It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
That's a big issue I think in today's working world. People hiring friend's and family, trying to be nice or fill a spot with a known face. Regardless of the reasons it's kinda turning into a huge issue. You have so many people working jobs they haven't a damn clue how to do.
Gaining employment is now a networking game, of who can I befriend who has a company or place of employment that I can work for? Now many may be " Whats wrong with that ? " well, think about it, it's draining jobs from people who would best fit them, for people who will best fail them.
I love my friends, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna work with them, and family.... HAH I already was forced to grow up with them, I'm not spending 40 + hrs a week with em.... But somehow that's not that bad of an option for people, I dunno, maybe i'm rambling, but maybe i'm also just disgusted with the way society evolves.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by seamus
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.
You've got a point, and a good one. But don't forget these kids grew up seeing their parents generally have to work less hard to make ends meet.
On the other hand, I do not discount the childish and counterproductive attitudes typically harbored by employees either.
My current employer is like that. They have rules in place that you cannot NOT break, and still meet production requirements. So what do you do? You look around to see if management is looking, and only do it when they aren't looking. Sucks, huh? I think they have it like that so that they can terminate a bad-attitude employee without having to dig too hard for justification.
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.
Even worse, when company-wide policy on what constitutes "productivity" is substantially impacted by circumstances beyond the employee's control, you have a universal disgruntlement. "Your being written up because you failed to meet your stow rate" "But there isn't any space in the racks!" "Too bad". That hasn't happened to me yet, because I'm putting all my brains to work in avoiding positions with production rate attached. Sucks to be in inbound in a warehouse that's 98% full (no bull, we set a record).
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.
I agree, but management KNOWS better!
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.
Because they are using the cost-savings to earn big bonuses for their fat asses, that's why! And you are in the SOUTH! You know full well there's not much choice down here! It's a conspiracy.
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 feel 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?
Sure it is, but is there a compelling reason other than greed to pay minimum wage (or just above) for skilled labor? Lots of companies think so. Recently I saw an ad looking for ambulance drivers with CPR certification, paying 8 bucks an hour! Are you frickin crazy?
Secondly, the cost of living is historically tied tightly to the minimum wage.[...]
TheRedneck
Are you implying that because something is easily done, it's done when needed?
In a bottomless labor pool such as East Tennessee (where I live), there is apparently little incentive on the part of employers to do anything but abuse their employees.
The pay is OK but why they don't hire enough labor to do the job without working the people they have to the brink of mental breakdown is beyond me.
I think they have it like that so that they can terminate a bad-attitude employee without having to dig too hard for justification.
Sucks to be in inbound in a warehouse that's 98% full (no bull, we set a record).
Because they are using the cost-savings to earn big bonuses for their fat asses, that's why! And you are in the SOUTH! You know full well there's not much choice down here! It's a conspiracy.
Sure it is, but is there a compelling reason other than greed to pay minimum wage (or just above) for skilled labor?