Of course he does, considering that his work week consists of an average of 1 day per week! Newsbusters has a good roundup of CNN’s American Morning from today:
Alina Cho: “…For many Americans, taking a sick day is not a big deal. You take it for granted. But by most estimates, more than half of all Americans who work in the private sector do not get a single day of paid sick leave. Not a single day. Well, all of that could change now that the Democrats are about to take control of Congress. And for some families, it could make all the difference. Rachel Sobel, mother of two, quit her job last December when she was forced to make a choice: her job or her son. Leo had broken his arm and needed her care.”
Well, who is Rachel Sobel? She’s on the board of directors for ParentsWork, an Illinois based organization that, according to their website, has the following goals:
“By connecting parents with information and tools to take action, our hope is that ParentsWork can give us the strength in numbers that we need to get business leaders and elected officials to listen to our concerns and do something about them. So, join us and become part of a growing movement of Illinois parents who want to create a better future for our children and grandchildren.”
CNN and Ms. Cho apparently couldn’t find the time to mention this salient point. Later in the piece, which aired at 7:16am, the reporter simply stated that Sobel “now has a part-time job which affords her more time with her kids but less money.” The viewer is left with the impression that this is just a regular, ordinary mother with no particular agenda.
“American Morning” hosts Soledad O’Brien and Miles O’Brien both promoted the legislation earlier in the program. In a 7AM tease, Ms. O’Brien helpfully added the following insight:
Soledad O’Brien: “This morning, how the power shift in Washington could make it easier for you to call in sick and still get paid.”
A few minutes later, Miles O’Brien introduced Cho and continued the “helpful Democrats” theme:
Miles O’Brien: “Well, I wonder how you feel this morning? You might wish you could just call in sick and roll over, but you can’t because you’d lose a day’s pay. Well, You may be getting some relief soon. Some members of Congress have the prescription for new legislation that could give you a break.”
In her segment, Cho cited a city and a person in order to promote the legislation: San Francisco and Ted Kennedy. Somehow, the word “liberal” wasn’t applied to either:
Cho: “Next month, Senator Ted Kennedy will reintroduce a bill that would require companies with 15 or more employees to provide full-time workers seven days of paid sick leave a year.”
Ted Kennedy: “It’s good enough for the members of Congress, good enough for the Senate, the House of Representatives. It’s good enough for hard-working people.”
Cho: “It’s already good enough for San Francisco. The city recently approved a similar measure, the first in the nation to do so. Kennedy says it should be federal policy.”
The CNN correspondent mostly ignored or downplayed the economic impact this bill would have. The report, almost four minutes in length, included only a five second clip of opposition to the legislation, and note that it included a plea for more taxes:
Cho: “Business leaders say if paid sick leave is that important, Congress should raise taxes to pay for it.”
Randel Johnson (U.S. Chamber of Commerce): “People get sick, need time off, why should the employer necessarily have to pay for that burden?”
After that, Cho shifted right back into enthusiastic cheerleader mode, bashing America for not living up to other, more enlightened countries:
Cho: “Now, business leaders who are against paid sick leave say employers simply can’t afford to pay for it. But people like Rachel Sopel say in the long run, and this makes sense, if the person goes into work sick and gets everyone else sick, it will hurt businesses, especially productivity, even more. Interesting to note, 139 countries provide paid sick leave for workers. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not pay. And Miles, Senator Kennedy says next to minimum wage, paid sick leave is the most important issue facing American workers here.”
Advocating that America embrace the policies of socialist countries isn’t a new angle. On October 5, 2005, Brent Baker noted that both ABC and NBC were promoting an embrace of European legislation:
“ABC and NBC turned a study, on how children are better off cared for by mothers at home instead of in daycare, into a chance to promote European socialistic paid leave benefits.”
Katie Couric, then a host of “Today,” made her feelings clear. She wondered, “This country is pretty far behind in providing really superior childcare for working parents, right?” Now that the Democrats are writing bills, America can probably expect more “independent” experts and profiles of all sorts of exciting new legislation.
A transcript of the December 11 “American Morning” report follows:
7:00Â
Soledad O’Brien: “This morning, how the power shift in Washington could make it easier for you to call in sick and still get paid.”
