Should work be able to dictate your life?
Comments
-
jdhdiggs wrote: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.
I am not picking on you specifically, or trying to start a fight, but I have to call BS here. Unless they have actually been a worker bee, most employers that rely simply on their college degree for their position, are a bit delusional when it comes to "creating" something, be it a job, or product. That comes from experiencing only a collegiate point of view, and never actually getting their hands dirty.(not implying this to you, just others I have dealt with) I have much respect for anyone disciplined enough to see through to a college degree.
Employers physically create nothing. Unless they roll up their sleeves, and physically make a product from raw material. They shift money. That may be over-simplifying things, but at it's core, it's true. Let's say I have enough money to start a company, I purchase a building, buy machinery, hire someone to move it in, set it up, and purchase the raw materials needed for my widgets. I then pay someone else (employees) to make widgets from the raw materials I purchased. This whole point is moot, unless there is a legitimate demand for this widget. Yes, you can artificially create a demand by marketing. (see Bose) But as you like to point out, the market will eventually correct itself.
If there is no demand, there are no sales. An employer can "make" a job available, but if there is no demand for the product, why would he do this? Dump a ton of money into marketing, and pray? At the end of that day, demand created a NEED for that job. The job "created" a means to fulfil that need. Making a product there is no customer for, is answering a question that nobody's asking. -
tonyb wrote: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?
I think it's okay for a company to discriminate. In fact if a black business owner didn't want to hire whites I wouldn't care. You can flip it in any direction and I wouldn't care. They're only reducing their exposure in the marketplace by doing so, and risking boycott. You don't have to agree with their measures, and you shouldn't be taking away their rights to run their business the way they see fit.
The only people losing rights in this whole scenario is the business owner. -
steveinaz wrote: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...
Actually it is. If you ever get to become the boss of your own venture with employees of your own your eyes will be open wider than every before. Some have the capability of seeing it without having to be a business owner, and quite apparently others don't.
I'd still love to hear from someone besides myself here who has their own business and actually has employees. The misinformation being bandied about is stunning. -
There's all kind of caveats to the discrimination thing. Look at one of largest employers in the US, and is government run....the military. The military discriminates against the handicapped, it makes no bones about it. You cannot be wheel-chair stricken and join the Army. Anyway, how could ever prove "intent" when it comes to hiring? It's a non-starter. Ideally we hope that the most qualified gets the job, but as long as we are human beings--we'll have preferences; be they racial, gender, value-oriented, religion, political, etc, etc.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
Demiurge wrote:Actually it is. If you ever get to become the boss of your own venture with employees of your own your eyes will be open wider than every before. Some have the capability of seeing it without having to be a business owner, and quite apparently others don't.
I'd still love to hear from someone besides myself here who has their own business and actually has employees. The misinformation being bandied about is stunning.
I'm sure you ran your business without having to resort to the kind of crap that the schmuck on 60 minutes is doing right? I have alot of supervisory experience, and yes there are **** employees who'd rather spend an hour trying to figure out how to not do something--than spend 5 minutes knocking it out. But this is normal employer/employee relationship stuff. I was very fortunate to have supervised some outstanding people, sure I had a couple bad apples, but few and far between. I enjoyed it. My last assignment I had 60 soldiers under my direct supervision, a direct support communications equipment repair facility; tactical satellite/microwave, computer, HF Radio, crypto, QA/PC, and a tech supply.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
No one answered Steve's question...
How is a business owner losing rights by me drinking a beer at home?comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
steveinaz wrote:There's all kind of caveats to the discrimination thing. Look at one of largest employers in the US, and is government run....the military. The military discriminates against the handicapped, it makes no bones about it. You cannot be wheel-chair stricken and join the Army. Anyway, how could ever prove "intent" when it comes to hiring? It's a non-starter. Ideally we hope that the most qualified gets the job, but as long as we are human beings--we'll have preferences; be they racial, gender, value-oriented, religion, political, etc, etc.
People are suing on the basis of intent, which is what's scary. Minority Report -- that type of stuff has been going on for years. Most cases settle out of court because a $10,000 settlement is better than a $10,000,000 settlement. The stuff lawyers will come up with to sue anyone with deep pockets is crazy. Hell, a lawyers job is to prove intent. It's definitely not a non-starter.
I can tell you that if we started capping suit rewards in this country there's a whole bucketfull of problems that would start curing themselves, and discussions like this would more than likely never occur.
I'm not telling you the jack on 60 Minutes is right, Steve. I never even saw it. I'm just going off what you're saying. What I am questioning is how this guy could possibly be in business.
It all comes back to the question you asked because there is no answer.
"Should work be able to dictate your life?"
