Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Boss's "Firing Contest" Created a Hostile Work Environment
Branded the "boss from hell" by his employees, 57-year-old William Ernst lost a court battle with ex-workers over unemployment benefits. An Iowa judge has decided that Ernst's "firing contest" memo wasn't the best management strategy, saying, "The employer’s actions have clearly created a hostile work environment by suggesting its employees turn on each other for a minimal monetary prize. This was an intolerable and detrimental work environment.” The memo reads in part: "New Contest – Guess The Next Cashier Who Will Be Fired!!! To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today's date, today's time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope."
Damn...I was hoping he'd be from KMART but he was employed at some no name place called "QC Mart".
Oh well guess I'll have to wait for KMART to die some other way than on its own...
I had a boss like that once. He thought his "openly asshole" style of management was helpful because it "encouraged competition." In reality, the only thing it encouraged was hatred. It brought us closer as a team, but only in hating him. Half the employees were stealing from him, the other half were actively plotting against him. Basically, he created an environment where retaining talent was impossible, and only the dregs who couldn't get hired anywhere else stayed behind. He thought he was being clever, but he was only costing the company all its promising talent (including me).
It's one thing to be a no-nonsense boss with high standards, it's quite another to be an obnoxious asshole who drives away all your best employees.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
How can I submit timothy as the next Slashdot editor to be fired? Please please please.
don't fuck with the people who handle your food
To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today’s date, today’s time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope.
“Here’s how the game will work: We are doubling our secret-shopper efforts, and your store will be visited during the day and at night several times a week. Secret shoppers will be looking for cashiers wearing a hat, talking on a cell phone, not wearing a QC Mart shirt, having someone hanging around/behind the counter, and/or a personal car parked by the pumps after 7 p.m., among other things.
“If the name in your envelope has the right answer, you will win $10 CASH. Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time. Once we fire the person, we will open all the envelopes, award the prize, and start the contest again.
“And no fair picking Mike Miller from (the Rockingham Road store). He was fired at around 11:30 a.m. today for wearing a hat and talking on his cell phone. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!”
Wow. What an asshole. In a better economy I'd hope that he'd have trouble getting workers. Unfortunately, in the current economy it is probably much easier to find desperate people willing to put up with crap.
"We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. "
My company home page
and whats so bad about a quick mart cashier killing time when it is slow?
A much more innovative and effective strategy would have been to fire everyone and then hold auction-style interviews. Whoever agrees to work for the lowest wage gets a job.
exactly! if somebody wants to sell me their labor for 50 cents an hour why should the .gov get involved? pfft. they'd be interfering with a job creator!
Fun is what you do on your time at home. Work is what we do at work. :P
I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people think slapping a girl on the ass is fun. We still don't do it at work.
in nazi Germany people rated others out and this is one step under rating some out.
WOOOOSH!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Easier said than done when over 11% of the workforce cannot get work. Let's hope you get into this situation, have two kids to feed, along with loss of your employer's medical coverage. Maybe have a car loan and not have any income for payments. You cut out health insurance and then a kid breaks a bone, ouch. Now you have to try to borrow against your house, but you can't due to being upside-down on value. Oh noes! Hello, are you the man with a cardboard sign begging for any work I see each day?
I know who'd be willing to work for that wage; kids!
Well, to be fair, they really don't. At will employment is at will employment, and there are pluses and minuses for both employers and employees. And note that this actual practice was not found illegal in any way. All the case determined was that if a person quit rather than be subjected to this, they were eligible for unemployment benefits. And to be honest, it's pretty unlikely this ruling would be upheld on appeal. As an employer of an at will employee, you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, creed etc.
And this is one area where the free market will actually work itself out pretty nicely. If you treat all your employees like you treat your worst employee, pretty soon only your worst employees will continue working for you.
Or better yet, bet on who will kill him!
Yeah! It's that simple! Employment is totally always negotiated between equal parties with equal power! Yeah! Work or starve? Choice! Freedom!
Exactly.
I know you were going for sarcasm, but you accidentally ended up correct.
If an employer doesn't want to follow the laws, rules, and regulations of the country, state, county, city where they do business then they are free to voluntarily move their business.
I RTFA, and I noticed the court case was because some folks who resigned after the "contest" were denied unemployment benefit.
So, can somebody explain me: does unemployment money _cost_ the previous employer in the US/Iowa?
(With apologies to Oscar Wilde for the title of this post.)
It's always great when a sociopath finds his soulmate. Maybe you and this Ernst should hook up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you see something, say something
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You really need to read up on some history to understand why there are labor laws.
Ah yes...the good old days.
The workplace sure was more pleasant back then....and MUCH less 'back-talking'.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Do you mean ratted? Cause employers everywhere have employees rate each other. It's called 'peer reviews' and is by no means something the Nazi's had a monoploy on.
He is your master, just like everyone else you encounter.