7:16
Miles O’Brien: “Well, I wonder how you feel this morning? You might wish you could just call in sick and roll over, but you can’t because you’d lose a day’s pay. Well, You may be getting some relief soon. Some members of Congress have the prescription for new legislation that could give you a break. ‘American Morning’s’ Alina Cho is feeling well, I hope.”
Alina Cho: “I am. Miles, good morning to you.”
O’Brien: “Good to have you.”
Cho: “Thank you. You know, for many Americans, taking a sick day is not a big deal. You take it for granted. But by most estimates, more than half of all Americans who work in the private sector do not get a single day of paid sick leave. Not a single day. Well, all of that could change now that the Democrats are about to take control of Congress. And for some families, it could make all the difference. Rachel Sobel, mother of two, quit her job last December when she was forced to make a choice: her job or her son. Leo had broken his arm and needed her care.”
Rachel Sobel: ” I had to be home with him.”
Cho: “But she couldn’t. She already used her payed time off, which included only two sick days, so she quit to care for her son. It’s a dilemma lots of Americans face. Nearly half of all workers in the private sector don’t get any paid sick time. And lower-wage workers are the hardest hit. With Democrats about to take control of Congress, they’re vowing to fight for a change.”
Ted Kennedy: “I, quite frankly, am tired of playing defense. I think it’s time that we played offense.”
Cho: “Next month, Senator Ted Kennedy will reintroduce a bill that would require companies with 15 or more employees to provide full-time workers seven days of paid sick leave a year.”
Kennedy: “It’s good enough for the members of Congress, good enough for the Senate, the House of Representatives, it’s good enough for hard-working people.”
Cho: “It’s already good enough for San Francisco. The city recently approved a similar measure, the first in the nation to do so. Kennedy says it should be federal policy. Business leaders say if paid sick leave is that important, Congress should raise taxes to pay for it.”
Randel Johnson (U.S. Chamber of Commerce): “People get sick, need time off, why should the employer necessarily have to pay for that burden?”
Cho: “Rachel now has a part-time job which affords her more time with her kids but less money. What she really wants is a full time job that allows her enough time off to take care of her kids when they’re sick and get paid at the same time.”
Sobel: “It’s really all-American workers who deserve this.”
Cho: “Now, business leaders who are against paid sick leave say employers simply can’t afford to pay for it. But people like Rachel Sopel say in the long run, and this makes sense, if the person goes into work sick and gets everyone else sick, it will hurt businesses, especially productivity, even more. Interesting to note, 139 countries provide paid sick leave for workers. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not pay. And Miles, Senator Kennedy says next to minimum wage, paid sick leave is the most important issue facing American workers here.”
Miles O’Brien: “Now, the system we have here, we really don’t have sick days. We have PTO, paid time off.”
Cho: “Right.”
Miles O’Brien: “It all kind of gets lumped into vacation.”
Cho: “That’s right. So, you might get 30 days total for the year, vacation, personal days, sick days. And it’s a trend. A lot more companies are doing things this way. And proponents of this policy say it’s a good idea because, listen, if you have a family and you need to take sick days, you can take sick days. Work if you don’t and you want to take more vacation, you can do that. And they say it actually discourages people from taking sick days, unless they’re absolutely sick and need to take a sick day. And it’s a trend that’s caught on.”
O’Brien: “Of course, it might cause them to come in sick and get everyone sick, which is–”
Cho: “Right. That’s the other side of it.”
Soledad O’Brien: “But that woman, her son broke her arm. She just wasn’t going to spread germs, she just wanted to be able to help him.”
Cho: “That’s right. And she had to quit as a result.”
I agree.
At the very least, unpaid sick time off should be allowed. Best scenerio is paid sick leave.
This would be no problem if Clinton and Bush wasn’t widdling away workers benefits and pay with free trade agreements. Companies would mostly be prosperous enougfh to afford it. Remember when Bush wanted to do away with overtime pay?
This would be no problem if Clinton and Bush wasn’t widdling away workers benefits and pay with free trade agreements. Companies would mostly be prosperous enougfh to afford it. Remember when Bush wanted to do away with overtime pay?
Well-said.
