Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I wish you had answered.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:It is too easy for employees to be exploited otherwise. (Says the exempt employee who can't remember the last time I took lunch. Sigh.)
The company's human resources director then became involved, explaining that hourly non-exempt employees were required to take a 30-minute lunch break, a policy that had been in the company handbook for 10 years, according to the filing. Not following the policy would be a violation of Illinois' labor laws, the HR director said.
quote:Exactly what are you objecting to? The company's policy? How it was enforced? The fact that she was fired? The fact that the company considered it "insubordination" and tried to deny her unemployment? Or the fact that she won in count and got her unemployment after all?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So... do you think this is a reasonable situation, then? Nothing wrong here?
quote:I largely agree with you. From the article, it seems to me that firing her over it may have been excessive, but I obviously don't know all the details of her interactions with her employers.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that it is a reasonable protection against what can be an unreasonable situation. Seriously, the woman was told that she needed to take a lunch. Unless they are strict about enforcing HR regs, bosses can pressure employees to work through lunch and breaks and that can make the employer liable for lawsuits.
quote:In the quoted line I wasn't objecting to anything, I was genuinely asking if anyone thought this was a reasonable situation. I wish you had answered.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Exactly what are you objecting to? The company's policy? How it was enforced? The fact that she was fired? The fact that the company considered it "insubordination" and tried to deny her unemployment? Or the fact that she won in count and got her unemployment after all?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So... do you think this is a reasonable situation, then? Nothing wrong here?
quote:You missed that she did clock out. She was working off the clock. The insubordination was her refusing to leave her desk and stop working.
So I don't think she did anything significantly wrong (I can see that declining to clock out when ordered to was a sort of insubordination, but I think the situation even getting to that point is absurd.) If I don't think she was wrong, then who was?
quote:Sorry, I did read that, I just misspoke.
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:You missed that she did clock out. She was working off the clock. The insubordination was her refusing to leave her desk and stop working.
So I don't think she did anything significantly wrong (I can see that declining to clock out when ordered to was a sort of insubordination, but I think the situation even getting to that point is absurd.) If I don't think she was wrong, then who was?
quote:She wasn't. She was punished for ignoring repeated directives from her superiors, even after a formal sit down meeting about it.
The way I see it, she shouldn't have been punished for wanting to finish her work.
quote:Sure I do!
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:She wasn't. She was punished for ignoring repeated directives from her superiors, even after a formal sit down meeting about it.
The way I see it, she shouldn't have been punished for wanting to finish her work.
Manager 1: We need you to take lunch.
Employee: No.
Manager 2: We need you to take lunch.
Employee: No.
Managers 1 & 2 with HR: We need you to take lunch.
Employee: No.
You don't see what she did wrong there?
quote:What is dangerous about working through lunch, exactly? I've done it countless times. Usually, I eat lunch while working, because I'm fat. I'd probably benefit from doing what she did and just skipping lunch altogether sometimes.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, what protections for workers would you endorse? Would you do away with WC or a 40 hour work week?
Really think through the consequences. If taking dangerous risks can be allowed, it can be encouraged and then expected and then required. Same with unpaid work.
quote:... Right. Which is the problem.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
But she really shouldn't be working off the clock, as other noted if she does the company could be sued for unfair work practices.
quote:Heh, I don't work for companies anymore unless the contract explicitly states I can leave for any reason and they can fire me for any reason.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The larger issue for me is at-will employment. I've never felt that because an employee can leave at any time that somehow justifies companies firing employees without specifying a reason.
quote:I don't think that you have explained why this is true yet.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Asking an hourly employee to do that is exploiting them. Even if they are willing to be exploited.
quote:Oooh, now we're getting somewhere! Thanks for playing along with me Kate, these hypotheticals are really interesting.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, what if, instead of the occasional lunch, she was expected to work 10 hour days and only getting paid for 8?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I was curious to see your answer first, since you started the thread. But I'm happy to answer as well.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I wish you had answered.
quote:I don't think they have much choice, especially if they have a lot of nonsalaried people in highly-visible positions.
The company's policy?
quote:I actually think this may have been reasonable, especially if this was not the first time she argued with supervisors. (Which the article sort of implied but didn't state clearly.)
The fact that she was fired?
quote:I don't think this was so off-base either. The fact is, she not only didn't listen to a supervisor, she put the company in an untenable legal position.
The fact that the company considered it "insubordination" and tried to deny her unemployment?
quote:Given what is apparently the criteria the courts use, that was a given. And I'm fine with that, too.
Or the fact that she won in court and got her unemployment after all?
quote:I was out of work and moving to California during fall of 2008. I took a job in the collapsing financial industry and found I didn't care for it much. I'd much preferred my job in Arizona, where I never took lunch breaks and was paid a fraction of what I made in banking.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Dan, without protection, what is to stop all jobs to get "crappy"? Do you really think that everyone has the option to just "find a new one"? Have you been paying attention?
quote:Sure. But we don't need to argue those. That's just more slippery slope.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Could be this is a pointless game. Are you generally in favor of getting rid of such things as the minimum wage, 40 hour week, safe work place regulations* and so forth?