Now sit up and yap for us again like a good little doggie, Kristopuppy. Maybe you'll get a treat.
yup! Indentured servitude just interferes with Job Creators 8)
Bless you!
The original subject read "and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkilling". According to the boss in TFA, apparently nothing is wrong with killing employees at all.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Do they rate them on a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe QC Mart also has an Employee Hot Or Not contest going on. I'd rate them all!
Name a single plus at will employment offers an employee that isn't already covered by statutes regarding slavery and minimum wage laws.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I worked at a real life "Weakest Link".
Worked for a small 70 person company that was losing money. Owner retired and let his son take over. His son decided to cut staff and for the next several months followed a policy of two people got laid off every friday.
Every friday everyone wondered if they would be one of the "lucky two".
It went on like this until there were only a skeleton crew of about 25 left. Not all that left left because they were let go- EVERYONE was TRYING to get out because the 2 out on Friday policy was murder on morale.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
the free market is infallible; whatever ends up happening is BY DEFINITION THE FAIREST OUTCOME POSSIBLE
And you can take my word for it, 'cuz I'm above the poverty line!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
That would be why there are so many nations in the world which managed to lift themselves up to first world status by eschewing the ideas of labor laws, right?
History is replete with examples of libertarian paradises where the job-creators built wealth unfettered by regulation and the fruits of their labor enriched everyone! Why, there's Somalia, and Libya, and...
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Here's one: An employee can quit without the employer taking him to court on the grounds that he was breaking some "implied" contract.
Next employee for firing is "William Ernst", fired for subjecting the company to expensive lawsuits...
That's right, the gov should never get in the way of any company MAXIMIZING its profits at the expense of anything or anyone Any business leader knows you get much better productivity and results from a happy & willing workforce as opposed to those in "duck & cover" mode. Moral = Results
Clearly spoken by someone who's never had an employment contract before. Yea, if you're at will you can be fired at any time, but you can also quit at any time and you can also renegotiate at any time. Not to mention the other nasty things in employment contracts like noncompetes. If you're just another replaceable cog in the machine, then yes, at will employment sucks for you. If you're worth as much to your company as your company is worth to you, at will employment is a great thing. And if you're just a cog, well, why do you deserve any sort of guarantee of continued employment?
Employment is a contract between employer and employee, and violation of terms of the contract bears repercussions for the violating side, whichever it is. It's up to the court to enforce compensation for violation of the contract if the violator refuses to do so willingly.
Imagine: You're to be paid after a month of work, and you work hard, but at the end of the month you're told you won't be paid after all. Now you are free to go work somewhere else if you don't like it. Is that okay in your opinion?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
So if you don't want to hire minorities that should be ok?
How about child labor?
Should you be able to pay the parents for a child's labor until it turns 18 and keep it as an indentured servant?
Employment has to be regulated because of the lack of perfect information and the relative power differences between those that enter into these agreements.
Just off the top of my head, not saying for sure that this definitely happens, but: If it's hard to fire an employee once hired, it may be harder to get hired in the first place. An employer will probably need to spend more time and money on checking someone out first, which leaves less for salaries.
As your resident QuadCities Slashdot associate, is there anything you guys want me to go confirm?
I mean, there are QC marts scattered throughout town, I could probably go get some statements/rants from his current employees.
Personally I get a kick out of any time the Midwest gets mentioned on Slashdot. This is downright hilarious. Especially since I just left a place due to a boss.
Europeans kind of understood the madness of these aristocrats and present law tries to protect the workers right to make a living for himself.
This does not mean a European boss can't lay off or fire a worker, it means there have to be proper grounds for denying someone the chance to feed his family.
The legislation of the young USofA was also very anti-aristocracy, don't forget this all happened around the same time, yet many Americans seem to have forgotten their roots...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I guess he should have offered more money.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm hoping that you chose the username "jenn_13" because you're a 13 year old girl named Jennifer. Otherwise, you're just very stupid.
He's encouraging employees to waste office supplies. Very unprofessional.
Be careful calling libertarians' bluff. Until relatively recently, none other than Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand acolyte) maintained that government should have little or no role in policing fraud:
So, yes, some of them are that crazy. Yes, Greenspan has since recanted, but as they say, a sucker is born every minute... Rand's books still sell like hotcakes to naive college freshmen.
"Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit against the Pressman Hotel over the urine content of their soup."
No.
But in the Earlier history of the US we have an example of how a small amount of regulation coupled with strong individualism created in a very short time a very powerful and rich country. Then the wealth and power corrupted the government.
Unions use government to make it impossible to not pay a cop that beats a man to death.
Businesses use government to saddle their competition with regulations.
People use government to cut them a check for being a lazy bastard.
The government gets bloated and powerful. The individualism is beat out of the populace. All is guaranteed to be "Fair" according to the regulations set down by "The Peoples Fairness Committee" Brought to you by Microsoft. Then the system collapses.
