Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Ever been ripped-off by your own boss...?
- Thread starter Spinal Tapper
- Start date
While I'd admire your naivety, we have these pesky economic constructs out there known as "labor markets." If you have anything more than anecdotal evidence that simply being hardworking can land a job in which supply greatly outstrips demand, please publish that in a reputable economic or HRM journal. Until then, labor markets will be assumed to work on the same principles as any other market. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that with the economic crash in '08, a lot of the people out of work weren't simply too lazy to get hired.
Not to mention, I currently work in career development. One of the things that I mention to almost everyone I counsel is don't be surprised that employers will often make irratational hiring decisions. I also state that job interviews are one of the least valid forms of selection, yet everyone makes hiring decisions based upon interview performance. But that's a topic for another time.
My point is that while reductionist "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" reasoning always sounds good, it's not very valid when you actually think critically about the labor world. I recommend checking out an article by Robert Hale called Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State. It does a great job of dispelling the libertarian myth that we're all free agents in the world and the market actually has a somewhat determinist influence on economic the choices we make.
The point is still valid. The OP did work outside what was required for his job and was not compensated.
Seems more like granny smith apples and red delicious apples to me
Nope, not really. As stated by someone else, most job descriptions are written fairly broadly to include the job duties that would reasonably fall within the purview of the job. That's HRM 101. Even job descriptions in collective bargaining agreements aren't written so stringently that working on similar projects would be a violation of the CBA. The OP didn't do anything beyond his normal job duties. His services were just outsourced to a third party through an agreement between 'A' and 'B'. Unless his job description explicitly forbids doing work for other organizations with which he employers decides to contract, I still fail to see the issue.
LiquidMidnight said:
Really? So your telling me that if you hired me in a salaried capacity you can legally make me do work for another company in addition to the work I do for you, without being compensated? I'm really not up on the legalities of it, but I find that hard to believe. If that's the case I would tell my boss to take his job and......ah nevermind.
Nope.
Employees are an input just like anything else - whether it be cinder blocks for your local construction company or gold for your local jeweler.
If your local jeweler wants to make 20K gold rings, but is only willing to pay for 14K gold - he's making 14K rings.
Doesn't matter how much he wants it, needs it, or how dependent his business is on it - he has to pay the prevailing rate if he wants to buy. Employees are no different.
You're confusing a normative argument about what someone says on their own time and the legal implications of if they can be terminated for what they say on their own time. An employee can be terminated for speaking badly about their employer on their own time. Courts have upheld this time and time again.
As far as an employer winning or losing if a grievance for wrongful termination were filed, that really comes down to two things: 1). the language of the collective bargaining agreement, and 2). the arbitrator's interpretation of the language of the collective bargaining agreement. Arbitrators aren't necessarily bound by stare decisis the same way judges are, and they make their decisions based upon the "four corners of the contract." However, it sounds like the OP isn't a union employee, so if that were true, there would be no grievance-arbitration procedure anyways; therefore, it's a moot point.
*lol* How do you think consulting companies or any other company that does outsourcing works without getting sued by its own employees every other week? But hey, talk to a labor attorney if you don't believe me.
You're free to tell your boss to shove it, though. If you don't have a contract, you're an employee-at-will.
LiquidMidnight said:
Oh dear God. No wonder this country's shot. So let me get this straight. You can hire me as your employee, make me do other companies work with no set maximum hours or projects, and I get the pleasure of working for a set salary? Keep that s**t. You think I'm disgruntled now.....
Oh dear God. No wonder this country's shot. So let me get this straight. You can hire me as your employee, make me do other companies work with no set maximum hours or projects, and I get the pleasure of working for a set salary? Keep that s**t. You think I'm disgruntled now.....
If I hire you to work Mon - Fri from 9-5 for $50k a year I can have you do whatever work I want you to, I guess so long as its within the boundaries of your job description.
