Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26
Like Tree20Likes
  • 7 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By madanthonywayne
  • 2 Post By Ascended
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 4 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By gonzales56
  • 2 Post By adelady

Thread: State Supreme Court Rules ‘Irresistible’ Employees Can Be Fired

  1. #1 State Supreme Court Rules ‘Irresistible’ Employees Can Be Fired 
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Just read this article and found the ruling perplexing. State Supreme Court Rules ‘Irresistible’ Employees Can Be Fired

    So in Iowa USA, you can fire someone because you find them attractive, may cause you to sexually harass them, and it could lead to the ruination of your marriage? I don't understand the judges ruling:

    Nelson advances a straightforward “but for” argument: I would not have been terminated “but for” my gender. See, e.g., Watson v. Se. Pa.Transp. Auth., 207 F.3d 207, 213, 222 (3d Cir. 2000) (affirming a jury
    verdict in a Title VII case because the charge, taken as a whole, adequately informed the jury that sex had to be a but-for cause of the adverse employment action). Dr. Knight responds that Nelson was
    terminated not because of her sex—after all, he only employs women—but because of the nature of their relationship and the perceived threat to Dr. Knight’s marriage. Yet Nelson rejoins that neither the relationship
    nor the alleged threat would have existed if she had not been a woman...Several cases, including a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, have found that an employer does not
    engage in unlawful gender discrimination by discharging a female employee who is involved in a consensual relationship that has triggered personal jealousy. This is true even though the relationship and the
    resulting jealousy presumably would not have existed if the employee had been male.
    His attraction to her and her non-reply of sexual information he requested, were the motivating factors which led to her dismissal. In a sense they have made it legal in Iowa to fire an employee if the employer wants to pursue a sexually relationship with an employee, but knows that employee will not reciprocate (e.g. The text about her orgasms was not replied).


    http://www.radioiowa.com/wp-content/...ruling-PDF.pdf


    Last edited by MrMojo1; December 24th, 2012 at 05:05 AM. Reason: grammar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Yup. I saw this one yesterday. Still can't get my head around it.

    She'd worked there for 10 years! He changes his behaviour. She gets fired. Logic? Who needs it.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Yup. I saw this one yesterday. Still can't get my head around it.

    She'd worked there for 10 years! He changes his behaviour. She gets fired. Logic? Who needs it.
    If only she had worn a burqa and display proper modesty........perhaps we can learn from Islam...?

    Yes, that's it, we need to install Sharia law, then we would not have to deal with all these "evil inspired" issues.


    Oh, how easy it is to slip back a few centuries and burn witches at the stake for casting "spells".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I think employers should be able to fire and hire whomever they want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think employers should be able to fire and hire whomever they want.
    Exactly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think employers should be able to fire and hire whomever they want.
    The problem is when those decisions are based on Constitutionally protected factors such as race...or in this case probably gender.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think employers should be able to fire and hire whomever they want.
    The problem is when those decisions are based on Constitutionally protected factors such as race...or in this case probably gender.
    And as I heard a minister once urge his flock, based on religion!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think employers should be able to fire and hire whomever they want.
    The problem is when those decisions are based on Constitutionally protected factors such as race...or in this case probably gender.
    Yes, but from a property rights perspective, there should be no protected factors. The business is the property of its owner and he or she should be able to hire/ fire based upon any criteria he/she chooses. Race, sex, religion, even job performance. Let the market sort it all out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Let the market sort it all out.
    The "market" is what supported slavery in the US for 120 years longer than necessary and than overt discrimination against women and minorities for another 70 years. No thanks. Unbridled capatolism is as bad as the worst forms of communism--niether recognizes or utilizes people's real potential.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Let the market sort it all out.
    The "market" is what supported slavery in the US for 120 years longer than necessary and than overt discrimination against women and minorities for another 70 years. No thanks. Unbridled capatolism is as bad as the worst forms of communism--niether recognizes or utilizes people's real potential.
    Capitalism is the only economic system that demands and asks for it's participants greatest potential. Slavery is a political, moral and/or social issue while Capitalism is an economic system... Capitalism does not support the ownership of humans or the miss treatment of people, those things are governed, controlled and supported by other means and aspects outside the realm of capitalism.

