Should work be able to dictate your life?

[steveinaz]

CHANGE: The "NO" answer excludes illegal drug testing. Sorry should have included that disclaimer.

I saw a segment on 60 minutes last night that infuriated me. It had to do with corporations dictating to people what they can and can't do---healthwise; on and OFF duty. Some required their employees to work out, lose weight, stop drinking etc; all monitored by the company to ensure compliance. Funny though, they don't care about sleep problems, stress, or any other work-related issues (surprised?).

Why? Healthcare costs. Sound familiar? The almighty dollar is turning this country into Nazi Germany.

What's next? you got it, just as I stated (and was laughed at) a fews months ago----DNA testing. Now, imagine for a moment, even if you are perfectly healthy, your "genetic" background shows some heart disease, diabetes, mental issues, etc, etc; you can be denied a job OR fired from your job. Isn't so funny any more huh? Companies want "genetically" risk-free employees, they're cheaper don't you know....

The scariest part....it's legal. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it, even changes to policy that occur after you came on board. Lovely.

Another noteworthy tidbit; companies have not been able to demonstrate statistically ANY increase in health care costs related to smoking employees. Should those employees get refunded the higher rates they pay?

Here's a few other examles highlighted on the segment:

- Guy fired for a political sticker on his car
- Guy fired for drinking a "Coors" beer off duty---he worked for Anheiser Busch (yes, he won that one in court)
- Guy fired for having an NRA sticker on his vehicle

I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply at work?

[ohskigod]

yeah, I actually heard about this a little while ago. WHile I see the logic to a small degree, it just imposes way too much on one's life. It's Naziish (if that's a word), but odd in that it's not government imposed, its private sector imposed. it comes down to if they have the legal right to do it. apparently no one has challenged it yet, have they?

[steveinaz]

I'm sure court challenges are coming as this gets to be more common place with big business. So far the courts are NOT looking at these complaints as being under the envelope of "discrimination" though.

[dkg999]

I am the lone "yes" vote at this point, however please hear me out prior to flaming me!!!!!!!!

I think for certain occupations, ie pilots, commercial drivers, law enforcement officers, etc. that some restrictions on life style are appropriate and necessary to protect the public. I want the pilot of the plane I am on to be taking care of his health. I want my police officers not addicted to gambling and under the financial control of someone.

Other than that, I have to say that there would have to be justified impacts to a business from an employee having a certain lifestyle. I am OK with higher health insurance costs for smokers. They as a group exhibit higher medical costs. The reasons companies haven't seen the statistics is because insurance and medical companies have just started implementing the metrics to track this data. Companies will see the impact. I am also OK with the contractual provisions against dangerous hobbies in senior level management employment agreements. You don't want your highly paid CEO flying experimental aircraft or sky-diving (for example, not a judgement of those pastimes!). For normal employees, I don't think this is appropriate. What I do from 6 pm to 6 am is my business, as long as it is not illegal and I am able to meet or exceed the expectations of my employer. I also feel that an employees vehicle setting in an employers parking lot in view of clients would not be a rolling billboard for their personal agenda.

I do think the consumer privacy initiatives at the state and national level will prevent this from becoming widespread.

[lomic]

I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply at work?

I don't believe it does.

IANAL, however I am fairly sure the Constitution must only be followed by the government. Once you set foot on private property, only civil and criminal laws apply to what you and your employer can and can't do, plus whatever you agreed to when joining the company in terms of behavior, dress code etc.

[bobman1235]

I'm kinda torn on this one. On one hand, I would think that if a company imposes these sorts of restrictions, people would quit. Once they lose enough quality employees, they would either lift the restriction or be stuck with shitty employees. On the other hand, I could see it getting out of control, where EVERY good job had these restrictions, and then you could quit but wehre do you go?

Basically, where it's a private company saying what they do and don't want their employees doing I'm unsure of how I feel. But I'm leaning toward it being bull. I mean, I'm against the company DOING it, but as for their RIGHT to do it I'm unsure.

But I have to say, there's way too much control being wielded in the name of health insurance costs. Whatever happened to subjective judgement in this country? Everything's turning black or white. Everything's leaning towards a "zero tolerance" policy. I mean, if I do this or that, but it doesn't affect my work, it shoudln't matter. I could snort the crack rock every night when I go home, but if I come in every day on time and am the best employee in the company, should I be fired?

It's a touchy subject.

[Demiurge]

I always err on the side of the free market. If companies want to be dumb, let them. They won't last long in this day in age. It always amazes me that the general public wants to dictate how businesses operate as if they can't go elsewhere for work.

[steveinaz]

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

[Demiurge]

I also want to add ALL companies are simply reacting to the surge in health care costs. This is not to defend some companies that are using truly sleazeball tactics, but there is definitely a legitimate problem throughout the business world.

It's gigantic, and I know I broke down the numbers for my company here at Club Polk for someone who asked once. It's a huge strain, especially on smaller businesses. You can chalk it all up to frivolous lawsuits. You can't blame the companies for making the logical reaction. Not every business owner is raking in money hand over fist like the common conception of business seems to be. Until the general public starts to realize that the multi-million dollar lawsuits they are awarded have to actually be paid by someone this will never change. Blame, once again, is pointed in the wrong direction.

[bobman1235]

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

I have a problem with it too. But the difference is, I'm u nsure on whether they have the RIGHT to do it. If my company ever tried, I'd immediately quit. IMMEDIATELY. So I'm not saying my company would be able to have a say in my private life, I'm just saying, I wouldn't sue them for it, I'd just walk out.

I mean touchy for me, as in I'm not sure how I stand.

[steveinaz]

I always err on the side of the free market. If companies want to be dumb, let them. They won't last long in this day in age. It always amazes me that the general public wants to dictate how businesses operate as if they can't go elsewhere for work.

I try to do the same, but some things need governmental intervention. Your employer telling you how you will live is unconstitutional and unacceptable in my book. We had them in England, they were called "Kings."

[Demiurge]

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

Quit.

Business isn't government. You have an option.

[Demiurge]

I try to do the same, but some things need governmental intervention. Your employer telling you how you will live is unconstitutional and unacceptable in my book. We had them in England, they were called "Kings."

Since I am under the impression your employer is the U.S. Government I'm not sure you've got the same viewpoint as me as a private employer. If you being fat, or relentlessly unhealthy affects our bottom line in a big way what incentive do I have to keep you? I think you've got to have a heart, but you can't be afraid to say enough is enough as a business owner either. I've helped out my share of employees with problems spanning the length of what is mentioned above. Being an alcoholic isn't something I need around here. Sure, they don't drink on the job, but it affects their job. One guy got help and he's still with us.

[sucks2beme]

I don't see where its a touchy subject. If I perform at work as expected, dress appropriately, and give them a honest days work for a honest days pay---I don't see the gray area. I do have a problem with my company coming into my livingroom and telling how to live for the other 16hrs (unpaid) of my life.

Troube is, they all want that 16 hours of your time too! Thankfully, do to an
administrative screw up(least by my opinion) a couple of us ended up eligible
for ot again. That has slowed up the amount work I'm expected to do. I still work most weekends. One of my co-workers wasn't so lucky. They pegged him as SUPERVISORY(lead tech) and work him routinely 80 hours. He's been through three wives. They are supposed to put him back on ot eligible, but have been dragging their feet for eight months.
Everyone is supposed to be on call all the time. Fortunately, I no longer drink,
so this hasn't bothered me as much as other guys.
Welcome to the brave new world. Big bother is always watching.

[reeltrouble1]

Some things I read amaze me. The manipulation is nearly totally complete.

You are right Steve, anything is OK for a buck, it pretty much always has been since day one of our industrialization, well, really even before that, however, with so many technological and scientific advances the abuses come more quickly, are more subltle, done in the name of good yada yada yada, these rules, mores and laws are already present and taking a bit of you and me each day.

Its mostly the USA doing the abusing of people along with other European nations, at least for money, other cultures are abused in the name of Religion, but to be abused for money you have to care about money, which of course their are billions of folks on the planet who dont give a rats ass about insurance, stock markets and so on, well, they dont have any money either, so they are out of the pot so to speak, that leaves the rest of us suckers and seperating us from our cash is a very large priority now adays. Put whatever spin you want on it.

RT1

[Demiurge]

Troube is, they all want that 16 hours of your time too! Thankfully, do to an
administrative screw up(least by my opinion) a couple of us ended up eligible
for ot again. That has slowed up the amount work I'm expected to do. I still work most weekends. One of my co-workers wasn't so lucky. They pegged him as SUPERVISORY(lead tech) and work him routinely 80 hours. He's been through three wives. They are supposed to put him back on ot eligible, but have been dragging their feet for eight months.
Everyone is supposed to be on call all the time. Fortunately, I no longer drink,
so this hasn't bothered me as much as other guys.
Welcome to the brave new world. Big bother is always watching.

What's sad is you guys don't worry at all about what you can control, and everything that you can't.

You can quit your job, and change your government. This is capitalism, not soicialism. The free market works every time it's tried. Affirmative Action, Governmental Regulation on business, Health & Business Insurance, and Taxes are all reasons for your woes, but I guess that's spin. Entitlement mentality seeping it's way into the businessworld now.

You've got a job because someone created one, not because you're entitled to it.

[PhantomOG]

depends on the job.

I've read some pretty amazingly stupid stories about people in unions and the waste is causes employers as well.

[Demiurge]

The poll question in and of itself is a bit misleading, BTW, because they're not dictating your life. You've got a choice, and are not bound by any law.

[steveinaz]

Since I am under the impression your employer is the U.S. Government I'm not sure you've got the same viewpoint as me as a private employer. If you being fat, or relentlessly unhealthy affects our bottom line in a big way what incentive do I have to keep you? I think you've got to have a heart, but you can't be afraid to say enough is enough as a business owner either. I've helped out my share of employees with problems spanning the length of what is mentioned above. Being an alcoholic isn't something I need around here. Sure, they don't drink on the job, but it affects their job. One guy got help and he's still with us.

Yes, I'm Department of defense; and thankfully Uncle Sam is a damn good employer.

But you're speaking about habits that directly affect and/or are impacting an employees performance---to that end I agree. Employers have always had the ability (rightfully so) to fire these employees. I'm talking about your employer dictating to you what you can and can't do in your private life.

Believe what you want, but having a job is NOT a priviledge. You, as an employee are providing a service, in exchange for that service you are paid by an employer. People hire me because they like the way I perform that service; it saves them money, gets things done more efficiently, and accountability and audit trails are maintained. Personally I would leave a job that attempted any of this recent crap, but I'm in a position where I can afford to make those types of decisions, many people are not.

[steveinaz]

depends on the job.

I've read some pretty amazingly stupid stories about people in unions and the waste is causes employers as well.

If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be making $1.85 an hour. It's called wage competition. Chalk one up for the good guys.

[Demiurge]

Yes, I'm Department of defense; and thankfully Uncle Sam is a damn good employer.

But you're speaking about habits that directly affect and/or are impacting an employees performance---to that end I agree. Employers have always had the ability (rightfully so) to fire these employees. I'm talking about your employer dictating to you what you can and can't do in your private life.

Believe what you want, but having a job is NOT a priviledge. You, as an employee are providing a service, in exchange for that service you are paid by an employer. People hire me because they like the way I perform that service; it saves them money, gets things done more efficiently, and accountability and audit trails are maintained. Personally I would leave a job that attempted any of this recent crap, but I'm in a position where I can afford to make those types of decisions, many people are not.

They I guess I am missing what the argument is? If you can get fired for being too fat where it affects your work isn't that in effect asking "Steve, would you please lay off the fast food 3 times a day?" This is just an example. I just don't see how them bluntly saying it is any different. You, as the employee, have the right to tell them to shove their job up their ass.

Like I have said, business is simply reacting to the high cost of running business these days. Why should employees care? They don't see it. They only see what the business owner does when he stops doing it. Unfortunately that's how so many see it, and in most cases they're wrong.

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but you're simply seeing some of these ridiculous measures as a result of all the frivolous lawsuits. What at one point would have gone by unnoticed is now becoming an extreme example of survival of the fittest. Would you rather an employee encourage healthy behavior or just up and fire you? I don't know, I'd like a more expansive list of options myself.

Everyones situation is different, but generally speaking this all holds true. How many here run their own business? What's the size of the business? Often threads like this treat all business as some giant monster of financial success. Some are doing their best to get by, and trimming the fat is a necessity, not a way to save a quick unecessary buck like some will point out.

As far as jobs. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There's nothing in there about the right to a job at Rick's Paper Mill. They make more because they risk more.

[Demiurge]

If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be making $1.85 an hour. It's called wage competition. Chalk one up for the good guys.

What? lol, Unions are the biggest joke going.

[PhantomOG]

If it wasn't for unions, we'd all be making $1.85 an hour. It's called wage competition. Chalk one up for the good guys.

sure, they may have done good things in the past, but that doesn't justify their existance now.

Anyways, I'm not totally against unions (don't really know much about them since I don't work in a field that has them). But the articles I've read about "job banks" in the automotive industry boggles my mind. The image of hundreds of people sitting in a room staring at the wall for 8 hours a day for years on end, being paid salaries by U.S. auto companies that no longer need them but can't fire them because of the unions is ridiculous.

Regardless, I just don't see how DNA testing possible employees would be cost effective. Hiring and keeping the best person for each job would make the most sense monetarily to me, regardless of their DNA/leisure activities.

[steveinaz]

Well, we could apply your stance and say to employers: "Hey look, you knew having your own business would be expensive....you don't like it, so quit."

Right? Does that work both ways?

Before everyone gets all over the map on this, I'm talking about employers telling you what you can and cannot do ON YOUR TIME. Things that are perfectly legal otherwise. This is an employer PUSHING his/her values onto another individual, plain & simple. We're not talking about the slobs at work that don't produce, I'm talking about every employee of a company, regardless of performance.

[steveinaz]

Who said you have a "right" to work?..I didn't.

I said work is not a priviledge. An employee is no different from a company CEO that bids on potential contracts---both are providing a service for a price, just at different levels.

Economics 101.

[Demiurge]

I've got a few stories about unions, but I'll leave it out of this discussion unless asked since I know there are lots of union members here...


Well, we could apply your stance and say to employers: "Hey look, you knew having your own business would be expensive....you don't like, so quit."

Right? Does that work both ways?

If the employer quits you don't have a job anyways. So I don't get that point.



Before everyone gets all over the map on this, I'm talking about employers telling you what you can and cannot do ON YOUR TIME. Things that are perfectly legal otherwise. This is an employer PUSHING his/her values onto another individual, plain & simple. We're not talking about the slobs at work that don't produce, I'm talking about every employee of a company, regardless of performance.

The way you preface it who would say yes? It's disengenuious because there's no way a business can push anything on you. You do not need to work for that employer. This is a simple answer.

If you're asking me if I think an employer should be able to fire you because your health has gotten so bad as a result of choices you have made, YES. They should be able to fire you. If someone gets sick from no fault of their own it would be immoral for a business to cut that person off. Most businesses have coverage for that type of circumstance.

The bottom line is that I think you should be able to fire someone for any reason, but I know that's not a popular viewpoint. The dirty secret is that you have to worry about being sued for firing people these days if they have a problem.

[Demiurge]

Who said you have a "right" to work?..I didn't.

