Worker's Rights

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is a balance. Workers must be productive and employees must reward them accordingly. Failing to be productive to the companies you will be out of a job. An employer who fails to reward their successful employees will be looking for new employees and they are at the disadvantage here. To the extent one is in a high demand job one is much better off. Unskilled labor is cheap, abundant, and very easily replaceable. Find a niche!

Employment is not a right and neither is a paycheck. We must create our own demand sometimes.[/quote]

Balance is the key. Both the employees and the employers must be protected. An employee in good standing should not be able to be cast away like garbage because the management team made a bad decision and lost money, but it happens all the time.
My father worked for a top 5 global company. In his little division they lost money. The management made the decision that non-profitable employees were to be laid off. The problem is that they ended up laying off the proposal team and the accountants. You can only imagine what ensued. Business stopped and they lost money at a record pace. Yet, the management team was never held accountable for their idiotic decisions. Needless to say they had to rehire all those people.

[quote]orion wrote:
JEATON wrote:

If you choose to be the employer, you take much more of the risk, responsibility, worries and strain.

Much much much more.

And you get paid after your suppliers, employees, social security, taxes and bank gets paid.

And they want their money even if your customers have problems paying, or go broke, or are just not in the mood.

Should you be somewhat successful though they will tax you to the gills if you actually want to spend your money, accuse you of exploiting people out of sheer economic ignorance and think that the only reason why you made it and they did not is because only bastards make it in capitalism and they only thing holding them back is the purity pf their souls.
[/quote]

This is true.

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
So I have been thinking lately, looking at unemployment and the expansion of unemployment benefits, about the rights of employees; or lack there of.
Now, I am all for business and I am all for businesses being profitable, but there seems to be a distinct advantage to the company in terms of who holds all the cards.

I am in a good position and have no reason to complain myself, but I have heard story after story of companies taking advantage of employees, freezing raises and so on, just taking advantage of the current climate. For instance, my company made 6 billion more this year than it did last year, but all raises were frozen. Why? Am I mad, maybe a little, but I am not going to pitch a hissy and walk out. So problem number one, we have companies taking advantage of the economic crisis by screwing their employees…There are many examples, I listed one.

The other problem is that companies can unload you for any reason except race. I find this one particularly disturbing. We have no rights in the matter, the company holds all the cards. This is an issue that is not getting much attention, but I think it’s high time employees have some protection by the law. I do not think it’s right for companies to be able to sift you like wheat and cast you in to the fire when they are done.

I know this sounds mega liberal, but I don’t really see it that way. I just don’t think you should be able to shit on people at will, but that is literally the power companies hold over us.

Other than unionize (I fucking hate unions) what are yalls thoughts on how to solve this issue. Soft of balance the scale a little bit.

This isn’t an issue being looked at right now, but eventually, something will have to be done.

Would you like a law that forces you to stay with a company indefinitely?

Uh, no, but I would like something that protects people from being shit canned for no reason though.

You can walk away any time but they cannot lay you off?

It’s called balance. But lay-offs happen way more frequently than people just walking out of a job. But you are right in that the company would have to be protect from walk-aways.

Also, as you may have noticed, the US has a shit load of taxes, lots of regulations and the Indians and the Chinese want their piece of the pie.

They have a big enough piece.

The fact that European and American wages are not sinking any faster is a small wonder.

Compensation is not the reason companies are in financial trouble. You have to take care of you assests. If you buy a car and just expect it to work without taking care of it, it will work for a while, but not long. Just like cars employees need to be taken care of.

I wonder where Ryan is to tell us that those evil foreign capitalists are actually exploiting you, making money by flooding your markets with cheap products.

It is colonialism in reverse and no socialists anywhere to criticize it.

Anyhow, how much money your company makes is irrelevant in absolute terms.

Bullshit. I make the company money, and because I am dedicated I make it more than I would if I just came, did my thing and left. Upper management does not produce shit. If the employees left, the company would close.

