From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot: Bend over to the Republocrats.
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:16:43 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1apkdkINNml3@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:

+>In article <VNCRBD9C@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:

+>>Add to this list the fact that Perot is
+>>
+>>- a person with a history of crushing anyone who dares to oppose him. 
+>>There's a reason why the police force is afraid to give his daughter a
+>>speeding ticket!

+>I've never heard this one.  Do you have any sources to support this
+>claim.

	This is a reworked account of something that appeared in the
Dallas Observer.  The original story (as I remember) was that 
one of the "savior's" children got a ticket or something and
Perot called the officers over to the corporate offices and
gave them a verbal going over.




+>>- a person who favors the erosion of privacy rights.  (When asked if his
+>>stance on such issues was in violation of the constitution, he replied, "We
+>>can fix the dang constitution!"  Scary...)

+>I heard him say that the constitution could be changed but it was
+>because he wanted to stop the press from conducting exit polls during
+>elections.  Both are pretty scary but the President doesn't get to
+>change the constitution.  If he wanted it changed he would have some
+>influence but Congress and the states have to do it.  Remember also
+>that Bush wanted to change the constitution to outlaw flag-burning.
+>He was quite unsuccessful in this attempt.

	The problem is that he already has more than enough laws
in existance to reduce privacy without even going to congress.




+>>
+>>- a businessman who utterly crushes his labor force, including enforcing a
+>>rule that any employee who quits must pay his company $2,000.  (Only
+>>challeneged in two states, surprisingly enough.)
+>>

+>I had not heard this either.  I doubt that this would be enforcable.
+>What EDS told me when I interviewed with them was that I would get
+>extensive training when I started and if I quite before I had worked
+>there two years I would have to pay back the cost of the education.  I
+>don't remember the amount but it was well over $2,000.  This was in
+>1986 so things have probably changed.

	Its has been enforced on numerous occasions by the Dallas 
courts and as of a couple years ago, EDS had not lost a case in
Dallas in regard to this.  The amount of money is closer to
10,000 dollars and the "extensive" training is a bunch of cobol/jcl
classes mixed with some rah-rah corporate nonsense.  Its very 
possible to get equivelent or better training elsewhere for far
less than 10,000 dollars.

	And its not just if you quit.  If you leave for any
reason during those two years, you have to pay the money back.  
That means that your manager, if they are so obliged can 
treat you as badly as they want, force you to work unbelievable
hours.

	Discussing pay with co-workers is grounds for termination.
Wearing a beard was grounds for termination.  Off-work behavior
that does not measure up to perot-morality is grounds for being
spied on and being terminated.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48890 alt.rush-limbaugh:6309 alt.politics.bush:7368 alt.politics.clinton:8017 alt.politics.elections:14813 talk.abortion:39749