*After all, if they don't like the risks, they could just get a new job, right?
quote:This baffled me a bit. Why would you prefer this arrangement?
I don't work for companies anymore unless the contract explicitly states I can leave for any reason and they can fire me for any reason.
quote:I don't like the idea that they might have a problem with me or my work and not feel as though they have "cause" to fire me.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This baffled me a bit. Why would you prefer this arrangement?
I don't work for companies anymore unless the contract explicitly states I can leave for any reason and they can fire me for any reason.
quote:Yeah, but I don't really see that as coercion. I'd rephrase it this way: I think that people can decide that they don't want to deal with the alternatives to declining, and so they volunteer even though they don't particularly want to do whatever it is they're being asked to do.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Saying "slippery slope" is not an argument that such things don't happen. Do you really not get that people can be coerced into "volunteering" in a situation where they need their job?
quote:That has not been my experience when I have lost my job. I wasn't given a reason, and there wasn't a thing I could do about it.
BB, even in an at-will state, there are plenty of hoops through which one must jump in order to fire someone.
quote:By this I assume you mean not everyone feels like they do, right?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Must be nice to have that luxury. Not everyone does.
quote:I'm really confused, because this sounds like a terrible thing to me, but I get the impression you disagree.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Wow. We have to practically eliminate the position to get rid of someone.
quote:The laws against bribing judges fit this description, Dan.
Once again: I think that if a law creates a situation where two parties would have no problem with a voluntary exchange if it were not for the existence of that law, then a flaw has been revealed in the law.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Well, I understand why the situation, at first glance, would be of concern. But when you look at the details, I don't really see anything as terribly out of whack.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
From what you've written, I get the impression that nothing in this situation seems terribly wrong or out of whack to you. Is that fair to say?
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Must be nice to have that luxury. Not everyone does.
quote:Heh, I think there's a wide range of blackmail, some of which should be illegal, but I wonder if my previous amendment already addresses that. Certainly blackmailing a policymaker into making a special policy for you is wrong. And extortion is wrong, because there's a threat of explicit coercion involved (aka give me money or I'll burn down your house).
Originally posted by Destineer:
Blackmail is another example, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you think that should be legal.
quote:I think there is a significant correlation between salary level and the ease with which you can fire someone. A salaried $80K employee is much more likely to sue (or threaten to sue) than an hourly $20K employee. There's also, in my experience, more concern about the impression made on other employees and potential employees when a professional is let go. When you're a large software company attempting to recruit top talent it doesn't do to have a reputation for unfairly dismissing people.
That has not been my experience when I have lost my job. I wasn't given a reason, and there wasn't a thing I could do about it.
quote:Assuming a fact that is hardly in evidence, namely that working off the clock, or wanting to, is "obviously a good thing."
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I think it's a problem that we live in a society where you can be punished for doing what is obviously a good thing (wanting to work, stopping a thief, etc.) I think that the things in our society that contribute to this, such as excessive litigiousness and myriad laws placing various burdens on employers, are similarly problematic.
quote:More specifically, that wanting to work is a good thing. The only reason she was going to work off the clock was because she wasn't allowed to keep working on the clock. To that extent, you sort of missed my point. If the company was allowed to let her work through lunch and be paid for it, would they have? Or would they have still asked that she clock out and take her lunch?
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Assuming a fact that is hardly in evidence, namely that working off the clock, or wanting to, is "obviously a good thing."
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I think it's a problem that we live in a society where you can be punished for doing what is obviously a good thing (wanting to work, stopping a thief, etc.) I think that the things in our society that contribute to this, such as excessive litigiousness and myriad laws placing various burdens on employers, are similarly problematic.
quote:I've definitely been in the position of telling people to go home, because they weren't needed. I've also asked people to work overtime, because they were needed. I worked as a manager in food service for several years, so staffing issues were pretty much constant. Overstaffing, understaffing, overworked people, all of those are problems you have to deal with in that context.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I could name you several reasons why it is not a good thing. Aside from the fact that it is a violation of labor laws to do so, it is also unfair to co-workers, who may be exposed to unfair comparisons in performance with people working off the clock. It is also unhealthy to work through a full day without a break, possibly contributing to lower workplace safety and lower efficiency. THe economic and personal benefits, as well as the benefit to the company, are dubious. The person is not payed for their extra work, their work may set an unreasonable output standard for their position, eliminating otherwise necessary staff members and blocking space for advancement, and the person does not eat lunch.
In my (blessedly brief) time as a supervisor in University, I learned that a thoughtful manager requires employees not to overwork themselves. I was not above sending people home before they were ready to go, because their payed time had ended. If I had allowed others to stay, I would have been in the position of benefiting from their unpaid work, as a manager. And as an employee, I have worked in situations where others were allowed to overwork, and my relationship with management suffered when I observed my own working hours and limited myself to them.
quote:I think you have some really interesting observations here. I agree with you that it sounds like your boss was making a mistake. But why would the solution be to make his behavior illegal? If he is making a mistake, he's hurting himself, and hopefully you or someone can point that out to him, or perhaps he will eventually realize it himself (or the company will, when the quality of his work degrades enough that they notice).
