Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Helgoland: 

There is not a culture of company loyalty among workers in the U.S.  It's true.  But there's good reason for it.  The vast majority of us understand that we're being shafted hardcore, and whatever personal benefit we can reap at the employer's expense is fair game. 

The amount that workers here are compensated in relation to the profit they make their employer is degrading.  When I worked at Fedex, my manager worked out the numbers and determined that it took me less than two weeks to make my entire year's pay for the company.  Big businesses continue reporting record-breaking profits year after year after year, but at the same time tell everyone they have to slash benefits to make ends meet. 

The workplace culture that's inflicted on employees continues to also get more degrading, where in many offices employees are monitored like they're in a prison and every minute of their time scrutinized to see if they're squeezing out every cent possible.  I've had to literally keep logs detailing what I did with every single minute of my time.  And in my current workplace, people have been chewed out for hours and their work habits investigated for mistakes that cost the company as little as $20.

And job security in the U.S. is a distant memory.  A growing number of states have absolutely zero protections for workers, to the point that you can show up to work one day to find all your stuff boxed up and told that you're fired and you'll never know what the reason was.  In other words, they're laying you off but not calling it as such because that's bad PR and legal complication, so they're calling it a firing but aren't required to provide justification that you can potentially contest.  I know people this has happened to.

So yeah... there's no culture of loyalty here, because our employers make it abundantly clear that we can't expect it from them.  On the other hand, a good boss is actually capable of earning fierce loyalty from employees in this country, because they're so very rare.

[Frumple]

... of course, to a fair extent, the message here is "Read your contract, and don't sign away things you shouldn't." Non-compete clauses on low level jobs would dry up pretty fast if everyone that saw one in their contract said, "No." Which they, y'know... should be? Don't, obviously, but still.

Though, sadly enough, the methodologies behind sandwich making actually can be a notable trade secret. Order of construction, layout of rooms, particular variations in materials, various corp-standard customer interaction bits... the list kinda' goes on, and they're all things that can substantially impact profit margin over the course of a business's life, especially for chains. There is a fair amount of bullshit going on, but it's far from entirely so, and a competing business being able to cheerfully acquire the fruits of the (often disturbingly substantial) research that goes in to refining that sort of thing just because they managed to snatch up a previous employee...

... it's like, personally, I'm kinda' okay with corporate espionage of pretty much all (non-violent) sorts -- whatever spreads efficient and/or effective methodology the furthest is more or less what I want to see, and if some big wigs lose some portion of their profit margin because of it, I don't entirely care. Being marginally less rich isn't exactly a hardship. But I can definitely understand why businesses would be protective of stuff they've often sunk thousands behind the scenes into developing. Making several hundred sandwiches per day is not just throwing some stuff between two slices of bread and calling it an afternoon. If your company has figured something out that shaves a second or a half-penny or something off each sandwich, you've got a pretty damned significant competitive edge that you actually do kinda' want to hold on to. And never mind more obviously complicated industries.

Though to be clear, I wouldn't exactly complain if there was regulation implemented to curtail particularly predatory employment contracts. Just noting that it's pretty understandable why a company -- particularly a larger one, that has a hefty amount of time and/or research sunk into its methodologies -- would want to keep people it has trained out of similar fields. They've got a lot riding on what your average outsider might consider to be inconsequential things. And that they've reached the point where they apparently see the need to contractually ensure their former employees immediately spill every competitive edge they have to competing businesses is telling in its own way...

---

Though yeah, @ Helg: It's actually pretty rare from my understanding that small wage differentials are enough to cause immediate ship-jump like what you're describing. I can almost guarantee you there was either a significant wage difference or something else going on -- extra benefits, different work environment, etc. Little benefits are usually not enough to cause people to take on the risks that are involved with that kind of rapid job change.

Mind you, SG's points are also spot on.

[Helgoland]

SG: Well sure, that's why that company took so long to adapt to American mores - I'm sure that nowadays they're shafting their employees like any good American capitalist

Turning this around, the thing that nowadays is a non-compete agreement could - perhaps, if previous experience proves unable to predict the future - turn into an instrument of employee protection: By agreeing to stay with the employer for a certain amount of time, or at least not working in the field anywhere else, they might be able to get a greater degree of job security in return, at least if they're people who can't be replaced immediately. Maybe it's really true that the ol' US of A simply does not get along with the - admittedly rather European-feeling - concept of unions, and you guys need to find a more individualist system for getting more job security...

