[quote]batman730 wrote:
you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
Voluntary exchange? GASP! It’s 2015, it isn’t cool to understand the superiority of capitalist economies.
What’s cool now is talking about “socialism” turning wants into “rights” and bitching about evil corporations… You’re not living until you complain about how you’re a slave, while dirnking your Starbucks, listening to Spotify on your iPhone and wearing retro Polo cloths in a totally ironic way.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
Voluntary exchange? GASP! It’s 2015, it isn’t cool to understand the superiority of capitalist economies.
What’s cool now is talking about “socialism” turning wants into “rights” and bitching about evil corporations… You’re not living until you complain about how you’re a slave, while dirnking your Starbucks, listening to Spotify on your iPhone and wearing retro Polo cloths in a totally ironic way.
Come on man. [/quote]
IKR?!
I’m so beta… No wonder I’m a wage slave being exploited by the 1%ers.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
My point is that enhancing quality of life, for both clients and employees, doesn’t automatically translate into higher profitability for your company. It could, but it isn’t a guarantee.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.[/quote]
Oh man this thread as escalated and has made for some good reading.
Just wanted to point out I think this statement is completely false. Look at GM for a recent example. “Just get by” is a pretty common-place and accepted attitude when you have more money than brains.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.[/quote]
No, but a successful company may very well establish brand recogniton through delivering quality products/services and then begin to compromise quality to the extent that their brand recognition will allow them to do so (e.g. people will still buy it because it’s an “X” and “X” has a good name. However “X” just doesn’t make 'em like they used to).
I can think of a number of very prominent tool manufacturers who have done exactly that. It usually begins with the introduction of a homeowner line to augment their commercial line. These tools are less expensive and less robust than the commercial grade stuff, but are adequate for the homeowner. Before long more and more of the under-engineered homeowner grade parts are finding their way into the professional grade prodcts, which are still being sold at a premium. The company has simultaneously expanded their market to include all the DIY’ers who won’t pay for the professional line, but know the name and has cut the cost of producing their professional line by including the cheaper parts. This pisses the commercial guys who need quality tools off a bit, but not s much that they stop buying them because they still need tools and we are creatures of habit.
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.[/quote]
No, but a successful company may very well establish brand recogniton through delivering quality products/services and then begin to compromise quality to the extent that their brand recognition will allow them to do so (e.g. people will still buy it because it’s an “X” and “X” has a good name. However “X” just doesn’t make 'em like they used to). [/quote]
That would be a faulty decision on their part and should be rectified if it eventually results in loss of profits.
[quote]I can think of a number of very prominent tool manufacturers who have done exactly that. It usually begins with the introduction of a homeowner line to augment their commercial line. These tools are less expensive and less robust than the commercial grade stuff, but are adequate for the homeowner. Before long more and more of the under-engineered homeowner grade parts are finding their way into the professional grade prodcts, which are still being sold at a premium. The company has simultaneously expanded their market to include all the DIY’ers who won’t pay for the professional line, but know the name and has cut the cost of producing their professional line by including the cheaper parts. This pisses the commercial guys who need quality tools off a bit, but not s much that they stop buying them because they still need tools and we are creatures of habit.
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.[/quote]
Well, if they can get away with it while still maintaining the same or higher profit margin, it works. They know their market.
You’ve described two situations where one business is able to cut corners and get away with it and the other isn’t. This is my point. A building developer may cut corners by hiring cheap foreign labour using cheap raw materials for construction but spare no expense on contracting the top architectural firms for design.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with what you wrote batman and Dt said basically what I was going to.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
A lot of GM’s issues where related to union labor…
GMs model wasn’t sustainable once Honda and Toyota entered the picture. To oversimplify, GM and the UAW failed to adapt to a changing industry and emerging competition.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.[/quote]
No, but a successful company may very well establish brand recogniton through delivering quality products/services and then begin to compromise quality to the extent that their brand recognition will allow them to do so (e.g. people will still buy it because it’s an “X” and “X” has a good name. However “X” just doesn’t make 'em like they used to). [/quote]
That would be a faulty decision on their part and should be rectified if it eventually results in loss of profits.
