Nova robovska šema u Hrvatskoj

Gnječ wrote:

Leviathan2 wrote:ma aben se radi grbav

čudo jedno kako većina hrvata uopće ne cijeni niti poštuje tuđi posao ali svoj posao i cijenu dižu u nebesa.

epikur37 wrote:Kad je u pitanju ekonomija, čini mi se da bih najprije dedi dao mjesto  ministra.

Lud jeste ali nije neoliberalni klon već malo šire gleda.

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:Kad je u pitanju ekonomija, čini mi se da bih najprije dedi dao mjesto  ministra.

Lud jeste ali nije neoliberalni klon već malo šire gleda.

totalno gay stav,

mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme, 
ti si u državnoj firmi,
ergo podržavaš punjenje svog takulina

intelektualna nula

Triny wrote:Hoćeš reći da bi te agencije trebalo zabraniti?

Triny wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Leviathan2 wrote:ma aben se radi grbav

čudo jedno kako većina hrvata uopće ne cijeni niti poštuje tuđi posao ali svoj posao i cijenu dižu u nebesa.

To nije čudo, to je normalno.

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:Kad je u pitanju ekonomija, čini mi se da bih najprije dedi dao mjesto  ministra.

Lud jeste ali nije neoliberalni klon već malo šire gleda.

totalno gay stav,

mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme, 
ti si u državnoj firmi,
ergo podržavaš punjenje svog takulina

intelektualna nula

Trebam tebi puniti takuin!?

Provalilo mi u brod i iščupalo tv, jebena ciganija.

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:Kad je u pitanju ekonomija, čini mi se da bih najprije dedi dao mjesto  ministra.

Lud jeste ali nije neoliberalni klon već malo šire gleda.

totalno gay stav,

mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme, 
ti si u državnoj firmi,
ergo podržavaš punjenje svog takulina

intelektualna nula

Trebam tebi puniti takuin!?

Provalilo mi u brod i iščupalo tv, jebena ciganija.

ne, to je legitimna pozicija, ali je samo tribo prikazati onakova kakova je, a ne se skrivati iza neoliberala i ostalih opasnosti po društvo.

nadan se da ti nisu uništili vroto, a za televiziju...po si mi u očima, ćo; brod, misečina, bonaca, ča će ti televizija, bosančero?!

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:Kad je u pitanju ekonomija, čini mi se da bih najprije dedi dao mjesto  ministra.

Lud jeste ali nije neoliberalni klon već malo šire gleda.

totalno gay stav,

mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme, 
ti si u državnoj firmi,
ergo podržavaš punjenje svog takulina

intelektualna nula

Trebam tebi puniti takuin!?

Provalilo mi u brod i iščupalo tv, jebena ciganija.

ne, to je legitimna pozicija, ali je samo tribo prikazati onakova kakova je, a ne se skrivati iza neoliberala i ostalih opasnosti po društvo.

nadan se da ti nisu uništili vroto, a za televiziju...po si mi u očima, ćo; brod, misečina, bonaca, ča će ti televizija, bosančero?!

Gnječ wrote:

Triny wrote:Hoćeš reći da bi te agencije trebalo zabraniti?

For most of the 20th century, private employment agencies were considered quasi illegal entities under international law. The International Labour Organization instead called for the establishment of public employment agencies. To prevent the abusive practices of private agencies, they were either to be fully abolished, or tightly regulated. In most countries they are legal but regulated.

Probably inspired by the dissenting judgements in a US Supreme Court case called Adams v. Tanner, the International Labour Organization's first ever Recommendation was targeted at fee charging agencies. The Unemployment Recommendation, 1919 (No.1), Art. 1 called for each member to,

"take measures to prohibit the establishment of employment agencies which charge fees or which carry on their business for profit. Where such agencies already exist, it is further recommended that they be permitted to operate only under government licenses, and that all practicable measures be taken to abolish such agencies as soon as possible."

The Unemployment Convention, 1919, Art. 2 instead required the alternative of,

"a system of free public employment agencies under the control of a central authority. Committees, which shall include representatives of employers and workers, shall be appointed to advise on matters concerning the carrying on of these agencies."

