- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Australia, where I live, has had far better protection for workers' rights than the US pretty much since federation. Our economy is also currently doing much better than the US's. So I'm not sure that at-will employment is necessarily the panacea that so many of its supporters paint it as.
The point about state regulation of working conditions is to establish a set of norms inside which all businesses compete. If you have a patchwork system, where the cost of doing business in city A is lower than that in nearby city B, then of course city A will attract more businesses; that's straight supply and demand in operation. But if consistent business rules apply everywhere, that doesn't happen.
If regulation has the effect of raising costs for all businesses, there's pretty much no effect at all on relative competitiveness; instead, the increased costs just get passed on to customers. Businesses can afford to do that if they know that all their competitors have to do it too.
In Australia we've historically made the collective choice to wear somewhat higher prices in order to improve our conditions of employment. Which we can afford to do, largely because we get a much better minimum wage. It's all good.
As I see it, the US seems to have a rather inflexible attachment to individual freedoms TO do things regardless of social consquence. In Australia we temper those freedoms somewhat in order to increase our freedom FROM assorted kinds of avoidable suffering. I see it not so much as nanny-statism, more as collective common sense (see also: universal taxation-funded health care).
Admin
Admin
Getting hired in a job agreeing that you will be working, say a 40hour week and after a while you notice that it is an "unofficial" company culture to work unpaid overtime every day, then that company has committed a fraud against you and the law should cover you in such cases. Similarly, the law should protect you from unhealthy work conditions. Do you believe the government should not interfere if there is a big company that forces its employees to work under an unhealthy environment? A government that doesnt do that should be called a "democartic dictatorship", just so that we call things with their name.
Having said that, there are ways for the employees to feel protected by a boss that takes advantage of them and for companies to be able to fire an employee who is not up to the task and probably lied in his resume. It is called a contract and noone from the two sides should break it without consequences.
In my contract, it is clearly stated that in my first 6 months I am on trial. At any time, my employer can tell me that I am not up to the task and let me go. No hard feelings. This protects them from worthless half-professionals who are eager to get into a job and slack their way to retirement. Dont you think 6 months are enough to judge whether an employee is good enough for the job? Make it a year.
There is also something called an "interview" which should not be taken lightly by companies (usually the case is that an overworked employee will be assigned to interview and will hardly have time to prepare so that he performs the interview correctly). Having too many worthless employees getting hired means the interview process is lacking.
Admin
Some bridges SHOULD be burned. The reason people like that batshit CFO remain in power instead of crashing and burning is because people pretend to be nice for fear of burning a bridge.
Sure, if it's something minor or petty then don't be a dick about it; if the company just isn't a good fit then move on and forget about it. But when it's something fundamentally wrong like a power-mad owner or simply doing everything wrong and getting business due to luck or being in a niche market, all bets are off.
The only way for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
In my previous job, we did online Flash commercials. These are very short tasks, but there were lots of them, and often they would be rush jobs. If there were lots of tasks that needed to be done, then they would expect them to be done in our spare time at home. Basically, we gave them a lot of unpaid overtime because they were unable or unwilling to hire enough people for the job. The pay was pretty poor but - hey - I figured it would go up if my dedication was recognised...
I knew this wasn't going to happen when my immediate boss was working on organising a department day out when he suggested - "Hey, it'll be easier to organise this event during the work day, but you'll have to make the time up later." WTF?! - "Make the time up"? I don't have any time I need to make up to YOU:- YOU need to make up time to ME!
I feel a little bad about saying "Sorry, I'm not up for that" - He was basically an okay guy who was so caught up in the way the directors did business that he didn't realise what he was saying was entirely unacceptable.
Admin
This is why I ask if the CFO is in charge of IT. If yes, then I walk away.
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
Most things fail if you cut off the foundation. That does not seem to show anything.
Admin
Hmm, what rights does the company have in an employment relationship for which the employee does not have an analagous right?
