Now I'm not trying to get all socialist/communist. The PRIMARY idea is derives from a couple things:
1. An individual's livelihood is supported by the continuation of their income, which is in STARK CONTRAST to that which supports the livelihood of the supervisor/owner. While some mid-level supervisors are in a pseudo-employee situation, they are also playing a role of the power imbalance. The livelihood of the owners are based on the continuation of the company. Big difference. Those who hold the decision to offer a job are effectively holding the decision to make-or-break someone's livelihood. While it is easy for me to say that this is not fair, that my proposal basically talks about removing freedoms of being an entrepreneur, I don't think that capitalism is correct especially when this freedom allows poverty to reign.
But more importantly, it needs to be balanced. Consider these aspects and you tell me if you think it is "OK" to have a job offer withheld if…
a. A job offer is conditional that you allow the prospective employer ACCESS TO YOUR CREDIT HISTORY (some would argue that working for a bank or someplace might be legitamate, but in the end, so f-ing what… Since when or how I pay my bills is your business? I don't care if this plays into my "working character" because my business off-the-clock is NOT your business.)
b. A job offer….ACCESS TO YOUR CRIMINAL RECORD (Does getting a DUI mean that you're not competent to sweat copper pipes? To manage a call center? To be a chef? To teach students? What right do they need to know, unless you're driving a taxi or a school bus?? Suppose you commited manslaughter or felony theft. Are you forever barred from being a doctor? Again, what happens off-the-clock….)
c. The prospective employer doesn't like your Facebook page.
d. The prosp… doesn't like that you've been unemployeed for a while.
e. The pros…like your political views, hobbies, or whatever it is about you that might have NOTHING to do with the proposed work, despite the assertion that all this adds together as what kind of person you are and if the employer wants to take a chance employing you. Seriously, when does it end??? We're not robots, we are humans. We are the 99% and the 1% you ARE looking for,, those people already have jobs!!!! Suck it up and just hire us for God's sake!??
But I digress, getting back to the PRIMARY IDEA again, let me do #2:
2. I am not in support of "at will" employment in the context that termination can be without notice. Resisting bad management is impossible when the supervisor/owner has the ability to fire and name this resistance to poor management as "subordination". While I do support the concept of collective bargaining rights, it seems to me that if supervisors/management did not impose themselves upon the subordinates in an adversarial, tyranical/dictatorial fashion, but instead managed their workers with the same level of respect and fairness that they expect for themselves (which I think is the basis, that bad bosses are on a power trip and are too blind to see), we would not need unions.
Now on the flip side, having been unemployed for those several months, I was so gracious to be working again that I busted my ass to be the best worker that I could be. And I knew this was paying off because others around me were complaining that I was making them look bad. A good work ethic is not the same as kissing ass because kissing ass means loyalty to your boss. Work ethic means loyalty to doing the job right. If your boss sucks, your ethic will make you outshine him/her anyway.
So consider for a second about demands to bring this dynamic to a change. This may require codification (passing into law) which would require a Congress to draft and vote on. Imagine the resistance from businesses. But I don't think I am the only one to encounter this power imbalance.
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:33 am
- Location: Chicago (suburb) native
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests