The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Job Security - Noble goal or economic folly?
Rufus_Shinra
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The term "job security" sounds inherently positive. Yet at the same time, giving too much job security leads to poor performance and lowered expectations. In France, Sarkozy has been pushing economic reforms that will make it easier to lay off employees, with the aim of making French companies more competitive and dynamic. Similarly, many education reformers have been trying to hold teachers more accountable for their results, stating that unions are preventing bad teachers from being removed. Politically, we have shifted to having elections every four years rather than accepting a permanent king because it leads to more responsive government.
On the other hand, job security is a huge perk for employees. College professors work their ass off to get tenure, because it comes with prestige, money and respect. Employees with differing opinions and whistle blowers are better able to reform businesses if they know that their job is not constantly on the line. Politically, we offer our supreme court justices complete job security so that they can make decisions independent of job pressures. The safety offered to employees can hardly be understated, studies correlate job security directly with overall mental well being (see graph)
So I guess I'm hoping to start a debate over how important job security is and how much companies/institutions should respect it. How much of a guarantee should be given to employees? What about CEOs? Where is the balance between mental well being of employees and the ability of a company to change things quickly?
On the other hand, job security is a huge perk for employees. College professors work their ass off to get tenure, because it comes with prestige, money and respect. Employees with differing opinions and whistle blowers are better able to reform businesses if they know that their job is not constantly on the line. Politically, we offer our supreme court justices complete job security so that they can make decisions independent of job pressures. The safety offered to employees can hardly be understated, studies correlate job security directly with overall mental well being (see graph)
So I guess I'm hoping to start a debate over how important job security is and how much companies/institutions should respect it. How much of a guarantee should be given to employees? What about CEOs? Where is the balance between mental well being of employees and the ability of a company to change things quickly?
Rufus_Shinra on
0
Posts
So long as someone's life can go to absolute fuck through no fault of their own, job security remains a an important consideration.
It does end up screwing over the majority of the population who just want to work and earn a modest living. Some would argue that the edge gained in the top tiers of the workforce, determined to make the cut no matter how unreasonable, betters society more so than respecting people's individual rights.
It's clear that although the French people like job security, they are willing to trade some of that job security for a stronger economy.
Personally I have to wonder how much of this is a result of competition with Asian workforces. The French in particular get treated to a lot from their government, compared to places where the attitude is you should be fighting to keep your job if you have one, if not, sweep the streets and live in a shit hole.
It may be that your boss dislikes you because you are rude and lazy. However, it may be that your boss dislikes you because you have different interests. Once a boss told me, "You are intelligent, and you are doing a good job, but we do not have anything in common, and that is a problem. When I come to work I want to talk about a fishing trip I went on, or last night's ball game, but you don't care about that."
He was right. I didn't care. He didn't care about what I was interested in, such as politics and comparative religion. I doubt he had read a book since finishing school. He did not fire me. However, he gave me a bad job review for contrived reasons. When a bunch of people got laid off, I was one of them.
There is little justice in American employment. The United States is an employers' paradise and an employees' hell. Unless your job is very important, and unless you are supremely competent in your job, a sudden gust of air can blow you into an alley.
There are many people who for psychological reasons should not have power over other people. Unfortunately, many of these people are motivated to get power over people. Think of Saddam Hussein.
Just find a job that you can do well and can't be outsourced and you'll basically have lifelong job security. Easy.
And you shouldn't be working at a job where someone is being abusive like that anyway.
It's not that easy.
In the US - your health care is largely determined by your employer. When you're young and unattached - yeah, employment at will seems pretty fair.
If you have a family or are a bit older, then you become a slave to your employer. You need the job far more than your employer needs you because if you get fired your out-of-pocket medical costs will jump by an order of magnitude.
This is a major problem for the US. I'm hoping to God the next US President addresses health care in a meaningful way because it's putting us behind lots of other developed countries.
Nice bias there, champ. Look, not being able to fire someone leads to...well, Italy, and even the Italians don't want that, but there are definite positives to a measure of job security and you've completely avoided mention of these. Most important is that people who know they can and will be dropped at any time for any reason spend so much time trying to avoid that that they don't do much actual work. Efficiency drops for that reason, and drops further as a result of the emotional stress being in an environment like that generates.
Its pretty deadly anywhere, but it gets really bad in the public service. People whose job it is to provide advice on professional and technical matters don't feel like they can say anything concrete to the public in case it comes back and bites them on the ass, for instance. An advice-provider's refusal to help properly reduces the public's confidence in government, as it should. Stuff like this is a big deal. Job security includes giving people the neccessary space to make decisions that mean something without getting stabby if things don't work out optimally.
Medicare/Medicaid are good options for some people, but as I understand it, you have to jump through some hoops to get qualified for it. I know my roommate's mother who just had a stroke had problems qualifying for one or the other.
and in a free market, employers will compete with better and better health care packages. There are a lot less places that don't offer insurance anymore. Strangely enough, since I worked part time for the city I wasn't able to get it, but gosh golly those unionized workers were! And know why I couldn't get it?
Because the union's contract stated that we weren't allowed.
