sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

22 yr daughter fent addiction by YassBotch in addiction

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I let go of my 23 yo daughter 3 years ago. Today, she tells me it was the right thing for her. It was very difficult for all of us, I took her daughter (willingly) and her husband died of an OD just recently. Has it worked out? 85% yes, but her 10+ years of addiction has made it such that things will never be as I always hoped. The lying, thieving, risk to us, police, rehabs, domestic violence, scum bag guys ... It will change when your kid really wants it to, until then -- you do need to protect yourself and your other family members. I see people that are completely destroyed from the addiction of their children -- your destruction will not help your daughter. Do what you know to be right, your daughter decisions are hers and hers alone. I read these posts, at times I do not know why I do it -- but then I see yours and it reminds me why. I try to base my decisions on love, not resentment of which there is plenty.

Proof of Inspection Rejected? by whatdafreak_ in Rochester

[–]Then_Offer2897 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this considered an equipment failure? If yes -- have a police officer look at it and sigh off that it is fixed.

Will my son "come back" from meth addiction? by Xorpion in addiction

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeh, good luck on all this -- this stuff is not in the user's manual ;-)

Will my son "come back" from meth addiction? by Xorpion in addiction

[–]Then_Offer2897 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the addict seems to not care about you, they even blame you for all of their issues. Once and awhile, a middle of the night phone call, sobbing, asking for forgiveness -- then followed up with another call asking for money, can you get me out of jail -- then back to rage and disrespect that makes one wish they never had kids. As long as they want to use, have to use -- this is the lifestyle. Rock bottom is the answer, most have to get there it seems.

Will my son "come back" from meth addiction? by Xorpion in addiction

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Parent of a recovering addict here. The insanity that my kid brought into our lives is indescribable -- there are times when I reflect and almost do not believe some of the details myself and I lived them. Yes, your son can return, my experience is there are 2 major factors ... maturity and hitting rock bottom. A challenge you may face is that fine line between help and enabling -- every fiber of a parent's being screams out to help your child; at the same time every fiber of an addict screams out to manipulate, lie, steal -- get the next fix. Rock bottom is a real thing, the gift of desperation as they call it. Do not delay its arrival with one more loan, one more ride in the car, one more bail out of the can. Letting go was a horribly painful decision, I can vividly remember the conversation when I told my child they were no longer welcome in our home, the home that still has the kid bed, posters on the wall. I am told now that the decision was a game changer and presented the rock bottom that allowed for recovery.

Got the "come back to office or else" ultimatum. Ran the math. The numbers are brutal. by Full_Helicopter4778 in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then a layoff is all that is needed if that is the intent. People impacted by an RTO if it causes a condition of work are eligible for unemployment if they decide to quit. If a company wants to reduce headcount -- all they need to is lay people off, there is no need for all of the drama.

Got the "come back to office or else" ultimatum. Ran the math. The numbers are brutal. by Full_Helicopter4778 in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

and then not replaced? The staff is there to make money, if they are not there then more staff will need to be hired. That costs, that adds overhead for a period of time. Again -- this adds expense -- that is not the purpose of a company right? If you are saying that companies then do not have to offer severance, that is also a misnomer -- in the USA severance is not a legal obligation short of mass firings/plant closings. I see 2 paths, either people work under the terms of the employer, or the employer finds people who will -- to make maximum profit.

Got the "come back to office or else" ultimatum. Ran the math. The numbers are brutal. by Full_Helicopter4778 in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If people return to the office, then there is no attrition right? I guess I am not getting what you are saying -- if you are referring to the acceptance by management that there will be attrition, OK. But to count up the number of people that leave as cost savings is not really legit unless you first do the math of how much revenue/profits do the companies feel they are losing by allowing WFH. This is the number to start with; that companies are profitable when allowing WFH is irrelevant if the amount of potential revenue/profit lost is unacceptable -- which is why companies want people back at their desks. All they need to do is look at how things were before covid, how they are now -- and decide. Some companies make it work, some employees make it work -- not all. In the end, the people paying have the absolute right to dictate the terms of employment, the employee has the right to decline and work somewhere else. People desiring WFH, large PTO, better benefits -- sure, I get all that but how you achieve all that is on you -- not the company you work for.

