American Workers [NA]

[RobertGerace]

I can't believe I'm posting an NA post.

Anyway...

My employer blocks proxy sites, but does not block job search sites. Nor have they taken action against someone using job search sites.

Does it really matter if the person quits or you fire them? I thought that you were in better shape legally if they quit.

If they don't like working for you so much that they're searching for new jobs on the web, don't you want to help them along rather than hinder them?

On the other hand, if you feel you must control your worker's every minute - is it any surprise that some want to leave?

1) Georiga is a 'Right to Work' state. I can fire somebody if I don't like their shoes.

1a) We hire people on 3 month contract-to-perm to see how they work out. We are almost never wrong in our opinions before the 3 months are up. Joanna was not an employee yet. So I had nothing to lose by firing her, and everything to gain by getting her resource-draining-deadwood out of my office.

2) If people don't want to work for me, I would rather they stand up like men and women and come tell me: "I'm giving you my notice." And not use my resources to better their own lives. I don't use their house as my data center.

2a) If they want to search for a job, let them do it on their own time...with their own computers...and own Internet connection.

3) I only want to control the minutes I'm paying for. Those are mine. I bought them. I paid for them. If employees use them for their own purposes, they are stealing from me.

3a) This gets right back to my point. Somebody working 50 or 60 hours per week can surf for 10 of them and it is probaby still a good deal for me...as well as them. Joanna worked 39.75 hours per week. Every hour she surfed was money out of my pocket that she had no right to take.

 

[Brian Austin]

2) If people don't want to work for me, I would rather they stand up like men and women and come tell me: "I'm giving you my notice." And not use my resources to better their own lives. I don't use their house as my data center.

I've gone one better in my last two jobs: I've gone to my supervisor and told them that they need to start hunting for a replacement because it's time for me to leave. I hadn't started looking yet, either. (Of course, I've never been without a job for more than 24 hours unless I wanted to take a break)

In both cases, I gave them well over a month's notice and even went back on a contract basis to assist with the transition for the new guy.

I agree. There is no reason to expect an employer to have to pay someone to find a job elsewhere. Some personal 'surfing' is almost to be expected nowadays. After all, we're all here, right now, during the workday. With the exception of Joe, who I think works nights, I suspect we're all in the office as I type this.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Some personal 'surfing' is almost to be expected nowadays. After all, we're all here, right now, during the workday. With the exception of Joe, who I think works nights, I suspect we're all in the office as I type this.

I work for myself, so if I'm upset about me being here I'll have to fire myself. And then where would I be?

 

[bbchien]

Every hour she surfed was money out of my pocket that she had no right to take.

Fortunately, last night as I replaced the failed router, I looked at each employee's browers. They're not browsing. . Good motivation, good management, and a good package, a consistent boss with lots to do.....

 

[Keith Lane]

1) Georiga is a 'Right to Work' state. I can fire somebody if I don't like their shoes.

[/QUOTE]

Bob, does that mean that an employer in Georgia need not have any record of notices of deficiencies in work (of any kind) to terminate an employee?
The employee can be fired at any time for no apparent reason or anything?
Last year a friend of mine (a 22 year Delta flight attendant) was told, "quit or be fired". She originally quit to keep a termination off her employment record and was told by Delta she could still draw unemployment benefits. The state had different ideas about that and she "recinded" her resignation. The matter ended up in front of an administrative law judge, and she got some severence pay because the judge said Delta had no discilplinary or other reason to have taken the action they did. She did not want to work for them after that anyway and teaches school now. This all happened in late 2003.

 

[Brian Austin]

Bob, does that mean that an employer in Georgia need not have any record of notices of deficiencies in work (of any kind) to terminate an employee?
The employee can be fired at any time for no apparent reason or anything?
Last year a friend of mine (a 22 year Delta flight attendant) was told, "quit or be fired". She originally quit to keep a termination off her employment record and was told by Delta she could still draw unemployment benefits. The state had different ideas about that and she "recinded" her resignation. The matter ended up in front of an administrative law judge, and she got some severence pay because the judge said Delta had no discilplinary or other reason to have taken the action they did. She did not want to work for them after that anyway and teaches school now. This all happened in late 2003.

My wife is the HR manager for our mutual employer here in AZ, another right-to-work state.

Many employers make this mistake. While you CAN fire someone for any reason in a right-to-work state, wrongful discharge lawsuits in a civil court can (and are) still tried and won by former employees in those same states. Any smart employer builds a case through documentation before terminating someone, regardless of right-to-work state or not.

If the employee handbook specifically states "unauthorized use" of computer equipment or personal use prohibited, it's enough to win any case. I've done a few of those myself while in a consulting capacity.

 

[sere]

1) Georiga is a 'Right to Work' state. I can fire somebody if I don't like their shoes.

Bob, does that mean that an employer in Georgia need not have any record of notices of deficiencies in work (of any kind) to terminate an employee?
The employee can be fired at any time for no apparent reason or anything?
Last year a friend of mine (a 22 year Delta flight attendant) was told, "quit or be fired". She originally quit to keep a termination off her employment record and was told by Delta she could still draw unemployment benefits. The state had different ideas about that and she "recinded" her resignation. The matter ended up in front of an administrative law judge, and she got some severence pay because the judge said Delta had no discilplinary or other reason to have taken the action they did. She did not want to work for them after that anyway and teaches school now. This all happened in late 2003.[/QUOTE]

Texas is also a right to work state. And yes they can let you go without cause.

 

[Don Jones]

NM is also like that, all of my employees sign an "at will" statement when hired
saying they may be terminated any time without cause.
Don

 

[Skip Miller]

I work for myself, so if I'm upset about me being here I'll have to fire myself. And then where would I be?

