Should work be able to dictate your life?

tonyb

I think the bottom line here is to keep big brother out of our
personal lives as much as we can.

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

Thanks for Walker...

No problem, he's an injury hobbled head case.

steveinaz

People don't understand me because I'm a Republicrat...I mean Democan. Are you people still here? Sheesh and I thought I was an "issue geek.":D

Polkapops

I could only get through a couple of pages before wanting to
rip my hair out.
What you do on your PERSONAL time is NONE of an employer's business,
if the activity you are engaging in is LEGAL. If I can go into a supermarket
and purchase a pack of smokes (though I don't smoke) then I am ENTITLED
to smoke in my free time. If I decide to purchase a motorcycle and travel
I am ENTITLED to do so. I am a member of the AMA (American Motorcyclist
Association) and for years they have been battling (and WINNING!) against
companies & insurance for not wanting to cover employees who participate
in whatever they wish to deem 'unsafe activities'. Things should never have
gotten to this point to begin with. If it is a LEGAL activity, then you have
every right to do whatever you please on your own personal time.
Common sense.
End of story.

steveinaz

You the man.

F1nut

I don't know what you're doing for Health Insurance, Jesse, but would you agree that these crazy measures talked about in the 60 Minutes show are probably linked to the cost?

That was the excuse offered by the company owner on 60 Minutes and while there's no doubt that health insurance costs are beyond insane (yeah, I pay thru the effing nose), I believe he has other motives, ie., little Hitler.

There are other options to deal with the rising insurance costs, one has been in use for sometime now, the company makes you pay a share out of your pocket and you're still free to do whatever you like off the clock.

This leads to another discussion about insurance costs and what to do about them. I don't have the answer, but something needs to done PDQ!!!

brettw22

F1nut wrote:

but something needs to done PDQ!!!

Isn't PDQ a convenience store in the OK/TX area?

F1nut

Could be. I had a boss at one time that owned some hole in the wall gas station he called PDQ, Pump Damn Quick.

scottnbnj

aside from prior agreements, i guess everyone believes that it's ok for an employee to quit for any or no reason at any time. why do you feel that a business owner should be held to a higher standard, or not have the same uh,right to part ways?

)

brettw22

Y'all think another 7 pages might change everyone's minds?

scottnbnj

i dunno, 7 pages and i don't think anyone's really answered my last question, though i think it's been asked pages ago.

seems pretty basic to me. all the sudden because a citizen owns a business he surrenders his uh,right to associate or not associate with who he chooses? why?

)

brettw22

Scott, people have said that they wouldn't stay with a company that tried to rule their personal time........quit jumping too far ahead and assuming they'd all drop their careers overnight. I'm sure people are professional enough to give notice.

Because a citizen owns a business doesn't mean he's the king of the free world either.

Polkapops

scottnbnj wrote:

aside from prior agreements, i guess everyone believes that it's ok for an employee to quit for any or no reason at any time. why do you feel that a business owner should be held to a higher standard, or not have the same uh,right to part ways?

)

If an employee's performance is substandard on the job, or if s/he is consistently
tardy or absent, then yes, the employer has every right.

But to be able to dictate what LEGAL activities you choose to participate in on
your personal time.........the word discrimination comes to mind........

Demiurge

I think a bottle of Jack Daniels would make this discussion even better.

Polkapops

If you want to start a business, then you should be prepared for the
myriad of complications you are going to come up against. Running your
business and forcing your employees under a dictatorship rule is not
what this country is about.
Common sense: Treat your employees fairly and they will be more than
happy to stay over, work weekends etc., but if you begin to micromanage
and dictate, human nature is to rebel.
It all boils down to greed. Those businesses who feel the need to force their employees to sucumb to their wishes are obviously concerned only of the
bottom line.
If business owners are concerned with insurance costs, then they have the
right to try and change the system. Just like saying 'You have the right to change your government'. Yeah right, like the little guy has any recourse.
Businesses have much more 'pull' (money) to get things changed than the average Joe. Morally and ethically, dictating what an employee can do legally on his personal time is just plain wrong.

I am a retired 'average Joe' and I approve this message.........

mrbigbluelight

F1nut wrote:

Could be. I had a boss at one time that owned some hole in the wall gas station he called PDQ, Pump Damn Quick.

chick once that had that motto.

mrbigbluelight

F1nut wrote:

Could be. I had a boss at one time that owned some hole in the wall gas station he called PDQ, Pump Damn Quick.

