Still no answer: Whats a fair days work?

[Old Rocks]

Liberals whine constantly about a "fair" wage or fair pay or just fair fair fair. But they've never demanded that their employers require a fair days work. So whats a fair wage? We've heard from lefties here that it is 75K a year. Some say minimum $11 an hour, others $20 an hour.

Well, I ask (again), whats a fair days work to expect out of you for that pay?

- Will you help my company make profits. Yes, evil, greedy nasty PROFIT. Will you help my company earn more than other companies. Thats kinda the point of being in business.

- Will you work 50 hours a week? 60? I'll pay the OT. Or offer you salary pay. You willing to work it?

- Will you do a job and task that is boring? Beneath you (in your mind)? You will to start at the very bottom and work your way up? No office? Because there are guys that came before you, with the same credentials, that have worked years for what you want right now.

- Willing to work weekends?

- Willing to KEEP helping my company make profits? And you willing to accept that me, and my other managers, will earn more than you?

- Willing to work on your feet 8 hours a day? Maybe in non-air conditioned areas? Hard work? Physical work?




Just wondering what kind of "Fair Days Work" I can expect if I hire one of these wonderful, brilliant, responsible, clean, well mannered Occupiers I see on TV everyday. So far.....I doubt many would meet my demands for a day of work in exchange for a day of pay.

You stupid asshole. This old Bluecollar Liberal has worked overtime weeks for the majority of my life. In fact, most of the time a 60 hour week was a short one. And, as a millwright in sawmills, construction, and steel mills, the work was greasy, dirty, physically and mentally demanding. And dangerous as well.

And there are many days where my gross pay was well over $600 for the day, well deserved according to my supervisors.

I hold most of you 'Conservatives' in contempt because damned few of you have ever worked in the conditions that I have. You yap about working, and call we who actually do the work names, but you have never walked the walk.

 

[naturegirl]

If you're running an efficient Company, every employee has a Relationship to the Company's profitability or else they shouldn't be an employee.

The guy cleaning the kitchen, for example, keeps you from being shut down.

The guy doing the books, for example, keeps track of your dollars and allows you to analyze for changes.

The Secretary keeps you going to appointments on time, and she handles customer calls in a friendly manor, so that word of mouth advertising, i.e. the best advertising there is, is spread about your company in a good light, thus yielding more profits.



If you have any employees that don't Contribute to the bottom line, somehow, than you either haven't thought it through, OR, they shouldn't be employed.

So do you own a business?? Do you know anything at all about cost accounting???

Yea, in fact I do. (know about cost accounting)

You're arguing semantics.

You're arguing that they don't directly yield profits, I'm arguing that they indirectly DO.

And if they don't, they should not be employed.

And by your logic the electric and water indirectly yield profits so I need to pay more for them. Gotcha!!

 

[G.T.]

Receptionist and accountant come to mind. What about an administrative assistant?? These are necessary costs to run a business but if no one has ever run a business they don't see it the same way.

"Necessary" is where you guys fail to think deeper.

Care to clarify?? And perhaps you don't think a receptionist is necessary but customers do appreciate talking to a real person. They let us know that, often.

I will clarify:

They're employed because they are necessary to keep the ship afloat.

Keeping the ship afloat, in its entirety, is what yields profits.

If the Ship is efficient, it's utilizing all parts to stay afloat.

If there are excess parts, the ship is inefficient.

 

[G.T.]

So do you own a business?? Do you know anything at all about cost accounting???

Yea, in fact I do. (know about cost accounting)

You're arguing semantics.

You're arguing that they don't directly yield profits, I'm arguing that they indirectly DO.

And if they don't, they should not be employed.

And by your logic the electric and water indirectly yield profits so I need to pay more for them. Gotcha!!

Without Electric and water, would you be able to be profitable?

That's the crux of it.


The "so I need to pay more for them" part is imaginary, I never said or implied anything like that.

 

[JDzBrain]

Well...I'm as conservative a fellow as you are likely to find and while I agree whole heartily with the premise of your rant Bucs, I think a lot of the controversy you have sparked is in what you left out of the rant.