In 1933 the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (No.34) formally called for abolition. The exception was if the agencies were licensed and a fee scale was agreed in advance. In 1949 a new revised Convention (No.96) was produced. This kept the same scheme, but secured an ‘opt out’ (Art.2) for members that did not wish to sign up. Agencies were an increasingly entrenched part of the labor market. The United States did not sign up to the Conventions. The latest Convention, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No.181) takes a much softer stance and calls merely for regulation.

In most countries, agencies are regulated, for instance in the UK under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, or in Germany under the Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz (Employee Hiring Law of 1972).

Triny wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Triny wrote:Hoćeš reći da bi te agencije trebalo zabraniti?

For most of the 20th century, private employment agencies were considered quasi illegal entities under international law. The International Labour Organization instead called for the establishment of public employment agencies. To prevent the abusive practices of private agencies, they were either to be fully abolished, or tightly regulated. In most countries they are legal but regulated.

Probably inspired by the dissenting judgements in a US Supreme Court case called Adams v. Tanner, the International Labour Organization's first ever Recommendation was targeted at fee charging agencies. The Unemployment Recommendation, 1919 (No.1), Art. 1 called for each member to,

"take measures to prohibit the establishment of employment agencies which charge fees or which carry on their business for profit. Where such agencies already exist, it is further recommended that they be permitted to operate only under government licenses, and that all practicable measures be taken to abolish such agencies as soon as possible."

The Unemployment Convention, 1919, Art. 2 instead required the alternative of,

"a system of free public employment agencies under the control of a central authority. Committees, which shall include representatives of employers and workers, shall be appointed to advise on matters concerning the carrying on of these agencies."

In 1933 the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (No.34) formally called for abolition. The exception was if the agencies were licensed and a fee scale was agreed in advance. In 1949 a new revised Convention (No.96) was produced. This kept the same scheme, but secured an ‘opt out’ (Art.2) for members that did not wish to sign up. Agencies were an increasingly entrenched part of the labor market. The United States did not sign up to the Conventions. The latest Convention, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No.181) takes a much softer stance and calls merely for regulation.

In most countries, agencies are regulated, for instance in the UK under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, or in Germany under the Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz (Employee Hiring Law of 1972).

Agencije uzimaju proviziju?
A ovi na Zavodu za zpošljavanje rade džabe?
U stvari ne rade ništa, agencije su učinkovitije.

Triny wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Triny wrote:Hoćeš reći da bi te agencije trebalo zabraniti?

For most of the 20th century, private employment agencies were considered quasi illegal entities under international law. The International Labour Organization instead called for the establishment of public employment agencies. To prevent the abusive practices of private agencies, they were either to be fully abolished, or tightly regulated. In most countries they are legal but regulated.

Probably inspired by the dissenting judgements in a US Supreme Court case called Adams v. Tanner, the International Labour Organization's first ever Recommendation was targeted at fee charging agencies. The Unemployment Recommendation, 1919 (No.1), Art. 1 called for each member to,

"take measures to prohibit the establishment of employment agencies which charge fees or which carry on their business for profit. Where such agencies already exist, it is further recommended that they be permitted to operate only under government licenses, and that all practicable measures be taken to abolish such agencies as soon as possible."

The Unemployment Convention, 1919, Art. 2 instead required the alternative of,

"a system of free public employment agencies under the control of a central authority. Committees, which shall include representatives of employers and workers, shall be appointed to advise on matters concerning the carrying on of these agencies."

In 1933 the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (No.34) formally called for abolition. The exception was if the agencies were licensed and a fee scale was agreed in advance. In 1949 a new revised Convention (No.96) was produced. This kept the same scheme, but secured an ‘opt out’ (Art.2) for members that did not wish to sign up. Agencies were an increasingly entrenched part of the labor market. The United States did not sign up to the Conventions. The latest Convention, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No.181) takes a much softer stance and calls merely for regulation.

In most countries, agencies are regulated, for instance in the UK under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, or in Germany under the Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz (Employee Hiring Law of 1972).

Agencije uzimaju proviziju?
A ovi na Zavodu za zpošljavanje rade džabe?
U stvari ne rade ništa, agencije su učinkovitije.

