minimum conditions for workers in the US? - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

JHC · #76 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

While you may be a self-motivated employee capable of managing your own schedule and performing your duties without supervision that's not considered a normal circumstance in the general business world. The majority of workers require a structured environment including line supervision and personal interaction with their co-workers (the worn-out but applicable 'team' aspect of a workplace) to produce their best efforts, even in professional fields.

As to global communication requirements with different time zones, in one form or another that's always been in place. Even before the PC age every financial department of any size with global interests always had a rotation of people providing 24-hour coverage of ticker tape, FAX and telephone monitoring as money has always moved outside normal business hours in the overnight markets. Manufacturing of products requiring raw materials requires 24/7/365 monitoring and communications to ensure on-time delivery of those materials and finished components to facilitate factory scheduling as ships, rail and trucking don't adhere to regular schedules. I could go on and on with 24/7/365 business requirements but my point is that in most cases different time zone requirements have, since electronic communication was developed, always been accommodated as required.

What I fail to understand is how many employees find time to use the Internet for personal purposes such as contributing to this forum during work hours. While it's understood that peddlers, customer service and other such unsupervised employees who travel will always make time for their personal requirements, how do people in an office structure make time to use the net for personal purposes? I'd have to think that's simply poor line supervision derived from lax management.

I understand what you are saying.
I can only speak from personal experience when I argue that we are obstinate in evolving work environments.

For instance, I worked in an office here if Florida which was a sort of subsidiary of an office in Minnesota. Just an hours difference in time zones but they also didn't open until 9 in Minnesota while we, in Florida, opened at 8.
This left a two hour difference in starting and quitting times causing a very slow period from 8 to 10 and then a cluster fuck (pardon the expression), to get things done by quitting time at 5 but inevitably having to remain in the office until 6 to make up for the early lag.

This causes frustration. Employees, no matter how sincerely dedicated they may be, begin to contemplate how much better use they could have made of their time and how they are paid for 40 hours of work and are literally trapped in an office, on the job, for 50 or 60.

A more efficient method would have been minimal staffing from 8 to 10 and a standard work day of 9 to 6 or even 10 to 6.

I have a friend who works for the American Cancer Society. Although her wages have been consistently half my own, I have been jealous of her schedule. Their full time work week is 35 hours. Annually scheduled big events would have her away from home for 45 hours a week a couple of weeks in a row but then she would be allowed to take a couple of extra days off to recuperate. She has been with the same employer for over 15 years. She does NOT have time to play on the computer or contemplate how her time could be better spent. She is both productive and satisfied.

Now I've been in both positions. I have worked 50 and 60 hour weeks (I've worked 70 and 80 hour weeks when I was much younger!), so intently that there was hardly time to relieve my bladder or eat.

I think people are genuinely happier when they are occupied.

If I'm right though, (and I do mean IF), would that not be reflected by a recorded more hours worked and less productivity?

JHC · #77 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

In case you thought that working 70 to 80 hours a week sounded incredulous, you might wonder what on earth would provide enough incentive to subject yourself to such a schedule.

I had two full time jobs. One paid very little but allowed me to travel for practically nothing anywhere in the world.

The other provided health insurance and flight training.

I had thought I could bring the two together for a career but it just didn't work out.

The point being, you DO expect to be rewarded for your dedication and work. If you didn't, you'd be a fool.

Americano · #78 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think first world countries can afford to pay people to be couch potatoes. We already know that third world countries cannot afford to pay people to be couch potatoes.

Outsourcing is in the process of eliminating the former US couch potato position of every citizen having a job paying a living wage (by US standards) with full benefits and questionable performance. That's now the realm of federal employees.

Quote:

Why isn't it a matter of national pride, to claim first world status, much as the space race was when we were competing with second world economies

China is in the process of inheriting that role. US national pride has deteriorated to a point of mindless entertainment for the citizenry and misusing the US military to invade third-tier nations for purposes of special interests while accumulating unsustainable debt. Doesn't take much pride to accomplish those objectives.

Steve · #79 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

The point being, you DO expect to be rewarded for your dedication and work.

And you were: You had benefits, and you got to travel. You worked hard (two full-time jobs, to me, suggests hard work), and benefitted from that. Someone who's willing to expend only the minimum effort to not be fired shouldn't realize the same rewards you had.

I fail to see what the problem is...