It can't, not when you have choices. -
steveinaz wrote:I'm sure you ran your business without having to resort to the kind of crap that the schmuck on 60 minutes is doing right? I have alot of supervisory experience, and yes there are **** employees who'd rather spend an hour trying to figure out how to not do something--than spend 5 minutes knocking it out. But this is normal employer/employee relationship stuff. I was very fortunate to have supervised some outstanding people, sure I had a couple bad apples, but few and far between. I enjoyed it. My last assignment I had 60 soldiers under my direct supervision, a direct support communications equipment repair facility; tactical satellite/microwave, computer, HF Radio, crypto, QA/PC, and a tech supply.
What makes sense to a guy with a $1,000,000 (for example) invested in his business doesn't always make sense to a guy with a $80,000 (for example) salary. -
steveinaz wrote:CHANGE: The "NO" answer excludes illegal drug testing. Sorry should have included that disclaimer.
I saw a segment on 60 minutes last night that infuriated me. It had to do with corporations dictating to people what they can and can't do---healthwise; on and OFF duty. Some required their employees to work out, lose weight, stop drinking etc; all monitored by the company to ensure compliance. Funny though, they don't care about sleep problems,
stress, or any other work-related issues (surprised?).
Why? Healthcare costs. Sound familiar? The almighty dollar is turning this country into **** Germany.
What's next? you got it, just as I stated (and was laughed at) a fews months ago----DNA testing. Now, imagine for a moment, even if you are perfectly healthy, your "genetic" background shows some heart disease, diabetes, mental issues, etc, etc; you can be denied a job OR fired from your job. Isn't so funny any more huh? Companies want "genetically" risk-free employees, they're cheaper don't you know....
The scariest part....it's legal. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it, even changes to policy that occur after you came on board. Lovely.
Another noteworthy tidbit; companies have not been able to demonstrate statistically ANY increase in health care costs related to smoking employees. Should those employees get refunded the higher rates they pay?
Here's a few other examles highlighted on the segment:
- Guy fired for a political sticker on his car
- Guy fired for drinking a "Coors" beer off duty---he worked for Anheiser Busch (yes, he won that one in court)
- Guy fired for having an NRA sticker on his vehicle
I guess freedom of speech doesn't apply at work?brettw22 wrote:No one answered Steve's question...
How is a business owner losing rights by me drinking a beer at home?
I'd like to know if it was even happening before I would even try to answer it. If you look at the first post in this thread, it said some businesses required employees to work out, lose weight, and stop drinking.
What type of business was this?
There's an awful vague amount of information out there, and to be completely honest I do think the business owner should have the right to say whatever he wants. It by no means you have to comply.
There is absolutely no businesses I know of that could maintain employees if they told them they couldn't drink, had to work out, and lose weight. That is of course unless they had employees that didn't want to drink, like to work out, and are physically fit.
This isn't rocket science, but we'd rather get government involved to **** it up. -
I'm not sure who brought the gov't angle in first, but I dont' think it was Steve.
The news story wasn't done on a hypothetical "what if the world was run this way" angle. It's happened, and profiled businesses that were doing it. It doesn't matter the specifics..........
Fundamentally, it is wrong for a job to mandate how you live your personal life (aside from the contract angle mentioned 100 times now). If I'm at a company, doing what they want, and I'm good at what I'm doing there and am making a good living at it, that is all they need from me. Bringing in 10,000 other companies and saying "go there" doesn't alleviate the core issue brought up here.
Unless I'm on the clock for 168 hours a week (and paid for every one of them) I'm not bound by the employers work policies. My drinking, or partying, or whatever at home doesn't in any way/shape/form deduct from the Employer's rights......saying it does is backwards logic.comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
brettw22 wrote:I'm not sure who brought the gov't angle in first, but I dont' think it was Steve.
The news story wasn't done on a hypothetical "what if the world was run this way" angle. It's happened, and profiled businesses that were doing it. It doesn't matter the specifics..........
Fundamentally, it is wrong for a job to mandate how you live your personal life (aside from the contract angle mentioned 100 times now). If I'm at a company, doing what they want, and I'm good at what I'm doing there and am making a good living at it, that is all they need from me. Bringing in 10,000 other companies and saying "go there" doesn't alleviate the core issue brought up here.
Unless I'm on the clock for 168 hours a week (and paid for every one of them) I'm not bound by the employers work policies. My drinking, or partying, or whatever at home doesn't in any way/shape/form deduct from the Employer's rights......saying it does is backwards logic.
He said the scariest part is that it's legal. Was I supposed to assume he didn't think it should be illegal? I'm only aware of one entity that can create laws in this country...
Did you see the 60 Minutes show? They were firing people for drinking a beer? People tend to get a tad dramatic when they're trying to make a point sometimes, even 60 Minutes, so I question the validity of the question.
In any event, I'll play ball.
