(03-11-2014 12:38 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Might be mind numbing, but if it saves your butt, it's priceless.

We're still waiting on the case to come up, or for that company to drop it and settle. We've got them by the balls so we're just biding our time. I've had two 15' tables around my desk for 3 years with boxes upon boxes of all this paperwork, and a thumb drive of the Excel spreadsheet. I'm ready to store this crap away for good and get these ugly tables out of my office.

We've been to court a few times in our history.. You win some you lose some. The best was against a roofing contractor. Contractor did a job for us and botched it bad. Cost us $600k to fix it. We paid and then went after the contractor about it. Supplied him with all the paperwork, reminded him of his contract, and asked that he pay half and we'd settle then and there. He asked for a few days to think. So we allowed it. Came back and told us to shove it. Our CEO asked that he reconsider it. Again told him to shove it.

Our CEO told him we'd see him in court.

At the end of the trial, he owed us the $600k, our lawyer fees, and any fees associated with travel for this case along with the time it took to put all the case together. Basically ran about $3 million.

Guy said he didn't have it, it'd put him out of business, offered to let us have his company. Our CEO said, I don't care. It wasn't about the money but for you to own up to your own mistake. We gave you an out and you forced our hand. You close your door, we'll take the hit and wake up in the morning and continue to live life.

(03-11-2014 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  We've been to court a few times in our history.. You win some you lose some. The best was against a roofing contractor. Contractor did a job for us and botched it bad. Cost us $600k to fix it. We paid and then went after the contractor about it. Supplied him with all the paperwork, reminded him of his contract, and asked that he pay half and we'd settle then and there. He asked for a few days to think. So we allowed it. Came back and told us to shove it. Our CEO asked that he reconsider it. Again told him to shove it.

Our CEO told him we'd see him in court.

At the end of the trial, he owed us the $600k, our lawyer fees, and any fees associated with travel for this case along with the time it took to put all the case together. Basically ran about $3 million.

Guy said he didn't have it, it'd put him out of business, offered to let us have his company. Our CEO said, I don't care. It wasn't about the money but for you to own up to your own mistake. We gave you an out and you forced our hand. You close your door, we'll take the hit and wake up in the morning and continue to live life.

That's what I'm talking about!

Add your "Sustainability Score" to contract negotiations.
Add your "Diversity Hire Percentages" to contract negotiations.
Add your SSIIT Security Plan to contract negotiations.
Add your Employee Turnover Rate to contract negotiations

Etc

Etc

Etc









Then have a quick chat about whether or not you can actually do the job.

(03-11-2014 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  We've been to court a few times in our history.. You win some you lose some. The best was against a roofing contractor. Contractor did a job for us and botched it bad. Cost us $600k to fix it. We paid and then went after the contractor about it. Supplied him with all the paperwork, reminded him of his contract, and asked that he pay half and we'd settle then and there. He asked for a few days to think. So we allowed it. Came back and told us to shove it. Our CEO asked that he reconsider it. Again told him to shove it.

Our CEO told him we'd see him in court.

At the end of the trial, he owed us the $600k, our lawyer fees, and any fees associated with travel for this case along with the time it took to put all the case together. Basically ran about $3 million.

Guy said he didn't have it, it'd put him out of business, offered to let us have his company. Our CEO said, I don't care. It wasn't about the money but for you to own up to your own mistake. We gave you an out and you forced our hand. You close your door, we'll take the hit and wake up in the morning and continue to live life.

Have to admire someone that is more interested in right and wrong instead of money. Of course always nice to be in a position to do so.

(03-11-2014 01:06 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 12:48 PM)gdunn Wrote:  We've been to court a few times in our history.. You win some you lose some. The best was against a roofing contractor. Contractor did a job for us and botched it bad. Cost us $600k to fix it. We paid and then went after the contractor about it. Supplied him with all the paperwork, reminded him of his contract, and asked that he pay half and we'd settle then and there. He asked for a few days to think. So we allowed it. Came back and told us to shove it. Our CEO asked that he reconsider it. Again told him to shove it.