I said work is not a priviledge. An employee is no different from a company CEO that bids on potential contracts---both are providing a service for a price, just at different levels.

Economics 101.

Your job at ABC, Company is a priviledge. You've got no entitlement in any way shape or form to that job unless you have a contract.

If what I said isn't true why do contracts exist? :confused:

I'm surprised this is the same guy who was arguing about smokers rights, gun rights, and helmet laws. They're all the same thing. I'm at least being consistant, despite people disagreeing.

[steveinaz]

Here's how unions drove ALL of our wages up:

Company "A" has a union and pays it's employees $14/hr. Company "B" does not and pays it's employees $7/hr. Johnny wants a job, now he can either work for company A at $14/hr or Co. B at $7/hr. He chooses Company A. Pretty soon Company B realizes that all of its potential employees are going to Company A, because they pay better and have union represenation....

So guess what Company B does? You got it, now Company B is now paying $9/hr.

[steveinaz]

The way you preface it who would say yes? It's disengenuious because there's no way a business can push anything on you. You do not need to work for that employer. This is a simple answer.



You're right, provided you as an employee knew the rules UP FRONT. But when the employer decides to change "the policy" in your 22nd year with the company, seems a little unfair doesn't it? It's a little late for you to change jobs and maintain any kind of retirement plan.

[Demiurge]

You're right, provided you as an employee knew the rules UP FRONT. But when the employer decides to change "the policy" in your 22nd year with the company, seems a little unfair doesn't it? It's a little late for you to change jobs and maintain any kind of retirement plan.

So, what has Uncle Sam said to you that brought all of this on? :p

[steveinaz]

I can't lie brother, (Sung in Joe Walsh's voice) "Uncle Sam's been good so faaaaarrrr..."

LOL!

I TRULY feel for people working in the private sector---it is SCARY. Company buy-outs, bankruptcy, people loosing retirement benefits over night...shit, I'm staying with the gub'ment.

[bobman1235]

Here's how unions drove ALL of our wages up:

Company "A" has a union and pays it's employees $14/hr. Company "B" does not and pays it's employees $7/hr. Johnny wants a job, now he can either work for company A at $14/hr or Co. B at $7/hr. He chooses Company A. Pretty soon Company B realizes that all of its potential employees are going to Company A, because they pay better and have union represenation....

So guess what Company B does? You got it, now Company B is now paying $9/hr.

Yup, hat's why Unions are good. The reason they're BAD is because of the same reason everyone was railing about Walmart in that thread. THey use their muscle to get unfair advantages in certain things. A lot ofthe big unions have the power to put entire companies out of business, so they use that to get exhorbitant pay. Not to mention the fact that you can't fire someone from a union job no matter how grossly negligent they are unless you go through the most complicated rigamaroll imaginable.

Like most everything else, there's a good side and a bad side.

[PhantomOG]

Here's how unions drove ALL of our wages up:

Company "A" has a union and pays it's employees $14/hr. Company "B" does not and pays it's employees $7/hr. Johnny wants a job, now he can either work for company A at $14/hr or Co. B at $7/hr. He chooses Company A. Pretty soon Company B realizes that all of its potential employees are going to Company A, because they pay better and have union represenation....

So guess what Company B does? You got it, now Company B is now paying $9/hr.

Unfortunately, it probably won't work out that way. If the products/services from Company A and B are of comparable quality, most likely Company B will be cheaper and therefor more profitable in the long run.

Regardless, discussion like this is really moot in my eyes. Paying people artificially high wages only pushes prices for goods and services up and makes the higher wages diluted due to inflation. Whether we like it or not, we are part of a global economy now, and no amount of government legislation/unions/etc. will change the fact that there if there are people out there willing to work harder for less money than we are, we're screwed.

[Demiurge]

I can't lie brother, (Sung in Joe Walsh's voice) "Uncle Sam's been good so faaaaarrrr..."

LOL!

I TRULY feel for people working in the private sector---it is SCARY. Company buy-outs, bankruptcy, people loosing retirement benefits over night...shit, I'm staying with the gub'ment.

haha, I don't blame you one bit! :D

[steveinaz]

It's not really "artificially" higher wages; you have to remember that union workers get highly specialized training in their fields. They go thru schools that vary in length and have to complete all of the blocks of instruction to get their "journeyman" status, which is where the money is at. For example, in Missouri a carpenter must complete 22 blocks of instruction; you are given 2 years to complete them, but you can complete early if you want. The blocks take new workers from pouring a foundation, all the way through to finishing work in a house---they literally build a home in 22 stages inside of a huge warehouse downtown, STL. This training is done on the employees time. During the work day, they are gophers for the journeyman carpenters and are taught things on the job, to go along with what they are learning in the program blocks. I know, I started an apprenticeship, but opted to go in the Army.

Why do alot of companies take union bids? Because they know the workmanship is far better and that union workers are held to a much higher standard with building codes, etc.

[LessisNevermore]

On topic: No, an employer has no business telling anyone what to do, or not do off hours. If you can't do your job, you lose it, end of story.

Off topic: All of this talk about union workers that can't be fired, is mostly heresay. ("but I know a guy who knows somebody, who has a cousin that works for an auto company......")
These discussions are usually centered around union workers that work in the Auto industry. Not all unions are the same. Face it, the union negotiates a contract with the employer, both parties find the middle ground, and sign. No one is putting a gun to the employer's head.

In the construction trades, a contractor can fire a union worker, or lay him/her off without a moments notice, or reason. It happens every day. Contractors hire union work because of the specialized training we recieve, and more specifically, the safety training we get. I have worked for non-union contractors, and the safety of a worker is not even on their radar. It costs too much.(or so they think)
Our safety record, quality, being on-schedule, and accountability speak for itself, and that's why we get the work, and the higher wages. What is your time and safety worth to you?

[George Grand]

I saw that segment on 60 Minutes last night too. I disagree with the policy, and would've LOVED to have been able to reach into the TV and given that smug old fart a chest slam. "NOW you have something to fire me for. PLUS, it looks like you're having a slight respiratory problem after that chest slam, and you don't smoke. I can't believe you didn't foresee this sir."

Employer - "Do you smoke?"

Employed - "Yes."

Employer - "Based on that info, you JUST MAY contract a sickness, so you're outta here!"


Next situation...

Employer - "Do you drink?"

Employed - "Yes, I drink socially, maybe twice a month. Not to excess though."

Employer - "Hmmm. Based on that info, you could SOMEDAY develop a serious drinking problem, causing a loss of productivity, or worse, you may start drinking and driving. I can't risk you POTENTIALLY driving our company truck while you're drunk, so you're outta here."

[steveinaz]

No shit huh, even Morley called it "Nazi" policy.

From the interview:

Morley: "How do you feel about dictating what your employees do after work in their own homes?"

CEO: "I don't dicate to them, the policy does..."

Morley: "Well, didn't you make the policy?"

CEO: (the asshole smiles and says) "Of course, I make all of the policies."

What a jackoff.

[Demiurge]

Well, your experiences with unions and my experience with unions are obviously way different. We contracted with a company to make one part of an overal unit that one company was selling to another. To us it was going to be worth a few million dollars, something that would have been huge for a company of our size. It would have meant a lot of money in our employee's pockets and my pocket at the end of the day.

Once the end user (Union) found out that our shop wasn't a union shop and the old supplier was they started screwing with the units, and eventually it cost the other company their contract, and ours in turn.

We may still get back in, but at this point it's up in the air. Unions hijack companies, and it's utter bullshit. Unions have no place in todays workforce other than to fuck it up. The days are long gone where there was one factory in town and nowhere else to work. That excuse wasn't very valid back then either.

[steveinaz]

What if your company adopted a policy tommorrow that stated they didn't want NRA members on their rolls? Would you be ok with that? Would you still err on the side of capitalism?

Don't answer that, that is a rediculous question because what could you being an NRA member possibly have anything to do with your performance at work.

Get my point?

My personal business is my personal business, the day a company tries to influence my personal business is the day I'll take a huge shit on the bosses desk, and then wipe my ass with his/her "memo."

[rskarvan]

I'm as pro-union as they come. Unions had a place in years gone past. Unions have a place today. And, hopefully, unions will have a place tomorrow. Remember, the United States of America is nothing but a union of states.

People are brain-washed to think that they can compete as individuals. Not true. Companies are simply using "divide and conquer" mentality. The question on the corporate boards truly is... "how low can we go" with regard to salary disparity. Workers produce. Companies consume profits from workers efforts. Simple as that. If you want fairness, distribute the wealth. If you want wage disparity, let the companies divide and conquer the rights of individual employees.

Unions provided: 40-hr work week, safe work conditions, holidays, workers rights (yes, we have some), liveable wage, etc. To think that companies voluntarily signed up for these social changes is absolutely as crazy as "trickle down economics".


As for the "jobs banks" in the automotive industry... thats not the unions fault. GM outsourced much of the work to Mexico (paying $2/hr). The unions tried to discourage this successfully negotiating job security (jobs bank). As a result, we have a lot of perfectly productive employees that are being paid high wages to not produce. The companies signed up for this obligation when work contracts were negotiated.

Quite honestly, the union would much rather have all those jobs back from Mexico so that they can once-again take pride in a fair days work for a fair days pay. Companies robbed their own employees of this.

F#$% Corporate America. I'm an American and I want good jobs where English is the primary language.

[W WALDECKER]

Well, your experiences with unions and my experience with unions are obviously way different. We contracted with a company to make one part of an overal unit that one company was selling to another. To us it was going to be worth a few million dollars, something that would have been huge for a company of our size. It would have meant a lot of money in our employee's pockets and my pocket at the end of the day.

Once the end user (Union) found out that our shop wasn't a union shop and the old supplier was they started screwing with the units, and eventually it cost the other company their contract, and ours in turn.

We may still get back in, but at this point it's up in the air. Unions hijack companies, and it's utter bullshit. Unions have no place in todays workforce other than to fuck it up. The days are long gone where there was one factory in town and nowhere else to work. That excuse wasn't very valid back then either. the NAZI's Banned Unions, Trade Unions have highly skilled employees instead of sniveling ass kissing rats who do a piss poor job because they dont know any better.

[Demiurge]

The Nazis ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The Nazis went to bed at night. The Nazis brushed their teeth. The Nazis wiped their ass after taking a shit. The Nazis killed 6 Million Jews too, what's your point? Any other stupid comparisons you wish to make? :rolleyes:

Funny we're making the best equipment of it's kind in the industry and we're not a union shop.

[George Grand]

I like the minimum wage concept....

"If I could get away with paying you LESS money to do this sorry-ass job, I would. But the law says I have to pay you at LEAST, THIS much."
What a motivator huh? Would it really kill some of them to pay individuals 10 freakin' cents more than minimum wage?

[mrbigbluelight]

What? lol, Unions are the biggest joke going.

disagree with you.

[steveinaz]

Funny we're making the best equipment of it's kind in the industry and we're not a union shop.

But you are the exception, not the rule. There are many fine suppliers that aren't union because they probably provide well for their employees.

[sucks2beme]

I was never in a union. But like many of us, enjoyed the benefits that came
with the age of unions. I don't think unions mean a good or bad product.
Sometimes, they also don't do much other than collect dues.
But I do believe they would of stood up to some of the crap going on now if they were still in power.
Let's hope some reason returns to the workplace.
Political correctness in the workplace often backfires. Work is the place for work. Home is where you go to relax with your family and enjoy the love of music that all Polkies share. I think I'll go into ignore mode(turn off the company cell phone) and listen to some K.T. Tunstall.

[PolknPepsi]

For the last 15 years I have had a very well groomed and very short beard. recently I turned down a job with a very large hotel chain that said to be employed I would need to loose the beard. During my interview I met a very clean shaven young man who had a pony tail down to his waist......WTF!:confused:

[schwarcw]

My humble opinion is that employers should have the right to monitor employees for drug and alcohol use, subject to random testing. It is legal to drink, but you should not have a blood alcohol level above the 0.07% limit that most states use as the intoxication threshold. Illegal drugs are just illegal. Prescription drug use, the intoxicating kind (pain killers, opiates, benzos, etc.) that you do not have a prescription also should not be tolerated. If your caught, there should be a treatment service available for first time offenders. Second time, out the door. Many employers have these requirements already. Do you want your airline pilot to have a herion habit? Interestingly, physicians are not subject to this kind of policy. Drug abuse by physicians (according to the AMA) is high. No pun intended. How would you like to be operated on by a surgeon who is speedballing?

Overweight, smoking, sexual preference etc. should not be a condition of employment.

[opus]

the NAZI's Banned Unions, Trade Unions have highly skilled employees instead of sniveling ass kissing rats who do a piss poor job because they dont know any better.


Well this is just great. In one week I have had a polk member tell me and my family to f&^k off because I shop at Wally's and now I am a sniveling ass kissing rat who does a piss poor job. WW, and this may be the beer talking, but you can screw off. That whole "highly skilled " bullshit is just that, bullshit. You can barely get a union painter to work because he is too busy telling you how much he is making per hour. Don't ask him how any hours a year he works because he sits on his ass most of the winter. Piss poor job? Why don't you open your eyes next time you walk through a new ballpark, airport or school that some union hack painted. You call that quality work. You make me laugh. We fire guys that do that kind of shit work. I do a good job because I want to. It gets me more money, promoted and gives me a sense of satisfaction. I work through breaks, stay late, work OT and appreciate my boss. In turn he treats me well, gives me a truck to drive, offers a safe workplace, pays me 3$ under union scale and respects me enough to expect excellence when I show up on a job.

You union smucks have to get over this "We are unions and we saved the poor working man" mentality of the '30s. Back then you fought against a problem but now you have become the problem. Go ahead and start all the name calling and keep chasing all of your jobs out of the country. Guys like me that know how to work and like to work will be here to pick up your slack.

sincerely , kevin aka sniveling ass kissing rat currently doing a piss poor job

[brettw22]

Can't fault ua Opus for standing your ground.

It appears that any time I've seen Union vs. Non arguements that the people that start the slamming first is the Union side. I'm not making any judgements, but find that to be a bit odd when they don't understand the type of anger they receive like Opus has displayed.

Anger should be pointed towards shoddy work and poor ethics by ANYONE.....and no one should be so ignorant to believe that those people are all on one side of the fence.

[mrbigbluelight]

for the Cardinals was built union, on time and under budget. Using Project Labor agreements. With local union labor.
The Cardinals could have imported non-union folks from Texas and Arkansas and put some extra cash in their pockets, but chose not to.
The result ? The labor money went into the local commnunity. Local people spend that money at car dealerships, grocery stores, and even Wally-worlds.

Demi, you mentioned there was a need for unions back in the 30's.
I would suggest that there is definitely a need for unions NOW.
The 40 hour work week. Definitely a result of unions. There is a movement underway now, a STRONG movement to do away with the 40 hour work week.
Why ?
"We have to compete globally !".
Well, in that case, let's important foreign MANAGERS and keep the local union work force.

Ridiculous ? No. That's what the local area water company did. They were bought by a German concern, brought in their German management, and used the local unionized work force. And things improved.

Personally, from my experience, MANAGEMENT is sorely lacking. Points can't be proven anecdotally, to be sure, but MANAGEMENT in this country doesn't have a clue what they're doing.
Is it because they are saddled with antiquated union rules and regulations ? In some cases, the automotive industry, perhaps yes.
In others, it is the sheer incompetence of management.