If you are my boss and you ask me at any point during my employement to stop drinking as a current condition of my employment I can choose whether or not to accept that condition. The right you've taken away from the employer is his right to choose the type of people he wants to work for him. If he doesn't want someone who drinks, period, why shouldn't he have that right?
I don't think you'll find anyone that's said getting fired for drinking a beer, playing hop skotch, or whatever the heck activity people engage in when they're not at work was the right thing. You've just got people who said they should be have the right to have whatever type of employee they want. That's the right that would be taken away, and has been taken away over the years. I wonder if Steve believes in affirmative action.
If you're an at will employee you can be fired for whatever reason because they can simply make one up. I'd rather be told to lose weight than get fired, personally. At least then I have a choice. They can tell you that you're not performing to their expectations all day long, and who is going to know? I'm sure some will get lawyers, sue, and win. That only makes society worse, but whatever.
The core of this argument is that getting government involved isn't the answer (and laws, and government were brought up in the first 3 posts). An employer should have the right to ask an employee to stop doing things that are going to end up costing them in the long run if you want to work for them. You say they shouldn't. I say without businesses jobs don't exist. I also think the market corrects itself. A business with stupid rules people won't adhere to can't survive. There's no need for government involvement. -
Companies get the type of employee they want to do the type of work they want done. If they want to associate only with people of a like minded life, get friends.
The reason for a lawer being brought into the mix would be that an employer seemingly thought they had the right to control an employee's life 24/7 without compensation (people are diluted to believe companies would be paying based on a 7 day workweek).
You want to dominate my personal life? Pay for it.comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
brettw22 wrote:You want to dominate my personal life? Pay for it.
They would in one way or another, that's my point. -
Trust me Demi, it's real. Companies are firing people for drinking off the clock, for driving the wrong make of car, for smoking, for being too fat, for having some sticker on their bumper, etc. Firing someone for stuff like that is flat out wrong. There was a time when the only thing that mattered was one's job performance. One's private life was just that, private. Now, we've got a bunch of Hitler wannabes running around pushing their will onto employees private affairs. The main issue here is that what one does outside of company time is NONE of the employers business.
This isn't quite on topic, but I like to tell the story as it does have to do with statistics, which many of these wannabe Hitler's love to use. A company I worked for supplied company cars. Well, the insurance agent/company that wrote the policy on my employer didn't want to renew me as I had a pile of speeding tickets and noted a study done in California (we were in MD) that concluded people with lots of speeding tickets were X times more likely to be involved in an at fault accident. My boss told him if they didn't include me that he'd take his business elsewhere, so they chose to include me. Fast forward 10 years (I still have a pile of speeding tickets), I'm the only person that worked at that company, including my boss that didn't have an at fault accident. I saw the insurance man at the office one day, smiled at him and said, "So much for your statistics, eh!"
Just because a person drinks or is overweight, etc. does not mean they can't do their job or are a higher risk to a companies bottom line. For an employer to make that assumption is just plain ignorant.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Get a Union started. Get a Profesional Association started. Even M.D. are organizing Associations to bargain with Hospitals, and Insurance Co. You will have more rights, and negoating power. Only if you are organized.Some final words,
"If you keep banging your head against the wall,
you're going to have headaches."
Warren -
steveinaz wrote:and exactly how does keeping the boss out of my personal life affect his freedom? (I can't wait to hear this one...)
I hate bringing the thread back to life, but since this was directed at me....
You've eliminated the freedom of the boss to hire (or keep) the people that they want to keep and eliminate those who don't. You are keeping them from presenting their company in the way that the owner wants. How come that is so damn hard for everyone to understand? Maybe you do need a Ph.D. to get it...
Your salary represents a lot more than just what you do 9 to 5. If your company offers healthcare, is it only there while you're at work? How about your retirement benifits? Does that go away when you punch out at night?
Don't you think employees represent a company both in, and out, of the workplace? You don't think it looks bad for the military to have a GI on leave get drunk out in a bar? It's on his own time..... How about a peace protester working for Lockheed Martin? Don't you think LMT ought to be able to remove that person if it saw fit?
Discrimination in the workplace? It's all over right now as it is, the government has only made it worse. One of the reasons I left TI (using my freedom as an employee) was to escape the discrimination there ("Interview minority and female candidates first. If no acceptable match is found, a manager may expand their search"-From actual TI documents on how to hire/promote.
Everyone discriminates whether you want to or not. Whether is is against an ethnicity, genders, religion, hair color, or stupidty (or smarts). In the end, everyone dicriminates. At least in these cases that people are talking about, the employees know what it is.
If a company wants to portray a workforce as a happy, healthy workforce, why shouldn't they ask the employees to excersize and not drink? Don't you think a company of healthy people looks better to a client than a bunch of 350 lb slobs?
