The idea for this thread developed from a Pit thread discussing whether people should get Christmas off. Thought it might be worth an independent discussion.
I say your employer owes you whatever accomodations are required by law, equipment and materials necessary to do the required tasks, and the minimum salary and benefits required to retain valuable employees (and only if the cost of training new employees exceeds the expense of retaining current employees at higher salaries/benefits). An employer’s function is to make a profit or to maximize returns from a set budget, not to have happy employees.
As to what you owe your employer, the bare minimum effort and results to ensure that you will remain employed, and will be considered for whatever bonuses/raises/promotions may arise. Further, you owe it to yourself and your family to minimize the extent to which your work infringes upon or detracts from your personal life.
Some subtle differences may occur depending upon whether we are talking about:
office/management/professional
retail/entertainment/hospitality
skilled labor
unskilled labor
I understand that some of these considerations may be phrased such that they apply to “for-profit” enterprises. I believe they could be reworded such that the same ideas applied to charitable, government, or other employers.
Your employer owes you the value of your time and labour on any tasks that contribute directly or indirectly to their business. In order to ensure that employers do not attempt to undercut this, there should be legal minimums (my opinion: I don’t expect everyone to agree with minimum wages).
The problem comes in determining the value of your time and labour:
There are skills shortages in some areas, and really good employees are always in short supply. Companies will try to outbid each other in these situations. What you’re owed is therefore dependent to a large part on your skills and performance.
if you have to compete against people who are more economically desperate than you are then wages can be forced down. can the powers that be arrange this? is the purpose of television to brainwash almost everyone into being stupid consumers. Keynes died in 1946, did he ever see a television commercial?
Actually, I’d say that’s the employer’s primary goal. That same employer has multiple functions, and should abide by multiple principles.
One of those principles is fair treatment of the employee. For example, if the employee appears to be unproductive, the employer must first conduct a reasonable investigation before taking any punitive action. That employer must also give the employee an opportunity to voice his side, and must provide repeated feedback before taking any drastic action (unless the company is facing serious financial disaster, of course).
In other words, I believe that fair treatment is something which the employer owes the employee, as a matter of human decency.
My employer owes a fair wage for 40 hours work. By fair, I mean I expect to earn a wage equal to co-workers of similar talents and the average wage in the industry. I owe my employer 40 hours of my best effort, not the minimum.
I don’t think my employer owes anyone health isurance or bonuses, but these make it more likely to keep employees with the company, especially in the last few years when the job market became tight and highly competitive.
I don’t owe the company overtime, but I understand I will have a better chance for raises and promotion if I show the extra effort.
An employer doesn’t owe an employee any days off other than that required by law. However, employees tend to be more productive if they’re not pissed off. It all depends on how much an employer wishes to keep production high and employee turn-over low.
My employer owes me everything he is required by law to provide me, plus whatever he is contractually obligated to provide me as a result of our employment agreement. I owe him the same (although I think my legal obligations are a lot less). It may be to the benefit of one or the other to give more than provided by the contract and the law, but it’s not “owed.”
beakerLet’s say you are capable of doing twice as much work as is average “production” within your workplace. Yet, you earn exactly the same as all other employees of similar seniority, raises are based purely on the passage of time and “acceptable” performance, and there are no significant bonuses or possibility of promotion. Do you give your employer your best effort, or something slightly above the norm?
That’s only what is legally owed, though. I think there’s a difference between legal obligations and ethical obligations.
For example, I earlier mentioned the need for fair treatment. Depending on where you work, the law won’t always demand fair treatment – but ethically, it’s a must.
I’m not sure ethical rules apply to corporations, at least not in the same way they do to people. However, it is in the enlightened self-interest of the corporation to treat its employees fairly, if it wants to keep having employees.
Favoritism in the business world? I am shocked. Simply shocked!
An appearance of fairness, and plausible deniability as to the fairness of the process used, is more important than actual qualitative fairness in terms of results.