The company can fire you at any time for no reason. Sure. And you can quit at any time for no reason.
The company can establish policies regarding hours, lunch breaks, etc, and tell you "take it or leave it". (Not really true, there are all sorts of laws in the US about working conditions. But suppose it was true.) You can tell the company that you have demands about hours, lunch breaks etc, and if they don't like them you refuse to work there.
Even in the US, employees have all sorts of rights that employers don't. If you believe a company didn't hire you because of your race, gender, or religion, you can sue them. If you refuse to take a job with a company because you don't like the owner's race, gender, or religion, the company cannot sue you. If you work X hours and the company does not pay you for X hours, you can sue them. If the company pays you and you just goof off all day, they can't sue you. (They can fire you, i.e. not pay you for future non-work, but they can't demand repayment of money paid for past non-work.) Employees can organize a union and state that they will all refuse to work if the company does not meet their demands. Companies cannot band together and state that they will all refuse to hire any employee who does not meet their demands. (i.e. unions are exempt from anti-trust laws.) Etc etc.
Personally, I prefer the freedom to decide what working conditions I consider acceptable for myself. Any law that says that a company cannot hire you to do a job doing X is a restriction on the company, but it's also a restriction on the employee: it says that you cannot agree to take a job doing X, regardless of what compensation the company may be willing to offer.
My sister likes to work outdoors. She hates office work. So she gets jobs as a house painter and carpenter and that sort of thing. I hate to work outdoors. I much prefer to work in an air-conditioned office. My idea of "great working conditions" is totally different from hers. Should my sister be forced to work indoors because I find it preferable, or vice versa? I often work 50 hour weeks, and I don't mind because I like the work, and the fact that long hours are sometimes required means my employer is willing to pay an above-average salary. I think it's a fair deal. Someone who has small children to take care of, or who simply values his free time more, might well not like that deal.
Many European countries require minimum amounts of annual vacation. That sounds nice. Sure, I'd love to get 6 weeks vacation a year instead of the 3 I get now. Except ... except where does the money come from to pay the employee for that extra time not working? Realistically, only a tiny percentage of it can come from reduced profits to the owner -- in most companies, labor costs are way more than profits, there just isn't that much room to maneuver. So the cost of vacation has to come in the form of reduced salaries or other benefits. A law can require a minimum amount of vacation, but it can't create the money to pay it out of thin air.
So suppose someone offered you a job with only one week vacation per year, and for whatever reason, reasonable or otherwise, said that this was non-negotiable. But they offered you twice your current salary, a great health plan, work that you just love doing, ... fill in whatever it takes to make this otherwise a dream job. How would you respond?
(a) Yes, I'd like more vacation time, but the job has so many other attactions that, yes, I'd take it.
(b) No, I wouldn't take it, but I can imagine that in other circumstances I might, like if I was younger or I didn't have children or I wasn't training for the marathon or whatever.
(c) No, I wouldn't take it and can't imagine any circumstances where I would take such a job, but if others are willing, that's up to them.
Or (d) No, I wouldn't take it, and I think there should be laws to prevent anyone else from taking such a job. No company should be allowed to offer a job with less vacation time than I want to have, and anyone who agrees to take a job with less vacation should be fined or put in jail or otherwise forced to only accept jobs that have an amount of vacation that I consider acceptable. I know better than anyone else not only how to run my own life, but also how to run theirs. And everyone else in the world should be forced to listen to music that I like and get the same haircut that I do and wear size 10 shoes like I do. (Why is it legal to make shoes in other than size 10 when that is clearly the size that is most comfortable? It's a real nuisance when I go to the shoe store and they have all these other sizes that don't fit me and I have to search to find the ones that do.)
