Caltrader (and I believe we have met each other not knowing each other's monikers on this board) didn't say those comments, I believe I did.
--Avoid that ---hire from protected classes response:
a) hire staff as the world economy does, on contract and only renew it if they "work out" and "fit in"
b) only hired qualifies staff, meaning that they invest in themselves and the company only cherry picks
c) use hiring agencies just like lawyers and state in no uncertain terms who/what they want in their candidates
Result
...similar to Caltrader, evidently he and I also share senior management experiences in consulting to Board Directors and being called in to fix problems at companies
...those companies playing fast and loose often develop more disgruntled staff than they can tolerate
...companies that invest in staff gain an intangible quality in their staff namely loyalty. That quality can't be quantified, pre-screened or paid for, but it sure protects companies when they need it most....
I can think of a single business that is not succesful that has good looking women can you?
I was going to correct for grammer but I have to get back to trading sorry.
I'm sorry too, that you didn't correct for grammer. Unfortunately it detracts from your otherwise significant reply, so I'm not going to take the time to try to understand what you were trying to say with this positive statement/question when you actually were trying to make it a negative/opposite statement/question.
Actually I can think of a number of businesses that rely on attractive people, primarily in sales, to represent their corporate products.
Ask yourself, when was the last time that you saw a handicapped Car Salesman?, an unattractive clothes model?, or a person that couldn't speak fluent english on a television commercial? -- just to name a few
