Should work be able to dictate your life?

steveinaz

Having high expectations and well written policy is fine. As a boss you need these things in line for the occasional bad-apple PITA employee, no doubt. What this thread was addressing is the extreme policies that were noted on the 60 minutes segment---

13 of the 15 years in the Army, I was in supervisory positions. I was up front with my expectations of my soldiers, and I documented everything. I was hard, firm, but always fair to people, and always treated them with dignity---just as I would like to be treated. The bad apples always went away--they tend to dig their own graves in the end, and it's just a matter of documenting and counseling the individual. I never felt the need to tell my soldiers how to live their personal lives---it wasn't (and isn't) any of my business--provided it is legal.

Controlling peoples lives and pushing your personal values/agendas onto them...well, because you can... is ****, and people should be protected from this sort of egotistic "think like me or get fired" mentality. Period.

brettw22

PhantomOG wrote:

Do you feel an employer who doesn't agree with this type of behaviour shouldn't have the right to fire that person?

Did the person protesting have a company sticker stuck to their forehead? I'd like to know who's going to show any tangible result in profitibility loss or gain by the employee doing the protesting. A simple "i don't agree or like it" would be a lawyers dream.....and that's not the lawyers fault. It's the fault of the one who chose to discriminate based on a value system that they're trying to mandate onto people in their off hours.

Demi, you're standing up mostly for small business owners, whereas Steve is seemingly arguing big business. While they're both businesses, they're totally different beasts, so to try and get you two on the same page won't happen (as demo'd by the 5 it's taken here).....

PhantomOG

brettw22 wrote:

Did the person protesting have a company sticker stuck to their forehead? I'd like to know who's going to show any tangible result in profitibility loss or gain by the employee doing the protesting.

In a small business where the employee must deal face to face with customers it can easily make a difference if the employee is doing something the general public will find distasteful and the media picks up on it.

Big business and small business should play by the same rules.

Demiurge

Demi, you're standing up mostly for small business owners, whereas Steve is seemingly arguing big business. While they're both businesses, they're totally different beasts, so to try and get you two on the same page won't happen (as demo'd by the 5 it's taken here).....

Yeah, I definitely agree there.

jdhdiggs

Why should it matter at the size of the business? If a large business decides something (Shareholders will or what not), why shouldn't they be able to do it? First off, it would make no business sense so they would intentionally throwing their money away. Second, if thats what the shareholders want, what right does the government have in preventing it? Yes, they can avoid giving said company contracts, but unless they do something criminal, it is their right.

If the CEO does it without the shareholders approval, he gets fired and the policy reversed.

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

Why should it matter at the size of the business? If a large business decides something (Shareholders will or what not), why shouldn't they be able to do it? First off, it would make no business sense so they would intentionally throwing their money away. Second, if thats what the shareholders want, what right does the government have in preventing it? Yes, they can avoid giving said company contracts, but unless they do something criminal, it is their right.

If the CEO does it without the shareholders approval, he gets fired and the policy reversed.

It shouldn't, but the bigger the company the more ridiculous the policies, the harder it is to get answers, and I can see why frustration would be greater.

I do think that all business should be able to play by the same rules. I just think that since Steve is working for one of (if not the) largest employer in the country his perspective is different than that of someone like myself. I don't purport to understand the frustration he has to deal with, and I still don't agree with him overall. I do agree that it's unlikely we're going to come to any kind of a mutual understanding of this issue in this thread.

jdhdiggs

But the basis stays the same. Some individual, or group of individuals owns the company and creates the jobs. If the owner wants to make some asinine policy, it is their right as long as it complies with contracts already in force and governing law. If it meets both of those criteria, who cares. The employee has the right to quit or sue, the general public can demand a policy change or stop buying products and services, governments could make it illegal.

If XOM decided that everyone must drive yellow cars to work, how is that unfair? It's a stupid policy that will cost them tons of employees and money, but isn't it their perogative?