When the Government says a company can not build a plant in another State, or you can not fire the 600lb employee for the good of the little guy.
or
When the Government creates laws so that Mickey Mouse stays in copyright forever and signs laws that put you in prison for sharing for the good of the big guy.
These are not problems with corporatism or socialism. They are problems that can be only solved by removing the governments powers to do these things,
Sony can not force me to do shit without the government stepping in.
Big government is your enemy. Whether it is coming down on Boeing or Beating a homeless man to death.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
At least you can get a cheap lunch if you do get fired. Or a cab home.
Okay, go back to Digg now.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
there is a reason that a Night of the Long Knifes type of thing is done at a District Level and not at a Store Level
most of the time if you have to fire more than say Half of your employees then YOU AS A BOSS are a spacial anomaly known for high Gravity (aka an African American Aperture).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
That's why a lot of businesses are in China.
Rail all you want against the trend, but the more rules, regulations, and taxes on businesses, the more they'll move to a more hospitable country.
Like it or not.
I'm all for workers' rights, and also can see things from the employers' side, but man, when you see a piece of work like that guy, you realize that there's a reason for all these labor laws and regulations. Just like everything in life, one chunk of idiots messes up things for everyone else. That happens on both sides of the equation - from the labor side, think about the people you work with who actively avoid doing anything, even going out of the way to be difficult. Or think about tenant-landlord laws -- they are slanted in favor of tenants because a fraction of landlords abuse their influence, regardless of how nightmarish a tenant might be. If people were rational on both sides, there would be less need for regulation.
My experience with small-to-medium size business owners and managers has been mixed. For every decent, hardworking guy working his guts out to make a good place to work, there's the Napoleonic, reactive, stressed out crazy guy who creates a hostile work environment. It's not limited to small businesses either, but you see more of these types in small businesses because they're typically more invested. Some of it can probably be traced to the personality type you need to have to be a business owner -- combative, competitive, driven, etc. There's no way to succeed in small business without having at least some of those traits.
In this case, it sounds mainly like ignorance of the law or willful disregard of it. The guy probably thought he was being funny, making a joke of what he saw as a major affront to his view of the world. I'm guessing the thought process goes something like this:
- I am Master of Convenience Stores, King of the World.
- I've got a bunch of kids who aren't doing everything I tell them.
- I can fire anyone I want, and I will keep firing until I have a set of perfectly obedient employees.
- Since the economy is lousy, I can scare my employees into doing what I want.
- Hey, I know, let's make this fun! Heh heh heh, that'll show those idiots.... ...and the contest is born.
In my opinion, people who subscribe to the "I can fire anyone for any reason and treat them like slaves because they should be paying ME to work here" attitude are left with the people who can't get jobs with normal bosses. Most people don't want to work for an unpredictable tyrant. Demanding good work is one thing, but being unreasonable is another. He just probably figured that his employees are either kids or people who really can't get better work and thought "motivation" like this was appropriate.
Same thing goes for things like sexual harassment. I'm sure no one *wants* to be treated like that, but business owners abuse their power because they can.
Quite right! Quite right!
'tis but a scratch.
Let's hope you get into this situation, have two kids to feed, along with loss of your employer's medical coverage. Maybe have a car loan and not have any income for payments.
I can honestly say that I would not wish that on anyone.
Most of us will agree that this is a terrible management approach, but should it actually be illegal in the sense of creating a legally hostile work environment and therefor creating a bunch of legal implications for the company? Where do you draw the line?
If it shits itself, it won't have been caused by the labor laws.
Perhaps you should have some compassion for the disabled.
Bigot.
Or like communism is doing for Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela,... I'd rather have a choice of who bends me over then getting my mandatory government ass rape.
I am shocked at the number of slashdotters, on story after story, who just can't spell correctly. Do you proofread at all? Do you bother to use spell check? Bad punctuation and grammar gets a pass. That was a bitch for even my teachers in school.
Yup. And the result of only a small proportion benefiting was laborers rioting with shotguns because they can't feed their families, children working in deadly mills because it's the only way to get fed, poisonous products and manufacturing processes, higher education out of the reach of 90% of the people, and unregulated unsafe healthcare for the vast majority. Those abuses resulted in the current regulatory environment and only liars, fools, and republicans say that removing those regulations wouldn't return us to those dark times.
Just because the 'invisible hand' wields a knife and a gun does NOT mean that it's attached to Indiana Jones! All of our regulations are the result of the market adjusting; that's what it means to be a democratic republic with a capitalistic economy. Workers vote. It's only the current batch or republicanized libertarians that want to unbalance the system towards corporations by denying workers any benefit of in fact comprising most of the market itself.
The labor market is NOT infinite, there are NOT always opportunities to leave abusive employers, and in many cases, survival depends on having a job (even now; if you don't have insurance to cover health problems, you AND your family stands one illness away from losing everything). Not all items are luxuries, and just because we represent values in terms of dollars does NOT make everything fungible; not all actions are reversible in this world.