I believe unions, with some foot dragging, have changed for the better and are actually trying to improve the work place. The carpenters that were previously mentioned are a good example.
Want to be a carpenter on some of the local projects here ? Be prepared for random drug tests conducted by the union.

It is MANAGEMENT that is unsure of itself in a changing workplace. So what do they do ? Fall back to places of safety, ie, "Let's do away with the 40 hour work week ! I can't get enough done otherwise !!".

Manadantory overtime ? I've seen it done because of management's not poor planning, but NO planning.

Unions can be a convenient excuse for failing businesses. Look behind the screen, however, and quite often I believe you'll see gross and incompetent management.

[bobman1235]

The Big Dig was done with Union workers.

End of point. :D

[F1nut]

It wasn't the union workers that were the problem with the Big Dig. Look further up the ladder at the people that were getting their palms greased for that.

[bert26]

When was the last time any of you worked only 40 hours in a week?

[Shizelbs]

It is legal to drink, but you should not have a blood alcohol level above the 0.07% limit that most states use as the intoxication threshold.

So I can't get a mild buzz in my own home, even if I don't drive? Its not like I fly planes for a living. Pretty sure that 0.08% BAC should stick to just whether or not you should be driving, and even 0.08% is pretty damn low.

[Shizelbs]

When was the last time any of you worked only 40 hours in a week?

I am non-unionized and I only work 40 hours a week.

[Demiurge]

Demi, you mentioned there was a need for unions back in the 30's.


'twasn't me.

They're also not what they used to be. Some are mobbed up (still). What if a person doesn't want to be part of a union? Ever hear about how those folks get treated? When a union gives all of their money to political cannidates they don't support what is the incentive to the member? Just money? What makes them different than all of these supposed evil business execs?

Me? Treat the employees well. We've had the same employee base for a very long time. If we do well all of our pockets are a little fatter. It gives all of us the incentive to work harder, and it promotes loyalty.

Those of you in unions can rock on. I will never have one here as I have seen what they can do. Most business owners aren't evil looking to screw the little guy. Oh, but they make more. Whose neck is on the line? Lose your job and you can just get another one. Lose a business...that's a huge financial blow.

To say that anyone not in a union is making an inferior product is just a total farce. There's people making crap on both sides of the fence.

[PhantomOG]

why do some professions "need" unions when others don't? I'm an electrical/computer engineer and I've never heard of a union for "engineers". If we don't think we are being compensated fairly, we quit and find someone who does. why can't this work for all professions?

regardless of the employer, if most of their workforce is quitting, in order to retain employees they must raise their compensation level or be forced to shut down because of their lack of employees.

[steveinaz]

why do some professions "need" unions when others don't? I'm an electrical/computer engineer and I've never heard of a union for "engineers". If we don't think we are being compensated fairly, we quit and find someone who does. why can't this work for all professions?



Because some people choose to make a stand.

[PhantomOG]

Because some people choose to make a stand.

what stronger "stand" can you take than to refuse to work for an employer who you think is treating you unfairly?

You may see it as a sign of strength but it really is a sign of weakness. By leaving the employer you are showing your skillset is valuable enough that you don't "need" that employer. By staying you are implying no one else is willing to pay you what you deem fair.

[Demiurge]

why do some professions "need" unions when others don't? I'm an electrical/computer engineer and I've never heard of a union for "engineers". If we don't think we are being compensated fairly, we quit and find someone who does. why can't this work for all professions?

regardless of the employer, if most of their workforce is quitting, in order to retain employees they must raise their compensation level or be forced to shut down because of their lack of employees.

That's the common sense approach.

Employee: "Can I have a raise?"

Business Owner: "Yes."

Employee: "Thank you!"

or

Employee: "Can I have a raise?"

Business Owner: "No."

Employee: "Thank you, I will be looking for work elsewhere."

Of course it can become more complex than that depending on both parties motivation to keep an employee/keep a job. At the end of the day it all comes down to communication and a yes or no answer.

With Unions it's --

Union: "Give us more money."

Business Owner: "No, make it worthwhile."

Union: "Okay, we're going on strike blackballing you to give in to our demands or you lose your business and we're all jobless."

I don't see what the great incentive is for the business owner to run a unionized business.

[steveinaz]

90% polled agree that work has no business in your personal business. Bravo! How anyone could find this crap acceptable is beyond my comprehension. Thanks for restoring my faith...

[steveinaz]

what stronger "stand" can you take than to refuse to work for an employer who you think is treating you unfairly?


...keeping your job and being heard, and quite possibly having an a-hole removed from the work place.

[Demiurge]

90% polled agree that work has no business in your personal business. Bravo! How anyone could find this crap acceptable is beyond my comprehension. Thanks for restoring my faith...

Yeah, Steve, do you know how skewed your question is? All you affirmed is how jacked up polls are. Your question highlights the fallacy of polls. Had you asked: "Do you believe that business owners have the right to hire and fire based on the cost to their bottom line?" you would have received a much different answer.

The way you phrase it who is going to say 'Yes' without reading more than just the poll question?

[Demiurge]

...keeping your job and being heard, and quite possibly having an a-hole removed from the work place.

Ever think maybe the business can't afford the demand of the union? Then what? Everyone loses their job? Wow, what an awesome result. Unions just muscle their demands on the employer. What option do they have? None.

All you'd have to do with a prick of a boss is quit.

The free market works wonders, but hell everyone is entitled to somene elses cheddar.

[PhantomOG]

...keeping your job and being heard, and quite possibly having an a-hole removed from the work place.

and this can't be done without unions because....?

[steveinaz]

...because in the non-union world, if the Big Cheese don't like you, you're gone.

Anywho, this thread wasn't intended to be a "Unions, for or against" poll. I have no problem with non-union workers, I just think it's a risky way to go---personally if a union was available in my trade, I'd go union. The benefits are outstanding.

Furthermore, if all employers dealed with their employees fairly, and paid them a fair wage---you are right, there would be no need for unions. The fact of the matter is, in corporate America today we have the largest "spread" of pay ever between the CEO and the guy on the assembly line building that car. Why? Good ol GREED, that's where unions come in.

For instance, working for the Fed. We don't have a Union per se; we have a union representative, but we are not allowed to strike---by law. So, no we don't have a union in the traditional sense. BUT, we don't need a union. Uncle Sam pays good, gives good benefits and does a good job of protecting both supervisor and employee. If all companies were run this way, there would be no need.

[steveinaz]

"Do you believe that business owners have the right to hire and fire based on the cost to their bottom line?"

...good lord, talk about a loaded question. That's the "politically correct" version of "Should companies be able to dictate your personal life." That's all.

You need to run for office, that was gooood. :D

That almost sounds like this: "Judge, I didn't murder the guy, per se; I was merely exercising my right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; he was negatively impacting my happiness."

[Demiurge]

You're not getting this. If the big cheese doesn't like you, why do you want to work from him? Moreover how are you entitled to work for him and get the money his company generates?

If the big cheese is a big dick, the big cheese will have no employees. Without employees the big cheese doesn't have a business. Big cheese becomes small fry.

You don't need unions to accomplish that.

[Demiurge]

...good lord, talk about a loaded question. That's the "politically correct" version of "Should companies be able to dictate your personal life." That's all.

You need to run for office, that was gooood. :D

That almost sounds like this: "Judge, I didn't murder the guy, per se; I was merely exercising my right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; he was negatively impacting my happiness."

That's the direct result is in not?

"Should businesses be allowed to tell you if you can drink soda at home?"

Of course not. Are you turning into a chub that costs the business in health coverage over time?

If you don't go directly to the conclusion you're not being honest. You don't want to ask yourself why companies are doing these things and would rather look at them as being evil. Our slip & sue society is to blame for the reaction you're seeing in the business world.

I have a question for you to think over...

Suppose you have a heart attack while you're not at work. Your insurance, partially paid by your employer (at much cheaper rates than what you could negotiate on your own), still covers you, right?

[PhantomOG]

...because in the non-union world, if the Big Cheese don't like you, you're gone.

but that's what so great about living here in the USofA. You don't have to work for the Big Cheese, you go work hard somplace else and become a Big Cheese yourself.

I don't know. I just don't like the self-entitlement/need for the government/employer/mommy&daddy/etc. to take care of me mentality. If people in the US became a little more innovative and a little less "dependent" I think we'd all be in a better place. There is so much opportunity available in the US... people are dying trying to get here (immigrants) and yet we still sit around and act like we have no chance of surviving if someone else isn't look out for our best interests.

[bobman1235]

When was the last time any of you worked only 40 hours in a week?

When was the last time I actually worked a full 40-hour week is more like it.

Although if my boss peruses this board, then.... the answer is every week.... um... yeah.

[steveinaz]

You're not getting this. If the big cheese doesn't like you, why do you want to work from him?

No, you're not "getting" it; I don't give a damn how the boss "feels" about me, I'm there to do a job to the best of my abilities, not win a popularity contest. I'm providing a service for a fee. I can't stand the boss I have right now---do I care? Hell no. Every 2 weeks a get a paycheck, and I'm very good at what I do. That's all the reassurance I need.

[Shizelbs]

If said Big Cheese can run his company by firing otherwise good employees simply at his whim and irrational discretion, best of luck to them. But I don't think they are going to be too successful at doing so.

[steveinaz]

but that's what so great about living here in the USofA. You don't have to work for the Big Cheese, you go work hard somplace else and become a Big Cheese yourself.

I don't know. I just don't like the self-entitlement/need for the government/employer/mommy&daddy/etc. to take care of me mentality. If people in the US became a little more innovative and a little less "dependent" I think we'd all be in a better place. There is so much opportunity available in the US... people are dying trying to get here (immigrants) and yet we still sit around and act like we have no chance of surviving if someone else isn't look out for our best interests.

Well, thats all well and good---but there aren't 300,000,000 executive level positions open currently, come on, man. You gotta have worker bees, they are the ones who actually perform the "work." Why not take care of them in a fair manner? Sheesh.

[Demiurge]

If said Big Cheese can run his company by firing otherwise good employees simply at his whim and irrational discretion, best of luck to them. But I don't think they are going to be too successful at doing so.

EXACTLY!

[steveinaz]

If said Big Cheese can run his company by firing otherwise good employees simply at his whim and irrational discretion, best of luck to them. But I don't think they are going to be too successful at doing so.

You'd be amazed how many people they can keep on board---it's a bad economy.

[PhantomOG]

Well, thats all well and good---but there aren't 300,000,000 executive level positions open currently, come on, man. You gotta have worker bees, they are the ones who actually perform the "work." Why not take care of them in a fair manner? Sheesh.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be taken care of in a fair manner. I'm saying its the free market that should keep things in check, not government legislation and unions. If a company treats their employees like crap, it will be reflected in their products and in their bottom line. It will also be reflected in the happiness of their employees--but each person is master of their own destiny and if they choose to continue to work there, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Demiurge]

No, you're not "getting" it; I don't give a damn how the boss "feels" about me, I'm there to do a job to the best of my abilities, not win a popularity contest. I'm providing a service for a fee. I can't stand the boss I have right now---do I care? Hell no. Every 2 weeks a get a paycheck, and I'm very good at what I do. That's all the reassurance I need.

Steve, with all due respect. You're not entitled to any job (without a contract), period. You're there because he hired you and wanted to pay you for your service. If he doesn't want you there for whatever reason (IMO) he should have the right to can your ass no questions asked.

I'm well aware of there being all sorts of laws for hiring and firing people. It doesn't make them right, just like smoking bans. Not to mention they can get rid of you for whatever reason they might want to make up. Most don't because they don't want to get sued.

Shizelbs statement above shows the result of a business owner's actions if he's being unfair. There are consequences for the employer without strongarming him. He probably knows the consequences better than the employee does, especially if they're just there to collect a paycheck.

Yep, I believe in capitalism through and through, even when it kicks me in the teeth.

[PhantomOG]

You'd be amazed how many people they can keep on board---it's a bad economy.

Its my insinuation that the two are exactly related. If you have a society full of people who blame others and the economy for their plight, the situation will only get worse.

[steveinaz]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be taken care of in a fair manner. I'm saying its the free market that should keep things in check, not government legislation and unions. If a company treats their employees like crap, it will be reflected in their products and in their bottom line. It will also be reflected in the happiness of their employees--but each person is master of their own destiny and if they choose to continue to work there, they have no one to blame but themselves.

In theory you are 100% correct, and I would agree in a perfect world. Unfortunately in the real world it doesn't work that way for most people. For any of a million reasons...

Some bosses still haven't figured out that happy employees make successful employees---of course you've always got your bad apples, no doubt. We have GS-15's upstairs that couldn't supervise a kindergardner successfully because the only thing they ever learned was "old age and treachery" tactics. A phrase we used to use in the Army for people who had to depend on their "rank" because they lacked any type of personal Charisma or natural leadership abilities/qualities.

[Demiurge]

Steve, just in case you missed it --

Suppose you have a heart attack while you're not at work. Your insurance, partially paid by your employer (at much cheaper rates than what you could negotiate on your own), still covers you, right?

I just want to know if you think it would be right if employers only paid for your fuck ups and accidents on the job.

[steveinaz]

One final question.

This discussion is fair, healthy, and I'm always open to learning something new. But, how do these conversations have anything to do with employers telling you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home?

That was the original question of the poll.

[steveinaz]

Steve, just in case you missed it --

Suppose you have a heart attack while you're not at work. Your insurance, partially paid by your employer (at much cheaper rates than what you could negotiate on your own), still covers you, right

Yes.


I just want to know if you think it would be right if employers only paid for your fuck ups and accidents on the job.

No, it wouldn't be right. Health coverage is health coverage, not "work health" coverage. Some companies offer health coverage as a benefit (NOT a priviledge) to draw employees. Uncle Sam pays 70% of my premium for having the joy of having me around. :D

[PhantomOG]

One final question.

This discussion is fair, healthy, and I'm always open to learning something new. But, how do these conversations have anything to do with employers telling you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home?

That was the original question of the poll.

I need a third answer. I feel that Yes, that they legally can make outrageous demands, but No, I won't ever be caught working for someone who did. :D

[steveinaz]

Hoorah! That's what I'm looking for. I agree, I could have worded the poll better, but it's hard to cover the bases without watering down the subject too much with disclaimers.

Phantom, you & I get into it alot, but I do respect your opinions, I don't always understand or agree with them--but I am listening.

Same with Demi, he knows alot of things I don't, and sometimes what sounds like a challenge is me actually "fishing" for more information, and I'm sure he knows that as well...I'm sure in his position at work he is exposed to things that I am not exposed to, or have to deal with, so I try to pick his brain to get a feel for where he's coming from.

You know the "walk a mile in my shoes" kinda thing...

[Demiurge]

Yes.

No, it wouldn't be right. Health coverage is health coverage, not "work health" coverage. Some companies offer health coverage as a benefit (NOT a priviledge) to draw employees. Uncle Sam pays 70% of my premium for having the joy of having me around. :D

Interesting dichotomy you've created when it comes to the expectations you place on employers as opposed to employees.

I think I made my point as succinctly as I could in that regard. :cool:

[Demiurge]

Hoorah! That's what I'm looking for. I agree, I could have worded the poll better, but it's hard to cover the bases without watering down the subject too much with disclaimers.