Originally posted by Orincoro:
This can be a real problem, particularly in such areas as education and childcare (the area of most of my experience), where employees often take upon themselves the burden induced by understaffing or inefficiency, and thus aid the organization in not fixing these issues. Many was the time my own boss, who was being payed for 30 hours a week to "save money," simply worked more to get things done. With the predictable result that the city in question failed to either properly pay him for the work expected, or to fill a more junior position with someone to take some of the workload. This is bad for everyone. Were people like him to quit in protest, or to simply work the hours they were payed for, and no more, with diminishing returns, organizations might have to face the reality that they are expecting more work than they are willing to pay for.
quote:Yeah that's true, she made a mistake in that regard. But I suspect there is some law out there you disagree with, where you might acknowledge that someone breaking it is making a mistake in the sense that they broke a law, but at the same time was not in the wrong and probably shouldn't be punished. Heck I could be really blatant and use a place with Sharia law as an example. A woman in such a situation might be making a mistake and knowingly violating the law by wearing pants, but that doesn't make her actions wrong.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
And this ignores the fact that the person in question was insubordinate and knowingly violated company policies and the law.
quote:In CA there are some instances where nonsalaried employees can be paid to work through lunch, but it's my understanding that this is only for specific jobs where taking a break is impractical, and there has to be a special agreement beforehand and probably various other bureaucratic red tape.
Originally posted by rivka:
I don't know about IL, but in CA an nonsalaried employee certainly CANNOT be paid for working during break times mandated by law.
quote:Whether or not a labor law is present to compel that order from the boss, she is wrong. She's disobeying orders repeatedly.
The way I see it, she shouldn't have been punished for wanting to finish her work. It's not even as if an argument could be made that she was goldbricking. She wasn't even attempting to get paid for it, she just wanted to finish what she was working on.
So I don't think she did anything significantly wrong (I can see that declining to clock out when ordered to was a sort of insubordination, but I think the situation even getting to that point is absurd.) If I don't think she was wrong, then who was?
quote:Another thing every job does, or should, come with is clearly defined expectations about what is needed to survive and thrive in the job. What is hardly ever included in those expectations is the understanding that, whether by necessity or whim, the employer can say, "Ok, time to do some work you weren't told to expect when we both agreed you'd work here; if you don't like it, of course I'm sure you can find an equivalent job fast enough that you won't miss a mortgage payment, or have your gas cut off, or really dent your savings."
Every job comes with things people will see as downsides. I don't see how working through your lunch is a more exploitative downside than handling human waste. Some people will find the downside worthwhile, some won't.
quote:So, I don't specifically disagree with this. She disobeyed her manager's directions, she got fired.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
*nod* It seems pretty straightforward to me. In most jobs, your boss is going to have control over how your time is spent over a given stretch of time throughout the week. You agree to this submission as an employee for, yknow, money.
When and how(to a lesser extent) you take your lunch break or breaks period is, again, one of those things that outside of illegality, the boss has control over. Another of those 'the way it is' things.
So if your boss says take a lunch break, and don't do work for the company...that's what you have to do. I'm really confused as to why this aspect of things is even an issue. Whether it's a sensible order, whether it's stupid...I mean, not the employee's call unless part of their agreement to work includes something like 'I reserve the right to disobey instructions I deem pointless, counterproductive, or stupid'.
quote:I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Another thing every job does, or should, come with is clearly defined expectations about what is needed to survive and thrive in the job. What is hardly ever included in those expectations is the understanding that, whether by necessity or whim, the employer can say, "Ok, time to do some work you weren't told to expect when we both agreed you'd work here; if you don't like it, of course I'm sure you can find an equivalent job fast enough that you won't miss a mortgage payment, or have your gas cut off, or really dent your savings."
Every job comes with things people will see as downsides. I don't see how working through your lunch is a more exploitative downside than handling human waste. Some people will find the downside worthwhile, some won't.
quote:I don't think that disliking laws laying out exactly how two parties can decide on the best voluntary exchange of labor and compensation equates to assuming that all employers are going to be good!
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
(On a semi-related note, this is one of the things that has always so thoroughly baffled me about-I know you're not a libertarian, Dan-politics that lean towards it. Ok, I get that trusting government to do what is right for society is problematic; why is trusting random employers not to stick it to their employees a more rational notion? The very self interest on which such politics relies would suggest that employer might be MORE likely to do so, not less.)
quote:Yeah it does. The specific industries that have managed to cadge special exceptions (amusement parks calling themselves 'seasonal employment,' for instance) stand in stark, garish contrast to companies that are not allowed to benefit from grandfathered special privileges. When these special exceptions are iced on a state by state level, the improvement is rapid and significant.
The biggest reason is that making laws about it doesn't really help much.
quote:To defend this, you'd have to argue that workplace protections like safety regulations and labor codes have literally benefited neither party at all, not even since the time of triangle shirtwaist co. How would you go about substantiating this point of view? From where did you get the idea?
Making this or that particular practice illegal doesn't protect either party from getting screwed over...
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
At which point, presumably, the company felt it wasn't worth it.