In a free market, both sides set their requirements for employment/business. If all the requirements are met, a deal is done, if not you move on. If your sets of demands is too high, you go out of business or become unemployed. In other words, you discriminate too much, market forces put you down.
LessisNmore:
As for the demand making a business.... What demand was there for airlines before the airplane? How about what Burt Rutan is doing now? I-Pods? A lot of products today started with an idea that could generate demand. In otherwords, the business owner had to invest money and time to create a product and demand....
More to your point though: If demand is there, doesn't it still take some business owner to create the job position? If the demand was there, and no one created the job, who would fill it? In other words, an employer must be present for a job to be created, demand should be, but isn't neccessary.
Tonyb: They could quit and move, easy.... If you don't like the terms your employer set down, quit and work for someone you like. The entire workforce will quit or they change their policies. Or as Warren said, form a union and increase your bargaining power. They have choices. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to work.
Warren: In some cases yes, in others no. If you are one of the top 1-5% in your field, you will be limiting yourself and your bargaining power by organizing. For a majority of people, you are right, but the unions tend to try and normalize out pay scale and compitition which is good if you suck, but bad if you're one of the best.
Jesse: Yes, its real, no one is arguing that. People should quit or boycott the companies and force them out of business. Trying to regulate it with government interference would backfire. See what's happening in France where once you are employed, and employer can not fire an employee even for not doing their job hence the massive unemployment as employers are extremely reluctant to hire anyone.There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
Your salary represents a lot more than just what you do 9 to 5. If your company offers healthcare, is it only there while you're at work? How about your retirement benifits? Does that go away when you punch out at night?
Don't you think employees represent a company both in, and out, of the workplace? You don't think it looks bad for the military to have a GI on leave get drunk out in a bar? It's on his own time..... How about a peace protester working for Lockheed Martin? Don't you think LMT ought to be able to remove that person if it saw fit?
Yep, that's a point I made early on, but I didn't get any answer to it. -
Y A W N...............this is a dead issue.......no one's going to agree.......no one's going to change their thinking...............move on.comment comment comment comment. bitchy.
-
It just seems ironic to me that the same people who complain when others don't stand up for rights they don't necessarily exercise (i.e. smoking, guns, helmets/motorcycles), are adament about the government taking away different rights from others, namely business owners.
-
Apparently, I'm not educated enought to respond.
In closing, I'd just like to say that you do whatever you think you need to do to compete. If you feel that you must answer to work 24/7, knock yourself out. We all have to measure the pay/benefits vs burden that work puts on us, and to what degree it will affect our personal lives (cell phones, crackberries, satellite dish mounted on your head, etc).
The shaving mirror never lies, if you can look in it, and you're happy with what you see--you are successful. Rock on!Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Shop Spkrs: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 -
Dig that shaving mirror analogy...how true!:DHT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
Phantom, there's no agreement that business owners own their employees personal lives......past that, this thread could have died on page 1.comment comment comment comment. bitchy.
-
You're always free to not read it.
-
I have to do my part to help end this neverending arguement......sometimes I let things go too long and when that happens, we end up with situations like everyone hating faster for being a whiny ****......:D
Anyone want me to start posting some of my favorite photos here?comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
Your favorite ones? :eek:
-
My version of a Tasteful Babe pic.....:Dcomment comment comment comment. bitchy.
-
Go Go Gadget.
-
Marantz AV-7705 PrePro, Classé 5 channel 200wpc Amp, Oppo 103 BluRay, Rotel RCD-1072 CDP, Sony XBR-49X800E TV, Polk S60 Main Speakers, Polk ES30 Center Channel, Polk S15 Surround Speakers SVS SB12-NSD x2
-
brettw22 wrote:Anyone want me to start posting some of my favorite photos here?
matter. The ONLY way to stop this never-ending thread is for you to post a picture, and you wouldn't DARE !!
There's no way you'll do it !
Not a chance in a million !!
Al Gore will sit in the White House before that happens !!!
this would be a good spot to post a picture of "bear baiting"Sal Palooza -
brettw22 wrote:I have to do my part to help end this neverending arguement......sometimes I let things go too long and when that happens, we end up with situations like everyone hating faster for being a whiny ****......:D
Anyone want me to start posting some of my favorite photos here?
Ready.....?.........GO!:DSharp Elite 70
Anthem D2V 3D
Parasound 5250
Parasound HCA 1000 A
Parasound HCA 1000
Oppo BDP 95
Von Schweikert VR4 Jr R/L Fronts
Von Schweikert LCR 4 Center
Totem Mask Surrounds X4
Hsu ULS-15 Quad Drive Subwoofers
Sony PS3
Squeezebox Touch
Polk Atrium 7s on the patio just to keep my foot in the door.