You are correct. Supply and demand is a principle only, but markets take time to adjust when there is a change in either, which Aborgman is also being glib on. Job markets often change very rapidly which can make it very difficult for businesses to adapt. I've been in the IT field for a long time, and I've seen large companies move into the area, swallowing up local IT talent very quickly, leaving a bit of a vacuum. This is just one example. A business plan really isn't the answer as he so simply put it. It's very easy to get into a bidding war with another company, many of which have much deeper pockets and won't lose. Current employees become enamored with the thought of there being greener grass at the new company, and some will take off for no other reason than that. It takes time for the local job market to stablize and to find replacement help at all these left open vacancies. Since so many companies are looking for new employees to replace those who left, prices go up even more, which can really put a payroll crunch on a company with an already slim bottom line because of the economic downturn. Throwing more money at candidates and recruiting services (or outsourcing for that matter) just adds overhead to the business, which often means higher prices for the products and services they provide, which in turn lowers profit. The momentary bubble corrects itself eventually, but that doesn't change the fact of what I originally said, which is that it can be VERY difficult to find good help at times, regardless of how much you plan, store up for rainy days, etc. There a million ways that a company can trip up because of an unforseen circumstance, which can cause a domino effect and put them out of business. Anyone who thinks they can throw out a few one-liners that contain simple solutions on how this can be avoided has no business experience...I can pretty much guarantee you. Maybe some of the other business folks hear who have some real world experience can back me up on this one. I really don't have time for silly arguments on the internet with folks who obviously don't have a clue.
Oh dear God. No wonder this country's shot. So let me get this straight. You can hire me as your employee, make me do other companies work with no set maximum hours or projects, and I get the pleasure of working for a set salary? Keep that s**t. You think I'm disgruntled now.....
Well, if you feel that being a salaried employee would open you up to being taken advantage of, perhaps you should only choose work as an hourly employee or only work for employers in which you're part of a bargaining unit so your duties are more clearly spelled out. There's absotluely nothing wrong with choosing hourly over salary. In some instances, I would make the same decision.
As probably evidenced by the content of my responses in this thread, I have more than a casual relationship with this type of stuff. I have actually seen employers do some really nasty stuff to its workforce - and I've worked to resolve those wrongs - so I just don't see the OP, as a salaried employee, having to work a few extra days on a project that went out to another company as some egregious sin. Not to be a dink, but this thread should have ended after about the fourth reply.
MatticusMania said:
Well that's fine. You have a set schedule and are staying within the job spec that I agreed to when I took the job . Salaried is just a fancy way of saying slavery.
Quite often the people at our company who are paid on salary will work extra hours to complete projects.
Theyre also not docked any pay should they, for some reason, have to leave early, or take a day off. These things balance themselves out.
LiquidMidnight said:Well, if you feel that being a salaried employee would open you up to being taken advantage of, perhaps you should only choose work as an hourly employee or only work for employers in which you're part of a bargaining unit so your duties are more clearly spelled out.
As probably evidenced by the content of my responses in this thread, I have more than a casual relationship with this type of stuff. I have actually seen employers do some really nasty stuff to its workforce - and I've worked to resolve those wrongs - so I just don't see the OP, as a salaried employee, having to work a few extra days on a project that went out to another company as some egregious sin. Not to be a dink, but this thread should have ended after about the fourth reply.
Live and learn. Had you posted this at as the fourth reply it would have.
Make you? No, of course not. You can always press for a raise, and then quit if the employer won't give it to you. However, corporate America is full of just such a thing happening. As is pointed out here, some companies make a conscious effort to do this and push their employees to the brim, especially in areas where other people are standing in line to take those jobs once they're available. In other parts of the country, the traditional approach is still taken, which is an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Some people don't really have the freedom to just up and quit their job because they had to work some extra hours. Even within my job description, I've had to work many long hours, especially in years past, because my company took on more work than we had staff to churn out. I was salaried, and pushed through it as best as I could. Fortunately, my employer wasn't a selfish person, and rewarded us if/when he could with higher pay, raises, bonuses, extra time off, etc. This went on for years until the company went belly up within a matter of a few short months because of some drastic changes within our client base that we had no control over. I found another job within a week, paying nearly 40% more than I was making, with incentives for bonuses on a monthly basis on top of that. My previous employer, a good man, lost his house, his cars, his reputation, everything, simply because it was his company and he had taken some personal risk early on to try and keep the company afloat.Oh dear God. No wonder this country's shot. So let me get this straight. You can hire me as your employee, make me do other companies work with no set maximum hours or projects, and I get the pleasure of working for a set salary? Keep that s**t. You think I'm disgruntled now.....
There are no simply answers in the business world. I get aggrivated when people act like there are. At the end of the day, you should do your best, be thoughtful, and proud of your work. Expect your employer to do the same, and look elsewhere if they abuse you. But don't expect there are any guarantees in life because there aren't. It can rain on the just as well as the unjust.
