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.
So we need to wait until all 330 million Americans feel "safe" before anyone is allowed to go back to work? That's the only way to avoid the situation you described.
No? That’s a false dichotomy; all or none. As others have repeatedly stated, there need to be policies in place to protect employees from certain types of exposure.
In a developed, post-industrial society, few people are compelled to work for minimum wage for any length of time; savvy employers soon recognize that minimum wage assures minimum input. There might be exceptions here and there (pay a visit to you local fast-food emporium on a Sunday evening -- when nobody wants to work, so only the bottom-of-the-barrel has to). But any employee with a positive attitude is going to find a way off the absolute bottom rung, and right quick.
True. a fair starting salary followed by competitive salaries or hourly wages, attracts a better employee. You will always have your slackers and under performers. This is where good leadership is critical.
1. Show the benefit of being better than sub par, by promotions and better benefits.
2. Get rid of the slag before you become top heavy with it.
Believe it or n to companies are loath to fire people. It brings many issues.
First time and money invested in developing and training said employee is lost when you fire them.
Second too often a greedy lawyer is waiting to file a frivolous lawsuit knowing that most companies would rather settle then fight it out in court. Big companies bend over backwards to avoid firing people.
3. Probationary periods weed out the slackers only if leadership understands that no one owes a slacker a job. Too many are afraid to be the bad guy. I never had that problem. Far too many times I have gotten stuck with the slacker no one else held accountable.
In this case. My former employer is running 24/7. They have imposed staggered start times. No more than 1 person at a break table. No team meetings. Designated gates of entry. Masks, hand sanitizer. No standing closer than 6 feet apart. Headsets. etc.
No? That’s a false dichotomy; all or none. As others have repeatedly stated, there need to be policies in place to protect employees from certain types of exposure.
Well, those policies are never going to be put in place. So when are we ready to re-open in your mind? What criteria is good enough?
Because with this virus, you aren't only risking your life. You're risking the lives of others. If it were just you or any person who wants to be out and about being affected, I'd say go for it. But it's not that simple. It's like burning hazardous waste in your yard. You may have a right to do what you want on your property, but your freedom ends where my space begins.
Actually that's wrong. You're perfectly welcome to stay home just as long as you like. Here's a clue-no one is proposing coming into your house and dragging you outside. OK-you are correct-my freedom DOES end where your property begins. But not before. ANd not over your being offended.
So we need to wait until all 330 million Americans feel "safe" before anyone is allowed to go back to work? That's the only way to avoid the situation you described.
They don't have to wait if they are savvy and marketable. They can start up their own businesses from home or temporarily do the same as those already working from home. It's supposed to be easy as picking yourself up by the bootstraps and start over.
I'm asking, if it were up to you, under what conditions would you allow people to return to work?
I already stated such, which you ignored because it doesn’t play into your false dichotomy.
There need to be policies in place to protect employees from certain types of exposure.
Another poster gave a specific example, which you conveniently ignored:
Quote:
My former employer is running 24/7. They have imposed staggered start times. No more than 1 person at a break table. No team meetings. Designated gates of entry. Masks, hand sanitizer. No standing closer than 6 feet apart. Headsets. etc.
How will those people be at risk if they're isolating themselves at home? The only ones showing up to work are the ones that CHOOSE to.
They'll still have to take their dogs out, or go to the grocery store. If the virus is spreading like wildfire, it'll be much riskier to go out at all for necessities, especially if they live in apartments where everyone has to share two tiny elevators.
I already stated such, which you ignored because it doesn’t play into your false dichotomy.
There need to be policies in place to protect employees from certain types of exposure.
Humor me by defining such a policy.
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.