Is the ROI comparable to other companies with a similar risk profile or not?

For if it is not, why would anyone invest in your company and that would not only kill your company but also all your jobs.

Oh, we’re better than most. I am speaking in more general terms…I am actually in a good spot.[/quote]

So you think the Chinese and the Indians have made enough money?

But they still do not have two cars and a McMansion and air condition and Flatscreens and I bet hey see no reason why YOU should have them instead of THEM.

Then, absolute profits are irrelevant. If I am a shareholder I do not care what your company makes, I care what I make compared to what could make investing in another company. You can make gazillions and still pay shitty dividends.

Finally, well if you are also against workers just leaving their jobs, why not just chain them to their benches?

[quote]JEATON wrote:
A friend of mine, a black man, once told me a story about an interaction that changed his life and way of thinking. He was out of work, frustrated, blaming the world for his condition, all the usual “it’s not fair” nonsense that we feed ourselves from time to time.

During this time he had a chance meeting with an oriental immigrant, Vietnamese if I remember correctly. During their conversation the Vietnamese man shared the following observation. “I have noticed a strange thing with your people. You always seem to be looking for a job. When my people come to this country, we have a completely different mindset. We are never looking for a job. We are looking for a business. We may take a job for the short term. But we are always looking to turn it into a business.”

The Vietnamese man was not trying to insult. He wasn’t a racist. He was simply sharing an observation that he found very peculiar.
Now, I will submit that he could have just as easily found this same tendency in whites, Hispanics, or any other race. Maybe he simply saw black people as another minority like himself, I don’t know. Whatever the reason, it stuck with my friend. He began thinking differently. He did not have much formal education. He had always worked construction, but for someone else. He decided to change this. He started small and eventually built a very successful and large construction company.

Nice story, but what does it have to do with this post? Simply that you can chose to be the employee or the employer. If you chose to be the employee, you are choosing to exchange a certain amount of your time for a certain amount of money. Other than that, there is very little else owed to you. You can clock out in the afternoon and forget about it. If the company goes down, you polish up the resume and go look somewhere else. If you get mad, frustrated or bored, you can walk away at any time.

If you choose to be the employer, you take much more of the risk, responsibility, worries and strain. However, if you do it right, you get the majority of the benefit.
You can’t expect to have your cake and eat it too. You can’t expect to have the positive benefits if being an employee and still expect to have the benefits of ownership as well (or vice versa). What you do get to chose is which one to be. [/quote]

True, but everybody can’t be employers and everybody can’t be employees.

[quote]pat wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Be carefull there Pat you are going to get a reputation as one of those libs:),I agree with you though, I hate unions also, but they may be a nessasary evil

I disagree. Unions suck the blood out of companies and add another layer of bureaucracy. In the end the worker’s plight stays the same you just now have union suits getting rich off of supposedly protecting the workers. If companies are not profitable, they’ll cease existing.[/quote]

Agreed on unions. They outlived their usefulness in modern times.

Just want to play devil’s advocate here: A company’s greatest asset is its employees. When employees leave for no reason, that hurts the company as well. My company is strong right now for several reasons, mostly because we’re “cash conscious”, but even when a project manager or key employee on a project leaves mid-project, we very likely lose money on that project.

Private sector employment involves risk. With risk comes reward.

I worked in state gov’t for a few years and during that time, the Union stepped in and said “Since we negotiate salaries, everyone will pay ‘Fair Share’”, and I was forced to pay union dues even though I wasn’t a memeber and wasn’t allowed to negotiate my own salary (gov’t scale). I came in to my position ‘topped out’, so I didn’t get a raise for several years, even though I was doing the work of 2 people which, by requirements, were several pay grades above me. The State has been in perpetual hiring freeze because of poor money management, so technically I couldn’t move to a higher position because they’d have to ‘create the job’ (government bureaucracy in action).

