When people are offered a job and don't have many choices and need income, they will grab any thing that sounds good. I suspect that you have not been underemployed in your lifetime and have had a decent income. Does an employer have any responsibility (morally) to offer a "living wage" income or is it just for for them to try to find the person so desperate that they will take a below cost of living job?
.
Electroliner 1935 When people are offered a job and don't have many choices and need income, they will grab any thing that sounds good. I suspect that you have not been underemployed in your lifetime and have had a decent income. Does an employer have any responsibility (morally) to offer a "living wage" income or is it just for for them to try to find the person so desperate that they will take a below cost of living job?
The cost of living has nothing to do with an employer's decision to hire an employee. They make that decision only based on what they have to pay an employee who is competent enough to get the job done, and then they look for such an employee who is willing to take the job at that wage. Whether the employee regards the wage to be a "living wage" is irrelevant. It is totally up to the employee to make themselves worth the wage they need.
charlie hebdo There are some good features to being a so-called independent contractor, but mostly for the *employer* in my experience.
There are some good features to being a so-called independent contractor, but mostly for the *employer* in my experience.
I think that is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. Actual conditions vary widely between the two approaches. An employee works for a business. An independent contractor is a business.
Contracting is not for everybody. Probably most people prefer the security of direct employment. Contractors usually get paid more because they assume greater responsibility for their outcomes. Companies sometimes see an advantage in hiring contractors for temporary, one-time tasks that need to get done when there are not enough regular employees available to take on the task.
It is sometimes said to be an advantage to be an employee because the employer pays half of the Social Security tax, and with contractors, they must pay all of that tax. Of course the fact is that employees pay all of that tax just as contractors do.
Euclid charlie hebdo There are some good features to being a so-called independent contractor, but mostly for the *employer* in my experience. I think that is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. Actual conditions vary widely between the two approaches. An employee works for a business. An independent contractor is a business. Contracting is not for everybody. Probably most people prefer the security of direct employment. Contractors usually get paid more because they assume greater responsibility for their outcomes. Companies sometimes see an advantage in hiring contractors for temporary, one-time tasks that need to get done when there are not enough regular employees available to take on the task. It is sometimes said to be an advantage to be an employee because the employer pays half of the Social Security tax, and with contractors, they must pay all of that tax. Of course the fact is that employees pay all of that tax just as contractors do.
In dealing with contractors, company wash their hands of any responsibility for anything beyond paying the amount due for services rendered.
In the railroad industry, every effort is made to pay contrctors less that employees get paid.
From the vantage point I have had - the contractors 'hired' were retired former employees that were trading on their skills while dodging the requirement that under RRB rules they can't be EMPLOYED by a railroad. Thus as a contractor they could supplement their RRB and Company pension payments.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Erik_Mag GERALD L MCFARLANE JR May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people. I've seen more articles downplaying this story than supporting it. It's more common for viruses to mutate into milder forms as there are more chances for the virus to spread if it has a mild effect on the host.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people.
May not matter now that the virus has mutated into a more virilent form that makes it easier to transmit the infection between people.
I've seen more articles downplaying this story than supporting it. It's more common for viruses to mutate into milder forms as there are more chances for the virus to spread if it has a mild effect on the host.
Apparently you didn't read very well, more virilent form that makes transmission easier; i.e. the transmission mechanism is more virile in the mututed version if that makes it easier for you to understand.
Euclid charlie hebdo I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management. ~SNIP~ You may think management notions are out of date, but I can assure you that management does not see a day's work for a day's pay as an outdated notion. But they don't want to take the time to micromanage this in the workplace. So they just figure if they can see your face at your work station, they are getting some productivity. I have read articles saying that companies have found that letting people work from home gives the company about one hour per day of work for 8 hours pay. People rationalize that they are allowed to be home, they are on the clock from starting time to quitting time, and because they are allowed to be at home, they are allowed to do all the home things on the clock. These are things like cleaning the house and running errands. ~SNIP~
charlie hebdo I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management. ~SNIP~
I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management.
~SNIP~
You may think management notions are out of date, but I can assure you that management does not see a day's work for a day's pay as an outdated notion. But they don't want to take the time to micromanage this in the workplace. So they just figure if they can see your face at your work station, they are getting some productivity. I have read articles saying that companies have found that letting people work from home gives the company about one hour per day of work for 8 hours pay.
People rationalize that they are allowed to be home, they are on the clock from starting time to quitting time, and because they are allowed to be at home, they are allowed to do all the home things on the clock. These are things like cleaning the house and running errands.
What's happening is people are getting their 8 hours of work done in 1 hour now because there are no bosses hanging over their shoulder or distractions from meetings, e-mails, etc., etc.,. That can also happen in an office if people just bother to take the time to find ways to do your job more efficiently...did it when I worked in logisitics, I was getting 8 hours of work done in 4 and had to come up with things to do just to keep busy.