Why should unpaid sick time be allowed and where do you draw the line? People are given time off during the year. And we wouldn’t be as prosperous as we are right now if we didn’t open the markets Ted. If we had to buy what is made here, there would be a lot of businesses gone and a lot of hungry people..
Why should unpaid sick time be allowed and where do you draw the line? People are given time off during the year.
Obviously we’ve had to “draw the line” in the past in the name of worker rights and we’ve done so with relative success, e.g., we’ve “drawn the line” at a 40 hrs/wk; we’ve “drawn the line” at health care (but not cosmetic surgeries), etc. All of these policies are somewhat flexible (who actually works a perfect 40 hrs/wk?), but that doesn’t mean that its impossible to “draw the line.”
If we had to buy what is made here, there would be a lot of businesses gone and a lot of hungry people
Were things so terrible before the dawn of free trade? Were we forced to eat our children before NAFTA and GATT? Large corporations have used free trade as a means of farming out American jobs oversees. It’s been great for companies like Nike, for example, that use sweatshop labor, but it hasn’t been so great for American workers.
4- As for drawing the line, you said a lot about nothing..are people given paid time off during the year? Answer: Yes. So why should a company give more?
Were things so terrible before the dawn of free trade? staginent and prosperity was looking bleak. Jobs have come into this country as a result as well. The economic benefits are felt by the average american family..take a look at how well Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart do….people shop there because they can afford to. And this didn’t start with CLinton or Bush, it is silly to say it did..
And you might want to take a look at the US auto industry..they were one of the 1st to outsource jobs and move operations out of this country….the unions ok’d it because they got a cut of the savings…
As for drawing the line, you said a lot about nothing..are people given paid time off during the year? Answer: Yes. So why should a company give more?
You said “where do we draw the line?” as though any worker benefits were a slippery slope that would lead us to some sort of financial ruin—-God knows what. My point was that, obviously, we can draw the line where we choose to. If we can improve the quality of workers lives, such that they can take their kids to the doctor without sacrificing their job, why not do it? It seems to me that a lot of the anti-worker bullshit I see on this site has little to do with questions of what would actually improve the quality of life in this country. Most of the points seem to center on the notion that what’s good for the corporations is absolutely good regardless of its wider effects. This seems short-sighted and silly. Why not give people a little more time off and pay the CEOs a little less? I’ve seen a lot of bitching and moaning about workers’ rights on this site and very little about the salaries and the benefits of the upper-echelon of the business world. Would society collapse, Peejz, if the CEO of of whatever mega-conglomerate received 100 million a year rather than 600 million?
And you might want to take a look at the US auto industry..they were one of the 1st to outsource jobs and move operations out of this country:.the unions ok’d it because they got a cut of the savings:
The unions are essentially corporations that work for their own interests. The idea of an actual workers union of the sort we say in the 1920s died a long time ago.
staginent and prosperity was looking bleak. Jobs have come into this country as a result as well. The economic benefits are felt by the average american family..take a look at how well Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart do:.people shop there because they can afford to.
With the possible exception of Target (which I don’t know the stats on), these companies aren’t doing very well at all. Regardless, I don’t think that I’d equate the ability to shop at Wal-Mart with the success of the American family. I wonder what you mean by “stagnant” and “bleak.” Do you have certain numbers in mind and could you show me how free trade fixed this?
7-You said “where do we draw the line?”as though any worker benefits were a slippery slope that would lead us to some sort of financial ruin obviously you have no background in business/finance.
If we can improve the quality of workers lives, such that they can take their kids to the doctor without sacrificing their job That is what the vacation days are for..or the parent could make arrangements with a sitter, or if the employee is one that doesn’t have a pre-existing absentee problem, most employers work with them..but this topic is really more about the screw up that thinks that the world owes them something..
pay the CEOs a little less? Why should CEO’s be paid less? As it is, the illegal labor has proven that the unskilled/uneducated workforce is obsolete in this country, the CEO’s are the ones furthering the business. We don’t regulate pay other than minimum..should we put a maximum on the hourly worker?
With the possible exception of Target (which I don’t know the stats on), these companies aren’t doing very well at all.- Where do you get your information?
