any manner to step out of line and do ” the right thing”  Its all one giant game .

title=”Furnasman One Hour CBC Report” href=”http://www.furnasmansonehour.com/” mce_href=”http://www.furnasmansonehour.com/”>Furnasman One Hour CBC

Furnasman One Hour Winnipeg

Crisis at the Workplace

Jerk Managers I Have Known

Winnipeg Hotels

http://www.jerkbossesihaveknown.com

Lord help us.

• 10 Benefits of Hosting your Own Blog If you want to create an edge over many of the other bloggers on the web, then one of the...
• French Online Dating! document.write(''); FrenchFriendSearch.com offers millions of photo profiles of men seeking women, women seeking men, men seeking men and women seeking...
• My Lessons on Buying a Car. This post was originally written at the start of 2009, but has been lost on my PC until now, so...
• Knetgolf.com // < ![CDATA[ google_ad_client = "pub-6633193994067043"; /* 200x90, created 1/21/11 */ google_ad_slot = "5979715700"; google_ad_width = 200; google_ad_height = 90;...

Instead, the anger has been concentrated on the executives themselves, particularly those running companies at the heart of the financial crisis. And boards — thrust into the limelight only rarely, as when the directors of the New York Stock Exchange were in a legal battle over the pay collected by Richard A. Grasso — have managed to stay in the background.

The exchange’s board “really took a lot of heat for that controversy,” says Sarah Anderson, an analyst on executive pay at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. “But so far, with this crisis, I don’t feel like boards have been getting as much attention as they should be.”

Last spring, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform examined pay practices at Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, but those issues eventually took a back seat to broader concerns about the viability of the country’s financial system. As investors frustrated by the continuing crisis start seeking ways to avoid the next one, advocates of change in corporate governance expect boards to come under renewed scrutiny that could yield big changes.

Emboldened shareholder activists are pressing more companies to hold annual nonbinding votes on executive pay packages. They’re also pursuing, and appear increasingly likely to win, rules to make it easier for investors to nominate or replace board members.

And as more people start connecting the dots between pay incentives that boards laid out for executives and the risk-taking at the heart of the financial crisis, some lawmakers have been eager to step in, and many directors themselves are re-examining their approach to compensation.

“When you look at cases where compensation of senior management was out of line, or where people arguably were overpaid, it’s definitely the fault of the compensation committee of the board,” says Thomas Cooley, dean of the Stern School of Business at New York University and a director of Thornburg Mortgage. “Congress has gotten into the business of dictating executive pay now, and they shouldn’t be in that business. What they should be doing is turning the light on the committees.”

Activist shareholders have been criticizing executive pay practices for well over a decade, accusing directors of being too cozy with C.E.O.’s, too eager to lavish pay on them and too ambiguous about the formulas they use for setting compensation.

Improved standards for determining director independence and disclosing the procedures of board compensation committees were supposed to help solve those problems. And activist shareholders played a major role in spreading the notion of pay-for-performance, by which executives would be compensated based on their ability to meet board-devised financial targets.

But amid all the changes, a crucial piece of the equation — the unintended risks that could arise from these pay-for-performance incentives — went unnoticed, said James P. Hawley, co-director of the Elfenworks Center for the Study of Fiduciary Capitalism at St. Mary’s College of California.

“The problem isn’t just when people in a particular firm are getting rewarded in ways that take away from the shareholder. That’s been well recognized,” Mr. Hawley says. “What’s not been recognized is that the misalignment of incentives has resulted in firm, sector and systemic risks. None of the corporate governance activists ever made the connection.”

It took the disastrous results of 2008 to expose such links, and to make compensation a central issue for politicians and corporate America.

TWO factors contributed to the pay scales that now have C.E.O.’s earning more than 300 times the pay of the average American worker.

First was the advent of giant stock option grants, a form of compensation made all the more attractive by a 1993 change to the tax law that maintained corporate tax deductions for executive pay over $1 million, but only if the pay was tied to performance.

Second was the widespread practice of linking pay to the levels at companies of similar size or scope. Every time a board tries to keep an executive happy by offering above-average pay, the net effect is to raise the average that everyone else will use as a baseline.

In the absence of fraud or self-dealing, it’s hard for shareholders to make a legal argument that boards have failed at their job. State law in Delaware, where most big public entities are incorporated, simply requires companies to have boards that direct or manage their affairs, and it affords broad legal protection to board members so long as they act in good faith and in a manner “believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation.”

That was the basis for the recent ruling of a Delaware judge who threw out most of the claims in a shareholder lawsuit seeking to hold Citigroup directors and officers liable for big losses tied to subprime mortgages. But the judge did allow the plaintiffs to pursue one of their claims, which alleged corporate waste stemming from a multimillion-dollar parting pay package that Citigroup’s board awarded Charles O. Prince III, the former C.E.O., in 2007.

While legal protections for directors have changed little over the years, boards have operated under a new level of scrutiny since enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, Congress’s answer to the scandals at Enron and WorldCom. Among other things, this 2002 law strengthened the litmus test for director independence and laid out new responsibilities and requirements for boards’ audit committee members.

Now, the furor over executive pay has heightened the profile of compensation committees, says R. William Ide, chairman of the Governance Center at the Conference Board, a private research group.