Why, writing larger checks for your unemployment insurance premium so the government could afford to give you some your money back, of course. What a silly question!!!

-Skip

 

[T Bone]

So Bob, you're telling us that the foreign workers you've come in contact with, that took the trouble to travel across the ocean to get here (for opportunity), that went through all the hoops to get proper permission from the US Government to come here to work, and indeed have borne the expense of this travel (no small feat where many are from I'll bet), are more motivated, more interested in hard work, than the average American that you've hired from whatever local resources? Well, Duh! I submit sir, that your sample of foreign workers is skewed. These people have already largely shown thier level of comittment and motivation by being here. To then inferr, imply, or directly state that the American worker is lazy by comparrison, based on this limited skewed sampling is an insult to your country, your countymen and your valued American employees (ie: your manager).

And yes, as a former business owner and employer, I can empathize with your situation. I know what a PITA employees can be, and how they can cost you (or indeed contribute to the failure of a business!). But to slander a workforce of millions, based on a selected small sampling of motivated foreign individuals is IMHO unfair and improper. And while I'm sure that was not your intent, to me it seems that is what you've done.

A personal note, I know you're going to get lots of flack for this post. I've read many of your posts and consider them very well worth reading. I'll be leaving positive reputation for this post, not because I agree with it, but because I respect your having the courage to post it, knowing it would be unpopular. I do hope you'll examine my thoughts here as well though.

 

[corjulo]

OK

You can be firm and say no browsing. And there are valid reason to be firm about it. But an employee who thinks his boss is a tyrant ( not saying you are) aint gonna be very motivated.

I say set a policy that accommodates some degree of personal access within reason, like lunch or after hours. A lot depends on the job I suppose

 

[Ed Guthrie]

3a) This gets right back to my point. Somebody working 50 or 60 hours per week can surf for 10 of them and it is probaby still a good deal for me...as well as them. Joanna worked 39.75 hours per week. Every hour she surfed was money out of my pocket that she had no right to take.

a. Are these employees salaried or hourly? The context suggests salaried.

b. Are you aware of the definition of "salaried employee" according to wage-hour law? If so, are you aware that the statement above is inconsistent with that definition?

c. If the assumption stated in (a) is correct, are you aware that a disgruntled 50-60 hour, salaried employee might take the above quote to court and could possibly make a pretty good case that the employee was in fact an hourly employee, that you have been violating labor law while defrauding the employee of overtime pay, and that the employee is entitled to all back overtime wages and possibly punitive penalties?

d. Are you aware that the attorney representing the employee in (c) may choose to file a class action if s/he believes you have more than one employee working now or who ever worked under similar circumstances? IOW, the back wages and penalties could get rather brutal.

The above is in no way intended to state that you are now actually violating labor laws or that you ever have violated labor laws, nor that you are a bad employer, any any other such outright statement, insinuation, subtle hint, whatever. Merely noting a few labor law tidbits I have learned over the years as those tidbits relate to your statement above, and noting that you may (or may not) wish to check labor laws at the local and national level.

As an employer it can truly be a nasty world out there.

As a supervisor I never, ever tell a salaried employee how many hours they must work, nor do I ever tell a salaried employee that they are not working enough hours. As a supervisor who has seen a few of these go very, very badly, I tell the salaried employee what the reasonable project/monthly/quarterly/annual objectives are for their position, and if they fail to meet those objectives I tell them that they failed to meet objectives. Period.

 

[BillG]

As someone who has managed people before (not now, thankfully - I consult on my own) I think I agree with Ed's final point. I don't care what you do on "my" time - all I care about is did you meet the goals and complete whatever needed completing, in whatever time you were given. I've always discouraged my clients from installing web limiting software, etc. It should be pretty obvious pretty quickly who is goofing off and not getting their job done and who is working hard.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

You may have the right to terminate people here but I am told they will still likely get unemployment handouts, which I will have to reimburse the TWC for.

 

[RobertGerace]

1) Georiga is a 'Right to Work' state. I can fire somebody if I don't like their shoes.

Bob, does that mean that an employer in Georgia need not have any record of notices of deficiencies in work (of any kind) to terminate an employee?
The employee can be fired at any time for no apparent reason or anything?
Last year a friend of mine (a 22 year Delta flight attendant) was told, "quit or be fired". She originally quit to keep a termination off her employment record and was told by Delta she could still draw unemployment benefits. The state had different ideas about that and she "recinded" her resignation. The matter ended up in front of an administrative law judge, and she got some severence pay because the judge said Delta had no discilplinary or other reason to have taken the action they did. She did not want to work for them after that anyway and teaches school now. This all happened in late 2003.[/QUOTE]

Well, basically, my legal represenation said I don't have to have any reason to fire anyone. That is the 'belt' part of the equation. The 'suspenders' part is we do have employment contracts which say you can quit or I can fire you on a moment's notice and for no reason. Further, we have a million rules in the employee handbook and breaking any of them is grounds for immediate termination.

Anyone can, and I have been, sue for any reason. I've fired probably 100 people over the years and haven't been sued for it yet. Probably cause no lawyer would take the case.

 

[RobertGerace]

So Bob, you're telling us that the foreign workers you've come in contact with, that took the trouble to travel across the ocean to get here (for opportunity), that went through all the hoops to get proper permission from the US Government to come here to work, and indeed have borne the expense of this travel (no small feat where many are from I'll bet), are more motivated, more interested in hard work, than the average American that you've hired from whatever local resources? Well, Duh! I submit sir, that your sample of foreign workers is skewed. These people have already largely shown thier level of comittment and motivation by being here. To then inferr, imply, or directly state that the American worker is lazy by comparrison, based on this limited skewed sampling is an insult to your country, your countymen and your valued American employees (ie: your manager).

