Germany Mulls Ban On After-Hours Work Emails And Calls

kbrickley said:
There are ways ... work for a small company that only has a local presence ... you might not make as much but you will run into less overtime and afterhours requirements ... however, for those of us that work for multinational companies, we often have colleagues in Asia or Europe or both ... sometimes the need to stay in communication with them or facilitate projects requires after hours work ... working for a multinational is a choice though, if one can't live with those requirements there are other companies
Click to expand...

As someone who happens to work in such an environment, this is always a problem. Email helps a ton here, but there will always be a certain degree of "on call" when your time zones are 12 hours apart. That being said, these tend to be the exception, not the rule, and one you can easily put in an exemption for.

As to the pay for after hours that is relative ... most professional workers are salary workers and do not receive overtime ... if they expect us to work longer hours or in higher stress situations that is usually reflected in our salaries ... I travel a lot for my job ... it is inconvenient sometimes and requires me to travel on Saturdays or Sundays (cutting into my free time) ... but that is part of the job expectation
Click to expand...

Yet again applies to me, but the extra hours and travel is offset by a much higher salary and benefits then is typical for the rest of my field. That being said, being a Salaried employee is the exception these days.

We could ask the government to regulate work hours, like France, where no one can work more than 35 hours a week (and take the corresponding hit in our salaries), or we can man up and find jobs that have a work environment we are comfortable in (without requiring government interference)
Click to expand...

Why decrease salaries? You are supposed to be paid the same regardless of how much you work; thats the benefit/downside of being a salaried employee. If your salary decreases because you are working less hours, then you should have a chat with your states labor relations board.

Anyway, the easy workaround would be to put into such a regulation an exemption for salaried employees. Not ideal, but would solve the issue of workers unofficially working and not getting paid for it.
 
What?! Change the laws for effective regulation?!!

Impossible, we always throw the baby out with the bathwater around here!
 
mesyn191 said:
What?! Change the laws for effective regulation?!!

Impossible, we always throw the baby out with the bathwater around here!
Click to expand...

We already have many laws that we don't enforce properly ... I am not sure how adding more to the mix is going to help things ... around 60% of the wage earners in the USA are paid hourly (which means they already have a lot of protections regarding overtime and work hour restrictions) ... in fact, for hourly workers it is likely the opposite problem exists where companies, like Walmart, restrict the worker hours to less than 30 hours per week so that they don't qualify as full time employees (fewer benefit requirements for part time workers) ... those people have tons of time for their families (unless they choose to work more than one job to supplement their often minimum wage paychecks)

The problem with changing the law for ALL employees is that not all employees are created equal ... also, since most salaried workers (like myself) don't do timesheets or use time clocks, it would be difficult to track how many hours we work anyways ... I have had times where I did lots of after hours work (usually from home) and I have had stints where I was working 40 hours or less ... a change in the laws to prohibit after hours email and calls would just force more companies to use shift work for salaried professionals (which isn't necessarily a bad thing but you do have to beware of the law of unintended consequences) ... many companies have Asian and European plants, and it is necessary for USA employees to interface with them from time to time ... if it can't be done by the regular shift employees then we would just end up with more employees working on Swing or Grave shifts ... the other option would be the 12 hour workday (work 4 12 hour days with three days off)
 
Ducman69 said:
Because I've actually lived with the reality of it, and it sucks more ass than you can possibly imagine until you've dealt with it. And having worked night and weekend shift for years, I'm one of many that are happy to work "off hours", and recognize the huge benefits it provides.

And absolutely its a huge deal and stupid as all holy hell to have everything closed on Sundays and I'll never go back to that backwards religious nonsense. Its fine to have days off, but they should NOT all be on the same day for everyone. Some employees should have Friday and Saturday off, and others Sunday and Monday off. The common sense benefits are plainly obvious.

And actually, I'll go one further as I've said before I support actually a four day workweek, but with longer hours. Combined with staggered shifts for the populace and a considerable portion working nights, you have a 24x7 city that is viable on the modern global market with hugely reduced traffic (rushhour is a stupid easily preventable problem), parking needs, fossil fuel usage, pollution, and issue with some power plants having to be idled at night.
Click to expand...

Easy there, cowboy. Like I wrote, I've lived through that "backwards, unacceptable, dear-how-was-it-possible HELL" as well and it was fine. I agree with you on varying shifts and that not everyone should have time off at the same time if the field requires it. That's not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is working a certain shift and being done with it, without extra work, that's all. And I do not see how that's unfair.

