Jobs -- Right or Privilege?

[jackson33]

John; if a person chooses to start a business, service or produce a product and requires help to do so, he/she must be allowed to choose those in the assistance. success or failure should lay in that person and indirectly in the ones chosen to participate. this extends to the company that has a track record or some success. who is hired, rewarded or fired is the simple continuance of the program that gets this business from one level to the next.

politically correct philosophy is non-productive in any business venture.

 

however, having said this the concept that a black person, woman or for that matter any white male, cannot earn the consideration for such jobs is long in the past. this in general is why i place such restrictions on management as bad policy. business is for the creation of wealth and not intended to change social trends. social trends on the other hand can change business practice. acceptance or success, depends so much on whom is hired, government involvement by mandates and requirements are major causes for failure in many otherwise successful companies.

 

these thoughts go to the very largest of corporation, as they cater the large numbers of people in all levels of the political and social spectrum. they also have levels of management, stock holders and the employees themselves to contend with in any decision.

 

no government is not responsible for or against a business venture. in the US 70% plus of our 13 trillion dollar total annual GDP is generated by the public purchase of product and service, which can be influenced by government activity, but cannot be held liable or responsible. today we have nanotechnology and alternative energy issues, which in some manner are helped by government grants, but the real investments in these come from the public by way of ownership in the companies.

[JohnB]

foodchain, I take your point. I dislike PC interference in business too.

 

The example I was thinking of was where a new manager comes into an established business or corporation and proceeds to drive out (or simply fire) his underlings on the basis of his/her personal crusade.

[gcol]

I get the impression that two different types of rights are being confused here.

 

There is the right (or not) of everyone who wants gainful employment to have it, and there is the right, or rights, that employee and employer have under a contract of employment.

 

Granting people to employment is a political matter, and employment rights are a matter of employment law, or the laws of contract. Political rights can vary at the whim of politicians bowing to electoral pressure, and can be given or taken away at a moments notice. Employment rights, being enshrined in law, and agreed by both parties at the commencement of employment, are subject to a much harder to change process.

 

But then this is in the "politics" section, so when in the discussion there is a serious lack of logic an clear thinking regarding such basics as clear definition of terms, I should not be surprised.

 

If this topic was in the Philosophy section, I would expect to see a much more meaningful and less 'touchy feely' parade of partisan dinner-party anecdotes.

 

There is, after all, no truth in politics, and not much honour either.

[jackson33]

foodchain, I take your point. I dislike PC interference in business too.

 

The example I was thinking of was where a new manager comes into an established business or corporation and proceeds to drive out (or simply fire) his underlings on the basis of his/her personal crusade.

 

i understand your point, as having been both the underling (fired) and the new manager doing the firing. however in most cases a new management requires like minded individuals to perform in the manner he/she wishes to take the company. if a failing business, most often the case, the underlings are as responsible as the management. you mention "comes into" which generally will not happen in a thriving business as an assistant or another person with in the operation would likely just continue the project, as is....

 

this is the truly practiced policy, studied by any business major. the example you mention surely can happen and suppose in the scenario your thinking. if then this is poor management then the project will fail.

[jackson33]

gcol; in the US very few work under any protective contract. those that are unionized have certain rights after a certain period of employment. currently this is about 12% of the workforce and the majority in government. these are also the least cost/effective operations and having a great deal of problems. Ford, GM, IBM, just a few who have to compete against business with total control over their employees. there is a truth in that unions, will work to maintain some employment for an individual, however they as an entity will respect certain employers responsibility and agree to most of managements needs.

 

we also have no constitutional right to a job...period. government can mandate certain requirements such as minimum wage, hours, age or the conditions a person works in, however the hiring is the company or individual owners privilege. there are implied obligations for both and both can judge the compliance. if the employee feels something is unjust, the right to quit is there and usually a little notice will get a future good referance. if the employer feels this person is not satisfied, he/she has as one option to terminate the implied contract.

[padren]

Things get out of balance when market forces allow either labor or management to take the other for granted. The irony with automation, is that the money not going to the employees anymore, is making some decent profit over the cost of the automation equipment - it doesn't vanish. Simply laying off a few thousand employees who's efforts actually put the company in the position to be able to automate doesn't sit well with me, but I don't think they have a right to forcibly stop automation.

 

I know someone who is a good programmer but hates it, because in school they wrote a program that was adapted and allowed one person to do the work of seven, and the six were laid off in the office it was implemented in immediately. Personally I find that abhorent (not nessesarily illegal) because the software didn't even cost anything considering students wrote it. I think it would be arguably fair to at least take 50% of the savings of those salaries and give a very healthy 1 year severence - then those people could get new jobs and still have a bit extra, and automation could have been a good experience in their lives as well as for management.