Why mandate that she be paid overtime in that situation? If she's willing to work for normal pay, why not let her?
Because if you do, she's being exploited?
quote:Says a person who likely has never been unlawfully terminated for refusing to work unpaid overtime in a crappy low-wage job. But there are literally millions of Americans who are in that position- the laws are largely in place for their benefit. And the fact that they are difficult to enforce or are poorly enforced, is not evidence that they are not needed. The response of simply removing the restrictions against wholesale exploitation, I honestly don't understand at all.
The biggest reason is that making laws about it doesn't really help much. I mean, lousy employers still exist. They still find ways to dick over their employees. And employment is a two-way street: lousy employees also exist, in abundance, and find ways to dick over their employers.
quote:I would guess that this played into the decision to fire her as well. She had already suffered a stroke that was apparently caused in part by the stress of the job. She was refusing to take a break even though she was told to do so by her employer. Did they feel she adding to her own stress level again? Did they not want to take that risk?
Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing.
quote:Really? That's how you're going to portray that quote?
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:To defend this, you'd have to argue that workplace protections like safety regulations and labor codes have literally benefited neither party at all, not even since the time of triangle shirtwaist co. How would you go about substantiating this point of view? From where did you get the idea?
Making this or that particular practice illegal doesn't protect either party from getting screwed over...
quote:Do you really not see how this is a tautology? I'm asking "Why should this be illegal?" and your response seems to be "Because it's illegal."
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
At which point, presumably, the company felt it wasn't worth it.
Why mandate that she be paid overtime in that situation? If she's willing to work for normal pay, why not let her?
Because if you do, she's being exploited?
If the company is unwilling to pay for overtime, and yet allows its employees to work more than full time hours for regular pay, they are exploiting the employees, however tacitly they may be doing so. It doesn't necessarily take an act of commission to be exploitative. Ignoring overwork for which you are not paying is nonetheless against the law.
quote:I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly. At first, I thought you were saying that the establishment of the 40 hour work week didn't and doesn't help workers.
The biggest reason is that making laws about it doesn't really help much. I mean, lousy employers still exist. They still find ways to dick over their employees. And employment is a two-way street: lousy employees also exist, in abundance, and find ways to dick over their employers.
Making this or that particular practice illegal doesn't protect either party from getting screwed over, and it does create situations where employees and employers can become incentivized or coerced by the law into doing things that help neither of them.
quote:This is a very easy question: yes, it does. In the past I've worked with probably scores of people who would have been told, many times, that they had to work through their lunch breaks if their employers had that option. On 9+ hour shifts, no less.
Actually, I'm talking about whether or not making it illegal to work through your lunch helps anyone!
quote:I have seen you ignore the several reasons why I think it *should* be illegal. Do try and spot those. They are in there.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Do you really not see how this is a tautology? I'm asking "Why should this be illegal?" and your response seems to be "Because it's illegal."
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
At which point, presumably, the company felt it wasn't worth it.
Why mandate that she be paid overtime in that situation? If she's willing to work for normal pay, why not let her?
Because if you do, she's being exploited?
If the company is unwilling to pay for overtime, and yet allows its employees to work more than full time hours for regular pay, they are exploiting the employees, however tacitly they may be doing so. It doesn't necessarily take an act of commission to be exploitative. Ignoring overwork for which you are not paying is nonetheless against the law.
quote:I guess I should have said "Helps more than it hurts" instead of helps anyone. Clarity is good.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:This is a very easy question: yes, it does. In the past I've worked with probably scores of people who would have been told, many times, that they had to work through their lunch breaks if their employers had that option. On 9+ hour shifts, no less.
Actually, I'm talking about whether or not making it illegal to work through your lunch helps anyone!
Had that happened, they could've liked it or lumped it and looked elsewhere, though on an individual level the employee is generally much weaker than the employer. So then, your theory as I understand it goes, lots of employees are upset by this policy and quit. They're all in a financial situation where they CAN just quit.
Then they have to find ankther employer, one who hopefully doesn't share this policy. If they can't, well it's a tough world, I guess.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
quote:I'm not trying to ignore them! I think I addressed everything in your post on the previous page. Let me take a second look at the one on this page.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:I have seen you ignore the several reasons why I think it *should* be illegal. Do try and spot those. They are in there.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Do you really not see how this is a tautology? I'm asking "Why should this be illegal?" and your response seems to be "Because it's illegal."
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
At which point, presumably, the company felt it wasn't worth it.
Why mandate that she be paid overtime in that situation? If she's willing to work for normal pay, why not let her?
Because if you do, she's being exploited?
If the company is unwilling to pay for overtime, and yet allows its employees to work more than full time hours for regular pay, they are exploiting the employees, however tacitly they may be doing so. It doesn't necessarily take an act of commission to be exploitative. Ignoring overwork for which you are not paying is nonetheless against the law.
quote:I admit I avoided this because it seemed needlessly personal, but that's cool. Also because it has nothing to do with lunch breaks! You're asking me to argue in favor of... unpaid overtime, I guess?
