"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This doesn't change it from being a bad business plan. They want cheap, highly skilled labor with invasive policies. Seems like they're going to have to accept not having one of those things and currently they're choosing to forgo the one they need for the plant to operate.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.
Maybe, if you can't get any new employees because they are all committing the same exact crime after work, you should look into how to get the law, or its enforcement, revised.
Or maybe invest in getting them fucking treatment.
And to one up this one even further. I live in Massachusetts, where weed is now legal. I have to pass a drug test in the next three weeks in order to attain employment that makes no exception for weed (Because the base company is in fuckin Missouri).
I'm not committing a crime, they merely wish to exert control over me outside of work.
I am literally not even being paid by this company yet, and they are already making decisions about how I spend my free time.
No you're still committing a federal crime
it's fking stupid, but you still are.
Let's say we're in a state that still has anti sodomy laws.
Would it be okay for businesses to ask what type of sex I participate in? You know to make sure they aren't wasting time on a criminal.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be a massive invasion of my privacy, and legally fucking actionable in most cases.
How the fuck is investigating my piss not on par with asking me if I like oral sex?
Weather or not I am a criminal is not my fucking workplace's job to sort out, unless I work for the government and really only if I work in the criminal justice system.
Nor should they be allowed to undertake such invasive investigations as to if I am. They are not the cops, they are a fucking software company that doesn't deal with the government.
Yeah, any employee could possibly be a criminal on the side, and any employer could be a fuckin Enron getting ready to completely fuck everyone that works for them even if they are not the part of the company that's doing criminal shit. We're both taking risks in this agreement, and it isn't like I as the employee get to take a look at the company's books to make sure they are 100% legit, or get to revise their process and tell them their incompetent management is leading to money loss and possible company destruction.
Drug testing in the private sector isn't done for any tangible or explainable reason beyond, "I don't like folks that do drugs I don't like".
Drug testing is just a bit of technology that corps got their hands on, and thought, "hey here's a great way to make sure we don't have to higher any people we don't agree with philosophically".
Again coming into work fucked up is a 100% different thing, and could result in incredibly unsafe working conditions in a lot of cases, and avoiding that is important, but making sure the employees never do drugs is incredibly different than making sure they don't do drugs at work. One is making sure I don't fuck up the work or get someone injured or killed, the other is controlling my life decisions at all times. And one of those is a drastic abuse of workers human rights. It is my decision what I do with my off time, and my work should have no say in that as they do not own me.
I mean by your reasoning of, "It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.", It is also a signification risk to put time and money into a person you know is participating in extreme sports after work. Better make a company policy that says no one can ride a bike at any time at work or outside of work because lots of people get killed while riding bikes and it would be a waste of money to train them up if they are just going to get grievously injured outside of work. Hell why don't they get to dig I your cabinets at home to make sure your eating right? Wouldn't want you to have a heart attack and waste all that time and money we put into training you. They could also mandate exercise regiments for all employees as well for the same reasoning. Failure to comply will result in your termination.
The legality of drug testing (or other testing) when not at work is state law and not federal law because it doesn't run afoul of EEOC. Race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age. That's the extent to which you're covered by federal law. You could probably appeal sodomy screening (sex) and health (age, disability), but for the rest you're at the mercy of state law.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The legality of drug testing (or other testing) when not at work is state law and not federal law because it doesn't run afoul of EEOC. Race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age. That's the extent to which you're covered by federal law. You could probably appeal sodomy screening (sex) and health (age, disability), but for the rest you're at the mercy of state law.
Legality and morality are rarely the same thing.
It's illegal and amoral to ask folks how they like to fuck. It is legal and amoral to command the contents of their piss.
I'm talking about things that are causing the unemployment crisis. Corps overreaching and attempting to control people's private lives outside of work. Like they fucking own the workers. Is a large problem there. Exacerbated by the fact that they will rescind that ownership when it is convenient to them.
Drug testing is partially causal to the unemployment issue because it makes it harder to employ good employees in the job seeker market because of what they do completely outside of work.
Drug testing is a meaningless intrusion into people's private lives that does nothing productive for a host of reasons, and holds back employment rates just so people can feel superior to others.
my understanding is that "compensation clawbacks" for abandoning a job after they spent money training you are illegal under current labor law, and we've dissolved the social expectations that would keep you there out of a sense of responsibility, so there's really no way to square the circle.
Companies could offer their employees good compensation packages and provide realistic col and merit raises?
Retention isn't a mystery, you just have to value it more than saving another 2% on payroll.
Five years ago, after the company I worked for was acquired as part of an "inorganic growth initiative", the Engineering Executive that my team reported too came by for a dog and pony show. He sat down the engineering team sans managers to have a "roundtable". One of the issues we've always had is that we're two hours away from several major cities that pay significantly more (on the order of 25% or more) than the company we were all working for.
In this meeting, I point-blank asked "What is your plan to retain engineering talent at this location?" The executive answer? "There is no plan to retain any engineering talent."
Unsurprisingly, several more engineers left in the next year, and we're suffering from a very high turnover rate.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
Is that supposed to be scary? If someone can't manage to run a business without underpaying workers, they shouldn't be managing a business at all.
It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.
Maybe, if you can't get any new employees because they are all committing the same exact crime after work, you should look into how to get the law, or its enforcement, revised.
Or maybe invest in getting them fucking treatment.
And to one up this one even further. I live in Massachusetts, where weed is now legal. I have to pass a drug test in the next three weeks in order to attain employment that makes no exception for weed (Because the base company is in fuckin Missouri).
I'm not committing a crime, they merely wish to exert control over me outside of work.
I am literally not even being paid by this company yet, and they are already making decisions about how I spend my free time.
No you're still committing a federal crime
it's fking stupid, but you still are.
Let's say we're in a state that still has anti sodomy laws.
Would it be okay for businesses to ask what type of sex I participate in? You know to make sure they aren't wasting time on a criminal.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be a massive invasion of my privacy, and legally fucking actionable in most cases.
How the fuck is investigating my piss not on par with asking me if I like oral sex?
Weather or not I am a criminal is not my fucking workplace's job to sort out, unless I work for the government and really only if I work in the criminal justice system.
Nor should they be allowed to undertake such invasive investigations as to if I am. They are not the cops, they are a fucking software company that doesn't deal with the government.
Yeah, any employee could possibly be a criminal on the side, and any employer could be a fuckin Enron getting ready to completely fuck everyone that works for them even if they are not the part of the company that's doing criminal shit. We're both taking risks in this agreement, and it isn't like I as the employee get to take a look at the company's books to make sure they are 100% legit, or get to revise their process and tell them their incompetent management is leading to money loss and possible company destruction.
Drug testing in the private sector isn't done for any tangible or explainable reason beyond, "I don't like folks that do drugs I don't like".
Drug testing is just a bit of technology that corps got their hands on, and thought, "hey here's a great way to make sure we don't have to higher any people we don't agree with philosophically".
Again coming into work fucked up is a 100% different thing, and could result in incredibly unsafe working conditions in a lot of cases, and avoiding that is important, but making sure the employees never do drugs is incredibly different than making sure they don't do drugs at work. One is making sure I don't fuck up the work or get someone injured or killed, the other is controlling my life decisions at all times. And one of those is a drastic abuse of workers human rights. It is my decision what I do with my off time, and my work should have no say in that as they do not own me.
I mean by your reasoning of, "It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.", It is also a signification risk to put time and money into a person you know is participating in extreme sports after work. Better make a company policy that says no one can ride a bike at any time at work or outside of work because lots of people get killed while riding bikes and it would be a waste of money to train them up if they are just going to get grievously injured outside of work. Hell why don't they get to dig I your cabinets at home to make sure your eating right? Wouldn't want you to have a heart attack and waste all that time and money we put into training you. They could also mandate exercise regiments for all employees as well for the same reasoning. Failure to comply will result in your termination.
And right now they actually are kind of going the route for health, what with health data and fitbits and shit. I refuse to take part in that kind of thing because it seems so easy for a corporation to abuse. They shouldn't care if I eat a little too much sodium, that's none of their business, and yet that's the route this kind of thing is taking us for human resource departments.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I feel like it's not outlandish to expect employees in an industrial setting not be doing hard drugs, even if it's only in their off time (how many people only do heroin on the weekends?). Especially given the notion that it's easier to tell if someone is impaired from alcohol (partly because it's more obvious and partly because people have way more experience with that) than if they're impaired due to other drugs that may be less noticeable but still lead to people improperly operating heavy machinery.
Most office work isn't injurious or client facing, though, and so those employers shouldn't care about drug use at all unless the work suffers.
I think that with the permanent volatility of the housing market and the internet, enough of us will be nomads that #1 won't be that bad of a problem. I only get to see my family once a year and my friendships last an average of 3 years before we stop caring about communicating. Other people have Facebook I guess, but without physical proximity even those people just become status symbols. Without a community, there's no need to own a home or take root somewhere. So I think problem 1 will sort itself out.
That's not... good though. I'm not the kind of guy who makes friends easily, but roots are what give people a sense of belonging and strong communities can self-police problems like drug abuse or other things better than the police can, in a soft-power sense.
The option of mobility is good (in fact, it's a human right), but telling people that they *need* to uproot themselves for work shouldn't be a thing either. That plays into the same problem of hideous work/life balance, where people sacrifice social comfort to stay ahead in the rat race.
Heroin and meth (which have very real addiction issues) are very fucking different from weed.
The issue is there's no test to tell if someone's high *right now,* unlike the breathalyzer. You could have bloodshot eyes from a bad night's sleep. When you're using non-alcoholic drugs there's no way to know if you're not too impaired at the moment to do your job. Sure, people high on all kinds of stuff have tells, but that can be hard to sort out and leads to the fun kinds of gray areas that lead to lawsuits.
I think that with the permanent volatility of the housing market and the internet, enough of us will be nomads that #1 won't be that bad of a problem. I only get to see my family once a year and my friendships last an average of 3 years before we stop caring about communicating. Other people have Facebook I guess, but without physical proximity even those people just become status symbols. Without a community, there's no need to own a home or take root somewhere. So I think problem 1 will sort itself out.
That's not... good though. I'm not the kind of guy who makes friends easily, but roots are what give people a sense of belonging and strong communities can self-police problems like drug abuse or other things better than the police can, in a soft-power sense.
The option of mobility is good (in fact, it's a human right), but telling people that they *need* to uproot themselves for work shouldn't be a thing either. That plays into the same problem of hideous work/life balance, where people sacrifice social comfort to stay ahead in the rat race.
Heroin and meth (which have very real addiction issues) are very fucking different from weed.
The issue is there's no test to tell if someone's high *right now,* unlike the breathalyzer. You could have bloodshot eyes from a bad night's sleep. When you're using non-alcoholic drugs there's no way to know if you're not too impaired at the moment to do your job. Sure, people high on all kinds of stuff have tells, but that can be hard to sort out and leads to the fun kinds of gray areas that lead to lawsuits.
Yes, because unemployed meth addicts have tons of cash for a lawsuit.
I think that with the permanent volatility of the housing market and the internet, enough of us will be nomads that #1 won't be that bad of a problem. I only get to see my family once a year and my friendships last an average of 3 years before we stop caring about communicating. Other people have Facebook I guess, but without physical proximity even those people just become status symbols. Without a community, there's no need to own a home or take root somewhere. So I think problem 1 will sort itself out.
That's not... good though. I'm not the kind of guy who makes friends easily, but roots are what give people a sense of belonging and strong communities can self-police problems like drug abuse or other things better than the police can, in a soft-power sense.
The option of mobility is good (in fact, it's a human right), but telling people that they *need* to uproot themselves for work shouldn't be a thing either. That plays into the same problem of hideous work/life balance, where people sacrifice social comfort to stay ahead in the rat race.
Heroin and meth (which have very real addiction issues) are very fucking different from weed.
The issue is there's no test to tell if someone's high *right now,* unlike the breathalyzer. You could have bloodshot eyes from a bad night's sleep. When you're using non-alcoholic drugs there's no way to know if you're not too impaired at the moment to do your job. Sure, people high on all kinds of stuff have tells, but that can be hard to sort out and leads to the fun kinds of gray areas that lead to lawsuits.
Actually, the breathalyzer for weed is slowly changing as weed becomes legal in more states.
I'd imagine more tests that show the immediate level of impairment will be developed as the demand for such tests increases. Police want to catch people driving under the influence when the drug is otherwise legal, and the current blood/piss tests don't allow for that.
Most drug tests are related to insurance discounts and liability concerns, as well as the classic "some shithead ruined it for everyone else".
Once it's legalized, people have footing to stand on, but until then you've got the shit sandwich, which is often there for a reason given the actual physical risk of many industrial jobs.
That said, I worked commercial construction for a summer once, and all the best welders were stoned 24/7. We're talking welds shot with x-rays on major installations, which most nailed first shot.
Most drug tests are related to insurance discounts and liability concerns, as well as the classic "some shithead ruined it for everyone else".
Once it's legalized, people have footing to stand on, but until then you've got the shit sandwich, which is often there for a reason given the actual physical risk of many industrial jobs.
That said, I worked commercial construction for a summer once, and all the best welders were stoned 24/7. We're talking welds shot with x-rays on major installations, which most nailed first shot.
ASME requires radiography be performed on any through thickness pressure containing weld, which is almost all of what happens in a refinery or power plant.
And a major reason why big companies use contract workers rather than in-house is because they don't have to drug test them, as they realize that would drastically shrink the job pool. I am personally surprised that more employers aren't supporting legalization of weed, as in many skilled fields it would open up the labor market, meaning they would have to pay their employees less due to competition.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.
Maybe, if you can't get any new employees because they are all committing the same exact crime after work, you should look into how to get the law, or its enforcement, revised.
Or maybe invest in getting them fucking treatment.
And to one up this one even further. I live in Massachusetts, where weed is now legal. I have to pass a drug test in the next three weeks in order to attain employment that makes no exception for weed (Because the base company is in fuckin Missouri).
I'm not committing a crime, they merely wish to exert control over me outside of work.
I am literally not even being paid by this company yet, and they are already making decisions about how I spend my free time.
No you're still committing a federal crime
it's fking stupid, but you still are.
Let's say we're in a state that still has anti sodomy laws.
Would it be okay for businesses to ask what type of sex I participate in? You know to make sure they aren't wasting time on a criminal.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be a massive invasion of my privacy, and legally fucking actionable in most cases.
How the fuck is investigating my piss not on par with asking me if I like oral sex?
Weather or not I am a criminal is not my fucking workplace's job to sort out, unless I work for the government and really only if I work in the criminal justice system.
Nor should they be allowed to undertake such invasive investigations as to if I am. They are not the cops, they are a fucking software company that doesn't deal with the government.
Yeah, any employee could possibly be a criminal on the side, and any employer could be a fuckin Enron getting ready to completely fuck everyone that works for them even if they are not the part of the company that's doing criminal shit. We're both taking risks in this agreement, and it isn't like I as the employee get to take a look at the company's books to make sure they are 100% legit, or get to revise their process and tell them their incompetent management is leading to money loss and possible company destruction.
Drug testing in the private sector isn't done for any tangible or explainable reason beyond, "I don't like folks that do drugs I don't like".
Drug testing is just a bit of technology that corps got their hands on, and thought, "hey here's a great way to make sure we don't have to higher any people we don't agree with philosophically".
Again coming into work fucked up is a 100% different thing, and could result in incredibly unsafe working conditions in a lot of cases, and avoiding that is important, but making sure the employees never do drugs is incredibly different than making sure they don't do drugs at work. One is making sure I don't fuck up the work or get someone injured or killed, the other is controlling my life decisions at all times. And one of those is a drastic abuse of workers human rights. It is my decision what I do with my off time, and my work should have no say in that as they do not own me.
I mean by your reasoning of, "It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.", It is also a signification risk to put time and money into a person you know is participating in extreme sports after work. Better make a company policy that says no one can ride a bike at any time at work or outside of work because lots of people get killed while riding bikes and it would be a waste of money to train them up if they are just going to get grievously injured outside of work. Hell why don't they get to dig I your cabinets at home to make sure your eating right? Wouldn't want you to have a heart attack and waste all that time and money we put into training you. They could also mandate exercise regiments for all employees as well for the same reasoning. Failure to comply will result in your termination.
All these analogies are terrible. Sodomy is legal everywhere and sexual orientation is a protected class, extreme sports likewise are legal and FMLA / short-term disability insurance and leave are both things that exist to handle this situation (and others like it with the workforce out due to injury or sickness).
It sucks that drugs are criminalized, but this isn't a corporate problem - it's a government one. Decriminalize and then get on the moral outrage angle, I will join you arm-in-arm.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.
They make Fuckin millions.
They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.
They make Fuckin millions.
They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.
I know you don't believe that all business owners are making millions on the backs of the suffering downtrodden worker, but this is what it sounds like you're arguing. The OP we're referencing is a manufacturing company in rural PA that is trying to compete with overseas companies and only succeeding because they take very thin margins and deliver faster than the competition. IDK who owns the place but come on Sleep! Not every businessman is a Fat Cat!
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.
They make Fuckin millions.
They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.
They can if nobody does different.
That's it, really. It's extremely hard to boycott businesses based on how badly they treat their workers because most of the staple franchises do this. And the employees can't work anywhere else.
What is the incentive to pay your workers more fairly than minimally necessary if it cuts into how much you earn personally?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.
They make Fuckin millions.
They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.
I know you don't believe that all business owners are making millions on the backs of the suffering downtrodden worker, but this is what it sounds like you're arguing. The OP we're referencing is a manufacturing company in rural PA that is trying to compete with overseas companies and only succeeding because they take very thin margins and deliver faster than the competition. IDK who owns the place but come on Sleep! Not every businessman is a Fat Cat!
Ok I'll accept, maybe in this one instance I might be wrong. Especially for manufacturing, this dude might not be making enough personally that he could lower his own wage substantially to increase all of his workers salaries substantially.
However outside of small business owners I have not met the head of a successful company that wasn't a complete fat cat. Not one.
It's pretty easy to tell if someone that comes into work is high as fuck.
It's the same as alcohol. You don't really need to do a piss test or breathalyzer to know someone is fucking up.
This is very true. I work in geotechnical engineering and have routinely overseen large multi-company large number of employees during field programs that are rated high risk by the regulatory safety bodies. We do not perform standardized drug testing, although we always have it as an option if there is an incident or cause. Instead, we have a "fit to work" criteria. Workers are expected to show up at the beginning of their shift fit to work. If they are exhausted, mentally distracted, sick, or compromised in some way to prevent them from being able to safely carry out their duties or will put others around them at risk then the expectation is that they will call in sick. This of course includes being under the influence of alcohol, medication, or other drugs/substances. It honestly is not hard to tell when someone is not 100%. And since the work tends to be at a higher risk, with a good safety culture everyone is watching out for that.
And honestly, if someone calls in and had too much to drink one evening or informs their manager that they are not up for work, then that is fine. If there is a repeated problem, then there are disciplinary procedures which could lead to support/counseling or to termination depending on what happened or how the person in question reacts/engages. We only get excited/upset when someone tries to say they are ready for work and they are not, as this becomes a safety concern. And really, unless the behaviour will somehow influence their performance on the job or put others at risk, the company has no business telling their employees what they can do on their time off, so long as the employee shows up fit to work and performs to the expected level. That's all they are being paid for after all.
"This work takes years of training" followed by "The complicated jobs, which pay $12 to $20 an hour, plus health care and benefits"
hey
here's your fucking problem
that's not enough money for a job that takes years of training on industry specific machinery
forget the drugs this is basic economics, supply and demand
you can go get $12 an hour doing basically anything, that's not a number that brings in talent
With razor thin margins and ultimate speed of delivery the only thing that keeps them competitive with overseas entities.
Where does the money come from to make them job worth doing? idk.
Then maybe it's not a great business plan if you require cheap labor to even make a profit?
True, they could just close the plant and pay everyone $0 and then we rotate back to example #1 in the OP.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.
It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.
The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.
It's pretty easy to tell if someone that comes into work is high as fuck.
It's the same as alcohol. You don't really need to do a piss test or breathalyzer to know someone is fucking up.
This is very true. I work in geotechnical engineering and have routinely overseen large multi-company large number of employees during field programs that are rated high risk by the regulatory safety bodies. We do not perform standardized drug testing, although we always have it as an option if there is an incident or cause. Instead, we have a "fit to work" criteria. Workers are expected to show up at the beginning of their shift fit to work. If they are exhausted, mentally distracted, sick, or compromised in some way to prevent them from being able to safely carry out their duties or will put others around them at risk then the expectation is that they will call in sick. This of course includes being under the influence of alcohol, medication, or other drugs/substances. It honestly is not hard to tell when someone is not 100%. And since the work tends to be at a higher risk, with a good safety culture everyone is watching out for that.
And honestly, if someone calls in and had too much to drink one evening or informs their manager that they are not up for work, then that is fine. If there is a repeated problem, then there are disciplinary procedures which could lead to support/counseling or to termination depending on what happened or how the person in question reacts/engages. We only get excited/upset when someone tries to say they are ready for work and they are not, as this becomes a safety concern. And really, unless the behaviour will somehow influence their performance on the job or put others at risk, the company has no business telling their employees what they can do on their time off, so long as the employee shows up fit to work and performs to the expected level. That's all they are being paid for after all.
Boom, the way it fuckin should be!
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.
Unless the state steps in again and reduces overseas competition, allowing businesses room to breathe on wages and benefits without immediately getting pushed out by products from places that don't have health and safety laws or minimum wages. "Can you make it as cheap as an Indian 9 year-old can" is the big elephant in the room for the Western small business manufacturing sector (think clothes).
That doesn't apply to healthcare though. Low unionization keeps wages low there, even though patients and insurance companies pay through the nose.
Yeah we are dancing around this topic but protectionism is a thing. I'm no economist though so i can't make the solid argument for why it is bad. All my trusted proxies think so but i lack the education to evaluate.
You know that's not what they meant Spool. Loyalty is a two way street and most employers want all the benefits of employee loyalty while giving nothing back.
Indeed. My last job had a ridiculous amount of turnover, simply because folks would get hired, discover that we were the only clinical department in the hospital that had been denied any and all raises for the past five years (and that also didn't get the annual organization-wide holiday bonus) and promptly bug out after six months.
Cue managers and the higher ups whining about the "lack of loyalty" in today's workers.
I mean, this is literally the free market fucking the employer over
we could impose some kind of communist thing where employees can't leave I guess
or they could respond to the market forces and offer better compensation like the finance sector does
This is also a good thing though. Employers may be losing employees, but if they aren't changing their tactic to raise compensation packages relative to other jobs even in the same city then they're needlessly treading water.
This kind of competition is great for employees, and might be part of a reason why monopolies not only screw over consumers but also employees: they can't easily move to another job with higher compensation for the same skill set.
And honestly I'd rather be able to leave for a different job if I want. A job I'm starting soon has a 6-month training program and we have to sign a contract saying we'll work for 3 times the amount of time spent in training, which seems perfectly reasonable to me given the length of training and what not. But once that 18-month period is up, if I want to leave for higher paying work I'm free to do so.
I'm actually surprised this kind of contract isn't more common among higher-paying workplaces.
It'd be better for everyone if employers got off their current recentish kick about employees not being assets, being seen merely as red ink that they will dispose of to the point of actively hurting their own bottom line
meanwhile they'll be totally fine dumping a quarter of the company's value into a risky acquisition and then pay the CEO a 7 figure golden parachute when everything catches fire
Yeah we are dancing around this topic but protectionism is a thing. I'm no economist though so i can't make the solid argument for why it is bad. All my trusted proxies think so but i lack the education to evaluate.
I think this is two separate conversations
Is protectionism bad in general, because it stops buyers and sellers from accommodating each other in the biggest, most-efficient-possible market? This is a threshold issue with a clear answer: Yes, in general protectionism is inefficient and bad.
But should we restrict trade to the extent that a possible trade partner cuts costs by systemically mistreating laborers?
If you think it's important in general to protect mistreated workers, then we should forgo short-term profits in order to pressure our trading partners who have not yet instituted basic employment rights. But if you care about American profits more than human welfare, then you might have a different answer.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Yeah, there a bunch of things going on here, so let's ultimately focus on unemployment (focus of this) and potential issues/opportunities, right?
CEO Pay is a different topic
Protectionism is a different topic
Drug laws are a different topic
Ultimately, I think we need better training and connection programs so people can ramp into jobs much easier. Restructuring benefits to be more employer-agnostic would help in transition barriers, as you would ideally have a path of unemployment->trial->full hire that allows both parties time to try things out. I can tell you as a hiring manager it's hard to identify fully how well people will work out, and many times you're squeezed into a coinflip or dice roll if you don't have great candidates but your team is dying.
The biggest gaps I usually see are around critical thinking and data analysis, as that's huge in my field and while I can hire for critical thinking most people don't have much experience with detailed data analysis.
my understanding is that "compensation clawbacks" for abandoning a job after they spent money training you are illegal under current labor law, and we've dissolved the social expectations that would keep you there out of a sense of responsibility, so there's really no way to square the circle.
Dissolved on both ends, why stick it out for an employer who will throw you away in a second?
agree completely! "Why stick around when they don't care anyway, I need to get mine before I get canned" is just as much of a thing as "f u employer, I got mine, why stick around now that I'm $15k more valuable somewhere else?"
Everyone I know would love to stick around at a job forever, but if they can't count on raises every year, higher than CoL, then what is the point?
A 3% raise is pitiful, but that's barely what most people get if they stick around. They get their benefits slashed too. So yeah the loyalty thing is out the window forever until a company goes "hey yes we should probably treat our employees well" because that's actually a good thing for the overall health of a company.
Also isn't the "why stick around..." sort of like a negotiation? Seems to be exactly what you want as an employee. Maybe not as a manager that has payroll, but, even managers need to ask for raises. It's either that or unions bro, you can't expect people to work for peanuts because it makes your budget look good and your boss isn't giving you a lot of money for raises.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I think part of the issue is one of bad management practices just in general. If I propose a training budget for my team but I don't also argue for salary increases, I'm just setting a timeline for a new round of hiring. Plenty of managers don't have the authority or the forethought to tie CapEx training allocations to salary increases on the OpEx side and they lose staff simply because they can't make the 2nd part happen after the fact.
It's also a tougher sell in the budget meetings when your $15k training budget costs the company $50k...
I think part of the issue is one of bad management practices just in general. If I propose a training budget for my team but I don't also argue for salary increases, I'm just setting a timeline for a new round of hiring.
Yeah, as someone who's gone through a ton of management training and has a ton of corporate tools available on this stuff - Management is REALLY hard to do well and people generally don't spend enough time on refining and aligning the organization to make sure management is all on the same page and working for the benefit of both the company and the employees. Engagement is a huge driver of efficiency, so to ignore it is short-sighted.
I think part of the issue is one of bad management practices just in general. If I propose a training budget for my team but I don't also argue for salary increases, I'm just setting a timeline for a new round of hiring.
Yeah, as someone who's gone through a ton of management training and has a ton of corporate tools available on this stuff - Management is REALLY hard to do well and people generally don't spend enough time on refining and aligning the organization to make sure management is all on the same page and working for the benefit of both the company and the employees. Engagement is a huge driver of efficiency, so to ignore it is short-sighted.
I get the feeling that most people who are in a management position actually have no management training.
I think part of the issue is one of bad management practices just in general. If I propose a training budget for my team but I don't also argue for salary increases, I'm just setting a timeline for a new round of hiring.
Yeah, as someone who's gone through a ton of management training and has a ton of corporate tools available on this stuff - Management is REALLY hard to do well and people generally don't spend enough time on refining and aligning the organization to make sure management is all on the same page and working for the benefit of both the company and the employees. Engagement is a huge driver of efficiency, so to ignore it is short-sighted.
I get the feeling that most people who are in a management position actually have no management training.
It's the peter principle usually.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I think part of the issue is one of bad management practices just in general. If I propose a training budget for my team but I don't also argue for salary increases, I'm just setting a timeline for a new round of hiring.