Admin
On the serious side, that's a great suggestion! I've had a few times that I've interviewed with some company where at some point in the interview process I realized that there was no way I wanted to work here. What I've always done is go through the motions for the rest of the interview. But really, if you've already decided you don't want this job, you have nothing to lose. Why not politely explain why you aren't interested? (No need to be rude if they haven't been rude to you.) At worst they'll tell you to get lost and quit telling them how to run their business. If you weren't going to take the job anyway, so what? At best, they might offer you a position where you can fix what's wrong with the company, and turn what would have been a sucky job into a rewarding one. Or you could at least have the satisfaction of having an intelligent, adult conversation about how to fix the company before you leave, and maybe make things better for the poor sucker who DOES take the job.
Wow, almost makes me want to interview for a sucky job, now. Maybe I should be calling certain people back ...
Admin
No, he's a poacher in a primate preserve.
Admin
Umm ... suppose he says "no" to more hours, and the boss fires him? What does he do? Presumably he contacts some government agency to enforce the law. Because in most cases the threat of enforcement -- explicit or implicit -- is sufficient to lead to compliance doesn't mean that "the government isn't involved". The government made the rule and the government enforces the rule. What is the definition of government involvement if not that? What, you don't think that "this is the law" means "the government is forcing me to do this whether I like it or not" unless there is a policeman standing beside you with a gun pointed at your head all day?
If you want the government to tell people how to live their lives, at least have the honestly to say that's what you want. Don't tell me that you want all these laws telling people what they can and cannot do, and then claim that you're not really forcing people to do anything.
Admin
Yes, the imbalance lasts a short while. When a company starts the layoffs, or the employees start to leave, the good employees left start looking and finding jobs. I have seen companies that lay off 20% of the staff lose another 40% through attrition and then end up shriveling and dying before the year is out because there's ALWAYS a set of employees that are the best employees, and the best employees, when not respected, will always find jobs.
The market sorts these problems out. Just give it time.
Admin
Reasonable objections. Let's discuss.
Well, I'm certainly not saying that at-will employment is a panacea for all economic problems. I wouldn't say that any one, specific policy is going to solve all of a country's problems overnight. I don't suppose that you would say that laws limiting a company's ability to fire employees would instantly solve all of a country's economic problems. Rather, I say that at-will employment is, all else being equal, better for the long-run health of an economy than the alternatives. Sorry if that sounds too timid, but what else could one honestly say about any economic policy?
True as far as it goes. But unless the entire world has the same regulations, businesses will always have some alternative. If conditions in Australia get too tough, they can move to New Zealand, etc.
But in any case, businesses don't flee high regulatory costs out of some irrational phobia. As you allude to in your next paragraph ...
SOMEONE has to pay those higher regulatory costs. They may come in the form of lower profits, lower salaries or benefits to employees, or higher prices to customers. But the cost has to come from somewhere.
And sorry, but it doesn't work to say, "Yes, costs are higher, but people get paid more, so it all evens out." No it doesn't, because of simple physics.
Suppose the government said that for every ten widgets that a factory makes, one must be destroyed and thrown away. This applies to all widget factories, so it doesn't result in any one company having a competitive advantage. Let's say the cost passed on to the customers in the form of higher prices. So customers pay more. Supply and demand says that they will therefore buy less. So customers get less for their money. Companies get less profits. And reduced sales mean either fewer employees are hired or the employees are paid less.
Sure, the government could tinker with the currency, or create subsidies, or in some other way shuffle money around to hide what's happenning. But if 10% of the output of a factory is wasted, that is real wealth lost that cannot be replaced by magic. It's gone.
A law saying that you cannot fire unproductive people means that companies are forced to throw away money on people who don't pull their own weight. It is very similar to the idea of saying you must destroy 10% of all widgets produced. The wealth lost cannot be magically replaced.
It is better not to think in terms of paper money floating around, but in terms of actual wealth: cars and houses and bread and concerts and video games. If something results in less wealth being produced, you can't replace that wealth by changing the value of paper money or moving paper money from one person to another. (Not directly, anyway: it may be that moving money around changes incentives and causes people to produce more or less. But it only works to the extent that it creates such incentives. It doesn't replace the lost wealth of itself.)
