What's the Main Cause of Exploitation of Employees in the USA?

[Boojatta]

[Sapere aude]

1. Workers are seen as a cost to do business not as human beings.

Just like getting the best insurance at the lowest price. Businesses want the best employees and the lowest price. Labor is a commodity to them.

The the USA we have a share holder wealth maximization model.

Other countries business have a stake holders. They see vendors, workers, owners, and customers as people who have a stake in the business being in business.

[ThomCat]

5. Agreed. The problem is built into the accounting practices.

If you can control how people think then you can control what people do. The current system requires that employees be seen as a negative.

[Skidmore]

52. It's not just accounting practice, but the whole business model

that has grown out of the MBA education movement in the 90s which defined the corporation as this svelte, sleek, shiny entity which stands outside cultural ties. The meaning of corporate citizenship has drastically changed from the days when company towns existed. The corporation only owes it's shareholders now, not the people they employ, the city or town which lets them use its infrastructure, or the environment as a whole.

There needs to be some shift in the definition of role of corporations. If the law treats them as having personhood, there needs to be an expectation that they obey laws and show responsibility in their citizenship.

[elehhhhna]

53. Part of the sleekness trend: HR reports to the CFO, not the CEO or Prez.

This started about 15 or so years ago and was a bad move.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. I'd have to go with other because

Exploitation of employees derives directly from either the greed of the employer, the cruelty of the manager, or both. The need for laws and enforcement against this greed and cruelty are a reaction to the problem, not a cause.

[enuffs_enuffs]

4. I thought we knew about the need for laws for quite a while...

And as it so happens, we do have laws regulating thses issues. What we lack is a reliable mechanism to consistently persue the enforcement of those laws.

I'm with ENFORCEMENT of existing laws. We need not re-write the book, for the book is already written.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. My point is that the laws are a reaction, not a cause

We need laws protecting workers because of greed and cruelty. If it were not for greed and cruelty, there would be no exploitation; thus there would be no need for protections against exploitation.

Boojatta asked about the main cause of the exploiting of employees. I assert that the main cause is a combination of both the greed of some employers and the cruelty of some managers.

[Boojatta]

12. Is no customer ever exploited?

Some possible causes of exploitation of customers:
customer failed to read the fine print;
customer failed to shop around;
customer believed a salesperson;
customer did very little research compared to the amount spent and customer chose to buy rather than lease or rent.


Another possibility in some places:
(for example, where there is no local competition when it comes to telephone companies or cable companies)

customer got very bad service because there's no competition. In other words, the customer lacks options.

[TechBear_Seattle]

50. Now, now, no changing the subject

You asked about employees, not customers. :hi:

[Boojatta]

19. Perhaps we can discuss the length and breadth of the matter

rather than taking a narrow interpretation of the question.

Perhaps you can answer a rephrased question that involves the words "what explains" rather than the word "cause."

Given all the various motivations and actions that can contribute to creating or exacerbating the problem, preventing the problem from occurring, or eliminating instances of the problem that were occurring, what explains the continued existence of the bulk of the problem?

[pnorman]

3. WHY isn't the systematic destructionof the labor movement in this country

by Corporate America over the past three decades, NOT listed there?

pnorman

[Boojatta]

14. Should there be such an option in a poll that

asks a general question that is not restricted to any particular time period or category of occupations?

Also, what caused the destruction of the labor movement?

Perhaps a future poll should mention the labor movement somewhere among the poll options. Are you willing to help me formulate the actual wording of the option?

[pnorman]

22. Feel free to contact me, if you wish.

But I question the usefulness of such polls here on DU, and I'm not particularly interested in starting one up myself.

