What's your point?

[Gato_Solo]

What does this have to do with business?

 

[chcr]

Another example of how American "liberals" are more conservative than most of the rest of the developed world's "conservatives." I don't know what it proves other than that we're far and away the most conservative developed country on Earth.

 

[MrBishop]

Happy, healthy employees are productive employees.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Happy, healthy employees are productive employees.

Once again, how is that article making anyone happier or healthier?

 

[MrBishop]

Hopefully, it'll wake up American companies to certain business practices which are considered positive by potential employees such as : maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Hopefully, it'll wake up American companies to certain business practices which are considered positive by potential employees such as : maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding.

Question...Who is responsible for overall employee health and happiness?

 

[MrBishop]

I'd have to say 'the employee' - but then again...if a company wants to hire good people and retain them...they have to play the game.

 

[Gonz]

Happy, healthy employees are productive employees.

Then why isn't Sweden the greatest economic powerhouse on the planet?

 

[Gato_Solo]

I'd have to say 'the employee' - but then again...if a company wants to hire good people and retain them...they have to play the game.

You were right on until you hit the word 'but'. A company is in business to make the most money for what they have. The company couldn't care less if the employee is happy or not as long as they are making a profit. The things mentioned in the article are not in the companies best interests. They are not even in the employees best interests, and I'll tell you why. Not all employees have families/children. I can make a case for not having those things because it would alienate single folks. I can also ask why breastfeeding is allowed on company property at all. A business is no place for children, unless, of course, its a school...

 

[Gonz]

Allowing boobs to hang out at work, wimins boobs, would be alright.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Allowing boobs to hang out at work, wimins boobs, would be alright.

Unsafe work environment, hostile to the needs of men...I can make a strong case for sexual harassment based on that one...

 

[MrBishop]

You were right on until you hit the word 'but'. A company is in business to make the most money for what they have. The company couldn't care less if the employee is happy or not as long as they are making a profit. The things mentioned in the article are not in the companies best interests. They are not even in the employees best interests, and I'll tell you why. Not all employees have families/children. I can make a case for not having those things because it would alienate single folks. I can also ask why breastfeeding is allowed on company property at all. A business is no place for children, unless, of course, its a school...

Profit comes when employees work their hardest because they like where they work. Training new employees to replace those who left because of a bad work environment is costly and time consuming, neither is good for the bottom line. Companies who hire the top-of-their-cless employees make more money on average than a similar company with no benefits, and you're only going to get top people if you give them more then just a cubicle.

Sick leave and personal leave are nice fringe benefits. Maternity/Paternity leave covers single people eventually.

I also know of several med/large companies that have a day-care in their buildings (sublet) to better accommodate employees with young children.

The top-10 companies in North America have all of these and more...I don't think that they see it as an unnecessary expense.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Profit comes when employees work their hardest because they like where they work. Training new employees to replace those who left because of a bad work environment is costly and time consuming, neither is good for the bottom line. Companies who hire the top-of-their-cless employees make more money on average than a similar company with no benefits, and you're only going to get top people if you give them more then just a cubicle.

Not necessarily, due to the constant flood of money going out to keep those few happy. They may look nice on the bottom line, but looks are deceiving.

Sick leave and personal leave are nice fringe benefits. Maternity/Paternity leave covers single people eventually.

Sick leave is necessary. Personal leave, also called vacation time, is usually built-in at hiring time. Anything else is gravy. Not necessary for the day-to-day workings of any corporation. Also...not every person has a desire to produce offspring. Your argument on that is moot.

I also know of several med/large companies that have a day-care in their buildings (sublet) to better accommodate employees with young children.

The top-10 companies in North America have all of these and more...I don't think that they see it as an unnecessary expense.

And when/why did those companies get day-care facilities? Before, or after, required by law, or lawsuit?

 

[chcr]

Another thing to consider is that some businesses are by their nature more "family oriented" for lack of a better term. Stuff like this may be quite appropriate for one kind of business yet less so for another.

 

[MrBishop]

By personal leave, I meant to handle things like sick parents, children, attend funerals etc..

Also...not every person has a desire to produce offspring. Your argument on that is moot.

I dont' see how having available maternity leave would be considered a negative by single people..other than just envy.

And when/why did those companies get day-care facilities? Before, or after, required by law, or lawsuit?

Neither. They put them in place when they realized that it increased morale. *Note that these daycares aren't paid for by the company, but by the employees. The location is the key selling point*

Not necessarily, due to the constant flood of money going out to keep those few happy. They may look nice on the bottom line, but looks are deceiving

If that's what is needed to keep employees from leaving it's still better than high turn-over and/or cheap and under-educated employees.