But hey, you wouldn't have to do that if you lived here, with our mixed public-private system of healthcare. Hmmm, its almost like a bureaucracy isn't an inevitable clusterfuck, but rather a system whose internal structure needs to be carefully designed so as to get a positive outcome on a consistent basis!
Seriously F, your first sentence is exactly the same reasoning as that guy in the wolf thread who is condemning all hunting because some methods are inhumane. Its an idiotic line of thought.
And look, I can make a statement without insulting the person. That's a skill you should learn, Cat. If you even saw how they run education here you'd know why I don't want another fucking sacred cow government program like Social Security that is extremely broken but nobody wants to fix it.
That's actually a bad boss, it happens.
I've little in common with the people I work for(when they talk about Football or Basketball I just kinda nod along), but that does not impact my job performance.
Those who cower from tyrants deserve their chains."
-unknown
It's a problem in the public service, and it's a problem in many other industries. If you can be fired for raising safety issues, then that's a problem. If you can be fired for criticising poor management decisions, then that's a problem too.
Also, it can be an issue as far as management accountability is concerned, especially with larger companies. If an employee can be fired on a whim without any explanation of why they were let go, then that is definitely an issue as far as transparency is concerned, and it certainly isn't good for employees.
On the other hand, businesses need flexibility to hire and fire workers as conditions change. This is especially true in smaller businesses.
I think we have the right balance here in Australia. There are two pieces of law relating to "job security":
"Unfair termination" law makes it illegal to fire a worker for discriminatory reasons (e.g. due to political affiliation, sexuality, religion). It is also illegal to fire a worker because of union membership. Employees are entitled to take (unpaid) maternity leave, parental leave or extended sick leave without fear of dismissal. Employers must take all reasonable steps to find a new position for a worker who suffers a disability (and the Government has programmes in place to assist in this case).
"Unfair dismissal" laws don't apply fully to small businesses, but provide further provisions. These laws are more concerned with transparency and due process being followed in firing employees, and they ensure that employment isn't terminated harshly, unjustly or unfairly. Employees can apply to a tribunal in these cases, and don't have to resort to expensive legal procedures.
Recent examples of "unfair dismissal" judgements include:
- An employee who was fired for querying her wages when she suspected she was being underpaid.
- An employee who was terminated with no explanation after the manager had an argument with the employee's daughter outside of the workplace.
- A secretary who was fired for having a relationship with another employee from the company.
- An employee who was fired for not attending "optional" after-hours training.
- A postman who was fired for making a single (small) mistake after 31 years of employment.
The previous Government here in Australia essentially tried to remove "unfair dismissal" provisions. All of the cases above would have been legal under their amended system. They were comprehensively voted out of Government as a result.
It is controversial among many Americans. I've been in arguments in the past where I ended up beating my head against a brick wall of obstinacy, only to be told something along the lines of: "It is a fundamental principle of the USA that all Governments are bad. Our country was built on that notion. You can't be a patriotic American if you trust the Government".
So, I guess there's no point arguing with some people. At least we can sit here (in Australia) and comfort ourselves with the knowledge that their Government expenditure on health care be double ours (per capita), while we enjoy universal coverage. And that our two Governments spend approximately the same on welfare (per capita), but we enjoy universal coverage in that regard as well. Perhaps it's a local problem, maybe there is just something wrong with bureaucracy in America.
And its not like bureaucracies even have to be super awesome to work; I'm in state government, and it veers between 'quietly competent' and 'ridiculous shambles' from minute to minute, but it pretty much works well enough to get things done. We don't have to 'trust' it itself, we just have to keep hammering out a system that's fair and relatively logical and make sure those in charge of applying the system do their jobs.
Its definitely about culture, though. QLD was a massively corrupt semi-police state up until like 2 years before I was born. We've come a long damn way through a will to change and a good old think.
That's the whole point really. The attitude here (and in Europe) is different in that we expect our Government to provide certain services and to do a good job. If, for example, hospitals waiting lists grow or corruption comes to light, then there is political fallout, an inquiry, then things are improved. If they aren't, then the public responds to the problem at the next election.
If, instead, the public just throw their hands in the air and say: "bureaucracy is pointless, the Government can't be trusted, let them just provide the bare minimum that is required" you end up with a broken, inefficient system that provides a fraction of the services while still costing a lot to run. There is much less pressure to improve it because everybody knows the system is only a part-solution.
I much prefer the former attitude... and, really, there's not much fat or waste in the public service these days, because the demands of delivering a government surplus while providing adequate services means that there isn't much room for it. I've worked in a public sector job, at a small business and at a large company, and the latter definitely dwarfed the other two in terms of waste and inefficiency. I guess department heads and politicians are much more demanding masters than shareholders.
i highlighted the parts most people would find offensive, condescending and insulting. that being said, i do sympathize with Fyre. some jobs in this country are not technically union but you are highly pressured to join. the only real option is to either join a union or find another job.
there may be decently functioning governments but the american one happens to not be one of them. you try to improve a system and you will end up wasting 10 years and billions of dollars getting people to agree with you and then you end up with a system just as broken in the end.