BlueFireIce said:
It is a job, something that I learned allot in and am grateful for having, sometimes hours suck, but that is the nature of that field of work. And no, I would not and do not want laws making it illegal. I have worked far worse jobs that I only worked 30 hours a week at, hours worked does not mean everything (though I do agree matter), and 10 hour days are nothing, it has been a long time since I have worked a job that was under 10 hours a day. I no longer work oil field (though still related), I used what I learned to move on and up, I now work nights and put in at minimum 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, every single week. Not always fun, and more free time is always welcome, but that does not mean it should be a law. If I am really that unhappy with what I am doing, then I need to find something else I enjoy or something that would ask me to work less hours.
Click to expand...

The issue is not being unhappy with the job itself. The issue is trying to maintain a good balance, no matter whether you like the job or not. It's a win-win situation. If you love your job - great, go out after hours, watch a movie, push that [H] you bought to the limits... If you don't like your job - well, at least you're left alone after your shift.

If you are telling me that you would not prefer the same experience you obtained on your job while working standard hours then I must say - you are strange.

gamerk2 said:
This. How many studies have shown that, above about 30 hours per week or so, workers start to see NEGATIVE productivity?
Click to expand...

But it seems you have people even on this forum, who are regular employees and do NOT accept or comprehend this :)
 
gamerk2 said:
This. How many studies have shown that, above about 30 hours per week or so, workers start to see NEGATIVE productivity?
Click to expand...

Many companies would love if 30 hours were the standard since that is considered part time work and the benefit requirements for employees are greatly reduced at 30 hours ... Walmart and other retailers/service industries use these rules extensively
 
kbrickley said:
We could ask the government to regulate work hours, like France, where no one can work more than 35 hours a week (and take the corresponding hit in our salaries), or we can man up and find jobs that have a work environment we are comfortable in (without requiring government interference)
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't know what's best for yourself. You're not smart enough to make those kind of decisions. Only some government official back in Washington can protect you from all the evil corporations.

/sarcasm
 
M'ichal said:
What's being discussed is working a certain shift and being done with it, without extra work, that's all. And I do not see how that's unfair.
Click to expand...
Because its idiotic and even if we're just talking about someone being reachable afterhours, it should be painfully obvious why that is important from time to time in the IT industry which most here are.

It would mean that businesses would have to have a dedicated afterhours support person at all times, rather than just calling the regular on-call guy/manager afterhours for an emergency issue, even if just for the sake of approval to proceed. That will simply result in more outsourcing of jobs overseas, as if that weren't already bad enough.

That's the problem with these socialists, they insist on such a lazy work ethic and BS benefits with the unions and the like until they are completely uncompetative globally. Then they shit a brick and act surprised when their jobs are all gone and moved overseas.
 
It works for them to the point they still compete in the global economy, but yet over here it would be labeled a "job killer."

I fucking hate buzz words
 
OEM said:
It works for them to the point they still compete in the global economy, but yet over here it would be labeled a "job killer."

I fucking hate buzz words
Click to expand...

FWIW, I think this particular rule is idiotic since people are compensated for after hours stand by, most of the time. When my wife was on call for her one job she was paid $12/hr even if no one called her that night.

I get most places aren't like that, but I'm sure they have some sort of compensation for it.
 
kbrickley said:
We already have many laws that we don't enforce properly ... I am not sure how adding more to the mix is going to help things
Click to expand...
If you have an enforcement issue you vote in the proper people to enforce the rules.

This isn't rocket science nor is it unprecedented in history to have incompetent or corrupt regulators. The Gilded Age is a well known and notorious example if you want a US one.

kbrickley said:
<snip loophole example>
Click to expand...
Then you change the rules to accomodate modern business practices which exist to screw over employees. Again, not rocket science or unprecedented.

kbrickley said:
since most salaried workers (like myself) don't do timesheets or use time clocks, difficult to track how many hours we work anyways
Click to expand...
Then change the rules to require industry wide hourly work tracking regardless of payment. The the rules don't already require this is due to intense business lobbying to muddy the issue as well as a 'divide and conquer' tactic to keep salaried workers from organizing with wage earners and demanding better treatment and/or pay. Time sheets make tracking hours easy too BTW, I have no idea why you think they won't work. Hell just use a call in clock system if you have to so no time sheet needed. These have existed since the 80's at least and are still commonly used today.

