When you say you oppose 'bosses', who do you refer to ?

[Che a chara]

Are you referring to the legitimate owner of the means of production or are you referring to those who worked their way up over the years and have worked hard to get a higher placement ?

[Drace]

It is irrelevant to how one becomes a member of the bourgeois class, just as it does not matter how hard someone worked to be a slave owner and similarly how much effort it takes to carry out genocide.
The effect is the same exploitation.

Though I don't even see how one can work his way up to be a boss. No boss is going to promote you to his position and give you their job. The only way you can be a boss is through investing capital to become an owner of the means of production.

[#FF0000]

Yeah it doesn't matter how they got to their position. Once they're there, the objective is the same - to get as much cash as possible through the exploitation of labor.

This is even (especially) true of small businesses, that often work their employees harder and pay them less and give them less benefits in order to stay competitive.

[Che a chara]

It is irrelevant to how one becomes a member of the bourgeois class, just as it does not matter how hard someone worked to be a slave owner and similarly how much effort it takes to carry out genocide.
The effect is the same exploitation.

Though I don't even see how one can work his way up to be a boss. No boss is going to promote you to his position and give you their job. The only way you can be a boss is through investing capital to become an owner of the means of production.

Say for example a head of the department, How would that person (a boss) exploit ?

Many just have it in their heads that all bosses are corrupt, fat cats, when in actual fact many are involved in trade unions and have concern for those working 'below' him/her. i think its important to differentiate between an exploiter and a 'boss'.

[Che a chara]

Yeah it doesn't matter how they got to their position. Once they're there, the objective is the same - to get as much cash as possible through the exploitation of labor.

This is even (especially) true of small businesses, that often work their employees harder and pay them less and give them less benefits in order to stay competitive.

Yeah, but that's once they get to the point of actually exploiting. There needs to be a clear line defining what boss exploits. A lot of anti-capitalists in ignorance place mistrust in what role a boss does.

[Drace]

Say for example a head of the department, How would that person (a boss) exploit ?

What department? The police department? There is obviously a differentiation between state owned and private owned enterprise. So yes there is a difference between a boss of the police department and say, Walmart.

And I don't see any reason we would be directly opposed to bosses of non-profit organizations.



Many just have it in their heads that all bosses are corrupt, fat cats, when in actual fact many are involved in trade unions and have concern for those working 'below' him/her. i think its important to differentiate between an exploiter and a 'boss'.

A boss who owns the means of production is an exploiter. Certainly, capitalists are humans too, as were kings, slave owners, nobles, land lords. But the system as a whole is a problem and the ultimate source of profit is exploitation of workers.

[Che a chara]

What department? The police department? There is obviously a differentiation between state owned and private owned enterprise. So yes there is a difference between a boss of the police department and say, Walmart.

And I don't see any reason we would be directly opposed to bosses of non-profit organizations.


A boss who owns the means of production is an exploiter. Certainly, capitalists are humans too, as were kings, slave owners, nobles, land lords. But the system as a whole is a problem and the ultimate source of profit is exploitation of workers.

I agree. and this is what i mean, 'who do you refer to ?'. A lot of anti-capitalists will have an issue with any boss just for the sake of it, just because they are a 'boss', even if they don't own the means of production or are in a non-profit organisation. It's the mentality i suppose, and I can kind of see where they come from, especially from an ultra authoritative stance.

[Drace]

I agree. and this is what i mean, 'who do you refer to ?'. A lot of anti-capitalists will have an issue with any boss just for the sake of it, just because they are a 'boss', even if they don't own the means of production or are in a non-profit organisation. It's the mentality i suppose, and I can kind of see where they come from, especially from an ultra authoritative stance.

I have never heard of any leftist being opposed intensely to a boss of the police department or a charity organization and the like. I hardly ever even seen the word "boss" be used. Its always rather the term "capitalist" or "bourgeoisie" which would specify the bosses who own the means of production.

[Che a chara]

I have never heard of any leftist being opposed intensely to a boss of the police department or a charity organization and the like. I hardly ever even seen the word "boss" be used. Its always rather the term "capitalist" or "bourgeoisie" which would specify the bosses who own the means of production.

you haven't heard any leftists being opposed to the boss of a police department, seriously ? Damn, i know of many protests and complaints against police harassment by leftist groups/individuals.

Also the term 'bourgeoisie' would be used by these anti-capitalists to label the type of boss that does not exploit too. This may not be your experience, but I have seen it and heard it many times. I just find it silly, and it's the trendy left that espouse this, which is why I think it's important to differentiate the terms.

[Zanthorus]

you haven't heard any leftists being opposed to the boss of a police department, seriously ? Damn, i know of many protests and complaints against police harassment by leftist groups/individuals.

Thats because at least part of the function of the police in modern society is to harass radical dissenters.


Also the term 'bourgeoisie' would be used by these anti-capitalists to label the type of boss that does not exploit too. This may not be your experience, but I have seen it and heard it many times. I just find it silly, and it's the trendy left that espouse this, which is why I think it's important to differentiate the terms.

Bosses exploit almost by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't be bosses. It doesn't matter how they got there or how well intentioned they are.

[GPDP]

I think the word you may be thinking of when you say "boss" is "manager" or something like that. Basically, someone in a position of high authority within a hierarchy who is responsible for and in charge of those below him.

If so, one could say they do not "exploit" per se, as they don't actually own the means of production in question. But they do enjoy a privileged position of power as tools to keep the company workers in line, which I believe to be unacceptable.

These "bosses," too, should be opposed within an anti-capitalist context.

[The Douche]

The term "boss" is used quite a bit in the IWW, and they define a boss as a person with "hire/fire power".

Managers occupy an even harder to define area. I am a manager, but I do not have hire/fire power, I am however, paid more than the people below me, and therefor I am profitting from their labor. But I am still less than equally compensated for my labor. (obviously, because I made the ammount that my labor was worth then there would not be a profit)

[Che a chara]

Yeah that's what I mean, but can you begrudge someone who has worked hard to become a 'boss/manager' if they don't exploit or can or should that person reject that job on principle ?

[GPDP]

Yeah that's what I mean, but can you begrudge someone who has worked hard to become a 'boss/manager' if they don't exploit or can or should that person reject that job on principle ?

I want to say I would not fault people for seeking and acquiring such work within capitalist society. We all work to keep ourselves fed, and frankly, many jobs just don't cut it. We naturally want to increase our standard of living, and sometimes it means being put above other workers.

Still, on a more objective framework, I still think such positions are unfair. What does it mean when one says they worked "hard" to get into a management position? It means they followed the correct path, acquired connections within the company, gained the necessary expertise, and showed a propensity to follow and enforce the rules. But did they really do more onerous work than their fellow workers? Not necessarily.

I would suggest you look up Michael Albert's conception of the "coordinator class" for a more substantial critique of management positions and other lines of work that are more empowering that what the vast majority of workers do.

[RGacky3]

You know during the middle ages, there were kings, that raised armies, worked very very hard to become kings, but does that justify their rulership over people? Does it justify their dynesty?

Its the same with the Bosses, it does'nt matter how they got there, the power is illegitimate.

[whore]

i don't oppose bosses.
i oppose the whole damn system! bosses are merely a symptom. it's been argued that the exploiters are suffering cause of the system, just as the exploited are. (perhaps not as much).

anyway, just because a person did lots of work, it doesn't mean they have the right to exploit another. take slavery for example (as in, real actual, person a owns person b). just because person a worked hard and saved up to by person b, it doesn't give them any more moral right to actually own person b.

wage slavery (that is, forced to work or starve) is still exploitative. and still wrong.

[graffic]

Still, on a more objective framework, I still think such positions are unfair. What does it mean when one says they worked "hard" to get into a management position? It means they followed the correct path, acquired connections within the company, gained the necessary expertise, and showed a propensity to follow and enforce the rules. But did they really do more onerous work than their fellow workers? Not necessarily.


I agree, although people who put in more energy, time etc etc should be rewarded more than people who do not make an effort. Most financially beneficial positions are held by people who were born in the ruling class and educated to believe that they are entitled to more. They did not work hard, they are lazy and steal labour.

In summary I would say exploitation is bad, but obviously you have to be realistic and understand the world that we live in is not a socialist utopia. If people want to work in a "competitive" business environment where aspiration and talent are rewarded over privilege and wealth then the so called "free-market" should be what it says it is - free. Capitalists hate competition, which is why so few "make it" into the ruling class

[ComradeMan]

i don't oppose bosses.
i oppose the whole damn system! bosses are merely a symptom. it's been argued that the exploiters are suffering cause of the system, just as the exploited are. (perhaps not as much).

anyway, just because a person did lots of work, it doesn't mean they have the right to exploit another. take slavery for example (as in, real actual, person a owns person b). just because person a worked hard and saved up to by person b, it doesn't give them any more moral right to actually own person b.

wage slavery (that is, forced to work or starve) is still exploitative. and still wrong.

I agree. The system is self-perpetuating, I would redefine the struggle as being against the perpetuation of the bad system and the perpetuators.

There are a lot of people out there who are technically bosses in that they have "hire-fire" power, but they also can be fired too. You can't blame someone for wanting to feed their family.... The system is bad because it sucks us all into it. And before some self-righteous know-it-all starts on here about the bourgeois, I would be very interested to know how many people here were "technically" bourgeois, sitting in the richest country on the world (I presume majority US and then EU here) on their computers sufring the net, playing videogames and all the rest...

We all have some "baggage", but part of the revolution is the willingness and the sincerity to jack it all in and fight for something better and more just.

[Che a chara]

The system is bad because it sucks us all into it. And before some self-righteous know-it-all starts on here about the bourgeois, I would be very interested to know how many people here were "technically" bourgeois, sitting in the richest country on the world (I presume majority US and then EU here) on their computers sufring the net, playing videogames and all the rest...

We all have some "baggage", but part of the revolution is the willingness and the sincerity to jack it all in and fight for something better and more just.

slightly off topic but i think the terms 'bourgeoise' and 'middle-class' have really no meaning or relevance at all today.

[The Douche]

Yeah that's what I mean, but can you begrudge someone who has worked hard to become a 'boss/manager' if they don't exploit or can or should that person reject that job on principle ?

A manager is paid more than those under him/her. Where does this money come from? It is a portion of the profit, which means that the manager does have a hand in the exploitation of those he/she supervises.

[Ele'ill]

I oppose/define bosses as any member of an organization that has disciplinary power or termination power.

Retail is a good example.
Even the entry level managers such as 'retail secondary department managers' are under tremendous pressure to drive profits and protect the company brand.

Sure there are some really down to earth managers but they still adhere to corporate budget cycles and the like. They will still fire after certain times of the year. They will still cut certain jobs and force less people to take on new tasks.

They will still expect their lower level managers to tighten up during certain times of the year and 'hold people accountable' usually for things that have never been enforced in the past. The lower level managers of all ages are under performance pressures and lack any 'HR' skills. They will band together and systematically 'off' employees by giving upper management enough reasons to do so on paper. With no formal system to challenge these documentations many people quit out of frustration or simply aren't smart enough to defend themselves. They get sucked into the guilt trip of 'your performance was poor' and accept it.

Even when I was much younger working retail jobs I respected manager's experience but did not respect how they used their authority.

Bosses enforce policy with an authority that is unable to be challenged while on the job in any form regardless of how ludicrous the situation is.

[RGacky3]

Thats a great post, its important to point out the way things really work systemantically, its not that Capitalists are evil or bosses are always dicks, its the way the system works.

[Bud Struggle]

In my world I am a boss. I work for my business and my job is to see that everyone does their job well. If they don't the problem is explained to them. If the situation continues--the person in question if fired. In a way I don't really "fire" anyone. People can do what is expected of them and stay on forever or not do what is expected of them and leave.

It is important for every worker to know EXACTLY what is required of them so they can stay on the job. An experienced worker is always much mre valuable than a non experienced worker. It takes time and money to train a person to do a job correctly the LAST thing I want to do is fire anyone that I've worked to train so if a worker "goes bad" I like to give him/her ever opportunity to change their ways.

Good Capitalism requires that I cultivate a healthy and happy working environment. As far as I see it happy workers do a better job so job security for my workers is an essential part of me keeping my business successful.

So in the end--people fire themselves. I just do the paperwork.

[RGacky3]

In my world I am a boss. I work for my business and my job is to see that everyone does their job well. If they don't the problem is explained to them. If the situation continues--the person in question if fired. In a way I don't really "fire" anyone. People can do what is expected of them and stay on forever or not do what is expected of them and leave.

You should definatelly get into the PR buisiness, your really good at it, you DO really fire people :P, stop being cosy, you don't work FOR your buisiness, you OWN your buisiness, and your job is to keep it profitable, your workers job, is to do what you tell them to do.


Good Capitalism requires that I cultivate a healthy and happy working enviornment. As far as I see it happy workers do a better job so job security for my workers is an essential part of me keeping my business successful.

depends on your industry, your buisiness, how big your buisiness is, the area your in, the job market, there are a lot of factors, but the fact that your a "benevolent dictator" boss, or being the Fidel Castro of Capitalism, does'nt mean thats how it works in most everywhere else.


So in the end--people fire themselves. I just do the paperwork.

No, you fire people, whether its because they are bad workers or being assholes, or because the market is low, or because they are organizing the work place against you, or because you learned about new ways to make more profit, or whatever, YOU fired them, no flowers around it.

[Bud Struggle]

No, you fire people, whether its because they are bad workers or being assholes, or because the market is low, or because they are organizing the work place against you, or because you learned about new ways to make more profit, or whatever, YOU fired them, no flowers around it.

My job is to protect and grow the business and to protect the jobs of the people that are working there. If someone by his behavior threatens (even if only in a small way) the livelihood of the people working in the business--it is my JOB to make sure he stops; either by warning or termination.

It's better that one person is fired than everyone in the business loose their job.

[RGacky3]

Yeah, ok, your saying it in that way, your job is NOT to protect the jobs of the people working there, your job is to make as much money as you can, unless of course your just altruistic, your a philanthrophist. I know that at one point my behavior threatened the profit of a company, that behavior being organizing to demand the boss follow basic labor laws, as well as some decent working conditions, and that got me fired, now I'm sure my boss could have used pretty words and rationalization to explain away why I was fired, maybe I was "disrupting the order of the company" maybe I was threatening to "damage the profits so much everyone would have to be laid off," but the fact is, I threatened his profits, while trying to make things better for the workers.

You can put it anyway you want, your interest are not one in the same with the workers. Now maybe your just a really nice guy, and put your workers livelyhood above profits, if thats the case, good for you.

[Bud Struggle]

You can put it anyway you want, your interest are not one in the same with the workers. Now maybe your just a really nice guy, and put your workers livelyhood above profits, if thats the case, good for you.

I'm nice--but honestly, not that nice. In most circumstances though my wants to maximize profits and the wants of employees to keep their jobs are the same. If I grow the company I can pay higher wages and give promotions so people could make even more money. If the company stays profitable there won't be any need for layoffs.

In almost all cases the workers and I have the same ends. On the other hand--as in the case you mentioned above, is someone tried to organize that might be another story. It's never happened, but if it did in my case I don't believe I'd fire the organizer, but I'd be a tough negotiator.

[Edit] Let me say, I have nothing against Labor Laws and decent working conditions--giving people a nice working situation PREVENTS anyone from trying to organize. The system I think is best is where the workers can clearly see that they would lose benefits if they organized--I go out of my way to see that if the workers started a union they would clearly lose pay, jobs and perks. I honestly believe that if the workers of my place organized we would both loose--not to say that I don't believe that there are places for unions--and there certainly are bad places to work that need them (my father worked in one--not that the union did him any good.)

[Lord Testicles]

I go out of my way to see that if the workers started a union they would clearly lose pay, jobs and perks.

I just want to remind you that you are a vile little turd, in case you had forgotten.

[Bud Struggle]

I just want to remind you that you are a vile little turd, in case you had forgotten.

Charming.

A union would be detrimental to both me and the workers--it would put us both in an adviserial situation that neither of us would profit from. The union would limit my flexibility to respond to the market and would freeze job and pay situation to union contracts.

As I said there are places would do good things for people--I don't believe they would do any good in my situation.

For the most part the time of the unions has past.

[Lord Testicles]

A union would be detrimental to both me and the workers--it would put us both in an adviserial situation that neither of us would profit from.

No, A union would be detrimental to you. You are both already in an adviserial situation it's just that a lack of a union gives you the upper hand you pathetic excuse for a human being.


I don't believe they would do any good in my situation.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Bud Struggle]

No, A union would be detrimental to you. You are both already in an adviserial situation it's just that a lack of a union gives you the upper hand you pathetic excuse for a human being.


You are living in the 1930s, comrade. Those days (not in all cases, but for the most part) are over. Now companies have to be "organic". Every part working in unison in a competive market. Workers and management pulling together is a win-win situation will have the advantage in the market. Just look at the failure of Ford and GM--it's not for nothing that the big union companies are going out of business.

We are now, both workers and management--united Comrades in the Brotherhood of Success.

[Edit] People that work in my factory don't work for me. They are in partnership with me. I provide the location and the idea and the raw materials--they provide the daily know how and the labor to make OUR business possible. They wouldn't be here without me--and (in a universal sense) I wouldn't be here without them. It's a partnership--each worker contrubutes to making me money and I provide a good living for them. If at times someone wants to step up to the plate and work extra hard and make me lots of money--I will in turn give them a fantastic income.

Bid-ness in the 21st Century has become a patnership and I think a union would destroy that partnership.

My workers:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/121982598DKEP2Xahcarnaval2.jpg

[Ele'ill]

In my world I am a boss. I work for my business and my job is to see that everyone does their job well. If they don't the problem is explained to them. If the situation continues--the person in question if fired. In a way I don't really "fire" anyone. People can do what is expected of them and stay on forever or not do what is expected of them and leave.

Stop. The situation being explained to them isn't a lunch over a couple of beers. It is a written documentation for performance. Perhaps two or three of those for separate events are enough to legally terminate employment. Since the clause upon hire was 'you are responsible for all other tasks you are asigned to perform' there is no limit on the amount of work assigned. The worker cannot cite inadequate training in all circumstances and really has no method of defense.

Perhaps your business is one of the few ethically run in the country but you can see how a profit motive with this kind of corporate culture when injected into the top competitors (which may be 500 businesses and several million? workers) can really fuck things up.




It is important for every worker to know EXACTLY what is required of them so they can stay on the job.

This is probably the exact opposite of how most retail businesses operate in North America. Management keep the expectations blurred and can suddenly up the demand on a whim if they wish to terminate employment.




An experienced worker is always much mre valuable than a non experienced worker. It takes time and money to train a person to do a job correctly the LAST thing I want to do is fire anyone that I've worked to train so if a worker "goes bad" I like to give him/her ever opportunity to change their ways.

Most businesses have a very generic and poorly arranged training system set up for entry level people to pass through. It may be one or two weeks long and everyone passes through it and takes the training regardless of what position you applied for. There is no effort to train as most of it is automatic.

Managers that have gone through this entry level training will eventually go through management training of some type. These people will be taught how serious the company is about maintaining the internal and external brand image. These managers are not necessarily screened as good people and are often put under lots of pressure in their new management positions. They will 'fix problems' by banding together as lower management. This creates all sorts of undesirable consequences for regular hourly workers even if they are performing at a level they have been for the past however many years.

These managers are a lot less likely to be fired than an hourly employee.


Good Capitalism requires that I cultivate a healthy and happy working environment. As far as I see it happy workers do a better job so job security for my workers is an essential part of me keeping my business successful.

So in the end--people fire themselves. I just do the paperwork.

I can't really comment on your business because I don't have any experience working for you. Corporations have taken advantage of the economic situation and made the same if not significantly more money over the year. They did this by keeping crews low, making the crews still around work harder, and by firing anyone that objects with trumped up claims (whatever it may be) because they know there are a lot of people waiting to take ANY job.

[Ele'ill]

My job is to protect and grow the business and to protect the jobs of the people that are working there. If someone by his behavior threatens (even if only in a small way) the livelihood of the people working in the business--it is my JOB to make sure he stops; either by warning or termination.

It's better that one person is fired than everyone in the business loose their job.

It's not protecting the jobs 'of the people that work there' it's protecting the integrity of the work system in place. (which isn't in favor of the workers unless it's a *working co op or collective etc..)


You are living in the 1930s, comrade. Those days (not in all cases, but for the most part) are over. Now companies have to be "organic". Every part working in unison in a competive market. Workers and management pulling together is a win-win situation will have the advantage in the market. Just look at the failure of Ford and GM--it's not for nothing that the big union companies are going out of business.

As an hourly worker- day to day- they could give a fuck about the market. Most wouldn't even know what that means. They do buy a lot of bullshit in regards to how much power is held over them and they are subject to buying into the HR surrogate voice of the people bullshit.


We are now, both workers and management--united Comrades in the Brotherhood of Success.

[Edit] People that work in my factory don't work for me. They are in partnership with me. I provide the location and the idea and the raw materials--they provide the daily know how and the labor to make OUR business possible. They wouldn't be here without me--and (in a universal sense) I wouldn't be here without them. It's a partnership--each worker contrubutes to making me money and I provide a good living for them. If at times someone wants to step up to the plate and work extra hard and make me lots of money--I will in turn give them a fantastic income.

Do they have any say in any part of their work? Environment- Pay- Termination- Documentation- ? Panel discussions for operation purposes?

If decent collective or co-op type jobs were plentiful what would happen to your type of business?

This is a real question. I think that bosses would be playing a more important role than they currently are and they would become teachers within their jobs. They certainly have the experience and they have people that want to learn what they know. You shouldn't need hire/fire power as an individual to be important to the business.


My workers:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/121982598DKEP2Xahcarnaval2.jpg


So you sell drugs at raves? :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Stop. The situation being explained to them isn't a lunch over a couple of beers. It is a written documentation for performance. Perhaps two or three of those for separate events are enough to legally terminate employment. True.