I consider these fringe benefits much like I would health insurance, retirement packages, location and salary. They're what attract people to apply and keep them there.

Good salaries are also a 'constant flood of money going out'.

 

[Gato_Solo]

By personal leave, I meant to handle things like sick parents, children, attend funerals etc..


I dont' see how having available maternity leave would be considered a negative by single people..other than just envy.

If everybody can't have it, then nobody gets it. Its called 'equality'.

Neither. They put them in place when they realized that it increased morale. *Note that these daycares aren't paid for by the company, but by the employees. The location is the key selling point*

Keep digging, though. You're almost there with the second half of that quote.

If that's what is needed to keep employees from leaving it's still better than high turn-over and/or cheap and under-educated employees.

I beg to differ. All of those benefits should be for folks who have at least 7 years invested in working for the company. Also...most of those 'under-educated' employees have only recently become under-educated. A college degree is not needed for 95% of the jobs out there. In fact...it's only been in the past 20 years that you needed a college degree for accounting. Most jobs can be done right out of a one-year trade school. We both know that, so the only other answer is that the work-force has become over-educated. With that, has come debt, which requires higher pay, which requires a two-income household, etc, etc, etc...

I consider these fringe benefits much like I would health insurance, retirement packages, location and salary. They're what attract people to apply and keep them there.

Good salaries are also a 'constant flood of money going out'.

Never said a good days work didn't deserve a good days pay. Perhaps you don't understand what I'm getting at...

John Q Public works at the local widget factory for $49,500 per year. John Q Public's boss gets $56,000 per year. Niether has a college education. John Q Public has been working at the plant for 9 years. His boss has been working at the plant for 12. Now both men have a vast experience when it comes to making quality widgets. The company decides to hire Joe Blow, who happens to have a BA in management. His job description is exactly the same as John Q's boss, and he has absolutely no knowledge of making widgets. Why is his starting salary $65,000 per year? Don't even try the 'education' route, either, because, even with his degree, he has no experience...

 

[MrBishop]

If everybody can't have it, then nobody gets it. Its called 'equality'.

Exactly what they're on about. Everybody should have certain things that they can expect from a company including sick days, maternity leave of a reasonable time with guaranteed employment upon return, etc.

Keep digging, though. You're almost there with the second half of that quote.

It doesn't really cost the company anything more than space which they make up for with rent...the employees often have to have daycare. having it in the same building is a big plus.

I beg to differ. All of those benefits should be for folks who have at least 7 years invested in working for the company. Also...most of those 'under-educated' employees have only recently become under-educated. A college degree is not needed for 95% of the jobs out there. In fact...it's only been in the past 20 years that you needed a college degree for accounting. Most jobs can be done right out of a one-year trade school. We both know that, so the only other answer is that the work-force has become over-educated. With that, has come debt, which requires higher pay, which requires a two-income household, etc, etc, etc...

With people moving from one job to the other quickly, 7 years in one place is asking a lot. Hmm...it'll suck working here for the first 7 years, but after that..they'll actually be offering the same as company Y...where I get these benefits on day one. Where will I choose to work?

Over-education is a social bias. Who doesn't want their kids to get a better education than they had? A better shot? Corporations asking for higher level of education is their way of trimming the number of people applying... a response to the results of this social bias.
*Also the reason why there's a lack of skilled blue collar workers and tradesmen out there.

The rest of your argument is a slippery slope, I'm afraid. T'isn't over-education that's causing two-income households...it's more like cost of living going up at a faster rate than income.

Never said a good days work didn't deserve a good days pay. Perhaps you don't understand what I'm getting at...

John Q Public works at the local widget factory for $49,500 per year. John Q Public's boss gets $56,000 per year. Niether has a college education. John Q Public has been working at the plant for 9 years. His boss has been working at the plant for 12. Now both men have a vast experience when it comes to making quality widgets. The company decides to hire Joe Blow, who happens to have a BA in management. His job description is exactly the same as John Q's boss, and he has absolutely no knowledge of making widgets. Why is his starting salary $65,000 per year? Don't even try the 'education' route, either, because, even with his degree, he has no experience...

The company obviously feels that they need new blood or a fresh outlook. Paying him more that the JQ's boss A silly error that'll come back and bite them in the butt once JQ's boss finds out.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Exactly what they're on about. Everybody should have certain things that they can expect from a company including sick days, maternity leave of a reasonable time with guaranteed employment upon return, etc.