Exactly none of the 'problems' you're talking about are really even problems at all and haven't been for decades since solutions have existed for at least that long. Also the 'lol laws and enforcement are less than perfect, therefore totally useless' is a pretty terrible and illogical stance to take since 1)everything ever is imperfect and 2)there is plenty of real world history showing all the 'alternatives' to having some sort of rules/enforcement to be fairly terrible for anyone but the elites.
 
Ducman69 said:
Because its idiotic and even if we're just talking about someone being reachable afterhours, it should be painfully obvious why that is important from time to time in the IT industry which most here are.

It would mean that businesses would have to have a dedicated afterhours support person at all times, rather than just calling the regular on-call guy/manager afterhours for an emergency issue, even if just for the sake of approval to proceed. That will simply result in more outsourcing of jobs overseas, as if that weren't already bad enough.

That's the problem with these socialists, they insist on such a lazy work ethic and BS benefits with the unions and the like until they are completely uncompetative globally. Then they shit a brick and act surprised when their jobs are all gone and moved overseas.
Click to expand...

Ah, the good old "do it, or you will be replaced" adage :) You're right, that is totally the mentality of a healthy job market.

And again with the laziness...what does it take to convince you that working regular hours does not equate to laziness? I guess nothing, you seem to already be brainwashed and just accept things the way they are without the desire to do something about it.
 
I read that as "GenMay considers ban on after hours...". LOL

Anyway, how is this going to affect smaller companies that have business critical systems that have to run 24/7/365, but don't staff a night shift and instead have someone on-call in case a problem arises? Maybe I don't fully understand this legislation in regards to allowing something like that or not.
 
M'ichal said:
Ah, the good old "do it, or you will be replaced" adage :)
Click to expand...
Its called reality, and I know it really sucks and I wish we could just ignore it too. :rolleyes:

Estimates show that the United States has seen the outsourcing of approximately 5.6 million jobs since the turn of the millenium. Think about that for a moment. Not 5.6 thousand, 5.6 million. How many people in the US are unemployed? Close to 10 million, so you could cut that in half, not to mention the number of underemployed (working part time that really should have full time jobs).
 
Ducman69 said:
Because its idiotic, That's the problem with these socialists, they insist on such a lazy work ethic and BS benefits
Click to expand...
Paying people for the work they do is never idiotic, or lazy, or BS benefits.

Ducman69 said:
It would mean that businesses would have to have a dedicated afterhours support person at all times, rather than just calling the regular on-call guy/manager afterhours for an emergency issue, even if just for the sake of approval to proceed. That will simply result in more outsourcing of jobs overseas, as if that weren't already bad enough.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. Many companies already do this without issue. The medical field has been doing it for decades! Yes even IT peeps who work in a hospital environment and not just doctors since on hand staff are needed to fix stuff pronto and not talk about it on the phone and wait for someone to drive over.

Ducman69 said:
Then they shit a brick and act surprised when their jobs are all gone and moved overseas.
Click to expand...
Companies move stuff overseas to improve profits not because they don't make money with unionized labor or socialist economies.

Profits are at bubble high levels despite the 'recovery' being non-existent for people who aren't already rich. And having wages rise with productivity and inflation used to be the norm too. Companies still made money hand over fist back in the 70's-post WWII era.

The economy in general function better back then when wage earners made effectively more money. Why? Because they'll spend their earnings on goods/services which go back into the economy instead of crappy/scammy investments that only have low risk due to TBTF and which only serve to make the rich richer.
 
Ducman69 said:
Its called reality, and I know it really sucks and I wish we could just ignore it too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So working for free under the threat of replacement is not only normal but reasonable to you?

Are you trying to make an argument for slave labor or indentured servitude? If not do you realize that is exactly what you're inadvertently doing?
 
Why should companies be allowed to ring you after work? Once your work hours stop that's it.
 
They believe workers should make any and all sacrifices for employers including working for free and/or making huge sacrifices in living standard because work is the only reason for people to exist + any attempts at govt. regulation of the issue or any other issue are impossible/bad/evil.

Basically they're wannabe slave owners or an-caps and don't realize it or if they do they don't care but won't come out and admit it since they know they'd just instantly end up on everyone's ignore list.
 