Phantom, you & I get into it alot, but I do respect your opinions, I don't always understand or agree with them--but I am listening.

Same with Demi, he knows alot of things I don't, and sometimes what sounds like a challenge is me actually "fishing" for more information, and I'm sure he knows that as well...

Don't worry, you're one of my favoites around here. ;)

Discussions are always fun so long as someone isn't calling you a Nazi for disagreeing! The internet is a bad place for arguing anyhow. I think we can always make a more understandable argument when talking.

We could talk for hours over this subject, but who is going to read any of it? :D

[steveinaz]

Hey, they're in other forums talking about stereo's and we're over here solving world issues...who cares if they read it? ;)

[PhantomOG]

Hoorah! That's what I'm looking for. I agree, I could have worded the poll better, but it's hard to cover the bases without watering down the subject too much with disclaimers.

Phantom, you & I get into it alot, but I do respect your opinions, I don't always understand or agree with them--but I am listening.

Same with Demi, he knows alot of things I don't, and sometimes what sounds like a challenge is me actually "fishing" for more information, and I'm sure he knows that as well...I'm sure in his position at work he is exposed to things that I am not exposed to, or have to deal with, so I try to pick his brain to get a feel for where he's coming from.

You know the "walk a mile in my shoes" kinda thing...

agreed, I enjoy the discussions on this forum. I don't see it simply as a springboard to bounce my own opinions, but as a place to see others' points of view and think about things in a different way. If everyone was of the same mind as me I don't think I would come here very often. Likewise, if I couldn't find intelligent discussion.

[Demiurge]

Hey, this is turning into a circle jerk now. Quit while you're ahead. :p

[steveinaz]

In the words of General George Patton: "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

[brettw22]

The internet is a bad place for arguing anyhow. I think we can always make a more understandable argument when talking. Don't worry.....I'm here to keep ya on track. :D lol

[Demiurge]

;) :p

[rskarvan]

Polk isn't innocent either.... they are now producing products in sunny Mexico. Yes, its a fine factory. Yes, they make a quality product. But, why the heck did they move production from Baltimore? How many hours does a Mexican have to work to purchase a set of LSi 15's?

[Demiurge]

You missed the punch and pie. That's what you get for taking that union mandated smoke break. :p

[steveinaz]

rotflmao!!!

Yeah, where were you for the group hug??

[scottnbnj]

What if your company adopted a policy tommorrow that stated they didn't want NRA members on their rolls? Would you be ok with that?

steve, i usually agree with you, but i think you're missing something here. i'd be happy to add the company to the levi's list but come on, you want gov't to come crashing in on them?

who decides what sorts of political animals the gov't is going to try to force me to bring into my customers' homes? park their billboards on my property? does a pandering politician or a judge she appoints decide who i will be mandated to associate with? how do they decide what group meets the politically protected group status test?

fine worker or not, gov't mandate or not, i will decide whether or not i continue to associate myself with the likes of someone that parks themselves outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center or a soldier's funeral in their spare time with signs like these:

[F1nut]

Ron, Polk is in China now....have been for a few years.

[mrbigbluelight]

In the words of General George Patton: "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

accused of being insubordinate at work.

I asked the question (verbatim): "Why ?".

And not in an insolent tone, either.

I pointed out that Patton, Old Blood N' Guts, DEMANDED from his staff that they not be "Yes" men during staff meetings and plans were being formulated.
One of the quickest ways to get bumped from his staff was to be a bootlicking sycophant.

[brettw22]

One month unemployed and I couldn't be happier with the decision......May they burn in hell........lol.

[Shizelbs]

Hey boss. I know you know that I frequent this forum...

I am totally rad right now (drunk).

In your face.

[steveinaz]

There you go, stick it to the man! LOL

[PhantomOG]

fine worker or not, gov't mandate or not, i will decide whether or not i continue to associate myself with the likes of someone that parks themselves outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center or a soldier's funeral in their spare time with signs like these:

Seriously... Steve, if you ran a business and saw on the evening news that an employee of yours was one of those who were protesting at soldier's funerals. What would you do? I know there is a difference between doing something in the privacy of your home and in public, but in both cases you are not on the company's dime. Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

[sucks2beme]

Seriously... Steve, if you ran a business and saw on the evening news that an employee of yours was one of those who were protesting at soldier's funerals. What would you do? I know there is a difference between doing something in the privacy of your home and in public, but in both cases you are not on the company's dime. Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

I think firing over politics is wrong. Nothing wrong with a good ol' one on one
stern lecture on how this may reflect badly on us by your behavior talk!
Those idiots in the picture are from some church run by a couple of wacked
out lawyers. Everyone that's a member is for the most part related. Maybe not a prime example.
And , of course there is the other extreme when your employer TELLS you to
be at a protest or political rally. $100 a plate fund raisers for the mayor's race was common in some big cities.

[PhantomOG]

I think firing over politics is wrong. Nothing wrong with a good ol' one on one
stern lecture on how this may reflect badly on us by your behavior talk!
Those idiots in the picture are from some church run by a couple of wacked
out lawyers. Everyone that's a member is for the most part related. Maybe not a prime example.
And , of course there is the other extreme when your employer TELLS you to
be at a protest or political rally. $100 a plate fund raisers for the mayor's race was common in some big cities.

well, politics aside, this was an example of someone showing really really poor judgement when in the public. I don't think any political party would condone their behaviour.

my point is, as an employer you are responsible for creating a company image. whether you want it to or not, what your employees do on their own time can and will have an effect on that image. I believe the employer has the right to protect that image, even by firing if necessary.

Just recently there was a teacher here in Austin that is in the process of being fired for the presence of nude pictures of her on the internet. Students had access to it since it was a public website. The website was not even hers. Should she be fired for this? Keep in mind she is a public school teacher (high school).

[jdhdiggs]

Private company should be able to do what it wants. As a private employee, you can do what you want. If the two conflict, you find another job as the job you have belongs to your employer and not to you.

A comment on my experience with Unions, here's a breakout of unions helping its memebership from our business standpoint:

Percentage of Labor Retained over the past 24 months for projects that I have personally worked with:

Unionized: ~20% (two of the eleven projects resulted in complete removal of all US Jobs)
Non-Union: ~75% and none moved jobs to outside the US (14 projects completed)

When we go into a company, the union question is asked first. If it is present, we know that millions of $ can be saved by eliminating those jobs and outsourcing or replacing with automation. In a non-union shop, it is much more difficult to justify those moves things since the non-union facilites are much more competitive worldwide.

I mean it is simple: it's harder to replace a guy making $10-$15/hr than one making $25-$30 when both do the same job.

Unions are only good anymore for the short term employment of its members. Those of you in unions and jobs, cool, you're getting more $ than the market pays. Unfortunately, in the long run, the market will correct itself. Hopefully that time will come after your retired for your industry.

[steveinaz]

Private company should be able to do what it wants. As a private employee, you can do what you want. If the two conflict, you find another job as the job you have belongs to your employer and not to you.

...I would agree, PROVIDED the employee is made aware of these policies before hand, not 20 yrs down the road.

[Demiurge]

We need more punch and pie.... :D

Isn't it common sense, rather than a policy?

[steveinaz]

Seriously... Steve, if you ran a business and saw on the evening news that an employee of yours was one of those who were protesting at soldier's funerals. What would you do? I know there is a difference between doing something in the privacy of your home and in public, but in both cases you are not on the company's dime. Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

Offensive as it is, if what they are doing is legal, since when is your company judge & jury? This is an EXTREME example, as long as we have morons in America, there will always be exceptions to every rule.

Do you think you should be fired for having a "Support our Troops" magnet on your car, because the boss-man doesn't agree with the politics behind the war?

Laws rule this land, not CEO's. Thank God, at least so far.

You keep bringing up "if you don't like the company, leave." Well, where do we go when all companies adopt these rediculous policies? Where will YOU work? Some people's integrity is up for sale, mine isn't; I'm sure yours is not either; where will you and I find work where we don't have to give up our personal values to some control freak?

[PhantomOG]

Offensive as it is, if what they are doing is legal, since when is your company judge & jury? This is an EXTREME example, as long as we have morons in America, there will always be exceptions to every rule.

Do you think you should be fired for having a "Support our Troops" magnet on your car, because the boss-man doesn't agree with the politics behind the war?

Laws rule this land, not CEO's. Thank God, at least so far.

If either case is causing loss of business to the company, I think firing should be allowed. Maybe the term firing is the problem here... how about laying off? Sure, they should be unable to collect unemployment since they weren't 'fired' for on job behaviour, but I truly believe a company must be allowed to hire new employees and also release employees as they see fit for their business.

[jdhdiggs]

The thing is Steve, one smart business man will not adopt these policies and hir all the offended, unemployed, quality workers.

Why does the duration of one's employment have anything to do with a private owners choice to change policy? That's just asinine!

Owner: I know I've never had you work weekends, but can you come in on Saturday?
22Yr Vet: No, you never did this before.

New guy: What he said

Owner: New guy, you're fired, vet guy, its so nice to have you here...

WTF? Longevity has nothing to do with it. If you are talking pensions and other long term financial incentives, well the employee needs to decide whether its worth it to adhere to the policies or not. The employees should NEVER have the RIGHT to FORCE the owner to do something with their own business.

[steveinaz]

We need more punch and pie.... :D

Isn't it common sense, rather than a policy?

Where's the common sense in telling an employee they can't drink on their own time, in their own home. I'm talking about companies that have decided to adopt policies that infringe on an indivduals off-duty lifestyle. If they are going to do so, the potential employee needs to be briefed on the policies up front, then the potential employee can decide if they are willing to accept such terms.

[PhantomOG]

This is an EXTREME example, as long as we have morons in America, there will always be exceptions to every rule.

And I would say that the policies you detailed in your original post are "extreme" and warrant in no way worrying about ALL companies adopting policies like this. In the end it just seems like a mountain out of a molehill. You think the government should step in and regulate businesses to prevent this. I think the free market will prevent this type of behaviour from ever being more than a blip on the radar. In the end, we both see it as bad. I just don't see it as a real problem, but I don't know your situation so I can't say why you think this will become widespread.

[steveinaz]

but I truly believe a company must be allowed to hire new employees and also release employees as they see fit for their business.

I do to, provided it's based on documented work performance related issues.

[steveinaz]

And I would say that the policies you detailed in your original post are "extreme" and warrant in no way worrying about ALL companies adopting policies like this. In the end it just seems like a mountain out of a molehill. You think the government should step in and regulate businesses to prevent this. I think the free market will prevent this type of behaviour from ever being more than a blip on the radar. In the end, we both see it as bad. I just don't see it as a real problem, but I don't know your situation so I can't say why you think this will become widespread.

Brother, I hope you are right.

[steveinaz]

The thing is Steve, one smart business man will not adopt these policies and hir all the offended, unemployed, quality workers.

Why does the duration of one's employment have anything to do with a private owners choice to change policy? That's just asinine!

Owner: I know I've never had you work weekends, but can you come in on Saturday?
22Yr Vet: No, you never did this before.

New guy: What he said

Owner: New guy, you're fired, vet guy, its so nice to have you here...

WTF? Longevity has nothing to do with it. If you are talking pensions and other long term financial incentives, well the employee needs to decide whether its worth it to adhere to the policies or not. The employees should NEVER have the RIGHT to FORCE the owner to do something with their own business.

So you're telling me that you will let your company dictate your off-hours activities...is that what you're saying?

I sure hope alot of you guys are BIG FISH, because you sure sound like none of this will ever affect you.

[steveinaz]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, because this business of companies telling you that you can't do certain things (otherwise lawful/legal things) just don't wash with me.

Do whatever you need to do, as long as you have no problem looking in the shaving mirror, knock yourself out.

PEACE, out.

[jdhdiggs]

I'm saying it's their job. They say here is the job and the policies you must adhere to, in exchange we will give $X and benifits. I then decide if I want to work, or continue to work, for them. Companies with outlandish policies will pay a price in talent drain and reputation and cease to exist.

Would I support my company doing it? Depends what was asked (We currently don't even have a drug abuse policy). Would I support their right to do it, absolutely.

[Demiurge]

Don't leave, Steve!

I understand where you are coming from, Steve. I just am not sure you're putting your feet in the shoes of the other guy. As far as jobs go, I've had my feet in every pair of shoes on the corporate ladder. True, I have never worked in any upper level management of a major corporation, and I'm still really young for where I am at now. I'm small time, and don't feel much different than my guys that are out there welding right now -- because I did it all, and I'm not afraid of doing it again if I need to help out.

When you talk about things being up-front on the behalf of the employee I don't get what you mean. When we hire people we've got a handbook that one of the managers of any given department will go over with the new employee. I have to imagine that whomever hired you went way above and beyond what we do here.

In the end they get an understanding of our general expectations, and they can bounce questions off of us. If they don't like what we're doing they don't need to take the job. Maybe they still don't like it, but their paycheck makes up for it. It's always a give and take in any job. If you're miserable anywhere, quit.

Policies in any company can change week to week. If the owner makes a change you don't like you're free to leave. You've questioned why some of us keep making the comment. The why is simple, unless you're under a contract (lots of companies offer them) you really don't have any reasonable expectation to be compensated in any way or have a right to tell the owner he can't make changes within his own business.

It's never going to be the entire corporate world that does the things you're suggesting. Do you want to know why? Because I would then become the worlds first trillionaire by capitalizing on what the rest of the corproate world refused to offer.

Let's face it, me becoming a trillionaire would be about as likely as what you're suggesting would happen. The chances are null.

[steveinaz]

Having high expectations and well written policy is fine. As a boss you need these things in line for the occasional bad-apple PITA employee, no doubt. What this thread was addressing is the extreme policies that were noted on the 60 minutes segment---

13 of the 15 years in the Army, I was in supervisory positions. I was up front with my expectations of my soldiers, and I documented everything. I was hard, firm, but always fair to people, and always treated them with dignity---just as I would like to be treated. The bad apples always went away--they tend to dig their own graves in the end, and it's just a matter of documenting and counseling the individual. I never felt the need to tell my soldiers how to live their personal lives---it wasn't (and isn't) any of my business--provided it is legal.

Controlling peoples lives and pushing your personal values/agendas onto them...well, because you can... is bullshit, and people should be protected from this sort of egotistic "think like me or get fired" mentality. Period.

[brettw22]

Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?Did the person protesting have a company sticker stuck to their forehead? I'd like to know who's going to show any tangible result in profitibility loss or gain by the employee doing the protesting. A simple "i don't agree or like it" would be a lawyers dream.....and that's not the lawyers fault. It's the fault of the one who chose to discriminate based on a value system that they're trying to mandate onto people in their off hours.

Demi, you're standing up mostly for small business owners, whereas Steve is seemingly arguing big business. While they're both businesses, they're totally different beasts, so to try and get you two on the same page won't happen (as demo'd by the 5 it's taken here).....

[PhantomOG]

Did the person protesting have a company sticker stuck to their forehead? I'd like to know who's going to show any tangible result in profitibility loss or gain by the employee doing the protesting.

In a small business where the employee must deal face to face with customers it can easily make a difference if the employee is doing something the general public will find distasteful and the media picks up on it.

Big business and small business should play by the same rules.