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Says a person who likely has never been unlawfully terminated for refusing to work unpaid overtime in a crappy low-wage job. But there are literally millions of Americans who are in that position- the laws are largely in place for their benefit. And the fact that they are difficult to enforce or are poorly enforced, is not evidence that they are not needed. The response of simply removing the restrictions against wholesale exploitation, I honestly don't understand at all.
The biggest reason is that making laws about it doesn't really help much. I mean, lousy employers still exist. They still find ways to dick over their employees. And employment is a two-way street: lousy employees also exist, in abundance, and find ways to dick over their employers.
quote:Well, it could be, or it is?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Working through lunch could be a violation of several regulations. This is why it would be helpful to know what regulations you support.
quote:No. I mentioned several reasons *why* these rules are important. I will not lower myself to repeating them verbatim *again* so that you can either attack my wording of a summary version, or claim I didn't say something before that i am saying now. If you can't spot them, we're done talking.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So, the stuff about SAG and the stuff about us establishing rules and enforcing them or being wrong is still tautological.
quote:Considering the person hadn't worked over 40 hours in a week, the law clearly believes that this is not exploitation.
I've also asked people who were in crappy low wage jobs to work overtime. And since I was in AZ, by Californian standards it was unpaid overtime of a sort: I've asked someone with minimal hours to pull a double shift, which means their hours are still paid regular time, because you needed to work over 40 in a week to get time and a half in AZ. God, what an exploitative manager I was
quote:Hey, if you don't feel like you're learning anything from the conversation, I encourage you not to continue. That's the only reason to do this stuff, after all. If it's upsetting you, at the bare minimum you should probably take a break. It's cool. All this text will still be here if you decide to come back later.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:No. I mentioned several reasons *why* these rules are important. I will not lower myself to repeating them verbatim *again* so that you can either attack my wording of a summary version, or claim I didn't say something before that i am saying now. If you can't spot them, we're done talking.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So, the stuff about SAG and the stuff about us establishing rules and enforcing them or being wrong is still tautological.
quote:I understand that we establish these things, and I understand we're a representative democracy, so presumably these are laws most people agree are moral. That makes sense, but perhaps a fundamental schism we're having is that I don't think morality is determined via consensus. So I don't see it as incongruous and ipso facto wrong to disagree with what most people think is moral.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
It's simple. You work a given number of hours. If you are needed to work more, you must be payed more. We establish reasonable limits for how much is enough, and how much is too much to be safe, and healthy. And we follow those limits. And if we can't follow them, we're doing something wrong.
quote:Again, I understand that we don't allow these things. What I don't see is where you explained why letting people work in a movie for free is exploitation. I think, if those people want to do it, then everybody wins. If I enjoy helping my mom set up her VCR for free, then we both won, because she got a set up VCR and I got to help my mom. That's a win/win.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
ETA: As to the former point, consider the existence of SAG (screen actors guild). IF they were allowed to, Hollywood studios could hold open casting calls for TV shows and movies, and find enough people to play extras and minor parts for free. Plenty of people would be more than happy to simply have the opportunity to appear on television or in a movie. But the studios are not allowed to employ people without paying them. While there are obviously a number of absurd sounding outcomes in this arrangement (such as being payed hundreds of dollars for playing an extra, which is not difficult), the point is that the studios are not allowed to exploit people who would gladly *allow* themselves to be exploited.
quote:Well, unless you're working in California. Then it is exploitation! In CA, if you work more than 8 hours in a day, you must be paid overtime, even if you do not work 40 hours in a week.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Considering the person hadn't worked over 40 hours in a week, the law clearly believes that this is not exploitation.
I've also asked people who were in crappy low wage jobs to work overtime. And since I was in AZ, by Californian standards it was unpaid overtime of a sort: I've asked someone with minimal hours to pull a double shift, which means their hours are still paid regular time, because you needed to work over 40 in a week to get time and a half in AZ. God, what an exploitative manager I was
quote:Except in the places it doesn't. So this is really valuable learning! You think labor laws in California (at least in this one area) go too far, and are wrong. While the labor laws in AZ (in this one area) are right. This is especially interesting because many people in states like CA tend to characterize right-to-work states like AZ as fundamentally more exploitative. But you disagree! Awesome!
Originally posted by Orincoro:
You need to do some calculus here, before you continue in the smarmy-assed tone you've established in talking to me. The law in the situation you mentioned doesn't consider this exploitation. I agree. I do not agree simply *because* the law takes that position. However, given that we live in a democratic society under the rule of law, the law has been calibrated to fit rather neatly with what I personally, and myriad others, believe is *right.* Asking someone to work a double shift when they work only 40 hours a week, for regular pay, seems ok to me. Shockingly, the law agrees.
(Since you seem to be detecting hostility from me, I want to be clear: this isn't sarcasm. I'm excited that we've found a labor law that you think is unjust! It also proves the point you made further down, that you don't think things are wrong simply because they're illegal)quote:Here's an example of some stuff I'm going to gloss over because I'm pretty sure it's mostly just invective and not trying to substantiate any particular points (aside from maybe the one I mentioned above, which is that you don't think things are wrong just because they're illegal). I don't mind. I have difficulty controlling my temper, so I'm not one to think ill of someone else with the same problem.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Asking someone to work overtime, without pay, as I mentioned many people do, seems wrong. Shockingly, the law agrees again.