Be honest now: What each righty wants is to return to some of the darkest, most evil periods in our history, in the vain hope that they would be one of the few at the top who benefit.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Clearly spoken by someone who's never had an employment contract before. Yea, if you're at will you can be fired at any time, but you can also quit at any time and you can also renegotiate at any time. Not to mention the other nasty things in employment contracts like noncompetes. If you're just another replaceable cog in the machine, then yes, at will employment sucks for you. If you're worth as much to your company as your company is worth to you, at will employment is a great thing. And if you're just a cog, well, why do you deserve any sort of guarantee of continued employment?
Noncompete clauses, at least in California, are currently considered illegal and invalid.
Of course, given the recent shit the supreme court took on consumer rights with regards to restriction of class action suits, you can bet that noncompetes will be deemed valid nationwide as soon as it get challenged all the way up the chain.
So then it's fair to say that other influencing factors, like natural resources, location, etc. can make for a successful economy either way?
Because if it's all the same, I'll take the version where I can't be shackled to my desk and forced to work 20 hour days with the fire escape welded shut.
I mean, if we'd be a "wealthy" world power either way...
As I see it, the US could afford the current high level of regulation as a result of the fruits of the Guilded Age. Conversely, we'll be lucky to slide back into the Guilded Age as a result of our overly regulated age. Exaggerating the ills of the Guilded Age doesn't make modern US workers any more valuable or desired.
They had Hot or Not back then?
I drank what? -- Socrates
I can only speak from my own experience here, which is limited to jobs I've had in Canada, and which has no concept of at-will employment beyond a probationary period that must always be of finite duration. IANAL, of course, but I've had a disproportionate amount of experience with employment law (because I have had the misfortune on more than occasion of being employed by people who either lacked ethical conduct or else were actually violating regional employment standards).
Anyways... even if you are under contract, you are still free to quit, but there may be penalties for doing so which were outlined in the original contract. If you do not agree with those penalties, unless they are in actual violation of any laws, then you probably shouldn't take the job unless you know for sure that you aren't going to quit. If you do end up quitting, you cannot argue that you were unaware of the penalties because they were laid out when you took the job. Even then, however, you are still free to quit, but you could still potentially be sued, but the employer would have to show actual damages if the amount being sued for was to retract any already awarded wages. The things that an employee generally forfeits if they quit prematurely in such cases are things like hiring incentives... not their actual wages. Unless actual damages can be shown that the employee was responsible for before they quit, the employer cannot ever sue for wages that are already paid for work that was actually done.
An employer, meanwhile, is always perfectly free to discharge any employee who is not an effective worker. Not having at-will employment in this case isn't about guaranteeing jobs for people who can't perform jobs effectively. It is about ensuring that companies that hire employees behave professionally and responsibly when hiring and firing individuals.
The closest thing we have to at-will employment is an employee probationary period - which begins when an employee is first hired, and lasts for a finite amount of time that is outlined when the employee is first hired. Generally, this probationary period is 3 months, although sometimes it can be as long as a full year. It is the responsibility of every company to evaluate an employee's suitability with a company during this period, and there is generally a semi-formal process which happens at the end of a probationary period to put an employee into permanent status (they generally do not receive any employee benefits such as extended health or dental services during the probationary period either). After the probationary period has officially ended, firing a person involves more paperwork - an actual reason must be given, and the reason must be one that is verifiable in some way. For example, if the employee is no longer performing adequately, then the employer must advise the employee of this, and have the employee sign something stating that they have received such a notice. If the situation continues even after the employee has had sufficient time to correct the shortcoming (in a judge's determination, if it came to that), then the employer can generally terminate the employee immediately.
It is unfortunately not unheard of for employers to, under the radar, abuse the "probationary period" for employees as a means of being able to easily fire people for arbitrary and entirely unfair reasons... or so that they won't have to start paying employee benefits. Difficulty in proving such cases in court allows these companies to continue to get away with such practices.
If you are fired from your job, for any reason, you may be ineligible for unemployment benefits, unless you can show that the reason for being fired was unrelated to any sort of professional or ethical misconduct. Even then, getting fired from a job introduces delays to receiving benefits that would not normally happen. After the probationary period, an employer is required by law to state the general reason for any termination of employment on a record of employment that both the employee and the government each receive copies of. During the probationary period, it is typically assumed that the employee was simply unsuitable if they are terminated in that time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And history will be reading in 50 years about why we got rid of many of them once the entire world economy finally shits itself for good.
Wow. I always knew that libertarians are like the communists of yore, but I didn't expect that they would just wholesale rip off the communist manifesto.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Haha, this text is AWESOME:
It's obviously COMPLETELY tongue-in-cheek, and also highlights the problems the boss had at the workplace. I've worked as a cashier, and a memo like this would just put a smile on my face :) People need to grow a pear*. And you wonder why no one gets a job anymore...