Maybe I just see the people on the other side of the wall from the "faceless corporate giants". Change the words "The company" to "The guy who created the job" and you'll see my point. Same with govenment policies. Everytime you see someone say "the government should pay" replace "the government" with "other Americans".

brettw22

The problem is that the arguements here are based on a two dimensional problem, whereas this is multi-faceted and multi-layer issue.

If certain behaviors are stipulated against (NFL player not allowed to skydive) and that's agreed to,fine, but that's monumentally different than a CEO saying that I don't want you drinking in your off time. That's different also from an airline company saying that a Pilot cannot be an alcoholic. The difference is that the profession in question is severely compromised by the pilot's alcoholism. The same cannot be said for an office worker who performs their job function without fail.....BUT the second the drinking enters the workplace (rum in the coffee mug, coming in hung over), then it becomes a work issue and should be addressed and that's why companies have policies that rule the workplace.

I remember Avis years ago sending speeding tickets to people based on what GPS was tracking their rentals. Avis was rightfully sued because they violated the privacy of their customer. Bottom line.......employees (an employers customers somewhat) have privacy outside the workplace that an employer generally shouldn't have access too mandating how my choices affect my non-working life (unless, as mentioned above, it's a signed contractual issue specifically limiting behavior).

The ONLY way that Employers should be able to mandate in this kind of detail is if every employee became a contracted employee and the employee signs on saying that's what they're willing to do for the pay. The logistics of giving everyone a contract makes as much sense as saying "we dont' want you drinking at home, so good bye."

steveinaz

This isn't a "hypothetical"...this is real, it's happening right now. CEO's are telling employees to loose weight, stop drinking, work out, lower your cholesterol, remove that bumper sticker, only use OUR product, change your political views.....or be fired.

I don't need "daddy" in my personal life, I'll make my own decisions, thank you. If you want to narrow down your employees to only the statistically perfect, then don't even offer healthcare---though this is more than about the money now...it's to the point where companies are trying to force people to change their politics.

AGAIN, I'm not talking about standard work ethic here; be on time, do a good job, dress appropriately, be professional....I'm talking personally INVASIVE policies, either you get it, or you don't. To hear some you talk, you'd be all for having cameras mounted in your home to make sure those employees behave. That way you can call them at 10:30pm when you spot them still watching TV, to remind them that should be in bed, so they're well rested for work tommorrow, and they won't be a health deficit to the company. Afterall, you do "own" them right?

BTW, the "CEO" didn't create the job. "Demand" did.

sheesh. If you don't see the problem here, I'm not going to make any difference by posting 10,000 replies. THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR PERSONAL, LEGAL, LAWFUL, LIFE---OFF THE CLOCK. Either you concur with that sort of "arrangement" or you don't. I don't.

madmax

I like the yellow car example. Is there any legal reason a company couldn't require you to drive a yellow color car to work? What about on your off time? Just wondering.
madmax

cfrizz

Thank you Brett!!!! This is not such a black & white issue, there are so many shades of grey that it's not funny.

Business's are always trying to screw their employees over, when it becomes too egregious they get sued & the goverment steps in & slaps ALL businesses back into line! Sometime the lawsuit is enough to put the handwriting on the wall & the businesses find a different way to try to accomplish what it wants.

Case in point, pensions & 401k's.

steveinaz

madmax wrote:

I like the yellow car example. Is there any legal reason a company couldn't require you to drive a yellow color car to work? What about on your off time? Just wondering.
madmax

Perfectly legal, if you agree to those terms. Any lemming that would, deserves the grief that would surely come with it....

Now, you've been with the company for 5 years, when they decide to start this new "yellow" car policy. You have to buy a yellow car or get fired? Would that be right? It wasn't a requirement when you were hired---ok to change the rules in the middle of the game? An employee is going to be seriously financially burdened on the whim of an egotistical CEO who likes his parking lot to match? A CEO who pulls down 25 times what that employee does?

I think not.

steveinaz

cfrizz wrote:

Thank you Brett!!!! This is not such a black & white issue, there are so many shades of grey that it's not funny.