 

When market forces favor managment over labor, it tends to treat labor unfairly. When the reverse is true, labor can at times choke the business and exploit their nessesity. It is ugly and should be stiffled, but laws are ugly when it comes to marshalling "fairness" instead of simply what actions are allowed.

 

The simple minded "jobs are a right" mantra demogogues often pop up to exploit distastifaction due to legitimate reasons...just like the "Unions are evil in principle" crowd pop up when some unions exploit labor shortages.

 

Management has to understand and respect that workers trust the building of their futures in them, and that workers are critical to a successful business. Likewise, workers have to respect that work is an exchange, and a business invest a lot in them and has a lot to loose if they don't pull their weight as well.

 

And regarding the OP: You don't have a right to get a job, you have perhaps a right to compete for one amongst your peers. Who rises above in competition is freakishly subjective - you can not hire someone for being black...if they are auditioning for the role of General Lee in a Civil War movie, but to reject them simply because you think a white person may be "more reliable" would of course be racist and illegal. But you could get 100 applicants a year, 99 black and 1 white, and actually find that of those who apply, the white person in that group consistently proves to be more reliable - but what "proves" that to that manager can be freakishly subject.

 

While you have the right to compete, its really hard to guarantee that right. I have the right to "the pursuit of happiness" but that sure doesn't guarantee the weather.

[Pangloss]

I know someone who is a good programmer but hates it, because in school they wrote a program that was adapted and allowed one person to do the work of seven, and the six were laid off in the office it was implemented in immediately.

 

Does he know what happened to the six who were laid off?

 

Did they go back to school? Did they get better jobs? Or did they end up worse off? IMO, the picture is too incomplete to draw the conclusion that the automation was a bad idea.

[ParanoiA]

Does he know what happened to the six who were laid off?

 

Did they go back to school? Did they get better jobs? Or did they end up worse off? IMO, the picture is too incomplete to draw the conclusion that the automation was a bad idea.

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but we're going through this same mechanization thing here at work. Obviously, when you're on the business end of automation, it sucks. But, I have to admit, advancement is good. My co-workers can't stand my attitude because they just want to be pissed at the big evil corporation (and they are evil) rather than see the sense in automation.

 

Everybody's livelihood gets hit at some point with mechanization and consolidation. Have to move on...

[padren]

Does he know what happened to the six who were laid off?

 

Did they go back to school? Did they get better jobs? Or did they end up worse off? IMO, the picture is too incomplete to draw the conclusion that the automation was a bad idea.

 

I believe she said it was pretty bad for those laid off at the time, but I don't know how much she knew of the exact details. I'm of the "if you stand still you fall behind" mindset, so I actually agree with you about automation.

 

I am sure they got on their feet again (most people do) and that the setbacks were not catastrophic, but I do think it hilights how automation can have negative effects that are completely within control of management.

 

The company still had as much money as they did when they were paying those 7 people, so they could have very easily made sure they had good odds of landing on their feet. (Not their responsibility to, but they had the power to)

Instead, because they could pocket the money, they did, and just kicked them to the curb.

 

To me, it boils down to respect: You put hardships on those who work hard for you when the company's survival or competitiveness is at stake. If I had employees at my business, I would never continue their jobs if those jobs could be automated - it would be irresponsible. But, I would be respectful enough to their efforts that kept my business going, to try and use what resources were gained from the change to make sure they had the best chance for a painless workforce transition. Taking employees for granted and giving them the very least you can get away with is basically like saying "beatle-juice" three times, only instead of a pasty ghost Jesse Jackson appears.

[Saryctos]

Well that just presents a direct fit into the main question, right or privilege? They had the privilege of working so long as they did because you didn't complete your software to obsolete their position quicker. If something can automate your position, then be glad you have work until such automation becoems cheaper than you.

[foodchain]

Hypothetical situation. All activity is automated, what does the population do now? What money do they have to buy automated products? The system is sort of dependent on itself, a ceo might be a person who possibly worked his or her way into position, but take away all his or her employees and what’s left?

 

I agree with many that both sides have the ability to get abused, and moreover that government intrusion is hardly perfect, but the reasons unions exist in the first place is because of abuse really. This is why we have to have a minimum wage also. I mean its not needed per say as engines on an aircraft might be in a particular instance, but its needed simply so a human being stands the chance to survive.