    What capitalism allows people to do though, if and when they do not like a law or the morality of its governments laws, is to vote with their wallets and change things.
    Last edited by gonzales56; December 25th, 2012 at 10:40 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    After the previous Iowa supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage,
    conservative $$$$$$$$$$$ began to work at getting rid of the "liberal judges"
    and so now we have a court that has it's collective heads shoved so far up it's collective assholes that they couldn't see justice if it bit them on the ass.

    as money flows, so justice goes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales
    Let the market sort it all out.
    The "market" is what supported slavery in the US for 120 years longer than necessary and than overt discrimination against women and minorities for another 70 years. No thanks. Unbridled capatolism is as bad as the worst forms of communism--niether recognizes or utilizes people's real potential.
    Capitalism is the only economic system that demands and asks for it's participants greatest potential....

    . Capitalism does not support the ownership of humans or the miss treatment of people, those things are governed, controlled and supported by other means and
    Not hardly. It ask that they participate at the lowest cost regardless of their skills. It also intrinically linked to various other parts of economy, such as the huge of role cheap cotton in the South to the growing industrial giant sweat shops of the Northern "free" slates.
    How Slavery Led to Modern Capitalism: Echoes - Bloomberg

    And we could discuss the ethnic cleansing of the great planes of America for capitalistic desires for inexpensive food and gold all wrapped in the pseudo religious language of "manifest destiny."

    And this is not just an early American feature. Take the US largest retailer for example, Walmart, who's profits exceed $15 billion dollars last year, but who's employees make so little they are taking in more than a billion dollars in tax dollars in the form of social programs to provide healthcare and supplemental food income. Unbridled capitalism is just as political, moral and at that root of social issues as other systems; balance to marshall its strengths, while minimizing its tendencies to oppress the working class are always required for the common good.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 25th, 2012 at 03:09 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Let the market sort it all out.
    The "market" is what supported slavery in the US for 120 years longer than necessary and than overt discrimination against women and minorities for another 70 years. No thanks. Unbridled capatolism is as bad as the worst forms of communism--niether recognizes or utilizes people's real potential.
    You speak as if it was capitalism that gave rise to slavery. Slavery has existed since pre-historic times. Relatively speaking, it ended shortly after the rise of capitalism.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Let the market sort it all out.
    The "market" is what supported slavery in the US for 120 years longer than necessary and than overt discrimination against women and minorities for another 70 years. No thanks. Unbridled capatolism is as bad as the worst forms of communism--niether recognizes or utilizes people's real potential.
    You speak as if it was capitalism that gave rise to slavery. Slavery has existed since pre-historic times. Relatively speaking, it ended shortly after the rise of capitalism.
    There is no worse form of capitolising from the efforts of others, and no worse form of capitalism than slavery. Everything about slavery stinks of capitalism, and if you disagree, I reckon it's because of a limited concept of 'capitalism'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think employers should be able to fire and hire whomever they want.
    Exactly.
    Sorry guys but I simply do not agree with that. Yes employers should have flexibilityof their staff but firing at will? No, there have been to many instances of companies deciding to replace most of their staff with foreign workers on lower wages, employees need some job security to. There needs to be rules on just when and how you can get fired or made redundant, because otherwise nobody can or would have any job security, how could you take a mortgage or plan your families future if you knew tomorrow your income might no longer exist, that you could become a casualty of cost cutting measures with no redundacy pay? No I believe employment is about fairness bewteen employers and employees there has to be a balance of rights otherwise it's little more than slavery for pay.
    inow and MrMojo1 like this.
    “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales
    Let the market sort it all out.
    The "market" is what supported slavery in the US for 120 years longer than necessary and than overt discrimination against women and minorities for another 70 years. No thanks. Unbridled capatolism is as bad as the worst forms of communism--niether recognizes or utilizes people's real potential.
    Capitalism is the only economic system that demands and asks for it's participants greatest potential....

    . Capitalism does not support the ownership of humans or the miss treatment of people, those things are governed, controlled and supported by other means and
    Not hardly. It ask that they participate at the lowest cost regardless of their skills. It also intrinically linked to various other parts of economy, such as the huge of role cheap cotton in the South to the growing industrial giant sweat shops of the Northern "free" slates.
    How Slavery Led to Modern Capitalism: Echoes - Bloomberg

    And we could discuss the ethnic cleansing of the great planes of America for capitalistic desires for inexpensive food and gold all wrapped in the pseudo religious language of "manifest destiny."

