jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (364 posts)

Big Corporate Brother

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    http://jezebel.com/creepy-quantified-se … map=%5B%5D

    We all know that "voluntary" means do it or there is no promotion.  That's the first problem.

    Second, what right does a corporation have to know your personal habits?  Is there no privacy anymore!?!?!?!?  Remember in 1984 when all citizens were required to exercise every morning before the telescreen...

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Employers should be able to dictate the requirements of employment. If I want to offer you a job, but you have to wear a pink shirt when you are at home, then that's a contract if you agree to it. People should be able to make contracts.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And..dictatorship.  You just proved my point.  A contract doesn't mean you get to control every aspect of my life.  That's called slavery.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When unions were first formed, they were to protect the abuses of the worker from the employer.  But as time passed, like some organizations, they become too powerful and corrupt.  Then the balance of power moves the other way.  it sounds as if the company wants to ensure their employee's healthfulness so they can make them more productive, thus increasing their bottom line. It's much like the insurance company ads where they want you to thrive...translation, stay healthy so that you don't file any claims and we can still charge exorbitant premium fees. It's still exploitation of the people.  In an ideal world, there would be a balance of power where people where not be excessively exploited and companies could still make a reasonable profit.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, it's not, because you aren't forced into agreeing.

          The EMPLOYER owns the job, so the EMPLOYER should be FREE(that freedom thing) to dictate the requirements for the job. Potential employees are FREE to accept, reject, or counter-offer.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you've given me another reason why capitalism is authoritarian.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lol.

              FREEDOM is authoritarian. I'm the authority on the rules if you want to be in MY house. I'm the authority on the rules if you want to be on MY private property in MY company.

              When you have freedom, you are the ultimate authority over your own domain.

              1. innersmiff profile image78
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                +1

              2. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't have to go to your house to eat tongue.  And to take that sort of attitude tells me a lot about how you treat people who have less power than you.

                But again, I say thank you for showing me how authoritarian capitalism really is.  You are going to be my example.

                I also wonder if a boss should be able to beat you for insubordination, assuming you sign a contract authorizing him to?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How do I treat people with 'less power' than me? Please, I would love to hear details.

                  Do you disagree? Do you think that a guest at your home should be able to make the rules?

                  A contract cannot supercede law, but ideally, if you are stupid enough to sign a contract that you will allow someone to beat you, I'm not going to try and stop you.

                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not arguing that a guest should "make the rules" in your house.  What I'm saying is your attitude of complete power over all under you in your house disturbs me.  If your parents live/lived with you, does that mean you can control what they say and do at all times?  How they dress?  What they watch?

                    What if there was no law against an employer beating an insubordinate employee?  Let's say assault is illegal, but in certain circumstances like this, it wouldn't be "assault."

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sooner, you didn't answer one of my questions.

                    How do I treat people under me? You said it disturbs you... what exactly about how I treat people disturbs you? Specifics please.

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Professional boxers get beaten for money every day. That's their job, that's what they sign up for.

                  Or are they oppressed too?

                  Seriously, if you sign up for something, you make the willing choice to deal with it or quit.  Personal responsibility.

                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's not even close to the same.  False analogies weaken your ethos drastically.

                    Perhaps it would hold if the boxing instructor could punch his fighters in the face if they didn't comply.  Signing up to fight is not the same as enduring physical punishment from an employer.

                3. Clint Ward profile image61
                  Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What is authoritarian capitalism?

                  1. 0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Capitalism is authoritarian.  There is no such thing as "authoritarian capitalism" because that would imply there is a capitalism that is not authoritarian.

        3. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Good point; if the company demands that you exercise from 5 to 6, then you've earned an hour's pay.  If they demand you consume this and that during the meal period, then you've earned another hours pay.  Plus the "this and that" cost.  If they want it written up, they can pay for the time you spend writing it.  A company cannot decline to pay for time worked; if they are requiring certain actions they can pay for performing those actions.

          Salaried folks might have a tough time here, but also have a shot at proving they don't fall under the laws for being salaried at all.  It is also possible they could end up earning less than minimum wage, especially if their sleep time is arranged by the company.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The only way I can see requiring exercise is if your job is physical.  So if you are a cop or security guard, it's good to be in shape; it's inherent in the job itself.

