- Joined
- Oct 15, 2020
- Messages
- 11,907
- Reaction score
- 12,990
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
For the slow employees, especially the ones who like to graze, minimum production standards can be put into the contract.
For the slow employees, especially the ones who like to graze, minimum production standards can be put into the contract.OK, but what about simply being slower or more careless than desired?
[emphasis added by bubba]That has frequently been done throughout history and is commonly needed.
Not exclusively. We don’t need a fully central economy like in the former Soviet Union. However government can use its power to produce outcomes in the best interests of society as a whole. I would prefer we have a stable long term economy that doesn’t produce violent revolution. Reform comes too late when the guillitiones are being erected.
do you even understand which political-economic system employs such an approach?
Many different ones do. A lot of economics nerds try to insist that FDR lengthened the depression and the new deal was economically inefficient compared to a total free market. Maybe that’s true, but that’s not the point, the reason the US survived the Great Depression without a socialist revolution or an actual fascist takeover is because FDR, for all his faults, was a decisive man who undertook drastic action to reduce the impact of the depression on the nations poor and working class. Like the popular Alabama single “song of the south”mama got sick and daddy got down, the county took the farm and they moved to town, papa got a job with the TVA, he bought a washing machine and then a Chevrolet
Many countries no longer use at will employment.
There is plenty of room to compromise on that, like an employee can work at will for 90 days and then be laid off if they can’t do the job, but after then they need to go on contract
I literally cited an example in that very post. Read beyond the first line[emphasis added by bubba]
please identify any historic instances where such economic actions were taken with positive outcomes
you did not answer the questionThat is limited only by laws the government can pass and enforce. As rich as Bezos is he can’t keep government regulated banks from holding his assets at their command. If he wants to resist than, well a few Oligarchs who tried to defy Putin were brought low and there’s no reason that can’t be done here.
where is that obligation to do more than obey the laws established?No, you’re changing the economic calculus. Part of doing business in America includes an obligation to Americans as a whole.
If they are both working we are back to the 15k per year childcare, per child, or one leaves the workforce, and we are back to 18k/yr earnings, less taxes.
I don’t think you quite understand how employment works or its purpose.Those are not very good jobs anyway. If they cannot be improved then they need to be replaced with jobs that people can actually enjoy and make a career out of.
which causes such termination to no longer be "at will" employment terminationThe right to terminate for various employee infractions can and should be negotiated into the union contract.
what causes you to make this bold assertion?He may he'd be money ahead in the long run if he closes this unionized facility
I have no answer to that problem, other than those same slow/ careless employees are in the workforce now. There is no such thing as a 100% fully
efficient work force, no matter what the project is. There will always be workers with no pride, no ambition.
I don’t think you quite understand how employment works or its purpose.
Because that makes sense.Well, the investors could work in Amazon's warehouse to protect their investment.
Again, I agree that is smarter, unfortunately it doesn't do a thing for the couple who find themselves with an unexpected pregnancy.Yep, making a good idea to increase household income before adding dependents.
Well put.Yep, doing things which you enjoy are more likely to cost you money than to make you money. Many (who don’t employ others) seem to see the mission of an employer (business) as being to minimize profit and maximize labor costs.
[emphasis added by bubba]I would charge them at least 5 times the amount that the taxpayers are having to pay because the employer refuses to pay a living wage.
Don't just recover the revenues, make it an incentive to pay the employee a proper wage in the first place.
If the employer learns it will cost them more to pay slave wages than to pay a living wage, that employer will pay the living wage.
The last thing a greedy employer wants to do is pay more in taxes.
So making it much more expensive to pay slave wages will encourage employers to pay a living wage.
Or we could do what has been done since FDR, raise the federal minimum wage.
Minimum wage has not been increased since the bush boy years.
“.. find themselves ...”Again, I agree that is smarter, unfortunately it doesn't do a thing for the couple who find themselves with an unexpected pregnancy.
Yeah, it was a bit snarky. When I was in business I needed to make a profit, but it wasn't necessary to squeeze every dime I could.Because that makes sense.
hell of an approachMany countries no longer use at will employment.
There is plenty of room to compromise on that, like an employee can work at will for 90 days and then be laid off if they can’t do the job, but after then they need to go on contract
Well it will be an ongoing process of plugging the more egregious loopholes big businesses find, but an easy deterrence will be to mandate any corporation over a certain size must be owned 10% by the government and another 10% owned by the labor union representing the workers, and in my scheme the law will be changed to where business may undertake no anti-unionization measures at all, and any attempt to deter a union will result in massive fines and prison sentencesyou did not answer the question
here is the question that was posed:
"what would be the crime of amazon developing/implementing robots to do the work people now perfoirm for the company?"
where is that obligation to do more than obey the laws established?
control-freak governmentThat’s not true, there are Americans today who were born in a period of low immigration and high tariffs.
In the short term it would, but it would be better long term
Which is your choice, but anyone who runs a business (especially if they're not the owners) really only has two obligations: obey the law and maximize shareholder value. Everything else is secondary.Yeah, it was a bit snarky. When I was in business I needed to make a profit, but it wasn't necessary to squeeze every dime I could.
You are aware that the only perfect birth control is abstinence, right? No birth control is without failure rates.“.. find themselves ...”
The left’s use of the passive voice is often amusing. It’s a bit like having one’s gender “assigned.” Who comes up with this stuff?
isn't that what amazon has now?For the slow employees, especially the ones who like to graze, minimum production standards can be put into the contract.
This system works well in Europe. It’s true that marginal employees may be cut at day 89, but no business can stay in business long cutting every worker at day 89. So the vast majority will be put under contract.hell of an approach
those on the margins would be cut by day 89 and replaced to avoid a long-term employment contract
make marginal employees even less stable. what an outcome!
What a hero to the working people!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?