And yes, as a former business owner and employer, I can empathize with your situation. I know what a PITA employees can be, and how they can cost you (or indeed contribute to the failure of a business!). But to slander a workforce of millions, based on a selected small sampling of motivated foreign individuals is IMHO unfair and improper. And while I'm sure that was not your intent, to me it seems that is what you've done.

A personal note, I know you're going to get lots of flack for this post. I've read many of your posts and consider them very well worth reading. I'll be leaving positive reputation for this post, not because I agree with it, but because I respect your having the courage to post it, knowing it would be unpopular. I do hope you'll examine my thoughts here as well though.

T-Bone,

I think I've been clear that I apologized for blanketing ALL American workers, and stated that is in fact, not, what I meant.

I stand by this statement, however: As a group, with certain exceptions, Americans have lost their work ethic.

And yes, people coming here from overseas looking for a chance have higher motivation. In fact, you help to drive home my point. You see, I really don't care WHY they work harder...only that I get more for my money.

Every week I get a different sob story. "I've been here for six months, and I'll lose my house if I don't get a raise." Always from people born in the U.S.

The ones who came from overseas live in 1 bedroom apartments with their brother...pulling down a quarter of a million a year and putting almost all of it in the bank.

Is it MY fault that the sobbers are about to lose their house? Nope.

Is it MY fault that the H1B-er's will take a million dollars out of this country in four years or so? Nope.

Is it MY fault if my company goes out of business and 130 families are on the street? Yep.

Is it MY fault if my stockholders become richer and therefore able to create more jobs which everyone legal to work in this country are able to compete for? Yep.

Is it MY fault if somebody from China is willing to work 60 hours per week? Nope.

Is it MY fault if somebody from Atlanta wants to surf the web and go home after 39.5 hours. Nope.

Is it MY fault if the Atlanta surfer loses his job to the guy from China? Nope.

I'm just running my business and observing. I don't make the rules, and I don't care why overseas workers have more motivation. The only thing I care about is that at the end of the year my company has the most profit possible.

If I can get that with American workers, that's an extra reason to be happy. If I have to hire foreign workers to accomplish that goal, so be it.

Bottom line to workers: if you can't find work because your jobs are being diluted by foreign workers, then you are overpaid. If you want to earn more, contribute more.

 

[Alan]

I've never understood why some think that it's OK for my employees to quit without warning but it isn't OK for me to fire them in a like manner.

In 30 years, I've never fired an employee that didn't know it was coming long before, but I shouldn't be required to have reason if they are without the same requirement. Thank goodness that I don't have to document deficiencies in KY.

 

[wsuffa]

You may have the right to terminate people here but I am told they will still likely get unemployment handouts, which I will have to reimburse the TWC for.

Dave, depending on how the termination is hired, I'd either agree or disagree. There are lots of folks in the State that see it they way you've described it.

However, as you know, there are a lot of employers that don't value their good employees. I know of several that look at a good employee and say "they're going to ask more money or they're going to leave, so I'll fire 'em". The employee is then fired with no cause - sometimes after many years of service - with no severance whatsoever (or something like a week or two). Frequently they're replaced by somebody younger/cheaper. I call that irresponsible. At lower wage levels, it may be pretty easy for them to go flip burgers. With higher level employees, many employers won't touch them for lower level jobs because they'll leave when a better offer comes along.

I have no problem with unemployment insurance covering employees that are terminated w/o cause and w/o severance by irresponsible employers. (With cause, different story). Unfortunately, there are a lot of employers out there that treat employees like garbage.

As for Texas, the UI/TWC system is pretty messed up.

 

[RobertGerace]

OK

You can be a firm and say no browsing. And there are valid reason to be firm about it. But an employee who thinks his boss is a tyrant ( not saying you are) aint gonna be very motivated.

I say set a policy that accommodates some degree of personal access within reason, like lunch or after hours. A lot depends on the job I suppose

Corjulo,

Unfortunately, the employee-employer relationship is adversarial. Our handbook says that brief 10 or 15 minute personal surfing, chatting, emailing, or phone calls are allowed. However, be aware that all of the above are monitored, and anything inappropriate is a terminating event.

More unfortunately, in this very politically correct world, employers must treat everyone the same regarding the written policies. Sadly, this comes from the bottom of the barrel -- those who take advantage and then yell that they have been treated unfairly.

The only thing an employer can do is to set a rigid policy, and apply fair-and-across-the-board dicipline.

In many ways it is a parental relationship. As with so many things in life, it is sad that so few ruin it for so many.

 

[RobertGerace]

a. Are these employees salaried or hourly? The context suggests salaried.

Salaried in most cases after 3 months. Hourly in most cases before.

b. Are you aware of the definition of "salaried employee" according to wage-hour law? If so, are you aware that the statement above is inconsistent with that definition?

Well, no. I depend on my legal counsel to keep me out of trouble. 13 years...so far...so good.

c. If the assumption stated in (a) is correct, are you aware that a disgruntled 50-60 hour, salaried employee might take the above quote to court and could possibly make a pretty good case that the employee was in fact an hourly employee, that you have been violating labor law while defrauding the employee of overtime pay, and that the employee is entitled to all back overtime wages and possibly punitive penalties?