The labor movement, under unrelenting attack by Corporate America from it's very beginings, was almost moribund by the Twenties. But it came back to life in the Thirties, and pretty well transformed this Nation. What was fought for (with BLOOD) in the Thirties, bore fruit in the post-war decade. The working person, for the most part, moved into the "Middle Class", a term hitherto reserved for professional people, small businessmen, and foremen & supervisors and the like. By the later Fifties, the unionization rate was about a third of the Nation's workforce. That was low, as compared to the rest of the industrial world, but still high enough to bring the unorganized workforce UP to near union standards. NOW??? It's ~12% organized, and if the public service sector is removed from the equation, it would be ~8% Guess now, WHAT is bringing union wages & comditions DOWN??

pnorman
On edit: Here's something I just spotted elsewhere on DU:

‘Restore America’s Place in the World and Restore the Middle Class’
http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/03/14/restore-americas-place-in-the-world-and-restore-the-middle-class

[leftofthedial]

6. a combo: lack of enforcement, frog in pot

collusion between corporate capitalists and "government" capitalists

and persistent media denigration of unions.



in fairness, unions have done piss poor jobs of regulating themselves and of PR.

[ComerPerro]

7. Hard times for middle and working class, leading to good old fasioned intimidation

as in, "take the shit we put you through, or be out on the street"

[Annces]

8. There is only fairness where you have some leverage

Otherwise we are back to the days of being owned by employers.

[treestar]

9. I go with employers' beliefs that it is necessary

If you are ever on the hiring side, you can see the other side and that employees have more power than they think they do.

I generally subscribe to the idea that happy employees will be loyal and that will be good for business, but that is the more modern idea, I think, and many of the established employers have the old fashioned idea that you have to be tough with people or they won't work, will steal or embezzle, etc.

[camero]

11. A combination of two things

Existing laws not being enforced and little if any penalty for violating those laws. Alot of companies see fines from various gov't agencies as part of the cost of doing business. If jail time were added for things such as paying below minimum wage, hiring illegal aliens, unpaid overtime, or illegal firings, you know damn well the exploiting employers will think about it a little before doing these things.

[Sammy Pepys]

13. Cost of hiring and need to compete....n/t

....

[Boojatta]

16. How does the cost of hiring cause exploitation?

Businesses compete for employees, so I suppose when you refer to the "need to compete" you are suggesting that customers who are very demanding and who threaten to take their business elsewhere are one cause?

[Sammy Pepys]

17. Because employers want to get the most out of their hires....

It is not cheap to hire an employee, so if employers are going to front the bucks they want the most productivity they can get....longer hours, higher quotas, etc etc etc until it's absolutely necessary to raise wages or benefits.

[Initech]

15. A combination of never-ending greed and corporate person-hood laws.

[Czolgosz]

18. Other: The decreasing influence and pervasiveness of unions

[bread_and_roses]

40. Agreed. (n/t)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. It's too easy to fire somebody.

Thus, employees have an incentive to put up with abuse.

[Boojatta]

21. What do you propose?

You could just as easily say that it's too easy to hire somebody or that it's too easy to close down a small business.

I would expect normal people to prefer somewhat lower wages and nonabusive management to somewhat higher wages and abusive management.

Maybe there should be a higher minimum wage for companies that have a high employee turnover rate? Then companies that pay minimum wage and do not have a high turnover rate would have an advantage. Of course, if abused employees do not quit and it's made more difficult for employers to fire them, then the turnover rate might be a poor measure of exploitation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. I like the way federal employees are handled.

If you're going to fire them, you've got to have a good reason and show why.

[Boojatta]

26. Any organization with a large number of employees is likely to have

policies to ensure that it doesn't lose good employees, especially if the organization has literally or metaphorically invested in them. Low-level managers must answer to higher management.

Again, what are you proposing? "The way federal employees are handled" is not very specific.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I doubt it.

You think McDonalds or Walmart cares about it's employees? No, they have rapid turn over on purpose so they can pay less.

"Again, what are you proposing? "The way federal employees are handled" is not very specific."

Strong labor laws. Strong unions. Trust busting.

[Boojatta]

35. It costs a big company money to hire people.

You think McDonalds or Walmart cares about its employees? No, they have rapid turn over on purpose so they can pay less.

It has to pay people to handle the hiring and training. So, other things being equal, rapid turnover is economically disadvantageous. Are you suggesting that employees of McDonald's and Walmart who would ordinarily quit (because they are paid too little) choose to not quit simply because they see their fellow employees being dismissed?

I would think that someone who expects to be able to get a better job somewhere else would think, "Wow, they dismissed so-and-so for no good reason. They might dismiss me at any time. If I quit, then I certainly won't be losing a secure job. If I can arrange to get a more secure job elsewhere, then I'll be doing myself a favor."