JHC · #80 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

And you were: You had benefits, and you got to travel. You worked hard (two full-time jobs, to me, suggests hard work), and benefitted from that. Someone who's willing to expend only the minimum effort to not be fired shouldn't realize the same rewards you had.

I fail to see what the problem is...

The problem is that if I can be rewarded better in Australia than in the United States, I will go.

Of course, I am a metaphor for the greater issue: If the United States begins to lose the allure of great rewards for hard work, skilled labor will migrate out and unskilled labor will migrate in.

You can see something similar to this in the emergence of India in the global economy. Math and science tutors, tax accountants, computer specialists, and all kinds of skilled labor comes from India - via the internet.

As the value of the dollar drops, there is less incentive to earn it in a world market.

When Daisym asks if it would behoove her to immigrate to the US from Australia, the purely practical and logical answer is "no". You will work more hours with less security and be paid in increasingly unstable US $.

She would be much better off immigrating to some of our close competitors in the EU.

Americano · #81 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

I understand what you are saying.
I can only speak from personal experience when I argue that we are obstinate in evolving work environments.

For instance, I worked in an office here if Florida which was a sort of subsidiary of an office in Minnesota. Just an hours difference in time zones but they also didn't open until 9 in Minnesota while we, in Florida, opened at 8.
This left a two hour difference in starting and quitting times causing a very slow period from 8 to 10 and then a cluster fuck (pardon the expression), to get things done by quitting time at 5 but inevitably having to remain in the office until 6 to make up for the early lag.

This causes frustration. Employees, no matter how sincerely dedicated they may be, begin to contemplate how much better use they could have made of their time and how they are paid for 40 hours of work and are literally trapped in an office, on the job, for 50 or 60.

A more efficient method would have been minimal staffing from 8 to 10 and a standard work day of 9 to 6 or even 10 to 6.

Obtaining workers to function in what would be considered in the US as abnormal hours depends on the level of professionalism/pay in most office environments. Staff hours of work, in most cases, are structured around personal life requirements consisting of pre-school child care, dependent schooling and meal serving with single parents often being the most common staff available. I remember West Coast managers bitching because they had to in their offices at 6am and staff was never available until 8am. East Coast managers despised their West Coast counterparts for calling them at home at 9pm to resolve West Coast 6pm issues.

Quote:

I have a friend who works for the American Cancer Society. Although her wages have been consistently half my own, I have been jealous of her schedule. Their full time work week is 35 hours. Annually scheduled big events would have her away from home for 45 hours a week a couple of weeks in a row but then she would be allowed to take a couple of extra days off to recuperate. She has been with the same employer for over 15 years. She does NOT have time to play on the computer or contemplate how her time could be better spent. She is both productive and satisfied.

I'm very familiar with not-for-profit operations. Most generally don't offer much in the way of pay but entice employees with liberal benefits and flexible schedules. The not-for profit factor has a lot to do with that structure. A business plan dependent on often predictable charitable contributions is much easier to formulate and follow than digging revenue out of a competitive marketplace.

Quote:

Now I've been in both positions. I have worked 50 and 60 hour weeks (I've worked 70 and 80 hour weeks when I was much younger!), so intently that there was hardly time to relieve my bladder or eat.

I think people are genuinely happier when they are occupied.

If I'm right though, (and I do mean IF), would that not be reflected by a recorded more hours worked and less productivity?

They're certainly much more productive when fully occupied regardless of the number of hours. I don't recall ever having a management job that didn't include minimum 60-70-hour weeks and usually involved regular Saturday morning staff meetings. Productivity is relative to the effectiveness of the individual, immediate supervisor and management. In my experience the business world, at staff and line management levels, it always consisted of those putting in time and those who actually excelled at what they did. The former always present in far, far greater numbers than the latter.

Steve · #82 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

The problem is that if I can be rewarded better in Australia than in the United States, I will go.

See ya'...

Quote:

Of course, I am a metaphor for the greater issue: If the United States begins to lose the allure of great rewards for hard work, skilled labor will migrate out and unskilled labor will migrate in.

The only way we lose that allure is by do-nothing asshats who want something for nothing and, when they don't get it, they bitch about it. Those of us who've worked hard and have been rewarded will be prepared to counter such bullshit, though...

Quote:

She would be much better off immigrating to some of our close competitors in the EU.

As long as she stays the fuck out of the US, I'm cool with whatever she decides...

JHC · #83 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

I'm always amused at how easily we pass off problems on poor character when naturally occurring character flaws are equal amongst humans all over the world leaving the rest, easily resolved yet untended.