Frumple: I only heard the European side of the story, of course. No doubt there's another side as well.

[Reelya]

$.10 might be an exaggeration, but the point remains: Their company paid for their training, and some other benefit reaped the benefits. Matching the wage increase won't do anything, since the other company already has a competetive edge by not having paid for that training.

Sure, these contracts need to be regulated - tightly regulated - but what should 'certain circumstances' be, if not this? You're essentially condemning companies to training employees for free, at least in this instance.

They don't need a non-compete agreement, they need a contract plain and simple: we train you, you work for us for at least ~2 years.

[SalmonGod]

Though yeah, @ Helg: It's actually pretty rare from my understanding that small wage differentials are enough to cause immediate ship-jump like what you're describing. I can almost guarantee you there was either a significant wage difference or something else going on -- extra benefits, different work environment, etc. Little benefits are usually not enough to cause people to take on the risks that are involved with that kind of rapid job change.

Yeah, for everything I said, it isn't common for employees to turn around so quickly, unless it's really bottom level manual labor stuff like fast food grunt work or something.  Leaving a job too soon is looked at very suspiciously by prospective employers.  This is a problem I'm dealing with right now, trying to leave my current job after only a year and a half.  Not to mention starting over at a new job is a major life adjustment, and it's something most people don't like to do unless they're really unhappy or they're chasing a really good opportunity.  Most of the time, it's abusive workplace cultures that keep people hopping around looking for some place worth staying.

Turning this around, the thing that nowadays is a non-compete agreement could - perhaps, if previous experience proves unable to predict the future - turn into an instrument of employee protection: By agreeing to stay with the employer for a certain amount of time, or at least not working in the field anywhere else, they might be able to get a greater degree of job security in return, at least if they're people who can't be replaced immediately. Maybe it's really true that the ol' US of A simply does not get along with the - admittedly rather European-feeling - concept of unions, and you guys need to find a more individualist system for getting more job security...

The average American mentality regarding this is a really bizarre thing to directly engage.  It can feel like talking to a schizophrenic sometimes, and it becomes plain that most people don't really know what they want or believe.  I've talked to many people who will agree with every point I'll make about corruption and exploitation of workers by our corporations and every complaint about how we're overworked and underpaid and everything... and then turn immediately right around into talking about how people are poor because they're lazy and stupid and how businesses should have more power to operate however they want and make even more demands.  It's difficult to describe just how deep the internal conflict and contradiction runs, and the kinds of bizarre behavior you'll see from workers here as a result, especially in regards to motions for worker protections or unionization.  Usually people will be all for it if it's applying directly and immediately to them, but if you present it to them as a rule to be applied across an entire workforce, even if they're included in that workforce, they'll suddenly be vehemently opposed to it.

[Frumple]

They don't need a non-compete agreement, they need a contract plain and simple: we train you, you work for us for at least ~2 years.

... that's often even worse for the employee than a non-compete agreement, though.

[Reelya]

Usually people will be all for it if it's applying directly and immediately to them, but if you present it to them as a rule to be applied across an entire workforce, even if they're included in that workforce, they'll suddenly be vehemently opposed to it.

That reminds me of people in the USA who oppose expanded coverage rules that would actually reduce their own health insurance premiums, on the basis that poor sick people could get treatment without paying:

"But this new rule will reduce your premiums" ... "that's not the point! it would also mean sick poor people are getting treated on my dime!" was the exact argument. I don't get people who'd rather pay more for something, because you can prevent someone else getting a free lunch that way. It's like anti-charity.

[wierd]

Helgo:

Clearly, you dont understand american employers.  They dont want to give employees anything. ANYTHING.  Least of all, any kind of guarantee of employment.  They want their employees to sign away literally everything, and get dick in return, quite honestly.

