Slashdot Mirror
America's Worst Christmas Parties
Ant writes "Slate Magazine asked its readers to submit reports of horrible office Christmas parties, gifts, and bonuses. Of nearly 200 submissions, they've chosen quite a few tales for The Corporate Scrooge Contest Results ... and they're not pretty. From the article: 'A contract consultant sends word that the company to which he is currently assigned recently sent out an e-mail to some 2,000-odd consultants. The company would give away two $100 gift cards--to two of the brave souls who would commit to work 80 hours between Dec. 18 and Dec. 31. As our correspondent noted: "Hey, if you work Christmas, we'll put you in a pool of 2,000 other folks to maybe win a hundred bucks."'"
When advice on to how to deal with the current state of the employment market is summed up as, "They're already paying you to do you job," blah blah blah
Given your multitudinous misspellings, I assume your command of English is quite weak, either due to speaking English as a foreign language, or possibly due to an undiagnosed brain tumor. Given that, I will go well beyond my agreed upon job as an occasional Slashdot smart ass, and offer you the English comprehension lesson for the day.
The word "advice" is a noun. It means, "Opinion about what could or should be done about a situation or problem".
Notice that "They're already paying you to do you (sic) job" is not advice.
Notice that "Don't expect anything and you won't be dissappointed (sic)" is advice.
Any questions?
Ladies and gentlemen, somebody with no concept of the way the business world works! Fascinating.
"It allows your employees to bargain collectively for what is best for them. You would rather negotiate with each one separately for what is best for you."
If you can't see the error in your thinking within that statement, let me fill it in for you. Unions bargain collectively for what is best for the interests controlling the collective (which is quite often very different from the interests of the collective of a whole - just ask Michigan auto workers how they felt about their unions in the 70s and 80s). Negotiating on an individual level allows each employee to demand what s/he feels is the most advantageous work environment/compensation possible. Hard as it may be to believe for somebody as obviously bitter as you, we employees (and yes, I am an employee, not an employer - temp jobs and IT work, FUN!) actually do have bargaining power. Granted this varies by position, but generally, skilled labor is never in infinite supply, allowing the job seeker significant leverage. Aditionally, many employers have recognized this fact and have taken steps to create positive work environments. My current job is a great, community-style environment helping troubleshoot. Previously, I worked in somebody's basement doing paperwork and sneezing because she continuously allowed her cats (I'm allgeric) free reign down there.
"This allows you to pay the absolute minimum in wages in order to get your work done."
Only if the employee refuses to do nothing more than the minimum amount of work! The point of hiring an employee is to pay somebody value for his labor that is fair within the job market, but within a job market where the output received by that labor produces more profit than the accumulated costs of that employee charge the business. Paying minimum market wages ensures that the best employees (read: those whose labor is the most profitable) are impossible to hire because they'll simply pass your company over for one that offers better compensation. By offering higher salaries, you are able to recoup those costs through the higher value of the employee's overall work... But even if the employee's extra value added over market is exactly equal to the additional salary you offer over market, there are numerous other advantages to higher-value employees. Better services, better reputation, better investor confidence, etc. These don't immediately show up on a balance sheet, but they're the cornerstones of almost any successful business that grows from the ground up.
"Sure. But they are just as likely to get canned or laid off if you fuck up and lose a contract."
The only reason for employees to get fired is if the company is losing money on them. The alternative to being able to fire these employees? Having the company take a loss, which is the first step towards the company going belly-up - and with the higher costs to a business caused by unionization, the problem is usually only exacerbated. If a business goes under, EVERYBODY'S out of a job, not just the lowest-producing members of the workforce. How exactly is that better? You say yourself: "If you read my post I said you should fight tooth and nail for every dime due to you exactly because companies go out of business all the time." You think maybe the reason all those companies are going out of business is because their employees are too busy unionizing and not doing their work, then getting rewarded for it at everybody's expense later? Though I'd hasten to add that is additionally at the company's feet, ultimately, because it's the employer's job to create a work environment were employees feel no need for unionization or the like.
"I shed no tears for companies who can't survive without paying their workers slave wages."
*sings* 'If I only had a brain...' Oh, I'm sorry, you're not the scarecrow? It's just, that's such a straw-man, I just assumed... Let's take a look at the parent again: "At times like that, unions can serv