Business's are always trying to screw their employees over, when it becomes too egregious they get sued & the goverment steps in & slaps ALL businesses back into line! Sometime the lawsuit is enough to put the handwriting on the wall & the businesses find a different way to try to accomplish what it wants.

Case in point, pensions & 401k's.

You're right Cathy---I hope. What amazes me more than companies trying this crap, is people actually condoning/supporting/justifying it.

Demiurge

Steve, just hold your tongue with your thumb and pointer finger in front of my boss and say "Hey, ****, how does my dictate?"

Demiurge

cfrizz wrote:

Thank you Brett!!!! This is not such a black & white issue, there are so many shades of grey that it's not funny.

Business's are always trying to screw their employees over, when it becomes too egregious they get sued & the goverment steps in & slaps ALL businesses back into line! Sometime the lawsuit is enough to put the handwriting on the wall & the businesses find a different way to try to accomplish what it wants.

Case in point, pensions & 401k's.

This is why it's pointless to have an argument if someone truly believes this. You're lumping all businesses into an argument you say has a grey area...

All businesses are NOT doing this to employees, and that's one of the fundamental differences between what business will succeed and what business will fail. This is capitalism, not socialism.

brettw22

But you ARE kind of lumping all businesses into a category saying they won't, or that they're all entitled to do what Steve's question poses. It goes both ways.

cfrizz

It's not amazing Steve, the ones condoning it, are the CEO's & boards since it means THEY end up with the money they "saved" in their already fat pockets, that they screwed over the people who actually do the work for them!

steveinaz wrote:

You're right Cathy---I hope. What amazes me more than companies trying this crap, is people actually condoning/supporting/justifying it.

F1nut

It scares the hell outta me that some of you think it's ok for any business to dictate what an employee does away from the job. No wonder this country is such a effing mess!!!

steveinaz

God bless you F1Nut. I was beginning to think I was alone.....
Exactly. When, in this country did it ever become acceptable to buy a piece of property, create a business and then re-write the constitution?

Little empires, that's what it boils down to.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

This is why it's pointless to have an argument if someone truly believes this. You're lumping all businesses into an argument you say has a grey area...

All businesses are NOT doing this to employees, and that's one of the fundamental differences between what business will succeed and what business will fail. This is capitalism, not socialism.

No. Incorrect assumption. I'm talking about companies that actively practice these personally invasive policies.

Capitalism, just like democracy sometimes needs a reality check; hence, laws. Abuse of power is abuse of power, whatever label you want to give it.

F1nut

Steve,

You're not alone, there's 51 other people here that think the same way.

I worked for both small and big business during my life. They all seem to want to mold you into a "company" man, be a team player, etc. and that's just during work hours. Now, some want to INVADE their employees private lives too!!! That's wrong, couldn't be more wrong. Unless you have a contract that states you can't do this or that, your employer has no right to tell you what you can or can not do when you're off the clock.

In the end, I got sick of the corporate "slave" mentality, told' em to eff off and started my own business. Now Demi, before you say anything about that, I know you realize that not everyone can do that and I hope you realize that not everyone can just quit their job either. A better solution would be for the "company" to rethink how they treat their employees and to respect their differences in thought and lifestyles. The employer, employee relationship is a two way street. Would the owner of any company want their employees telling them how to live their private lives? Not a chance in hell.

janmike

F1nut wrote:

Steve,

You're not alone, there's 51 other people here that think the same way.

I worked for both small and big business during my life. They all seem to want to mold you into a "company" man, be a team player, etc. and that's just during work hours. Now, some want to INVADE their employees private lives too!!! That's wrong, couldn't be more wrong. Unless you have a contract that states you can't do this or that, your employer has no right to tell you what you can or can not do when you're off the clock.

In the end, I got sick of the corporate "slave" mentality, told' em to eff off and started my own business. Now Demi, before you say anything about that, I know you realize that not everyone can do that and I hope you realize that not everyone can just quit their job either. A better solution would be for the "company" to rethink how they treat their employees and to respect their differences in thought and lifestyles. The employer, employee relationship is a two way street. Would the owner of any company want their employees telling them how to live their private lives? Not a chance in hell.