7-I wonder what you mean by “stagnant”and “bleak.”Do you have certain numbers in mind and could you show me how free trade fixed this?
Link to this info:The burst of inflation that struck the United States in the 1970s shapes much American thought about macroeconomic policy. The decade of the 1970s saw GDP-deflator inflation rates peak at nearly ten percent per year. It saw consumer price inflation rates peak at three or four percent higher.
In addition, the inflation of the 1970s has cast its shadow upon forecasts of the likely future of the American economy. Everyone’s expectations of what inflation will be in the future are powerfully influenced by the memory of the 1970s, during the American price level did rise by more than eighty percent.
Another way the socialists enlist the masses by appealing to the workers just typical of them:roll:
“Why should unpaid sick time be allowed and where do you draw the line? People are given time off during the year.”
This isn’t true always.
As an example, were my wife works she isn’t allowed to take vacation days unless she gives a four week notice. If she calls off three times within a six month period, she is terminated.
She is not allowed to call off if her children are sick. She was specificlly told that it was not an excusable abscence.
She works at Wal-Mart.
Regarding the discussion of the free market/free trade: I beleive in a free market economy. The problem that people most often forget that a free market is dependant upon all conditions being even for the most part. This is where concepts of competition and ingenuity comes into play.
However, if the conditions are not even for the competitors then you no longer have a true free market. Free trade agreements have began collapse this concept in America. As an example China does not follow the same laws as America. Labor laws allow unbalanced competition due to low labor costs and Chinese governement regulated criteria (a controlled market, by definition).
I also want folks to realize the deinition of a free market economy: An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
Minor restrictions. IMO, those retrictions that fall under the auspices of protecting the rights of the citizenry that consists of the work force qualify as minor restrictions. That is the very definition of the job of the governement: to protect its citizens.
11.
That is the very definition of the job of the governement: to protect its citizens.
Exactly.
10. I’ve actually met the person who wrote what you’ve linked to (not in California—-I’m midwest all the way). Weird though. Having read it, I see that it has little or nothing to do with what I’m describing. No one’s denying that the economy was bad in the 70s. The question is whether or not you could demonstrate that free trade was the answer to the problem. The author of the article doesn’t seem to think so, so what exactly is your point?
8.
That is what the vacation days are for..or the parent could make arrangements with a sitter, or if the employee is one that doesn’t have a pre-existing absentee problem, most employers work with them..but this topic is really more about the screw up that thinks that the world owes them something..
No, it’s naive to think that any systemic problem is just a problem with the one screw-up making things hard for everybody. It’s nice to think so as it transforms all of the difficult problems in the world into fodder for sitcoms, but it’s not really how things work.
Clearly it isn’t always the case that the parent could make arrangements with the sitter. Children don’t give a week’s notice when they’re going to be sick. Do you have any experience with kids?
Why should CEO’s be paid less? As it is, the illegal labor has proven that the unskilled/uneducated workforce is obsolete in this country, the CEO’s are the ones furthering the business. We don’t regulate pay other than minimum..should we put a maximum on the hourly worker?
Why should a CEO get 5,000 times as much as his employees? S/he’s much less essential than the folks actually doing the work—-making the automobiles, or widgets, or whatever. The CEO is relatively parasitical. Why is your knee-jerk reaction always to side with the rich against the poor? Or with the corporations against the interests of the workers?
Re: Wal-Mart and K-Mart: WM has had a rough year profits-wise. In part this is due to all of the bad press about the way that they treat their workers. KM has been near bankruptcy for the last decade (they filed in 2002). Here’s a link: Edited, do the links peoperly…
If you’re interested in the legacy of Wal-Mart in general, here’s a good link:
11- In what cases are they no given the time off Ted? Is it understood before they take the job, how much time off the company allows? Is the attendance policy clearly stated? It sounds like the policy is clearly stated.
If your wife works at Wal-Mart, I would guess she is part time? I also posted a link stating that they revamped the policy…What is written holds more water legally than a verbal directive…Are you not allowed to stay home instead of your wife?
Minor restrictions. IMO, those retrictions that fall under the auspices of protecting the rights of the citizenry that consists of the work force qualify as minor restrictions. That is the very definition of the job of the governement: to protect its citizens. Intruding on companies that are not breaking laws is a bit more than intruding..