Management only objective is to make sure the work gets done correctly and on time, doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Euclid charlie hebdo I think you are mostly wrong. I think the need for a physical structure for offices will be much less, as in many fields the work is on computers and/or online anyway. Business travel will also be less needed. You subscribe to out-of-date notions of management. ~SNIP~ You may think management notions are out of date, but I can assure you that management does not see a day's work for a day's pay as an outdated notion. But they don't want to take the time to micromanage this in the workplace. So they just figure if they can see your face at your work station, they are getting some productivity. I have read articles saying that companies have found that letting people work from home gives the company about one hour per day of work for 8 hours pay. People rationalize that they are allowed to be home, they are on the clock from starting time to quitting time, and because they are allowed to be at home, they are allowed to do all the home things on the clock. These are things like cleaning the house and running errands. ~SNIP~ What's happening is people are getting their 8 hours of work done in 1 hour now because there are no bosses hanging over their shoulder or distractions from meetings, e-mails, etc., etc.,. That can also happen in an office if people just bother to take the time to find ways to do your job more efficiently...did it when I worked in logisitics, I was getting 8 hours of work done in 4 and had to come up with things to do just to keep busy. Management only objective is to make sure the work gets done correctly and on time, doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRdoesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
To the contrary, being able to determine how effectively an employee handles their workload, enables management to decide if they can "load up" more work on the employee, or extend them additional "opportunities".
Plus, if I have two employees performing roughly the same jobs, and both are completing their duties in half a day......guess what?
EuclidTo the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way.
Of course not. Becuase a lot of those managers are completely unnecessary and are featherbedding their positions.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann Euclid To the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way. Of course not. Becuase a lot of those managers are completely unnecessary and are featherbedding their positions.
Euclid To the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way.
That may very well be, but my point is that the managers are the last people who want to see employees work from home. Therefore I disagree with the notion that this is one big happy movement that will liberate employees from going to the central office hub every day. There is definitely a movement, but it is only on the employee side.
They are rationalizing all the details to make their case to management. This is no different than movements making other demands on business such as minimum wage. I would not be surprised if laws are passed requiring companies to allow "work from home" under some condtions. It is really part of the green movment to reduce CO2 from commuting. It is part of the New Urbanism political movement that says you must either walk to work, or take transit. Soon it will include a third option: work from home.
My larger point, though, is that this virus has highlighted this "work from home" movement in a way that we have never seen before. So if it really proves viable, there should be an overnight transformation.
Balt said:
No business wants to pay any more than necessary to get the job done. Why should an employer have any responsibility beyond that?
What you describe about how this fits into the railroad industry seems rather unique. As has been mentioned, there are IRS rules to prevent a company from hiring a person as an indpendent contractor to work under the normal condtions of being a direct employee.
Euclid's notions of management are no unions and crack the whip on workers. Pay as little as possible and squeeze every drop of sweat out if them. Sounds like an overseer on a slave plantation.
charlie hebdo zugmann Euclid To the employees who want to get out of the boss's view and work at home, I am sure that those empolyees believe that keeping track of worker productivity is old school management. But most management is not going to see it that way. Of course not. Becuase a lot of those managers are completely unnecessary and are featherbedding their positions. Euclid's notions of management are no unions and crack the whip on workers. Pay as little as possible and squeeze every drop of sweat out if them. Sounds like an overseer on a slave plantation.
I never suggested any abuse. And your hissing implication about me advocating racism is not subtle. Of course companies want to pay as little as possible. You would do the same. But all it involves is offers made, and accepted or rejected. Nobody is being abused.
Convicted One GERALD L MCFARLANE JR doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world. To the contrary, being able to determine how effectively an employee handles their workload, enables management to decide if they can "load up" more work on the employee, or extend them additional "opportunities". Plus, if I have two employees performing roughly the same jobs, and both are completing their duties in half a day......guess what?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world.
I know what you're going to say, but a smart businessman would have 3 solutions for such a scenario already in his head. Solution 1 is to solicit more business(the smart move) by slightly lowering your cost. Solution 2 is to make both employees part time(also smart) there by keeping them on the payroll should business grow. Solution 3 is the stupidist one, and that's to fire one employee and make the other do all the work.
If you can't figure out why solution 3 is the stupidist I'll give a few days to think about it before telling, but I will give you a hint: If you're for sale you'd be a prime target for Berkshire Hathaway.
EuclidIt is really part of the green movment to reduce CO2 from commuting. It is part of the New Urbanism political movement that says you must either walk to work, or take transit. Soon it will include a third option: work from home.
Or maybe people are starting to figure out it's a waste to commute hours a week jsut so they can sit at a computer.