Yeah, as someone who's gone through a ton of management training and has a ton of corporate tools available on this stuff - Management is REALLY hard to do well and people generally don't spend enough time on refining and aligning the organization to make sure management is all on the same page and working for the benefit of both the company and the employees. Engagement is a huge driver of efficiency, so to ignore it is short-sighted.
I get the feeling that most people who are in a management position actually have no management training.
The issue is a question of organizational health, like a recent story about a woman who was basically forced out of Uber because her boss wouldn't stop sexually harassing her and HR wouldn't do a thing about it. She described an environment where managers saw their only duty as subverting each other and undermining their superiors in order to get ahead. This is a very blatant case, but oftentimes companies just have no sense of what the organization's true priorities are other than "do stuff and make a profit off of it." Management's opinions on talent need to be clear from top to bottom: are we a high-turnover environment where labor is expendable, or are we going to invest in our workforce, and if so, what is the experience an average "good performer" should get re: advancement opportunity, raises, possible incentive pay?
The company needs to speak with one voice in that regard, and many of them rarely do.
If you're going to treat labor as expendable, you should at least own that and account for it as far as how that will affect the company, and make the expectation to employees clear coming in that only 20% of new hires last two years with the organization. If you don't want high turnover, then you need clear steps to combat that which are understood not only by management, but by labor. Everybody should be on the same page.
The issue is a question of organizational health, like a recent story about a woman who was basically forced out of Uber because her boss wouldn't stop sexually harassing her and HR wouldn't do a thing about it. She described an environment where managers saw their only duty as subverting each other and undermining their superiors in order to get ahead. This is a very blatant case, but oftentimes companies just have no sense of what the organization's true priorities are other than "do stuff and make a profit off of it." Management's opinions on talent need to be clear from top to bottom: are we a high-turnover environment where labor is expendable, or are we going to invest in our workforce, and if so, what is the experience an average "good performer" should get re: advancement opportunity, raises, possible incentive pay?
The company needs to speak with one voice in that regard, and many of them rarely do.
If you're going to treat labor as expendable, you should at least own that and account for it as far as how that will affect the company, and make the expectation to employees clear coming in that only 20% of new hires last two years with the organization. If you don't want high turnover, then you need clear steps to combat that which are understood not only by management, but by labor. Everybody should be on the same page.
The bolded reminds me of every story I've been reading about Sears over the last decade. Take a guess at what happens when an Ayn Rand loving CEO who cannot be removed from his position believes that the best thing for a company is to pit managers against each other to secure money for their budget?
If you guessed that what happens is a libertarian tire fire that's currently driving a 100+ year old company into the dustbins, you would have guessed right.
The issue is a question of organizational health, like a recent story about a woman who was basically forced out of Uber because her boss wouldn't stop sexually harassing her and HR wouldn't do a thing about it. She described an environment where managers saw their only duty as subverting each other and undermining their superiors in order to get ahead. This is a very blatant case, but oftentimes companies just have no sense of what the organization's true priorities are other than "do stuff and make a profit off of it." Management's opinions on talent need to be clear from top to bottom: are we a high-turnover environment where labor is expendable, or are we going to invest in our workforce, and if so, what is the experience an average "good performer" should get re: advancement opportunity, raises, possible incentive pay?
The company needs to speak with one voice in that regard, and many of them rarely do.
If you're going to treat labor as expendable, you should at least own that and account for it as far as how that will affect the company, and make the expectation to employees clear coming in that only 20% of new hires last two years with the organization. If you don't want high turnover, then you need clear steps to combat that which are understood not only by management, but by labor. Everybody should be on the same page.
The bolded reminds me of every story I've been reading about Sears over the last decade. Take a guess at what happens when an Ayn Rand loving CEO who cannot be removed from his position believes that the best thing for a company is to pit managers against each other to secure money for their budget?
If you guessed that what happens is a libertarian tire fire that's currently driving a 100+ year old company into the dustbins, you would have guessed right.
Ayn Rand.. or Steve Balmer?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
This doesn't change it from being a bad business plan. They want cheap, highly skilled labor with invasive policies. Seems like they're going to have to accept not having one of those things and currently they're choosing to forgo the one they need for the plant to operate.
This just does back to the ridiculous idea that the very notion of businesses employing their workforce is altruistic; that if not for their devaluing of workers in favor of profit, there wouldn't be any jobs at all, so you should be thankful for what you've got
Let's say we're in a state that still has anti sodomy laws.
Would it be okay for businesses to ask what type of sex I participate in? You know to make sure they aren't wasting time on a criminal.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that would be a massive invasion of my privacy, and legally fucking actionable in most cases.
How the fuck is investigating my piss not on par with asking me if I like oral sex?
Weather or not I am a criminal is not my fucking workplace's job to sort out, unless I work for the government and really only if I work in the criminal justice system.
Nor should they be allowed to undertake such invasive investigations as to if I am. They are not the cops, they are a fucking software company that doesn't deal with the government.
Yeah, any employee could possibly be a criminal on the side, and any employer could be a fuckin Enron getting ready to completely fuck everyone that works for them even if they are not the part of the company that's doing criminal shit. We're both taking risks in this agreement, and it isn't like I as the employee get to take a look at the company's books to make sure they are 100% legit, or get to revise their process and tell them their incompetent management is leading to money loss and possible company destruction.
Drug testing in the private sector isn't done for any tangible or explainable reason beyond, "I don't like folks that do drugs I don't like".
Drug testing is just a bit of technology that corps got their hands on, and thought, "hey here's a great way to make sure we don't have to higher any people we don't agree with philosophically".
Again coming into work fucked up is a 100% different thing, and could result in incredibly unsafe working conditions in a lot of cases, and avoiding that is important, but making sure the employees never do drugs is incredibly different than making sure they don't do drugs at work. One is making sure I don't fuck up the work or get someone injured or killed, the other is controlling my life decisions at all times. And one of those is a drastic abuse of workers human rights. It is my decision what I do with my off time, and my work should have no say in that as they do not own me.
