Should work be able to dictate your life?

Demiurge

Hey, this is turning into a circle jerk now. Quit while you're ahead.

steveinaz

In the words of General George Patton: "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

brettw22

Demiurge wrote:

The internet is a bad place for arguing anyhow. I think we can always make a more understandable argument when talking.

Don't worry.....I'm here to keep ya on track. lol

Demiurge

rskarvan

Polk isn't innocent either.... they are now producing products in sunny Mexico. Yes, its a fine factory. Yes, they make a quality product. But, why the heck did they move production from Baltimore? How many hours does a Mexican have to work to purchase a set of LSi 15's?

Demiurge

You missed the punch and pie. That's what you get for taking that union mandated smoke break.

steveinaz

rotflmao!!!

Yeah, where were you for the group hug??

scottnbnj

steveinaz wrote:

What if your company adopted a policy tommorrow that stated they didn't want NRA members on their rolls? Would you be ok with that?

steve, i usually agree with you, but i think you're missing something here. i'd be happy to add the company to the levi's list but come on, you want gov't to come crashing in on them?

who decides what sorts of political animals the gov't is going to try to force me to bring into my customers' homes? park their billboards on my property? does a pandering politician or a judge she appoints decide who i will be mandated to associate with? how do they decide what group meets the politically protected group status test?

fine worker or not, gov't mandate or not, i will decide whether or not i continue to associate myself with the likes of someone that parks themselves outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center or a soldier's funeral in their spare time with signs like these:

F1nut

Ron, Polk is in China now....have been for a few years.

mrbigbluelight

steveinaz wrote:

In the words of General George Patton: "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

accused of being insubordinate at work.

I asked the question (verbatim): "Why ?".

And not in an insolent tone, either.

I pointed out that Patton, Old Blood N' Guts, DEMANDED from his staff that they not be "Yes" men during staff meetings and plans were being formulated.
One of the quickest ways to get bumped from his staff was to be a bootlicking sycophant.

brettw22

One month unemployed and I couldn't be happier with the decision......May they burn in hell........lol.

Shizelbs

Hey boss. I know you know that I frequent this forum...

I am totally rad right now (drunk).

In your face.

steveinaz

There you go, stick it to the man! LOL

PhantomOG

scottnbnj wrote:

fine worker or not, gov't mandate or not, i will decide whether or not i continue to associate myself with the likes of someone that parks themselves outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center or a soldier's funeral in their spare time with signs like these:

Seriously... Steve, if you ran a business and saw on the evening news that an employee of yours was one of those who were protesting at soldier's funerals. What would you do? I know there is a difference between doing something in the privacy of your home and in public, but in both cases you are not on the company's dime. Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

sucks2beme

PhantomOG wrote:

Seriously... Steve, if you ran a business and saw on the evening news that an employee of yours was one of those who were protesting at soldier's funerals. What would you do? I know there is a difference between doing something in the privacy of your home and in public, but in both cases you are not on the company's dime. Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

I think firing over politics is wrong. Nothing wrong with a good ol' one on one
stern lecture on how this may reflect badly on us by your behavior talk!
Those idiots in the picture are from some church run by a couple of wacked
out lawyers. Everyone that's a member is for the most part related. Maybe not a prime example.
And , of course there is the other extreme when your employer TELLS you to
be at a protest or political rally. $100 a plate fund raisers for the mayor's race was common in some big cities.

PhantomOG

sucks2beme wrote:

I think firing over politics is wrong. Nothing wrong with a good ol' one on one
stern lecture on how this may reflect badly on us by your behavior talk!
Those idiots in the picture are from some church run by a couple of wacked
out lawyers. Everyone that's a member is for the most part related. Maybe not a prime example.
And , of course there is the other extreme when your employer TELLS you to
be at a protest or political rally. $100 a plate fund raisers for the mayor's race was common in some big cities.

well, politics aside, this was an example of someone showing really really poor judgement when in the public. I don't think any political party would condone their behaviour.

my point is, as an employer you are responsible for creating a company image. whether you want it to or not, what your employees do on their own time can and will have an effect on that image. I believe the employer has the right to protect that image, even by firing if necessary.