I’ll grant that the criteria for “fairness” aren’t always clear. Even then though, there are some basic rules to apply. For example, you need to provide feedback on the employee’s performance (barring extreme offenses such as stealing, drunkenness and gross insubordination). Also, if it appears that a person isn’t performing well, then give that person a chance to explain his side.
[QUOTE**An appearance of fairness, and plausible deniability as to the fairness of the process used, is more important than actual qualitative fairness in terms of results. **[/QUOTE]
Yes… but only “in terms of results.” Not in terms of ethical obligations.
I’m not claiming that the rules are exactly the same. That doesn’t make corporations exempt from obeying ethical rules, though (hence the term “business ethics”).
Of course, those rules aren’t always clear – but there are still some basic rules of fairness which are clear.
The distinguished and perspicacious Original Poster (;)) has set criteria for minima. What is the minimum that I must give my employer under the law? What is the minimum that he must give me?
These things will vary from place to place, but I believe he summarized them reasonably well. Note always that there are national laws and usually state laws governing fair employment practices. Even if I am an at-will employee, you may not dismiss me on racial, gender, or a few other grounds, and if I become disabled, you must attempt to make reasonable accommodations to allow me to continue work before you consider dismissing me. (E.g., if most of my duties consist of working with spreadsheets at a computer on the second floor, and I may use the elevator to get there, and I become wheelchair bound he can remove the step up to my office and replace it with a ramp, and the minor task of getting timesheets from our factory half a mile away once a week in order to input hours and such from them can be modified so that the factory manager who comes to the office building to meet with the VP of Production once a week can bring them. These are considered “reasonable accommodations.” If, on the other hand, my job is to be a security guard walking the property and subduing intruders when necessary, and I become wheelchair bound, there is no “reasonable accommodation” possible and I may be dismissed.)
However, as already pointed out both on the Pit thread and here, there are other considerations than what is legally required to note. Perhaps I have been hired at a high annual salary for my creativity, my sales acumen, etc. It is a tacit part of the employment agreement that I must produce at levels far beyond minimum effort; that’s why I was recruited for this job.
And the converse is true: attention to employee morale and the provision of benefits increases productivity, fosters the retention of good, fully-trained experienced employees, and generally increases the income attributable to that employee’s work. A wise employer tries to find the break-even point where he is getting the maximum work per dollar of employee expenditure from his employees, and in virtually every industry this is not at the minimum legal level. Skilled tradesmen in the construction industry are now regularly getting benefits usually associated with upper white-collar jobs (e.g., profit sharing, company-furnished vehicles) because retaining your boss carpenter, your 25-year-experienced master plumber, and so on are worth it in avoided expenses to the hard-nosed contractor giving those benefits.
So there is a multi-part question going on here:
What are the legal requirements?
What is the economic optimum for the employer?
What ethical obligations does he have?
I think the honorable candidate from Dogpatch has covered the third question quite well. I’d just note that many employers feel it incumbent on themselves to assist in a catastrophic event in the life or family of a long-term employee, not for any legal or “happy employee produces more” reason, but just because it fits the firm’s self-image. Example: “Fred has to retire early with terminal cancer, and the doctor gives him two years to live, so we as a corporation are going to self-carry his health insurance even though he’s formally retired from here. This is not to be taken as a company policy for when you retire; it’s a one-time decision to help out a man who’s been a loyal and productive employee for 28 years.” I dunno about you, but if I were an employee of that firm, even though it specifically does not benefit me, I’d feel my morale and loyalty greatly boosted by that.
Speaking as the candidate from Dogpatch, I agree. (Glad to see that someone recognizes the reference.)
Here’s a related anecdote. My former employer once caught a woman showing up for work, drunk and possibly on drugs. Legally, they had every right to terminate her on the spot. Instead, they took her aside and asked, “Is something wrong? What can we do to help?”
Eventually, they did wind up firing this woman. However, they showed mercy and concern first, and I’m sure that this had a positive impact on company morale. To this day, that company has a great reputation for being people-oriented, without sacrificing results.
BTW, I consider ethical obligations to be part of the aforementioned “minimal obligations.” I believe that by definition, ethics ARE necessary.