I mean by your reasoning of, "It's a significant risk to put time and money into a person you know is committing crimes after work.", It is also a signification risk to put time and money into a person you know is participating in extreme sports after work. Better make a company policy that says no one can ride a bike at any time at work or outside of work because lots of people get killed while riding bikes and it would be a waste of money to train them up if they are just going to get grievously injured outside of work. Hell why don't they get to dig I your cabinets at home to make sure your eating right? Wouldn't want you to have a heart attack and waste all that time and money we put into training you. They could also mandate exercise regiments for all employees as well for the same reasoning. Failure to comply will result in your termination.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Legality and morality are rarely the same thing.
It's illegal and amoral to ask folks how they like to fuck. It is legal and amoral to command the contents of their piss.
I'm talking about things that are causing the unemployment crisis. Corps overreaching and attempting to control people's private lives outside of work. Like they fucking own the workers. Is a large problem there. Exacerbated by the fact that they will rescind that ownership when it is convenient to them.
Drug testing is partially causal to the unemployment issue because it makes it harder to employ good employees in the job seeker market because of what they do completely outside of work.
Drug testing is a meaningless intrusion into people's private lives that does nothing productive for a host of reasons, and holds back employment rates just so people can feel superior to others.
Five years ago, after the company I worked for was acquired as part of an "inorganic growth initiative", the Engineering Executive that my team reported too came by for a dog and pony show. He sat down the engineering team sans managers to have a "roundtable". One of the issues we've always had is that we're two hours away from several major cities that pay significantly more (on the order of 25% or more) than the company we were all working for.
In this meeting, I point-blank asked "What is your plan to retain engineering talent at this location?" The executive answer? "There is no plan to retain any engineering talent."
Unsurprisingly, several more engineers left in the next year, and we're suffering from a very high turnover rate.
Is that supposed to be scary? If someone can't manage to run a business without underpaying workers, they shouldn't be managing a business at all.
And right now they actually are kind of going the route for health, what with health data and fitbits and shit. I refuse to take part in that kind of thing because it seems so easy for a corporation to abuse. They shouldn't care if I eat a little too much sodium, that's none of their business, and yet that's the route this kind of thing is taking us for human resource departments.
Most office work isn't injurious or client facing, though, and so those employers shouldn't care about drug use at all unless the work suffers.
That's not... good though. I'm not the kind of guy who makes friends easily, but roots are what give people a sense of belonging and strong communities can self-police problems like drug abuse or other things better than the police can, in a soft-power sense.
The option of mobility is good (in fact, it's a human right), but telling people that they *need* to uproot themselves for work shouldn't be a thing either. That plays into the same problem of hideous work/life balance, where people sacrifice social comfort to stay ahead in the rat race.
The issue is there's no test to tell if someone's high *right now,* unlike the breathalyzer. You could have bloodshot eyes from a bad night's sleep. When you're using non-alcoholic drugs there's no way to know if you're not too impaired at the moment to do your job. Sure, people high on all kinds of stuff have tells, but that can be hard to sort out and leads to the fun kinds of gray areas that lead to lawsuits.
Yes, because unemployed meth addicts have tons of cash for a lawsuit.
Actually, the breathalyzer for weed is slowly changing as weed becomes legal in more states.
http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html
I'd imagine more tests that show the immediate level of impairment will be developed as the demand for such tests increases. Police want to catch people driving under the influence when the drug is otherwise legal, and the current blood/piss tests don't allow for that.
It's the same as alcohol. You don't really need to do a piss test or breathalyzer to know someone is fucking up.
Once it's legalized, people have footing to stand on, but until then you've got the shit sandwich, which is often there for a reason given the actual physical risk of many industrial jobs.
That said, I worked commercial construction for a summer once, and all the best welders were stoned 24/7. We're talking welds shot with x-rays on major installations, which most nailed first shot.
ASME requires radiography be performed on any through thickness pressure containing weld, which is almost all of what happens in a refinery or power plant.
And a major reason why big companies use contract workers rather than in-house is because they don't have to drug test them, as they realize that would drastically shrink the job pool. I am personally surprised that more employers aren't supporting legalization of weed, as in many skilled fields it would open up the labor market, meaning they would have to pay their employees less due to competition.
"The drugs I'm OK with" aka the legal ones.
This is nonsense, I'm sorry. Without profit, there is no business. They're not "devaluing workers in favor of profit", they're paying what they can while still making a profit with thin margins and very strong overseas competition.
If they decided to forego profit, there wouldn't be any jobs... so no it's not altruism. And no people shouldn't be thankful to be underpaid. But the reality is that in some situations it absolutely a choice between being underpaid and being on unemployment, because the businesses can't compete at a revenue point that lets them raise wages.
All these analogies are terrible. Sodomy is legal everywhere and sexual orientation is a protected class, extreme sports likewise are legal and FMLA / short-term disability insurance and leave are both things that exist to handle this situation (and others like it with the workforce out due to injury or sickness).
It sucks that drugs are criminalized, but this isn't a corporate problem - it's a government one. Decriminalize and then get on the moral outrage angle, I will join you arm-in-arm.
Yeah, looking at top level salaries calls this whole argument bullshit.
They make Fuckin millions.
They can't fuckin complain about my pay throwing off corporate profits while their pay outstrips mine 100 to 1.
I know you don't believe that all business owners are making millions on the backs of the suffering downtrodden worker, but this is what it sounds like you're arguing. The OP we're referencing is a manufacturing company in rural PA that is trying to compete with overseas companies and only succeeding because they take very thin margins and deliver faster than the competition. IDK who owns the place but come on Sleep! Not every businessman is a Fat Cat!