I left, went back into private sector, and ended up doubling my salary, with better benefits, contracting back to the state doing the same work for way more money. I certainly can be terminated anytime by contract, but I’ll take that risk any day.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
…A company’s greatest asset is its employees…
[/quote]

Um, no. A company’s greatest asset is its processes.

The larger a company is the more likely that its employees are completely average.

What sets two companies apart (GM and Toyota, for example) are the processes each company has in place.

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
What I find pretty funny is we expect a raise every year, no matter what we did in the previous year, but get mad when a company is looking at for their best interest. Did you do anything above and beyond this year to deserve a raise or a bonus? IMO, if I owned a business, I wouldn’t give raises to employees that just show up and do their job. If they went above and beyond then I would absolutely reward them, but in today’s world people expect to get more than they deserve for less.

Honestly just look back a few decades and you will see workers today have many more rights then in the past. Companies are required to pay time and a half, for example, if an employee works over 40 hours. Another example is minimum wage up to $7 something this year. Hell look at unemployment, there is a possibility this rights will be extended again because of the recession.

Remember a company is taking all the risk, especially if it isn’t a corporation, and has to continue to invest in the company to stay competitive. We just have to collect our check and look for another job if the company goes belly up. A partnership could go into millions of dollars of debt if they run their business poorly while we have no liability what so ever.

There is a labor market, it is a commodity. If labor does not force the employers to recognize their value, they will never make more money. Most people that labor do not even stay current with inflation

Really?

What forces evil capitalists to recognize the value of other means of production?

Why dont they get everything for free?

Organized labor

Nonsense.

Why dont they get the other stuff they need for free?

Steel, computers, rooms, telephones, electricity?

[/quote]

supply and demand, steel computers and labor have a market value

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is a balance. Workers must be productive and employees must reward them accordingly. Failing to be productive to the companies you will be out of a job. An employer who fails to reward their successful employees will be looking for new employees and they are at the disadvantage here. To the extent one is in a high demand job one is much better off. Unskilled labor is cheap, abundant, and very easily replaceable. Find a niche!

Employment is not a right and neither is a paycheck. We must create our own demand sometimes.

If businesses were not organized, I would agree with you but if you have convenient stores on 3 out of 4 corners, they will all pay the same and not deviate unless done quietly. They will only raise their pay when they have to so they do not lose their employees to. Organized labor is the only way to compete in an organized employer world

Those businesses will not pay more for more work they will pay more only if forced to. It is the nature of business
[/quote]

No, organized labor disadvantages people who do not want to align with it.

You make my point about being an unskilled laborer. Someone has to do that work and there are many who will. Business owners do not care what you think you are worth if someone is willing to work for less.

And like I also said, no one owes you a paycheck.

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Unaware wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
What I find pretty funny is we expect a raise every year, no matter what we did in the previous year, but get mad when a company is looking at for their best interest. Did you do anything above and beyond this year to deserve a raise or a bonus? IMO, if I owned a business, I wouldn’t give raises to employees that just show up and do their job. If they went above and beyond then I would absolutely reward them, but in today’s world people expect to get more than they deserve for less.

Honestly just look back a few decades and you will see workers today have many more rights then in the past. Companies are required to pay time and a half, for example, if an employee works over 40 hours. Another example is minimum wage up to $7 something this year. Hell look at unemployment, there is a possibility this rights will be extended again because of the recession.

Remember a company is taking all the risk, especially if it isn’t a corporation, and has to continue to invest in the company to stay competitive. We just have to collect our check and look for another job if the company goes belly up. A partnership could go into millions of dollars of debt if they run their business poorly while we have no liability what so ever.

There is a labor market, it is a commodity. If labor does not force the employers to recognize their value, they will never make more money. Most people that labor do not even stay current with inflation

So why do most places pay over minimum wage after you’ve worked there a while? I didn’t have to “force” my employer to pay me more than minimum wage.

Supply and Demand

Ahhhhh!

So it seems that capitalists are competing when it comes to qualified workers?

[/quote]

Yes to a degree, I would say the more education your job requires the more value you have. When I say education I use the term loosely.

It is your labor positions where you have a lot more workers than you have positions. That needs organized labor

[quote]pat wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Be carefull there Pat you are going to get a reputation as one of those libs:),I agree with you though, I hate unions also, but they may be a nessasary evil

I disagree. Unions suck the blood out of companies and add another layer of bureaucracy. In the end the worker’s plight stays the same you just now have union suits getting rich off of supposedly protecting the workers. If companies are not profitable, they’ll cease existing.[/quote]

No pat we do not disagree, i think the unions if run well , suck the life out of the company

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is a balance. Workers must be productive and employees must reward them accordingly. Failing to be productive to the companies you will be out of a job. An employer who fails to reward their successful employees will be looking for new employees and they are at the disadvantage here. To the extent one is in a high demand job one is much better off. Unskilled labor is cheap, abundant, and very easily replaceable. Find a niche!

Employment is not a right and neither is a paycheck. We must create our own demand sometimes.

If businesses were not organized, I would agree with you but if you have convenient stores on 3 out of 4 corners, they will all pay the same and not deviate unless done quietly. They will only raise their pay when they have to so they do not lose their employees to. Organized labor is the only way to compete in an organized employer world

Those businesses will not pay more for more work they will pay more only if forced to. It is the nature of business

No, the nature of bushiness is that these 4 stores compete with every other business in the area for their workforce and if those other businesses pay more they can collude all they want to, wont make a lick of difference.[/quote]

It will make a difference because it is intheir best interest

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
pat wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Be carefull there Pat you are going to get a reputation as one of those libs:),I agree with you though, I hate unions also, but they may be a nessasary evil

I disagree. Unions suck the blood out of companies and add another layer of bureaucracy. In the end the worker’s plight stays the same you just now have union suits getting rich off of supposedly protecting the workers. If companies are not profitable, they’ll cease existing.

Agreed on unions. They outlived their usefulness in modern times.

Just want to play devil’s advocate here: A company’s greatest asset is its employees. When employees leave for no reason, that hurts the company as well. My company is strong right now for several reasons, mostly because we’re “cash conscious”, but even when a project manager or key employee on a project leaves mid-project, we very likely lose money on that project.

Private sector employment involves risk. With risk comes reward.

I worked in state gov’t for a few years and during that time, the Union stepped in and said “Since we negotiate salaries, everyone will pay ‘Fair Share’”, and I was forced to pay union dues even though I wasn’t a memeber and wasn’t allowed to negotiate my own salary (gov’t scale). I came in to my position ‘topped out’, so I didn’t get a raise for several years, even though I was doing the work of 2 people which, by requirements, were several pay grades above me. The State has been in perpetual hiring freeze because of poor money management, so technically I couldn’t move to a higher position because they’d have to ‘create the job’ (government bureaucracy in action).

I left, went back into private sector, and ended up doubling my salary, with better benefits, contracting back to the state doing the same work for way more money. I certainly can be terminated anytime by contract, but I’ll take that risk any day.

[/quote]

yes skilled labor has a better point to position from, I have been self employed since 1985 the majority of the yimenot evn working with a contract

[quote]pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is a balance. Workers must be productive and employees must reward them accordingly. Failing to be productive to the companies you will be out of a job. An employer who fails to reward their successful employees will be looking for new employees and they are at the disadvantage here. To the extent one is in a high demand job one is much better off. Unskilled labor is cheap, abundant, and very easily replaceable. Find a niche!

Employment is not a right and neither is a paycheck. We must create our own demand sometimes.