As far as the OP goes, well, nothing. Employers don’t owe their employess anything (note: this is dealing with human interaction, not necessarily what laws are on the books. That’s what the op seems to be about to me).
The employer and employee should be on equal footing, if possible. For example, can the employee quit at any time for any reason? Then so should the employer be able fire the employee at a moment’s notice. Oh, you want job security? I don’t see how it can be had both ways.
As with any relationship, there is trust that needs to be developed. It bothers me deeply that current laws favor the employee over the employer…that is, in talks of fairness it all seems to be one way.
I don’t think anyone owes anyone else anything. I wasn’t born with a claim check in hand.
This answered by an introductory economics course.
The employer owes the employee what ever he/she is willing to accept for the work the employer expects from them. The employee owes the employer the expected tasks.
The market forces dictate what the employer’s expectations are as well as the employee’s wage.
The employer, of course, realizes there are trade offs for opening for business over Xmas. The employees expect more benefit (eg. overtime, Xmas bonus, more vacation time, etc.) the employer expects increased profits, where the increase would be more than the employee’s extra benefits.
If the employer does not provide extra benefits, he may have to deal with unhappy employees and all the related problems associate with them (eg. strikes, “blue flu”, deliberate inefficiency, finding another job, etc.)
The employees also see the trade offs: Work over Xmas should mean additional benefits. Deciding not to work would lead to being fired.
With all the positive/negative considerations on both sides a happy medium is always eventually established.
I’ve had two jobs (both civil service) which almost exactly fit the above conditions (there are promotions, but they depend on test scores). One job got exactly what was required and my current one gets significantly more. The difference is exclusively because of how the policies and the supervisors treated the workers.
What the employer owes the employees (and vice-versa),aside from the legal requirements,is to treat them as people, in the way the employer would want to be treated in an analogous situation.For example, if the employer doesn’t want people falsely calling in sick when they are scheduled to work, he owes it to them not to falsely create an “emergency” which causes them to work overtime {maybe by assigning something shortly before quitting time and wanting it done that day,even though the employer knew about it for hours and the next day would be soon enough}If the employer docks pay for five minutes of lateness (because he doesn’t want to pay for five minutes that weren’t worked ), he shouldn’t also have a policy of not paying for overtime of less than an hour (thereby gaining up to 59 minutes of free work} [both actual policies at the job that got exactly what was required]
My position is that the 3d is nice, but not necessary. And the employer owes the employees ethical treatment only when required to do so by law, or what it is in the employer’s economic best interest. Employers are not social service agencies or substitute families.
Same way it would be nice to have a job that offered personal fulfillment. But not everyone is so fortunate. Or some have made a trade-off to accept a job that pays well and complements their private life, instead of a demanding, lowpaying job that would be more rewarding. In such a situation, all the worker should expect from the employer is his pay check, and all he should give is the bare minimum to avoid getting fired. Perhaps a little more, so someonw is performing worse and will be the target of the employer’s ire.
Perspicacious, huh? I used anti-perspirant this a.m.!
I disagree. Employers may not be families or social service agencies, but they still need to treat their employees with decency.
Suppose the laws were to change, such that employers could physically abuse their employees. (Remember slavery, people?) Would that make it acceptable? Obviously not! Even if there were an economic advantage to doing so, that still wouldn’t make it right. Now I know this is an extreme case, but it goes to show that what’s legal is just the bare MINIMUM of one’s obligations as a human being.
There’s also a big difference between “what is owed” and “what is in the employer’s economic best interest.” The former is an OBLIGATION. The latter is DESIRABLE, but optional. Employers are never obligated to seek their best interest, although there are clear advantages to doing so.
The Hon. Jubilation T. has hit the nail on the head. Dinsdale, there are always ethical obligations involved. For example, “an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work” is a matter of ethics – just because the manager cannot seem to turn a profit is no reason to short someone’s paycheck (something I’ve seen happen to some low-income employees, and I directed them to the State Labor Department in consequence). Following rather than circumventing labor law would be another ethical obligation.