Sorry. I disagree. Loyalty shuld be rewarded, as should longevity. Why give the same as company Y when you're not going to go the distance? It makes no fiscal sense.

It doesn't really cost the company anything more than space which they make up for with rent...the employees often have to have daycare. having it in the same building is a big plus.

I disagree. Its not necessary. It wasn't for hundreds of years before, so why is it now?

With people moving from one job to the other quickly, 7 years in one place is asking a lot. Hmm...it'll suck working here for the first 7 years, but after that..they'll actually be offering the same as company Y...where I get these benefits on day one. Where will I choose to work?

See my first blurb.

Over-education is a social bias. Who doesn't want their kids to get a better education than they had? A better shot? Corporations asking for higher level of education is their way of trimming the number of people applying... a response to the results of this social bias.
*Also the reason why there's a lack of skilled blue collar workers and tradesmen out there.

The rest of your argument is a slippery slope, I'm afraid. T'isn't over-education that's causing two-income households...it's more like cost of living going up at a faster rate than income.

Over-education is the keystone to the cost of living rising. If you don't have 'over-education', then there is no need for the 'status symbols' that go with it. The average college graduate is saddled with over 10,000 in debt before they even get a job, therefor requiring higher pay. The lack of skilled 'blue-collar' workers is also because of the idea that a college education is worth more than good, hard work. We're at a point now where even the most menial tasks are becoming complicated enough to require a degree...

The company obviously feels that they need new blood or a fresh outlook. Paying him more that the JQ's boss A silly error that'll come back and bite them in the butt once JQ's boss finds out.

I disagree. I've seen more 'paradigm' change in 18 years than most see in a lifetime. Know how many actual change I've seen in the workplace? Almost nothing. All those 'experts' didn't really improve anything. Most of the change has come not from the experts, but from the people actually doing the job. Joe Blow knows nothing about the job, so how can he have a fresh outlook? The most he can do is state the obvious, which does nothing to justify his pay.

 

[Starya]

...

If everybody can't have it, then nobody gets it. Its called 'equality'.

Cripes, what a bizarre argument... It's paternity/maternity-leave. Meaning it must be available to those who do produce offspring, be they single, married, injected by aliens... Never in my time have I heard the argument that it is somehow "unfair" to those who don't produce kids for whatever reason. I'll give you a point for originality, but that's all.

 

[MrBishop]

Sorry. I disagree. Loyalty shuld be rewarded, as should longevity. Why give the same as company Y when you're not going to go the distance? It makes no fiscal sense.

Loyalty is rewarded with things like salary increases, more vacation time and job security. This is a shift as to what the 'bare minimum' should be.

I disagree. Its not necessary. It wasn't for hundreds of years before, so why is it now?

Increased rates of single-parents, divorces and dual-income families.
*the latter due more to necessity than greed IMO

Over-education is the keystone to the cost of living rising. If you don't have 'over-education', then there is no need for the 'status symbols' that go with it. The average college graduate is saddled with over 10,000 in debt before they even get a job, therefor requiring higher pay. The lack of skilled 'blue-collar' workers is also because of the idea that a college education is worth more than good, hard work. We're at a point now where even the most menial tasks are becoming complicated enough to require a degree...

You're tying in two issues here, but...
Cost of living increases are tied into the economy at large... from the costs of raw materials, to transport (fuel costs), manufacturing, supply/demand, trade deficits (and the costs associated with the closing monetary gap), etc... Salary demands seem dependant more to cost of living than the reverse to me.

Menial tasks requiring a degree? You don't need a degree to push a broom around, nor work in assembly, nor plumbing etc... I think that you're stretching here.

I disagree. I've seen more 'paradigm' change in 18 years than most see in a lifetime. Know how many actual change I've seen in the workplace? Almost nothing. All those 'experts' didn't really improve anything. Most of the change has come not from the experts, but from the people actually doing the job. Joe Blow knows nothing about the job, so how can he have a fresh outlook? The most he can do is state the obvious, which does nothing to justify his pay.

Often, a company gets in a rut. They're been doing things the same for the past X years, it works for them and that's good enough. They get where they can't see the forest for the trees..they don't grow, and if the market changes slightly, they feel the brunt more than another company who's working on changing with or ahead of the market.

The people actually doing the job are doing what they're told. They're not being paid to recommend change, and their recommendations get ignored. There are exceptions...but a rarity.