HERE HERE!

scottnbnj

goodness gracious, looks like that group hug thing that was going on last night has been rescinded.

)

Demiurge

brettw22 wrote:

But you ARE kind of lumping all businesses into a category saying they won't, or that they're all entitled to do what Steve's question poses. It goes both ways.

I'm not making any bones about lumping them all together. I don't think that all businesses want to bend over all of their employees and treat them like a jailhouse sally. I also don't think that all businesses are even remotely saintly. There are bad businesses, and bad employees, good businesses and good employees.

I'd say the bigger the business, the bigger the communication breakdown, and the more likely you're going to get the shaft.

I've read 3 times now that all businesses are bad and that the government should regulate their decision making process, which is a quasi-socialist viewpoint. It's government meddling in the decisions private businesses make.

I've had bad bosses, and gotten the shaft from bad bosses. I'm a capitalist through and through even when it affects me.

I know John isn't a business owner, and I don't think PhantomOG is a business owner either. Jesse is, and he did the right thing. Got sick of the B.S. by the bad bosses he started his own company. Jesse, are you a bad boss? Do you get lumped in with Cathy's statement about all businesses? Or do you just work for yourself.

I just see you as a prime example of what can be done, despite the fact you disagree. You've illustrated exactly what John, PhantomOG, and myself have said the solution is. You did it without the government holding your hand.

Yes, not everyone can easily quit their job -- I guess, since nobody wants to change their lifestyle, especially if they're living beyond their means. Not everyone can easily start a business if they haven't built up any capital. Even there you've got choices to make.

I respect most of your viewpoints despite disagreeing. I don't respect those who will just say carte blanche that all businesses are bad. It's not even remotely thoughtful.

Has anyone else seen this 60 minutes show? What business is this happening in? Are they still in business? Personally I have never heard of a business telling someone they can't have a beer after work. Even if they have, why on earth would you still work there? It's been said a million times, but nobody has answered the question as to why you'd be at a place like that.

scottnbnj

F1nut wrote:

Steve,

You're not alone, there's 51 other people here that think the same way.

for the record, i voted no too. so i'm not all that sure what the poll numbers actually say 51 people think about this.

i decided i was going to be self-employed relatively early in life. i'm not a great example of what starting and running a business can be by any account. nonetheless, being a business is part of why i see things a bit different from a lot of what i read here.

)

scottnbnj

steveinaz wrote:

BTW, the "CEO" didn't create the job. "Demand" did.

steve, humbly, i think demand without supply is like an unfulfilled fantasy. linked at the hip as they may be, the reality of creating and maintaining a job through providing a product that is in demand is on the supply side. who runs a company and how they do it should have something to do with one product being picked over another and an ongoing need for the job.

)

scottnbnj

steveinaz wrote:

...there will always be exceptions to every rule. ...

and you decide what the exceptions are for who the gov't mandates me to associate with until they decide to leave me?

is that in the constitution somewhere?

)

scottnbnj

just another thought along those lines, does an employee have to have a reason that you and the gov't approve of to leave me?

)

F1nut

There are bad businesses, and bad employees, good businesses and good employees.

BINGO!!!


Yeah, I'm not so sure that the Feds have a place in telling a business what they can or can not do as far as trying to regulate their employees private lives. One would hope that the business would realize what a bad idea that is all by themselves. If not, there's always a lawyer looking to make a name and a buck.

I'm self employed, but use outside contractors when needed. As I was also looking to lower the stress levels in my life/work, I didn't and don't want any employees.

scottnbnj

agreed on bingo. i'm with you on subs and employees too. i guess it could go without saying that part of the reason is that the gov't has woven such a ridiculously tangled web for employers to comply with, but pixels are free here.

anyway, some great stuff below for anyone interested in the courts, the law or just looking for the gov't approved ways of getting yourself terminated wrongfully:
http://employment.findlaw.com/
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

)