[Demiurge]

Demi, you're standing up mostly for small business owners, whereas Steve is seemingly arguing big business. While they're both businesses, they're totally different beasts, so to try and get you two on the same page won't happen (as demo'd by the 5 it's taken here).....

Yeah, I definitely agree there. :o

[jdhdiggs]

Why should it matter at the size of the business? If a large business decides something (Shareholders will or what not), why shouldn't they be able to do it? First off, it would make no business sense so they would intentionally throwing their money away. Second, if thats what the shareholders want, what right does the government have in preventing it? Yes, they can avoid giving said company contracts, but unless they do something criminal, it is their right.

If the CEO does it without the shareholders approval, he gets fired and the policy reversed.

[Demiurge]

Why should it matter at the size of the business? If a large business decides something (Shareholders will or what not), why shouldn't they be able to do it? First off, it would make no business sense so they would intentionally throwing their money away. Second, if thats what the shareholders want, what right does the government have in preventing it? Yes, they can avoid giving said company contracts, but unless they do something criminal, it is their right.

If the CEO does it without the shareholders approval, he gets fired and the policy reversed.

It shouldn't, but the bigger the company the more ridiculous the policies, the harder it is to get answers, and I can see why frustration would be greater.

I do think that all business should be able to play by the same rules. I just think that since Steve is working for one of (if not the) largest employer in the country his perspective is different than that of someone like myself. I don't purport to understand the frustration he has to deal with, and I still don't agree with him overall. I do agree that it's unlikely we're going to come to any kind of a mutual understanding of this issue in this thread.

[jdhdiggs]

But the basis stays the same. Some individual, or group of individuals owns the company and creates the jobs. If the owner wants to make some asinine policy, it is their right as long as it complies with contracts already in force and governing law. If it meets both of those criteria, who cares. The employee has the right to quit or sue, the general public can demand a policy change or stop buying products and services, governments could make it illegal.

If XOM decided that everyone must drive yellow cars to work, how is that unfair? It's a stupid policy that will cost them tons of employees and money, but isn't it their perogative?

Maybe I just see the people on the other side of the wall from the "faceless corporate giants". Change the words "The company" to "The guy who created the job" and you'll see my point. Same with govenment policies. Everytime you see someone say "the government should pay" replace "the government" with "other Americans".

[brettw22]

The problem is that the arguements here are based on a two dimensional problem, whereas this is multi-faceted and multi-layer issue.

If certain behaviors are stipulated against (NFL player not allowed to skydive) and that's agreed to,fine, but that's monumentally different than a CEO saying that I don't want you drinking in your off time. That's different also from an airline company saying that a Pilot cannot be an alcoholic. The difference is that the profession in question is severely compromised by the pilot's alcoholism. The same cannot be said for an office worker who performs their job function without fail.....BUT the second the drinking enters the workplace (rum in the coffee mug, coming in hung over), then it becomes a work issue and should be addressed and that's why companies have policies that rule the workplace.

I remember Avis years ago sending speeding tickets to people based on what GPS was tracking their rentals. Avis was rightfully sued because they violated the privacy of their customer. Bottom line.......employees (an employers customers somewhat) have privacy outside the workplace that an employer generally shouldn't have access too mandating how my choices affect my non-working life (unless, as mentioned above, it's a signed contractual issue specifically limiting behavior).

The ONLY way that Employers should be able to mandate in this kind of detail is if every employee became a contracted employee and the employee signs on saying that's what they're willing to do for the pay. The logistics of giving everyone a contract makes as much sense as saying "we dont' want you drinking at home, so good bye."

[steveinaz]

This isn't a "hypothetical"...this is real, it's happening right now. CEO's are telling employees to loose weight, stop drinking, work out, lower your cholesterol, remove that bumper sticker, only use OUR product, change your political views.....or be fired.

I don't need "daddy" in my personal life, I'll make my own decisions, thank you. If you want to narrow down your employees to only the statistically perfect, then don't even offer healthcare---though this is more than about the money now...it's to the point where companies are trying to force people to change their politics.

AGAIN, I'm not talking about standard work ethic here; be on time, do a good job, dress appropriately, be professional....I'm talking personally INVASIVE policies, either you get it, or you don't. To hear some you talk, you'd be all for having cameras mounted in your home to make sure those employees behave. That way you can call them at 10:30pm when you spot them still watching TV, to remind them that should be in bed, so they're well rested for work tommorrow, and they won't be a health deficit to the company. Afterall, you do "own" them right?

BTW, the "CEO" didn't create the job. "Demand" did.

sheesh. If you don't see the problem here, I'm not going to make any difference by posting 10,000 replies. THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR PERSONAL, LEGAL, LAWFUL, LIFE---OFF THE CLOCK. Either you concur with that sort of "arrangement" or you don't. I don't.

[madmax]

I like the yellow car example. Is there any legal reason a company couldn't require you to drive a yellow color car to work? What about on your off time? Just wondering.
madmax

[cfrizz]

Thank you Brett!!!! This is not such a black & white issue, there are so many shades of grey that it's not funny.

Business's are always trying to screw their employees over, when it becomes too egregious they get sued & the goverment steps in & slaps ALL businesses back into line! Sometime the lawsuit is enough to put the handwriting on the wall & the businesses find a different way to try to accomplish what it wants.

Case in point, pensions & 401k's.

[steveinaz]

I like the yellow car example. Is there any legal reason a company couldn't require you to drive a yellow color car to work? What about on your off time? Just wondering.
madmax

Perfectly legal, if you agree to those terms. Any lemming that would, deserves the grief that would surely come with it....

Now, you've been with the company for 5 years, when they decide to start this new "yellow" car policy. You have to buy a yellow car or get fired? Would that be right? It wasn't a requirement when you were hired---ok to change the rules in the middle of the game? An employee is going to be seriously financially burdened on the whim of an egotistical CEO who likes his parking lot to match? A CEO who pulls down 25 times what that employee does?

I think not.

[steveinaz]

Thank you Brett!!!! This is not such a black & white issue, there are so many shades of grey that it's not funny.

Business's are always trying to screw their employees over, when it becomes too egregious they get sued & the goverment steps in & slaps ALL businesses back into line! Sometime the lawsuit is enough to put the handwriting on the wall & the businesses find a different way to try to accomplish what it wants.

Case in point, pensions & 401k's.

You're right Cathy---I hope. What amazes me more than companies trying this crap, is people actually condoning/supporting/justifying it.

[Demiurge]

Steve, just hold your tongue with your thumb and pointer finger in front of my boss and say "Hey, bitch, how does my dictate?"

[Demiurge]

Thank you Brett!!!! This is not such a black & white issue, there are so many shades of grey that it's not funny.

Business's are always trying to screw their employees over, when it becomes too egregious they get sued & the goverment steps in & slaps ALL businesses back into line! Sometime the lawsuit is enough to put the handwriting on the wall & the businesses find a different way to try to accomplish what it wants.

Case in point, pensions & 401k's.

This is why it's pointless to have an argument if someone truly believes this. You're lumping all businesses into an argument you say has a grey area...

All businesses are NOT doing this to employees, and that's one of the fundamental differences between what business will succeed and what business will fail. This is capitalism, not socialism.

[brettw22]

But you ARE kind of lumping all businesses into a category saying they won't, or that they're all entitled to do what Steve's question poses. It goes both ways.

[cfrizz]

It's not amazing Steve, the ones condoning it, are the CEO's & boards since it means THEY end up with the money they "saved" in their already fat pockets, that they screwed over the people who actually do the work for them!


You're right Cathy---I hope. What amazes me more than companies trying this crap, is people actually condoning/supporting/justifying it.

[F1nut]

It scares the hell outta me that some of you think it's ok for any business to dictate what an employee does away from the job. No wonder this country is such a effing mess!!!

[steveinaz]

God bless you F1Nut. I was beginning to think I was alone.....
Exactly. When, in this country did it ever become acceptable to buy a piece of property, create a business and then re-write the constitution?

Little empires, that's what it boils down to.

[steveinaz]

This is why it's pointless to have an argument if someone truly believes this. You're lumping all businesses into an argument you say has a grey area...

All businesses are NOT doing this to employees, and that's one of the fundamental differences between what business will succeed and what business will fail. This is capitalism, not socialism.

No. Incorrect assumption. I'm talking about companies that actively practice these personally invasive policies.

Capitalism, just like democracy sometimes needs a reality check; hence, laws. Abuse of power is abuse of power, whatever label you want to give it.

[F1nut]

Steve,

You're not alone, there's 51 other people here that think the same way.

I worked for both small and big business during my life. They all seem to want to mold you into a "company" man, be a team player, etc. and that's just during work hours. Now, some want to INVADE their employees private lives too!!! That's wrong, couldn't be more wrong. Unless you have a contract that states you can't do this or that, your employer has no right to tell you what you can or can not do when you're off the clock.

In the end, I got sick of the corporate "slave" mentality, told' em to eff off and started my own business. Now Demi, before you say anything about that, I know you realize that not everyone can do that and I hope you realize that not everyone can just quit their job either. A better solution would be for the "company" to rethink how they treat their employees and to respect their differences in thought and lifestyles. The employer, employee relationship is a two way street. Would the owner of any company want their employees telling them how to live their private lives? Not a chance in hell.

[janmike]

Steve,

You're not alone, there's 51 other people here that think the same way.

I worked for both small and big business during my life. They all seem to want to mold you into a "company" man, be a team player, etc. and that's just during work hours. Now, some want to INVADE their employees private lives too!!! That's wrong, couldn't be more wrong. Unless you have a contract that states you can't do this or that, your employer has no right to tell you what you can or can not do when you're off the clock.

In the end, I got sick of the corporate "slave" mentality, told' em to eff off and started my own business. Now Demi, before you say anything about that, I know you realize that not everyone can do that and I hope you realize that not everyone can just quit their job either. A better solution would be for the "company" to rethink how they treat their employees and to respect their differences in thought and lifestyles. The employer, employee relationship is a two way street. Would the owner of any company want their employees telling them how to live their private lives? Not a chance in hell.


HERE HERE!

[scottnbnj]

goodness gracious, looks like that group hug thing that was going on last night has been rescinded.

)

[Demiurge]

But you ARE kind of lumping all businesses into a category saying they won't, or that they're all entitled to do what Steve's question poses. It goes both ways.

I'm not making any bones about lumping them all together. I don't think that all businesses want to bend over all of their employees and treat them like a jailhouse sally. I also don't think that all businesses are even remotely saintly. There are bad businesses, and bad employees, good businesses and good employees.

I'd say the bigger the business, the bigger the communication breakdown, and the more likely you're going to get the shaft.

I've read 3 times now that all businesses are bad and that the government should regulate their decision making process, which is a quasi-socialist viewpoint. It's government meddling in the decisions private businesses make.

I've had bad bosses, and gotten the shaft from bad bosses. I'm a capitalist through and through even when it affects me.

I know John isn't a business owner, and I don't think PhantomOG is a business owner either. Jesse is, and he did the right thing. Got sick of the B.S. by the bad bosses he started his own company. Jesse, are you a bad boss? Do you get lumped in with Cathy's statement about all businesses? Or do you just work for yourself.

I just see you as a prime example of what can be done, despite the fact you disagree. You've illustrated exactly what John, PhantomOG, and myself have said the solution is. You did it without the government holding your hand.

Yes, not everyone can easily quit their job -- I guess, since nobody wants to change their lifestyle, especially if they're living beyond their means. Not everyone can easily start a business if they haven't built up any capital. Even there you've got choices to make.

I respect most of your viewpoints despite disagreeing. I don't respect those who will just say carte blanche that all businesses are bad. It's not even remotely thoughtful.

Has anyone else seen this 60 minutes show? What business is this happening in? Are they still in business? Personally I have never heard of a business telling someone they can't have a beer after work. Even if they have, why on earth would you still work there? It's been said a million times, but nobody has answered the question as to why you'd be at a place like that.

[scottnbnj]

Steve,

You're not alone, there's 51 other people here that think the same way.

for the record, i voted no too. so i'm not all that sure what the poll numbers actually say 51 people think about this.

i decided i was going to be self-employed relatively early in life. i'm not a great example of what starting and running a business can be by any account. nonetheless, being a business is part of why i see things a bit different from a lot of what i read here.

)

[scottnbnj]

BTW, the "CEO" didn't create the job. "Demand" did.

steve, humbly, i think demand without supply is like an unfulfilled fantasy. linked at the hip as they may be, the reality of creating and maintaining a job through providing a product that is in demand is on the supply side. who runs a company and how they do it should have something to do with one product being picked over another and an ongoing need for the job.

)

[scottnbnj]

...there will always be exceptions to every rule. ...

and you decide what the exceptions are for who the gov't mandates me to associate with until they decide to leave me?

is that in the constitution somewhere?

)

[scottnbnj]

just another thought along those lines, does an employee have to have a reason that you and the gov't approve of to leave me?

)

[F1nut]

There are bad businesses, and bad employees, good businesses and good employees.

BINGO!!!


Yeah, I'm not so sure that the Feds have a place in telling a business what they can or can not do as far as trying to regulate their employees private lives. One would hope that the business would realize what a bad idea that is all by themselves. If not, there's always a lawyer looking to make a name and a buck.

I'm self employed, but use outside contractors when needed. As I was also looking to lower the stress levels in my life/work, I didn't and don't want any employees. :)

[scottnbnj]

agreed on bingo. i'm with you on subs and employees too. i guess it could go without saying that part of the reason is that the gov't has woven such a ridiculously tangled web for employers to comply with, but pixels are free here.

anyway, some great stuff below for anyone interested in the courts, the law or just looking for the gov't approved ways of getting yourself terminated wrongfully:
http://employment.findlaw.com/
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

)

[Demiurge]

BINGO!!!


Yeah, I'm not so sure that the Feds have a place in telling a business what they can or can not do as far as trying to regulate their employees private lives. One would hope that the business would realize what a bad idea that is all by themselves. If not, there's always a lawyer looking to make a name and a buck.

I'm self employed, but use outside contractors when needed. As I was also looking to lower the stress levels in my life/work, I didn't and don't want any employees. :)

Right on, see that's where I think the market corrects itself. I'm under the impression 60 minutes wasn't walking down the street with camera in tow going from business to business where this is happening. I've never heard of it.

I would imagine that any company that would try this isn't doing too well unless they're paying gobs of money people don't want to walk away from. Greed is a 2 way street.

I don't know what you're doing for Health Insurance, Jesse, but would you agree that these crazy measures talked about in the 60 Minutes show are probably linked to the cost? There are lawsuits for everything, which has driven the cost of insurance through the roof. I don't think business in the general sense is interested in controling anyones life choices. That's why I have an issue with how this whole question was presented. I think they could care less what you're doing so long as you show up and do a good job.

Here's an interesting stat, behind employee theft, insurance costs are the #1 reason small businesses are shutting down.

[reeltrouble1]

We absolutely need government to regulate business practices, all of them. God Bless our government and give our government worker's strength. BTW did you know strength is the longest word in the English language with one vowel, Great for Probe. Well, maybe their is some new hip-hop sort of word I don't know about?

Government for the people, by the people, of the people, what Idealism, anyway, it was something like those words if not exact.

RT1

[Demiurge]

Government for the people, by the people, of the people, what Idealism, anyway, it was something like those words if not exact.

