"Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour"

Remove all ads!

I was trolling slashdot ( I am such a nerd ) and came across this... gem.

Gah. What next, I ask you? Should workers all be placed in soundproof boxes to continue their tasks uninterrupted? To what end?

Granted there is some basis for something similar, maybe a policy of no dating nor intimate relations interfering with workplace protocols, but not on this scale surely?

Comments anyone?

 

This is gonna be a very fertile basis for a couple of slapstick lawsuits, mark my words.

 

It's also grounds to fire anyone you want if other companies follow suit...

 

Yes, this proves that unions still have a vialbe place in American society. The American worker still needs all the protection he/she can get.

 

Keep in mind that this is not actually a ban on these activities. It only allows employers to enact such a ban within their own companies. Any employer that is stupid enough to do so will most likely have to watch his company promptly fold due to lack of employees.

 

Not exactly. This may be true when the worker is in his/her twenties or thirties but it doesn't happen when he/she is forty years old or older.How many companies are willing to hire someone in his/her fifties, who will cost them far more than a younger one?

 

Thinking that the skill of a worker is his best protection is being a bit naive. Most people who get fired these days don't get fired because they don't do their work properly, they get fired because the corporation is reorganizing itself or making cuts which means closing down factories or offices. Skill may help finding a new job but it's clear that everyone can't be on the top of their branch and these people definently need protection.

Personally I'm not very fond of the union culture which we have in Finland ( more than80% percent of all workforce is a member in an labour union), because quite frankly it gives the unions too much political power and makes it possible for them to put the economical growth to a halt if they're dissatisfied (we had a major labourtwist in the paper industry earlier this summer which caused a significant reduction in the national economy). More often than not the unions are only protecting their own intrests more than the intrests of their members.

I personally want security from my emploier. I don't want to work somewhere where the corporation can kick me out any day they want without being forced to compensate anything for me. In Finland we have decent work protection laws though and therefore I find the unions to be just an unconvenience which might cause problems for Finland in the future. I would not ban the unions though, they might be necessary for some branches but I would like them to change their policies and make the penalty for illegal strikes significantly higher than it is now.

 

@BTA

You've missed my point, perhaps because he have different systems. I don't know how things work in US but here the law states that a worker, who has children, must get benefits for these children and these benefits are paid by the employer. If the worker is a mother the law provides her with other accomodotions such as less working hours in order to take care of her children. Also, the insurance that the employer has to pay for the employee depends, among others, on how many years he is working. So what I'm trying to say is that a company will not hire a 50 year old because it has to spend more money for him and not because he cannot have the same job perfomance with a 25 year old.

Taking a pay cut just because the company has found someone who will do the job for less money, it's pure blackmail.

 

Sorry, even the rank-and-file employee has a stake in how a company is run, and its policy and principles. But that aside, and you and I have argued this is the past, BTA, if a company makes its living in a democratic society, then it should be held to the same standards as any other institution in that society. It is not above the democratic principles that the rest of its citizens live under.

[ August 06, 2005, 07:22: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Because it's immoral and offensive to fire someone who has worked for your company for 20 years without causing problems and without having any complaints about the quality of his work. You don't pay him just for his productivity, you pay him for all the years he has invested in your company. A pay cut proposal could be acceptable if the company faces economic problems, which threaten its survival, but when the pay cut is just aiming to increase the profits of the company (and AFAIK this is the reason in the most cases), it cannot be accepted. Why must the employee lower his standards of living because the owners of the company want to earn more money?

All these brought in my mind something I saw in the news few months ago. A factory in France has closed and moved to Romania. The onwer of the factory have fired all the french workers and proposed to hire them again under the conditions to move in Romania and to accept romanian salaries (the salary of a worker in France is about 1200 euros, in Romania 300 euros). If you were in their position how would you feel?

 

A worker would be wise to consider other factors than just raw money. I can best illustrate this with a hypothetical example: I am a worker in New York making $120,000 a year. My employer decides to transfer to Arkansas and allows me to come with them if I take a pay cut to $30,000. Given that situation, I would probably take the pay cut and move. Why? Because I could have a much better quality of life with $30k in Arkansas than I can with $120k in New York.