I highly doubt it. Our policy is to have a certain flex-hour window for each type of employee, and to ask them which (out of their job description's set) they will be working. These 'core' hours are the hours they must be here. Anything outside of that is considered extra. If they work extra they are not paid, but may earn spot-bonuses, time off, promotions, moves to positions that require car allowances, etc. If they don't work extra that's fine too. If ALL of their job responsibilities are met ON TIME and IN BUDGET they will most likely get a good raise (but no bonus). If ANYTHING was deficient in their work year, they will get a bad review. A second bad review is a ticket out.

d. Are you aware that the attorney representing the employee in (c) may choose to file a class action if s/he believes you have more than one employee working now or who ever worked under similar circumstances? IOW, the back wages and penalties could get rather brutal.[/QUOTE]

Again, I don't require it. I only use it as motivation.

Ed, as you state below, it is rough being an employer. One of the things that REALLY ****es me off is to have an employee fail to meet a responsibility, and not tell anyone. Then later, in my managers meeting, I'll ask the manager if the task is complete and the answer is 'no.' I'll ask why, and the answer was, "He said he didn't have time." I'll also note that this employee works 39.5 hours a week.

This is a lame, weak, pathetic excuse. If a person wants a job, then don't finish it but at least tell someone you can't or need help. S/he can get his/her 3% raises and be happy. But if someone wants a career...something they can grow with...something that will help them to build wealth...then man (or woman) up to your responsibilities and stay until they are done.

There are no jobs at my company. Only careers. Job seekers need not apply.

The above is in no way intended to state that you are now actually violating labor laws or that you ever have violated labor laws, nor that you are a bad employer, any any other such outright statement, insinuation, subtle hint, whatever. Merely noting a few labor law tidbits I have learned over the years as those tidbits relate to your statement above, and noting that you may (or may not) wish to check labor laws at the local and national level.

Gotcha

As an employer it can truly be a nasty world out there.

It can be.

Let's face it. The employer has the power. (For whoever is mad about that, go start your own company.) Many people have abused that power. (For whoever is mad about that, quit.)

But people don't quit. They stay...and cause laws to be made to protect them...that directly interfere with Lassie Fair. Then the employer gets rapped on the head for trying to make a profit.

You know, if workers would not spend every dime they make, and not live paycheck to paycheck...and people would leave money to their kids instead of leaving debt, American workers could stand up to companies and say..."I don't need your 'career.' Give me 40 hours, or give me unemployement." And business, with no labor force, would redefine itself.

As a supervisor I never, ever tell a salaried employee how many hours they must work, nor do I ever tell a salaried employee that they are not working enough hours. As a supervisor who has seen a few of these go very, very badly, I tell the salaried employee what the reasonable project/monthly/quarterly/annual objectives are for their position, and if they fail to meet those objectives I tell them that they failed to meet objectives. Period.

I think I covered this topic above.

Bottom line: employees are essential to business, but must be managed with an iron fist and a close eye. To leave employees to themselves and expect anything but bankruptcy is a fool's game.

My experience has been that i can manage most foreign workers with a velvet glove and only an occasional eye.

I don't make this stuff up. I just call it the way I see it.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Fortunately, last night as I replaced the failed router, I looked at each employee's browers. They're not browsing. . Good motivation, good management, and a good package, a consistent boss with lots to do.....

Or they've figured out how to clear the history and file cache....

 

[RobertGerace]

I've never understood why some think that it's OK for my employees to quit without warning but it isn't OK for me to fire them in a like manner.

In 30 years, I've never fired an employee that didn't know it was coming long before, but I shouldn't be required to have reason if they are without the same requirement. Thank goodness that I don't have to document deficiencies in KY.

Amen. Employees quitting without notice is another huge problem -- usually by American workers.

When an employer sponsers an H1B Visa, the employee has a MUCH harder time leaving that employer. If the employer is also willing to spend the $10,000 and years of effort to help the employee get a green card, they won't leave you no matter what.

This is not to say that an employer should take advantage of that...but rather, that with such a strong tie between employer and employee, both parties have much to lose from a failed relationship. Everybody tries harder.

One major point that I have pathetically forgotten to mention in all of these rants today is that many foreign workers with green cards are as bad or worse than the bad-American workers. Once they have the green card, all motivation to try is gone. Sigh...

 

[poadeleted3]

You know... I've finally heard from an employer that causes me to understand the justification for unions.

It's the employer's money. They can run their business any way they want. But when they expect slave hours from their workers, and expect them to forsake even their families, they certainly don't deserve respect, not even the minimal respect of a notice. There is a reason some companies have to stick with foreign employees, who aren't used to decent treatment. Americans will not usually tolerate bullies or tyrants. Of course, the boss will then yipe about what bad employees Americans are, expecting to be treated like people and all.

 

[RobertGerace]

Dave, depending on how the termination is hired, I'd either agree or disagree. There are lots of folks in the State that see it they way you've described it.

However, as you know, there are a lot of employers that don't value their good employees. I know of several that look at a good employee and say "they're going to ask more money or they're going to leave, so I'll fire 'em". The employee is then fired with no cause - sometimes after many years of service - with no severance whatsoever (or something like a week or two). Frequently they're replaced by somebody younger/cheaper. I call that irresponsible. At lower wage levels, it may be pretty easy for them to go flip burgers. With higher level employees, many employers won't touch them for lower level jobs because they'll leave when a better offer comes along.

I have no problem with unemployment insurance covering employees that are terminated w/o cause and w/o severance by irresponsible employers. (With cause, different story). Unfortunately, there are a lot of employers out there that treat employees like garbage.

As for Texas, the UI/TWC system is pretty messed up.

note: you, your, you're, ya, etc. is not directed at any person, it is just a gramatical filler for 'the average worker who doesn't quite work hard enough to earn his or her paycheck' when I am referring to the bad-employees out there.