RT1

Notice it's not government above the people? It means we're not socialist.

[PhantomOG]

Steve (and others), I just wish you would start to see "business" for what it truly is--people. Almost every single "business" out there can be attributed to one or a few "people" sitting down, creating a plan, executing on it, and being successful.

I know for a fact you are the last person in the world who would want the government to step in and tell you what you can and can't do. You are against gun laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, etc. And that's great. I'm also a believer in less government is better government. But, businesses are made up of people too. If I decide to start a business tomorrow where I pay Joe Schmoe $50 an hour to hop around in a bunny suit and promise me he'll never smoke, drink, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet on his free time, what is the harm in that? I'd say it doesn't even matter WHEN I hired him. There are laws in place to protect 401k's etc. so he is still protected if he chooses not to follow my new "business" plan. Unless Joe signed an explicit contract stating "Joe will only lick envelopes from now until eternity and no changes to policy will ever take place" then Joe doesn't have a leg to stand on. Joe can quit on any given day even without two weeks notice and I can't do crap about it. Are you saying after hiring Joe I'm not allowed to make any changes to his job forever?

Now with all that said, there DOES need to be some government regulation. That's why we have OSHA, rules about overtime, 401k's etc. Of course things will need to be fine tuned over time, but our current system is in no way "broken" at the moment.

[scottnbnj]

just curious, has anyone that has sharpened their pitchforks here spent any meaningful time reading and trying to decipher things like case law (law made by judges in rulings and opinions), the actual text of legislation, executive orders, the code of federal regulations and the federal register?

it's really fascinating stuff and going directly to the source is a heck of alot cooler than trusting someone else to interpret it for you.

findlaw is a really good source. if you've never tried this approach and you give it a whirl, don't overlook the annotated constitution and following the links in the footnotes.

)

[reeltrouble1]

Government has a social contract with the people, who agree to be governed as long as government provides a social safety net of services to them.

Every employer has a social responsibility to its employee. The employee has a responsibility to work as directed and then puts back what has been taken from the employer in terms of dollars and services to the society.

Things swing on a pendulum, The Nation is formed with its system of government, very complex, very ineffecient in terms of getting things done, also very smart, very effective system of rule. We have a period of growth, of settlement, war and taming of lands, a major disruption occurs and we fight a civil war mostly about the right of a state to govern itself in the face of a Federal Government. We then have another stronger period of growth, we begin to industrialize to a greater extent, more complicated machinery, more capital is poured into the system, banking system becomes more crystalized, we have a tremendous depression period, the nation suffers as a whole, enter the new deal full of social services provided by the people's government, union's become so strong more law's are passed by the people's government limiting Union power, we continue to industrialize, fight major wars, grow, the first of the boomers enter the picture, we continue to become more affluent it is however, the time of Labor, of social unrest, of distrust, civil right and disobediance gain momentum, our reliance on oil to power things along begins to really take hold. The population begins to age, all is good, it is the time of Business, traditional monopolies are dissolved, strong periods of growth, those with the ability (grouped as the middle class), experience sharp growth on the coatails of the trickle down effect, The country is finally attacked in such a way that the world begins to question its Power and Ability to do things, huge companies default on debts to their employees, the rights of the shareholders overshadow other issues, laws are broken, personal freedom's erode under law as power shifts to protect the society overall, and you know the rest of the story.

Right now the pendulum is swung to the side of big business and their interests, the present generation entering the workforce is the first that will do so without being more affluent than their parents. Christian principles are devauled, other Religion's and ideologies gain in popularity, the Ideological vision of being your brother's keeper erodes. So called Generation X enters with strong feeling's about their right to individuality. Generation Y follows closely, representative of a new phenomenom, so named grouped individuality.

Societies are judged in terms of there poorest not their richest, accordingly we are in a period of decline, the pendulum will swing again, I have faith.

God Bless America and our Leaders, give them Wisdom, whether it be Political or Business as our Nation moves forward.

RT1

[Demiurge]

Government has a social contract with the people, who agree to be governed as long as government provides a social safety net of services to them.

The role of the United States government since it's founding is to protect our rights, protect our lives, liberty, and property. Government involvement beyond that is usurpation of power and an oppressive bent against it's people.

You guys are creating rights that don't exist, and in turn taking your rights away as granted to you by our founding fathers.

Just because we've piled bullshit on top of bullshit over the years doesn't make it frosting. We've gone the right way on many things, and the wrong way on many others.

The real scary thing is the Marxist regulations people are in favor of in a capitalistic society.

[jdhdiggs]

Did you know that the average American is taxed more today and an individual has more government restrictions on their actions than colonists had before July 4, 1776?

The founding fathers we be appalled at the BS our government has become and now we are talking about giving them more power to control jobs? We are slowly becoming a communist state in everything but name...

[steveinaz]

I know for a fact you are the last person in the world who would want the government to step in and tell you what you can and can't do. You are against gun laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, etc. And that's great. I'm also a believer in less government is better government. But, businesses are made up of people too. If I decide to start a business tomorrow where I pay Joe Schmoe $50 an hour to hop around in a bunny suit and promise me he'll never smoke, drink, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet on his free time, what is the harm in that? I'd say it doesn't even matter WHEN I hired him. There are laws in place to protect 401k's etc. so he is still protected if he chooses not to follow my new "business" plan. Unless Joe signed an explicit contract stating "Joe will only lick envelopes from now until eternity and no changes to policy will ever take place" then Joe doesn't have a leg to stand on. Joe can quit on any given day even without two weeks notice and I can't do crap about it. Are you saying after hiring Joe I'm not allowed to make any changes to his job forever?

Now with all that said, there DOES need to be some government regulation. That's why we have OSHA, rules about overtime, 401k's etc. Of course things will need to be fine tuned over time, but our current system is in no way "broken" at the moment.

I don't like government over-seeing either, but some of these recent practices by companies is ludicris. Unfortunately you always have some people who have to take advantage of the situation, see how well they can screw someone else, and ONLY think about the bottom line. If corporate America had its way, aside from upper management positions, we'd all be making minimum wage--anyone who doesn't believe that is naive.

Sure, policies change--no problem. It's impossible to run a business successfully without changes. However, policies at work should be "work policies." They have no business telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my castle.

The only reason America has a "middle class" is because of labor laws, minmum wage laws, and yes, UNIONS. Love'm or hate'm, anyone would be hard pressed to deny that unions, even if you are not in one, have benefited ALL OF US. Anyone who doesn't believe that, go talk to an economics professor at your university of choice. Oh wait, I know one...and he's 3 times published, sat on the commitee that helped restructure Russia's economy, has made numerous trips to China for the same reasons...my older brother.

Yeah, I'm proud of the 'ol boy: http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/resources/publications/advocate/davidrosearticle092002.pdf#search='David%20C.%20Ro se'

[Demiurge]

I don't like government over-seeing either, but some of these recent practices by companies is ludicris. Unfortunately you always have some people who have to take advantage of the situation, see how well they can screw someone else, and ONLY think about the bottom line. If corporate America had its way, aside from upper management positions, we'd all be making minimum wage--anyone who doesn't believe that is naive.

Sure, policies change--no problem. It's impossible to run a business successfully without changes. However, policies at work should be "work policies." They have no business telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my castle.

If everyone made minimum wage, Steve, we could buy LSi15s for $100 a piece. It's all relative.

The free market works every time it's tried....

[PhantomOG]

If corporate America had its way, aside from upper management positions, we'd all be making minimum wage--anyone who doesn't believe that is naive.

It's called capitalism and I think that's a good thing. If you were a business owner I'm sure you would pay your employees the minimum you could to attain the level of employment you desire. That's how you maximize your profits. Its no different than shopping around for the best deal on anything you buy as a consumer. As an employee, you combat this by obtaining a skillset that is more valuable than the next guy who is willing to make minimum wage.


However, policies at work should be "work policies." They have no business telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my castle.

That's your personal "employment" policy. And any company who wants to pay for your services as an employee will have to adhere to that. The thing is, I'm sure 90%+ percentage of the population also feels the exact same way. Do you think any company will be able to be run successfully with the less than 10% of the population that is ok with it? I don't. Beyond that, I think I that if the <10% of the population is willing to enter into a contract like that, then the government shouldn't step in and say otherwise. Of course, this isn't without bounds as I do agree with current employment laws, but I don't think there is an urgent need to make the government step into people's live even moreso than already.

[brettw22]

I just made a poopie

[PhantomOG]

The more I think about this, the more it seems like less of a business law issue, and more of someone else pushing their beliefs onto me.

For example...

Let's say my boss came into my cube today and told me this:
"You are not allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or become overweight or you will be reprimanded/fired. You will be tested everyday to see that you adhere to this new policy."

I'd quit right there on the spot and find work someplace else.

Now, let's say he said this:
"You are not allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or become overweight or you will be reprimanded/fired. You will be tested everyday to see that you adhere to this new policy. BUT... as a result of the anticipated reduced healthcare costs and presumed better productivity on your behalf, we will be DOUBLING your salary."

I would have to seriously think about it, but as of right now for that much money I would not quit on the spot. Now, you are saying the government should create a LAW preventing me from taking a deal like this. I say that is totally unwelcome and just as bad as the government telling you that you are not allowed to smoke and own a gun.

[cfrizz]

We ALL know that this proposal would never happen! Thinking up fantasies to try to prove your point is...pointless!


The more I think about this, the more it seems like less of a business law issue, and more of someone else pushing their beliefs onto me.

Now, let's say he said this:
"You are not allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or become overweight or you will be reprimanded/fired. You will be tested everyday to see that you adhere to this new policy. BUT... as a result of the anticipated reduced healthcare costs and presumed better productivity on your behalf, we will be DOUBLING your salary."

I would have to seriously think about it, but as of right now for that much money I would not quit on the spot. Now, you are saying the government should create a LAW preventing me from taking a deal like this. I say that is total unwelcome and just as bad as the government tell you that you are not allowed to smoke and own a gun.

[PhantomOG]

We ALL know that this proposal would never happen! Thinking up fantasies to try to prove your point is...pointless!

I say thinking close to even a small percentage of businesses adopting such a policy to begin with is a fantasy. Creating laws to fend off fantasies is...

[reeltrouble1]

Government regulation is part of doing business, the amount of regulation is dependent upon factors present within the society at any given moment, it is variable and not fixed.

Any decided rule is going to be disliked by a percentage of citizens, at times even a majority of a population.

Personal issues are disregarded within the framework, as such this flies in the face of the individualism we associate with our Freedom. What one may say is a regulation to prevent man's innate greed, another may say prevents the accumulation of wealth.

Capitalism is not exclusive to a Democratic form of Government. However, unlike other forms when leaders either over or under regulate our Capitalistic model the people can have some say.

With regard to the poll though, I was once so sure of things and that was a nice thing, everything so black and white in my mind, now hell, its all so gray I say it Depends so much I might as well go get some of those adult diapers.

RT1

[jdhdiggs]

Unions helping out all of us? Same with minimum wage? Maybe back before WW2, but not anymore. In fact, they cause unemployment and artificially high prices.

Not to rag on ya too much, but most Econ profs that I''ve worked with/studied under don't agree with that position of unions helping all of us.

Most I've dealt with claim that the middle class evolved more from the US moving from an industrial based economy to one of service. That had far more effect than anything the unions have done on the benifit of middle Americans. Most Econ profs would agree with that. Unions helped form OSHA, Dept. of Labor, and a structured work week and that's about it.

Wouldn't helping Russia restructure their economy kind of like writing the business plan for Enron?

Keep the free market free!

[Demiurge]

Government regulation is part of doing business, the amount of regulation is dependent upon factors present within the society at any given moment, it is variable and not fixed.

Economics is a science.

I wonder how many economics PHds we have on the 90% side of this argument....;)

[jdhdiggs]

Actually, I can name off five or six off the top of my head, but only one is currently participating in this discussion. It does help to who ones arguing with...

[reeltrouble1]

Really:D , you quote then can't rebut any better than that!

Your unsureness is showing whenever you want to rely on some other party as an expert to verbalize your thoughts to be your "proof". At the very least you can quote some Econ. Guru's thoughts and expound from there.

Exactly what in the quote is untrue, specifically present an argument to the material you quote. Then we can debate if you like.

The soft sciences are not fixed if they were we all would be drinken free bubble up and eatin that rainbow stew.

RT1

[Demiurge]

John has a PhD in economics. ;)

[jdhdiggs]

RT1, Who are you responding to?

Who the eff is the John that is being talked about? ;)

[Demiurge]

I don't know...Some guy. :p

[jdhdiggs]

I saw Stasny around in another thread but he hasn't posted here. There aren't any John's that I've seen in the past several pages dumbass! :o

[reeltrouble1]

JD--You have not stated anything I disagree with in the least. Unions are not helpful to all by any means. When they grew to powerful that is when the Gov. started passing laws against them, instead of for them. Well, the founding fathers, yea, they would be pissed, let them read the Patriot Act!!! But they would likely be in awe of what has happened to the 13 colonies they brought together to form this nation.

Hell, I am just throwing it out to see what bounces back. I am gonna cool it before somebody gets pissed.

RT1

[jdhdiggs]

No I think you missed the point of my question: I was just curious if you were responding to me or steve or someone else in post #171. It kinda came out of the blue.

[Demiurge]

He was talking to me.

I'll get back to you Reel more in depth. It's not worth getting pissed off over because this is just a message board and we're not changing the world at club polk. I have enjoyed this discussion a lot. :)

[reeltrouble1]

I like Steve, he speaks his mind!!!! I like Demi too, even if he does like the Packers. Yea, I stirred the pot a bit with some heat in 171, but nobody bit.

RT1

[Demiurge]

I like Steve, he speaks his mind!!!! I like Demi too, even if he does like the Packers. Yea, I stirred the pot a bit with some heat in 171, but nobody bit.

RT1

There's not much to like about them anymore I fear. :(


:D

[jdhdiggs]

Thanks for Walker... :p

[tonyb]

I think the bottom line here is to keep big brother out of our
personal lives as much as we can.

[Demiurge]

Thanks for Walker... :p

No problem, he's an injury hobbled head case. :D

[steveinaz]

People don't understand me because I'm a Republicrat...I mean Democan. Are you people still here? Sheesh and I thought I was an "issue geek.":D

[Polkapops]

I could only get through a couple of pages before wanting to
rip my hair out.
What you do on your PERSONAL time is NONE of an employer's business,
if the activity you are engaging in is LEGAL. If I can go into a supermarket
and purchase a pack of smokes (though I don't smoke) then I am ENTITLED
to smoke in my free time. If I decide to purchase a motorcycle and travel
I am ENTITLED to do so. I am a member of the AMA (American Motorcyclist
Association) and for years they have been battling (and WINNING!) against
companies & insurance for not wanting to cover employees who participate
in whatever they wish to deem 'unsafe activities'. Things should never have
gotten to this point to begin with. If it is a LEGAL activity, then you have
every right to do whatever you please on your own personal time.
Common sense.
End of story.

[steveinaz]

You the man.

[F1nut]

I don't know what you're doing for Health Insurance, Jesse, but would you agree that these crazy measures talked about in the 60 Minutes show are probably linked to the cost?

That was the excuse offered by the company owner on 60 Minutes and while there's no doubt that health insurance costs are beyond insane (yeah, I pay thru the effing nose), I believe he has other motives, ie., little Hitler.