But do go on with your dripping sarcasm about how I must think your a terrible manager for following the law, which I agree with. And do go on assuming I think things are ok as long as they are legal, and not that I think the law is largely in step with what I believe is justified. Because to someone like you, obviously, there is no faith in notion that the majority of laws exist because they *should*, and because people *want* them to. Not as long as you need to preserve some paranoid fantasy of big-government persecution of you honest hard-working folk who are beaten down by not allowing employees to take bathroom breaks.
quote:That's cool. That you chose to get angry in this context is a little disappointing, but it's not terribly surprising. No biggie.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Have you awakened my ire? Yes.
quote:Are you seriously comparing those two incredibly different scenarios?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Again, I understand that we don't allow these things. What I don't see is where you explained why letting people work in a movie for free is exploitation. I think, if those people want to do it, then everybody wins. If I enjoy helping my mom set up her VCR for free, then we both won, because she got a set up VCR and I got to help my mom. That's a win/win.
quote:Not always. In many cases workers with 10-hour shifts (or even 12 hour shifts) do not have to be paid overtime.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Well, unless you're working in California. Then it is exploitation! In CA, if you work more than 8 hours in a day, you must be paid overtime, even if you do not work 40 hours in a week.
quote:Sort of? I acknowledge they're different. For example, I would happily be an extra in The Hobbit for free.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Are you seriously comparing those two incredibly different scenarios?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Again, I understand that we don't allow these things. What I don't see is where you explained why letting people work in a movie for free is exploitation. I think, if those people want to do it, then everybody wins. If I enjoy helping my mom set up her VCR for free, then we both won, because she got a set up VCR and I got to help my mom. That's a win/win.
quote:Thanks for correcting me. I didn't know that.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Not always. In many cases workers with 10-hour shifts (or even 12 hour shifts) do not have to be paid overtime.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Well, unless you're working in California. Then it is exploitation! In CA, if you work more than 8 hours in a day, you must be paid overtime, even if you do not work 40 hours in a week.
quote:Wow that sounds like a sleazy boss!
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"Fred, if you want to keep your desperately needed job, you will work an extra 10 hours unpaid this week."
quote:Actually, because of exploitation of interns, it is now required that interns either be paid OR be receiving college credit -- or both. (I don't recall if that is federal or California law.) I know, because I have to write letters for companies affirming that we are giving the student credit for their internship.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Don't internships also operate on this principle?
quote:They're called "exempt".
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Sort of the way that there are certain types of professions in CA where you can legally agree to be allowed to work through lunch, right?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
We won't discuss how rarely I take lunch.
quote:Yeah, I vaguely remember reading about that. So you think that the idea of internships before that change was unfair and wrong?
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Actually, because of exploitation of interns, it is now required that interns either be paid OR be receiving college credit -- or both. (I don't recall if that is federal or California law.) I know, because I have to write letters for companies affirming that we are giving the student credit for their internship.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Don't internships also operate on this principle?
quote:Heh.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:They're called "exempt".
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Sort of the way that there are certain types of professions in CA where you can legally agree to be allowed to work through lunch, right?
So, I was referring to the certain jobs that are laid out in the labor code as exceptions, where it's not practical to take 30 minutes off for lunch so they let you sign a form and agree you won't. I don't recall which professions this is, but I know there are some special exceptions.quote:Sure. Some companies do, some don't. And in lots of cases they do sometimes. Put in extra hours when there is a need, don't when there isn't.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
When it was legal here, they certainly did. Where is it still legal, they certainly do. It happens plenty with exempt workers who don't have those legal protections. You never heard of people working a 60 hour week?
quote:I think there were many documented cases of internships being abused by companies as a way to get free labor. Why do you think the rules changed?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So you think that the idea of internships before that change was unfair and wrong?
quote:Because there were many documented cases of interns who were essentially used to do the same labor as paid staffers. (I'm pretty sure I just said the same thing as you but rephrased. Do you agree? If I missed something, let me know.)
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:I think there were many documented cases of internships being abused by companies as a way to get free labor. Why do you think the rules changed?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So you think that the idea of internships before that change was unfair and wrong?
quote:Doesn't even have to have anything to do with decency. The free market does not concern itself with decency, it concerns itself with profit. If the nature of profit in a given industry rewards those who dispense with "decency," then it self-selects decent bosses out of that industry. No too hard to reach a point of "If my competitor ain't giving his employees lunchtime, I can't afford to give you that either."
Because if there's one thing we can rely on, it's the general decency of human beings when it directly conflicts with their bottom line...
quote:Could you explain what I missed in my above post?
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Internships used to be the best racket in town. Our newspaper lived on the poor young guys, replete with dangling employment opportunities that, of course, never materialized. Twas a pretty classic example of exploitative labor practices, oh joy.
quote:Unless you want to lure the best employees away from that competitor...
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Doesn't even have to have anything to do with decency. The free market does not concern itself with decency, it concerns itself with profit. If the nature of profit in a given industry rewards those who dispense with "decency," then it self-selects decent bosses out of that industry. No too hard to reach a point of "If my competitor ain't giving his employees lunchtime, I can't afford to give you that either."