When my latest employer was bought out by a fortune 500, they instituted a faustian intellectual property agreement policy, with the basic requirements of "Sign this or there's the door"---  It said, literally, that I agreed that any breach of the contract would result in irreperable harm to the employer, that I agreed to submit to extraordinary remittance, and that I agreed that as a consequence of my employment for them, they owned all art, music, drawings, mathematical formulae, mechanical devices, computer software, logical algorithms (...) even including my "know how"-- even if such things cannot be protected by law. In exchange, I get the privilege of being allowed to work there, which they could terminate at any time, for any reason.

There was no sunset provision on the agreement-- It outright stated that it survives employment.  It was literally a contract in perpetuity, as written.


I refused to sign it, and had to find work elsewhere.

[Truean]

Innocent worker leaving condition problems

What if you HAVE to leave your job, or you SHOULD leave your job? What if you find out your boss is an unethical nutjob? You probably don't qualify for whistle-blower protection, and if you do it still might ruin your life. What if you find out your boss is stealing from the company and he threatens to make your life a living hell if you tell? What if you see your boss sexually harassing the female staff or you are the female staff and he's harassing you? That's not even counting health issues, or if your spouse gets a job somewhere else and you kinda have to move with them to stay a family....

You see the negative consequences about that and soooo much more I just could write a book about? What about all that costly education people paid for? That's not possibly the source of all that knowledge in your head?

These things seem to assume the employee is out to screw over the employer, when really there's a ton of the opposite going on. There are such externalities here and control that can be abused.

What do you do if turning in your boss means losing everything you have? And what if this means you get sued for doing so? What if times are bad (like now) and that's the only job you can get to pay your bills instead of being in the street and you can't "review your contract" because they say sign or you get nothing and you have no other options? There's a major power imbalance here.

It just seems insidious to me, doesn't it? It starts out as this PR tagline about how the poor poor (sometimes million, billion or multi billion dollar) company needs to protect itself from.... some poor SOB just trying to make a living. How convenient that means they gain a ton of additional control over people...?

I don't care. I'm out.

[wierd]

Agreed.

The problem is that most americans live paycheck to paycheck, and simply cant afford to say "no" without starving to death, or losing their home/apartment/car, whatever.

They simply cant.

The employers KNOW this.  As far as I know, the legal profession likes to claim that such contracts are made in good faith; I disagree. I believe they are made under duress, as outlined above.

Good luck getting the legal system to see it that way though.

Out of 250 employees, I was the ONLY one to refuse the Faustian "Perpetual contract."  THE ONLY ONE.  I was also the only one who had a very fat personal savings account, and could afford to say no.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

[SalmonGod]

What I'm seeing is companies keep having to make workplace culture and compensation more and more draconian in order to continue making their precious growth targets, because all this extra money they expect to make is ultimately being squeezed out of the workers themselves.  They know that this is making their employees miserable, so they keep coming up with more ways to force people to stay with their jobs.  They know that ultimately if their employees are given a clear choice between working for them or being homeless, that they can treat them however they want.

[wierd]

Good luck proving unfair bargaining though.

Too much is riding on the backs of these Faustian shit rags for the courts to rule against them with prejudice, like needs to happen. HARD.

[Truean]

They will pay some corporate lawyer $500/hour to screw you royally. He takes $125 craps, literally. If they can manage it, they'll shift these costs to you.

[wierd]

Worse, some of the contracts I have read about actually make you agree to never sue to begin with.
The "Boiler plate" (Ahem, the exact words of the legal counsel of the company that wanted me to sign the absurd IP agreement I mentioned earlier, used to describe said agreement) did not contain "Binding arbitration" verbiage in my case, but many of these things do.

Corporate America wants all the protection that money and the legal system can provide, and dont want to give anything in return.

Barring a reform of the actual legal system, is there any way we can get Lawyers to swear the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath? They they will never, as a member of the legal profession, knowingly produce documents that are purposely intended to cause harm?

[Frumple]

... considering we don't even have a legally binding equivalent of that for medical professionals in the states, I doubt it. I mean, we might be able to have them swear some sort of oath -- and certainly they have to keep up with the review boards or whatever they are -- but something legally binding is... probably not going to happen.