* homonym so slashdot doesn't get sued into giving out my IP so I can be sued for misogyny or whatever, in this crazy world.
edit:
I just read further into the article. The boss's response to the suit:
“None of them were doing their job,” she testified. “They’ve repeatedly been told not to use their phone while they’re working, that bad language is totally unacceptable and, you know, playing video games while you’re working is not acceptable. They just broke all those rules.”
is completely reasonable, and more than that -- see that text above where I said "also highlights the problems the boss had at the workplace"? That's what I got right out of the memo itself. The guy is just doing a good job conveying his frustration and the issues he has. What the hell is wrong with anyone that they can't see this e-mail for what it is, which is a lot of frustration leading him to take the thing to its logical conclusion to show, through absurdity and satire, that he's "at the end of his rope". And what he is "threatening" with, which is firing, is also in the end a completely reasonable response to not being able to get his employees to do what he's asking from them. If I talked on my phone all through my shift and did the other things I was expressly forbidden to do, getting a chance to see this e-mail and think of the consequences and change my behavior would be one of the luckier things that could happen to me for it... honestly... (and no, I am not a boss).
This statement is intellectually dishonest. The GILDED age (not Guilded) occurred around the turn of the Century. The regulation that this poster talks about arose after the GREAT DEPRESSION.
The Great Depression followed the excesses of the Gilded Age.
Republican trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down water.
Your point is infantile. Please explain how India and China have lifted themselves up from primitive hellholes to powerhouse, world class economies. I'm sure it was on the back of shitloads of fair labor laws.
I get what you're trying to do - conflate a myriad of issues with third world hellholes into a simple "Durr, labor laws!" point, but nobody with any sense believes it.
I agree, The Market would handle this handily. I mean, those people could just pack up and move on, right? There are plenty of other jobs in 'merica? The Free Market operates properly when there are viable alternatives. Given the skillset required for this job, the jobs they'd qualify for are already taken. Sure, they could get educated, but that's a different story altogether where the market is also failing people.
The Free Market works when people have a choice. Doesn't seem like a lot of choice out there these days.
Sig not found.
Why, there's Somalia, and Libya, and...
Surely you've done your homework on relative economic growth rates of Somalia when compared to its neighbors in the first decade of the century. Right?
And Libya? Huh? Surely you meant somewhere else...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The lack of back-talk may have been partly due to the fact that some employees got cocks forced down their throats.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I have to wonder. would he consider it deplorable if say the monetary gain was say, half of the fired employee's yearly salary? because to me he is objecting to the low prize value rather then the contest it's self.
Check out the book "The No Asshole Rule." Bad bosses cost companies far more than their (the boss) is worth.
Be careful calling libertarians' bluff. Until relatively recently, none other than Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand acolyte) maintained that government should have little or no role in policing fraud [moneyshow.com]:
I'm curious, have you ever called the police on somebody for a bad eBay transaction?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, not likely 'forced'...but if the little lady wanted a promotion over the other girls in the office...doing that voluntarily isn't.....err...wasn't a bad idea exactly.
Winners on all sides!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Your post is counter to the Slashdot groupthink, and has been subsequently modded into oblivion. That will teach you, scoundrel!
But in the Earlier history of the US we have an example of how a small amount of regulation coupled with strong individualism created in a very short time a very powerful and rich country. Then the wealth and power corrupted the government.
/b/^H^H^HUS economy never was good.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And not to mention : www.attackwatch.com, complete with scary black-white-red imagery.
Dark Reflection
The legislation of the young USofA was also very anti-aristocracy, don't forget this all happened around the same time, yet many Americans seem to have forgotten their roots...
"There are no aristocrats in US, nothing to see here" is not an anti-aristocracy legislation. If anything, US never experienced excesses of European feudalism, so it did not develop resistance to the rise of robber barons.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Yes there is a need for labour laws. There are sometimes very intimidating for an employer. Some even say that they prevent creation of jobs. The question what jobs are created if there is no protections at all does not appear important to those that go with this job creation argument. Of course some liberty for employer is needed after all s/he is in besting his own money well at least most of the time. In any case London Hanged is an interesting lecture not only because of brutality needed to get industrial revolution going but also because the violent changes in (also labour) markets is nothing new raise and fall of whole sectors of (British) economy was happening sometimes within a dozen years, sometimes improvement of work conditions was directly followed by demise of whole sectors which were moved to say Holland because of 'better' i.e. less labour protective laws there. All has its pros and cons it seems.
The reason ebay can offer their buyer protection program is because ebay can, in turn, resort to the law when necessary. They can and they do.
Good post, just an additional note,
If you do apply for UI (EI, whatever its called these days), you would be surprised at how much lee-way they give you. I've never had to deal with the situation personally, but I know people that have quit and/or have been fired and still got UI.