12-Re: Wal-Mart and K-Mart: WM has had a rough year profits-wise. In part this is due to all of the bad press about the way that they treat their workers. KM has been near bankruptcy for the last decade (they filed in 2002). Here’s a link: Edited, do the links peoperly: All are making a profit. KM is doing fine, or have you not followed Sear/K-Mart?
Why should a CEO get 5,000 times as much as his employees? S/he’s much less essential than the folks actually doing the work”-making the automobiles, or widgets, or whatever. The CEO is relatively parasitical. Why is your knee-jerk reaction always to side with the rich against the poor? Or with the corporations against the interests of the workers? Well I haven’t seen an example of where a corporation is against the interest of the worker..please give one. Ceo’s and private owners grow the business and secure the future of the widget in the market. The CEO’s or owers carry the burden of sustaining the business..
Re 13: “In what cases are they no given the time off Ted?
All circumstances. She is not allowed to call off from a scheduled shift three times in a six month period, or she will be terminated.
Is it understood before they take the job, how much time off the company allows? Is the attendance policy clearly stated? It sounds like the policy is clearly stated.”
They just recently changed the policy Peejz. Before the policy change she was allowed to take time off if our children were sick. Each individual circumstance was at the discretion of the managers as to if it was an excused abscence. If it were a single day, she didn’t get paid but at least she could attend to our sick child. If multiple days had to be taken she was paid for days after the first unpaid one, however that usually had to accompany a doctor’s excuse for validity of abscence.
Wal-Mart’s sales are down this year nationwide and in comparison to their competitors their sales percentages are suffering this holiday. I have no doubt in my mind it is because of the negative publicity they received due to changes in employment practices, and rightfully so. They have had a base shift away from the standards that Sam Walton set. As I said, my wife has worked their 16 years, and liked it up until a couple of years ago when these negative changes stared to come about. These last items are the straws that broke the camels back.
Today, she has an interview at Verizon Wireless.
Here is the policy as published by the AP
The issue: being 10 minutes or more tardy for work three times will earn you a demerit. Too many of those could get you fired. Documents furnished to The Associated Press by union-backed WakeUpWalmart.com show that employees must call an 800 number to report all absences and tardiness by an hour before the scheduled start time. They also have to call their manager with the confirmation code they received when calling the hot line number. In the past, employees got permission directly from their store managers.
The Policy: The new policy reduces the number of unapproved absences allowed to three from the previous four during a rolling six-month period. Employees who have more than three unapproved absences will be disciplined; seven will result in termination, according to the documents. Simley said under the old policy, employees were terminated after six unapproved absences.
The new policy appears more rigid when it comes to authorized absences. In the past, general bad weather would suffice as an authorized excuse; now it has to be a natural disaster like a hurricane or blizzard. Wal-Mart is now defining tardiness more rigidly as beginning work 10 minutes or more after the scheduled start time, which results in an incomplete shift. Three incomplete shifts add up to one unauthorized absence.
Under the revised policy, Wal-Mart is encouraging employees who are sick for more than three days to apply for unpaid leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act.
What is so out of line in the policy? Wal-Mart is a business that depends on people showing up for work.
The AP got it wrong.
Three unapproved abscences in a a six month period equals “being dicisplined”. “Being diciplined” equals termination.
Calling off for a sick child is NOT an unapproved abscence.
Regarding weather: unless the store is damaged via tornado, etc to cause its closure, the only excused abscence is if there is a level 3 snow emergency. A level 3 snow emergency distates t.hat if you are on the road and are not an emergency vehicle you’ll be arrested. The schools will call off on a level 1 and definately level 2 (conditions are generally unsafe to drive).
What is out of line is they’ve simply changed the rules to be much more rigid, and to drive out senior employees like my wife. Wal-Mart hourly jobs are in levels 1-7. They have “done away” with various 6 and seven level jobs, and then recreated almost identical positions under levels 4-5 making employees re-apply for those positions or be laid off. For each level you go up/down, you get a 40 cent pay increase/decrease. My wife, who is level 7(and started as a level 1 and worked her way up) will have to take a level 5 position, taking an 80 cent per hour paycut. So, in Ohio at will employment is a two ways and she is indeed practicing that.