Knew a chick once that had that motto.

reeltrouble1

PDQ is a chocolate flavored drink, you mixed it up like Bosco except it was a powdered one. Jesse is old. So am I. If you dont know what Bosco or PDQ are you are young. Nestle's Quick is no longer because you have to mix it, its now Nestle's Slow.

It is not illegal to default on a debt in a criminal sense, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to speak to a newspaper reporter, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to use politically incorrect words found in Webster's Dictionary, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to attend a protest, if I do so I can be terminated. It is not illegal to lose your temper and yell in the presense of your spouse, that one is touchy, but yea, you guessed it, if she gets pissed, or the neighbors call the cops, yep, I can be terminated. It is not illegal to have an affair, if I do I can be terminated. See, an employer can tell you what to do, if you want to work there, and I do, nobody else has to want to, but I do. I dont really mind the rules, I kind of like them, being held to a higher standard and all that.

Health Costs

---

Ha.........making money off of sickness is well SICK.

reeltrouble1

brettw22 wrote:

Y'all think another 7 pages might change everyone's minds?

Nope, mostly likely at least another 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wassss up Chitown

Here is a funny just for you Brett

Old Slogans that will fit for Viagra

Viagra

---

Strong enough for a Man but made for a (Wo)man
Viagra

---

Like a Rock
Viagra

---

A Quicker Picker Upper
Viagra

---

Takes a lickin and keeps on ticken

You get the idea

RT1

jdhdiggs

What I don't get here is why you all think an employee has more rights than the owner of the business...

Now assuming you want to maintain you argument as consistant and taking it a bit further: Your logic dictates that the owner would not be allowed to look for people only with certain degrees to fill a job. After all, I got my English degree in my own time and legally, why can't I have an engineers job? Isn't that the same thing? You are stating that the owner of the business (who created the job in the first place) has no rights to set the constraints of employment for that job as they see fit. Who cares what the logic is, if you don't like it, quit and find a new company. If no one will hire you, make your own...

Some of you neeed to look into what "At will employment" means. Unless you have a contract, you can quit at any time for any reason or be fired for the same. It doesn't have to be for substandard working or anything else. You can be fired if the guy doesn't like your hair one day.

You keep saying that the employer puts stipulations on the freedom of the employee is wrong. Well, no, the employer doesn't have slaves, you have the choice to leave it or obey. You might think a policy sucks, but that doesn't take away your freedom. What you are really talking about is reducing the freedom of the employer. What are his choices then? Fire everyone and quit, or stay in business with policies that are not his. I'd say that you should always error on the side of maintaining the rights of the owner of the job. Otherwise you are talking of a marxist policy.

LessisNevermore

jdhdiggs wrote:

What I don't get here is why you all think an employee has more rights than the owner of the business...

Now assuming you want to maintain you argument as consistant and taking it a bit further: Your logic dictates that the owner would not be allowed to look for people only with certain degrees to fill a job. After all, I got my English degree in my own time and legally, why can't I have an engineers job? Isn't that the same thing? You are stating that the owner of the business (who created the job in the first place) has no rights to set the constraints of employment for that job as they see fit. Who cares what the logic is, if you don't like it, quit and find a new company. If no one will hire you, make your own...

Some of you neeed to look into what "At will employment" means. Unless you have a contract, you can quit at any time for any reason or be fired for the same. It doesn't have to be for substandard working or anything else. You can be fired if the guy doesn't like your hair one day.

You keep saying that the employer puts stipulations on the freedom of the employee is wrong. Well, no, the employer doesn't have slaves, you have the choice to leave it or obey. You might think a policy sucks, but that doesn't take away your freedom. What you are really talking about is reducing the freedom of the employer. What are his choices then? Fire everyone and quit, or stay in business with policies that are not his. I'd say that you should always error on the side of maintaining the rights of the owner of the job. Otherwise you are talking of a marxist policy.

I agree, to a point, that some employees think they are "entitled" to their job.

Employers who see themselves as creating a job are riding an awfully high horse, and should really re-evaluate their self-worth. Demand created that job, you only provide a potential source to fulfil that demand. Employees are needed to perform the work. An employee's obligation is to be on time, be fit for duty, and perform to expectations. At the end of the shift, his/her obligation to the employer ends. Period.