You also need to examine things from the company's perspective. Are French workers really four times as productive as Romanian workers? I doubt it. Hence, the company made the right choice in moving. If the workers' skills are really so commonplace that the company can find tons of people to do the same job for less money, the worker should consider getting new skills or take the pay cut.

If you have a job that is enough in demand, the employer won't cut your pay. If they do, you'll go work for the competition.

No, you do pay him for his productivity and knowledge of the company's operations.

Once again, you are somewhat misinformed. The usual reason for it is because of the law of supply and demand. The skills that you possess are in very high supply and the company would rather lower your pay than toss you out on the street.

Occasionally, it is caused by stock holders and mutual funds wanting to increase the share price of your stock so that they (as owners of the company) can earn more money for themselves and their clients. There is no faster way to drive a stock price up than mass layoffs.

Of course. Every share of common stock that you hold gives you one vote in the management of the company. You want to share in the management of the company? Buy stock in it.

Technically, you don't have to provide any benefits to your employees under the US system. Most good employers do, however.

That depends on what the job is.

I disagree. Every employee should strive to be the best. There is absolutely no shortage of jobs in the United States. If you get canned, and you are skilled enough, you will have companies knocking down your door to make you job offers.

I strongly disagree. General Motors is on the verge of bankruptcy because of its labor union. There are quite a few other big name companies that are in the same situation. The best protection a worker has is his or her skill at the job.

Let me just say that most companies have a policy that employees should interact after hours, therefore I highly doubt that many will be following suit.

 

Then see this hypothetical example: Your employer trasfers to China and you follow him with a salary 30 USD per month. Perhaps 30 USD will be enough for decent living in China, but will be the decent living in China even close to the quality of living that you had in NY? What about your children? Will you send them in a chinese school (I don't think that you could afford an english-speaking school with that salary)?

No, of course they are not, but they live in a country, where the cost of living is five times higher than Romania. If you're going to pay them with a lower salary because in another part of the world the salaries are lower, you'd better give them just a slice of bread and a bed to sleep for 8 hours, the result will be the same. Also, I have never seen a company complaining when the state has provided it with varius benefits and tax cuts in order to improve their infrastructure and become more competitive. Perhaps it's time for them to do something for their country and not just increasing the unemployement and poverty rates.

I don't understand what this has to do with my question.

Perhaps this is the case in US but not here. Here every 2 years in the public sector and every 3 years in the private sector the employees get a raise to their salaries.

No, there are laws that state the amount of the lower salary for the new employees in a company and the owners are not allowed to offer a lower amount regardless of the supply and demand of a certain exeprtise.

Finally, we agree on something .


EDIT

Ok, but I hope that in few years, when the majority of the american companies would have moved to China and the remaining ones would give salaries that would barely cover you basic needs, you will not scream "Nuke China, they are responsible for this mess".

[ August 06, 2005, 23:01: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

While I naturally agree that every employee should strive to be the best, everyone simply can't be the best. Besides you don't get work if there are no openings. Sure it's possible that a company kicks out someone and takes you instead but that's highly unlikely, atleast in here since it's doubtful that you are SO much better than it would actually be worth all the work.

If you can't tell the difference between moving a job from France to Romania and moving a job from New York to Arkansas you really should study more geography. I can tell you this however, the 300 euros in Romania are not the worth nearly the same as the 1200 euros in France.

Anyway in France the situation for employers is just plain bad. The cost of making cuts by fireing the workforce are outragous for the companies. This does not just making cuts in costs difficult but it also makes it very difficult for companies to hire new workers and to expand, which is quite damaging to the economy.

 

The majority of American companies are not going to move to China. 77% of the United States economy is service-based as opposed to production-based. What that means is that the companies require a skilled workforce. The only real choice for them is hiring American employees.

Not a problem in America, as there are more jobs than people to do them. It is a problem in Europe, however. The reason is because the laws in that part of the world make it far too expensive for companies to operate.

You misunderstand. If you are making the absolute minimum that law permits (which is doubtful), then odds are you won't be fired because the company can't find anyone cheaper. Supply and demand still applies.

Guess so, as raises are much more frequent in some professions here.

That's the problem. France is not providing the incentives for the company to stay in France and still be competitive.

 

I could not agree more. That is why many of these benefits, should be public benefits: Social Security, healthcare, daycare (so that women can do more than just have babies) and education. Many countries that provide these benefits, as public benefits, have an edge over their American counterparts.