No, an engineer. I was referring to design being an exercise in theoretical knowledge while maintaining / repairing is more of a practical skill. It has nothing to do with weather the item designed is practical. Given how many engineers have designed cars to make them as hard a possible to repair (Remove the air filter to replace a headlight bulb? The trunk trim to replace a tail light? reallY?) "practical" may not be in their toolbox.

More like cheap source of labor vs. more expensive one. Companies don't have to pay as much and get a ready supply to replace them as technologies change.

Not sure if that analogy works as it is more a practical vs. theoretical split. Perhaps more like quick change oil guy vs a mechanic. One can do one or two things cheaply and the other understand the underlying concepts and can actually troubleshoot and solve problems based on experience and training.

Yes, their premiums rise as claims increase, to a point. At that point, it is cheaper to layoff employees, let them collect unemployment, and then rehire them when demand picks back up since you've already maxed out your premiums. Seasonal employment is perfect for this, with employees getting a paid vacation through unemployment knowing they will be rehired when the season restarts. It's an economically rational approach to the problem of seasonal demand and low wage workers that works out well for both sides.

Correct. The problem is not that there is a coach shortage but that there is a shortage of cheap cocoa. High end producers who want to make good chocolate pay a premium and get what they need. Mars, which doesn't really produce chocolate but a brown substance to cover filings, can't.

Except that it is a state FOIA request; which may have the limits. The problem is most people are not sympathetic to strippers; and unlike gun owners who managed to get carry permit applications exempt, the lack a powerful lobby.

Not quite true. The seller has a lean on the vehicle but you are the owner. If the dealer was still the legal one that could open them up for liability in the event of an accident, etc.

Not necessarily. the US Federal government has jurisdiction over coastal waters and thus federal law would apply.

Cruel and unusual. It may be cruel but it is not unusual, so a strict constructionist would say it was OK.

Legality is irrelevent to on the job testing. A valid medical reason would mor ethan likely give the employee a pass but recreational use could still result in adverse actions.

No, more like I am always acutely aware of my differences and it can be uncomfortable. Until you have been their it is hard to understand but one day you may find yourself there even if your just "the old guy."

the real question is "how do we identify and support talent that may not be able to reach their potential without help?" It is easy to dismiss people but the reality is if someone cares and helps people can overcome the odds.

I think we are closer than our comments appear. To me, it's not that you are keeping recruiters away from them; it's simply that if someone is hired to fill a vacant slot for you their loyalty should be to you and not use their position to your detriment. I would expect a good recruiter to learn your staffing needs, what current skills you have on staff, etc. to find the best fit candidate. For that recruiter then to go after you staff seems to me to be a conflict of interest and it would be unethical for them to tell someone else in their firm to go after them as well. however, I would think it perfectly OK for a recruiter at the same firm to independently reach out to your talent and try to poach them.

It's the same as what I do in consulting. A client has every right to expect I won't use what I learn about their company to help a fellow consultant at one of their competitors and it would be unethical for me to offer a competitor information on them I have learned while working for the client. To me, it's a matter of putting the client's interests first.

As a manager myself I fully agree with your comments concerning a manager's role and would not want to be a roadblock to their understanding the job market or having other recruiters contact them.

I disagree. It depends on the agreement. I would want one where the recruiter for my open positions can't recruit or recommend my staff for open positions they have at other firms. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to expect the recruiter not to have a colloquia say "I hear your in at X. I need someone who can do Y and they are noted for that. Help me find someone..." You are either working for me or for someone else. Plain and simple. If the firm does work for competitors other recruiters certainly can poach my staff, just without the help from mine; and a non-compete that would lock out the entire firm (assuming it is reasonably large) would be unreasonable.

Stop trying to be reasonable, this is /. I agree that companies often make decision based on risks to the company; decisions that are independent of politics. For example, many of the local gun shops do not allow firearms to be carried by the customer, yet they certainly support gun rights. Many gun shows do not allow people to carry as well. Even the NRA does not allow visitors to carry firearms into their building, though they may have changed that policy recently. I think it is clear that business decisions concerning risk often outweigh politics.

and St Peter asks him "My car is making a funny noise..."

RIP Tom, you will be missed...

Yes, a true classic. Interestingly enough, he also has an MBA and PhD in management. he must have been one hell of a professor as well.