Just recently there was a teacher here in Austin that is in the process of being fired for the presence of nude pictures of her on the internet. Students had access to it since it was a public website. The website was not even hers. Should she be fired for this? Keep in mind she is a public school teacher (high school).

jdhdiggs

Private company should be able to do what it wants. As a private employee, you can do what you want. If the two conflict, you find another job as the job you have belongs to your employer and not to you.

A comment on my experience with Unions, here's a breakout of unions helping its memebership from our business standpoint:

Percentage of Labor Retained over the past 24 months for projects that I have personally worked with:

Unionized: ~20% (two of the eleven projects resulted in complete removal of all US Jobs)
Non-Union: ~75% and none moved jobs to outside the US (14 projects completed)

When we go into a company, the union question is asked first. If it is present, we know that millions of $ can be saved by eliminating those jobs and outsourcing or replacing with automation. In a non-union shop, it is much more difficult to justify those moves things since the non-union facilites are much more competitive worldwide.

I mean it is simple: it's harder to replace a guy making $10-$15/hr than one making $25-$30 when both do the same job.

Unions are only good anymore for the short term employment of its members. Those of you in unions and jobs, cool, you're getting more $ than the market pays. Unfortunately, in the long run, the market will correct itself. Hopefully that time will come after your retired for your industry.

steveinaz

jdhdiggs wrote:

Private company should be able to do what it wants. As a private employee, you can do what you want. If the two conflict, you find another job as the job you have belongs to your employer and not to you.

...I would agree, PROVIDED the employee is made aware of these policies before hand, not 20 yrs down the road.

Demiurge

We need more punch and pie....

Isn't it common sense, rather than a policy?

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

Seriously... Steve, if you ran a business and saw on the evening news that an employee of yours was one of those who were protesting at soldier's funerals. What would you do? I know there is a difference between doing something in the privacy of your home and in public, but in both cases you are not on the company's dime. Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

Offensive as it is, if what they are doing is legal, since when is your company judge & jury? This is an EXTREME example, as long as we have morons in America, there will always be exceptions to every rule.

Do you think you should be fired for having a "Support our Troops" magnet on your car, because the boss-man doesn't agree with the politics behind the war?

Laws rule this land, not CEO's. Thank God, at least so far.

You keep bringing up "if you don't like the company, leave." Well, where do we go when all companies adopt these rediculous policies? Where will YOU work? Some people's integrity is up for sale, mine isn't; I'm sure yours is not either; where will you and I find work where we don't have to give up our personal values to some control freak?

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

Offensive as it is, if what they are doing is legal, since when is your company judge & jury? This is an EXTREME example, as long as we have morons in America, there will always be exceptions to every rule.

Do you think you should be fired for having a "Support our Troops" magnet on your car, because the boss-man doesn't agree with the politics behind the war?

Laws rule this land, not CEO's. Thank God, at least so far.

If either case is causing loss of business to the company, I think firing should be allowed. Maybe the term firing is the problem here... how about laying off? Sure, they should be unable to collect unemployment since they weren't 'fired' for on job behaviour, but I truly believe a company must be allowed to hire new employees and also release employees as they see fit for their business.

jdhdiggs

The thing is Steve, one smart business man will not adopt these policies and hir all the offended, unemployed, quality workers.

Why does the duration of one's employment have anything to do with a private owners choice to change policy? That's just asinine!

Owner: I know I've never had you work weekends, but can you come in on Saturday?
22Yr Vet: No, you never did this before.

New guy: What he said

Owner: New guy, you're fired, vet guy, its so nice to have you here...

WTF? Longevity has nothing to do with it. If you are talking pensions and other long term financial incentives, well the employee needs to decide whether its worth it to adhere to the policies or not. The employees should NEVER have the RIGHT to FORCE the owner to do something with their own business.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

We need more punch and pie....

Isn't it common sense, rather than a policy?

Where's the common sense in telling an employee they can't drink on their own time, in their own home. I'm talking about companies that have decided to adopt policies that infringe on an indivduals off-duty lifestyle. If they are going to do so, the potential employee needs to be briefed on the policies up front, then the potential employee can decide if they are willing to accept such terms.