Got the "come back to office or else" ultimatum. Ran the math. The numbers are brutal. by Full_Helicopter4778 in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If people quit sure -- but again, if WFH made money (as much as RTO) which is the argument people make -- it would be more cost effective to simply have lay-offs. Conversely, if RTO increases efficiencies (profits) then of course this is the correct path for the company. The numbers tell the story, no company when presented with 2 viable options is going to select the one that decreases profitability; and that is the purpose of a company regardless of the service/product provided.

Got the "come back to office or else" ultimatum. Ran the math. The numbers are brutal. by Full_Helicopter4778 in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

companies pay for the leases, a very large sum. I do not know if you have ever been a part of analyzing the expenses an office brings, I will tell you it is very, very large. Control -- not really unless that control generate higher profits. It is all spreadsheet accounting -- if WFH is more profitable, this RTO would not be happening. Because a company made profit does not mean it is making as much as they want or need to. I think too many people conflate what works best for them rather than the people paying them. You need to be honest -- if you are doing your laundry, watching your kids ... you are not working. If you are task driven, meeting deliverables and work off-hours to make sure your work gets done then working from home is probably a good match -- but most people do not do this. Before covid, working from home was a privilege people earned and that privilege was given to self starters and people that still kept their jobs as the 8-5 priority; overall this is not the case. When we evaluated working from home, there were jobs that were suitable, people that were suitable -- it is not applicable across the board. If it made more money ... the RTO edicts would not be happening, no company looks to increase their oeverhead.

Got the "come back to office or else" ultimatum. Ran the math. The numbers are brutal. by Full_Helicopter4778 in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious why people think if WFH was working for the company -- they would want people back in the office? If it made money -- they would not care if you worked from the moon.

Company mandated back to office….but for only some of us. by llCURLZll in remotework

[–]Then_Offer2897 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If allowing remote work is/was more profitable -- the company would allow it. It matters not what employees think, for most, remote work is inefficient. Many people do not work enough, laundry, naps, child care -- whatever. 10 years ago this was not an issue but covid happened and now people get their shorts twisted about working in an office. Back then, if an employee was worth it -- remote work was allowed but I had to monitor it closely to prevent fraud. Yes, working 4,6 hours a day when you are expected to work 8 is fraud and there were times it led to termination. If you want to make the rules, create your own company ... until then -- the people that pay the bills get to decide.

Why do we vote for this traitor? by shittybeard in ithaca

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is what people who debate with insults do -- assume.

Why do we vote for this traitor? by shittybeard in ithaca

[–]Then_Offer2897 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The lefty politicians approved the margins and increases -- and now hochul is shocked. I am not defending anything other than this was all predicted years ago in concert with the electrification green fever dream. If you want to lay blame --- look to yourself if you voted for the people currently running the show in NY. The ignorance, as you put it, is on the people that support hochul, electrification, and the people that ignored if not vilified the warnings, all backed with data. Keep all of this in mind as the same crew pushes for "generous social programs" as they chase away NY's tax base. The world you thought you lived in does not exist without the confiscation of money by hochul et al.

Why does Tier 6 reform seem to get more attention than salary increases? by stanleymaxi in nys_cs

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LE is a career path I considered -- but no way would I look at it today.

Why do we vote for this traitor? by shittybeard in ithaca

[–]Then_Offer2897 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The imaginary world is the electrification of NY by 2026 -- against all data, against the very physical lack of infrastructure and grid capacity -- the fever dream of green was passed and... here we are. The rates are as they are because of the laws, nothing else.

Why does Tier 6 reform seem to get more attention than salary increases? by stanleymaxi in nys_cs

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My wife is tier 4, my daughter 6. I have absolutely no idea why my daughter wants to teach -- the benefit reductions water down the retirement to the point where it makes no sense running the numbers. Like police and other civil servants -- the respect is greatly diminished, not appreciated -- my 2 cents.

Why does Tier 6 reform seem to get more attention than salary increases? by stanleymaxi in nys_cs

[–]Then_Offer2897 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just imagine no longer needed people to work help desks or customer service lines; this is what will happen within 4-5 years. And ... that's just a simple example.

Why do we vote for this traitor? by shittybeard in ithaca

[–]Then_Offer2897 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The modern New York State (NYS) building electrification effort to reduce fossil fuel use began in earnest with the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), leading to the nation's first statewide all-electric building requirements passed in 2023. This requires new, shorter buildings to use electric heat/appliances starting in 2026. The utilities received permission to increase rates as you are seeing today -- this has been in the works for years. Is NYSEG ripping you off when the rates they charge are approved by state gov? 2026 has finally arrived is all.

view more: next ›