Look, we aren’t the typical Wally World bashers. We both liked the place, but they have just taken things too far.
Look, we aren’t the typical Wally World bashers. We both liked the place, but they have just taken things too far. did they take it too far, or was it the workers that pushed them to it?
Here is the WSJ’s take, after talking to the company:
Wal-Mart, of Bentonville, Ark., says the new attendance policy benefits employees by documenting their requests for time off instead of relying on harried store managers to remember each request. And it benefits shoppers by discouraging unexcused absenteeism. “It’s not for tracking; it’s really to ensure a more consistent application of our absentee policy,” spokesman John Simley said.
Now if your wife’s store is not following the policy, she needs to contact corporate..Corporate set a policy and the stores must follow it.
Well I haven’t seen an example of where a corporation is against the interest of the worker..please give one.
Well, there’s the case of Wal-Mart that we’ve been talking about. There are also sweatshops all over the world. The latter would be a case where what’s in the interest of Nike or whomever isn’t necessarily in the interests of the workers (that they work 16 hr. shifts for not a lot of cash). I’d say that the cases of numerous auto plant closings and relocations oversees or south of the border is probably good for the corporations and bad for the workers. You must be aware of these examples. Do they not work for you.
did they take it too far, or was it the workers that pushed them to it?
This is exactly the type of crap I’m talking about. It must be the workers fault because the corporations only want to do what’s right.
Ted has provided numerous examples in the case of Wal-Mart and numerous other abuses have been documented. Why is it so hard to believe that a corporation that has as its only goal to turn a profit might not always have the best interests of its workers at heart?
What’s the “proper” way to do the links? Did you look at any of the stuff before you deleted it?
21- I am not interested in the sweatshops all over the world. We are talking about benefits to be legislated by our govt. And Wal-Mart isn’t a good example because so far, Tedd hasn’t provided anything that says the company is breaking the law…Wal-Mart has been taken to court on labor laws and they have lost. The attendence policy is not out of line, nor illegal. Can you think of a corporation other than the US govt that can stay in business without turning a profit…all I have seen from you solarc is a hand out saying give me give me..well the company gave, was taken advantage of, and as a result they changed the policy!
To link: copy url to your browser. highlight a word in a sentece you typed; ie..link here…click the link button and paste the url. hit enter. click close tags and you linked the website you wanted…
19.
did they take it too far, or was it the workers that pushed them to it?
What do you think Peejz? I told you of the back handed tactics they’ve used to reduce employee wages. Did my wife push them, after 16 years of loyalty to the company, to have her salary reduced?
Now if your wife’s store is not following the policy, she needs to contact corporate..Corporate set a policy and the stores must follow it.
The attendence policy is being misrepresented to the press. That said, it was the district manager who presented this, so it isn’t just her store.
As far as contacting corporate, there was a time when that was a viable option because Wal_mart truly had an open door policy, but folks nowadays just won’t do it for fear of retribution of targeted reduction. Unless a law is being broken (which this does not qualify) then no way will they contact corporate.
re 22:
Tedd hasn’t provided anything that says the company is breaking the law:
I never said they were breaking the law at all. I said that what they are doing isn’t good employment practices. As a result, my wife is utilizing at will employment in Ohio to seek another.
But this isn’t about breaking laws Peejz. Before the fourty hour work week and child labor laws, employers weren’t breaking laws either. That isn’t relevant. This is about (to us) what Wal-mart was verses what they are now as an employer and how that is effecting their sales (and deservedly so).
I told you of the back handed tactics they’ve used to reduce employee wages. There isn’t anything backhanded or illegal about it. You and your wife may not like it, but the company is within their rights. There is nothing backhanded about it..And yes the laws do have something to do with this. Employers have rights too. And Wal-Mart continues to turn a profit despite the negative publicity.
I am not sure why you are saying that the policy is being mis-represented. Wakeupwalmart.com obtained the documents and presented them to the press..The press received verification from Wal-Mart that they were indeed true..
Business is business and in a free market economy (especially one with relatively full employment like the current one) workers always have the option of moving on to another job. With the advent of the internet and Ebay, people even have the option of not even having a job. There really are people in this country who make a living working for themselves. They do their level best to be, shall I say it, self reliant. They are the ones who actually own their own businesses and take all of the risks that go along with it.