When a small business is very small, each person is so important that the business will most likely fail if one leaves. You dread it, and you hope it never happens, but eventually the day comes where your partner walks out, the day after Christmas and you think the business is dead. But you learn something...employees are like arms in a bucket of water. If one pulls his arm out the water level drops. All it takes is another arm in the bucket and the water level comes right back up.

If employees didn't do things like walk out without notice (to Alan's point) we employers wouldn't even know this stuff.

Anyway, remembering that is ALL about business (money) and has NOTHING to do with loyalty (because there is NO employee loyalty...and therefore no employer loyalty)...

At some point, it is more expensive to replace an employee than to keep the one you have.

The problem comes in when the employer perceives that the VALUE offered by the employee does not match up with the VALUE demanded from that employee.

Remember before that I said I would pay somebody 125% of the going rate. Heck, I'll pay 300% of the going rate if I get the work of 4 people out of one employee.

Unfortunately, and to my point, as workers (especially American, or foreign with green-cards) age, they begin to get tired and realize that their life is finite and if they don't take some time and spend it with their family that their entire life would be spent at work. So...they start to feel like they have 'paid their dues' and deserve to KEEP getting paid like they were when they were busting-it...but be able to start taking it easy.

It doesn't work like that folks. An employee is a value-trading-machine. Most employees only have their time to contribute...and if they contribute less time, they contribute less value...and should be paid less...not more.

They scream, "BUT WAIT! I GOT YOU WHERE YOU ARE." and the employer says, yes, and you were very well compensated at the time.

So, when that older, and loyal employee pours it on later in life, he is so incredibly valuable that the employer is nuts to not pay dearly for that service. Sadly, all too often, the older (once loyal) employee's priorities change, and he tries to get along on his past merits.

I'm sure some companies have stupidly and unfairly cut a higher paid employee in some selfish effort to increase profits...and I'm sure some companies have seen productive employees sink to dead-wood level and been criticized for letting the 'old-man' go.

Ya know, there are no guarantees in life. You could work for MCI or Enron or United Airlines and you could see your retirment literally stolen from under your nose. You could work for a mom&pop and have pop fire you because he wants to retire and thinks he can do it with your salary.

The only way to be financially secure in this country is to become self employed -- and even then, own multiple companies that are unrelated and affected differently by economic and financial cycles.

Of course, then, such a person would see my side of things...

 

[poadeleted3]

Corjulo,

Unfortunately, the employee-employer relationship is adversarial. snip

This is not true for a company with managers and bosses the employees respect.

 

[MSmith]

You know... I've finally heard from an employer that causes me to understand the justification for unions.

It's the employer's money. They can run their business any way they want. But when they expect slave hours from their workers, and expect them to forsake even their families, they certainly don't deserve respect, not even the minimal respect of a notice. There is a reason some companies have to stick with foreign employees, who aren't used to decent treatment. Americans will not usually tolerate bullies or tyrants. Of course, the boss will then yipe about what bad employees Americans are, expecting to be treated like people and all.

I suspect that we're in far different places on the political spectrum, but I totally agree.

 

[RobertGerace]

You know... I've finally heard from an employer that causes me to understand the justification for unions.

It's the employer's money. They can run their business any way they want. But when they expect slave hours from their workers, and expect them to forsake even their families, they certainly don't deserve respect, not even the minimal respect of a notice. There is a reason some companies have to stick with foreign employees, who aren't used to decent treatment. Americans will not usually tolerate bullies or tyrants. Of course, the boss will then yipe about what bad employees Americans are, expecting to be treated like people and all.

Joe, I believe you are under a huge misunderstanding.

Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying you have to work that hard at my company. Everybody is told that is how it is during the interview -- there are no surprises.

Each person 'signs up' for the task -- knowing that there is lots of pressure to succeed...and that those who can't keep up will be let go. They also know that those who excel will have a chance to earn beyond their pay-grade.

In a free country, where we are lucky to have God given choices...easy-stroll-along companies with low to average pay...and hard-driving, on-the-edge companies will high-to-super-high pay...is it so bad to provide choices for all workers?

Is it so terrible to say, "Here is a place where you, a ______ professonal who's average salary in this area is X, can earn X + 25%, spot-bonuses, extra weeks of vacation, fast promotions, and maybe, if you really bust-your-butt, a piece of the action?

If you think for a second that this is New York City in the depression, and my employees only have one place to earn a living, and they either sweat 60 hours per week or go hungy, then you are sadly wrong.

I offer a choice. Maybe not your choice, but a choice nonetheless...and many happy people are paying off their house by living on their 'industry' salary and taking the extra $25k per year and whacking down their mortgage.

Please tell me...why is this bad?

 

[wsuffa]

Bob,

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. I've started a couple of businesses, and I've worked for some bigger ones. I've sweated over making payroll and having partners leave. I've taken the pay cut rather than cutting staff when things were tight. Public and private both. Currently working on some consulting stuff helping folks start and build (strategy) businesses & value businesses.

I believe that you deal with employees honestly and straight-up. I also believe that there is some level of mutual loyalty. You expect an employee to give two-weeks notice? Then give them adequate severance at the end. If you don't treat employees well, they'll stick you every time. And word does get around. I believe that having to fire an employee for poor performance is a management failure - failing to select them right, failure to put them in the right job, or failure to give them tools to do the job correctly. But if they are just bad employees, fire 'em early. I like your 3-month probation, by the way.

The employers I referred to simply thought that everyone would be too expensive if they were there too long. Stuck people in dead-end jobs. They "fired" before the employee could quit. No desire to train or get the potential out of the worker. You know what? Their earnings suffered. Employees quit or were bored.

My point was simply this: if an employer fires a long-time loyal employee without severance, there needs to be a back-stop program. UI is that program. I'll add to that point, if an employer has a reputation for firing without severance, or without any notice to employee, that employer has to expect that employees will quit without giving notice. Fair is fair.

Story: a former employer of mine had a policy that vacation, sick time, and other accrued benefits were canceled at time of employee quit/termination. They determined that fully 50% of the employees that quit did so without prior notice right after using a big block of vacation. Policy was amended to permit payment for unused vacation time if employees gave 2 week notice or more. That 50% number dropped to 15-18% within a few months. That's material enough to draw conclusions.

I've been there, I've done that, and I expect to be in a leadership (as opposed to consulting) role again at some point. I've always found that you reap what you sow.

You're entitled to hire anyone you like and treat them any way you like. I just find complaints about "lack of notice" ring hollow when employers fire employees without severance or notice. Again, applies to "without cause".

 

[wsuffa]

Unfortunately, and to my point, as workers (especially American, or foreign with green-cards) age, they begin to get tired and realize that their life is finite and if they don't take some time and spend it with their family that their entire life would be spent at work. So...they start to feel like they have 'paid their dues' and deserve to KEEP getting paid like they were when they were busting-it...but be able to start taking it easy.

It doesn't work like that folks. An employee is a value-trading-machine. Most employees only have their time to contribute...and if they contribute less time, they contribute less value...and should be paid less...not more.

True in a "labor" environment. Not necessarily true for jobs where you're selling knowledge or experience. I'll give good money for a graybeard that doesn't work as many hours but can solve a problem in 1/2 the time. Or one that can satisfy a client because of his long experience in the field.

I'm sure some companies have stupidly and unfairly cut a higher paid employee in some selfish effort to increase profits...and I'm sure some companies have seen productive employees sink to dead-wood level and been criticized for letting the 'old-man' go.

Both are true. I know of a number of cases for each. I also know of cases where the "dead wood" was because management failed to challenge or give guidance to the worker.

The only way to be financially secure in this country is to become self employed -- and even then, own multiple companies that are unrelated and affected differently by economic and financial cycles.

Of course, then, such a person would see my side of things...

Bob, I understand your side of things. I agree with some of it, and I disagree with other parts. That doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

Please tell me...why is this bad?

Working hard, driving yourself isn't bad. What I think is bad is the lack of respect for your workers that I am picking up from your posts. True, no one has to work that hard, life is full of priorities. I'll never own a 310, because my priorities are my family, not my job. No job I'll ever hold again will be first in my life, not since I left the service. Heck, that's one reason I left, I wanted a life where the job didn't have to be first. That's a choice everyone has to make. But it is not one deserving of disrespect.

Your posts sound to me almost exactly like what I heard from managers when I worked for Ticketmaster in Charleston. Their reputation as an employer ended up being so bad that the Jobs Bureau started telling people not to work there. Now, this was a major employer that started people at $8.50 hr in an area with almost all minimum wage jobs, and they couldn't keep their positions filled. We'd work long hours, we'd do the job the way they wanted, but we wouldn't tolerate the lack of respect. People would get other jobs, and the next day their seats would be empty.

Now, this worked out well for people like Cathy and I, because we could give a few days notice if we got a higher paying job, even temporary ones, and they'd hire us back when we came back. Heck, we hadn't given two weeks, but we'd given a little bit of notice, and they had lots of jobs always needing filled. Good for somebody looking for a paycheck to meet other goals, but not a career. We could use them just like they used us.

It also works out well for unions, because sooner or later someone will silently get torqued, and if you haven't already you'll find yourself working to stamp out union activity, and the loss of control over your company that comes with that. Unions don't proliferate in the mines because it is a dangerous, well paid occupation. It is both of those things. Unions are so common because the mining companies regard their employers as tools, not people.

 

[Alan]

In my business, my key employees and I have a "mutually assured destruction" in reverse pact. I pay them so much that no one else would ever hire them and they are so successful that I would never fire them.

Some hourly employees (I have 100+) are lifers that are overpaid but no one wants to replace most of them. I have a few that have decided that they are more important to the business than I or anyoine else is. They are in for a shock when they leave and try to duplicate the deal they have here. I have an ex employee who "retired" at age 60 ten months ago and is trying to collect UI now that they haven't been able to find a job as lucrative as the one they had with me. They have had offers because I got the reference calls. I gave them a great recommendation, but they will not get the compensation they were accustomed to. Likely around half.

Then again, a few months ago we had three new hires watching orientation safety videos and the operations manager came in, turned off the TV, and told all three to go home. They had all failed the drug test. Cost me $250 for nothing....

 

[woodstock]

In a free country, where we are lucky to have God given choices...easy-stroll-along companies with low to average pay...and hard-driving, on-the-edge companies will high-to-super-high pay...is it so bad to provide choices for all workers?


?

actually, I'll take the sane hours (not stroll along hours, busy and active, but quite sane and normal) with really super pay, thanks. I know people may have no choice but to work the opposite - way too many hours chasing too few dollars. no thanks. at least here there is competition. other parts of the country may not be so lucky.

 

[grattonja]

Where I work, budgets are down. Workload is up. There is often a feeling that management looks upon my office as a necessary evil. Maybe, if they pinch hard enough, we will just wither on the vine and die somehow. Our manager doesn't support us in the day to day decisions that we make, and will back bite sometimes if he is afraid that some decision he made is to be called into question on appeal. Morale in this office is as bad as I can remember. Productivity follows directly downhill. The work remains the same. I love the court work and the job that I do in a courtroom. But the office politics have hit a new low. Frankly, it is depressing to get out of bed sometimes. I have taken several long, flying, lunch hours to get away from it. I'm not the only one to take advantage of the lax policing sometimes.