Here's the thing, when I went in for an interview for the last major company I worked for several years ago, an international that about everyone would recognize, I was asked by the loud mouth, pot belly pig that was operations manager for that facility how I felt about overtime. My response, "If I've gotta work overtime to make a living...I need to find a better job!"

It was, to say the least, taken back a bit and it pretty much ended the interview. But I'd already been hired by the president and owner of the company, so it didn't matter. I spent 15 years working for that company. The pot belly pig lasted another 1 1/2 years trying to bully people before he was fired for non performance.

I told the man EXACTLY how I felt about it...and STILL DO!

Now the truth of the situation was, I worked quit a bit of overtime over those years. Not a lot, but quit a bit. I worked a few weekends as well, but probably not more than 1 or 2 a year.

Why did I if that was the way I felt about it? Because it needed to be done to get the job done. AND because the owner who actually contacted and hired me on my reputation told me that there might be times when overtime and an occasional weekend might be necessary, but that he would try to keep that to a minimum...and he DID!

This owner, a VERY thoughtful fellow, told me in our discussions that he viewed having to work his employees a lot of overtime and weekends as a failure of planning on his part. He allowed that if not acted upon by unforeseeable and/or outside forces....his company worked best when his employees received competitive pay and ONLY worked overtime when they WANTED to. And that is what usually happened. Given the success of his company...I'd say he was dead on.

In most every company, there is a small group of people who just want to work all the overtime they can for one reason or the other. As managers, we found ways to let those who needed or wanted extra money to work overtime when we could. As a matter of fact, that was built into the owner's business model. As I said, VERY thoughtful fellow.

So the point is, I and most the people I know don't LIKE overtime, but don't mind overtime when it's necessary. What we DO mind is overtime and weekends as a matter of course....a condition for employment instead of an exception made for mutual success. After all, what good is the money if you don't have time to enjoy it?

That attitude does NOT make me lazy or a bad employee. Heck, I missed 3 days of work in 15 years due to illness and 2 for family funerals, NEVER showed up late and only refused to work a weekend once and that was for a funeral. But it wasn't hard since I wasn't asked that often. ;~)

Employers who think that they should be able to expect the same level of dedication to their dream from their employees as they themselves have are deluding themselves. They will go through an endless string of unsatisfactory (in their eyes) relationships with their workers and stay in a constant state of internal turmoil. NEITHER of which are good for the business model, the people involved OR the bottom line!

I don't think that you as an employer are saying in your post that you expect employees to work overtime on a weekly bases and 2, 3 or every weekend. THAT would be a problem for almost everyone. It is NOT a good work environment for anyone, occupier or otherwise and I don't think that is what you were saying or believe.

Even leaving that part out, you're point is valid that there IS a serious lack of understanding about what makes the world go round. There is a work ethic that is not being imparted to too many or our youth or is being subverted by our government run educational system that is leading to generations of useful idiots who believe they are OWED something by society. They don't believe that they are not owed anything until they do SOMEthing.

We have to fix that!

Now...my addition to your rant is done. ;~)

By the way, since I started my own business, I've spent MANY 14-16 and even a few 18-20 hour days and gone for months at a time without a single day off. But I would NOT do that for you! LOL

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually, the best answer I can give is that I would never work for YOU under any circumstances, period. I've had quite enough of selfish, arrogant, dishonest bosses.

That's the best answer to the question overall. And notice it begins with "I". The point is, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It's not something we can decide with government mandate or democratic deliberation. It's up to each and everyone of us to decide for ourselves how much work we're willing to do for how much money. Or, how much money we're willing to pay someone else for their work.

Exactly

 

[candycorn]

An employer makes a profit off of every employee. A fair days work is determined by the employer. When he is no longer making a profit, that employee is released

I agree with you in theory. One of the problems is that there are a great number of employers who have zero idea who does what. One of the bosses for whom I worked literally could not tell you who did what in the back office where I worked.