Both Steve and Americano argue that attitude has everything to do with success. However, there is no evidence at all that Americans have somehow evolved as a unique species more inclined toward laziness than all other humans.

Your perceptions that Americans are lazy, must be due to something else. Yet when I speculate about the causes you merely return to the less logical assumption that Americans are naturally inclined to be lazy.

In other words, the numbers reflect inefficiency which is blamed on character flaw. This is not a rational judgement.

The paradigm is flawed and we must shift to see the truth and act appropriately.

Americano · #84 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

See ya'...

The only way we lose that allure is by do-nothing asshats who want something for nothing and, when they don't get it, they bitch about it. Those of us who've worked hard and have been rewarded will be prepared to counter such bullshit, though...

Reward is relative. For some $100k/yr is big money while others consider that the sign of lower middle-class attempting upward mobility with a cookie cutter house and US gas hog drivers. Making $15/hr looks great if working for $7.50/hr while using public transportation and some consider that beneath their imagined station in life.

Quote:

As long as she stays the fuck out of the US, I'm cool with whatever she decides...

Many US workers are uncomfortable with foreign competition who might excel at their job, one reason those jobs are being outsourced.

danielpalos · #85 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Sure, we can afford it. We just don't want to give you free money...

What makes you think its free money?

It can be hard work keeping the economy efficient, by not providing traditional labor input to the economy

danielpalos · #86 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

See ya'...

The only way we lose that allure is by do-nothing asshats who want something for nothing and, when they don't get it, they bitch about it. Those of us who've worked hard and have been rewarded will be prepared to counter such bullshit, though...

As long as she stays the fuck out of the US, I'm cool with whatever she decides...

From a 9A perspective, why should you care if she comes to the US, or not?

JHC · #87 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Of course, reward doesn't come just from the employer. Workers have many needs and desires. Housing, health care, clean water and air, etc...

If I am competing for a job with an Indian, my concern is far greater than if that person can do the job as well as I can. For instance, are they willing to do it for less money, in poorer conditions, with no health concerns?
Why would I want to compete if those things are important to me and I can find them somewhere else? Like Australia.
This is my concern for the US as it competes with countries who have government mandated standards.
This is much like trade tariffs etc...
It is not a matter of our intelligence and hard work, it's a matter of our reluctance to lose a standard of living.

Americano · #88 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

I'm always amused at how easily we pass off problems on poor character when naturally occurring character flaws are equal amongst humans all over the world leaving the rest, easily resolved yet untended.

Both Steve and Americano argue that attitude has everything to do with success. However, there is no evidence at all that Americans have somehow evolved as a unique species more inclined toward laziness than all other humans.

Your perceptions that Americans are lazy, must be due to something else. Yet when I speculate about the causes you merely return to the less logical assumption that Americans are naturally inclined to be lazy.

In other words, the numbers reflect inefficiency which is blamed on character flaw. This is not a rational judgement.

The paradigm is flawed and we must shift to see the truth and act appropriately.

Character flaws can be inherited or developed. The inefficiency I've experienced with workers, supervisors and managers has always been attributable to their placing personal desires above what provides those perceived personal requirements. That point normally inevitably arrived with intimate familiarity and subsequent complacency in their job requirements. The Peter Principle.

danielpalos · #89 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Both Steve and Americano argue that attitude has everything to do with success. However, there is no evidence at all that Americans have somehow evolved as a unique species more inclined toward laziness than all other humans.

It depends on what you mean by success. Some anecdotal evidence suggests, that many Americans don't want to work as hard as third worlders, due the sense of entitlement of having lived most of their lives in a first world economy where such hard work is not necessarily rewarded as much.

JHC · #90 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

Character flaws can be inherited or developed. The inefficiency I've experienced with workers, supervisors and managers has always been attributable to their placing personal desires above what provides those perceived personal requirements. That point normally inevitably arrived with intimate familiarity and subsequent complacency in their job requirements. The Peter Principle.

If character flaws can be truly inherited, they would be inherited in all societies or at least too slowly for you and I to notice any real difference. If character flaws can be developed, then all character can be manipulated in any direction...thus, if laziness doesn't get you ahead, you will learn to work harder.

But this is still an illogical and irrational judgement in the face of the raw data. Americans put in more hours than almost everyone else yet our per capita GDP continues to slip in rank. I believe we are now 8th or 9th.