I think American workers have some reasons to feel less motivated to produce than in the past. For one thing, there is no longer a sense of "my father worked there, was paid well and did a good job for 40 years and so will my life go". Workers get sold out by places like Enron. You lose the direct loyalty to a boss. Knowing that you can be terminated at any time, and some employers are spring loaded to do it, sure doesn't engender loyalty.

People act as they are treated sometimes. Your foreign workers don't care that they are getting killed on hours. You have as much as said so. For them, it is all about the money. But how many of those foreign workers are long time, reliable employees that you can count on to know the job 10 years from now, and be able to train others for you? Or take some of the pressure off you? They aren't necessarily loyal to you or the company, based on what I am hearing. They are loyal to the $. And you seem very bottom line oriented yourself, based on the posts today. That's ok. If that is what is important to you, that's your business. But, do you have people there that can run your business if you get sick? Or decide to go part-time?

I bet turnover in your business is high. Right now that is not a problem, obviously. Will it be at some point in the future? What are the long term ramifications of the choices being made now? I work public sector so I may be totally off base.

A lot of considerations go into employment. Quality of life is now an important issue for many of us in the working world. Unlike my family growing up, I want to have a relationship outside of work with my daughter. That means I would probably not be working for you. If your work environment is successful for you and your employers, great. But don't blame American workers for having some reasons for not wanting to work as hard as some foreign workers. Many factors go into the beliefs of those workers, some good some bad.

Jim G

 

[astanley]

I could write pages and pages here, but I think the following sums it up quite nicely.

I work for a large multinational who reders outsourcing services to other large multinationals. I work in business development - a place where opportunities are fleeting and have to be seized. There are companies out there who are willing to do it cheaper, there are others that are willing to work harder. So I push myself. I work late nights, weekends, on the vacation. Yes, there is a lot of stress. Yes, it's not ideal for living a balanced life. But the people on my team know that, the people in my family know that, and, most importantly, I know that.

You don't get into this group at my company if you aren't willing and are not aware of what it takes to succeed. Success isn't free, freedom isn't free, and both take blood, sweat and tears to get there. I am open with the people who work for me, and I tell them straight up what they are getting into. They know the Blackberry will go off at dinner, and the next morning they'll be on a 6:00AM flight to some major city. A customer will drop a 1500 page RFP that you have 6 weeks to understand, design a full suite of services build a competitive bid, and then deliver that to the customer - and any mistakes are squarely on your shoulders.

People don't come and work here without knowing that, but they aren't allowed to come here if they aren't capable. The money is great, but the sacrifice and intangible reward is great.

The downside is, people want the prestige (working with C-level execs from different companies, money, the business dinners, etcetera), but don't want to do the work. There is nothing that incenses me more than when someone does what it takes to get on the team, and then goes on autopilot. And very few people are cut out to do the work - I know I wasn't 4 years ago, when I tried doing this before.

I echo a lot of Bob's sentiments. They are harsh, cold, and calculating on the surface, but to survive, sometimes you have to be. Retaining committed, dedicated, and exceptional talent is difficult. Bob wants, like I want, to surround himself with a culture of people who are incredibly talented and dedicated to their work. People who have passion and drive, zeal and dedication. To build that culture, you have to show what it takes to survive and that you won't put up with BS. I applaud his efforts, and his brutal honesty.

Doing contract-to-perm is a great way to start this. Being mercenary in who you keep instills that culture - that only the best survive, and what it takes is something beyond what we consider normal.

I bet Bob would go to bat for any of his employees - if something happened in their life, he would be there for them.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[wsuffa]

In my business, my key employees and I have a "mutually assured destruction" in reverse pact. I pay them so much that no one else would ever hire them and they are so successful that I would never fire them.

Some hourly employees (I have 100+) are lifers that are overpaid but no one wants to replace most of them. I have a few that have decided that they are more important to the business than I or anyoine else is. They are in for a shock when they leave and try to duplicate the deal they have here. I have an ex employee who "retired" at age 60 ten months ago and is trying to collect UI now that they haven't been able to find a job as lucrative as the one they had with me. They have had offers because I got the reference calls. I gave them a great recommendation, but they will not get the compensation they were accustomed to. Likely around half.

Then again, a few months ago we had three new hires watching orientation safety videos and the operations manager came in, turned off the TV, and told all three to go home. They had all failed the drug test. Cost me $250 for nothing....

Alan, those are great examples of irresponsible employees.....

UI should NOT apply in that circumstance. (heck, the UI up there must be pretty good if it's more money than that former employee could make elsewhere)

 

[Brian Austin]

...Being mercenary in who you keep instills that culture - that only the best survive, and what it takes is something beyond what we consider normal.

I guess we have different definitions for "survive". When I'm older, I'd prefer to look back on my life and look at all the great times I had instead of dying early of a flippin' stress induced heart attack.

I'm slowly accumulating all the little things I think I'll need to stay busy and happy when I retire. I won't be rich, I don't expect to be in a yacht but we'll have a nice little place, the residual income to travel a little and enjoy life instead of wondering how we're going to pay the gardener for our estate.

If that's failure, I'll take it any day of the year.

 

[SkyHog]

Bob - this touches on a thread someone posted a while back about respect.

I understand that you want to get the most bang for your buck, but you have to understand that you are dealing with people, not machines that run your business. I understand that you don't want people screwing around when they're on the clock, but in the same vein, how can your employees respect you when you don't trust them at all?

In places where there is respect going 2 ways, I've found that employees are happier and more productive. In the same vein, where employers expect everything, but give nothing in return, the employees tend to do only what is required, and nothing more.

