Employers Are About to Take Back Control

[Nithavela]

View attachment 330969

I will not accept opinions from sources left of center anymore than you would accept ones right.

If you are going to bring up illegal alien minors being used for labor - that lies with the current Administration that reversed more than 89 policies and open the door for hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minor into the US.

Iowa Senate passes controversial child labor bill

The Iowa Senate has passed a bill that would ease some child labor laws, including limits on hours minors can work and what job duties they are allowed to perform.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Larniavc]

Quiet quitting is at best average work

What’s wrong with average work?

 

[iluvatar5150]

View attachment 330969

I will not accept opinions from sources left of center anymore than you would accept ones right.

Did I ask you to take their opinions?

No, I didn't.

All you have to do is look at the article and follow the links back to their sources. And then, ya know, read them. That's why I posted that link.

 

[Pommer]

What’s wrong with average work?

“…and all the children are above average”

 

[Always in His Presence]

What’s wrong with average work?

Average
Same as everyone else.
Not the best - not the worst
Lukewarm

There are some that settle for average, but average is never leading edge, nor expanding and growing, nor does average ever advance - they are by definition average.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What are the odds that Nadella's compensation doesn't increase this year?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Biden administration ignored warning signs, dodged blame for migrants forced into child labor: Report

The New York Times has accused the Biden Administration of ignoring "warning signs" that migrant children were being forced into illegal child labor after making it to the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

A senior HHS staffer claimed that the White House 'just didn’t want to hear' about incidences of migrant child exploitation. ​

A recent New York Times report detailed how the Biden administration "ignored" reports and "warning signs" that migrant children coming into the U.S. from the southern border, were being released to sponsors who put them into "grueling, dangerous jobs."​

​

The report claimed that even though official complaints and warnings from people working at migrant shelters – as well notices from government staffers and others – made it in front of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, the department did not respond.​

​

And when it finally did, it "shifted blame for failing to protect them."​

​

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Didn't you agree to take a salary wage? This is what I don't get. Why are you griping about being paid what was agreed upon. Did you sign some sort of contract on 40 hours a week? My friend, salary is paid at a higher wage than the average person for the company. It comes with the understanding that sometimes you might have to work more hours depending on what's going on. You also gain flexibility as well. It doesn't seem right to complain about what YOU agreed to.

On God's world that's how it works. Remembers Christs words?

“The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who went out at daybreak to hire workers for his vineyard.After agreeing with the workers on a wage of one denarius, [the standard daily wage,] he sent them off to his vineyard.Then, on going out at about nine in the morning, he saw more men standing around in the market-square doing nothing,and said to them, ‘You go to the vineyard too — I’ll pay you a fair wage.’ So they went.At noon, and again around three in the afternoon, he did the same thing.About an hour before sundown, he went out, found still others standing around, and asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day, doing nothing?”They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ ‘You too,’ he told them, ‘go to the vineyard.’“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, starting with the last ones hired and ending with the first.’The workers who came an hour before sunset each received a denarius,so the workers who came first expected they would get more, but each of them also received just a denarius.On receiving their wages, they began grumbling to the farmer,‘These latecomers have worked only one hour, while we have borne the brunt of the day’s work in the hot sun, yet you have put them on an equal footing with us!’But he answered one of them, ‘Look, friend, I’m not being unfair with you. Didn’t you agree to work today for a denarius?Now take your pay and go! I choose to give the last worker as much as I’m giving you.Haven’t I the right to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’Thus the last ones will be first and the first last.” - Matthew 20:1-16 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 20:1-16 - Complete Jewish Bible

Hasn't your employer the right to do what he wants with their money? They are paying you well for a job. If you don't like it, you don't have to work for them.

I refer to that Bible quote when some of our long timers at work complain that the new workers have it easier. You seem to be mistaken my responses for someone who thinks workers should get paid more because we work too hard and that's that. But if you want to make the point about "this is what I agreed to get paid", that contract also pertains to the employer, "I will do this and this for this amount of money. Anything more, you'll have to pay me more. And that is where the problem lies, many employers are making their workers work faster so they get more done in a day. Now they are doing more but retain the same pay.

Here's another example. The custodian is to cut the grass, clean the bathrooms, take the garbage out, and sweep and polish the floors for the company he works for. The office building is currently 12,000 square feet. The employer decides to add another 4000 square feet to the building. It has two large bathrooms (male and female - each has 4 bathroom stalls). The custodian's pay does not go up but yet he/she will have to clean those bathrooms and sweep and polish the additional 4000 square feet. The employer just assumes the custodian has no problem with it.

As I said above, the Bible quote is one of my favorites too. The difference between then and now is that alot of businesses have the same attitude as you have - if you don't like the pay, leave. Hence, the quiet quitting extravaganza of the past two years. There are obviously alot of businesses out there that take advantage of their workers, make them do more work for the same amount of money.