When the time came that he had to manage the staff, I heard he quit. I had left the organiztion because I wanted to do what I'm doing now and frankly left them in the lurch.

The company closed up shop shortly thereafter because they wouldn't give me a contract to come back to work and they couldn't find anybody else to come in and manage it.

The home office closed soon thereafter.

On average I worked 70+ hours a week for the 4+ years I was there.

 

[candycorn]

Well...I'm as conservative a fellow as you are likely to find and while I agree whole heartily with the premise of your rant Bucs, I think a lot of the controversy you have sparked is in what you left out of the rant.

Here's the thing, when I went in for an interview for the last major company I worked for several years ago, an international that about everyone would recognize, I was asked by the loud mouth, pot belly pig that was operations manager for that facility how I felt about overtime. My response, "If I've gotta work overtime to make a living...I need to find a better job!"

It was, to say the least, taken back a bit and it pretty much ended the interview. But I'd already been hired by the president and owner of the company, so it didn't matter. I spent 15 years working for that company. The pot belly pig lasted another 1 1/2 years trying to bully people before he was fired for non performance.

I told the man EXACTLY how I felt about it...and STILL DO!

Now the truth of the situation was, I worked quit a bit of overtime over those years. Not a lot, but quit a bit. I worked a few weekends as well, but probably not more than 1 or 2 a year.

Why did I if that was the way I felt about it? Because it needed to be done to get the job done. AND because the owner who actually contacted and hired me on my reputation told me that there might be times when overtime and an occasional weekend might be necessary, but that he would try to keep that to a minimum...and he DID!

This owner, a VERY thoughtful fellow, told me in our discussions that he viewed having to work his employees a lot of overtime and weekends as a failure of planning on his part. He allowed that if not acted upon by unforeseeable and/or outside forces....his company worked best when his employees received competitive pay and ONLY worked overtime when they WANTED to. And that is what usually happened. Given the success of his company...I'd say he was dead on.

In most every company, there is a small group of people who just want to work all the overtime they can for one reason or the other. As managers, we found ways to let those who needed or wanted extra money to work overtime when we could. As a matter of fact, that was built into the owner's business model. As I said, VERY thoughtful fellow.

So the point is, I and most the people I know don't LIKE overtime, but don't mind overtime when it's necessary. What we DO mind is overtime and weekends as a matter of course....a condition for employment instead of an exception made for mutual success. After all, what good is the money if you don't have time to enjoy it?

That attitude does NOT make me lazy or a bad employee. Heck, I missed 3 days of work in 15 years due to illness and 2 for family funerals, NEVER showed up late and only refused to work a weekend once and that was for a funeral. But it wasn't hard since I wasn't asked that often. ;~)

Employers who think that they should be able to expect the same level of dedication to their dream from their employees as they themselves have are deluding themselves. They will go through an endless string of unsatisfactory (in their eyes) relationships with their workers and stay in a constant state of internal turmoil. NEITHER of which are good for the business model, the people involved OR the bottom line!

I don't think that you as an employer are saying in your post that you expect employees to work overtime on a weekly bases and 2, 3 or every weekend. THAT would be a problem for almost everyone. It is NOT a good work environment for anyone, occupier or otherwise and I don't think that is what you were saying or believe.

Even leaving that part out, you're point is valid that there IS a serious lack of understanding about what makes the world go round. There is a work ethic that is not being imparted to too many or our youth or is being subverted by our government run educational system that is leading to generations of useful idiots who believe they are OWED something by society. They don't believe that they are not owed anything until they do SOMEthing.

We have to fix that!