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

This is an EXTREME example, as long as we have morons in America, there will always be exceptions to every rule.

And I would say that the policies you detailed in your original post are "extreme" and warrant in no way worrying about ALL companies adopting policies like this. In the end it just seems like a mountain out of a molehill. You think the government should step in and regulate businesses to prevent this. I think the free market will prevent this type of behaviour from ever being more than a blip on the radar. In the end, we both see it as bad. I just don't see it as a real problem, but I don't know your situation so I can't say why you think this will become widespread.

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

but I truly believe a company must be allowed to hire new employees and also release employees as they see fit for their business.

I do to, provided it's based on documented work performance related issues.

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

And I would say that the policies you detailed in your original post are "extreme" and warrant in no way worrying about ALL companies adopting policies like this. In the end it just seems like a mountain out of a molehill. You think the government should step in and regulate businesses to prevent this. I think the free market will prevent this type of behaviour from ever being more than a blip on the radar. In the end, we both see it as bad. I just don't see it as a real problem, but I don't know your situation so I can't say why you think this will become widespread.

Brother, I hope you are right.

steveinaz

jdhdiggs wrote:

The thing is Steve, one smart business man will not adopt these policies and hir all the offended, unemployed, quality workers.

Why does the duration of one's employment have anything to do with a private owners choice to change policy? That's just asinine!

Owner: I know I've never had you work weekends, but can you come in on Saturday?
22Yr Vet: No, you never did this before.

New guy: What he said

Owner: New guy, you're fired, vet guy, its so nice to have you here...

WTF? Longevity has nothing to do with it. If you are talking pensions and other long term financial incentives, well the employee needs to decide whether its worth it to adhere to the policies or not. The employees should NEVER have the RIGHT to FORCE the owner to do something with their own business.

So you're telling me that you will let your company dictate your off-hours activities...is that what you're saying?

I sure hope alot of you guys are BIG FISH, because you sure sound like none of this will ever affect you.

steveinaz

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, because this business of companies telling you that you can't do certain things (otherwise lawful/legal things) just don't wash with me.

Do whatever you need to do, as long as you have no problem looking in the shaving mirror, knock yourself out.

PEACE, out.

jdhdiggs

I'm saying it's their job. They say here is the job and the policies you must adhere to, in exchange we will give $X and benifits. I then decide if I want to work, or continue to work, for them. Companies with outlandish policies will pay a price in talent drain and reputation and cease to exist.

Would I support my company doing it? Depends what was asked (We currently don't even have a drug abuse policy). Would I support their right to do it, absolutely.

Demiurge

Don't leave, Steve!

I understand where you are coming from, Steve. I just am not sure you're putting your feet in the shoes of the other guy. As far as jobs go, I've had my feet in every pair of shoes on the corporate ladder. True, I have never worked in any upper level management of a major corporation, and I'm still really young for where I am at now. I'm small time, and don't feel much different than my guys that are out there welding right now -- because I did it all, and I'm not afraid of doing it again if I need to help out.

When you talk about things being up-front on the behalf of the employee I don't get what you mean. When we hire people we've got a handbook that one of the managers of any given department will go over with the new employee. I have to imagine that whomever hired you went way above and beyond what we do here.

In the end they get an understanding of our general expectations, and they can bounce questions off of us. If they don't like what we're doing they don't need to take the job. Maybe they still don't like it, but their paycheck makes up for it. It's always a give and take in any job. If you're miserable anywhere, quit.

Policies in any company can change week to week. If the owner makes a change you don't like you're free to leave. You've questioned why some of us keep making the comment. The why is simple, unless you're under a contract (lots of companies offer them) you really don't have any reasonable expectation to be compensated in any way or have a right to tell the owner he can't make changes within his own business.

It's never going to be the entire corporate world that does the things you're suggesting. Do you want to know why? Because I would then become the worlds first trillionaire by capitalizing on what the rest of the corproate world refused to offer.

Let's face it, me becoming a trillionaire would be about as likely as what you're suggesting would happen. The chances are null.