 

Historically poverty leads to crime, and in other places it leads to kingdoms being sacked, riots, war, and all kinds of things most people probably would not choose to put themselves in. You have industry and consumer, but the money is sort of circulatory, industry will die if not one has any money to pay for goods or services, and supply and demand would fail. This is why places with high poverty typically reflect such. Now some may say oh well, but really they only say that from a certain position in life, which is not really reflective of humanity as a whole unit. Regardless of what someone would like to say, we don’t live in some free for all system, I cannot go out and simply take something from someone without repercussions.

 

If we want to standardize life for all, then really it should work for all right? Else unless someone can prove to me that you can have liberty without equality, not to mention simply having a human habitat that is anywhere near healthy. Simply blaming competition as implied by capitalism as a means to simply abandon all of this in the name of survival is the same situation the people are faced by in the sense of automation, now yes progress is good, but is simply just the automation aspect alone the only thing to qualify as progress?

 

It’s a complex issue, but I think in context of history that as much as individual freedom is desired, allowing the society as a whole to go to crud never really implies any real or lasting progress.

[ParanoiA]

To me, it boils down to respect: You put hardships on those who work hard for you when the company's survival or competitiveness is at stake. If I had employees at my business, I would never continue their jobs if those jobs could be automated - it would be irresponsible. But, I would be respectful enough to their efforts that kept my business going, to try and use what resources were gained from the change to make sure they had the best chance for a painless workforce transition. Taking employees for granted and giving them the very least you can get away with is basically like saying "beatle-juice" three times, only instead of a pasty ghost Jesse Jackson appears.

 

Nicely put. That's my only beef with my employer really. They're blocking the opportunity to move with the technology.

[jackson33]

a fellow, named Fred Smith, working for the US Postal Service, had an idea for his employer, even wrote an official outline and after being turned down went out and started his own little company. you may have heard of this little company as its now called "Fed Ex", one of the largest such next day delivery systems in the world, which now has USPD as a customer.

 

there are 100's of such stories, where employers were just flat wrong. the point is the success or failure of any organization has to be lead. this by implication includes labor. Wal-Mart has near 2 million worldwide employees and with all the publicity it receives will continue to achieve or fail in its track depending on its ability to maintain this control.

[jackson33]

foodchain; poverty does not lead to crime. bad people commit crime and any notion that a poor person is predestined to such a life misleading. currently the number one cause seems to be drugs, but not being poor. if you live in the US, 95% of the worlds people, live in poverty by your standards, yet the US records by far more crime.

 

i can no longer argue that all people with lower incomes, are not subject law enforcements. this Duke University, ordeal has really upset my personal view of our legal system. many cases like the OJ Simpson case, are understandable and have caused me to question the jury system, but if one person can do all whats been done in one little district in NC, then i am going to question all public prosecutors.

[PhDP]

foodchain; poverty does not lead to crime. bad people commit crime and any notion that a poor person is predestined to such a life misleading. currently the number one cause seems to be drugs, but not being poor. if you live in the US, 95% of the worlds people, live in poverty by your standards, yet the US records by far more crime.

 

... but what makes someone "bad" ? The "evil" gene, bad parenting, or poverty ? If we forget for a minute about extreme cases of child abuses by parents, contrary to widespread believe, parents really don't shape their child's personality. They're much more affected by genes and by their contact with the outside world. Also, there's so much research that have been done on criminality and poverty, some of them showing a robust link between crimes and the Gini index (a measure of inequality), even after controlling for other factors. It's hard to believe someone would deny the link between crimes and poverty.

 

And the ultimate question is, are bad people more likely to be poor, or is poverty simply a rich soil for developing criminal behaviours ?

[jackson33]

Phil; i know where this goes and will attempt an answer. however my point is and was, bad is not determined by income or lack of anything, be it food love or fear...

 

no genetics in my opinion nothing to do with good and evil. any study i have seen with this thought has to do with a desire to be like or a copycat mentality. this includes movies, TV or a friend or relative. my opinion here would question this since so few people are apparently influenced.

 

bad parenting per say, also will not make a person bad unless the above applies. a parent glorification of some one who was bad and paying the price or encourages minor crime, not realizing whats ahead. a pot smoking parent or a mom who brags about getting government aid for reasons a child instinctively feels are wrong, are good examples. good parents can result in bad kids to adulthood and of course the reverse.

 

educational and peer influences, i believe can play a major role. ideology, religious beliefs and heritage influence will permit many things as good when the society the person lives or will live in considers them bad.

 

all my references are to the forming mind or person. at some point every person makes a choice to follow or not. role models, good parenting, sound education and the persons natural instincts into adulthood will override all influence unless that person is predisposed to some form of social wrong doing. this happens in all levels of income. i will admit criminal elements of society seem to remain poorer than the average, use drugs, alcohol or a number of things, yet have kids inadvertently making those kids question their own emotions or feelings of right and wrong.