Since the clause upon hire was 'you are responsible for all other tasks you are asigned to perform' there is no limit on the amount of work assigned. The worker cannot cite inadequate training in all circumstances and really has no method of defense. Nope. I believe that everything SPELLED OUT IN ADVANCE make a worker better at his/her job and makes less work for me hiring and firing.


Perhaps your business is one of the few ethically run in the country but you can see how a profit motive with this kind of corporate culture when injected into the top competitors (which may be 500 businesses and several million? workers) can really fuck things up. It's not just about ethics (though I adhear to the Catholic Church's policy on the dignity of work) it's about the best business policy that brings the best return--and that is a partnership between worker and management.


This is probably the exact opposite of how most retail businesses operate in North America. Management keep the expectations blurred and can suddenly up the demand on a whim if they wish to terminate employment. I'm sure it's true but I'm not in the retail business.


Most businesses have a very generic and poorly arranged training system set up for entry level people to pass through. It may be one or two weeks long and everyone passes through it and takes the training regardless of what position you applied for. There is no effort to train as most of it is automatic. If I may say: THAT'S BAD BUSINESS. A good business is like a dagger--it owrks quietly and effeciently. It does what it needs to do and moves on. Everyone in the business has to work together to make that happen. With bad training everyone looses--including management. My (trophy) wife was an SVP of HR and training in a fortune 50 company and she makes that point for my business.


Managers that have gone through this entry level training will eventually go through management training of some type. These people will be taught how serious the company is about maintaining the internal and external brand image. These managers are not necessarily screened as good people and are often put under lots of pressure in their new management positions. They will 'fix problems' by banding together as lower management. This creates all sorts of undesirable consequences for regular hourly workers even if they are performing at a level they have been for the past however many years.

These managers are a lot less likely to be fired than an hourly employee. Mariel--that's just sucky business practice. That's Management not doing their job to make their business successful--and that will be the downfall of the business in the long run.


I can't really comment on your business because I don't have any experience working for you. Corporations have taken advantage of the economic situation and made the same if not significantly more money over the year. They did this by keeping crews low, making the crews still around work harder, and by firing anyone that objects with trumped up claims (whatever it may be) because they know there are a lot of people waiting to take ANY job. But that's sucky management practices--just like "unions" are sucky worker practices. Each side has to RESPECT each other's positions and each other's jobs for a business to be successful. As much as I am arguing anti-union if this were a management forum I'd be arguing pro-worker. Both sides make a business make money.

[Bud Struggle]

It's not protecting the jobs 'of the people that work there' it's protecting the integrity of the work system in place. (which isn't in favor of the workers unless it's a *working co op or collective etc..) Excellent point--well taken.


As an hourly worker- day to day- they could give a fuck about the market. Most wouldn't even know what that means. They do buy a lot of bullshit in regards to how much power is held over them and they are subject to buying into the HR surrogate voice of the people bullshit. Yea but it's all about the market--the workers expect and get the management to absorb the difference between their expectations and what the real world offers. For that arangement management takes the hit or the profit.


Do they have any say in any part of their work? Environment- Pay- Termination- Documentation- ? Panel discussions for operation purposes? I like people to have a lot of say. In my business there is incentive pay and for the most part it's the workers that get rid of people that don't produce. I have very little input.


If decent collective or co-op type jobs were plentiful what would happen to your type of business? I would run them out of business in a heartbeat--I don't believe that co-ops could compete--or else they would be competing already. I've never seen one.


This is a real question. I think that bosses would be playing a more important role than they currently are and they would become teachers within their jobs. They certainly have the experience and they have people that want to learn what they know. You shouldn't need hire/fire power as an individual to be important to the business. I agree.


So you sell drugs at raves? :lol:We work hard--we play hard. Life should be fun. :p

MR. MALTE--UNRESTRICT THIS WOMAN. She's a worker!

You know your stuff Mariel. Good posts.

[Ele'ill]

True.
Nope. I believe that everything SPELLED OUT IN ADVANCE make a worker better at his/her job and makes less work for me hiring and firing.

It would probably alleviate a lot of potential loop holes used by managers for their fire and hire power but this isn't how most businesses are run. Most businesses don't want their workers to be able to say 'No, I signed up at this pharmaceutical company for drug rep stuff, I'm not cleaning the bathrooms...'

It is a 'we tell you what you're willing to do because of a lack of contract' which when presented in even the most polite manner comes across as 'us over you'.