    And this is not just an early American feature. Take the US largest retailer for example, Walmart, who's profits exceed $15 billion dollars last year, but who's employees make so little they are taking in more than a billion dollars in tax dollars in the form of social programs to provide healthcare and supplemental food income. Unbridled capitalism is just as political, moral and at that root of social issues as other systems; balance to marshall its strengths, while minimizing its tendencies to oppress the working class are always required for the common good.
    Slavery does not, and it never has, led to capitalism. Slavery and Capitalism are completely opposite from one and another. Slavery is about as far from free as one can get while capitalism is about freedom from being owned or owing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    capitalism is about freedom from being owned or owing.
    Do you know about the practices of employers, mining especially, paying the workers in tokens that could only be redeemed at 'the company store'? Truck system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nothing free about that. And no economic freedom in many 'company towns' where employees had no option but to rent housing or land from the employer - often at a pretty steep price - which meant that the employee's 'freedom' to change employment or to resist impositions by the employer was largely or wholly negated by the prospect of losing their home.

    The only reason for most of the regulations many people chafe and grumble at is that, when originally allowed free rein, the apparently oh-so-admirable capitalists showed that they were entirely capable of turning employment of free citizens into slavery (as near as dammit is to swearing). And every time a regulation tried to make transactions between employers and employees into freedom for both parties, employers found new ways to skirt that particular regulation and to devise more schemes that ensured entire, or maximum, freedom for themselves and nil, or minimum, freedom for employees to benefit from those transactions.
    MrMojo1 and question for you like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Slavery does not, and it never has, led to capitalism. Slavery and Capitalism are completely opposite from one and another. Slavery is about as far from free as one can get while capitalism is about freedom from being owned or owing.
    Its actually the other way around. Pre-modern forms of capitalism beget slavery. Slavery is unrestrained capitalism in its purest form, where not only are products made for the absolute lowest expense, but the slaves themselves are captured, bred, bought and sold as "free market" commodities. This continued into early America, where the very wealth of such great men, as Thomas Jefferson, were intrinsically tied up in the capitalist 'value' of the slaves that worked their plantation. Of course those bad times would pass, but transform into the abuses of sharecropping, ten old children chained to textile machines for twelve hour days and other capitalistic driven horrific visions so vile they'd because the wellspring for late 19th century utopian movements that rejected the whole notion such as communism (no better because its at the other end of the spectrum). Of course is would also lead to unions and labor laws. A great deal of the political history and great society thinking over the past century has been trying to find ways to mitigate and balance the intrinsically oppressive nature of run-amock capitalism. That balancing act continues.
    adelady, MrMojo1, Write4U and 1 others like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    capitalism is about freedom from being owned or owing.
    Do you know about the practices of employers, mining especially, paying the workers in tokens that could only be redeemed at 'the company store'? Truck system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nothing free about that. And no economic freedom in many 'company towns' where employees had no option but to rent housing or land from the employer - often at a pretty steep price - which meant that the employee's 'freedom' to change employment or to resist impositions by the employer was largely or wholly negated by the prospect of losing their home.

    The only reason for most of the regulations many people chafe and grumble at is that, when originally allowed free rein, the apparently oh-so-admirable capitalists showed that they were entirely capable of turning employment of free citizens into slavery (as near as dammit is to swearing). And every time a regulation tried to make transactions between employers and employees into freedom for both parties, employers found new ways to skirt that particular regulation and to devise more schemes that ensured entire, or maximum, freedom for themselves and nil, or minimum, freedom for employees to benefit from those transactions.
    Millions of Americans still work just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Again though, capitalism is not about working for others. The minute you choose to work in order to benefit others then you have given up and/or postponed taking advantage of one of the greatest liberties america has to offer. I do not feel for people who work for others in the US.. They can quit, they can work for someone else or they can work for themselves. People choose their own path and make their decisions in the US.

    The claim that employees had no choice but to rent from 1 company or buy everything from 1 company is not the way capitalism works. In order for that to be true, the type of economy you are talking about would have to be a state/county government ran/regulated economy. In a capitalist economy only a fool would not see a housing problem and open up more housing units outside the companies lands. Same goes for goods, supplies, etc.. That is the beauty of capitalism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    The word Capitalism sounds as if it fits nicely with the concept of Freedom. But ethically they mean absolutely nothing. In order to actually mean what we are trying to say, these concepts must always be preceeded by the qualifier "ethical".