Then you change the rules to accomodate modern business practices which exist to screw over employees. Again, not rocket science or unprecedented.
Click to expand...

There is an implicit implication there that the government is there to service the workers ... there are three competing interests in most regulations (Workers, Employers, Consumers/Customers) ... if all three of those groups reside in a region then the government must try to service the needs (often conflicting needs) of each ... if you favor the consumer then you may make laws that make the business and worker environments less competitive ... if you favor business then you may hurt consumers and workers ... if you favor workers then you generally hurt business and consumers ... laws and regulations are always a balancing act

Since a law like this would never pass in the USA this discussion is somewhat academic ... Germany has far more anti business and anti trade restrictions than the USA (and this will be just one more) ... American professional workers are actually treated fairly well compared to much of the world ... we might have to work the occasional overtime but most of us receive very competitive salaries to compensate for that ... restricting business practices in the USA would just force more and more jobs overseas since trade restrictions are bad for consumers and will never be implemented ... so ultimately workers need to choose between a perfect job (that is rare) or find a compromise they can live with
 
OEM said:
It works for them to the point they still compete in the global economy, but yet over here it would be labeled a "job killer."
Click to expand...

I think it'd be a job creator (either on shore or off shore). Either someone would be hired on site to work the night/weekend shifts or they'd outsource it to someone else. So, the employees wouldn't be bothered after their scheduled shift, but there would be additional shifts added in one way or another.

Some places do need to stop at night. I get texts at 2am from people locked out of AD or other stupid things. Go to bed, people.
 
kbrickley said:
There is an implicit implication there that the government is there to service the workers
Click to expand...
Aren't workers people and aren't people supposed to have the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in the US at least?

kbrickley said:
there are .. competing interests in most regulations
Click to expand...
Sure but why do you expect the workers to make all or nearly all the concessions to business/the rich? Especially since businesses/the rich have the upper hand over workers in nearly all labor/wage negotiations + congressional lobbying??

It is after all the workers who've seen their standard of living go down dramatically since the late 70's and not the rich/businesses.

kbrickley said:
Since a law like this would never pass in the USA
Click to expand...
The same thing was said about the 40hr/5 day work week, minimum wage, and Medicare. While its currently very difficult to get laws that benefit the average person, since you know we live in a oligarchy which favors business/the rich, its not impossible or historically unprecedented.

kbrickley said:
so ultimately workers need to choose between a perfect job (that is rare) or find a compromise they can live with
Click to expand...
I like how expecting to be paid for work (after hours or on off days) is now the same thing as expecting a perfect job or maybe even unicorn in your eyes.
 
mesyn191 said:
Aren't workers people and aren't people supposed to have the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in the US at least?


Sure but why do you expect the workers to make all or nearly all the concessions to business/the rich? Especially since businesses/the rich have the upper hand over workers in nearly all labor/wage negotiations + congressional lobbying??

It is after all the workers who've seen their standard of living go down dramatically since the late 70's and not the rich/businesses.


The same thing was said about the 40hr/5 day work week, minimum wage, and Medicare. While its currently very difficult to get laws that benefit the average person, since you know we live in a oligarchy which favors business/the rich, its not impossible or historically unprecedented.


I like how expecting to be paid for work (after hours or on off days) is now the same thing as expecting a perfect job or maybe even unicorn in your eyes.
Click to expand...

You ignored consumers in your equation ... things that increase business costs or make workers more expensive are bad for consumers ... we can certainly allow more imports to compensate for that but that will hurt workers (kind of neutral for business as they can just move outside the USA to benefit from the import environment)

I have spent my entire 25 year working career as an exempt salaried employee (straight out of college to now) ... as such, that will color my opinion of some of these changes ... I agree that hourly workers should be compensated for their hours (limiting them should be between the employee and the employer, not a government mandate) ... however, as a salaried employee I have had benefits that hourly workers did not (my bonus targets were usually larger, I received more vacation, and I didn't have to constantly manage my hours like the time clock punchers) ... some of those benefits came at the cost of overtime and after hours work, but it was usually sporadic and targeted towards specific project completion

One of my first employers changed their goal of work/life balance to work life effectiveness ... balance is a choice you make as a worker (effectiveness, using the time you have to maximum benefit is also a choice) ... there are a lot of jobs that will limit your hours (if you really want extra time at home), virtually all of them are low paying ... there are lots of 6 figure jobs as well (most of them are for exempt employees and require workers to do what is needed for the job) ... if you can meet all the job requirements in a 40 hour week that is fantastic, if you cannot then you can choose to put in the additional hours needed (or you can risk the poor performance review) ... that is also a choice and I see no reason to inject the government into that equation
 
mesyn191 said:
Companies move stuff overseas to improve profits not because they don't make money with unionized labor or socialist economies.