And maybe the companies are starting to figure out that it isn't worth having these multi-million dollar buildings just so people can sit at a computer.
Your thinking of "green movement" and the sort is dated.
charlie hebdoEuclid's notions of management are no unions and crack the whip on workers. Pay as little as possible and squeeze every drop of sweat out of them. Sounds like an overseer on a slave plantation.
No, it sounds more like Hunter Harrison's approach to the running trades.
cx500 charlie hebdo Euclid's notions of management are no unions and crack the whip on workers. Pay as little as possible and squeeze every drop of sweat out of them. Sounds like an overseer on a slave plantation. No, it sounds more like Hunter Harrison's approach to the running trades.
charlie hebdo Euclid's notions of management are no unions and crack the whip on workers. Pay as little as possible and squeeze every drop of sweat out of them. Sounds like an overseer on a slave plantation.
They are one and the same.
Recall Hunter's favourite 'nickname' for Canadian railroaders......
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude cx500 charlie hebdo Euclid's notions of management are no unions and crack the whip on workers. Pay as little as possible and squeeze every drop of sweat out of them. Sounds like an overseer on a slave plantation. No, it sounds more like Hunter Harrison's approach to the running trades. They are one and the same. Recall Hunter's favourite 'nickname' for Canadian railroaders......
Managements have no idea how to supervise jobs that require thought, not action.
zugmann Euclid It is really part of the green movment to reduce CO2 from commuting. It is part of the New Urbanism political movement that says you must either walk to work, or take transit. Soon it will include a third option: work from home. Or maybe people are starting to figure out it's a waste to commute hours a week jsut so they can sit at a computer. And maybe the companies are starting to figure out that it isn't worth having these multi-million dollar buildings just so people can sit at a computer. Your thinking of "green movement" and the sort is dated.
Euclid It is really part of the green movment to reduce CO2 from commuting. It is part of the New Urbanism political movement that says you must either walk to work, or take transit. Soon it will include a third option: work from home.
I doubt you will find enthuiasm by companies to allow their employees to work from home. It is an idea for which employees think the time has come. Big surprise that they would welcome staying home instead of driving off to work. Now maybe it can be made to work by applying a lot more of the technolgy that enables people to send data back and forth in the first place.
That may very well come to past. People will be comfortably at home with every imaginable technology tracking every move they make. Every day will be an 8-hour time and motion study. There will be charts and graphs to compare employees and their productivty cost right down the the penney. Everything on the clock will be separated with everything off the clock. And then there will be the weekly inspection of your home workplace to make sure you are in compliance.
Euclid zI doubt you will find enthuiasm by companies to allow their employees to work from home. It is an idea for which employees think the time has come. Big surprise that they would welcome staying home instead of driving off to work. Now maybe it can be made to work by applying a lot more of the technolgy that enables people to send data back and forth in the first place. That may very well come to past. People will be comfortably at home with every imaginable technology tracking every move they make. Every day will be an 8-hour time and motion study. There will be charts and graphs to compare employees and their productivty cost right down the the penney. Everything on the clock will be separated with everything off the clock. And then there will be the weekly inspection of your home workplace to make sure you are in compliance.
zI doubt you will find enthuiasm by companies to allow their employees to work from home. It is an idea for which employees think the time has come. Big surprise that they would welcome staying home instead of driving off to work. Now maybe it can be made to work by applying a lot more of the technolgy that enables people to send data back and forth in the first place.
My belief is your thinking is a bit out of date. But time will tell.
Even in my old-thinking industry, you don't see the trainmaster sitting in his office smoking cigarettes all day like when I started. They are pretty much out and about, at home, or in their truck anymore. If the RR is embracing it....
zugmann Euclid zI doubt you will find enthuiasm by companies to allow their employees to work from home. It is an idea for which employees think the time has come. Big surprise that they would welcome staying home instead of driving off to work. Now maybe it can be made to work by applying a lot more of the technolgy that enables people to send data back and forth in the first place. That may very well come to past. People will be comfortably at home with every imaginable technology tracking every move they make. Every day will be an 8-hour time and motion study. There will be charts and graphs to compare employees and their productivty cost right down the the penney. Everything on the clock will be separated with everything off the clock. And then there will be the weekly inspection of your home workplace to make sure you are in compliance. My belief is your thinking is a bit out of date. But time will tell. Even in my old-thinking industry, you don't see the trainmaster sitting in his office smoking cigarettes all day like when I started. They are pretty much out and about, at home, or in their truck anymore. If the RR is embracing it....
You aren't allowed to smoke indoors in the workplace anymore. That must be why they are so eager to stay home.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRSolution 3 is the stupidist one, and that's to fire one employee and make the other do all the work.
I'm afraid that you are wrong again. The stupidest option, by orders of magnitude BTW, would be to fail to keep track of your employees time in order to be able to make an informed evaluation of other available options.
SD70Dude zugmann Euclid zI doubt you will find enthuiasm by companies to allow their employees to work from home. It is an idea for which employees think the time has come. Big surprise that they would welcome staying home instead of driving off to work. Now maybe it can be made to work by applying a lot more of the technolgy that enables people to send data back and forth in the first place. That may very well come to past. People will be comfortably at home with every imaginable technology tracking every move they make. Every day will be an 8-hour time and motion study. There will be charts and graphs to compare employees and their productivty cost right down the the penney. Everything on the clock will be separated with everything off the clock. And then there will be the weekly inspection of your home workplace to make sure you are in compliance. My belief is your thinking is a bit out of date. But time will tell. Even in my old-thinking industry, you don't see the trainmaster sitting in his office smoking cigarettes all day like when I started. They are pretty much out and about, at home, or in their truck anymore. If the RR is embracing it.... You aren't allowed to smoke indoors in the workplace anymore. That must be why they are so eager to stay home.
Always felt I should have been paid more for being at my desk for the full tour of duty as opposed to those that spent 10 minutes every hour outside burning one.
BaltACDAlways felt I should have been paid more for being at my desk for the full tour of duty as opposed to those that spent 10 minutes every hour outside burning one.
Well, why the hell didn't you go out and hold a cigarette?
zugmann BaltACD Always felt I should have been paid more for being at my desk for the full tour of duty as opposed to those that spent 10 minutes every hour outside burning one. Well, why the hell didn't you go out and hold a cigarette?
BaltACD Always felt I should have been paid more for being at my desk for the full tour of duty as opposed to those that spent 10 minutes every hour outside burning one.
Too damn (hot cold wet windy - take your pick) out there and I gave up smoking 35 years ago.
BaltACDToo damn (hot cold wet windy - take your pick) out there and I gave up smoking 35 years ago.
I didn't say smoke - I've never smoked, but if everyone else is getting a cigarette break, I ain't staying inside.
I always tell my co-workers that you don't have to smoke to come outside with us on our smoke break. Actually we get more problems solved and ideas at the 2 picnic tables we use than if we had stayed at our desks. It's a productive mini meeting. Non smokers get resentful.
Right along the lake on Federal Land not school property. Better still!
Sometimes I chum it up with the students out there but mostly not , I stay away, don't want to be their 'Dad' out there. Besides they need the break to complain about me !
Convicted One GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Solution 3 is the stupidist one, and that's to fire one employee and make the other do all the work. I'm afraid that you are wrong again. The stupidest option, by orders of magnitude BTW, would be to fail to keep track of your employees time in order to be able to make an informed evaluation of other available options.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Solution 3 is the stupidist one, and that's to fire one employee and make the other do all the work.
Technically yes, but I was just responding to your prior post and the direction you where going in relation to what you would do with the two employees presuming you had already developed the tools to monitor their time working(and you would have done or you wouldn't know they were getting their work done in 1 hour instead of the whole 8 hour work day).
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Convicted One GERALD L MCFARLANE JR doesn't matter how long an office worker takes to do it, keeping track of your office workers time is old school management practices not valid in todays world. To the contrary, being able to determine how effectively an employee handles their workload, enables management to decide if they can "load up" more work on the employee, or extend them additional "opportunities". Plus, if I have two employees performing roughly the same jobs, and both are completing their duties in half a day......guess what? I know what you're going to say, but a smart businessman would have 3 solutions for such a scenario already in his head. Solution 1 is to solicit more business(the smart move) by slightly lowering your cost. Solution 2 is to make both employees part time(also smart) there by keeping them on the payroll should business grow. Solution 3 is the stupidist one, and that's to fire one employee and make the other do all the work. If you can't figure out why solution 3 is the stupidist I'll give a few days to think about it before telling, but I will give you a hint: If you're for sale you'd be a prime target for Berkshire Hathaway.
In the quote above, all three solutions are valid. In a company with say 100 employees, if it is found that one of them is not sufficiently loaded with tasks, I doubt they would ever go out and solicit just enough new business to fill that empolyee's task load. Generally, they solicit new business all the time and adjust their employee count to match the business level.
I doubt they would solve the problem by making the employee part time to match a part time task load. Most employees would quit and look for full time work if they they were forced to change to part time. Although a company might offer that option. A lot of times the work load in a company changes, so going to part time might be offered as a temporary solution.
Solution #3 is done all the time. It is probably the most preferred. Typically, there are enough employees to pick up the extra work created by laying off that one empolyee. Basically companies have more work than the existing empolyees can handle. They like to keep it that way so it does not drift into phases where empolyees having nothing to do.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.