Unless the employee is of the contract variety, and has agreed to living a certain company-approved lifestyle, prior to employment, the employer has nothing to say about anything.

The Employer is obligated to provide the work to perform, a safe place to perform it, the safe, properly functioning tools to perform it, (personal tools excluded) and previously agreed-upon compensation for work performed. They don't have to provide benefits, that is only there to lure better quality employees, and gain their loyalty.

Any job is like prostitution, you are paid for a service you provide, after the service is performed, there is no further obligation by either party. Yes, we are all whores!! we sell our hands for money.........how depraved you are willing to go is up to you.:D

Demiurge

The owner of the business tapped into the demand by opening a business and choosing how he was going to enact his businees plan. Since he put up all of the risk, he gets to make the rules. Employees, and their functions, are part of extrapolating capital from the demand for which he created his business.

The demand doesn't matter if there wasn't someone there to take the risk of starting a company in the first place.

jdhdiggs

Demand creates jack. The employer decides if the market price is worth expanding his supply of a product and then he creates the additional positions (jobs). The employer could just as easily not make a new job for the higher demand and charge a higher price (assuming he has some market control). You could argue that he could also lose market share as some other employer made new jobs to fill. In this case business owners still create the jobs. Employers make jobs, not demand, not employees...

As for the "without demand, he wouldn't need to make more positions" argument... Well, with demand and no employers, there is no job. However, if there is no demand but an employer with a good marketing dept... Well, lets say you can generate demand.

Here's my thinking (and last post unless someone pulls some weird BS):

Everyone in a free market should be free. Both employees and employers. Both should make whatever demands they want on the other. If the demands are unreansonable, the market will eliminate that resource or the resource will have to change its demands. I think an employee has the right to demand an employer to never make any rules about their private life. At the same time, the employer has the right to make those demands. If those conflict, the employee can quit, the employer can fire the employee, or someone backs off their demands.

Someone acts like a jackass and makes all of their employees drive pink smartcars and dress in swimsuits, well, my guess is he better pay a boatload of money and have a killer margin or he won't be in business very long. The market protects itself. If you have marketable skills, you'll get paid what your worth in comparison to others...

BTW: This whole thing has happened to my family. Make it simple: My wife was offerred an implicit raise to not get pregnent. Is that fair? Sure, why not? Her and I can decide is it worth postponing having kids for the extra money or should she quite and have kids. The company was free to make the offer and she is free to accept it... What is so hard about this?

steveinaz

tonyb wrote:

I think the bottom line here is to keep big brother out of our
personal lives as much as we can.

Which big brother you talking about, the CEO or Uncle Sam?

Better the devil you know....well, you know the rest.

steveinaz

jdhdiggs wrote:

What I don't get here is why you all think an employee has more rights than the owner of the business...

How did the thread ever get twisted into this notion? It's the businesses that want to invade the personal home, not vice-versa. I believe that's called "spin." Yeah, I watch O'Rielly, you'll never get one like that by me...:D

jdhdiggs

You said that an employer has no rights to place stipulations on an employees personal life right?

So....

Restricting owners freedom in favor of the employees = The employee has more rights than the employer. That is the basis of your entire argument...

steveinaz

and exactly how does keeping the boss out of my personal life affect his freedom? (I can't wait to hear this one...)

steveinaz

Dude, this is an unwinnable battle. Either you feel that business should be able to limit what you do in your personal life, or you feel business has no business in your personal life. You're not going to "convert" anyone...

tonyb

An employer pays for your time,and your service dureing that time.While your on his clock,you play by his rules.If they want to run your personal life,then they should pay you,or shut the f... up!Health care cost???Most company's
now a day's split it with employee's anyway.It's included with the cost of doing buisness.Instead of addressing the issue of over inflated health care cost,It's much easier to tell you how to live your life and trample on your rights.Employers have every right to dictate behavior in their buisness,on their clock,but it ends there.
BTW-Steve,both,to be honest with ya.

tonyb

JD,
So you think it's ok for a company to discriminate?How come they don't offer me a raise to not join a softball team?How about company's that employ lets say...50% of a towns population.Would you say they can pretty much demand what ever they wanted?How does freedom of choice fit into that?