            If you are a computer programmer, your exercise (unless you are ridiculously gluttonous) has a minimal effect on doing your job.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree.  I am with Jaxson, if you agree to do it then that is your choice.

            There are plenty of companies that will fire you for your behavior off-duty.  If my employer fires me because I was youtubed stupid drunk then that is his right.  Yet I am not entitled to any hourly pay for being sober.

            Companies should be free to choose who they hire and what conditions they put on the hiring... as long as they don't violate labor laws. 

            Particularly if this company is paying health insurance, has a public image as a "fit" company, or has employees constantly in the public eye.

            As an employee, you are an asset.  When you sign up for employment, the employer should tell you what that asset means to the company and you agree to either comply or find another job.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              STOP AGREEING WITH ME! ITS FREAKING ME OUT!!!

              smile

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I disagreed with you in the other thread... Does that help? smile

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is all a little gray, but...

              A company cannot, for instance, demand you be on the job 10 minutes before your pay starts every day.  Just as they cannot ask you to work over without being paid; if a supervisor "allows" it and the company knows about it they can be heavily fined, with triple pay going to the employees so mistreated.

              Bottom line; if a company has the right to demand you perform this or that task, you must be paid for doing it.  No exceptions, although it can get a little gray in what a company can demand of a salaried employee.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        #1 There are plenty of things people cannot agree to in contracts.

        #2 The workplace control should go no further than the workplace

        #3 companies should not be exploiting people's desperation for work to impose themselves on the private lives of their employees.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          1 - I know, I'm talking about 'should be able to'.

          2 - I disagree. If two people are willing to agree to a contract that the employee must wear a pink shirt while out shopping, then that contract should be fulfilled. We don't need the government to say what we can and can't agree to, that's not freedom.

          3 - Always turning the good guys(the ones who made jobs, risked time/money/effort to create jobs) into the bad guys. If you don't like the terms of employment, find another job or create your own.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I never said we had to ban the practice that does not make it right or acceptable, creating a job does not make you a good guy, that is nonsensical, it makes you someone who wants to make money off employees, nothing wrong with that but it is certainly not a virtue.

            People are desperate they lose the ability to negotiate and refuse to feed themselves and their families and some companies (bad ones) are leaping on the opportunity to exploit that hardship to force themselves into the private lives of other where they have no business being and if the trend continues it will become a common and accepted practice expanding ever more into the private lives of employees and the result is a loss of freedom, but obviously that is fine when it's a company doing it, that just drips hypocrisy.

            The choice between unemployment and hunger or a company intruding in your private life is not freedom no matter how much those looking to profit from it will call it "choice".

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              An employer has no responsibility to provide jobs. He owns them. He controls them. A citizen has no right to the company at all.

              You simply cannot say that people don't have a choice. They do. They can create their own business. They can find another job. If the employer didn't exist, they would be no worse off. It's an entitlement mentality that looks at jobs like that.

              No freedom is lost. If I offer to pay you $20/hr, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, to post on forums, but I want you to wear a pink shirt at the store, there's NO loss of freedom on your part, whether you accept or not.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Henry Ford tried to require his workers to go to church every Sunday. That and a number of workplace injustices with no opportunity for redress led to the unionization of all of his factory workers in the United States in 1940, the last of the auto companies to be unionized.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Cool, has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

                  Are you ever going to answer my other question Ralph?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "Cool, has nothing to do with what we are talking about."

                    Why would you say that Ford requiring his workers to go to church on Sundays has nothing to do with what you're talking about? They no doubt had heard about the policy, and if they didn't like it they could quit and find a job with GM whose treasurer was Jewish. (Henry didn't hire jews.)

                    No. I couldn't understand what you were driving at. You contradicted what John Bogle said about 401k plan ripoffs with a question that made no sense to me. And now that you bring up your unfounded assertions read this article by the Alan Sloan, Editor of Fortune magazine on corporate taxes:
                    http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/co … index.html

    2. Clint Ward profile image61
      Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know that voluntary means do it or there is no promotion, so everything you said after that isn't relevant.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Um.  I'm trying to respond as nicely as possible, because I feel like you are intentionally misinterpreting me.