That's the problem out here in New Mexico - I've yet to find a job that treats its employees with respect out here. Elsewhere in the country, especially in union crazed parts like New Hampshire, the respect exists. Whether its because the employers understand that its necessary to keep good workers, or because they're afraid of the big bad union doesn't matter, because, in the end, both sides are happy, and the job gets done better.

Once the union takes over however - then both sides are not happy, and the job suffers. I'd do whatever possible to avoid that if I were you. You run your shop that way for so long, and eventually they'll band together.

 

[RobertGerace]

Andrew, thanks for the support.

Regarding the 'go to bat' you betcha. One of my key employees (Mark) lives on a 2 acre lake lot on a point with no homes to block his view. (I guess mean-old-Bob isn't so bad...his Mark's wife doesn't work and he lives in a palace...and my company is his only source of income.)

Anyway, it turns out that the lot next door came up for sale, and he was worried that it might block his view.

During a monthly review of his work, I noticed that he had really executed his duties very well. His projects were done early, with very few defects, and under budget. So as we are talking I asked him about his house and this subject came up. He said that his wife wanted to buy it, but they didn't think they could swing the monthly payment.

Knowing that this was an immediate situation (if the lot were sold it would be too late)...I decided he needed an unscheduled raise. I said, yes you can; how much is it? He said he was about $800 per month short of what he needed. I buzzed payroll and said to increase Mark's pay by $1,200 per month effective immediately.

This is a no brainer. He has made much more than that by getting his projects done early. By the way, he's an American.


Bill, thanks for the support that you agree with. I also agree that we can disagree. My mantra in business is that if two people agree one is not necessary.

Regarding the comments from others:

I have always been a self-directed person. Some have spoken about not 'killing themselves' and excluding their familes, etc. I think the risk is to NOT work hard to make sure you have a secure future.

I just had a conversation with another key employee. He walked in my office and asked my opinon on what he should do. Should he pay off his primary residence, or should he pay off several rental properties to be certain of income. This guy is barely over 30. Now true, he can't afford to completely pay anything off today. But if he keeps contributing the way he has the last several years...he will be able to...and he's planning his future. Oh yeah; he's American too.

So when he is ready to retire, and he has a slew of paid-for rental properties and a manager to keep them producing, and has every moment of his golden years to spend with his loved ones...he can look at somebody who preferred to coast...take it easy...not work too hard...who is the greeter at Wal*Mart (at 67 yers old.)

Wanna know what I think is interesting? Only 1 person...only Andrew...said,

Yes. I work hard. (paraphrasing)...I trade my youth for a secure future. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every other comment that fits in the realm of 'I work hard' or 'I want a life' has been the 'I want a life' version.

That's fine. There is no universal right or wrong here. There is only 'right' for each person involved.

Oh yeah...turnover at my company is very low...as you might suspect from some of the rewards I've mentioned today. (This of course doesn't count people who quit or get fired during the initial 3 months...that turnover is very high.) Sigh...

 

[Brian Austin]

...he can look at somebody who preferred to coast...take it easy...not work too hard...who is the greeter at Wal*Mart (at 67 yers old.)...

Wanna know what I think is interesting? Only 1 person...only Andrew...said,

Yes. I work hard. (paraphrasing)...I trade my youth for a secure future. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every other comment that fits in the realm of 'I work hard' or 'I want a life' has been the 'I want a life' version.

I work smart, not hard. I'll have a couple million in the bank and various investments by the time I retire. I realize it's pocket change compared to some of you folks but I'll be quite comfortable, building more furniture than I can use (uh-oh, does that count as "working" now?) so I'll probably sell some.

I did the "trade my youth" thing for a while. Working long hours didn't get me anywhere. Finding a niche that I did better than most and staying good at it is what gets me where I'm going. Once I figured out the secret, I took it to heart and stopped working so much...but still keep on getting raises (last one 30%) so my employers don't lose me. They're fully aware that when I'm bored, regardless of money, I'm outta here. And they'll have enough time to find someone and let me train him/her before I move on.

 

[gkainz]

If employees didn't do things like walk out without notice (to Alan's point) we employers wouldn't even know this stuff.

However, how much notice is usually given to a terminated employee? In businesses I've seen, the employee is usually given his termination notice, escorted to his desk to gather personal belongings and then escorted out of the building. This two week notice thing, while a courtesy I believe in, only seems to go one way. Granted, I completely understand from an employer's point of view, the "terminated, effective immediately". Understanding that, I cannot judge an employee too harshly for not giving two weeks notice.

Anyway, remembering that is ALL about business (money) and has NOTHING to do with loyalty (because there is NO employee loyalty...and therefore no employer loyalty)...

I beg to differ, sir. I firmly believe that there is no longer any employee loyalty because of the demise of employer loyalty.

Remember before that I said I would pay somebody 125% of the going rate. Heck, I'll pay 300% of the going rate if I get the work of 4 people out of one employee.

I disagree with your "premium pay" logic, Robert. You are offering to pay 125% of the going wage, but expect more than a 125% work effort. Doesn't sound like a wage premium to me.

Ya know, there are no guarantees in life. You could work for MCI or Enron or United Airlines and you could see your retirment literally stolen from under your nose.

Yeah, that new twist in business ethics modeled by the above companies really frosts me. I can guarantee we are going to see more and more of that. Hence, reinforcing my position noted above on the death of employer loyalty.

The only way to be financially secure in this country is to become self employed -- and even then, own multiple companies that are unrelated and affected differently by economic and financial cycles.

Of course, then, such a person would see my side of things...

That's why I do what I do, Robert. I still disagree with a number of your points.

Kindest regards.