It's not just about ethics (though I adhear to the Catholic Church's policy on the dignity of work) it's about the best business policy that brings the best return--and that is a partnership between worker and management.

The next question for another thread perhaps is why are managers neccessary and in an ideal business or work environment are they really 'managers'?




If I may say: THAT'S BAD BUSINESS. A good business is like a dagger--it owrks quietly and effeciently. It does what it needs to do and moves on. Everyone in the business has to work together to make that happen. With bad training everyone looses--including management. My (trophy) wife was an SVP of HR and training in a fortune 50 company and she makes that point for my business.

Yeah but this is perception that depends on what team you're on. As a worker it sucks because they may not remember various trainings they took a year later when they're asked to perform a task outside of their original intent on being hired.

As management, in store and at the corporate level, you have to mind budget. With everyone that you hire as an hourly worker being responsible for every task imaginable you aren't going to put forth the necessary money or effort to keep them adequately trained. It simply isn't feasible.



Mariel--that's just sucky business practice. That's Management not doing their job to make their business successful--and that will be the downfall of the business in the long run.

I disagree and feel it's more than just a downfall and sucky business practice. If upper management (store, operations, admin) realizes they can use this behavior to the advantage of budget in anyway they will because this business atmosphere teaches that competition means playing dirty is ok. They're taught that it's the duty of powerful individuals to sort winners from losers based on their own terms or the grey area terms of the company.

[Ele'ill]

I like people to have a lot of say. In my business there is incentive pay and for the most part it's the workers that get rid of people that don't produce. I have very little input.

I think, from what you've said, your business is run in a manner that's less worrisome than others. Kudos for it- as it's a rare existence. :)


I would run them out of business in a heartbeat--I don't believe that co-ops could compete--or else they would be competing already. I've never seen one.

There's also a reason that fair trade and companies following what we can consider 'leftist' ideals struggle or fail. They can't compete in a market driven by, for lack of better wording, bad things.




We work hard--we play hard. Life should be fun. :p

MR. MALTE--UNRESTRICT THIS WOMAN. She's a worker!

Ex slave turned organizer.


You know your stuff Mariel. Good posts.

Thanks.

[Bud Struggle]

It would probably alleviate a lot of potential loop holes used by managers for their fire and hire power but this isn't how most businesses are run. Most businesses don't want their workers to be able to say 'No, I signed up at this pharmaceutical company for drug rep stuff, I'm not cleaning the bathrooms...'
It is a 'we tell you what you're willing to do because of a lack of contract' which when presented in even the most polite manner comes across as 'us over you'. I must say I never worked for anyone buy myself so I'm not sure how businesses are really run--but that's just why businesses fial--a bunch of people running around not quite knowing what they are doing, maybe with just enough information to make themselves dangerous.


The next question for another thread perhaps is why are managers neccessary and in an ideal business or work environment are they really 'managers'? there are natural leaders in this world and they should be taken advantage of in business. A good owner should always be on the look for them--they 'ideally" should make the business run smoothly--if not, they should be terminated.


Yeah but this is perception that depends on what team you're on. As a worker it sucks because they may not remember various trainings they took a year later when they're asked to perform a task outside of their original intent on being hired. But again that's bad business practice.


As management, in store and at the corporate level, you have to mind budget. With everyone that you hire as an hourly worker being responsible for every task imaginable you aren't going to put forth the necessary money or effort to keep them adequately trained. It simply isn't feasible. Stores work on a 3-4 % margin...it's a scary business.


I disagree and feel it's more than just a downfall and sucky business practice. If upper management (store, operations, admin) realizes they can use this behavior to the advantage of budget in anyway they will because this business atmosphere teaches that competition means playing dirty is ok. They're taught that it's the duty of powerful individuals to sort winners from losers based on their own terms or the grey area terms of the company.That makes sense. Stupid management and untrained and unproductive workers make for one hell of a lousy workplace.

Good Capitalism is a beautiful thing for both the workers and the owners. We make money and we have fun. What better way to live your life?

[Ele'ill]

If capitalism as it is was really that pretty I'd jump on board. It isn't though. If you run a business with policies that are genuinely ethical don't ever doubt how meaningful that is but it's a rarity.

[Bud Struggle]

If capitalism as it is was really that pretty I'd jump on board. It isn't though. If you run a business with policies that are genuinely ethical don't ever doubt how meaningful that is but it's a rarity.