Because if there's one thing we can rely on, it's the general decency of human beings when it directly conflicts with their bottom line...
quote:If I am not portraying that quote to be a statement you intended, you're being unclear.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Really? That's how you're going to portray that quote?
quote:Good. Exactly this. Making exploitative practices that screw over employees illegal does prevent many employees from being screwed over by that practice. I know you had some sort of a caveat buried to that in here:
I'm not saying that making X practice illegal doesn't, in some cases, keep people from screwing over their employees via X practice. Of course it does! Many employers will stop using X practice to screw over their employees.
quote:... but it honestly makes no sense, least if it is supposed to offer a rebuttal or a caveat to the productivity of those laws. I read it over two times.
Of course, some employers will find ways to disregard the law and still screw over their employes via X practice (like people employing under-the-table low wage workers whose job is fundamentally illegal and so they have little recourse against an employer who happens to be breaking another law by utilizing X practice... you know, the poorest of the poor people who these laws are always ostensibly supposed to protect)
More importantly, law-abiding employers can still screw over their employees via Y practice, or Z practice. And in the mean time, by making practice X illegal you also hinder good, law-abiding employers and employees who simply think that their working arrangement would be better if they utilized practice X.
quote:Yes. Your notions did not originate in a vacuum. From what narratives they originate from is often incredibly important to discern when it comes to discussing your beliefs on government and industry, and this has been demonstrated multiple times. For instance, to what extent are there any governmental regulations on industry and employment that you would argue for?
PS: Sam is there some reason you feel the need to ask me "where I got this idea" every time we talk?
quote:I thought it was clear that I was saying making a particular practice illegal did not stop people from trying to gain an advantage over their employees/employer via an infinite number of other practices. Sorry I was unclear!
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:If I am not portraying that quote to be a statement you intended, you're being unclear.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Really? That's how you're going to portray that quote?
quote:Okay, so, I'll try to simplify it I guess.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Good. Exactly this. Making exploitative practices that screw over employees illegal does prevent many employees from being screwed over by that practice. I know you had some sort of a caveat buried to that in here:
I'm not saying that making X practice illegal doesn't, in some cases, keep people from screwing over their employees via X practice. Of course it does! Many employers will stop using X practice to screw over their employees.
quote:... but it honestly makes no sense, least if it is supposed to offer a rebuttal or a caveat to the productivity of those laws. I read it over two times.
Of course, some employers will find ways to disregard the law and still screw over their employes via X practice (like people employing under-the-table low wage workers whose job is fundamentally illegal and so they have little recourse against an employer who happens to be breaking another law by utilizing X practice... you know, the poorest of the poor people who these laws are always ostensibly supposed to protect)
More importantly, law-abiding employers can still screw over their employees via Y practice, or Z practice. And in the mean time, by making practice X illegal you also hinder good, law-abiding employers and employees who simply think that their working arrangement would be better if they utilized practice X.
quote:How has it been demonstrated multiple times? I know you've said it multiple times, but you haven't actually given a reason. You just say that it's really important to know what narrative informed my opinions, full stop. Why? So that you can attack the "narrative" instead of what I have said?
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Yes. Your notions did not originate in a vacuum. From what narratives they originate from is often incredibly important to discern when it comes to discussing your beliefs on government and industry, and this has been demonstrated multiple times. For instance, to what extent are there any governmental regulations on industry and employment that you would argue for?
PS: Sam is there some reason you feel the need to ask me "where I got this idea" every time we talk?
quote:Because something like four or five times before, understanding it let me understand why you were taking the position you were taking, what it represented, what larger thing it's part of. The biggest issue at the fore (for nothing more than my own curiosity and desire to present my own viewpoint, too, it's not like I have any big expectations to sway you to supporting these workplace regulations) comes with the issue of what's consequentialist and what's really ultimately not. So, obviously, questions result.
How has it been demonstrated multiple times? I know you've said it multiple times, but you haven't actually given a reason. You just say that it's really important to know what narrative informed my opinions, full stop. Why?
quote:You misunderstand. Wanting to know where the notion of disliking a particular regulation is perfectly valid. It's like asking "Do you dislike this regulation because of something you know about business? Some sort of report or study or opinion piece on whether or not it works? Some idea that things would be better without it? Is it more just sort of a gut assumption or a requirement of a certain moral view?"
I'm not sure what else you want, Sam. How will this help you actually discuss what I say, as opposed to (I assume) trying to tear down some pundit that I sometimes find insightful?
quote:See above. Whether or not someone holds a moral or consequential standpoint that no or nearly no governmental regulation on your boss is permissable is important to the argument.
Similarly, how does my opinion of "any regulation" pertain to the discussion of this particular regulation?
quote:Whether or not this is my, uh, 'excuse' for when I do attack others personally, you can stop thinking of this as an assault on Dan Underscore Frank The Person just because I like to know the expanded narratives behind disliking government regulation of *a* business practice or government regulation of *any* business practice. If it still frustrates you, well, there's always the advice you gave orincoro on much the same matter.
