Profit-sharing. I saw on
Facebook someone posted a picture of the Papa John’s guy, quoted as stating
that his company was under no obligation to share its profits with its workers
– as if this was some horrendously evil policy. Nope, it’s not.
He's right, as brutal as it may sound.
The
sad thing is, a company isn’t even required to pay dividends to its
shareholders, which is the only real profit sharing arrangement in a company –
with the exception of an employee-owned company, in which case the workers are
sharing in profits not as workers, but as shareholders themselves.
For
that matter, the next time I hear Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders refer to an
employee-owned company will be the first. While employees of privately
owned companies have little realistic option of ownership, employees of a
publicly traded company can pick up the phone, call a broker, and buy stock in
their own company. Publix Supermarkets is the largest
employee-owned company in the US. I don’t recognize the rest of them,
many are in the supermarket industry. Some are actually 100% employee
owned.
“At will” employment. I was also
surprised to learn that New York is an at-will employment state. At will
employment means your boss can fire you immediately for any reason. Well,
there are minor exceptions such as discrimination, whistleblower retaliation,
or workers compensation protection. Your boss can’t fire you because of
your sex, race, age, or because you reported violations or filed a WC
claim. But these are very narrow restrictions.
At
will employment also means you are free to leave at any time.
Bored? Don’t like the boss? Don’t like the job? Got a
better offer elsewhere? You can leave immediately, but don’t expect your
boss to welcome you back. Since the employee generally needs the job more
than the company needs the employee, I can’t say that at will employment is
truly neutral between the two; in practice, it tends to favor the employer.
“Two weeks
notice”? 90 day trial period? Both are usually customs, not
laws. Some firms will pay you the two weeks and just tell you to
leave. And making it past ninety days won’t prevent your boss from
firing you - at any time.
Unions. If you are
protected by a union, or are under a specific employment contract for a
specified period of time, generally you can only be terminated for cause.
Absent a union, or possessing very important or unique skills, you usually lack
the bargaining power to insist on a contract. Absent a contract, you’re
at-will.
$15/hour minimum wage. I’m not sure I
buy that. Think about it: this is for unskilled workers with zero
experience, an entry level wage that applies to everyone. Are they
worth $15/hour? Acho
que não. However, whatever wage your boss is paying you, as high or
low as it may be, you have a right to expect it. If you are being cheated
for the wages you're contracted for, you have every right to be upset.
Payroll taxes. Another iniquity
are payroll taxes. The boss has to pay out $10 per hour to an
employee. The employee doesn’t get $10/hour – he gets more like
$6/hour. The missing $4/hour goes to Uncle Sam, the state, FICA,
medicare, etc. So the employee complains, “hey, I’m really only getting
$6/hour. I can’t live on that.” Boss’ response: “I’m out $10/hour
for you. For you to get more than $6/hour, I have to pay you more than
$10/hour. I'm not convinced you're even worth $10/hour.” Reduce the
payroll taxes and the boss and employee are closer together.
Having
said all that, I do believe that most American companies don’t care about their
workers. Some do, and some pay well. Some make a concerted
effort to treat their employees fairly and well. Unfortunately it seems they
are the minority – the exception, not the rule. I imagine some Wallys
take advantage of them, but most workers in that company know they have it good
and respond accordingly. Wally exists because his company is
conscientious about ripping off everyone who works there, no matter how hard
they work. Faced with that situation, mediocre performance is the best
that company has any right to expect from its employees.
I
read somewhere that Henry Ford paid double the prevailing market rate for his
workers not because he loved them and wanted to be generous, but because he
hated unions and wanted to make sure a union never erupted at his
company. As capitalist and libertarian as I am, I do believe unions
are a natural reaction to assholes running companies: a company that
treats its employees fairly has little to fear that they will unionize.
Job security may be some motivation, but again: if the employer is
motivated by good faith, conscientious employees have de facto, if not de juro,
job security. Then again, I might still prefer a contract and a union
because I can’t account for 100% of the managers and supervisors above me in
the corporate structure; at will employment leaves me vulnerable if the cool
guy running the show is replaced by a major league asshole. Protected by
a union or a contract, I’m less likely to be arbitrarily canned.
I know someone who lost her job because her boss, who liked her
immensely, valued her loyalty, and paid her accordingly, suddenly died, and his
heirs took over the company and fired her. So much for having a secure
job simply because you do it well and have a decent boss.
Layoffs. I’ve heard of
some companies who cut wages pro rata rather than lay off employees.
While no one likes a pay cut, it certainly beats a pink slip. While it’s
true that companies are under no obligation to share profits with workers, I do
agree it’s morally wrong to lay off employees if the company has more than
enough money to keep them on. Likewise, paying executives a bonus despite
poor performance, also smacks of bad faith.
Bottom
line, whether you’re at the bottom, at the top, or anywhere in between, good
faith should be a given.
No comments:
Post a Comment