I'm a Catholic first then a businessman next. BUT I believe my Catholic beliefs make me a better businessman than most and a reasonably fair factory owner. I'm not ethical for the hell of it. It's what my Church wants and pragmatically it makes me more money--and I'm all for that. ;)

http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/cst.htm

[Lord Testicles]

Good Capitalism is a beautiful thing for both the workers and the owners. I make money and I have fun. What better way for me live my life?

Question, with all that shit falling out of your mouth on a regular basis, how many times do you have to brush your teeth?


People that work in my factory don't work for me.

Yes they do.


They are in partnership with me.

Does each individual have an equal share of the profit? No I didn't think so. Yet again you are displaying your amazing ability to talk out of your anus.


They wouldn't be here without me

Yes they would, and they'd probably be happier.


I wouldn't be here without them.

Hi Bud, It's nice that your anus lets your mouth speak now and again.


It's a partnership--each worker contrubutes to making me money and I provide a good living for them.

Yes, each worker slaves his life away to make you money and you repay them by stealing the value that their labour creates. Guess what Bud? They provide you with a living (not vice versa) and their standard of living would be higher if you and your kind ceased to exist.

[Bud Struggle]

. Guess what Bud? They provide you with a living (not vice versa) and their standard of living would be higher if you and your kind ceased to exist.

I doubt it. And better yet so do they--:D

[Lord Testicles]

I doubt it. And better yet so do they--:D

Whether you doubt it or not doesn't make it any less true. The reality of your life is that you are a filthy parasite who destroys the lives of others.

[Bud Struggle]

The reality of your life is that you are a filthy parasite who destroys the lives of others.

Ok. Good argument for Communism there. I think I make a pretty good case for a Christian Democratic Capitalist system within the workplace (I argue in other places for it in the political sphere.) If that's your rebuttal--I can't see you winning over any workers to your point of view--but workers do like my factory. I don't think you have a chance in the real world. ;)

[Ele'ill]

Whether you doubt it or not doesn't make it any less true. The reality of your life is that you are a filthy parasite who destroys the lives of others.


Perhaps he hasn't destroyed their lives. I think the main issue that you need to be worrying about, Skinz, is why his workers may not feel like he has destroyed their lives.

[RGacky3]

I'm nice--but honestly, not that nice. In most circumstances though my wants to maximize profits and the wants of employees to keep their jobs are the same. If I grow the company I can pay higher wages and give promotions so people could make even more money. If the company stays profitable there won't be any need for layoffs.

Ok, yeah, basic Capitalism, whats your point? If something goes south in your company, no matter who caused it, its gonna be your workers taking the main hit, if something goes north, its gonna be you taking the main slice of the cake.


In almost all cases the workers and I have the same ends. On the other hand--as in the case you mentioned above, is someone tried to organize that might be another story. It's never happened, but if it did in my case I don't believe I'd fire the organizer, but I'd be a tough negotiator.

No they don't, you both want the company to do well yeah, but you want as much of the money going to you, and they want as much of hte money going to themselves.


Let me say, I have nothing against Labor Laws and decent working conditions--giving people a nice working situation PREVENTS anyone from trying to organize. The system I think is best is where the workers can clearly see that they would lose benefits if they organized--I go out of my way to see that if the workers started a union they would clearly lose pay, jobs and perks. I honestly believe that if the workers of my place organized we would both loose--not to say that I don't believe that there are places for unions--and there certainly are bad places to work that need them (my father worked in one--not that the union did him any good.)

Its very interesting you say that, thats the way most BOsses think, they want the LEAST amount of democratic control, nad the most amount of their control, they never want a union to win, just because of hte idea of a union scares them.

I believe EVERY worker should be in a union, every worker should have a say, even if the country is good, your idea is like saying democracy is only nessesary when the government is bad.

[Bud Struggle]

Its very interesting you say that, thats the way most BOsses think, they want the LEAST amount of democratic control, nad the most amount of their control, they never want a union to win, just because of hte idea of a union scares them.

I believe EVERY worker should be in a union, every worker should have a say, even if the country is good, your idea is like saying democracy is only nessesary when the government is bad.

That's pretty true. A Business is closer to Feudalism than anything else left in the world. The Boss/Owner is a king in a lot of ways. I try to create a pleasent work place for my workers--because (if I may say so myself) am a rather pleasent guy--I could change all that on a whim tomorrow and there isn't anything any one could do about it. (Not that I would.) There are really few rules anywhere that stop me from doing what I want with my business. That just seems to be the nature of Capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Excactly :), your the Fidel Castro of Capitalism, while most other Business men are Stalins.