Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/17/2015 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shawnfucious on 8/17/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/16/2015 11:30:00 PM (view original):
To reduce post length and/or size, this is a direct reply to shawnfucious (please feel free catch yourself up):
Okay, as much as I really want to pick apart much what you're saying, I'll try to resist that urge. Luckily, your very first short paragraph(s) totally betray not only what you've previously said but most of your following arguments. Even though you might not be desperate enough to scrub toilets for that much money and nobody should have to work for such a low wage (let alone having to clean toilets at the same time) as you claim....however, there are people that desperate and the federal minimum wage is somewhere around that price. So no, even by your own admission it's not a negotiated price, its an unlivable (and unethical as you seem to hint) wage dictated to people to people with relatively few options. And since this wasn't clear in my last post: this does not just go for the low classes and working poor. Not to mention that due to the decline of manufacturing and organized labor in America, the ability for most middle-class people to actualize the idealism your expounding has actually declined as well. Next, round all that out with what terps & billyg were saying and you'll have a better picture of why almost nobody buys your propaganda ideas about production for productions sake. We're not your employees, so spare the rest of us your midday peptalks.
I found this short paragraph very informative, "If someone who works for me told me they're deliberately not working very hard because of X excuse, I would ask what it would take to get them to work to full capacity. If it's doable, I'll make it happen and ask them to fulfill their end of the deal by working to full capacity. If it's not doable, I'll tell them what I can get them and ask them to work to capacity for that. If they won't agree, I'll ask them to resign so I can find someone who will." I mean for real homie, how many times do you think this actual scenario has played out since the beginning of the industrial revolution??? I see what you're getting at, but again even this example is a highly idealized form of labor restructure on an individual level.
However, you really betray yourself with those last two short paragraphs. They mean that either (a) you really are a grade A sucker who most likely never got past that 'if only everybody tried their hardest then everything would be great' nonsense, (b) you most likely don't have a comprehensive understanding of the workforce and its relation to the economy, or (c) your parroting the talking points of some political standpoint. And here is just one of the reasons why: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/09/02/the-average-work-week-is-now-47-hours/ . I'll summarize it for you, of full-time employees the average work week is 47 hours...and guess what, it's been like that for while now. Wait, you say earlier that you believed most people didn't work 40 hours a week, right??? Not only that, americans' take vastly less vacation time than every industrial country, and that's just among the people that get paid vacation.
So, if some gangster sitting in a cubicle farm somewhere wants to spend an hour a week at work (out of the extra seven he or she probably isn't getting paid for) playing Hoops Dynasty...then I say go for it, brah.
Any agreement is a negotiated price. Yes it is unethical, but still agreement. I speak of no idealism but simple facts. I also state no propaganda. You attemp to label it as such to make yohr opposition seem sronger. If you disagree that is fine , but stop pretending its anything more than that.
The scenario I described has taken place several times. I csre not how many times overall since an arbitrary point in time. It is an example of how efficient work can be, not an idealized notion.
I am none of thethings you insist I am. You assume to much, allin an effort to belittle me simply because you disagree. Please srop.
My belief remains as I stated it. Also, use of less vacation time is often LESS productive.
okay, vaguely referring to what you said as propaganda was a bit over the top, and looking back I wish that I hadn't put it in there. But when somebody says they are stating facts like you are doing, when what they're really talking about are complex issues is (in my humble opinion) classic idealism. This is most apparent in the way you casually reduce the loaded idea that 'any agreement between two parties is a negotiation' down to a "simple fact". Sure, that phrase can be initially defended on some logical level, but it gets much much much harder to do on a practical (or theoretical for that matter) level. So, you'll have to forgive me if I get to touch irritated when people try to dish out oversimplified maxims as the cold hard truth...especially on a matter of this magnitude.
As for the rest, if you do openly engage with you employees by continually attempting to compensate them at an adequate level, then you're probably a great boss. The scenario you laid out just rubbed me the wrong way, sounded a little too textbookey. And yes, your right, taking less vacation does often make people less productive. That was just me throwing your words back in your face after you said that my attitude was exactly what was wrong with America and that "...it is simple fact. The work ethic in America - not that of everyone, but of many - is abysmal when compared to that of others." Oh look, there is that term "simple fact" again, where did we hear that??? It might not be so simple given that you were pretty much dead wrong about it.
I said a few posts ago that we would probably disagree on a lot of things, and I kinda take that back after listening to what you've said. But I got a question about the very last comment that your beliefs remaining the same. What does belief have anything to do with it?
Complex issue or not, I am stating facts. You seem to think this is idealism. That is your right to have that opinion; I disagree as the notion of idealism means it is simply a great idea. Everything I've stated I put into actual practice. It's more than an idea.
An agreement between two parties is always up to a negotiation. One side may surrender negotiating rights, but that doesn't mean a negotiation could not have taken place.
I think many people find my positions to be odd, because while I advocate what to many is an extreme work ethic and dedication, I also try to champion those who are less fortunate. Example: I believe it is shameful not to work to 100 percent of one's capacity at any given moment in time, whatever that means at that point in time; I also believe it is ridiculous to expect anyone to work for what the American federal government says is the "minimum wage" or anything close to it (partly because the minimum wage is too low even by inflationary standards alone, not living standards).
I absolutely want 100 percent effort from everyone who works for me. Obviously I recognize people are human beings. Not only do they make mistakes, but they become ill, have tough days, face mental or emotional issues, etc. I only ask for their full effort at that time, which may vary greatly depending upon any number of factors.
I am open about this from the time I hire someone. During interviews I ask very pointed questions about someone's ability to give a consistent full effort. I always ask them to cite examples of their ability to perform consistently well, and it is one of the few things I will speak to references about.
(As an aside, I see references as largely useless because almost everyone has people who will vouch for them in a general work sense. I do ask for references but the key question I ask them is to give me an example of a time the person hasn't given their best effort or has deliberately been "lax" or something to that effect . I want to hear "they have never done that" or "I've never known them to do that" or "I can't think of one" or something similar. If they can offer an actual example, the person will not be hired.)
Once hired, I tell all employees they are free to approach me at any time to tell me their ideas, innovations, etc. I also tell them to make me aware of anything that would improve their motivation, work environment, or ability on the job - and I take everything they say seriously (provided they aren't making a joke, obviously).
I do not ask my employees to do anything I do not do myself. I honestly and sincerely believe if I am not giving it everything I have, then there is no point in doing it at all. I may make choices that make things easier on myself or others from time to time if such a choice is available to me. Those are often very shrewd decisions, as everyone can only do so much, and sometimes it is a better path. Still, while on that path, I give all of my effort.
On vacation time, I make sure everyone uses it, and they all get at least four paid weeks each year. They work together to cover for whoever is out, because they know it'll be their turn at some point. They can use it when they want with a few simple but necessary restrictions, but I suggest taking a week about once per quarter to refresh the mind.
I understand my statement about the work ethic in America might strike you the wrong way, and that isn't my intent, so I apologize if I offended you. Still, I believe a better work ethic translates to better things for everyone, not just companies but employees as well. I don't believe I was "dead wrong" about it at all, but you are free to believe what you wish.
Belief means my opinion on the matter. We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine has not changed on that particular matter simply because you searched the internet for something you think shows I'm wrong. My main point of contention is this: Even IF people did spend an average of 47 hours per week at work, I don't believe the average individual is actually working for that entire time, even discounting breaks.