Profits are at bubble high levels despite the 'recovery' being non-existent for people who aren't already rich. And having wages rise with productivity and inflation used to be the norm too. Companies still made money hand over fist back in the 70's-post WWII era.

The economy in general function better back then when wage earners made effectively more money. Why? Because they'll spend their earnings on goods/services which go back into the economy instead of crappy/scammy investments that only have low risk due to TBTF and which only serve to make the rich richer.
Click to expand...

Related:

http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
(US CEO salaries up 937 percent vs worker salaries ~10 percent since 1960s, pay ratio up to 510-to-1)
 
Wierdo said:
Related:

http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
(US CEO salaries up 937 percent vs worker salaries ~10 percent since 1960s, pay ratio up to 510-to-1)
Click to expand...

I think a key point people miss when arguing that "but...but...companies NEED to do this or they'd fail!" is what the charts show...

Obviously, they don't, because they didn't for *decades*, and there was no problem. Indeed, those decades were some of the most MASSIVELY profitable for our country, when we saw our most explosive growth, and that in jobs and manufacturing *HERE IN THE US*.

But once you start siphoning profitability and wages away from your workers to pay your executives more...it just goes overseas. The general population stops being willing to spend as much on manufactured goods, which causes more outsourcing to drop pricing on them, and you go into a sort of 'push everything out of the country' death spiral...
 
mesyn191 said:
c5jqLL3l.jpg
[/URL]
Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to argue with this graph. Damn shame, and it fits my own observations as well.

It's also easy to go way too lefty with this information and "power to the workers" propaganda. We should be ruthlessly punishing the ultra-powerful, ultra-rich, and ultra-corrupt, not coddling the "poor, down-trodden worker".

Workers in the US nowadays have it pretty damn good, relative to the past. If you think that people without any special skills, who can be easily replaced, deserve complete job security without accountability you're wrong.
 
When did mankind begin to advance? When they had more leisure time. This whole regression to working around the clock due to artificial scarcity is ridiculous. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, but can't we seriously consider some type of new paradigm?
 
wabbitseason said:
Workers in the US nowadays have it pretty damn good, relative to the past. If you think that people without any special skills, who can be easily replaced, deserve complete job security without accountability you're wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should, but they should have the opportunity to not be in that position. We're not giving our kids the ideal environment to become a highly skilled and educated workforce. Unlike many advanced nations where people are paid to go to college, education here is prohibitively expensive, you'd have to be well off to begin with in order to participate in the system effectively.

If you have a skilled workforce then you have a productive economy in areas outsourcing would struggle to displace - as long as we have the technological and industrial edge, which quality education once again helps maintain, can't count on importing minds forever you know, the competition is getting fierce.
 
Wierdo said:
I don't think they should, but they should have the opportunity to not be in that position. We're not giving our kids the ideal environment to become a highly skilled and educated workforce. Unlike many advanced nations where people are paid to go to college, education here is prohibitively expensive, you'd have to be well off to begin with in order to participate in the system effectively.

If you have a skilled workforce then you have a productive economy in areas outsourcing would struggle to displace - as long as we have the technological and industrial edge, which quality education once again helps maintain, can't count on importing minds forever you know, the competition is getting fierce.
Click to expand...

What countries pay their kids to go to college? Many of the Asian countries send their kids to school in the USA, Australia, and England. England for sure has student debt as well since there have been protests about it. I would agree that we need more student assistance in this country, but some students make their own debt problems by going to private schools on the high pricing range (Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, etc). There are still lots of opportunities for students from smaller in state schools (and many of those schools are a fraction of the expensive private schools).
 
kbrickley said:
What countries pay their kids to go to college? Many of the Asian countries send their kids to school in the USA, Australia, and England. England for sure has student debt as well since there have been protests about it. I would agree that we need more student assistance in this country, but some students make their own debt problems by going to private schools on the high pricing range (Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, etc). There are still lots of opportunities for students from smaller in state schools (and many of those schools are a fraction of the expensive private schools).
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is a complete list or not, but here's the wiki page listing nations with free post-secondary education, some of them even third world, but mostly advanced nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education#List_of_countries_with_free_post-secondary_education