Like has been said, health insurance is probably the biggest worry when it comes to job security in the US. Without some kind of health insurance life is a lot scarier and more stressful because one accident can send you to the poor house.
I imagine her as a really really bitter, rude and angry person when I read her posts and replies to people on this forum. Too opinionated and self righteous for me.
Please explain, in detail, how Social Security is "broken."
Being in a union almost feels like being in a socialized country. You pay into it, you get taken care of, but you have to follow all the rules. Also, nobody can be a dick to you.
However, this also creates supervisors who loathe the union because they can't be dicks to anyone and they become super mega dicks trying to push the threshold to see what they can get away with. When I worked for UPS I had some of the most in your face supervisors that I have ever had. You can't stand up for yourself because that's immediately against the rules, you have to go through a bureaucracy of rules and regulations and shit.
I found that the supervisors are UPS don't give a rats ass and you're easily replaced because you're union and pretty much unskilled, but there's always someone that can be brought in to replace you at a moments notice, or someone that'll cover your shift because you get almost no hours.
That said, I found not being in a union gives you inordinately more flex in your work. Not being in a union allowed me to stand up for my rules and set boundaries that were acceptable and not universal. Like if I needed to come in later because of school. Sometimes not acceptable and the union won't stick up for you very often. Or if I don't like you're yelling at the top of your lungs to me I can tell you off right there, and threaten to leave and you'll have to calm down and deal with me like a rational person because you can't replace me in 20 minutes.
Just my two cents.
A system where you tell someone they make too much money because you're above the poverty threshold and won't do anything but give you food stamps or other useless programs. Sometimes people need $50 extra income to pay for toilet paper and not $5 in stamps for bulk cheese or milk.
The disability, SSI, Medic-aide/Medicare system are largely broken.
Tell me why a prison inmate should get organ transplants before a contributing member to society does.
The United States has the freest market of any affluent country.
You should test your theories against reality. In the United States fewer and fewer companies offer health and retirement benefits. This is because companies that do not offer those benefits out compete companies that do.
Dude, do you even know what Social Security is?
I was strictly speaking from SSI-D. But yes, it is broken regardless.
Edit:
SSI is more than just retirement income. You know that right? Also, I'm speaking from a complete welfare perspective too, all of the government aide programs are fundamentally broken.
1 - No it doesn't. There is an inherent inequality of power in that relationship and as such protections are in place.
2- No, that's not how life works. My job can't be outsourced (even though I'm in an outsourceable field, the information I handle can't be out sourced because of US federal law) but I could lose my job for many reasons unrelated to how well I do it. My company could go out of business. The fundamentals of the industry could change. I could have an illness or accident that prevents me from doing my job well anymore. It could become cheaper to hire less skilled workers to do my job at a cheaper rate.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Because people have inherent value, and don't exist to make your life better? Should we rank people on the awesome scale and the most totally radical get organs while the totally bogus die in a ditch?
There are a number of factors that go into organ donation. Scarcity of a product that is the difference between life and death for thousands is inherently going to lead to some tragedy. The first patient funeral my girlfriend (a RN on a pediatric organ transplant floor) and I went to was a 16 year old girl who had died of CF. She had received a lung transplant when she was 8 after more than year on the list and two weeks after her twin sister died of CF. She was not in any rational way a "contributing member of society". She was a child who barely made it to high school while costing thousands of skilled man-hours and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in treatment just to keep her breathing. The fact that it didn't bring society economic benefit is irrelevant. Those lungs bought her 8 years of life.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Prison inmates jump to the front of the list. Even misdemeanors that land you there for a few months. If they were even on the list with everyone else, that's fine.
Edit: Also, prison inmates are pretty much given full healthcare that's not even afforded to normal citizens. But I guess that's for another topic?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's completely not true.
More specifically, it is UNOS policy that only medical factors be taken into account for priority on the organ transplant list. "Social factors" - such as whether someone is an inmate or a contributing member of society - are prohibited.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
its based on historical evidence and tendencies. unless you want to change the system that such changes go through they are all inherintly going to cost more and be less effective than originally intended. im not shutting down change, im promoting reform which is change. before you junk the old system and start over, just change it around so its better.
the military shouldnt have privatized troop support. there are certain government activities that should never be privatized.
As allowed by the UNOS policies (3.2.1.8[extra] as approved by hospitals in the area). What better way to slough health care onto the private sector than by making sure most of the people in public health care get kidneys first? Medicaid/Medicare are notoriously bad at paying completely for a procedure or surgery. They sometimes send you bills just to see if you'll pay them and if you do, you immediately take responsibility somehow. Also, they try to get people to sign up for additional benefits which means they pay for everything relating to your disease, however you pay for everything else out of pocket.
I'm actually very familiar with the process. I work as a programmer for a medical software company in the billing application. Both private and public medical insurance intentionally obfuscates the process because every unsuccessful claim saves them money. But that doesn't mean your claim is true.
edit UNOS Waitling List policy rule 3.2.1.8 "Waiting Time Modification." and subrule, 3.2.1.8.1 "Waiting Time Modification for Urgent Status Candidates." make no concession for inmates or those covered by different varieties of insurance.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+