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:Kad je u pitanju ekonomija, čini mi se da bih najprije dedi dao mjesto  ministra.

Lud jeste ali nije neoliberalni klon već malo šire gleda.

totalno gay stav,

mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme, 
ti si u državnoj firmi,
ergo podržavaš punjenje svog takulina

intelektualna nula

Trebam tebi puniti takuin!?

Provalilo mi u brod i iščupalo tv, jebena ciganija.

ne, to je legitimna pozicija, ali je samo tribo prikazati onakova kakova je, a ne se skrivati iza neoliberala i ostalih opasnosti po društvo.

nadan se da ti nisu uništili vroto, a za televiziju...po si mi u očima, ćo; brod, misečina, bonaca, ča će ti televizija, bosančero?!

Tv je zbog glupih turista i wi-fi.

Meni ne treba.

Razvalili bravu, iščupali telku i malo nereda. Sreća sam eletroniku odnio doma preko zime.

Triny wrote:Na sat, mjesec, godinu...koja je razlika?

Triny wrote:Na sat, mjesec, godinu...koja je razlika?

Gnječ wrote:

Triny wrote:Na sat, mjesec, godinu...koja je razlika?

prodaju ljude.

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:
totalno gay stav,

mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme, 
ti si u državnoj firmi,
ergo podržavaš punjenje svog takulina

intelektualna nula

Trebam tebi puniti takuin!?

Provalilo mi u brod i iščupalo tv, jebena ciganija.

ne, to je legitimna pozicija, ali je samo tribo prikazati onakova kakova je, a ne se skrivati iza neoliberala i ostalih opasnosti po društvo.

nadan se da ti nisu uništili vroto, a za televiziju...po si mi u očima, ćo; brod, misečina, bonaca, ča će ti televizija, bosančero?!

Tv je zbog glupih turista i wi-fi.

Meni ne treba.

Razvalili bravu, iščupali telku i malo nereda. Sreća sam eletroniku odnio doma preko zime.

a, 
moje isprike za impliciranje da ti triba televizija na moru.

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:


Trebam tebi puniti takuin!?

Provalilo mi u brod i iščupalo tv, jebena ciganija.

ne, to je legitimna pozicija, ali je samo tribo prikazati onakova kakova je, a ne se skrivati iza neoliberala i ostalih opasnosti po društvo.

nadan se da ti nisu uništili vroto, a za televiziju...po si mi u očima, ćo; brod, misečina, bonaca, ča će ti televizija, bosančero?!

Tv je zbog glupih turista i wi-fi.

Meni ne treba.

Razvalili bravu, iščupali telku i malo nereda. Sreća sam eletroniku odnio doma preko zime.

a, 
moje isprike za impliciranje da ti triba televizija na moru.

Na moru mi ne treba ništa i nitko.

Da mi je da uhvatim dan dva vremena za sebe....gore kod Škarde ili dolje u Kornate.


ali mrka kapa...teško.

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Triny wrote:Na sat, mjesec, godinu...koja je razlika?

prodaju ljude.

gizes cryst

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:

epikur37 wrote:

aben wrote:
ne, to je legitimna pozicija, ali je samo tribo prikazati onakova kakova je, a ne se skrivati iza neoliberala i ostalih opasnosti po društvo.

nadan se da ti nisu uništili vroto, a za televiziju...po si mi u očima, ćo; brod, misečina, bonaca, ča će ti televizija, bosančero?!

Tv je zbog glupih turista i wi-fi.

Meni ne treba.

Razvalili bravu, iščupali telku i malo nereda. Sreća sam eletroniku odnio doma preko zime.

a, 
moje isprike za impliciranje da ti triba televizija na moru.

Na moru mi ne treba ništa i nitko.

Da mi je da uhvatim dan dva vremena za sebe....gore kod Škarde ili dolje u Kornate.


ali mrka kapa...teško.

reci in da ti je ureso nokat pa hodi na bolovanje dvo tri miseca

aben wrote:
mislin,
dedalos se založe za državnu potrošnju krez državne firme,

• abortus
  
• senicid
  
• eutanaziju
  
• smrtnu kaznu
  
• eugeniku