They can if nobody does different.
That's it, really. It's extremely hard to boycott businesses based on how badly they treat their workers because most of the staple franchises do this. And the employees can't work anywhere else.
What is the incentive to pay your workers more fairly than minimally necessary if it cuts into how much you earn personally?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Not sure how this address whether or not this should still be a business other than "it means a loss of jobs!" As a business owner the onus is on the owner to make money while paying their workers a fair and living wage. Businesses don't get to exist solely on the merit of being a business.
Ok I'll accept, maybe in this one instance I might be wrong. Especially for manufacturing, this dude might not be making enough personally that he could lower his own wage substantially to increase all of his workers salaries substantially.
However outside of small business owners I have not met the head of a successful company that wasn't a complete fat cat. Not one.
This is very true. I work in geotechnical engineering and have routinely overseen large multi-company large number of employees during field programs that are rated high risk by the regulatory safety bodies. We do not perform standardized drug testing, although we always have it as an option if there is an incident or cause. Instead, we have a "fit to work" criteria. Workers are expected to show up at the beginning of their shift fit to work. If they are exhausted, mentally distracted, sick, or compromised in some way to prevent them from being able to safely carry out their duties or will put others around them at risk then the expectation is that they will call in sick. This of course includes being under the influence of alcohol, medication, or other drugs/substances. It honestly is not hard to tell when someone is not 100%. And since the work tends to be at a higher risk, with a good safety culture everyone is watching out for that.
And honestly, if someone calls in and had too much to drink one evening or informs their manager that they are not up for work, then that is fine. If there is a repeated problem, then there are disciplinary procedures which could lead to support/counseling or to termination depending on what happened or how the person in question reacts/engages. We only get excited/upset when someone tries to say they are ready for work and they are not, as this becomes a safety concern. And really, unless the behaviour will somehow influence their performance on the job or put others at risk, the company has no business telling their employees what they can do on their time off, so long as the employee shows up fit to work and performs to the expected level. That's all they are being paid for after all.
It's actually not. It's the onus of the owner to please the board and remain profitable. Employers who do pay a fair and living wage are much more likely to have more productive workers who enjoy going to work.
The only way to ensure a fair and living wage would be for the state to step in. But then you're back to this employer crashing and burning and all of the employees being unemployed again.
Boom, the way it fuckin should be!
That doesn't apply to healthcare though. Low unionization keeps wages low there, even though patients and insurance companies pay through the nose.
It'd be better for everyone if employers got off their current recentish kick about employees not being assets, being seen merely as red ink that they will dispose of to the point of actively hurting their own bottom line
meanwhile they'll be totally fine dumping a quarter of the company's value into a risky acquisition and then pay the CEO a 7 figure golden parachute when everything catches fire
I think this is two separate conversations
Is protectionism bad in general, because it stops buyers and sellers from accommodating each other in the biggest, most-efficient-possible market? This is a threshold issue with a clear answer: Yes, in general protectionism is inefficient and bad.
But should we restrict trade to the extent that a possible trade partner cuts costs by systemically mistreating laborers?
If you think it's important in general to protect mistreated workers, then we should forgo short-term profits in order to pressure our trading partners who have not yet instituted basic employment rights. But if you care about American profits more than human welfare, then you might have a different answer.
CEO Pay is a different topic
Protectionism is a different topic
Drug laws are a different topic
Ultimately, I think we need better training and connection programs so people can ramp into jobs much easier. Restructuring benefits to be more employer-agnostic would help in transition barriers, as you would ideally have a path of unemployment->trial->full hire that allows both parties time to try things out. I can tell you as a hiring manager it's hard to identify fully how well people will work out, and many times you're squeezed into a coinflip or dice roll if you don't have great candidates but your team is dying.
The biggest gaps I usually see are around critical thinking and data analysis, as that's huge in my field and while I can hire for critical thinking most people don't have much experience with detailed data analysis.
Everyone I know would love to stick around at a job forever, but if they can't count on raises every year, higher than CoL, then what is the point?
A 3% raise is pitiful, but that's barely what most people get if they stick around. They get their benefits slashed too. So yeah the loyalty thing is out the window forever until a company goes "hey yes we should probably treat our employees well" because that's actually a good thing for the overall health of a company.
Also isn't the "why stick around..." sort of like a negotiation? Seems to be exactly what you want as an employee. Maybe not as a manager that has payroll, but, even managers need to ask for raises. It's either that or unions bro, you can't expect people to work for peanuts because it makes your budget look good and your boss isn't giving you a lot of money for raises.
It's also a tougher sell in the budget meetings when your $15k training budget costs the company $50k...
Yeah, as someone who's gone through a ton of management training and has a ton of corporate tools available on this stuff - Management is REALLY hard to do well and people generally don't spend enough time on refining and aligning the organization to make sure management is all on the same page and working for the benefit of both the company and the employees. Engagement is a huge driver of efficiency, so to ignore it is short-sighted.
I get the feeling that most people who are in a management position actually have no management training.
It's the peter principle usually.
Yep. Which is a monstrous problem.
The company needs to speak with one voice in that regard, and many of them rarely do.
If you're going to treat labor as expendable, you should at least own that and account for it as far as how that will affect the company, and make the expectation to employees clear coming in that only 20% of new hires last two years with the organization. If you don't want high turnover, then you need clear steps to combat that which are understood not only by management, but by labor. Everybody should be on the same page.
The bolded reminds me of every story I've been reading about Sears over the last decade. Take a guess at what happens when an Ayn Rand loving CEO who cannot be removed from his position believes that the best thing for a company is to pit managers against each other to secure money for their budget?
If you guessed that what happens is a libertarian tire fire that's currently driving a 100+ year old company into the dustbins, you would have guessed right.
Ayn Rand.. or Steve Balmer?