[quote]I can think of a number of very prominent tool manufacturers who have done exactly that. It usually begins with the introduction of a homeowner line to augment their commercial line. These tools are less expensive and less robust than the commercial grade stuff, but are adequate for the homeowner. Before long more and more of the under-engineered homeowner grade parts are finding their way into the professional grade prodcts, which are still being sold at a premium. The company has simultaneously expanded their market to include all the DIY’ers who won’t pay for the professional line, but know the name and has cut the cost of producing their professional line by including the cheaper parts. This pisses the commercial guys who need quality tools off a bit, but not s much that they stop buying them because they still need tools and we are creatures of habit.
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.[/quote]
Well, if they can get away with it while still maintaining the same or higher profit margin, it works. They know their market.
You’ve described two situations where one business is able to cut corners and get away with it and the other isn’t. This is my point. A building developer may cut corners by hiring cheap foreign labour using cheap raw materials for construction but spare no expense on contracting the top architectural firms for design. [/quote]
Oops, sorry, I misread your first paragraph. Let’s assume after establishing brand recognition, this company decides to cut corners and produce sub standard products, resulting in loss of profits.
Just wanted to point out I think this statement is completely false. Look at GM for a recent example. “Just get by” is a pretty common-place and accepted attitude when you have more money than brains.
[/quote]
You have absolutely no clue what you’re rambling on about…
Just wanted to point out I think this statement is completely false. Look at GM for a recent example. “Just get by” is a pretty common-place and accepted attitude when you have more money than brains.
[/quote]
You have absolutely no clue what you’re rambling on about…
Jesus Christ. [/quote]
Have you ever worked in a corporate setting? I’m betting you haven’t…
*I’m just kidding with you Aero, you seem nice enough.
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.
[/quote]
It’s always been like this. Just back in the day people voted with their dollars much better than they do today.
Now, it’s about saving a buck. You get cheap shit when you want to save a buck. (Wal-Mart). You get better stuff when you’re willing to pay the premium.
If people actually stopped buying their shit tools, they would start making better tools.
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.
[/quote]
It’s always been like this. Just back in the day people voted with their dollars much better than they do today.
Now, it’s about saving a buck. You get cheap shit when you want to save a buck. (Wal-Mart). You get better stuff when you’re willing to pay the premium.
If people actually stopped buying their shit tools, they would start making better tools. [/quote]
You’re right. But my point is that while the premium stuff is better it’s not truly professional grade anymore. If all the companies do this at approximately the same rate it actually becomes very difficult to vote with your dollars.
I can speak to this from personal experience. In the tree maintenance business our company has used Stihl power equipment virtually exclusively for nearly 25 years. Stihl was dominantly a commercial line with a few more residential offerings. Over time they realized the residential market was a huge untapped resource.
Now their commercial line is bastardized to varying degrees by the homeowner parts. A few of the standards are still solid but for the most part we simply cannot buy power equipment of the quality and durability to which I am accustomed. No other manufacturer has yet stepped up to fill that void. We cannot simply not buy their shit tools because they don’t really offer the non-shit line anymore. We can’t not buy tools at all in protest, obviously, so we’re in a spot where we must continue to buy what I consider to be sub standard gear and they continue to profit. In fact, they profit more than ever as they sell us their shit product, then they sell us replacement parts that we now need for a few months until finally we get so pissed off that we but a whole new shit tool because we need to get back to work. This is good for their business. For mine, not so much.
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
Don’t you think that falls on consumers though? [/quote]
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.
[/quote]
It’s always been like this. Just back in the day people voted with their dollars much better than they do today.
Now, it’s about saving a buck. You get cheap shit when you want to save a buck. (Wal-Mart). You get better stuff when you’re willing to pay the premium.
If people actually stopped buying their shit tools, they would start making better tools. [/quote]
You’re right. But my point is that while the premium stuff is better it’s not truly professional grade anymore. If all the companies do this at approximately the same rate it actually becomes very difficult to vote with your dollars. [/quote]
If a large enough consumer base wants professional grade tools than someone (maybe you) will offer it to them.
[quote]
I can speak to this from personal experience. In the tree maintenance business our company has used Stihl power equipment virtually exclusively for nearly 25 years. Stihl was dominantly a commercial line with a few more residential offerings. Over time they realized the residential market was a huge untapped resource.