I want to engage with you in good faith and take your arguments seriously, but it's kind of frustrating when it seems like you're more interested in attacking me than what I've said. I know your stance on ad hominem is that it's sometimes necessary because you need to attack where the person is getting their ideas and not just the ideas themselves (at least I think it was you that said that)... but I think I fundamentally disagree.
quote:"But wait," says hatrack, "shouldn't Dan enjoy getting needled persistently about his beliefs for the fifth consecutive day?"
If it still frustrates you, well, there's always the advice you gave orincoro on much the same matter.
quote:errr...I'd say that those two reasons are really obviously not contradictory to anyone who gave it more than a surface consideration. I'd be interested in your thought process in determining otherwise.
Also your mention of dangling vanishing employment in front of them reminds me: Intern Nation is a book about how bad internships are. He gives two core reasons for why internships were unfair and bad. One was that they dangled nonexistent jobs in front of interns and cycled through them to have indefinite free labor. The other was that internships unfairly punished poor people who could not afford to go an extended amount of time without working, and so all of the good jobs that internships led to were closed off to the poor.
It seems to me that these two reasons are really really obviously contradictory. But maybe it's just a bad book, I'unno.
quote:Which is well and good when it's true. And blatant exploitation when it is not.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
And yet... lots of people still wanted to get internships! They felt that their professional prospects would improve by doing so, and that was more important to them than being paid.
quote:Seems like a lot of people replying in this thread haven't read the article, or totally failed to appreciate that she had taken 3 of the prior 6 months off for medical reasons she attributed to the stressful nature of her job. Anyway, she was merely awarded unemployment, she did not win a wrongful termination suit.
Originally posted by vegimo:
quote:I would guess that this played into the decision to fire her as well. She had already suffered a stroke that was apparently caused in part by the stress of the job. She was refusing to take a break even though she was told to do so by her employer. Did they feel she adding to her own stress level again? Did they not want to take that risk?
Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing.
quote:That's only if you include the overall environment of regulations and such that this takes place in (such as the 40 hour work week we're discussing here).
Originally posted by pooka:
Kate, the essence of at will employment does assume that the employee and the employer are at equal footing legally, that each derives benefits from maintaining the relationship.
quote:This is precisely why "at-will employment" is such a ridiculous, pro-employer boondoggle.
Kate, the essence of at will employment does assume that the employee and the employer are at equal footing legally, that each derives benefits from maintaining the relationship.
quote:I think that this is a misreading of the situation.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Generally, if an employer needs an employee to work extra hours in a crisis and the employee is willing, that is legally fine. If the employer pays for it. In the originally case, the employer made the call that the work was not so urgent that they wanted to pay overtime to get it done immediately.
quote:Heh, I'll admit to feeling a little frustrated on occasion, but you were absolutely right. I'm choosing to participate because I get something out of it.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"But wait," says hatrack, "shouldn't Dan enjoy getting needled persistently about his beliefs for the fifth consecutive day?"
If it still frustrates you, well, there's always the advice you gave orincoro on much the same matter.
If I stop getting anything out of it, I can stop participating.
quote:This is generally the case only when these companies are competing for employees. It's why professionals get great salaries and benefit packages because there isn't someone else out there that can do the same job for less money, though foreign tech outsourcing shows that even this situation is under some pressure.
Conversely, there are plenty of companies that provide more perks than they, strictly speaking, have to. Some companies, for example, with more generous OT policies than are mandated.
quote:One of the reasons that most "business friendly" states take in more federal money than they pay out is because companies there pay their employees a below poverty wage. Walmart is a great example of a company whose business model of paying less than a living wage is subsidized by public assistance programs, like food stamps.
With low-paying, low-skill work, employers pretty consistently treat employees according to the minimum standards set by law. Sure, some companies will have a moral sense because they happen to be run by moral people but in general the power differential between large, wealthy employers and easily replaced low-skill workers means that, barring regulation of the market, exploitation will occur.
quote:David Deutsch, the quantum information theorist? How do you know him, Dan?
So, to attempt to answer your question, I suppose my views on "government and industry" have been evolving for roughly the last decade, sparked originally by conversations with David Deutsch and a few mutual friends.
quote:Through mutual friends, basically. I've never had the chance to meet him in person, sadly (Unlike my partner, the lucky jerk). We've talked through irc/IM/email channels, generally, as we've both been a part of a few different online communities over the years. I've rarely had conversations with him that weren't directly related to philosophy, politics, or science... if he's got frivolous interests, I never saw that side of him. But then, it's definitely one of those cases where he was much more influential on me than vice versa, obviously.
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:David Deutsch, the quantum information theorist? How do you know him, Dan?
So, to attempt to answer your question, I suppose my views on "government and industry" have been evolving for roughly the last decade, sparked originally by conversations with David Deutsch and a few mutual friends.
quote:Oh... QFT. So very much so.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This is precisely why "at-will employment" is such a ridiculous, pro-employer boondoggle.
Kate, the essence of at will employment does assume that the employee and the employer are at equal footing legally, that each derives benefits from maintaining the relationship.