There are other options to deal with the rising insurance costs, one has been in use for sometime now, the company makes you pay a share out of your pocket and you're still free to do whatever you like off the clock.

This leads to another discussion about insurance costs and what to do about them. I don't have the answer, but something needs to done PDQ!!!

[brettw22]

but something needs to done PDQ!!!Isn't PDQ a convenience store in the OK/TX area?

[F1nut]

Could be. I had a boss at one time that owned some hole in the wall gas station he called PDQ, Pump Damn Quick.

[scottnbnj]

aside from prior agreements, i guess everyone believes that it's ok for an employee to quit for any or no reason at any time. why do you feel that a business owner should be held to a higher standard, or not have the same uh,right to part ways?

)

[brettw22]

Y'all think another 7 pages might change everyone's minds?

[scottnbnj]

i dunno, 7 pages and i don't think anyone's really answered my last question, though i think it's been asked pages ago.

seems pretty basic to me. all the sudden because a citizen owns a business he surrenders his uh,right to associate or not associate with who he chooses? why?

)

[brettw22]

Scott, people have said that they wouldn't stay with a company that tried to rule their personal time........quit jumping too far ahead and assuming they'd all drop their careers overnight. I'm sure people are professional enough to give notice.

Because a citizen owns a business doesn't mean he's the king of the free world either.

[Polkapops]

aside from prior agreements, i guess everyone believes that it's ok for an employee to quit for any or no reason at any time. why do you feel that a business owner should be held to a higher standard, or not have the same uh,right to part ways?

)

If an employee's performance is substandard on the job, or if s/he is consistently
tardy or absent, then yes, the employer has every right.

But to be able to dictate what LEGAL activities you choose to participate in on
your personal time.........the word discrimination comes to mind........

[Demiurge]

I think a bottle of Jack Daniels would make this discussion even better.

[Polkapops]

If you want to start a business, then you should be prepared for the
myriad of complications you are going to come up against. Running your
business and forcing your employees under a dictatorship rule is not
what this country is about.
Common sense: Treat your employees fairly and they will be more than
happy to stay over, work weekends etc., but if you begin to micromanage
and dictate, human nature is to rebel.
It all boils down to greed. Those businesses who feel the need to force their employees to sucumb to their wishes are obviously concerned only of the
bottom line.
If business owners are concerned with insurance costs, then they have the
right to try and change the system. Just like saying 'You have the right to change your government'. Yeah right, like the little guy has any recourse.
Businesses have much more 'pull' (money) to get things changed than the average Joe. Morally and ethically, dictating what an employee can do legally on his personal time is just plain wrong.

I am a retired 'average Joe' and I approve this message.........

[mrbigbluelight]

Could be. I had a boss at one time that owned some hole in the wall gas station he called PDQ, Pump Damn Quick.

chick once that had that motto.

[mrbigbluelight]

Could be. I had a boss at one time that owned some hole in the wall gas station he called PDQ, Pump Damn Quick.

Knew a chick once that had that motto.

[reeltrouble1]

PDQ is a chocolate flavored drink, you mixed it up like Bosco except it was a powdered one. Jesse is old. So am I. If you dont know what Bosco or PDQ are you are young. Nestle's Quick is no longer because you have to mix it, its now Nestle's Slow.

It is not illegal to default on a debt in a criminal sense, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to speak to a newspaper reporter, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to use politically incorrect words found in Webster's Dictionary, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to attend a protest, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to lose your temper and yell in the presense of your spouse, that one is touchy, but yea, you guessed it, if she gets pissed, or the neighbors call the cops, yep, I can be terminated. It is not illegal to have an affair, if I do I can be terminated. See, an employer can tell you what to do, if you want to work there, and I do, nobody else has to want to, but I do. I dont really mind the rules, I kind of like them, being held to a higher standard and all that.

Health Costs-----Ha.........making money off of sickness is well SICK.

[reeltrouble1]

Y'all think another 7 pages might change everyone's minds?


Nope, mostly likely at least another 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wassss up Chitown

Here is a funny just for you Brett

Old Slogans that will fit for Viagra

Viagra-----Strong enough for a Man but made for a (Wo)man
Viagra-----Like a Rock
Viagra-----A Quicker Picker Upper
Viagra-----Takes a lickin and keeps on ticken

You get the idea

RT1

[jdhdiggs]

What I don't get here is why you all think an employee has more rights than the owner of the business...

Now assuming you want to maintain you argument as consistant and taking it a bit further: Your logic dictates that the owner would not be allowed to look for people only with certain degrees to fill a job. After all, I got my English degree in my own time and legally, why can't I have an engineers job? Isn't that the same thing? You are stating that the owner of the business (who created the job in the first place) has no rights to set the constraints of employment for that job as they see fit. Who cares what the logic is, if you don't like it, quit and find a new company. If no one will hire you, make your own...

Some of you neeed to look into what "At will employment" means. Unless you have a contract, you can quit at any time for any reason or be fired for the same. It doesn't have to be for substandard working or anything else. You can be fired if the guy doesn't like your hair one day.

You keep saying that the employer puts stipulations on the freedom of the employee is wrong. Well, no, the employer doesn't have slaves, you have the choice to leave it or obey. You might think a policy sucks, but that doesn't take away your freedom. What you are really talking about is reducing the freedom of the employer. What are his choices then? Fire everyone and quit, or stay in business with policies that are not his. I'd say that you should always error on the side of maintaining the rights of the owner of the job. Otherwise you are talking of a marxist policy.

[LessisNevermore]

What I don't get here is why you all think an employee has more rights than the owner of the business...

Now assuming you want to maintain you argument as consistant and taking it a bit further: Your logic dictates that the owner would not be allowed to look for people only with certain degrees to fill a job. After all, I got my English degree in my own time and legally, why can't I have an engineers job? Isn't that the same thing? You are stating that the owner of the business (who created the job in the first place) has no rights to set the constraints of employment for that job as they see fit. Who cares what the logic is, if you don't like it, quit and find a new company. If no one will hire you, make your own...

Some of you neeed to look into what "At will employment" means. Unless you have a contract, you can quit at any time for any reason or be fired for the same. It doesn't have to be for substandard working or anything else. You can be fired if the guy doesn't like your hair one day.

You keep saying that the employer puts stipulations on the freedom of the employee is wrong. Well, no, the employer doesn't have slaves, you have the choice to leave it or obey. You might think a policy sucks, but that doesn't take away your freedom. What you are really talking about is reducing the freedom of the employer. What are his choices then? Fire everyone and quit, or stay in business with policies that are not his. I'd say that you should always error on the side of maintaining the rights of the owner of the job. Otherwise you are talking of a marxist policy.


I agree, to a point, that some employees think they are "entitled" to their job.

Employers who see themselves as [I]creating[I] a job are riding an awfully high horse, and should really re-evaluate their self-worth. Demand created that job, you only provide a potential source to fulfil that demand. Employees are needed to perform the work. An employee's obligation is to be on time, be fit for duty, and perform to expectations. At the end of the shift, his/her obligation to the employer ends. Period.

Unless the employee is of the contract variety, and has agreed to living a certain company-approved lifestyle, prior to employment, the employer has nothing to say about anything.

The Employer is obligated to provide the work to perform, a safe place to perform it, the safe, properly functioning tools to perform it, (personal tools excluded) and previously agreed-upon compensation for work performed. They don't have to provide benefits, that is only there to lure better quality employees, and gain their loyalty.

Any job is like prostitution, you are paid for a service you provide, after the service is performed, there is no further obligation by either party. Yes, we are all whores!! we sell our hands for money.........how depraved you are willing to go is up to you.:D

[Demiurge]

The owner of the business tapped into the demand by opening a business and choosing how he was going to enact his businees plan. Since he put up all of the risk, he gets to make the rules. Employees, and their functions, are part of extrapolating capital from the demand for which he created his business.

The demand doesn't matter if there wasn't someone there to take the risk of starting a company in the first place.

[jdhdiggs]

Demand creates jack. The employer decides if the market price is worth expanding his supply of a product and then he creates the additional positions (jobs). The employer could just as easily not make a new job for the higher demand and charge a higher price (assuming he has some market control). You could argue that he could also lose market share as some other employer made new jobs to fill. In this case business owners still create the jobs. Employers make jobs, not demand, not employees...

As for the "without demand, he wouldn't need to make more positions" argument... Well, with demand and no employers, there is no job. However, if there is no demand but an employer with a good marketing dept... Well, lets say you can generate demand.

Here's my thinking (and last post unless someone pulls some weird BS):

Everyone in a free market should be free. Both employees and employers. Both should make whatever demands they want on the other. If the demands are unreansonable, the market will eliminate that resource or the resource will have to change its demands. I think an employee has the right to demand an employer to never make any rules about their private life. At the same time, the employer has the right to make those demands. If those conflict, the employee can quit, the employer can fire the employee, or someone backs off their demands.

Someone acts like a jackass and makes all of their employees drive pink smartcars and dress in swimsuits, well, my guess is he better pay a boatload of money and have a killer margin or he won't be in business very long. The market protects itself. If you have marketable skills, you'll get paid what your worth in comparison to others...

BTW: This whole thing has happened to my family. Make it simple: My wife was offerred an implicit raise to not get pregnent. Is that fair? Sure, why not? Her and I can decide is it worth postponing having kids for the extra money or should she quite and have kids. The company was free to make the offer and she is free to accept it... What is so hard about this?

[steveinaz]

I think the bottom line here is to keep big brother out of our
personal lives as much as we can.

Which big brother you talking about, the CEO or Uncle Sam? :D

Better the devil you know....well, you know the rest.

[steveinaz]

What I don't get here is why you all think an employee has more rights than the owner of the business...


How did the thread ever get twisted into this notion? It's the businesses that want to invade the personal home, not vice-versa. I believe that's called "spin." Yeah, I watch O'Rielly, you'll never get one like that by me...:D

[jdhdiggs]

You said that an employer has no rights to place stipulations on an employees personal life right?

So....

Restricting owners freedom in favor of the employees = The employee has more rights than the employer. That is the basis of your entire argument...

[steveinaz]

and exactly how does keeping the boss out of my personal life affect his freedom? (I can't wait to hear this one...)

[steveinaz]

Dude, this is an unwinnable battle. Either you feel that business should be able to limit what you do in your personal life, or you feel business has no business in your personal life. You're not going to "convert" anyone...

[tonyb]

An employer pays for your time,and your service dureing that time.While your on his clock,you play by his rules.If they want to run your personal life,then they should pay you,or shut the f... up!Health care cost???Most company's
now a day's split it with employee's anyway.It's included with the cost of doing buisness.Instead of addressing the issue of over inflated health care cost,It's much easier to tell you how to live your life and trample on your rights.Employers have every right to dictate behavior in their buisness,on their clock,but it ends there.
BTW-Steve,both,to be honest with ya.

[tonyb]

JD,
So you think it's ok for a company to discriminate?How come they don't offer me a raise to not join a softball team?How about company's that employ lets say...50% of a towns population.Would you say they can pretty much demand what ever they wanted?How does freedom of choice fit into that?

[LessisNevermore]

Demand creates jack. The employer decides if the market price is worth expanding his supply of a product and then he creates the additional positions (jobs). The employer could just as easily not make a new job for the higher demand and charge a higher price (assuming he has some market control). You could argue that he could also lose market share as some other employer made new jobs to fill. In this case business owners still create the jobs. Employers make jobs, not demand, not employees...

As for the "without demand, he wouldn't need to make more positions" argument... Well, with demand and no employers, there is no job. However, if there is no demand but an employer with a good marketing dept... Well, lets say you can generate demand.

I am not picking on you specifically, or trying to start a fight, but I have to call BS here. Unless they have actually been a worker bee, most employers that rely simply on their college degree for their position, are a bit delusional when it comes to "creating" something, be it a job, or product. That comes from experiencing only a collegiate point of view, and never actually getting their hands dirty.(not implying this to you, just others I have dealt with) I have much respect for anyone disciplined enough to see through to a college degree.

Employers physically create nothing. Unless they roll up their sleeves, and physically make a product from raw material. They shift money. That may be over-simplifying things, but at it's core, it's true. Let's say I have enough money to start a company, I purchase a building, buy machinery, hire someone to move it in, set it up, and purchase the raw materials needed for my widgets. I then pay someone else (employees) to make widgets from the raw materials I purchased. This whole point is moot, unless there is a legitimate demand for this widget. Yes, you can artificially create a demand by marketing. (see Bose) But as you like to point out, the market will eventually correct itself.

If there is no demand, there are no sales. An employer can "make" a job available, but if there is no demand for the product, why would he do this? Dump a ton of money into marketing, and pray? At the end of that day, demand created a NEED for that job. The job "created" a means to fulfil that need. Making a product there is no customer for, is answering a question that nobody's asking.

[Demiurge]

JD,
So you think it's ok for a company to discriminate?How come they don't offer me a raise to not join a softball team?How about company's that employ lets say...50% of a towns population.Would you say they can pretty much demand what ever they wanted?How does freedom of choice fit into that?

I think it's okay for a company to discriminate. In fact if a black business owner didn't want to hire whites I wouldn't care. You can flip it in any direction and I wouldn't care. They're only reducing their exposure in the marketplace by doing so, and risking boycott. You don't have to agree with their measures, and you shouldn't be taking away their rights to run their business the way they see fit.

The only people losing rights in this whole scenario is the business owner.

[Demiurge]

Dude, this is an unwinnable battle. Either you feel that business should be able to limit what you do in your personal life, or you feel business has no business in your personal life. You're not going to "convert" anyone...

Actually it is. If you ever get to become the boss of your own venture with employees of your own your eyes will be open wider than every before. Some have the capability of seeing it without having to be a business owner, and quite apparently others don't.

I'd still love to hear from someone besides myself here who has their own business and actually has employees. The misinformation being bandied about is stunning.

[steveinaz]

There's all kind of caveats to the discrimination thing. Look at one of largest employers in the US, and is government run....the military. The military discriminates against the handicapped, it makes no bones about it. You cannot be wheel-chair stricken and join the Army. Anyway, how could ever prove "intent" when it comes to hiring? It's a non-starter. Ideally we hope that the most qualified gets the job, but as long as we are human beings--we'll have preferences; be they racial, gender, value-oriented, religion, political, etc, etc.

[steveinaz]

Actually it is. If you ever get to become the boss of your own venture with employees of your own your eyes will be open wider than every before. Some have the capability of seeing it without having to be a business owner, and quite apparently others don't.

I'd still love to hear from someone besides myself here who has their own business and actually has employees. The misinformation being bandied about is stunning.

I'm sure you ran your business without having to resort to the kind of crap that the schmuck on 60 minutes is doing right? I have alot of supervisory experience, and yes there are asshole employees who'd rather spend an hour trying to figure out how to not do something--than spend 5 minutes knocking it out. But this is normal employer/employee relationship stuff. I was very fortunate to have supervised some outstanding people, sure I had a couple bad apples, but few and far between. I enjoyed it. My last assignment I had 60 soldiers under my direct supervision, a direct support communications equipment repair facility; tactical satellite/microwave, computer, HF Radio, crypto, QA/PC, and a tech supply.

[brettw22]

No one answered Steve's question...

How is a business owner losing rights by me drinking a beer at home?