I'll leave at that. We obviously have two different views of how businesses should be run. You are a good guy, I read alot of your other posts on different topics and I usually agree with you. God bless you. I hope your business continues to succeed and grow.

 

[Larniavc]

Average
Same as everyone else.
Not the best - not the worst
Lukewarm

There are some that settle for average, but average is never leading edge, nor expanding and growing, nor does average ever advance - they are by definition average.

But if you are not being paid much why work more than you have to?

 

[Larniavc]

It comes with the understanding that sometimes you might have to work more hours depending on what's going on.

It shouldn’t. If that is part of an explicit contract and being paid to be on call that’s fine. But an ‘unspoken understanding’ that you will do more than your contract says is beyond the pail.

I’m contracted to work till 5pm. I never work later unless someone’s life is at risk.

 

[Always in His Presence]

But if you are not being paid much why work more than you have to?

Every raise, every promotion I have received in the last 45 years or so of working full time was I believe a direct reflection on my performance.

Average or mediocre performance, average pay, average bonus, average pay raise.

Above average performance, chance for advancement, above average returns.

Average doesn’t lead, they follow.

There was a great publication called “An enemy called an average”.

 

[rambot]

I beg to differ. Quiet quitting is most often laziness.

Quiet quitting is LITERALLY only doing your job description.

If a boss is unwilling to pay a worker to do more, the worker has no OBLIGATION to do more work.

I understand that bosses want to work hard but they only want to work hard because they see an increase in the money they take home. They think it's something intrinsic built into their DNA; like they are better than their workers or something. But they aren't. They are EXACTLY like their workers except their increase in work, results in an increase in income.

It's easy: Action--> Consequence.



If bosses paid over and above for work that is over and above, America would be a different place.

 

[rambot]

Every raise, every promotion I have received in the last 45 years or so of working full time was I believe a direct reflection on my performance.

Average or mediocre performance, average pay, average bonus, average pay raise.

You mean: Job description being met: Pay, bonus, scheduled raises.

But that said, there are also plenty of stories of absolute quacks getting advancements, larger bonuses because they are buddy buddy, or really social and charismatic or outgoing. Even though their job performance is meh, they have the charisma to convince people they deserve more.

A lot of people think this is really, really, really common.

Above average performance, chance for advancement, above average returns.

This is VERY often, not the case though. And that's the other half of the problem.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Every raise, every promotion I have received in the last 45 years or so of working full time was I believe a direct reflection on my performance.

Average or mediocre performance, average pay, average bonus, average pay raise.

Above average performance, chance for advancement, above average returns.

Average doesn’t lead, they follow.

There was a great publication called “An enemy called an average”.

While that's a great sentiment in practice, it's becoming less and less applicable for a growing number of professions.

There's still a few out there (like flat rate jobs) where if you bust your hump, there's a chance of making a lot more $$$ My brother is a collision repair / bodywork guy for a dealership. So if a job is 10 flat rate hours and he can knock it out in 6, that means he can grab another car out of the bay and start working on it. He has some weeks where he's actually only working 35 hours, but can turn 50 flat rate hours in terms of what he gets paid.

But that's certainly not true of a lot of fields these days.

With a lot of companies looking for cost cutting measures and looking to preserve executive bonuses above all else...there's a lot of places where the difference between "phoning it in" and "pedal to the metal" is the difference between getting a 1% or 2% raise.

I learned that one first hand some years back. Despite being salary, I worked a lot of extra hours (as in, beyond 40 per week) and nights & weekends to knock out a lot of projects and client initiatives. When I got a raise that I felt was trivial, and then talked to some other folks who I knew were doing the bare minimum and finding out their annual increase was roughly the same as mine (meanwhile, the then-CEO was posting vacation pics from France and pictures of his new boat on Facebook), that was the end of that for a while.

Luckily the company culture has changed a bit under the new leadership and it's less about the long hours and has become more fair in that regard. The new leadership even implemented ways to make the work week shorter. (the benefits of having a fresh perspective CEO who's a little younger/modern, instead of a 67 year old guy who's looking to impress his trophy-wife)

 

[rambot]

While that's a great sentiment in practice, it's becoming less and less applicable for a growing number of professions.

There's still a few out there (like flat rate jobs) where if you bust your hump, there's a chance of making a lot more $$$ My brother is a collision repair / bodywork guy for a dealership. So if a job is 10 flat rate hours and he can knock it out in 6, that means he can grab another car out of the bay and start working on it. He has some weeks where he's actually only working 35 hours, but can turn 50 flat rate hours in terms of what he gets paid.

But that's certainly not true of a lot of fields these days.

With a lot of companies looking for cost cutting measures and looking to preserve executive bonuses above all else...there's a lot of places where the difference between "phoning it in" and "pedal to the metal" is the difference between getting a 1% or 2% raise.

I learned that one first hand some years back. Despite being salary, I worked a lot of extra hours (as in, beyond 40 per week) and nights & weekends to knock out a lot of projects and client initiatives. When I got a raise that I felt was trivial, and then talked to some other folks who I knew were doing the bare minimum and finding out their annual increase was roughly the same as mine (meanwhile, the then-CEO was posting vacation pics from France and pictures of his new boat on Facebook), that was the end of that for a while.

Luckily the company culture has changed a bit under the new leadership and it's less about the long hours and has become more fair in that regard. The new leadership even implemented ways to make the work week shorter. (the benefits of having a fresh perspective CEO who's a little younger/modern, instead of a 67 year old guy who's looking to impress his trophy-wife)

And this doesn't even address the money from companies that goes into stock buybacks and enriching investors BEFORE employees.
The title of this thread, has always seemed a bit silly to me.

What does grate on me though is the labels given to workers doing the job.....they are paid to do and deriding for doing it.

The distribution of wealth in America is perversely unequal. Now it seems bosses are getting angry because workers are refusing to work without getting paid for anything extra.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And this doesn't even address the money from companies that goes into stock buybacks and enriching investors BEFORE employees.
The title of this thread, has always seemed a bit silly to me.

What does grate on me though is the labels given to workers doing the job.....they are paid to do and deriding for doing it.

The distribution of wealth in America is perversely unequal. Now it seems bosses are getting angry because workers are refusing to work without getting paid for anything extra.

Preemptive disclaimer, I think socialism is terrible.

Having said that, nothing makes socialism more enticing to frustrated people than the excesses of capitalism.

If a person is busting their hump and having to scrimp and save to take a modest 4 day vacation, meanwhile the executives at their company are in the office a few hours a week and spending the rest of the time out on the golf course (and getting bonuses that are more what that employees yearly salary is), it's going to make them more sympathetic to anything that's presented as an alternative to it.

As I was just explaining in another thread (that was about Trump and why people gravitated to him). The excesses of any ideology are going to make people more receptive to anything that's perceived as the strongest bulwark against it.


While most modern westernized countries are "hybrid economies", the ratios are different. I think there's evidence to back up my sentiment. People would undoubtedly agree that the US is "more capitalist" than a country like Sweden or Denmark. Yet, why do we have larger numbers of people inclined to march around in the streets with Communist flags and Black Bloc? Clearly something has happened here (that hasn't happened there) that's made more people disenfranchised with capitalism and grasping for any alternative.

Or to use an analogy... a surefire way to create more people who are sympathetic to prohibitionist ideology would be to remove all laws and restrictions surrounding alcohol consumption.

 

[rambot]

Preemptive disclaimer, I think socialism is terrible.

Having said that, nothing makes socialism more enticing to frustrated people than the excesses of capitalism.

If a person is busting their hump and having to scrimp and save to take a modest 4 day vacation, meanwhile the executives at their company are in the office a few hours a week and spending the rest of the time out on the golf course (and getting bonuses that are more what that employees yearly salary is), it's going to make them more sympathetic to anything that's presented as an alternative to it.

As I was just explaining in another thread (that was about Trump and why people gravitated to him). The excesses of any ideology are going to make people more receptive to anything that's perceived as the strongest bulwark against it.


While most modern westernized countries are "hybrid economies", the ratios are different. I think there's evidence to back up my sentiment. People would undoubtedly agree that the US is "more capitalist" than a country like Sweden or Denmark. Yet, why do we have larger numbers of people inclined to march around in the streets with Communist flags and Black Bloc? Clearly something has happened here (that hasn't happened there) that's made more people disenfranchised with capitalism and grasping for any alternative.

Or to use an analogy... a surefire way to create more people who are sympathetic to prohibitionist ideology would be to remove all laws and restrictions surrounding alcohol consumption.

Oh for sure. Definitely not big on aocialism.

But there are a few things it does right. That said I think that may be mostly because there are some markets that should greed deiven

 

[Sabertooth]

The OP is referring to a seller's-market economy vs. a buyer's-market economy.

 

[rjs330]

Your company doesn't have to fill all the jobs, just their company's. In capitalism, when resources are scarce, one does that by offering a premium for them.


Lots of excuses for not spending the money needed to run a company. Combined with complaints that it is so hard to hire good people. And blaming employees for looking out for their best interests.
Starting to feel like a "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" kinda situation.
Or just excuses for not being willing to spend the money it takes to compete in a given field.

Except premium pay hasn't worked. My wife's company has had the same problem. Across the country it's the same thing.

The ignorance shown on this thread is quite fascinating.

 

[rjs330]

It shouldn’t. If that is part of an explicit contract and being paid to be on call that’s fine. But an ‘unspoken understanding’ that you will do more than your contract says is beyond the pail.

I’m contracted to work till 5pm. I never work later unless someone’s life is at risk.

Are you giving your best at work or are you average. Giving your best doesn't require you work more hours. It's just doing you best. Sometimes something comes up and more hours are required. But you aren't going to do that. I wonder if you are the guy that complains about getting passed over.