You are correct. Supply and demand is a principle only, but markets take time to adjust when there is a change in either, which Aborgman is also being glib on. Job markets often change very rapidly which can make it very difficult for businesses to adapt. I've been in the IT field for a long time, and I've seen large companies move into the area, swallowing up local IT talent very quickly, leaving a bit of a vacuum. This is just one example. A business plan really isn't the answer as he so simply put it. It's very easy to get into a bidding war with another company, many of which have much deeper pockets and won't lose. Current employees become enamored with the thought of there being greener grass at the new company, and some will take off for no other reason than that. It takes time for the local job market to stablize and to find replacement help at all these left open vacancies. Since so many companies are looking for new employees to replace those who left, prices go up even more, which can really put a payroll crunch on a company with an already slim bottom line because of the economic downturn. Throwing more money at candidates and recruiting services (or outsourcing for that matter) just adds overhead to the business, which often means higher prices for the products and services they provide, which in turn lowers profit. The momentary bubble corrects itself eventually, but that doesn't change the fact of what I originally said, which is that it can be VERY difficult to find good help at times, regardless of how much you plan, store up for rainy days, etc. There a million ways that a company can trip up because of an unforseen circumstance, which can cause a domino effect and put them out of business. Anyone who thinks they can throw out a few one-liners that contain simple solutions on how this can be avoided has no business experience...I can pretty much guarantee you. Maybe some of the other business folks hear who have some real world experience can back me up on this one. I really don't have time for silly arguments on the internet with folks who obviously don't have a clue.
Another thing that compounds this is that the psychological contract between employers and employees has eroded over the past 25 or 30 years. That is, the idea of lifetime job security has gone out the window, with the exception of few areas, such as government work and tenured education positions. Because that contract is no longer there, employers need to offer higher salaries or other benefits. The worker profile, in a lot of ways, has shifted from the salt of the Earth "company man," to the progressive knowledge worker. With that, the employee looks for different things from the employer, such as autonomy and opportunities to be creative.
Live and learn. Had you posted this at as the fourth reply it would have.
Haha, touche'. But I think the thread had been at least two pages long by the time I originally read it.
You are correct. Supply and demand is a principle only, but markets take time to adjust when there is a change in either, which Aborgman is also being glib on. Job markets often change very rapidly which can make it very difficult for businesses to adapt. I've been in the IT field for a long time, and I've seen large companies move into the area, swallowing up local IT talent very quickly, leaving a bit of a vacuum. This is just one example. A business plan really isn't the answer as he so simply put it. It's very easy to get into a bidding war with another company, many of which have much deeper pockets and won't lose. Current employees become enamored with the thought of there being greener grass at the new company, and some will take off for no other reason than that. It takes time for the local job market to stablize and to find replacement help at all these left open vacancies. Since so many companies are looking for new employees to replace those who left, prices go up even more, which can really put a payroll crunch on a company with an already slim bottom line because of the economic downturn. Throwing more money at candidates and recruiting services (or outsourcing for that matter) just adds overhead to the business, which often means higher prices for the products and services they provide, which in turn lowers profit. The momentary bubble corrects itself eventually, but that doesn't change the fact of what I originally said, which is that it can be VERY difficult to find good help at times, regardless of how much you plan, store up for rainy days, etc. There a million ways that a company can trip up because of an unforseen circumstance, which can cause a domino effect and put them out of business. Anyone who thinks they can throw out a few one-liners that contain simple solutions on how this can be avoided has no business experience...I can pretty much guarantee you. Maybe some of the other business folks hear who have some real world experience can back me up on this one. I really don't have time for silly arguments on the internet with folks who obviously don't have a clue.
So exactly like when the local oil supplier sees his prices rise due to speculation caused by political unrest in the middle east?
Or when the local jeweler has seen a bubble in gold prices over the last 3 years?
No one said it was simple, and no one said it was in a businesses interests to spend more money on labor... but the market is what it is.
If you can't find good employees for a reasonable labor cost, and you can't afford to work with poor employees... there are really only two possibilities:
1) Everyone else in your industry has the same problems, and your industry as a whole is not economically sustainable.
2) Your competition can manage it and you can't - therefore your business is not economically sustainable.
Eublet said:
I gotta tell you after reading that post, I'm genuinely saddened......for all of us.
