|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Smalll Businesses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
After firing the guy, the manager told me that he hated to do it, but it was the principle of the thing. I appreciate your story, but quite obviously I am talking about people who are habitually late. In every place I've worked, (except the military), people do get a chance to work out transportation issues. And with flex time, being late generally means showing up around 10:00 and still leaving at 5:00 or earlier. Obviously being late matters more in some jobs than others. But in a professional job with clients or with meetings with the super-boss, being late often means you might just as well have kept your skinny butt at home that day.
Today on NPR I listened to a report on suits against employers due to discrimination against pregnant employees All of that stuff is beyond the ridiculous. We aren't talking about anything like discrimination here. Yes, unfortunately, discrimination against women does still go on, but I've never heard of anyone winning a suit for being asked to come to work at 9:00 when they are a natural 10:30 person. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
I took the stories about those particular women's difficulties with front-line management as more indicative of the general incompetence of that management. I don't think those corporations probably pursued that kind of treatment as a policy issue: I'm sure FedEx treats many of its employees, male and female, white and not, with the same executive indifference.
There are many reasons for lackadaisical, unmotivated, unreliable workers. Some of them are probably just inexcusable no-goodniks, but one still wonders how they got that way. My experience is that most people, treated and compensated fairly, want to work, and work hard.
In every place I've worked, (except the military), people do get a chance to work out transportation issues. That's remarkable. I don't think it's representative of working reality for most Americans. Clearly, the experiences we each find most striking in that regard differ. I don't claim that mine invalidate yours; but I know that a workforce that is treated with contempt will repay the compliment."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My experience is that most people, treated and compensated fairly, want to work, and work hard. Most people want do exactly that. I have to admit that I've worked with some fairly flexible employers, but they all want people to show up and work hard. I actually haven't witnessed a lot of people getting fired, but I never saw someone get fired when the rest of us were not expecting it.
There are many reasons for lackadaisical, unmotivated, unreliable workers. I've never wondered about that the reasons for that. I cannot remember ever seeing that type of behavior out of anyone other than entry level employees who I would not expected to be jaded. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
A lot of managers I've dealt with aspired to become managers because they didn't give a crap about their jobs. All they had to do was convince their managers that they did give a crap. Of course, as managers they didn't give a crap either.
Maybe if they start their own businesses they will be successful, but who promotes people who don't give a crap about their current job to manager?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... I don't think they directly answer the questions I asked Jon, which were more along the lines of what do you do with existing situations, were it is the owners money and not the employees money being invested. ... How do you know that it is the owner's money rather than the money that has been raised as a result of the productivity of the workers? If it is money that the owner has taken out of the profits of production then he has no real right to call that his. Just because an owner takes control of the profits doesn't mean they have earned those profits.
In my view, when people insist that their wages should go up in step with their productivity, then they are essentially asking to be paid on a 'piece work' basis. Are they willing to accept reduced wages when the owner steps down production because of a recession? Because that's what owners do. What I think is even more apropos is a profit sharing model: everyone (including the owner) takes a base salary -- say a living wage (and if you can't pay everyone a living wage then question if you should remain in business?) for a single person ... and then the profits are shared based on respective inputs (money and sweat). One has to wonder in this day and age why the business model is still built on a feudal system rather than a democratic system. With a worker owned company there is no question on who earns the profits eh?Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods :: inspirational. Finally paying workers the same wages for doing less work than than the job entailed when I hired them does not sound anything like abuse to me. I still want to someone to explain why that is abusive to them. I'm looking for an answer other than noting that the owner is making more than I am. Calling something sick is not an answer. What do you think they would decide if you put it to a vote on who got how much of the profits? You may think of yourself as a benevolent boss (dictator), but do your employees see it that way? Who makes the rules? In a free, just and equitable society who should make the rules? Don't the founding principles -- justice, equality, freedom -- that gave us the constitution also apply to the way businesses are run? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No they are not entitled to a portion of every increase in revenue, however generated by the company. I don't see any natural reason why they ought to be, and I don't see any incentive other than force to make the owners share that way. If the employees want to buy the widget making robot then maybe they deserve a cut. When their productivity has lead to the profits that allow the purchase of the robot then they have helped to purchase that robot: they invested the sweat that produced the profits.
... and I don't see any incentive other than force to make the owners share that way. ... Curiously, I think it is one of the duties of government to make people behave in a manner that benefits society as a whole. This is, of course, WHY we have regulations (EPA etc). Minimum wage as a living wage would benefit the consumption of all products. Providing a safety net -- healthcare, social security, welfare, disability, unemployement, etc etc etc -- ensures that the consumer portion of the economy remains healthy. When the productivity of the whole economy has increased to the point where not everybody can be employed, then consideration should be given to a minimum annual "dividend" from the economy. If everyone were given $50/day as a "consumer dividend" then people would have more control over deciding how much to work and how much to spend enjoying the benefits of the social-economic system. We've tried trickle down. It was a total unequivocal abject failure for social justice. So let's try trickle UP and see what happens. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
We've tried trickle down. It was a total unequivocal abject failure for social justice. So let's try trickle UP and see what happens. Trickle up? Isn't that the system we currently use? The wealth and productivity generated (= earned) from the work of the lower classes finds its way into the bank accounts of the wealthy.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Trickle up? Isn't that the system we currently use? The wealth and productivity generated (= earned) from the work of the lower classes finds its way into the bank accounts of the wealthy. No that is the vacuum up system. What I am talking about is bailing out the poor, who will spend the money immediately thus putting more money into circulation and boosting the economy. If we consider that social security, minimum wage, unemployment, welfare, etc, are good programs, why not simplify the system and combine them all into one universal unified social safety net. Provide every tax filing adult with an "economic dividend" which is earned by participating in the US economy -- consuming if not producing -- equal to a living wage for one person. De-link benefits (unemployment, healthcare, social security, etc) from the paycheck. Provide universal healthcare that takes care of special needs and disabilities. Now new employers starting small companies don't have to pay all those benefits, and they don't have to pay a minimum wage -- they just need to pay what it takes to attract good workers who want to live on more than the minimum living wage, workers who are committed to work rather than desperate for living and providing for family. And you tax those that benefit most from the system in a progressive tax so that they pay a more just and fair amount than now. You can even simplify the tax code. Then we can work on more socially just systems of arrangements for companies ... by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
We have not had 'trickle up" since Reagan. Each progressive congress cut taxes for the rich, trying to get the true supply side economics. There was a lull from that partially in the second half of the clinton years, but that was ripped to shreds under bush, and was not reversed in Obama.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024