Balance is the key. Both the employees and the employers must be protected. An employee in good standing should not be able to be cast away like garbage because the management team made a bad decision and lost money, but it happens all the time.
My father worked for a top 5 global company. In his little division they lost money. The management made the decision that non-profitable employees were to be laid off. The problem is that they ended up laying off the proposal team and the accountants. You can only imagine what ensued. Business stopped and they lost money at a record pace. Yet, the management team was never held accountable for their idiotic decisions. Needless to say they had to rehire all those people.[/quote]

Now you are sounding like a moderate liberal :slight_smile:

[quote]cremaster wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
…A company’s greatest asset is its employees…

Um, no. A company’s greatest asset is its processes.

The larger a company is the more likely that its employees are completely average.

What sets two companies apart (GM and Toyota, for example) are the processes each company has in place.[/quote]

Disagree. First, not all companies are huge corporations on the scale that you’re talking. Doctor’s offices are companies. If people don’t like or trust the doctors (ie the people), the practice (ie the company) will ultimately fail. Ditto homebuilders, electricians, car salesmen, insurance reps, and restaurants. Nothing to do with ‘process’.

Second, people have industry expertise to know what ‘processes’ need to be created/changed. People design those processes. People develop those processes. People manage those processes. People make the necessary relationships to sell/implement those processes.

“Processes” don’t sell ideas, manage projects, and refine said processes-- people do. “Processes” don’t mean shit if people can’t manage the processes to make widgets/technology/whatever.

“Processes” don’t provide support and maintenance and reassurance that the product works as advertised or makes the customer’s life easier. People do.

I implement large (several) million dollar emergency outage software to small governments and utilities. They don’t give a rat-fuck what ‘process’ was used to develop the software, they want to know the software works when it needs to and want to know my name so they can call when they have a problem. I hear on every project where my company steps in to clean up someone else’s mess how they HATED dealing with so-and-so from Company-XX. They called us because of references from YY and how much they loved working with so-and-so.

A good company cherishes that kind asset in an employee and make sure they keep them. To that end, process means little.

A company that hires creative skilled workers and stifles them with “shut up and follow the process” won’t keep those people very long.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is a balance. Workers must be productive and employees must reward them accordingly. Failing to be productive to the companies you will be out of a job. An employer who fails to reward their successful employees will be looking for new employees and they are at the disadvantage here. To the extent one is in a high demand job one is much better off. Unskilled labor is cheap, abundant, and very easily replaceable. Find a niche!

Employment is not a right and neither is a paycheck. We must create our own demand sometimes.

If businesses were not organized, I would agree with you but if you have convenient stores on 3 out of 4 corners, they will all pay the same and not deviate unless done quietly. They will only raise their pay when they have to so they do not lose their employees to. Organized labor is the only way to compete in an organized employer world

Those businesses will not pay more for more work they will pay more only if forced to. It is the nature of business

No, organized labor disadvantages people who do not want to align with it.

You make my point about being an unskilled laborer. Someone has to do that work and there are many who will. Business owners do not care what you think you are worth if someone is willing to work for less.

And like I also said, no one owes you a paycheck.[/quote]

it benefits the masses, look at the steel and auto industries in 60s and 70’s. as Reagan said it was a trickle down effect

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
it benefits the masses[/quote]

How?

[quote]pat wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
What I find pretty funny is we expect a raise every year, no matter what we did in the previous year, but get mad when a company is looking at for their best interest. Did you do anything above and beyond this year to deserve a raise or a bonus?

Yes, I absolutely did and it is noted in black and white. Second, it is the workers, not the upper management who make the company money.

IMO, if I owned a business, I wouldn’t give raises to employees that just show up and do their job. If they went above and beyond then I would absolutely reward them, but in today’s world people expect to get more than they deserve for less.

In today’s world companies work fewer employees harder with no extra compensation. If you have a group of 10 whittled down to 5 but the workload stays the same, the 5 have double the work and the same pay. What often happens is that the 5 have no way of doing the work of 10 so productivity goes down. It’s like trying to building muscle eat 1500 kcal/day. It just doens’t work.

Honestly just look back a few decades and you will see workers today have many more rights then in the past. Companies are required to pay time and a half, for example, if an employee works over 40 hours. Another example is minimum wage up to $7 something this year. Hell look at unemployment, there is a possibility this rights will be extended again because of the recession.