I am an independent contractor for a courier company and own a website selling custom camping equipment for medieval reenactors. If the courier company wants me to do more work, they know that they are going to have to pay me to do it. If I want to make more money, I go down to Home Depot, pick up some lumber, build something and put it on Ebay. I import tents from India and sell them as well. That’s called taking a little initiative. I don’t get rich from my various endeavors, but I make more than I did working 60+ hours a week managing retail stores for various companies even though I have an assortment of sales gain awards from every company that I worked for. I also don’t get home at 10 pm every night, I only work weekends when I want to, I’m doing something I enjoy and get to have a social life.
So if you’re tired of punching a time clock, and think you’re not getting paid what you’re worth, QUIT and start your own company. Then you can be the one who has to worry how the company is going to make it’s quarterly tax payments.
There isn’t anything backhanded or illegal about it.
Illegal? No. Backhanded? Definately.
Are you telling me Peejz that if your company dissolved your position and then gave you the option of either being layed off or taking a similar position that was newly created for much less money you wouldn’t think that wasn’t backhanded? Of course you would.
I am not saying that they aren’t within their legal rights- of course they are. I am saying that these actions are ethically inappropriate. She is also within her legal rights to execute at will employment and self terminiate her position for another immediately.
I am not sure why you are saying that the policy is being mis-represented.
Because after three tardies an employee can be terminated- this has happened.
Ted I may not like how it was done, but that is how it is done.
Ethically inappropriate? How so? And how does one determine that? I am sure your wife is worth a million times her weight in gold to an employer, but unfortunately hers isn’t the gene(as in the intelligence gene) pool that most employers face. That being said, how is Kennedy legislating more time off going to rectify the restructuring that your wife’s job went though?
Re 24:
First I wanted to address this statement:
“Employers have rights too.”
No they do not. They have laws that set up parameters in which they are allowed to operate. A right is something possesed by indivudual that can not be taken away by government via legislature or majority vote. It is inalienable. Let’s not confuse that. Thus laws can be changed to set parameters in regards to what employers and employees can and can not do.
Ethically inappropriate? How so?
That being said, how is Kennedy legislating more time off going to rectify the restructuring that your wife’s job went though?
I gave an example of Wal-mart’s position- if our child is ill it is not an acceptable excuse for her to call off. Kennedy’s legislation would change that. As this is an employment law I agree with it.
The state law says an employer can not reduce an employees wages uinless 1) the employee requests a demotion in position or 2) the employee other wise approves it. This is a work around to that law.
Ted- Yes they do have rights and rights are not limited to an individual. And people had the right to own slaves but that right was taken away from them..And Kennedy’s legislation does nothing to change the fact that Wal-mart will still require the employee to call in an hour before their shift, to a 1-800 number and then call the code into the store. His legislation will do nothing to stop a company from terminating an employee for breaking company policy..
as for the state law..what code is it?
“Ted- Yes they do have rights and rights are not limited to an individual.”
I guess it depends upon your definition of rights. What I refer to is that which is granted by the Constitution. Rights are absolutes granted to a person.
Past that, it can be interpreted that individuals are granted privledges via laws. They are not rights, because they can be taken away if the law changes via legilstion or popular vote. An example of this would be laws that grant driver’s licenses.
For a non-living entity (such as a corporation) it is impossible for them to have rights of any kind. You can not afford them rights, just as you can not afford any othe non-living thing (like a rock, or a car) rights.
And Kennedy’s legislation does nothing to change the fact that Wal-mart will still require the employee to call in an hour before their shift, to a 1-800 number and then call the code into the store.
This isn’t at question at all. This is actually a policy improvement a the employee has a record of calling in. However, if an employee’s child is sick, that is not an acceptable excuse and one can be fired for doing so.
His legislation will do nothing to stop a company from terminating an employee for breaking company policy.
Did I read incorrectly? I beleive it would change it, making sick children a valid interminable reason.
Um, Ted, there is case law that grants that corporations are to be treated the same as individuals in our courts of law, therefore, companies do have rights.