ROFL on the exaggerated part. You MUST be a 'republitarian'; you just deny history in order to make your goals seem more laudable; you excise whole market segments that don't 'behave' the way you want a free market behave, and the economy you admire is one that never existed! Your dogma says that you can always get another job, even though reality disagrees... You think that I was trying to make US workers seem more 'desired'? Hahahaha! And folk with dogma like yours would take everything away from us, even hope for our children (unless you could afford a good school) because THAT would make US workers more 'desired'. I suppose it's true though. No corporation WANTS to pay any more expenses than they have to, and if you get your way, since the jobs don't exist, supply and demand would 'adjust' wages to third-world levels. And that would be a GOOD thing that would return us to days of gilded glory, right? RIGHT?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
The government did stay out of arrangement in this case - the employee quit, and the employer is left free to abuse the remaining employees.
What the court case was about is whether the person that quit is eligible for unemployment insurance. The judge ruled that they did, because, even though they quit on their own, they did so because of a hostile work environment, not because they are a fat lazy ass. Which seems perfectly fine to me.
Yup, because the only two choices are "communism" and laissez faire free market capitalism. There's no middle ground whatsoever.
I recall a story I read about Shirley Temple, who didn't have the warmest relationship with her mother when she was little, where the two of them were at a studio to meet separately with some executives.
Shirley claimed that a producer nearly molested her and only stopped because she laughed when he took out his penis. When she rejoined her mother, who was looking quite uncomfortable, Shirley guessed that mom has also been the recipient of unwelcome advances and it was the 1st time she felt close to her or that they had something in common.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Well, in all honesty, communists (Marx at least) had a fairly accurate picture of what their contemporary society was like. It's just that their proposed measures were so extreme as to be worse than the disease.
Libertarians, on the other hand, live in a fairy tale world not just in their future plans, but also here and now, and in the past as well.
A rendition of the cover, courtesy of Matt Groening pre-Simpsons: http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/graphicnovels/workhell_3.html
I think we can all agree our boss-man is a subscriber!
He probably could have just turned the game around and been fine. So, secret shoppers could tell him when they catch an employee being "good" (defined as not doing any of those things) and he puts their name in a drawing. At the end of the week/month/quarter, employees who have consistently been "good" will have more opportunities to win the drawing equal to the cash prize of $10/week.
Non-competes still exist here in NY, which is at-will employment. Just because you're not signing an employment contract doesn't mean they can't force you to sign some other document.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Question: why is it that when any question of labor comes up, the ghosts of Dickens are brought out to scare us? And yet, whenever someone says something like millionaires should be executed or sent to re-eduction camps, comparing it to 20th century communism is out the window as a comparison? Just curious.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Sounds like it worked pretty effectively, then.
You think that I was trying to make US workers seem more 'desired'?
In my view, that's a good move, unless you're from a country competing with the US and hence, have conflicts of interest.
And folk with dogma like yours would take everything away from us, even hope for our children (unless you could afford a good school) because THAT would make US workers more 'desired'.
It's worth noting here that the value of a college education is declining due to rampant cheating and lax grading standards. I believe this can be traced to the fact that universities are dependent on subsidized student loans. The laxer the standards, the more money that can be pulled in from student loans.
So "taking away" an education that will probably become valueless in a few decades doesn't strike me as a particularly chilling threat.
The irony here is that the US has gone down the path of heavily regulated markets, of liberal policies, and other collective programs, but the blame goes elsewhere. It's the "corporations" who become the scapegoats. This is the society your beliefs have built, where only the largest and most ruthless can exploit the zoo of laws and regulations that confound the rest of us. Where immorality is amply rewarded.
Noncompetes are generally unenforceable in Canada as well, which does not have at-will employment. There are certain aspects of noncompetes that *are* enforceable, such as not stealing any of that company's clients that they had right up until you were no longer working for them, but under absolutely no circumstances can a previous employer prevent you from working for another company, even a direct competitor, once you are no longer working for them, unless they can show (quite conclusively) that it would not be possible for you to do that job without disclosing confidential information that you had acquired while with them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Because you ignore the secret shopper when they come in.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
in nazi Germany people rated others out
If you see something, say something
And this is precisely what is wrong.
Which is perfectly fine. They're not a real customer anyway... they don't want the stuff you're selling, they want the $10 they'll get when they send in their report.
Secret shoppers are overrated. If you come across as a giant prick, don't be surprised when your employees ignore your wishes and clumsily sabotage your business. I've always been one to lead by example, working WITH my employees, not AGAINST them. If they're doing it wrong, train them. If you want to curb undesirable behaviours, sit down with them and explain why you think it's unacceptable. Treat your staff as humans, not chattel, and you just might find they actually start caring about their job enough to do it right.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
they also had breakfast in nazi germany. does that mean that having breakfast makes one a nazi? how about building highways? autobahns were INVENTED in nazi germany. i am pretty sure nazi germany is hated for genocide (jews, gypses, etc.) rather than for every little thing they did.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It's worth noting here that the value of a college education is declining due to rampant cheating and lax grading standards. I believe this can be traced to the fact that universities are dependent on subsidized student loans. The laxer the standards, the more money that can be pulled in from student loans.