It is rather pointless to argue category 1: debating what are (as opposed to, perhaps, what should be) the laws governing employment is about equivalent to debating the meaning of the color blue. It’s far more a GQ than a GD. And, as everyone seems agreed, there are no obligations on the part of employers to actions not legally required that may benefit employees, but such actions may well be economically beneficial in terms of increased productivity, morale, and general income-producing circumstances.
The third category, as JTC and I exemplified it, might better be defined as "morally appropriate acts which are not legally required and which do not directly impact the morale/productivity/income scenario. Dinsdale is in essence correct that these are never circumstances where the employer owes the employee anything. Indeed, by definition they could not be. In a very real sense, however, they are things which the employer owes himself. I refer you to the account of one E. Scrooge, prop., Scrooge & Marley, who, as depicted by Boz, is far more at peace with himself and has a much higher self-image following his sequence of nightmares and the actions he takes in consequence. While this is a classic Dickensian caricature, it does speak to the emotional improvement resultant from what used to be termed “charitable acts.” On this item, I can speak from experience, having an extremely good friend and ex-employer who made a real-life Scroogian journey of sorts. I’d suggest that the fact that there are times when an extraordinary voluntary gift is appropriate is the key to this sort of thing: They are in no wise “owed” and “due” to the recipient, but a completely voluntary act.
On the assumption that Dinsdale’s questions have been directed at what is called for by law or by custom having the force of common law, the issues at hand seem settled. Such out-of-the-ordinary circumstances are never required by any outside force, but may be required by the ethics the businessman holds for his own life.
This in turn raises the question of whether corporations have true ethics, and if so, how they can be defined.
Dinsdale, I’d like to toss this question to you- how do you define productivity? I have two personal examples to cite as far as this issue is concerned.
Example #1-
I once worked at a factory job where, four times a year, I was sung a little hymn of praise for having the highest quality rating of anyone in the shop, “But, Loretto, you’re not making rate.” Somehow, my supervisors had failed to take into account that significant portions of my workday were spent repairing defective parts made by some of my more “productive” coworkers, who were making rate, before I could do my part of the manufacturing process. I had started off by laying the parts aside, and letting my supervisor know they were defective and needed repair, but they were never sent back either to the person who had done the bad work, or to the repair station, and if I didn’t do it, it simply would not have been done. So I was basically doing my job, plus the job of at least one, if not two or three other people. Was I being more, or less, productive than my coworkers, who were turning out greater numbers of parts, but creating the need for repairs down the line, which cost more in terms of both money and man hours than it would have to do the job right the first time.
Example #2-
I was an order checker in a music store warehouse, sort of the shipping equivalent of quality control. Everything was fine until we started keeping count of how many orders per day each checker was checking, then all hell broke loose. The other two checkers would grab all the small, easy to handle orders for themselves, which was fine with me, because the easy work was also boring, and I enjoyed handling the larger orders, which tended to have more problems, which I ended up solving.
The other two checkers would frequently check 150 to 200 orders to my 100, but when the mistakes came back, their error rates were five times higher than mine, and that is a conservative estimate. It cost an average of $20 to fix each mistake, so I figure I was actually saving the shop money by processing fewer orders, but taking the time to get the job done right.
If the sales or customer service people took an order which required special handling, or got a rush order late in the day, they would make sure that I was the one who checked it after it was filled. They knew that I would take the proper care of the order, and that I would stay late after work to make sure got out the door, often jumping the conveyor line and packing it (the packers got off a half hour earlier than I did) so that it would get onto the truck. My cohorts would simply say, “Fuck this, I’m not staying late for one order” and leave it for the next day.
The other two were eventually fired, not for their sloppy work, but because of complaints made by several other people who worked there of refusal to cooperate on the job, a wide variety of personal insults, and generally making people’s lives miserable. One of these two actually went to my supervisor and falsely stated that I had physically assaulted her, in an attempt to get me fired, but there were plenty of witnesses around who testified that I was doing my job and minding my own business, so she didn’t get that one on. But I digress…
We all made the same six dollars an hour, but they got bigger bonuses than I did because the numbers showed that they had higher “productivity”.