Now their commercial line is bastardized to varying degrees by the homeowner parts. A few of the standards are still solid but for the most part we simply cannot buy power equipment of the quality and durability to which I am accustomed. No other manufacturer has yet stepped up to fill that void. We cannot simply not buy their shit tools because they don’t really offer the non-shit line anymore. We can’t not buy tools at all in protest, obviously, so we’re in a spot where we must continue to buy what I consider to be sub standard gear and they continue to profit. In fact, they profit more than ever as they sell us their shit product, then they sell us replacement parts that we now need for a few months until finally we get so pissed off that we but a whole new shit tool because we need to get back to work. This is good for their business. For mine, not so much. [/quote]
Has your company tried other professional grade vendors?
[quote]
My preference in my own business affairs is to do everything within my power to provide the highest quality product available and to do so at the best value I can reasonably afford in the marketplace and to treat everybody involved with decency and respect in hopes that the proposition is win/win. I consider this to be a matter of ethics. It pays dividends in terms of customer retention etc., but really it just lets me look myself in the mirror which has value for me but would have no value to my hypothetical shareholders if I were operating as a corporation. [/quote]
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Yes and no. See my response to Beans.
[/quote]
I hear you. There’s a void someone could potential step into and either A) force Stihl to produce products like they use to or B) eliminate them from the pro grade market all together.
That’s an interesting situation. I was thinking commercial the whole time.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I believe in at will employment (within reason). I don’t believe that anyone is owed a job or a living. As a result of my own career aspirations I would say that I am accustomed to needing to keep my nose cleaner than the majority of people both in my personal and professional lives.
This is not specifically in reference to the incident in question. This guy was not only an idiot but a liability. However, my question is how much influence do we really want employers to have over our off work hours and activities. Do something stupid/vulgar on national TV - get fired? Sure. Deliberately post compromising photos of yourself on social media - get fired? OK. Get tagged in someone else’ social media photo at a bachelor party where things are a little out of hand - get fired? Hmmm. Your boss discovers you have political affiliations he opposes - get fired? Some ex distributes compromising photos/video of you - get fired? Wellll… [/quote]
My perspective is, as long as the business in question is privately funded, employment should be at the owners discretion. It is their capital, it is their risk, and it is their choice.
Will there be times when most of us would agree an employee is let go for a minor transgression (tagged on Facebook) or point of view (Is a Democrat), yes. The alternative is worse, imo.
[quote]
My point is, do we really want it to get to the point where everybody lives their lives beginning in high school on egg shells for fear that they get caught doing something that will irrevocably besmirch their reputation in the eyes of some hypothetical future background investigator? [/quote]
I think this idea is a stretch at best. It is costly to investigate a person. Most companies, to my knowledge, do not perform a thorough background check unless the job requires it. HR departments simply don’t have the time or view it as a waste of time (and money) to scroll through Facebook posts of perspective employees. I know of smaller companies that might glance at a Facebook page, but we aren’t talking about an in-depth review of activities. Private lives stay private unless the employee make it public in my experience.
It may also seem counter intuitive, but companies don’t like to get rid of people especially talented ones. There are a number of tangible and intangible costs associated with letting a person go. Everything from a severance package (which I bet the moron in this case got) to on the job training and experience.
[quote]
Given that we live in an era where much of what we say, do and think is recorded permanently, “expectation of privacy” is an illusion, the public is addicted to being self righteously offended and business/management seems to value knee jerk CYA above virtually all else, is this the direction we, as a society want to go? [/quote]
I think this is a stretch also. This sort of thing rarely happens. Preakness happened this past weekend around here and I have yet to hear of a person being fired for acting like a fool. Take it from first hand experience, a lot of people acted like fools on Saturday.
[quote]
There was a certain amount of upset here when it was reported that police background checks requested by employers routinely included information that is protected under Privacy legislation. e.g. employers were not only told about convictions but about charges, involvement in investigations as subjects, witnesses and complainants, non criminal mental health calls and any other police contact or court involvement. That is all privileged information expressly and implicitly protected under the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People were and presumably are being denied employment and volunteer opportunities simply as a result of being named in a police file. Hey, if you’re an HR manager why take the risk? If you witnessed a crime/are involved in an active investigation it provides another easy exclusion criteria when you have more applicants than positions. [/quote]
This I was not aware of and would be interested in reading any info you have on it.
[quote]
I get it. I’m not a beautiful and unique snowflake and it’s a hard old world where the only thing the boss gives a rat’s ass about is the bottom line and we are all disposable tools who exist solely to be used and discarded in pursuit of that bottom line (a myopic business model in my view and that of many visionary business owners, but I digress). If you don’t acknowledge/accept that reality and act accordingly, it’s your ass. My question is, is that how we want it to be? Is that the culture we really want to proudly promote moving forward? [/quote]
I think people take care of each other more often than not. These situations are rare, imo.