Remember a company is taking all the risk, especially if it isn’t a corporation, and has to continue to invest in the company to stay competitive. We just have to collect our check and look for another job if the company goes belly up. A partnership could go into millions of dollars of debt if they run their business poorly while we have no liability what so ever.

You must be young and not been in the work force long. We salaried employees often work more than 40 hours for free. Employees have no rights except to leave. Which would be an option if there were jobs.
The minimum wage stuff is a farce, all that does is cause inflation. A higher bottom is still the bottom.
[/quote]

As I said if you deserve a raise or bonus you should get one. Perhaps you do, but for many people that is not the case.

If you are in a situation where 10 employees are doing the work of 5 and not being adequately compensated then you should press for the compensation you deserve. If you are an asset the company can’t do without they will do their best to keep you happy. If your expendable you should be happy you’ve still got a job. No company wants productivity to go down.

Salaried employees is a different animal entirely. I never said I agree minimum wage should be so high, I believe the higher minimum wage the less jobs there will be, but it is definitely one of the many workers rights. I’m sure those making minimum wage would rather make $7 bucks than $2.50.

[quote]cremaster wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
…A company’s greatest asset is its employees…

Um, no. A company’s greatest asset is its processes.

The larger a company is the more likely that its employees are completely average.

What sets two companies apart (GM and Toyota, for example) are the processes each company has in place.[/quote]

But those processes were originally defined by a person or group of people, and it also rely’s on others abilities to carry out those processes correctly.

I work for a larger business one of the top 3 pharma, in the vaccine subdivision, which is one for the top 2 largest for vaccines.

It is funny here middle management is the most expendable, but also the most dictative of the success. Techs are like monkeys not to be mean, but the best thing they can do is exactly what they are told, upper management plays the politics. The middle managers solve problems as they arise and prepare submissions, handle questions from the regulators.

So it is funny when there are lay offs they are the first to and it usually causes some deep systems problems, Wyeths vaccine division is a good example.

But honestly as a business it is their right to do as they please. That is why you sign a no fault employee agreement when you start. I feel the government has done too much interfering with the way businesses higher and firer. Making it harder for the business to reward the ones that truly excel because everything has to be equal. If they coould say you suck leave and not worry about law suites, you could probably get your raise.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
it benefits the masses

How?[/quote]

I think this is the benefit being referred to.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is a balance. Workers must be productive and employees must reward them accordingly. Failing to be productive to the companies you will be out of a job. An employer who fails to reward their successful employees will be looking for new employees and they are at the disadvantage here. To the extent one is in a high demand job one is much better off. Unskilled labor is cheap, abundant, and very easily replaceable. Find a niche!

Employment is not a right and neither is a paycheck. We must create our own demand sometimes.

Balance is the key. Both the employees and the employers must be protected. An employee in good standing should not be able to be cast away like garbage because the management team made a bad decision and lost money, but it happens all the time.
My father worked for a top 5 global company. In his little division they lost money. The management made the decision that non-profitable employees were to be laid off. The problem is that they ended up laying off the proposal team and the accountants. You can only imagine what ensued. Business stopped and they lost money at a record pace. Yet, the management team was never held accountable for their idiotic decisions. Needless to say they had to rehire all those people.

Now you are sounding like a moderate liberal :)[/quote]

Perhaps, but so be it. My thinking in solution is that all employer/employee relationships should be bound by contract. When either side enters the contract both have to hold up their end of the bargain. At least that way their are no surprises. The problem is, mandating contractual relationships. I don’t know if it can be done, or should be.

I am in the beginning stages of fleshing out a solution, that may be multifaceted. What I am sick of is good people getting treated like shit for no reason. More often than not the reason a company loses money is either poor management or market forces. Managers should take the fall for their own mistakes, not pass it down the line. Market forces you can do nothing about if you make good decisions.