        I was referring specifically to policies of corporations where they claim an employee can "voluntarily" do something, such as take a class, go to a luncheon, etc.  They say voluntary as if it will have NO effect on the employee's future with the company, which is a complete lie.  That's where voluntary came into play.

        1. Clint Ward profile image61
          Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can't imagine why you would answer in any way but nice. Let me help you with this, voluntary means "Done, given, or acting of one's own free will" it does not mean "do it or there is no promotion" that would be coercion. Since all of the employees are adding their data voluntarily nothing you said fits.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Employees can voluntarily do action X, and whether they do or do not, it will have no effect on their employment."

            So, the employer is REQUIRING action X be done in order to advance.  It's only voluntarily in the sense that you are "choosing" to work at that corporation.  Assuming people would want to advance, the actions are REQUIRED to go up the corporate ladder, but are not framed as such.

            It would be like me saying, "Clint and friends, I'm offering a voluntary night program to help improve salesmanship.  This is just extra, and it won't be counted against you if/when you decide to apply for a promotion," when in reality, I am very much holding it against you. 

            The voluntary for the exercise and what not is actually going to end up being required to advance at all in the future.

            1. Clint Ward profile image61
              Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is in your imagination and not in the story you provided.

  2. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    If you have the money and the power, you have OWNERSHIP over your life. The majority of people are afraid of their own power.  Most people do not want the responsibility of working for themselves or creating jobs for other people.  They subconsciously want to be taken care of.

    Most people are also in the security mode. They want jobs that are secure.  These jobs do not necessarily mean growth and creativity.  They just want a job with guarantees.   They also want to be safe, comfortable, and secure. They do not want to venture out of their particular comfort zone no matter how purgatorial or infernal it is.   

    I am digressing.  Now, when one works for others, he/she has to agree to the corporate consensus in order to survive in that particular environment.  He/she has to adopt the corporate language,mannerisms, and live by the corporate dictates.  He/she becomes the organization person.   In essence, when one works for others, he/she is OWNED in a way.   There is no way to get around that fact.   Even the most powerful person, in the corporation, unless he/she OWNS the corporation, must subvert part of his/her own identity to the corporate whole. 

    Most people are powerless.   They would rather work for someone else and assume as little responsibility as possible than to either be an entrepeneur, taking risks and responsibility. The context here is power.  Many people are loathe to take and/or afraid of their own power.  That is why many people prefer to work for others than to work for themselves.   What many people refuse to learn is that those who have the power MAKE the rules.   If they want power, they have to TAKE and/or HAVE that power, pure and simple. Sadly, many people want to be taken care off hence the company person.

  3. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    And we wonder why business in the US and the UK is in such a mess when people gladly give up so much control of their own lives to the corporations!

    We'd all do a lot better to remember that though labour needs capital, capital needs labour just as much.

  4. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    So John, with all your 'love of freedom', you don't believe that a corporation has the right to extend an offer to a prospective employee that says they can't ride a motorcycle outside of work.

    Sounds like you really don't love freedom, you want to force people to be nice the way you think they should.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What possible interest could it be to my employer if I ride a motorbike outside work?

      Have a look at Henry Ford who at one time sought to exercise such control over his workforce or any of the UK mill owners who tried to dictate how their workers lived? None of them that are still in business attempt to exercise such control any more.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't matter. If you believe in freedom, then you have to accept that they have the freedom to require that as part of the employment contract. They also have the freedom to run their business into the ground.

        So, does an employer have the right to stipulate in an employment contract that anybody who accepts the contract can't ride a motorcycle? Yes or no?

  5. ftclick profile image61
    ftclickposted 3 years ago

    I cannot recall the document or report but it is a fact that people who are unhealthy, obese, call in sick much more than those who regularly exercise and.or eat healthy. This was on a radio talk show as well. You can reject the employment offer or accept their rules. A free society. How are you a slave?

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't deny this.  If you are loaded with health problems, you can't work.

