Silicon valley wage fixing

[quade 3]

weekender

thats not my experience, nor anyone i have ever known. i would like to meet someone that scenario has actually happened too.

Come to Hollywood; land of "restructuring." I've watched it happen dozens upon dozens of times over the last 20 or so years. The whole town has changed how it does work.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[weekender 0]

Rick

******in my experience the only reason ever given for layoffs is, "downsized."

Why does an employer need to state a reason to lay off? or why does it even matter? the persons is being payed to provide a service which the company, for whatever reason, feels is no longer needed.

Your experience is not the experience of everyone else.

Some layoffs are actually illegal cullings of workers that would otherwise be protected by law for any one of a number of reasons. The company can't simply "fire" the employee, but if they couch it in the lie of "downsizing" then they can fire whoever they want. It's fairly easy to see the lie too when they company just rehires people at lower rates or uses the same people to do the same jobs as "independent contractors."

It's a bullshit move.

I have seen companies use the "independent contractor" move before. Usually it is not even close to being true.
The rules are quite specific on what constitutes a independent contractor.
But as far as "The company can't simply "fire" the employee". I am not sure what you mean by that?
Of course all of my experience is in Florida (a right to work state). And also all non-union work.

i work in NYC and they are very labor friendly. of course, banking is an "at will" employer, so my experiences are different than a shipping company with Teamsters and Longshoremen.

i've been layed off and part of the team who makes the decisions for layoffs. its always done with lawyers and compliance personnel making the final call. it costs nothing to sue for wrongful termination and in my experience companies are very careful to avoid them. i cannot imagine a scenario he described being true. you would have to ignore all common sense, lawyers advice, industry compliance guidelines and the laws of the state.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[champu 1]

quade

Come to Hollywood; land of "restructuring." I've watched it happen dozens upon dozens of times over the last 20 or so years. The whole town has changed how it does work.

As you once said (11 hours ago) "Your experience is not the experience of everyone else."

[kelpdiver 2]

weekender

[ it costs nothing to sue for wrongful termination and in my experience companies are very careful to avoid them..

There is considerable opportunity cost in suing your employer, particularly in this current world where there are no barriers to finding it out in a background screen.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Who wants to discuss this and how it relates to minimum wage laws, health insurance fixing, subsidies, penalties, price fixing, etc by uncle sam?

Let the free market work.

Quote

Do you want to include work week length, and workplace safety in that discussion too?

If you look to history we do have great examples of how the free market works, if completely unregulated and unrestrained. Employers demanding 12+ hour workdays, 6 days/week, no vacation, no sick leave, absolutely no consideration for workplace safety were the norm. Take it or leave it. Think in terms of Bob Cratchit/Ebenezer Scrooge.

The basic problem with a completely unregulated "free market" is, I think, not that people/employers necessarily want to be cruel or abusive. Rather, it is that those employers who spend any more than they absolutely have to on wages, workplace safety, pollution control, and the like are doing so at the expense of profit, and so place themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to employers who do not spend money on things they don't have to. The employer who pollutes, runs a dangerous workplace, and pays their employees as little as possible while working them as hard as possible can always produce a product at a lower cost, and so out compete the "socially conscious" employer. In an unregulated marketplace, rather quickly it is the "Scrooges" who will be the only employers left for employees to choose between.

So, I discussed your question. Did you have a rebuttal, or are we to conclude you concede that an unregulated "free market" is in fact not a panacea leading to an ideal society.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

GeorgiaDon

Did you have a rebuttal, or are we to conclude you concede that an unregulated "free market" is in fact not a panacea leading to an ideal society.

you can claim victory if you like, but I think your strawman "completely unregulated" is a bit over the top, but if it makes you feel good about it, I'm happy for you

If you like, I can rebut with a statement about the government controlling every detail of every moment of every individual and claim it's a bad idea too. then I can claim victory as we both talk past each other waving victory flags. Maybe a parade will break out. that would be cool.

I was more about how 'over' interference by industry and 'over' interference by the government are both bad - clearly you want to discuss just 100% vs 0%. different topics, but I'm sure much easier to process as a simple minded position. Feel free to claim I want dirty air and polluted water, that's a fun tactic. Sharp knives in kindergarten is a lot of fun too....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Well to be fair I was responding to your statement "let the free market work", which is not quite the same thing as "let the somewhat-but-not-over-regulated market work". I don't think I created a strawman (at least, I didn't mean to), I just assumed you said what you meant, as you usually do.

I am glad that we are in agreement that neither a completely unrestrained free market, nor a completely micromanaged-by-government market, are desirable. Since we both agree that some regulation is required, an interesting discussion could be had about how much (or little) regulation is needed to maintain a basic standard of "good behavior" all businesses must adhere to.

As an example, my understanding is that most libertarians believe there should be no such entity as the FDA, and no regulations governing safety or efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul takes this position. The idea is that companies that produce products that don't work, or that harm people, will be outcompeted by companies that produce safe, effective products. Let the marketplace work. Of course, many people will be injured or killed in the process. The Ron Paul position is that they can turn to the courts for compensation. I can just imagine how successful a private citizen would be going up against a well funded corporation with an small army of lawyers on the payroll. I have a hard time seeing a system that harms lots of people as an inevitable side effect as "efficient".

My position is that it isn't unreasonable to expect drug manufacturers to show their products are safe (to the extent possible) and actually have some benefit for the people using them. The cost of meeting those standards are ultimately passed on to the consumer, so the marketplace is still an integral part of the process. Not everyone will agree with me I'm sure.

Similar discussions could be had over all regulations. I'm sure there are some we could both agree are unnecessary, counterproductive, or even designed to favor one business over competitors. Most, though, I would contend, are at least intended to protect the public from the worst excesses of a free-for-all economic jungle.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)