I'll see if I can find details about paid education, I think it was in Sweden when I read about it, technically free education plus living assistance. Here's a brief from the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden#Higher_education
Swedish students receive economic help from the Swedish National Board of Student Aid (CSN) for studying. Every student is entitled to 12 semesters of allowances and loans, totaling 2,230 SEK per week (September 2012: 261 EUR, 339 USD, 209 GBP) for full-time studies (after 1 July 2006).[35][36] Allowances are usually 699 SEK per week (September 2012: 82 EUR; 106 USD; 65 GBP) with loans covering the rest. The limits for loans and allowances may be substantially increased under certain circumstances.[35]
Click to expand...

Anyway I also found other interesting stuff while I was looking and thought I'd share while I'm at it. For example I wish I knew Norway didn't charge even foreign students any tuition. Wow, that's just nuts, more power to them I guess, I wish I knew about this when I was in college lol:

http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees
 
kbrickley said:
You ignored consumers in your equation
Click to expand...
Nope. Workers are consumers.

kbrickley said:
things that increase business costs or make workers more expensive are bad for consumers
Click to expand...
Trivial econ101 level thinking that is easily blown up by the graphs I've already posted. That you keep ignoring them is telling. If you want to make macroeconomics level comments then you have start using econ110+ thinking. Just like how there are physics classes beyond physics101 for a reason there are more advanced economics classes for a reason too.

kbrickley said:
I have spent my entire 25 year working career as an exempt salaried employee (straight out of college to now) ... as such, that will color my opinion of some of these changes
Click to expand...
Yea dude you're grossly biased to salary jobs and that came through on your posts pages ago. Everyone has some sort of bias to a degree but to say you're stuck in a mental rut here doesn't quite do the situation justice. Now I've posted links, given information, and when neither has seemed to get through to you graphs as well. Which still aren't working. If and when you're willing to actually address the factual information and give some of your own I'll try replying to you again but if you still want to be all, "b-but salaried jobs!", which are still subject to normal work hours most times, that subject has been ran into the ground here and there is no further point posting about it.

kbrickley said:
One of my first employers changed their goal of work/life balance to work life effectiveness
Click to expand...
What exactly do you expect to prove with ho hum anecdotes here? How can you not understand that the situation of a person or 2 or 100 doesn't matter to market wide problems? I'm talking about what effects hundreds of thousands to millions or tens of millions of people here so any solution has to work on that level. As has already been mentioned pages ago people don't have a choice here because nearly all employers are doing this. Even the ones that pay a lower wage, or have a crappier work place, or are small businesses.

kbrickley said:
that is also a choice and I see no reason to inject the government into that equation
Click to expand...
When the de facto result is that there really isn't any choice, just the appearance of one, and huge numbers of people are effected then the govt. is the only entity capable of stepping to fix the problem because the market sure as hell ain't rational, fair, or self correcting on any reasonable time scale.
 
wabbitseason said:
It's also easy to go way too lefty with this information and "power to the workers" propaganda.
Click to expand...
Expecting wages to rise with productivity and inflation isn't Left or 'power to the workers' propaganda. Its common sense that people should be compensated for the work they do properly. If you do more work why shouldn't you get paid more for it? If inflation goes up and your wage isn't adjusted accordingly by your employer than they've effectively lowered your wage just to increase their profit margin. Why is that OK?

wabbitseason said:
Workers in the US nowadays have it pretty damn good, relative to the past.
Click to expand...
Which past? The 1800's or early 1900's? Sure. Since the late 70's, well that is a different story isn't it? Why should people be content with a steadily declining standard of living if they're working the same or as hard as they ever did?

wabbitseason said:
If you think that people without any special skills, who can be easily replaced, deserve complete job security without accountability you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha that is pretty scummy and awful to say the least!! It doesn't even attempt address why wages and the standard of living have been going down either but hey you just felt you had to throw in a 'screw you people who work hard and do nothing wrong, you're easily replaceable' comment didn't you?
 
Just a note; it isn't reported broadly in the UE numbers, but the vast majority of jobs lost in the Great Recession were full time, salaried jobs. The majority of new jobs being created are part-time hourly jobs. So even today, there are millions less full-time salaried jobs than there were about 5 years ago.
 
mesyn191 said:
Expecting wages to rise with productivity and inflation isn't Left or 'power to the workers' propaganda. Its common sense that people should be compensated for the work they do properly. If you do more work why shouldn't you get paid more for it? If inflation goes up and your wage isn't adjusted accordingly by your employer than they've effectively lowered your wage just to increase their profit margin. Why is that OK?
Click to expand...

Careful, now, you just used the phrase 'compensated...properly'. That's just commie talk, that is!

mesyn191 said:
Which past? The 1800's or early 1900's? Sure. Since the late 70's, well that is a different story isn't it? Why should people be content with a steadily declining standard of living if they're working the same or as hard as they ever did?
Click to expand...

This is the point that should resonate better with "conservatives".

Nobody (well, nobody in THIS thread) is advocating throwing off our current economic system and switching over to socialism.

Rather, we're advocating a return to the sort of employee:employer balance we had in the late-40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s...and DON'T HAVE now, despite the occasional anecdotal reference indicating "things aren't so bad". On the whole - on average - they kinda are, and that's just a silly situation to be in given how well we were managing that balance (and resulting growth) in the mid-century.
 
mesyn191 said:
Yea dude you're grossly biased to salary jobs and that came through on your posts pages ago. Everyone has some sort of bias to a degree but to say you're stuck in a mental rut here doesn't quite do the situation justice. Now I've posted links, given information, and when neither has seemed to get through to you graphs as well. Which still aren't working. If and when you're willing to actually address the factual information and give some of your own I'll try replying to you again but if you still want to be all, "b-but salaried jobs!", which are still subject to normal work hours most times, that subject has been ran into the ground here and there is no further point posting about it.
Click to expand...

I agreed earlier that hourly worker SHOULD be properly compensated for overtime and that their overtime SHOULD be restricted ... salaried workers are a different class of worker and as such should receive different compensations and protections (many of them are exempt workers in the USA) ... most of us here are well compensated for our jobs ... I suspect a fairly large percentage of us are 6 figure salaries or equivalent (are you saying we should be receiving 7 figure salaries or higher 6 figure salaries) ... I am not clear WHO is being underpaid for their job performance

I would agree that it is worth taking a look at executive pay to make sure that it is realistic ... but most businesses are not rolling in profits and I don't agree that those profits should be given to the workers ... it would make much more sense for private companies to pay their workers more but for public companies to give that money to their shareholders ... if their employees are also shareholders then they would get additional compensation through that venue
 
dderidex said:
Nobody (well, nobody in THIS thread) is advocating throwing off our current economic system and switching over to socialism.

Rather, we're advocating a return to the sort of employee:employer balance we had in the late-40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s...and DON'T HAVE now, despite the occasional anecdotal reference indicating "things aren't so bad". On the whole - on average - they kinda are, and that's just a silly situation to be in given how well we were managing that balance (and resulting growth) in the mid-century.
Click to expand...

Imports were very different back then ... now a large percentage of our economy is based on imports and exports ... we can't return to the much more closed markets of the 50's/60's/70's since that would be extraordinarily bad for consumers ... high priced manufacturing jobs that led many of the economic factors back then will never come back to the USA because it makes no sense to do that kind of work here anymore ... also, most workers prefer professional jobs over manufacturing jobs now as well ... it is nice to say we want to return to the policies or economic strategies of the past, but we do not live in that world anymore and no amount of policy wrangling is going to bring that world back ... that cargo ship has already sailed
 
mesyn191 said:
Profits are at bubble high levels despite the 'recovery' being non-existent for people who aren't already rich. And having wages rise with productivity and inflation used to be the norm too. Companies still made money hand over fist back in the 70's-post WWII era.

The economy in general function better back then when wage earners made effectively more money. Why? Because they'll spend their earnings on goods/services which go back into the economy instead of crappy/scammy investments that only have low risk due to TBTF and which only serve to make the rich richer.
Click to expand...

Aye. Those at the top always wanting a bigger piece of the pie, and those at the bottom accepting less and less compensation for their work and not fighting back. Unfortunately we seem to have a habit of letting ourselves get the shaft and accepting it as the norm.
 
mesyn191 said:
Expecting wages to rise with productivity and inflation isn't Left or 'power to the workers' propaganda. Its common sense that people should be compensated for the work they do properly. If you do more work why shouldn't you get paid more for it? If inflation goes up and your wage isn't adjusted accordingly by your employer than they've effectively lowered your wage just to increase their profit margin. Why is that OK?


