[consulting] American Labour Laws & Future of Labour

Sat Aug 21 14:36:47 UTC 2010

  I live in Fargo, North Dakota.

My new employer (of 2 weeks now) won't offer me benefits until after a 30-day wait, vaguely 
citing a phantom "industry standard" and presumably somehow lessening the administrative burden 
on the part of the HR department... I guess they want to make sure I'm not going to walk at day 
29, even tho this very policy increases the likelihood of that very scenario... a 
self-fulfilling HR prophecy, if you will.

I'm still waging the battle with them on that, mostly on principle now.

I've also never had a job that guaranteed anything along the lines of reasonable notice or 
severance with a lay-off... *every* job has been an "at-will employment" (as it is referred to 
here) situation, meaning the employee or employer may terminate the relationship at any time, 
for any -- or no reason.

I'll be the last person to defend employers - especially large corporations -- that exploit 
their employees (or non-employee contractors, minors, service staff, etc, as it may be). I think 
it is awful. I wish a society that permits destructive human relations policies would result in 
social embarrassment followed by economic destruction of the "employer" (exploiter). Sounds 
dreamy, huh? The facts demonstrate it doesn't work that way, far too many people lack awareness.

I'm not opposed to improving that situation. But, as I am one of these stubborn 'mericans... I 
do also resist [over] regulation. I predictably resist the notion that legislating mandates is a 
sure-fire, problem-free, costless utopian solution it's made out to be, so I'm very interested 
in hearing from folks in places with "good labor laws". How does it impact entrepreneurship? 
innovation? invention? etc.?

There are countless stories of folks who lost their job and it was the best thing that happened, 
as they are *crushing it* as independents. But for every one of them, there are probably a dozen 
struggling to put food on the table... or even keeping the table. There is good and bad, where's 
the balance?

On 8/20/10 6:42 PM, Sami Khan wrote:
> I was browsing reddit, and came across this, I thought I would share.
>
> One aspect of the post that resonated with me was this:
> In other words: if you're not from the U.S., however bad you thought U.S.
> labor protections were, they're worse. If you're an American and used to
> employers who voluntarily provide one or more non-required things, look at
> the trend in employer/employee relations over the last 10 years: more
> independent contractors and temps, fewer full time employees with benefits.
> If you don't think your company will ever stop giving breaks or vacation
> time, just wait -- after another few years of high unemployment,
> non-required perquisites will dry up even worse than they already have.
>
> How is this relevant? Well if you work for an American employer or are
> considering working for them, you should be aware of the negative side of
> American labor... That is not to say that all American employers are bad or
> even most; but reading things like this does make a good case for organized
> American labour... and for working for yourself and not an employer -- or
> subcontracting which is essentially employment without employment benefits
> in a country without a healthcare system.
>
> Quote
> (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d3foe/how_bad_are_american_labor_practices_this_bad/):
>
> After reading the "why don't employers have to give you two weeks' notice"
> post, which consisted of replies from American redditors madly trying to
> defend the lopsided practice while those from other nations said "uh, you
> DO have to do that as an employer here," it got me thinking. How many
> American redditors actually know what labor laws are like in the rest of
> the developed world, and how many non-American redditors know how bad it is
> here?
>
> Here's some details of the rampant unfairness in the American system:
>
> 1) Nope, your employer is NOT required to give you any notice, or any
> severance pay. Some do provide severance, but that is purely at their
> discretion and often accompanied with "sign or you don't get your money"
> waivers of corporate liability for your termination. So if you suspect
> you've been fired for an illegal reason, too bad, if you want to make your
> rent and car payments you'd better sign on the dotted line.
>
> 2) Employers in the U.S. are not required to provide ANY paid time off. No
> paid sick days, no paid vacation time, no paid maternity leave, no paid
> federal holidays. Many employers, even most, provide one or more of these
> things as a courtesy, but the number of employers offering none of them is
> rising as the unemployment rate rises and people become willing to take any
> job at all, even one that views its employees as chattel who don't deserve
> a paid day off once in a while.
>
> 3) Do you work for a company with fewer than 15 employees? Your company is
> allowed (in most states) to discriminate against employees on the basis of
> race, sex, national origin, pregnancy, et cetera. Title VII of the civil
> rights act, which prohibits such discrimination, exempts private businesses
> with fewer than 15 employees. In other words, if you employ only 14 total
> people, you can simply say "only white people allowed." By the way, that 15
> number doesn't include independent contractors or partners, so you can have
> a fairly large employer that is still allowed to discriminate as long as
> most of the people working there are independent contractors. What's more,
> no one's agitating to change this.
>
> 4) If you receive tips as part of your normal employment, your direct wage
> is generally $2.13 per hour. Yes, $2.13 an hour. Hope your tips are real
> nice.
>
> 5) Many, MANY jobs are not required to pay any overtime wage regardless of
> how many hours you work. This doesn't just apply to executives and managers
> and creative types. Projectionists, carnies, cab drivers, and a host of
> other occupations are also exempted and require no overtime wage
> whatsoever.
>
> 6) Youth under age 20 in their first 90 days of employment are allowed to
> make $4.25 an hour.
>
> 7) Only 21 of 50 states require ANY meal or rest break time for adult
> employees (including both paid and unpaid breaks). Four more require breaks
> for minors but not adults. There is also no federal restriction on how long
> employers may keep employees at work or how many hours an employer can
> require of an employee per week. In other words, while most employers do
> not do this, it is 100% legal in many states to employ someone for a 16
> hour shift with no breaks allowed.
>
> In other words: if you're not from the U.S., however bad you thought U.S.
> labor protections were, they're worse. If you're an American and used to
> employers who voluntarily provide one or more non-required things, look at
> the trend in employer/employee relations over the last 10 years: more
> independent contractors and temps, fewer full time employees with benefits.
> If you don't think your company will ever stop giving breaks or vacation
> time, just wait -- after another few years of high unemployment,
> non-required perquisites will dry up even worse than they already have.
>
> The worst part of this: if this post gets replies, I guarantee a number of
> them will be from people hastening to tell us why these policies are
> perfectly okay and how the right of employers to exploit workers in any way
> is just fine, because employees "chose" to work in such a place. We'll hear
> that if employers were required to provide such things, they would all go
> out of business and employ fewer people. Nations offering substantially
> more protection to employees do not seem to have these problems, but that
> won't stop people from making the argument (or bringing up a single example
> of a country with good labor laws and high unemployment as PROOF POSITIVE
> that such a system is non-viable).
>
> People have become so attached to their own oppression that they view it
> as a badge of honor. They will show up to fight for their employers' right
> to exploit them. And they will convince themselves that standing up for big
> companies instead of individual employees is patriotic. They will ask for a
> little sick leave as supplicants, grateful for the crumbs cast off by an
> employer who views them as numbers on a ledger.
>
> It doesn't have to be this way. Non-American redditors: what are
> employment laws like in your country? How much of what I've posted above
> strikes you as downright awful?
>
>
>
> Sami
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20100821/40f8faca/attachment.html 