Now...my addition to your rant is done. ;~)

By the way, since I started my own business, I've spent MANY 14-16 and even a few 18-20 hour days and gone for months at a time without a single day off. But I would NOT do that for you! LOL

I would just add that what seems to be missing now (especially if you look at the OP) is the compact between employee and employer. Employers in the past expected you to try to build up some equity and employees in the past understood that extraordinary times would mean that sometimes you had to work overtime, weekends, etc.. Today's employer wants you to perform as though you're still getting that equity while at the same time fully conscious that your "equity" means nothing. Conversely today's employee sees that there is no loyalty from the employer and does not want to risk the equity that it would take to endear oneself to that employer if that were in fact still an option.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Bucs has a water cooler for employees.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I would just add that what seems to be missing now (especially if you look at the OP) is the compact between employee and employer. Employers in the past expected you to try to build up some equity and employees in the past understood that extraordinary times would mean that sometimes you had to work overtime, weekends, etc.. Today's employer wants you to perform as though you're still getting that equity while at the same time fully conscious that your "equity" means nothing. Conversely today's employee sees that there is no loyalty from the employer and does not want to risk the equity that it would take to endear oneself to that employer if that were in fact still an option.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Bucs has a water cooler for employees.

That isn't true in many instances candycorn. It does happen with some employers but not with most who are smart, you don't get and keep productive workers that way.

 

[auditor0007]

Liberals whine constantly about a "fair" wage or fair pay or just fair fair fair. But they've never demanded that their employers require a fair days work. So whats a fair wage? We've heard from lefties here that it is 75K a year. Some say minimum $11 an hour, others $20 an hour.

Well, I ask (again), whats a fair days work to expect out of you for that pay?

- Will you help my company make profits. Yes, evil, greedy nasty PROFIT. Will you help my company earn more than other companies. Thats kinda the point of being in business.

- Will you work 50 hours a week? 60? I'll pay the OT. Or offer you salary pay. You willing to work it?

- Will you do a job and task that is boring? Beneath you (in your mind)? You will to start at the very bottom and work your way up? No office? Because there are guys that came before you, with the same credentials, that have worked years for what you want right now.

- Willing to work weekends?

- Willing to KEEP helping my company make profits? And you willing to accept that me, and my other managers, will earn more than you?

- Willing to work on your feet 8 hours a day? Maybe in non-air conditioned areas? Hard work? Physical work?




Just wondering what kind of "Fair Days Work" I can expect if I hire one of these wonderful, brilliant, responsible, clean, well mannered Occupiers I see on TV everyday. So far.....I doubt many would meet my demands for a day of work in exchange for a day of pay.

I think fair is offering employees just enough hours so they cannot be considered full-time employees so they cannot qualify for any company benefits such as vacation pay or health insurance. To top it off, don't pay them anymore than minimum wage. If employers paid everyone like this, just think of our economic prosperity.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZpWej8pF4]I Don't Understand with Obama - YouTube[/ame]



For all the business owners out there this video will hit home hard.

For those that don't seem to understand why things are the way they are the video should be both entertaining and enlightening.

 

[Photonic]

Easy, a fair days work is 8 hours with a half hour-hour break (depending on what the company wants to give.

What's the debate here exactly?

 

[candycorn]

I would just add that what seems to be missing now (especially if you look at the OP) is the compact between employee and employer. Employers in the past expected you to try to build up some equity and employees in the past understood that extraordinary times would mean that sometimes you had to work overtime, weekends, etc.. Today's employer wants you to perform as though you're still getting that equity while at the same time fully conscious that your "equity" means nothing. Conversely today's employee sees that there is no loyalty from the employer and does not want to risk the equity that it would take to endear oneself to that employer if that were in fact still an option.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Bucs has a water cooler for employees.

That isn't true in many instances candycorn. It does happen with some employers but not with most who are smart, you don't get and keep productive workers that way.

Many? If i may...I think it is true in many cases...I don't think it is true in most instances however. Yet. I think the country is moving that way as narrow minded supervisors worry about quarterly bottom lines instead of long term stability.

The current COO of a place where I worked once is doing her best to make every employee disposable. The contractor to employee ratio is getting closer to 1/1 everyday there. The profitability in the short term is on the incline since pay and benefits are being saved in droves. The long term prospects for the organization are dim since the brain drain has been effected.