[quote]
Commerce and enterprise are about profitability. They are also about providing gainful employment for employees, quality goods and services to customers and promoting innovation. [/quote]
I would argue they are not about providing gainful employment. Gainful employment is a necessary cost of business and valuable employees are an asset to reaching companies goals. Business’ are no more about providing employment than they are about providing any other expense.
[quote]
In short, enhancing quality of life. [/quote]
A good side effect, but nothing else, imo.
[quote]
The more people’s quality of life you can enhance, both clients and employees, the more money you will make. [/quote]
Possibly. [/quote]
I pretty much agree with many of your points. I acknowledge that much of what I said that you describe as a stretch is just that. Just thinking it through myself. I’m a little over sensitive as I have lived under a really high level if transparency over the past couple of years (LE volunteering, employment and applications). I have zero expectation of privacy in any area and assume that everything I say and do is going to end up on YouTube. I chose this, so I’m not bitching, but it does affect my perspective. [/quote]
Understood.
[quote]
Regarding business enhancing quality of life, I would submit that if you don’t make someone’s life better you probably shouldn’t get paid. If the market represents the sum of human desire, you can’t get paid without at least helping fulfil someone’s desire if not enhancing their quality of life.[/quote]
I was essentially commenting on this line:
Nope no guarantees, ever. It just seems to me that if we begin with the premise that employees are compensated in proportion to their ability to generate revenue for the company and that the company itself is compensated in proportion to it’s ability to fulfil its clients’ desires, it’s reasonable to imagine that the more people you have working for you making more money the more clients you will be able to serve and the more you revenue you will see. If things are structured well in your company you should be profitable, everyone should be happy and you can all sing Kumbaya together. I fully appreciate that this is an overly simplistic view.
Conversely, if you pursue profitability above all else, especially in the short term you may not do a better job of fulfilling your clients desires. You may find a way to cut costs through compromising quality or engaging in unethical business practices. If you are solely motivated by profit it is perfectly logical to do this. Hence we see major corporations electing to simply pay enormous fines for human rights and environmental violations and continue doing business as is because it is more cost effective than compliance. If the sole goal of the corporations is to maximize returns for the shareholders, one could argue that corporations are obliged to do business in this way.
I stand by the idea that commerce, like any other human construct, should exist to serve humans, not the other way around. I also realize that “should” has very little to do with anything.[/quote]
A successful company isn’t going to compromise quality where doing so is going to result in long term loss of profits. This is still part of the goal of profit maximisation.[/quote]
No, but a successful company may very well establish brand recogniton through delivering quality products/services and then begin to compromise quality to the extent that their brand recognition will allow them to do so (e.g. people will still buy it because it’s an “X” and “X” has a good name. However “X” just doesn’t make 'em like they used to). [/quote]
That would be a faulty decision on their part and should be rectified if it eventually results in loss of profits.
[quote]I can think of a number of very prominent tool manufacturers who have done exactly that. It usually begins with the introduction of a homeowner line to augment their commercial line. These tools are less expensive and less robust than the commercial grade stuff, but are adequate for the homeowner. Before long more and more of the under-engineered homeowner grade parts are finding their way into the professional grade prodcts, which are still being sold at a premium. The company has simultaneously expanded their market to include all the DIY’ers who won’t pay for the professional line, but know the name and has cut the cost of producing their professional line by including the cheaper parts. This pisses the commercial guys who need quality tools off a bit, but not s much that they stop buying them because they still need tools and we are creatures of habit.
Actually, I know of almost no mainstream tool makers who haven’t done this to some extent. Sadly, it often seems not to be about making the best product you’re able, but the worst product you can get away with.[/quote]
Well, if they can get away with it while still maintaining the same or higher profit margin, it works. They know their market.
You’ve described two situations where one business is able to cut corners and get away with it and the other isn’t. This is my point. A building developer may cut corners by hiring cheap foreign labour using cheap raw materials for construction but spare no expense on contracting the top architectural firms for design. [/quote]
Oops, sorry, I misread your first paragraph. Let’s assume after establishing brand recognition, this company decides to cut corners and produce sub standard products, resulting in loss of profits.[/quote]
In theory it should work this way. However the free market doesn’t always do exactly what it “should” (if the free market still even exists…)