You're also leaving out one very important fact, which seems funny since you're obviously such a defender of free markets and have (presumably) an understanding of supply and demand: when there is a ton of supply (college degree holders), demand goes down. When demand goes down for your degree, you can expect to earn less.
So I'll agree that a college degree doesn't mean as much as it used to, but I think you're being overly simplistic by laying declining wages squarely at the feet of cheating and lax standards.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I used to work in the computer dept at BART and during slow times, even if we read technical, work-related material, we could be fired because it was against union rules.
whenever someone says something like millionaires should be executed or sent to re-eduction camps
Because anyone who says that is an idiot and their opinions aren't worth worrying about. If you can cite some credible person that seriously advocates killing millionaires or sending them to be brainwashed, you might have a point; otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Your point is infantile. Please explain how India and China have lifted themselves up from primitive hellholes to powerhouse, world class economies. I'm sure it was on the back of shitloads of fair labor laws.
So ... are you saying that you think we should have a caste system like India or live under a totalitarian communist regime like China, because it's produced some good results for their economies? If not, what's your point?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
until morale improves!
Libertarians: spoiled selfish children
The cheese stands alone...
It's going to learn now though, with the rise of the robber-corporation.
The cheese stands alone...
Only statist liberals call them ""pirates"".
They're maritime entrepreneurs. Individualist achievers, aka Job Creators, fighting against excess government regulation.
Because you wanted things?
Well thats different. That means your parents were still feeding you, and you could quit if you had earned enough for the stuff you wanted, or if the boss treated you badly.
If you are a child that has to work so he can earn enough to eat thats pretty fucked up. Why you might ask? Because children are easy to take advantage of. You can place them in the dirtiest, most dangerous job and make them work, otherwise they wont get fed.
Jesus did you people not pay attention in American History class?
We fought this fight a long time ago. We did away with "child labor" aka child slavery for a reason.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Um, no, at my workplace it's quite hard to fire someone once they're in and it's absolutely correct that they're more careful about who they hire because they know that it's hard to get rid of someone. And it's not that hard to toe the line for the 6 month evaluation period.
The premise of "secret" shopping is that you can't tell who's a "secret shopper". And they do buy stuff - they have to, otherwise you could tell. They just get reimbursed for their purchase.
And the reason you were able to have those jobs and not be exploited for pennies a day was, hey, you guessed it! Child labor laws, and other labor-related laws!
I also had a paper route and made pretty decent money at it; your comparing it to coal mining and other hard labor and using it to dismiss the mistreatment of children is idiocy at its finest.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Non-Libertarians: spoiled selfish children
when there is a ton of supply (college degree holders), demand goes down.
In a low regulation market, when supply goes up, then price goes down. Subsequently, demand goes up. So your claim that demand will go down when the labor gets cheaper doesn't follow.
I think its an awesome way to find out who doesn't fit into a group. I would have opened the envelopes and fired whoever was voted most by the coworkers... That would indicate that everyone thinks they are doing a bad job. It is an excellent management strategy.
I see what u did thar
Judging by the content of your post, child labor did you no harm at all.
You're fired.
History is replete with examples of libertarian paradises where the job-creators built wealth unfettered by regulation and the fruits of their labor enriched everyone! Why, there's Somalia, and Libya, and...
I'm not aware of any knowledgeable academic or journalist who has suggested that Somalia's system of government since 1991 could be described as libertarian. You may be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that says that the government should basically do nothing more than protect private property, enforce contracts, and keep people from killing each other. Anarchism is a political philosophy that says that there should be no government at all, and in particular that there should be no such thing as a right to private property that is protected by a government. So Somalia, which has had no functioning government, courts, police, etc., since 1991, is certainly not a libertarian society. There is some debate as to whether it's an anarchist society.
Libya -- I can't imagine what you think you're talking about here. I assume you're referring to Libya under Qaddafi? Under Qaddafi, Libya was a military dictatorship organized along lines of tribal loyalty. No resemblance whatsoever to libertarianism.
Find free books.
Of course, given the recent shit the supreme court took on consumer rights with regards to restriction of class action suits, you can bet that noncompetes will be deemed valid nationwide as soon as it get challenged all the way up the chain.
This is nonsense. There is no federal law dealing with this issue, and absent that (or constitutional conflict), SCOTUS wouldn't take the case, let alone strike down California's employment law.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Or that might just be another cop-out, like how businesses will start hiring just as soon as they can be sure that Obama wont impose any new regulations.