(Of course in any given case, a law restricting when you can fire someone might be fair and just. I don't doubt that companies sometimes fire people for no good reason. But surely you must concede that companies also often fire people for very good reasons, like the person is lazy or is stealing from the company.)
I just wish that the US had an "inflexible attachment to individual freeoms"! But yes, compared to the rest of the world, we have a greater reliance on the idea that free men can solve their own problems in their own way, in preference to the government imposing a solution. For most of our history, America's commitment to freedom has meant that we not only have more freedom than most of the rest of the world, but we also have more security and more equality. Yes, right now our economy is in the pits, but we've gone through four successive administrations with mixed or no belief in economic liberty. The current administration is much further to the left than the US was in any period of our history since the 1940s.
Personally, even if greater freedom meant that I'd be poorer, I'd vote for freedom over money.
Admin
And if they refuse to comply with the government's request and says "If you don't come in then don't bother ever coming in again, you're fired."
Let me explain: The company gets letters telling them to hire him again and pay a fine. The company refuses. The government steals money from their bank account. The company moves their money to an account the government can't touch. The government invites the company to court. The company says fuck off. They send police to take the owner to jail after having an easy default judgement against him. The owner tells them to pound sand. The police drag him away and he resists with all his might. The police draw a gun (or taser/billy club depending on your jurisdiction) and you say "Okay, if you are willing to kill me over it, I guess I have no choice, do I?".
How far off am I?
The government gets what it wants because, in the end, if you don't like it, they will shove a gun in your face at some point. Or a taser. Or a nightstick. Either way, every-single-law requires the government back it up with violence. That is something to be afraid of. Think about that next time you want your neighbour fined for having the wrong type of tree in their yard. Would you be willing to shoot them if they just said "No" and followed through with it?
I can't think of many examples where, played through to their logical conclusion, you don't end up with a police officer and a weapon in your face if you just say no. The government is very much involved.
Admin
I had to get my team to pull an all-nighter after working long hours once, when we had a crucial delivery the next day. But I stayed working too, AND I ordered plenty of pizza. Don't all bosses do that? :-)
Admin
Right, but the thing is, without a "nanny government," every employer can make unreasonable demands and you end up with no place to work that doesn't.
So one would hope that when you're in a situation like the 8 that walked out, or on the street, you're able to keep your tears manly.
Admin
Admin
Admin
I can't think of many examples where, played through to their psychopathological conclusion, you don't end up with a police officer and a weapon in your face if you just say no. The government is very much involved.[/quote] FTFY
Admin
I can't think of many examples where, played through to their psychopathic conclusion, you don't end up with a police officer and a weapon in your face if you just say no. The government is very much involved. FTFY
Admin
Knew it was familiar - "What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills" and so on is the Internet tough guy meme
Admin
shouldn't this article be in "Tales from the Interview"?
Admin
You might be familiar with John Locke and Oliver Twist, in which workers are meant to be abused and receive no rights. Perhaps you've heard of a period called the very early 1900s, or perhaps a country called "China". When EVERY employer forces you to work massive overtime in unsafe conditions you're screwed.
Yes Virginia, the bottom line of a business is to maximize profits no matter what. When you introduce Schachtian economics, you do that by minimizing expenses, which means virtual slave labor. The US constitution however has a "Posterity" clause and other fun things, which led to workers rights that say 'you can be somewhat unreasonable but you can't treat humans like animals'. If it were up to the CEO's who have to maximize their bonuses and stocks, we would be treated like animals.
I hope you learned something. :)
Admin
Yes, after enabling JS on cornify.com after enabling JS on thedailywtf.com - otherwise it just says "click me!" and does nothing.
Admin
Anybody getting unicorns selecting »CFO«?
Taht's the WTF.
Admin
Oh, ffs, I guess I'm sleepy. Read previous two fail posts for answer.
Admin
According to Twitter, Trump likes gorilla warfare...