      But requiring everyone to be in tip top shape and eat the corporate diet is authoritarian.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        John, still waiting for you to say which freedom I don't believe in.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Good morning, I've told you plenty of times, if you stil haven't got it, reread the thread.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, every time I've shown how you were wrong. You have AGREED with me each time.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Look, a man who is in servitude to a master can not by definition be free, even if it is his choice to enter into that servitude and even if he is free to leave it.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Lol.

                A man who agrees to work for a wage, and is free to stop working whenever he wants, is not in 'servitude'. Servitude is the state of being a slave. Slaves don't have the choice to leave.

                Just keep on making up definitions.

                John, it's sad that you have the gall to call me a hypocrite, but you won't even dare to back up your assertion by explaining exactly what freedoms I don't believe in. I guess if it makes you feel like you're winning the argument... o.O

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Servitude -

                  a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
                  b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.

                  Your call.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yup, and an employee fits neither.

      2. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        To John and Sooner 28, what suggestions and implementations would YOU BOTH put in place for a more humane and equitable corporate environment?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I know you didn't ask me, but I try to pay those who work for me as much as I can, and be a good employer to them. The more employers that do that, the more other employers will have to keep up to remain competitive.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm glad you have that attitude.  Capitalism would be much more bearable if everyone did.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Make people as important as profits.

        3. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Capitalism must go.  Beyond that, I don't know.

      3. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly! This is why I can't understand those who think universal health care is a socialist plot. It is in the interests of capitalists to have a healthy work force but it is also in their interests not to have to pay for it.

  6. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7921533.jpg

    YOU will do as I SAY if YOU want THE JOB.  Well, DO YOU?  I can get many people in YOUR place!

  7. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    He/she who has the money and power have the goods. He/she owns the jobs and can set his/her rules regarding the work environment.  Sad but true.
    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7921579_f248.jpg

    Welcome to the postmodern, 21st century workforce....................
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7921608_f248.jpg

  8. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    Ugh.  I would never consider dictating what my employees do on their own time.  I only ask that they do the work they have agreed to do.

    While Jaxson is right that a person can choose whether or not to work for someone who wants to dictate what they wear when they are not on the job, John is also right that an employer who dictates such a thing is infringing upon the employee's personal freedom.  An employee's acceptance of such a contract does not make it less of an infringement.  It merely makes it an infringement that he has agreed to.  Most people would not be happy to agree to such an infringement in their personal lives, but might do so out of need for a job and a feeling that they have little or no choice.  The employer, on the other hand, has a choice as to how much he/she wants to infringe upon the freedom of his employees.  One who chooses to do such a thing while espousing how much they love freedom is, indeed, a hypocrite.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's like saying that accepting a job offer is an example of the employer infringing on your right to sleep in and watch TV all day. It's not an infringement.

      IF YOU AGREE TO DO SOMETHING, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT OF YOUR OWN CHOICE.

      How is that hard to understand?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's exactly what I said.  If I agree to let you dictate to me that I should wear red underwear to bed, then I have agreed to let you infringe upon my personal freedoms, outside of work.  It's still an infringement.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, you haven't agreed to let me infringe on your freedoms. You have agreed to do something. HUGE difference.

          In the US, we have freedom from warrantless searches. If a cop asks if he can search my house, I can refuse. No infringement. Or, I can let him in. Still, no infringement. I made the choice. An infringement is when you take the choice away from someone.

          Is an employer infringing on your right to watch Soap Operas if your job requires you to be at work at 8AM?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If an employer makes something that you do on your personal time a condition of employment, and you agree to it, then you are agreeing to have your personal freedom restricted.  Being on the job while soap operas are on TV is not the same thing.  You are getting paid for your time at work.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are also getting paid for wearing a blue shirt at the store, because that is part of your job. That is part of your employment contract. It's exactly the same. You aren't having a freedom infringed upon. YOU ARE AGREEING TO DO SOMETHING IN RETURN FOR MONEY.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, agreeing to do something that infringes upon my personal freedom.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Just like agreeing to go to work infringes on your personal freedom to stay home o.O

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it doesn't.  I'm getting paid for being on the job.

 
working