reply to post by seamus
I watched my father work himself into four heart attacks in three years ON SALARY working up to 90 hours a week as a manufacturing process
My father was less than 2 years from retirement when he suffered a cranial blood clot. He continued to work for a week with the headache that later
the doctor explained was an indication that his brain was lacking oxygen in that area. I watched the whole thing, just as you watched your father.
There is no incentive to 'give more' for an industrial employer...
Not as long as you see the job as no more than service to one person or company.
A very wise man told me when I was young to never work strictly for someone else... always work for yourself. When you take a job, do you do it to be
nice to your employer? No! You take it because you need the money, typically. So your purpose is to serve yourself, and that is exactly the way it
should be. All I am saying is than when you do try to get that job in order to help yourself, understand what needs to be done in order to get,
maintain, and excel in that job. You do not serve yourself by entering a contest you cannot hope to win.
The employer is interested in getting his job done. The employee is interested in getting paid. Again, there is nothing wrong with that situation.
Where things go awry is when one party begins to act in a self-destructive manner toward the other, effectively causing both to lose their advantage
until they part ways. If the employer does this regularly, they will not be an employer for long; simple economics will relegate then to to
insignificance. If an employee does this, they have done nothing more than cost themselves their job and the associated benefits, since no decent
employer will put up with poor behavior or lack of drive to produce. If they do it regularly, they will be forced into the lower-paying and most
abusive jobs available just to survive.
It's a lose-lose situation.
Middle management is largely to blame for the current state of hostilities between labor and industry.
Agree and disagree.
Middle management is far from a utopia. Sadly, many companies have hired managers who lack an understanding of leadership and a sense of business.
Yes, these "wanna-bes" are largely responsible for the problems between management and labor, but they are also easily neutralized. A high turnover
rate is a red flag for upper management that there may be a problem... meaning any drop in productivity when investigated will cause those who
regularly abuse their position to lose that position.
On the other hand, I do not discount the childish and counterproductive attitudes typically harbored by employees either. It takes little for
management to find an excuse to explain away what is actually intended to be retaliation for perceived abuse as just a disgruntled worker. Most
employees give enough ammunition to management in a single week to allow them to be shown in an unfavorable light for a year. The result is that when
they are let go, that becomes a feather in the cap of the very people they were trying to hurt, because the company just "got rid of a
troublemaker". Let someone with a high productivity record and no history of problems be let go suddenly, and that feather is more of a whip being
used to find out why.
This drama is not going to be on the 11:00 news; it happens behind closed doors, out of sight. But it does happen.
The fault is on both groups.
As if the wages paid by small businesses (as opposed to larger corporations) are livable with energy costs going the way they are.
You are taking two dynamics out of the picture.
An employee must agree to their wage; no one has ever been forced to work for a particular wage in this country within our lifetimes. You may
you have no choice, but no one is stopping you from simply stating "I quit" and walking out. The only thing stopping you is (legitimate)
concern over the consequences of that action. So if the consequences of not having the low-paying job are so bad, why would you be angry with the
company that gave you the job?
Secondly, the cost of living is historically tied tightly to the minimum wage. The higher the minimum wage goes, the higher the costs of the things we
all feel we need go. The end result is that although more money is flowing, the cost of living has actually risen compared to wages. That is not a
dynamic of your employer, but of your government and society.