    One thing that people forget is that the words Freedom and Capitalism do not impose ethical behavior and indeed offer no restrictions whatever in a general moral sense. These concepts can only be practiced when subservient to the "golden rule" (all persons enjoy the same rights) and the "exponential function" (when dealng with limited natural resources).

    So, if we speak of Capitalism we must make clear that we are speaking of "ethical (responsible) exercise of capitalism", just as when we speak of Freedom, we are speaking of "ethical (responsible) exercise of freedoms".
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Slavery does not, and it never has, led to capitalism. Slavery and Capitalism are completely opposite from one and another. Slavery is about as far from free as one can get while capitalism is about freedom from being owned or owing.
    Its actually the other way around. Pre-modern forms of capitalism beget slavery. Slavery is unrestrained capitalism in its purest form, where not only are products made for the absolute lowest expense, but the slaves themselves are captured, bred, bought and sold as "free market" commodities. This continued into early America, where the very wealth of such great men, as Thomas Jefferson, were intrinsically tied up in the capitalist 'value' of the slaves that worked their plantation. Of course those bad times would pass, but transform into the abuses of sharecropping, ten old children chained to textile machines for twelve hour days and other capitalistic driven horrific visions so vile they'd because the wellspring for late 19th century utopian movements that rejected the whole notion such as communism (no better because its at the other end of the spectrum). Of course is would also lead to unions and labor laws. A great deal of the political history and great society thinking over the past century has been trying to find ways to mitigate and balance the intrinsically oppressive nature of run-amock capitalism. That balancing act continues.
    Again, you are confusing the laws of a government for capitalism. Slavery was an issue of law, of governments, of morals, not capitalism. Capitalism itself promotes freedom and competition for all, not just a few, but for all. People and governments can fight against capitalism's push and drive towards freedom and competition for all, but their fight against capitalism is not capitalism, it is always something else, it is always some other form of economic system.
    madanthonywayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The claim that employees had no choice but to rent from 1 company or buy everything from 1 company is not the way capitalism works.
    "Capitalism" is not an abstract thing divorced from concrete reality. If the profit-making activity is something inextricably tied to a geographic location then capitalist employers have traditionally made the most of that restriction. Mining, farming, building anything, but especially canals, roads, railways, bridges, ports has always meant that employees need to be where the work is. And when the business has had to submit competitive tenders for such work, whatever the lowest standard of management and responsibility is within that industry tends to drive down standards for the whole industry. Those who manage to make "profits" by taking back most, if not all, of the wages they pay by overcharging for meals, substandard accommodation, costs of transport to and from the location and every other honest or dishonest shenanigans they can dream up force others who want to succeed in competitive tenders towards bad treatment of their own workforce because they won't be competitive if they behave decently.

    And there is nothing within capitalism that says employees are putting themselves outside the system. Capitalism is supposed to allow all participants in trade and industry to make money by fair dealing. Whether they sell materials, ingredients, other goods and services or sell their own labour, all transactions are supposed to benefit everyone by giving fair exchange of money paid for goods/ services supplied. The fact that people can choose to make more money or different choices by undertaking other work or moving to other roles in the system is supposed to be a freedom enhancing feature of the system.

    Or my economics lecturers didn't know what they were talking about.
    MrMojo1 and Write4U like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    The thing that really ticks me off about this is that my chances of getting fired have now improved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The claim that employees had no choice but to rent from 1 company or buy everything from 1 company is not the way capitalism works.
    "Capitalism" is not an abstract thing divorced from concrete reality. If the profit-making activity is something inextricably tied to a geographic location then capitalist employers have traditionally made the most of that restriction. Mining, farming, building anything, but especially canals, roads, railways, bridges, ports has always meant that employees need to be where the work is. And when the business has had to submit competitive tenders for such work, whatever the lowest standard of management and responsibility is within that industry tends to drive down standards for the whole industry. Those who manage to make "profits" by taking back most, if not all, of the wages they pay by overcharging for meals, substandard accommodation, costs of transport to and from the location and every other honest or dishonest shenanigans they can dream up force others who want to succeed in competitive tenders towards bad treatment of their own workforce because they won't be competitive if they behave decently.