Our CEO told him we'd see him in court.

At the end of the trial, he owed us the $600k, our lawyer fees, and any fees associated with travel for this case along with the time it took to put all the case together. Basically ran about $3 million.

Guy said he didn't have it, it'd put him out of business, offered to let us have his company. Our CEO said, I don't care. It wasn't about the money but for you to own up to your own mistake. We gave you an out and you forced our hand. You close your door, we'll take the hit and wake up in the morning and continue to live life.

Have to admire someone that is more interested in right and wrong instead of money. Of course always nice to be in a position to do so.

That was during one of our good years where we had over a billion dollars worth of work going on and had made a nice little profit.

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

(03-12-2014 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

They're publicly calling minorities and women disadvantaged. How could any "minority" or woman not have a problem with that?

(03-12-2014 01:56 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

They're publicly calling minorities and women disadvantaged. How could any "minority" or woman not have a problem with that?

Because it is a reality. If you cannot understand that minorities and women are at a disadvantage in the United States, then you have your head in the sand.

(03-12-2014 02:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:56 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

They're publicly calling minorities and women disadvantaged. How could any "minority" or woman not have a problem with that?

Because it is a reality. If you cannot understand that minorities and women are at a disadvantage in the United States, then you have your head in the sand.

Ok, so you're disadvantaged...

Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

(03-12-2014 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

Yep, but apparently the government has seen fit to change all of that...

(03-12-2014 02:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:56 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

They're publicly calling minorities and women disadvantaged. How could any "minority" or woman not have a problem with that?

Because it is a reality. If you cannot understand that minorities and women are at a disadvantage in the United States, then you have your head in the sand.

Okay. I will give this a go. There are many situations due to historical beliefs of others where women and minorities find it difficult to get an equal opportunity to compete when all other things being considered are equal. There is nothing inherent in being a minority or a woman that makes you "disadvantaged". Bad actors in some places and some situations have created a disadvantaged system due to their racism and sexism. When we first attempted to correct this through these laws, I think most people believed it was the right thing to do given this injustice. However, as time progresses, (just like the Civil Rights and Voting Acts) we need to reevaluate the situations where these laws are in place and determine if their need has passed. I believe in a great number of these places that need has passed and now these laws are creating discrimination in the opposite direction.

(03-12-2014 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

Really?

So you don't think women and minorities are disadvantaged in the work place?

How then do you explain the difference in pay for women or the lack of minoriites in high paying jobs?

(03-12-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:56 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

They're publicly calling minorities and women disadvantaged. How could any "minority" or woman not have a problem with that?

Because it is a reality. If you cannot understand that minorities and women are at a disadvantage in the United States, then you have your head in the sand.

Okay. I will give this a go. There are many situations due to historical beliefs of others where women and minorities find it difficult to get an equal opportunity to compete when all other things being considered are equal. There is nothing inherent in being a minority or a woman that makes you "disadvantaged". Bad actors in some places and some situations have created a disadvantaged system due to their racism and sexism. When we first attempted to correct this through these laws, I think most people believed it was the right thing to do given this injustice. However, as time progresses, (just like the Civil Rights and Voting Acts) we need to reevaluate the situations where these laws are in place and determine if their need has passed. I believe in a great number of these places that need has passed and now these laws are creating discrimination in the opposite direction.

Not only that, but if you're a minority, and you own your own business, you could easily win a bid if your company is the most qualified. There are no disadvantages when it comes to who will pay the highest commission and give the best service. It wouldn't matter if it was a company controlled by purple aliens, as long as they had the best to offer.

(03-12-2014 02:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

Really?

So you don't think women and minorities are disadvantaged in the work place?

How then do you explain the difference in pay for women or the lack of minoriites in high paying jobs?

Good point.

I can remember going to college and the minority (African American, Indian, Asian (not sure if they were Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc)) guys and the girls that were in our program that busted their butts all got better jobs than me. But the ones who refused to do the work or come to class and barely passed, barely got a job.