The way I know this is that the place I was referencing where I worked was a vendor of theirs before they closed. Their purchasing department had persons running the department--running it--that didn't know the check digits for purchase orders. When we got their orders, we questioned whether or not their PO was sound because it went from being a predictable letter followed by 8 digits to being 6 digits followed by two letters which turned out to be the short date followed by the two initials of the person ordering it.

 

[G.T.]

Plymco,

If you really think that that's what's wrong with the Economy(your video), you're on something.

The income gap in the Country is independant of Job creation (or lack thereof), and it's also independant of how Profit$ are doing.

An employer is going to add an employee if and only if the employee would be a net gain for his business. That doesn't change no matter who the **** is in the White House, and only the Business owners who are the schmucks who follow partisan politics tow that line.

The income disparity is not due to the President, obviously, because PROFITS ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.



Let's say that again:

CORPORATE PROFITS ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH.

^ Read that over and over again, and then watch the bullshit video again.

Corporate profits are at an all time high..........


that's not revenue...


that's profits.



While the average worker's pay is remaining stagnant.

The video is false propoganda. It implies that Obama has made it too expensive to do business............while ignoring the fact that Corporate business is BOOMING.

 

[candycorn]

Easy, a fair days work is 8 hours with a half hour-hour break (depending on what the company wants to give.

What's the debate here exactly?

Good point. The girl selling tickets at the theater is doing just as fair a day's work as the guy digging a ditch for the same 8 hours in my view.

Tom Hanks does just as fair a days work as the girl selling tickets to his movies as well.

 

[G.T.]

Corporate profits are at an all time high..........


that's not revenue...


that's profits.



While the average worker's pay is remaining stagnant.

The video is false propoganda. It implies that Obama has made it too expensive to do business............while ignoring the fact that Corporate business is BOOMING.

 

[Photonic]

Easy, a fair days work is 8 hours with a half hour-hour break (depending on what the company wants to give.

What's the debate here exactly?

Good point. The girl selling tickets at the theater is doing just as fair a day's work as the guy digging a ditch for the same 8 hours in my view.

Tom Hanks does just as fair a days work as the girl selling tickets to his movies too.

I would say the compensation may be wacked, but the amount of time seems fair.

 

[Jarhead]

Easy, a fair days work is 8 hours with a half hour-hour break (depending on what the company wants to give.

What's the debate here exactly?

Good point. The girl selling tickets at the theater is doing just as fair a day's work as the guy digging a ditch for the same 8 hours in my view.

Tom Hanks does just as fair a days work as the girl selling tickets to his movies too.

So why does Tom Hanks get 50K an hour and the ticket girl getting 8 an hour?

( I dont know what Tom Hanks makes....but you get my point)

 

[candycorn]

Easy, a fair days work is 8 hours with a half hour-hour break (depending on what the company wants to give.

What's the debate here exactly?

Good point. The girl selling tickets at the theater is doing just as fair a day's work as the guy digging a ditch for the same 8 hours in my view.

Tom Hanks does just as fair a days work as the girl selling tickets to his movies too.

So why does Tom Hanks get 50K an hour and the ticket girl getting 8 an hour?

( I dont know what Tom Hanks makes....but you get my point)

It doesn't matter. The market values Mr. Hanks contribution at 50K an hour and hers at 8. Mr. Hanks has a skillset in demand by those who watch his movies and television dramas. The skillset being applied by the girl behind the booth is limited.

On a similiar note, I always wondered why a waitress would work at Denny's instead of the Grand Lux or Fleming's. Same exact job. Why would you not work where the tips are going to be astronomically better?

 

[candycorn]

Corporate profits are at an all time high..........


that's not revenue...


that's profits.



While the average worker's pay is remaining stagnant.

The video is false propoganda. It implies that Obama has made it too expensive to do business............while ignoring the fact that Corporate business is BOOMING.

You're 100% right on both counts which is why I'm having this disagreement with Pymlico Pilgrim; too many corporate managers see their workers as disposable operatives and is trying to make them as generic as possible so they can be replaced like a fuse when they start acting up.