Which past? The 1800's or early 1900's? Sure. Since the late 70's, well that is a different story isn't it? Why should people be content with a steadily declining standard of living if they're working the same or as hard as they ever did?


Hahahaha that is pretty scummy and awful to say the least!! It doesn't even attempt address why wages and the standard of living have been going down either but hey you just felt you had to throw in a 'screw you people who work hard and do nothing wrong, you're easily replaceable' comment didn't you?
Click to expand...


Oops, you're hate-filled, spiteful, and a rabid extremist. My mistake on quoting your post and being pragmatic.
 
kbrickley said:
Imports were very different back then ... now a large percentage of our economy is based on imports and exports ... we can't return to the much more closed markets of the 50's/60's/70's since that would be extraordinarily bad for consumers ...
Click to expand...

Not at all. While it's certainly true we do export an awful lot internationally, now, we also IMPORT more than we expect.

The net-net is that our current international trade has weakened our domestic economy since the mid-century period.

US%20foreign%20trade%20as%20pct%20of%20GDP%20100929.png


kbrickley said:
high priced manufacturing jobs that led many of the economic factors back then will never come back to the USA because it makes no sense to do that kind of work here anymore
Click to expand...

It only 'makes more sense' to do the work more cheaply overseas, because US workers aren't paid enough to buy the goods they'd be able to make.

But that is because worker compensation was reduced to improve executive/investor compensation.

That's the 'death spiral' I was referring to - you pay people less than you should because you want more for yourself, so they can afford less, and buy less products and services, so you have to find new ways to cut corners and reduce costs to keep selling things, which results in more salary reduction for your workers (can't touch YOUR slice of it!), and so they can afford less, etc.

Which leads us back to:

c5jqLL3l.jpg


kbrickley said:
it is nice to say we want to return to the policies or economic strategies of the past, but we do not live in that world anymore and no amount of policy wrangling is going to bring that world back ... that cargo ship has already sailed
Click to expand...

That we import more than we export (see chart #1) speaks to the contrary - obviously, we still have SIGNIFICANTLY more demand for things than we have in this country. However, the ever-increasing wage gap between different economic classes means most could not afford to choose the US-manufactured alternative vs a foreign-manufactured version of a product. But that wage gap is entirely artificial - if US workers were paid enough to buy US products, we could reduce that trade deficit and improve the standard of living here at home at the same time.

But that would mean taking a bite out of excessive executive over-compensation and returning it to the mid-century levels, where we still engaged heavily in international trade, but in a more balanced fashion (that is, our imports did not exceed our exports to the extent they now do).
 
kbrickley said:
salaried workers are a different class of worker and as such should receive different compensations and protections...most of us here are well compensated for our jobs ... I suspect a fairly large percentage of us are 6 figure salaries or equivalent (are you saying we should be receiving 7 figure salaries or higher 6 figure salaries) ... I am not clear WHO is being underpaid for their job performance
Click to expand...
They're not so different that they're required to work for free though.

I have no idea why you'd think most people here are getting well paid. I make mid 5 figure range which is OK but un-impressive compared to 6 figure salaries. Also my previous comments, information, and graphs about wages and income were on a national level and not a site level since the problems we're discussing have an effect on a national level and not a personal one.

kbrickley said:
but most businesses are not rolling in profits and I don't agree that those profits should be given to the workers ... it would make much more sense for private companies to pay their workers more but for public companies to give that money to their shareholders ... if their employees are also shareholders then they would get additional compensation through that venue
Click to expand...
Big businesses are rolling in the profits and are cash rich right now. Small business is a different story but most of them do poorly or fail even during economic boom times. Most people don't own or hold stock either so increasing shareholder compensation won't do much if anything to improve the economy or standard of living either. Mostly the rich, who hold most shares and receive most of their income from stocks and capital gains, will benefit.

People spend their money on goods and services which is what benefits and grows the economy.
 
wabbitseason said:
Oops, you're hate-filled, spiteful, and a rabid extremist. My mistake on quoting your post and being pragmatic.
Click to expand...
Getting paid properly and expecting a better life = rabid extremism?

If you wanna go that route fine just realize that by your measure most everyone in the US, and probably world, is a rabid extremist. Which kinda devalues the term doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top