The first, second....hundredth reason for hiring or laying off employees is: will it make the business more money. Not the income tax rate that the boss is subjected to, not how many OSHA or FDA inspections he'll need to accommodate, and not how easy or hard it is to fire someone.
Will the business make more money with more or less employees, that's the only thing that matters.
That, and attacking fishing ships decimating local fish populations, or illegally dumping waste along the coastline. But for some reason, those particular issues are seldom included in the "piracy" storyline....
I'm jenn_13 but I'm posting AC so I don't fuck my karma. I'm a pre-op and I have a 13" cock. That's inches, not centimeters. Come over, sit on my lap, and we'll talk about the first thing that pops up.
Hey, this sounds like an idea for a TV show. We could have Donald Trump be the boss, and get people to compete an then someone gets fired.
But in the Earlier history of the US we have an example of how a small amount of regulation coupled with strong individualism created in a very short time a very powerful and rich country.
Would that early history you are talking about be before or after slavery?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
But contrary to what the Tea Party likes to make believe the American Independence was fought for more than just tax.
The Brits were in the colonies also disliked for their feudalism.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I'm from the Quad Cities
The stores in question are a local chain of BP Gas Stations with the store fronts "re-branded" to QC Mart. I've only been to a couple of the stores and will never go back. They seem to be overpriced even for a convenience store and the employees all seemed to have that "can't do, don't care" attitude. The latter makes much more sense now that this story has come out.
Here is the article that appeared in our local paper http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=563769. Admittedly it isn't as well written as the one from the Register
ROFL - _YOUR_ dogma built this mess. Regulations don't spontaneously generate, they are the result of demand. YOU just don't like that the labor market has a voice, and that the 'invisible hand' is actually the government (in democracies and republics, at least). Without regulation, the dogma you follow results in far worse abuse than exists now. THAT'S how we got here; THAT'S what you are trying to romanticize/gloss over.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
That would be after.
Way to go though. All the US has done is gone because of that argument.
The Greeks, Romans, Persians, English, French, Germans and the Americans are all pathetic losers that haven given nothing to the world.
Because at sometime in their past they did not conform to the ideals of later generations.
"William Ernst"
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
As a geek with slight Asperger's tendencies, I have a history of doing and saying inappropriate things. As I approach my 40's, it's now rare that I make a significant social faux pas, but that's after many years of careful study. Of course, I know NOW that what this boss did was totally inappropriate.
But I can tell you with great certainty, that even as an annoying nerdy teenager, I would have judged this memo of his to be mean-spirited and completely unprofessional.
How do people get it into their heads that this kind of crap is acceptable?
No one mentions the idea that the secret shopper might be sent to the stores with employees voted for. This might be a way of figuring out where to send the secret shopper.
This is a way to generate fear in the employees. As if people didn't have enough fear anyway!
Ok, I know I'm gonna take some heat for this but.......
ok, the guy is clearly an ahole, I would never be like that nor would I want to work for someone like that. On the other hand, put into context, I don't see the problem. He was clearly re-enforcing simple rules. Talk on your cell phone, your fired. Wear a hat, your fired. I don't see the evil in that. the "contest" in my mind didn't actively encourge employees to take negative actions against each other. So in my mind, it also os a non issue. Americans need to learn how to grow up take responsibility and deal with life alittle imho.
As far for the management style, yes its dickish. No normal human being want to be on either the giving or recieving end. It is however the most effective way of getting people to FOLLOW SIMPLE FREAKING INSTRUCTIONS. As a former marine, I can attest to this to no end. which is mostly the reason for the former part. chances are, if they are willing to spend that much money to catch people on cell phones, there is no talent to speak of anyway.
Only statist liberals call them ""pirates"".
Right, and all Americans are crack dealers.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A prominent American celebrity called for exactly that a few days ago, and nobody batted an eyebrow. What do you think would happen if we went to the highly credible Wall Street protests and asked around there?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In Canada, the only equivalent to "at will employment" is during an employee's initial probation, whose duration must be specified by the company at the time the employee is hired, and cannot be unduly longer than necessary to determine the employee's suitability with the company. The typical probationary period is around 3 months, or 500 hours of paid time, although I've heard of some places where it can extend up to about a year. It is not difficult at all to fire an employee for almost any reason during their probation. If they are competent enough to pass the probationary period, then as long as their competency does not start to diminish, and as long as the company has an ongoing need of an employee that does that particular job, there is no objectively justifiable reason to discharge them. Both of the aforementioned reasons are always just causes for dismissal, even after the probationary period, but after the probation, suitable notice must be given (the length of notice is 1 week for the employee's first year, then 2 weeks up until the employee finishes their fifth year, and after that 3 weeks), or else the employee must be given equivalent severance pay in lieu of notice.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm a lawyer and law professor and have a degree in political science. Your credentials?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you