[Demiurge]

There's all kind of caveats to the discrimination thing. Look at one of largest employers in the US, and is government run....the military. The military discriminates against the handicapped, it makes no bones about it. You cannot be wheel-chair stricken and join the Army. Anyway, how could ever prove "intent" when it comes to hiring? It's a non-starter. Ideally we hope that the most qualified gets the job, but as long as we are human beings--we'll have preferences; be they racial, gender, value-oriented, religion, political, etc, etc.

People are suing on the basis of intent, which is what's scary. Minority Report -- that type of stuff has been going on for years. Most cases settle out of court because a $10,000 settlement is better than a $10,000,000 settlement. The stuff lawyers will come up with to sue anyone with deep pockets is crazy. Hell, a lawyers job is to prove intent. It's definitely not a non-starter.

I can tell you that if we started capping suit rewards in this country there's a whole bucketfull of problems that would start curing themselves, and discussions like this would more than likely never occur.

I'm not telling you the jack on 60 Minutes is right, Steve. I never even saw it. I'm just going off what you're saying. What I am questioning is how this guy could possibly be in business.

It all comes back to the question you asked because there is no answer.

"Should work be able to dictate your life?"

It can't, not when you have choices.

[Demiurge]

I'm sure you ran your business without having to resort to the kind of crap that the schmuck on 60 minutes is doing right? I have alot of supervisory experience, and yes there are asshole employees who'd rather spend an hour trying to figure out how to not do something--than spend 5 minutes knocking it out. But this is normal employer/employee relationship stuff. I was very fortunate to have supervised some outstanding people, sure I had a couple bad apples, but few and far between. I enjoyed it. My last assignment I had 60 soldiers under my direct supervision, a direct support communications equipment repair facility; tactical satellite/microwave, computer, HF Radio, crypto, QA/PC, and a tech supply.

What makes sense to a guy with a $1,000,000 (for example) invested in his business doesn't always make sense to a guy with a $80,000 (for example) salary.

[Demiurge]

CHANGE: The "NO" answer excludes illegal drug testing. Sorry should have included that disclaimer.

I saw a segment on 60 minutes last night that infuriated me. It had to do with corporations dictating to people what they can and can't do---healthwise; on and OFF duty. Some required their employees to work out, lose weight, stop drinking etc; all monitored by the company to ensure compliance. Funny though, they don't care about sleep problems,
stress, or any other work-related issues (surprised?).

Why? Healthcare costs. Sound familiar? The almighty dollar is turning this country into Nazi Germany.

What's next? you got it, just as I stated (and was laughed at) a fews months ago----DNA testing. Now, imagine for a moment, even if you are perfectly healthy, your "genetic" background shows some heart disease, diabetes, mental issues, etc, etc; you can be denied a job OR fired from your job. Isn't so funny any more huh? Companies want "genetically" risk-free employees, they're cheaper don't you know....

The scariest part....it's legal. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it, even changes to policy that occur after you came on board. Lovely.

Another noteworthy tidbit; companies have not been able to demonstrate statistically ANY increase in health care costs related to smoking employees. Should those employees get refunded the higher rates they pay?

Here's a few other examles highlighted on the segment:

- Guy fired for a political sticker on his car
- Guy fired for drinking a "Coors" beer off duty---he worked for Anheiser Busch (yes, he won that one in court)
- Guy fired for having an NRA sticker on his vehicle

I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply at work?


No one answered Steve's question...

How is a business owner losing rights by me drinking a beer at home?

I'd like to know if it was even happening before I would even try to answer it. If you look at the first post in this thread, it said some businesses required employees to work out, lose weight, and stop drinking.

What type of business was this?

There's an awful vague amount of information out there, and to be completely honest I do think the business owner should have the right to say whatever he wants. It by no means you have to comply.

There is absolutely no businesses I know of that could maintain employees if they told them they couldn't drink, had to work out, and lose weight. That is of course unless they had employees that didn't want to drink, like to work out, and are physically fit.

This isn't rocket science, but we'd rather get government involved to fuck it up.

[brettw22]

I'm not sure who brought the gov't angle in first, but I dont' think it was Steve.

The news story wasn't done on a hypothetical "what if the world was run this way" angle. It's happened, and profiled businesses that were doing it. It doesn't matter the specifics..........

Fundamentally, it is wrong for a job to mandate how you live your personal life (aside from the contract angle mentioned 100 times now). If I'm at a company, doing what they want, and I'm good at what I'm doing there and am making a good living at it, that is all they need from me. Bringing in 10,000 other companies and saying "go there" doesn't alleviate the core issue brought up here.

Unless I'm on the clock for 168 hours a week (and paid for every one of them) I'm not bound by the employers work policies. My drinking, or partying, or whatever at home doesn't in any way/shape/form deduct from the Employer's rights......saying it does is backwards logic.

[Demiurge]

I'm not sure who brought the gov't angle in first, but I dont' think it was Steve.

The news story wasn't done on a hypothetical "what if the world was run this way" angle. It's happened, and profiled businesses that were doing it. It doesn't matter the specifics..........

Fundamentally, it is wrong for a job to mandate how you live your personal life (aside from the contract angle mentioned 100 times now). If I'm at a company, doing what they want, and I'm good at what I'm doing there and am making a good living at it, that is all they need from me. Bringing in 10,000 other companies and saying "go there" doesn't alleviate the core issue brought up here.

Unless I'm on the clock for 168 hours a week (and paid for every one of them) I'm not bound by the employers work policies. My drinking, or partying, or whatever at home doesn't in any way/shape/form deduct from the Employer's rights......saying it does is backwards logic.

He said the scariest part is that it's legal. Was I supposed to assume he didn't think it should be illegal? I'm only aware of one entity that can create laws in this country...

Did you see the 60 Minutes show? They were firing people for drinking a beer? People tend to get a tad dramatic when they're trying to make a point sometimes, even 60 Minutes, so I question the validity of the question.

In any event, I'll play ball.

If you are my boss and you ask me at any point during my employement to stop drinking as a current condition of my employment I can choose whether or not to accept that condition. The right you've taken away from the employer is his right to choose the type of people he wants to work for him. If he doesn't want someone who drinks, period, why shouldn't he have that right?

I don't think you'll find anyone that's said getting fired for drinking a beer, playing hop skotch, or whatever the heck activity people engage in when they're not at work was the right thing. You've just got people who said they should be have the right to have whatever type of employee they want. That's the right that would be taken away, and has been taken away over the years. I wonder if Steve believes in affirmative action.

If you're an at will employee you can be fired for whatever reason because they can simply make one up. I'd rather be told to lose weight than get fired, personally. At least then I have a choice. They can tell you that you're not performing to their expectations all day long, and who is going to know? I'm sure some will get lawyers, sue, and win. That only makes society worse, but whatever.

The core of this argument is that getting government involved isn't the answer (and laws, and government were brought up in the first 3 posts). An employer should have the right to ask an employee to stop doing things that are going to end up costing them in the long run if you want to work for them. You say they shouldn't. I say without businesses jobs don't exist. I also think the market corrects itself. A business with stupid rules people won't adhere to can't survive. There's no need for government involvement.

[brettw22]

Companies get the type of employee they want to do the type of work they want done. If they want to associate only with people of a like minded life, get friends.

The reason for a lawer being brought into the mix would be that an employer seemingly thought they had the right to control an employee's life 24/7 without compensation (people are diluted to believe companies would be paying based on a 7 day workweek).

You want to dominate my personal life? Pay for it.

[Demiurge]

You want to dominate my personal life? Pay for it.

They would in one way or another, that's my point.

[F1nut]

Trust me Demi, it's real. Companies are firing people for drinking off the clock, for driving the wrong make of car, for smoking, for being too fat, for having some sticker on their bumper, etc. Firing someone for stuff like that is flat out wrong. There was a time when the only thing that mattered was one's job performance. One's private life was just that, private. Now, we've got a bunch of Hitler wannabes running around pushing their will onto employees private affairs. The main issue here is that what one does outside of company time is NONE of the employers business.

This isn't quite on topic, but I like to tell the story as it does have to do with statistics, which many of these wannabe Hitler's love to use. A company I worked for supplied company cars. Well, the insurance agent/company that wrote the policy on my employer didn't want to renew me as I had a pile of speeding tickets and noted a study done in California (we were in MD) that concluded people with lots of speeding tickets were X times more likely to be involved in an at fault accident. My boss told him if they didn't include me that he'd take his business elsewhere, so they chose to include me. Fast forward 10 years (I still have a pile of speeding tickets), I'm the only person that worked at that company, including my boss that didn't have an at fault accident. I saw the insurance man at the office one day, smiled at him and said, "So much for your statistics, eh!"

Just because a person drinks or is overweight, etc. does not mean they can't do their job or are a higher risk to a companies bottom line. For an employer to make that assumption is just plain ignorant.

[warren]

Get a Union started. Get a Profesional Association started. Even M.D. are organizing Associations to bargain with Hospitals, and Insurance Co. You will have more rights, and negoating power. Only if you are organized.

[jdhdiggs]

and exactly how does keeping the boss out of my personal life affect his freedom? (I can't wait to hear this one...)

I hate bringing the thread back to life, but since this was directed at me....

You've eliminated the freedom of the boss to hire (or keep) the people that they want to keep and eliminate those who don't. You are keeping them from presenting their company in the way that the owner wants. How come that is so damn hard for everyone to understand? Maybe you do need a Ph.D. to get it... ;)

Your salary represents a lot more than just what you do 9 to 5. If your company offers healthcare, is it only there while you're at work? How about your retirement benifits? Does that go away when you punch out at night?

Don't you think employees represent a company both in, and out, of the workplace? You don't think it looks bad for the military to have a GI on leave get drunk out in a bar? It's on his own time..... How about a peace protester working for Lockheed Martin? Don't you think LMT ought to be able to remove that person if it saw fit?

Discrimination in the workplace? It's all over right now as it is, the government has only made it worse. One of the reasons I left TI (using my freedom as an employee) was to escape the discrimination there ("Interview minority and female candidates first. If no acceptable match is found, a manager may expand their search"-From actual TI documents on how to hire/promote.

Everyone discriminates whether you want to or not. Whether is is against an ethnicity, genders, religion, hair color, or stupidty (or smarts). In the end, everyone dicriminates. At least in these cases that people are talking about, the employees know what it is.

If a company wants to portray a workforce as a happy, healthy workforce, why shouldn't they ask the employees to excersize and not drink? Don't you think a company of healthy people looks better to a client than a bunch of 350 lb slobs?

In a free market, both sides set their requirements for employment/business. If all the requirements are met, a deal is done, if not you move on. If your sets of demands is too high, you go out of business or become unemployed. In other words, you discriminate too much, market forces put you down.

LessisNmore:
As for the demand making a business.... What demand was there for airlines before the airplane? How about what Burt Rutan is doing now? I-Pods? A lot of products today started with an idea that could generate demand. In otherwords, the business owner had to invest money and time to create a product and demand....

More to your point though: If demand is there, doesn't it still take some business owner to create the job position? If the demand was there, and no one created the job, who would fill it? In other words, an employer must be present for a job to be created, demand should be, but isn't neccessary.

Tonyb: They could quit and move, easy.... If you don't like the terms your employer set down, quit and work for someone you like. The entire workforce will quit or they change their policies. Or as Warren said, form a union and increase your bargaining power. They have choices. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work.

Warren: In some cases yes, in others no. If you are one of the top 1-5% in your field, you will be limiting yourself and your bargaining power by organizing. For a majority of people, you are right, but the unions tend to try and normalize out pay scale and compitition which is good if you suck, but bad if you're one of the best.

Jesse: Yes, its real, no one is arguing that. People should quit or boycott the companies and force them out of business. Trying to regulate it with government interference would backfire. See what's happening in France where once you are employed, and employer can not fire an employee even for not doing their job hence the massive unemployment as employers are extremely reluctant to hire anyone.

[Demiurge]

Your salary represents a lot more than just what you do 9 to 5. If your company offers healthcare, is it only there while you're at work? How about your retirement benifits? Does that go away when you punch out at night?

Don't you think employees represent a company both in, and out, of the workplace? You don't think it looks bad for the military to have a GI on leave get drunk out in a bar? It's on his own time..... How about a peace protester working for Lockheed Martin? Don't you think LMT ought to be able to remove that person if it saw fit?

Yep, that's a point I made early on, but I didn't get any answer to it.

[brettw22]

Y A W N...............this is a dead issue.......no one's going to agree.......no one's going to change their thinking...............move on.

[PhantomOG]

It just seems ironic to me that the same people who complain when others don't stand up for rights they don't necessarily exercise (i.e. smoking, guns, helmets/motorcycles), are adament about the government taking away different rights from others, namely business owners.

[steveinaz]

Apparently, I'm not educated enought to respond.

In closing, I'd just like to say that you do whatever you think you need to do to compete. If you feel that you must answer to work 24/7, knock yourself out. We all have to measure the pay/benefits vs burden that work puts on us, and to what degree it will affect our personal lives (cell phones, crackberries, satellite dish mounted on your head, etc).

The shaving mirror never lies, if you can look in it, and you're happy with what you see--you are successful. Rock on!

[tonyb]

Dig that shaving mirror analogy...how true!:D

[brettw22]

Phantom, there's no agreement that business owners own their employees personal lives......past that, this thread could have died on page 1.

[Demiurge]

You're always free to not read it. ;)

[brettw22]

I have to do my part to help end this neverending arguement......sometimes I let things go too long and when that happens, we end up with situations like everyone hating faster for being a whiny biatch......:D

Anyone want me to start posting some of my favorite photos here?

[Demiurge]

Your favorite ones? :eek:

[brettw22]

My version of a Tasteful Babe pic.....:D

[Demiurge]

Go Go Gadget.

[cfrizz]

Oh YEAH! Go Brett Go!!!:D



My version of a Tasteful Babe pic.....:D

[mrbigbluelight]

Anyone want me to start posting some of my favorite photos here?

matter. The ONLY way to stop this never-ending thread is for you to post a picture, and you wouldn't DARE !!

There's no way you'll do it !

Not a chance in a million !!

Al Gore will sit in the White House before that happens !!!

:)

this would be a good spot to post a picture of "bear baiting"

[wingnut4772]

I have to do my part to help end this neverending arguement......sometimes I let things go too long and when that happens, we end up with situations like everyone hating faster for being a whiny biatch......:D

Anyone want me to start posting some of my favorite photos here?


Ready.....?.........GO!:D

[brettw22]

My hand was forced (where, I won't say)....

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3724/alan04pq4.jpg

[warren]

Warren: In some cases yes, in others no. If you are one of the top 1-5% in your field, you will be limiting yourself and your bargaining power by organizing. For a majority of people, you are right, but the unions tend to try and normalize out pay scale and compitition which is good if you suck, but bad if you're one of the best. Thanks for the reply.
If you are the best, and the Co. recognizes it they can pay you more if they choose to do so, they can't pay you less, if you meet all the requirements of that pay scale. If the employee sucks, witch means the Co is required to take action, Mgt., the employee and the Union meet, get the employee back on track, or face the consequences, according to the negotiated agreement. If everything works out fine, it's a win win situation.

[cfrizz]

Omg!!!...thud

[Demiurge]

Stop it Brett, I'm getting all sweaty.