“Board members now, even if they’re not on the compensation committee, want to know everything the compensation committee knows,” says Mr. Ide, a lawyer in Atlanta who serves on the compensation committee of the Albemarle Corporation, the chemicals maker. “We’re all revisiting our practices and saying, ‘It’s a new day, there are new practices, are we vulnerable, and is there anything we need to change?’ ”

In March 2008, the staff of the House oversight committee examined pay practices and circulated a memo to members criticizing Citigroup for giving Mr. Prince a cash bonus, millions in unvested stock and options, and other retirement perks like an assistant and a driver. The memo took Merrill Lynch’s board to task for allowing E. Stanley O’Neal to retire in 2007 instead of terminating him, a decision that kept Mr. O’Neal eligible for $131 million in stock and options he would have forfeited had he been fired. The memo also raised questions about standards that Countrywide used to set the pay of Angelo R. Mozilo, the former chief executive, alleging that the mortgage lender had switched pay consultants when the board’s approach to compensation was questioned.

The Countrywide board was disbanded when the company was bought by Bank of America, which declined to comment.

The committee plans to question A.I.G. directors in the next few months about the retention bonuses that caused a recent uproar.

While the financial crisis has again shaken investors’ faith in boards, Kenneth Daly, president of the National Association of Corporate Directors, doubts that Congress will be quick to become involved again in mandating specific duties for boards.

“Did Sarbanes-Oxley avoid the problems we’re in? Absolutely not, and I think the Hill recognizes that,” Mr. Daly says. “But I think you will see legislation that makes it easier for shareholders to remove directors who aren’t doing their jobs.”

Corporate governance activists continue to press for regulations that would make it easier for shareholders to put their own board nominees on proxy ballots. Opponents worry that giving shareholders greater proxy access would be too disruptive to boards, but supporters say the current system makes it too difficult, and too expensive, for shareholders to elect anyone who isn’t on a company’s slate of nominees.

Another development that could shake up director elections is a proposal by the New York Stock Exchange that would bar brokers from casting votes for shareholders who have not provided specific voting instructions. Because brokers typically vote with management, victories for the company’s slate of nominees would be less certain.

“All of this means that directors need to be on the top of their game, and that shareholders will be watching,” says Richard Ferlauto, director of corporate governance and pension investments at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

SHAREHOLDER pressure has led to policy changes in the past. In 2007 the board at Home Depot, smarting from sharp criticism over the pay it lavished on Robert L. Nardelli, its former chief executive, adopted several new procedures, including a rule requiring approval of C.E.O. pay packages by two-thirds of the board’s independent directors, instead of a simple majority.

Now, amid the financial crisis, governance activists are receiving a taste of the type of changes that can be ushered in during an era of intense public scrutiny.

In December, Morgan Stanley announced that it would start holding onto a portion of its employees’ bonuses for three years, and potentially withhold the money for good from workers who cause financial or reputational harm to the company. Directors and the chief executive of General Motors agreed to work for $1 this year after the automaker sought a taxpayer bailout.

But the concessions from G.M. weren’t enough to save the job of Rick Wagoner, the C.E.O., who resigned last Sunday at the request of Obama administration officials. G.M. now plans to draw up a slate of board nominees consisting of a majority of new directors, to present at the company’s next annual meeting.

The reshaping of boards also has been a priority at other recipients of taxpayer aid. The boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were almost entirely dismantled in September when the government took over the mortgage-finance companies. Both boards were reconstituted several months later with mostly new directors.

Citigroup, too, is changing its board amid sharp questions about issues like the company’s gargantuan balance sheet and the $126 million in cash and stock paid to Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, for eight years of service as a director of the bank and chairman of its executive committee. Mr. Rubin has drawn attention for the fact that he was lushly compensated even though the bank he helped steward wound up so deeply distressed that it needed a taxpayer bailout to survive.

Mr. Rubin, along with Win Bischoff, the former chairman, and Roberto Hernandez Ramirez, head of the bank’s Mexican operations, will not be standing for re-election. Another two directors are approaching the mandatory retirement age. In all, a third of Citigroup’s board will turn over this year.

Directors at Citigroup, A.I.G. and other companies that received bailout funds are in uncharted territory, says Dennis R. Beresford, an accounting professor at the University of Georgia and one of three Fannie Mae directors asked to rejoin the board after the government takeover.

“We don’t really have a lot of history to say how boards should operate in these kinds of circumstances,” Mr. Beresford says. “The directors are principally serving shareholders, but they would be foolish not to be thinking about the government’s interest, and if nothing else thinking about the public-relations aspects of what their companies are doing.”

THE public furor over pay and bailouts is helping to make board service a tough sell at a time when so many candidates, particularly sitting C.E.O.’s, already feel more pressure in their day jobs.

Executives and directors are becoming very cautious not only about how they use their time, but also about what liabilities — legal, reputational and otherwise — they’re willing to take on, says Ted Dysart, a managing partner at Heidrick & Struggles, the search firm, who helps run its global board of directors practice.

“I think you’re going to see continuing caution,” he says, “because if the anger over executive compensation continues to push its way out, it won’t be long before people start taking out ads with people’s faces on them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/business/05board.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Fire Your mean and incompetent boss

Winnipeg Employment Job Posting Boards

Manitoba Beach Lake Cottage Sales Rentals

www.jerkbossesihaveknown.com

• Becareful When Picking Mutual Fund Based on its Name I am being forced to change my online broker due to some ridiculous new regulations within my company and in...
• The Pros And Cons Of Contracting During my current job search, I've talked to a number of recruiters and they've all said the same thing:  contracting...
• Top Dividend Stocks For Safe, Steady Wealth Accumulation When looking for a safe place to invest money, top dividend stocks deserve to be part of the portfolio. The...
• Surf Skate Wake Board - What's Your Passion? For many people, there is nothing that they find to be more exhilarating or exciting then boarding of all types....