Doesn't matter who you are or your race or sex, it's all about determination and hard work.

(03-12-2014 02:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

Really?

So you don't think women and minorities are disadvantaged in the work place?

How then do you explain the difference in pay for women or the lack of minoriites in high paying jobs?

College degrees and working your way up is one way to explain it...

The call center at the comapny I work for actually starts Latinos out at $1 higher than a black or white employee in the same department. How do you explain that?

Edit: *company

(03-12-2014 02:32 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:56 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 01:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 10:29 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I write contracts and complete bids everyday in a competitive business. I've noticed that lately, everytime I sign up for a county commission or read through a new bid, they ask if my company is a "Disadvantaged Company." What this means, is are we run by a minority, or a woman. Then it states that they're likely to go with the "Disadvantaged" company in order to give them a chance.

I guess what I don't understand is why people fight for equality, but have no problem being referred to as "disadvantaged" as long as it helps them win a bid. I would think minorities and women would be offended at the idea of being considered a disadvantage.

I think you are mixing two concepts. There is "equality" where everyone is the same and "equal opportunit" where everone gets a chance to compete.

They aren't the same thing.

You and I may both get equal opportunity to become doctors. However, you may become much more successful than I. Therefore, we may have had equal opportunity yet end up not being equal.

There is nothing wrong with that.

They're publicly calling minorities and women disadvantaged. How could any "minority" or woman not have a problem with that?

Because it is a reality. If you cannot understand that minorities and women are at a disadvantage in the United States, then you have your head in the sand.

Okay. I will give this a go. There are many situations due to historical beliefs of others where women and minorities find it difficult to get an equal opportunity to compete when all other things being considered are equal. There is nothing inherent in being a minority or a woman that makes you "disadvantaged". Bad actors in some places and some situations have created a disadvantaged system due to their racism and sexism. When we first attempted to correct this through these laws, I think most people believed it was the right thing to do given this injustice. However, as time progresses, (just like the Civil Rights and Voting Acts) we need to reevaluate the situations where these laws are in place and determine if their need has passed. I believe in a great number of these places that need has passed and now these laws are creating discrimination in the opposite direction.

I agree with your post. However, until we see all races and genders on average making the same in identical fields, and workplaces that reflect the diversity of the nation, I think these laws still need to be in place.

(03-12-2014 02:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

Really?

So you don't think women and minorities are disadvantaged in the work place?

How then do you explain the difference in pay for women or the lack of minoriites in high paying jobs?

Why do you libs like talking about this "difference in pay for women" nonsense. When a woman and man with the same background both work the same job and come in at the same times, they make the same money. Discrepancies are almost always found by looking at the two different resumes. Men typically either have more (or more valued like science) education or greater work experience. Many times women choose to have families and their cvs are not the same.

The lack of minorities in high paying jobs is something that liberals need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask that question. Liberals control the top of most large companies and firms, yet, they do not hire qualified minority candidates. Some of the largest donors and supporters of Obama and liberal causes have been attorneys. Yet, if you go to any large city, you will see a lack of diversity among partners. So, that begs the question of liberals: Why the complaints about the general situation when you do nothing to correct it in situations you control?

(03-12-2014 02:39 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor people are disadvantaged, races and sexes are not by default.

Really?

So you don't think women and minorities are disadvantaged in the work place?

How then do you explain the difference in pay for women or the lack of minoriites in high paying jobs?

Good point.

I can remember going to college and the minority (African American, Indian, Asian (not sure if they were Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc)) guys and the girls that were in our program that busted their butts all got better jobs than me. But the ones who refused to do the work or come to class and barely passed, barely got a job.

Doesn't matter who you are or your race or sex, it's all about determination and hard work.

Forcing minorities to excel in life is racist and politically incorrect. The politically correct way to do it is to hand them the higher jobs. Fitbud doesn't understand this and feels that it's only this way because of their race.