    And there is nothing within capitalism that says employees are putting themselves outside the system. Capitalism is supposed to allow all participants in trade and industry to make money by fair dealing. Whether they sell materials, ingredients, other goods and services or sell their own labour, all transactions are supposed to benefit everyone by giving fair exchange of money paid for goods/ services supplied. The fact that people can choose to make more money or different choices by undertaking other work or moving to other roles in the system is supposed to be a freedom enhancing feature of the system.

    Or my economics lecturers didn't know what they were talking about.
    Capitalism demands the right of every person to participate and compete in the market place. How they do so, what they choose, is on them.

    There is no doubt that quality products and services at low prices is something capitalism promotes for lower and middle income families/people, or for people who do not want to spend outrageous amounts of money on something they can get for cheaper. Lowering cost in a free and fair market is not a bad thing, it is a really good thing. This is the path and way the less greedy and/or less fortunate tend to take in america in order to follow their dreams. It also ends up benefiting the purchasing power of the less fortunate in the market place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    ..whatever the lowest standard of management and responsibility is within that industry tends to drive down standards for the whole industry. Those who manage to make "profits" by taking back most, if not all, of the wages they pay by overcharging for meals, substandard accommodation, costs of transport to and from the location and every other honest or dishonest shenanigans they can dream up force others who want to succeed in competitive tenders towards bad treatment of their own workforce because they won't be competitive if they behave decently.
    While cutting wages and screwing your employees is one way to go, it's certainly not the only way or the best way.

    Treating your employees like shit creates a demotivated workforce with high turnover, not exactly a recipe for excellence. Not to mention the fact that training new employees is very expensive, keeping your employees happy avoids that expense.

    Henry Ford, for instance, choose to pay his workers well above the going rate reasoning that by doing so his employees could then afford to buy his products so that they would become not only workers but customers.

    Or for a more recent example, consider google:

    here's a short list of the perks Google employees get when they sign on at the Googleplex:


    • If an employee's bangs are getting in the way during a furious coding session, he or she can schedule an on-site haircut free of charge.

    • To work off all those calories, employees can head over to a gym filled with equipment. For the aquatically-inclined, Google also provides swim-in-place swimming pools. These pools are narrow and not very long. Electric water pumps provide a strong current that flows in one direction. Employees swim against the current, staying in place within these small pools. Lifeguards are on duty to keep employees safe.

    • Employees can play against each other in a quick game of ping pong, billiards or foosball -- you can find game tables in several of the buildings on campus. There are also video games for employees who prefer to let their thumbs do all the work.
    • If an employee spills some of that fancy juice on his or her clothes, all is not lost. Google has laundry facilities available to employees on site. The company even offers dry cleaning services. It's not unusual for Google employees to bring clothes in over the weekend to do laundry at the Googleplex.
      • Google's healthcare plan includes on-site medical staff. If an employee suffers an injury or feels ill while at work, he or she can make an appointment with a doctor at the Googleplex.

      • Even with all the benefits and perks at the Googleplex, work can become stressful. Fortunately for Google employees, they can take advantage of a subsidized massage program. For a small fee, the employee can receive a massage from a licensed therapist in a private room. In fact, Google's massage rooms and bathrooms are some of the only areas in the Googleplex that have opaque walls.

      • Another famous benefit of working at Google is the 20 percent time program. Google allows its employees to use up to 20 percent of their work week at Google to pursue special projects. That means for every standard work week, employees can take a full day to work on a project unrelated to their normal workload. Google claims that many of their products in Google Labs started out as pet projects in the 20 percent time program.
    http://computer.howstuffworks.com/googleplex3.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Henry Ford, for instance, choose to pay his workers well above the going rate reasoning that by doing so his employees could then afford to buy his products so that they would become not only workers but customers.
    Actually Henry Ford paid better mostly to reduce his own high turnover rate. His intent wasn't to create a self licking ice cream cone.

    Google is different. They as of yet haven't really been deeply pressured to find ways to maintain profitability. Also it takes different employee relationships and benifits to keep intellectual employees with long train ups productive than it does to keep low-skills blue collar jobs. If a Google programmer quites, the company is out months of investment, if a Wallmart janitor quits, they are out a couple days.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 27th, 2012, 11:03 PM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: December 31st, 2010, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 17th, 2008, 11:50 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 15th, 2008, 02:05 PM
  5. The Supreme Matter-theory
    By eternal in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 06:10 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •