Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-17-2008, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,172,642 times
Reputation: 4937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
Normally that is the case, but it opens it up for people getting rid of them for not liking them for any kind of reason. I think it would be reasonable to give people time to find a new job unless they've done something quite bad.
It is not my responsibility to give someone time to find a new job. Frankly, and having had experience, as an employer with this, if I'm firing someone, they are gone - that day. I can't tell you the amount of sabotage an employee can do to your company if you give them "time".

Sounds warm and fuzzy but, highly impractical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2008, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,172,642 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
Thanks for putting it so eloquently :-)

Too bad that would be battery...
Sorry to burst your bubble but, there is a thread on this board, that clearly states, differently -

You might want to read it

It was a court decision even
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 05:05 PM
 
Location: DFW, TX
2,935 posts, read 6,701,973 times
Reputation: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
So do you agree with Title VII or not? And I was also wondering, should employees have contracts or be employed at-will without any kind of protections? It would be helpful to know these answers in order to continue, but let me try.
Employers and employees should be free to decide the terms of the employment.

Quote:
There are reasons that we can't let businesses do whatever they want. It is not about what the government thinks that they should do, but what we the people want. Most people would tend to agree with Title VII that protects people from discrimination in the work place.
No, it's about the force of the government. If people don't want to work for an employer who doesn't offer, in the eyes of the marketplace, fair pay or working conditions, they are free to work elsewhere.

The only exception to this is where the company is granted a monopoly by the government, where alternative employement isn't possible, and customers aren't free to choose another good or service provider.

I'm sure people want higher pay and a 4 day work week too... but it doesn't mean that businesses should be forced to provide these unless the market creates a condition where this benefits all parties.

Quote:
Sure, it's great that your company gives you free popcorn and the other stuff, that's not really wasn't really my question. What if a person isn't hired because of their race for example, should we let companies do that? No, we don't let companies do that because it's the wrong thing to do and it's foolish to presume that no employer would have a bias.
My point isn't to gloat in what my employer provides, it's to prove the point that a company can go above and beyond to create an incentive to work. Each incentive has a specific purpose, and by implementing these, my employer realizes a benefit in the end as well as the employee. By paying for our home Internet access and providing remote access methods, the average employee works more hours each week and there's no such thing as a snow day anymore. By offering a great healthplan, the employees miss less days due to illness and disease. By providing workout services, it further solidifies the message of being in good health.

If a company does not provide these services, they're being penny wise and pound foolish. But why not let the other companies make these mistakes and suffer the consequences? Who are you to tell them how to spend their money, or run their company?

And if they want to hire only red headed women named Sue, who cares? They will suffer in the marketplace because they are not hiring the most competent people for a position. Smart companies realize that hiring people from diverse backgrounds allow for a diverse set of solutions. My immediate team at work would be useless if we all had the same degree from MIT, all were from the same economic background, and all had the same hobbies and talents. But again, if someone wishes to spend *their* money to hire Sue, who am I to say otherwise?

Quote:
As a group, society has a much greater power than one individual on their own. In the past where none of these protections existed, such discrimination was rampant. Of course all of this is something that is discussed every day (like on here) on where the line should be drawn. You sound like you want no interference at all with businesses, while I think the current standards are at least the minimum and I do think they should be extended.
You're not comparing apples to apples. Are you suggesting that with our education system, people today are just as ignorant as they may have been 100 years ago? That we lack the infrastructure to communicate across the state, country, or world to spread the news that a company is treating their customers or employees or the environment poorly?

Quote:
I don't buy your slippery slope argument that the government will be in my house dictating everything that I can do though.
A corporation is a person in the eyes of the law. If you can dictate how a corporation spends its money, it's no stretch to say that they can dictate how you spend your money.

In Australia I was in a park and saw the cops harassing a guy on a bike. I asked the guy afterwards what was going on, and he said he got a ticket because he wasn't wearing his helmet. Later that week someone got their license yanked because they were a passenger in a car with their arm sitting slightly outside of the vehicle while the window was open. Both instances were justified because they created a public safety issue where they placed a burden on society from their actions.

We're not too far away from those situations as we become more and more of a nanny state. Why wouldn't the next logical step be to dictate our diet, as under a socialst healthcare system we would be a burden if we didn't eat healthy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,167,491 times
Reputation: 6551
I work for a huge corp. Procter & Gamble..
In my experience they are loath to fire people. Its like pulling teeth to get them to can the nonproductive slackers. It requires tons of documentation regarding performance issues, reliability issues or a combination of things. About the only way someone gets canned fast is for:
1. Sexual harrassment
2. Company theft
3. Fighting
4. Drugs or alcohol on company property
5. carrying a weapon on company property
6. and this is slim falsifying records
Other than these its tough. Slackers make everyones life harder. They feel justified in doing as little as possible and without exception feel that the company owes them a living... They are first to cry foul first to complain and first out the door at the end of shift.
The problem with Unions is that they fight for these jobs equally hard. Another is Unions feel senority is all... Skill ,drive, reliability, and leadership ability are second to time on the job. The reality is quantity never equals quality. I did that job for 20 years. Yeah well maybe you sucked at it all 20 too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,695,446 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I work for a huge corp. Procter & Gamble..
In my experience they are loath to fire people. Its like pulling teeth to get them to can the nonproductive slackers. It requires tons of documentation regarding performance issues, reliability issues or a combination of things. About the only way someone gets canned fast is for:
1. Sexual harrassment
2. Company theft
3. Fighting
4. Drugs or alcohol on company property
5. carrying a weapon on company property
6. and this is slim falsifying records
Other than these its tough. Slackers make everyones life harder. They feel justified in doing as little as possible and without exception feel that the company owes them a living... They are first to cry foul first to complain and first out the door at the end of shift.
The problem with Unions is that they fight for these jobs equally hard. Another is Unions feel senority is all... Skill ,drive, reliability, and leadership ability are second to time on the job. The reality is quantity never equals quality. I did that job for 20 years. Yeah well maybe you sucked at it all 20 too.
It is hard for me to believe that P&G does not have productivity and quality standards for their employees to meet. If they do not, that is the fault of management. It is just human nature to do as little as possible for as much as possible so you have to have standards imposed. As for seniority, I agree that it is not totally 100% a fair system BUT it is the only system devised thus far that keeps the bosses from playing favourites at lay off time. If the bosses could have their way, they would rather lay off all the senior employees that are at the top of the pay scale and then keep all the junior employees that make much less. This is very typical of American corporations. The latest example is Circuit City which announced that it was laying off all senior employees that make more than $10 an hour and that it would keep all junior employees that make less than $10 per hour:

Circuit City: After Laying Off 3,400 Experienced Employees, Circuit City Reports 3rd Quarter Loss, Showers Top Executives With Lavish "Retention Awards" (http://consumerist.com/337128/after-laying-off-3400-experienced-employees-circuit-city-reports-3rd-quarter-loss-showers-top-executives-with-lavish-retention-awards - broken link)

This while all the top executives are raking in multi million dollar bonuses. You can gripe about unions all you want and defend the robber barrons all you want but it does not erase the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2008, 09:38 PM
 
Location: DFW, TX
2,935 posts, read 6,701,973 times
Reputation: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
As for seniority, I agree that it is not totally 100% a fair system BUT it is the only system devised thus far that keeps the bosses from playing favourites at lay off time. If the bosses could have their way, they would rather lay off all the senior employees that are at the top of the pay scale and then keep all the junior employees that make much less.
Yeah... you wouldn't want some 30 year old running the department because they happen to be the most ambitious on the team, while some 50 year olds are content with mediocrity.

That's a sure fire way for a company to breed a mentality for people not to put forth any effort beyond what is required not to get fired. My wife worked for a power company that was like that... people working for the company for 25 years that couldn't get fired so they'd be shifted from job to job... yet making more money simply because they continued to consume oxygen. Now she's at a company that values working smart and productivity and rewards it... quite a novel concept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2008, 12:07 AM
 
Location: In the desert
4,049 posts, read 2,732,168 times
Reputation: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I work for a huge corp. Procter & Gamble..
In my experience they are loath to fire people. Its like pulling teeth to get them to can the nonproductive slackers. It requires tons of documentation regarding performance issues, reliability issues or a combination of things. About the only way someone gets canned fast is for:
1. Sexual harrassment
2. Company theft
3. Fighting
4. Drugs or alcohol on company property
5. carrying a weapon on company property
6. and this is slim falsifying records
Other than these its tough. Slackers make everyones life harder. They feel justified in doing as little as possible and without exception feel that the company owes them a living... They are first to cry foul first to complain and first out the door at the end of shift.
The problem with Unions is that they fight for these jobs equally hard. Another is Unions feel senority is all... Skill ,drive, reliability, and leadership ability are second to time on the job. The reality is quantity never equals quality. I did that job for 20 years. Yeah well maybe you sucked at it all 20 too.

I agree that slackers make it harder for everyone,however if you like your weekends and a 40hr work week, thank the unions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2008, 05:53 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 4,733,429 times
Reputation: 1445
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
Yeah... you wouldn't want some 30 year old running the department because they happen to be the most ambitious on the team, while some 50 year olds are content with mediocrity.

That's a sure fire way for a company to breed a mentality for people not to put forth any effort beyond what is required not to get fired. My wife worked for a power company that was like that... people working for the company for 25 years that couldn't get fired so they'd be shifted from job to job... yet making more money simply because they continued to consume oxygen. Now she's at a company that values working smart and productivity and rewards it... quite a novel concept.
Don't forget you will be 50 some day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2008, 09:02 PM
 
646 posts, read 1,785,241 times
Reputation: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac View Post
Employers and employees should be free to decide the terms of the employment.

No, it's about the force of the government. If people don't want to work for an employer who doesn't offer, in the eyes of the marketplace, fair pay or working conditions, they are free to work elsewhere.

The only exception to this is where the company is granted a monopoly by the government, where alternative employement isn't possible, and customers aren't free to choose another good or service provider.

I'm sure people want higher pay and a 4 day work week too... but it doesn't mean that businesses should be forced to provide these unless the market creates a condition where this benefits all parties.



My point isn't to gloat in what my employer provides, it's to prove the point that a company can go above and beyond to create an incentive to work. Each incentive has a specific purpose, and by implementing these, my employer realizes a benefit in the end as well as the employee. By paying for our home Internet access and providing remote access methods, the average employee works more hours each week and there's no such thing as a snow day anymore. By offering a great healthplan, the employees miss less days due to illness and disease. By providing workout services, it further solidifies the message of being in good health.

If a company does not provide these services, they're being penny wise and pound foolish. But why not let the other companies make these mistakes and suffer the consequences? Who are you to tell them how to spend their money, or run their company?

And if they want to hire only red headed women named Sue, who cares? They will suffer in the marketplace because they are not hiring the most competent people for a position. Smart companies realize that hiring people from diverse backgrounds allow for a diverse set of solutions. My immediate team at work would be useless if we all had the same degree from MIT, all were from the same economic background, and all had the same hobbies and talents. But again, if someone wishes to spend *their* money to hire Sue, who am I to say otherwise?



You're not comparing apples to apples. Are you suggesting that with our education system, people today are just as ignorant as they may have been 100 years ago? That we lack the infrastructure to communicate across the state, country, or world to spread the news that a company is treating their customers or employees or the environment poorly?



A corporation is a person in the eyes of the law. If you can dictate how a corporation spends its money, it's no stretch to say that they can dictate how you spend your money.

In Australia I was in a park and saw the cops harassing a guy on a bike. I asked the guy afterwards what was going on, and he said he got a ticket because he wasn't wearing his helmet. Later that week someone got their license yanked because they were a passenger in a car with their arm sitting slightly outside of the vehicle while the window was open. Both instances were justified because they created a public safety issue where they placed a burden on society from their actions.

We're not too far away from those situations as we become more and more of a nanny state. Why wouldn't the next logical step be to dictate our diet, as under a socialst healthcare system we would be a burden if we didn't eat healthy?
So you do disagree with Title VII? It can't be so hard to say yes or no, but I take it from your answer that it's no. And in one post you argue for contract and in another for at-will, but I suppose that makes sense if each job is negoatiated individually.

And no, Title VII and other such legislation is not about the force of the government. It's about basic rights of people. For example, if discrimination was the same as it was before Title VII, the candidate would not have the choice of simply going to find a different job since he/she would face the same issues there. I'm appauled that you believe that we should not have these laws against discrimination...

Once again, it's great that many companies offer these type of benefits, nothing wrong with that at all, but it's still not my point. We do care if people employ unfair practices in hiring practices. Yes, it'll be bad for their business in the long run, but some people will not think like that because they have their own biases and making it illegal does help people think twice about such decisions. I (and most people in our society) believe that it is unethical to discriminate in the hiring practices, I have heard from very few people wanting to repeal these laws and let employers simply do what they want.

I'm not talking about 100 years ago, but sure there has been progress in many areas and bad news are likely to be spread quickly, but things like discrimination is still difficult to show and overcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2008, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,172,642 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockholmaren View Post
So you do disagree with Title VII? It can't be so hard to say yes or no, but I take it from your answer that it's no. And in one post you argue for contract and in another for at-will, but I suppose that makes sense if each job is negoatiated individually.
Title VII is fine - everyone should have the right to apply for a job

At the same, every employer should have the right to determine who they are going to hire based on their experience, education, and how they will benefit my business. Hooters needs women in tight shorts and low tops to succeed - men don't cut it

Employers also have the right to determine how much to pay they employee - and the employee has the right to say no and go somewhere else -

Employers are under no legal obligation to provide vacations or sick leave. It is between the employee and employer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top