Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course! You want a docile employee who goes the extra mile.
No, I want an employee that has ownership of the work and pride in doing it well. Docile? Never, I want someone that brings their own take in and has passion for their ideas that could work for the betterment of the company.
Docile is just another word for passive-agressive that doesn't do me or them any good.
You want a human that can enhance your company and make money for you. Otherwise, why hire another human to work for you. The concept is to get another human to do labor for YOU. And the benefit is that after you pay the employee you have money left.
Correct. The employee is doing part of the labor for the company to produce the product that we are compensated for by our customers. It doesn't matter if it's someone in the mailroom or the COO, we all have jobs to do as a team for the benefit of the company, our customers and each other.
Exactly! And there are plenty of folks that will do this for you. And these folks see NOTHING wrong with the concept of working for you.
I am assuming you own the company and you want to maximize profits.
Not this company, I am a supervisor, not an owner or executive, but I do want the company to thrive and I own a majority of shares in another company that my partner operates. I let him have the headaches of HR.
I have interests in several different operations and honestly, the human factor is the hardest part of any business operation. Finding good people is essential, and those with a good work ethic and who take responsibility and ownership of their position are gems in a huge sea of mostly worthless sand.
The human factor is the reason so many busineses are moving to robots or self serve kiosks. A good work ethic is nearly impossible to find anymore. One good human can maintain a hundred robots or kiosks, but that means those that feel entitled or don't want to put any effort into their jobs will be sitting in their parent's basement complaining they can't find a job that pays them what they're worth, when the funny part is, they are making exactly what they are worth.
but in most of those cases, its not really about the meal break..its about NOT BEING WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
you are required in a plannuing meeting from 1100-1300...but YOU DECIDE, I must take my meal at 12..... you just failed the mission
Every occupation is different but the constant is that a 30 minute minimum meal break has to be allotted within the first 5 hours of work in California. If it's not given, regardless of reason, it would be against California state law (unless the reason is a public safety issue). It would be against the law to fire someone because they want to take this state mandated break. In California, an employer won't win a labor dispute if the employee didn't get a break because he/she had to be in a meeting. I'm fully aware of which way the labor review board is most likely to lean in this type of scenario because I had to testify on two different occasions for two different employers. Judges in California are labor friendly...
Of course! You want a docile employee who goes the extra mile.
You want a human that can enhance your company and make money for you. Otherwise, why hire another human to work for you. The concept is to get another human to do labor for YOU. And the benefit is that after you pay the employee you have money left.
Exactly! And there are plenty of folks that will do this for you. And these folks see NOTHING wrong with the concept of working for you.
I am assuming you own the company and you want to maximize profits.
I would hope it would be about more than maximizing profits.
There are really 2 things that we are -- or should be -- talking about here. One is the legal aspect of being an employer. The other is (or should be) the moral aspect of being an employer. And I'll give you 2 examples...both real.
1. The grocery store chain where I lived in Virginia had a policy of hiring disable people to do jobs they were capable of doing. They were moral. That didn't mean that those disabled people did the job as good or better than anyone else, in fact, they were unable to do the jobs as well as other non-disabled people could have. But the grocery store chain was moral. At the particular store where I shopped, such a young man worked at carrying out groceries and collecting shopping carts, bagging groceries, etc. Based on my own profession where I dealt with the handicapped, I would say that he was MMR -- mildly mentally retarded. This young man did his best for quite a few years. Others could have done better. But the company was moral. I once saw a customer berating him in a rant and calling him "stupid" (etc.), so I stepped in between them and simply began talking with the young man to diffuse the situation. About 5 years after he began working there, one day the young man went off on me for no reason other than that I said hello to him. A couple of weeks later, he was gone. So I went to the manager and said I hoped he hadn't been fired because of him going off on me, and the manager said, "No, we don't what happened, but in the last month he began going off on lots of customers, and he became unmanageable." Here's my point about this situation -- the company was moralabout hiring someone who wouldn't maximize profits...in fact, someone who -- because of dealing with the public -- probably wouldn't enhance the company. Eventually, after conditions deteriorated, they had to fire the young man; understandable.
2. Now I'm living in Colorado, and the grocery store chain here has a similar policy because they are moral. They hire the handicapped for similar jobs. The quality of the work varies, but is less efficient and of less quality than a non-handicapped person could do. One of their stores that I frequent has a young man who -- genetically -- is a monstrosity. Think "Elephant Man", although this condition is somewhat different. But, he works hard. He's efficient. There doesn't appear to be any mental handicap, just the visual issue. I can see a new manager coming into the store and firing him simply because people are recoiled about his appearance. I guess the new manager would be legally justified in firing the person since the worker is not maximizing profits and doesn't enhance the company. But if the new manager did that, he would be being immoral.
Americans like to pretend that we are the most moral nation on earth. This thread proves -- once again -- that we aren't so moral.
This is simple. The employer owns the business, and it's their decision whether or not to hire anyone in the first place or just do everything themselves. Now use basic logic from there...how does anyone have a right or entitlement to his/her job? They don't. The only thing an employee is entitled to is whatever is agreed upon when hired. The employer needs to hold up their end of the deal, as does the employee.
For these two. What about people who cannot get employable, such as the elderly or the disabled, or people who are involved in horrible accidents that render them incapable of work?
Should they starve as well. Should children starve? They are not employable.
The whole premise of this thread is odd to me. The comments above are pretty sickening.
Not this company, I am a supervisor, not an owner or executive, but I do want the company to thrive and I own a majority of shares in another company that my partner operates. I let him have the headaches of HR.
I have interests in several different operations and honestly, the human factor is the hardest part of any business operation. Finding good people is essential, and those with a good work ethic and who take responsibility and ownership of their position are gems in a huge sea of mostly worthless sand.
The human factor is the reason so many busineses are moving to robots or self serve kiosks. A good work ethic is nearly impossible to find anymore. One good human can maintain a hundred robots or kiosks, but that means those that feel entitled or don't want to put any effort into their jobs will be sitting in their parent's basement complaining they can't find a job that pays them what they're worth, when the funny part is, they are making exactly what they are worth.
You prove my point quite well. You are a believer, you go to bat for the owner 100% of the time.
But, you also make good points. Good workers are scarce and many want something for nothing. The work ethic is in the toilet because we are basically primitive and need to evolve to a higher state where working is honorable.
However, working to enrich another human is not truly honorable. It may not be honorable to enjoy the fruit of the labor of others.
Ideally, your business should be a cooperative. Or perhaps you should work hard for the sake of working hard with no expectation of a reward. What a concept that is! Work hard for the sake of working hard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
