I am at work!

by **madd74** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 19:04:29

I love working! get me a priest!

by **madd74** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 16:59:05

-lol- that is funny, for some reason, as I read that here at work. I actually had to raed it a second time to figure out what I was writing... I wonder if I was drunk??!??!

hEHEhehEhEhEhEhE

by **sewcute** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 17:33:16

you shouldn't be drinking at work.

that's not a good idea!

by **madd74** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 18:16:33

says you! hEhEhE!! Work my job you will want to drink all the time. I have some special ability that allows me to deal with what I do and not loose my mind.

by **sewcute** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 23:31:49

you may want to, but are there not negative consequences for drinking at work?

by **madd74** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:42:00

very, like having to pee and having to hold it while you listen to someone drone on about garbage

by **sewcute** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 16:06:25

then you need a cordless handset

by **madd74** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 19:53:33

yeah, not a good idea around here

by **sewcute** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 20:24:37

why for not?

by **cmplxty7** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:46:41

I do not like your work. I forgot to tell you, that you really need to look into that insurance thing more, unless you do not want me on your insurance (though it would save us money). A girl I work with, her husband used to work at Qwest when they had their first baby, and she was on his insurance before they got married. That just got me all pissed off at them again. Perhaps policies have changed, but they usually do not regress like that. I am thinking since the actual written policy on your HR site has no mention of same-sex vs hetero, someone in the HR dept just had their head in their ass.

Anyway - you should not drink at or before work...it might impair your being aware of how to repair and cause despair. :drunk:

by **madd74** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 14:43:44

sewcute wrote:why for not?

Because, the people around here can be bad enough, last thing you want to do is release them from their leash!

cmplxty7 wrote:I do not like your work. I forgot to tell you, that you really need to look into that insurance thing more, unless you do not want me on your insurance (though it would save us money). A girl I work with, her husband used to work at Qwest when they had their first baby, and she was on his insurance before they got married. That just got me all pissed off at them again. Perhaps policies have changed, but they usually do not regress like that. I am thinking since the actual written policy on your HR site has no mention of same-sex vs hetero, someone in the HR dept just had their head in their ass.

Anyway - you should not drink at or before work...it might impair your being aware of how to repair and cause despair.

Whatever, impair nothing I can do this job in my sleep... I just cannot get paid what I do in it.

Well, I was not going by what anyone told me. I was going by what I had read. There is a good chance if they were getting married, then they had documentation that I otherwise would not have. I can send them a note to see. Frankly, I think it is a good thing they do it the way I believe they do, for otherwise people would be adding everyone to their plans, which would just cost the deductibles and premiums to go up. That is society for you, ruining it for the honest ones.

by **cmplxty7** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 17:57:20

Well, no, they could not just up and add anyone and everyone to their plan - you have to have some kind of proof of financial inter-dependency to be considered domestic partners. So, you think the way they say it is now, where you can put anyone you want on there as long as they are the same sex is ok??? No, something is wrong with that. Besides, it seems to be working well for all other major companies that do it - places like Wells Fargo are far from going broke.

by **sewcute** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 21:39:21

Jen I would have to agree with you.

I think it is silly for gays to be able to be on each other's insurance but you can't be on Madd's! that's just MESSED up!

by **madd74** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 18:37:17

cmplxty7 wrote:Well, no, they could not just up and add anyone and everyone to their plan - you have to have some kind of proof of financial inter-dependency to be considered domestic partners. So, you think the way they say it is now, where you can put anyone you want on there as long as they are the same sex is ok??? No, something is wrong with that. Besides, it seems to be working well for all other major companies that do it - places like Wells Fargo are far from going broke.

Well, I do not nor have I ever worked ni HR, so how those places actually manage or verify is something well beyond me. To me, a couple should be a couple, married or not. In our case, we share a child, and as far as I am concerned, that should be good enough for any plan anywhere for anyone. That, however, is me. I believe in social health care.

MWF

I am at work!

I am at work!

Who is online