[rebel with a cause]

57. I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that some companies, big corporations

have a policy of hiring people, working them for up to a year as temporary workers and then letting them go before they are to be moved into the regular working force. Why do they do this to these people? Because they pay them lower temp wages, there are plenty of workers waiting to take their place and who can be used in the same way, and maybe because these people just don't fit their idea of the perfect employee (exploitable long term).

Factories use to do the same thing when there was a union. they would work people during the busy seasons and then lay them off just before they were to go into the union. I worked in factories for many years, had this done to me and watched it done to others. I was let go one time right after I did not quietly allow the efficiency expert to have a "feel" as he leaned over me to check my work. Todays corporations do the same except they don't have Unions to protect their long time employees, and if they decide to let one of them go, they can without blinking an eye. And no, there is very little use of policies to protect workers and hold those people in charge accountable.

These corporations have regular meetings where they warn their workers about the evil of unions and how they do not want any organizing going on in their company. There is also constant talking about their work, at least part of it, being outsourced so they keep their workers constantly looking over their shoulders, waiting for someone/something to come take their jobs/livelihood away. How do I know this, because I know people who work for these companies. And I have a degree in Sociology and understand how this is done to control their workers and build a group mindset that is containable. but this is just MHO. :shrug:

[Mugu]

24. I think that you are on the right track.

Money is a dis-satisfier i.e. A good job can be bad by a lack of money, but a bad job cannot be made good with the addition of money. Most people desire recognition of a job well done than more money.

Regards, Mugu

[HardRocker05]

30. have you ever worked somewhere where it was impossiible to be fired? it's not pretty.

i have been at both ends of the spectrum, and after working at a union plant where it was impossible for even the most useless, worthless, trouble-making pieces of shit to be fired, i fully support the right of bosses to fire employees for 'any reason or no reason,' barring discriminatory or safety related reasons.

[Selatius]

25. Same as in any economy in the world: Self-interest at the expense of employees.

Let's cancel the bonuses this year. Let's overwork the employees. Let's cut corners at the expense of worker health and safety. Let's find ways to dump pension obligations on somebody else, since I know Bush and his pals at the Justice Dept. won't sue for breach of contract. Let's find ways to crush workers who try to unionize.

[Boojatta]

29. What if college entrepreneurship were promoted as heavily as

college athletics? What if public schools from grades 6 to 12 emphasized courses in management and entrepreneurship as much as they emphasize sports, visual arts, music, etc?

Would there be more people dedicated to management excellence? Would bad managers find it hard to compete and switch occupations?

[Selatius]

34. I can't answer that question, for there is no example with which to rely upon.

Historically speaking, the only way to shield against poor management is through unionization. That's historically the best way to shield against that possibility. Flooding the labor market with managers won't guarantee against abusive management, especially if the employers themselves encourage their managers to employ abusive practices. Am I wrong in that regard?

[Boojatta]

37. I wouldn't characterize what I proposed as "flooding the market."

Flooding the labor market with managers won't guarantee against abusive management, especially if the employers themselves encourage their managers to employ abusive practices.

It's simply a question of priorities. Currently, is management throughout the USA excellent, but is there a pressing need for better athletes, better musicians, etc?

Perhaps we can focus on what will reduce abusive management rather than pursuing a utopian goal of guaranteeing that it will not occur. I suspect that employees perform their jobs better when they are treated well than when they are abused. A firm controlled by people who desire abusive management still has to compete against firms that may deliver higher quality at the same price.

Also, note that abusive practices are bad for public relations and that I did mention not only courses in management, but also courses in entrepreneurship.

[Selatius]

38. A way to reduce abusive management is ethics courses.

But even despite that, I suspect it will not really impact the amount of abuses and wrongful terminations that occur in the workplace by management. There will always be abusive managers out there.

Employers who encourage their managers to be abusive or unethical (not necessarily illegal) can and do compete against firms that don't engage in such shenanigans. It's the difference between Costco and Wal-Mart. Both, as far as the US market goes, exist in the same market. If consumers were so concerned with how employees at the outlets they shop were treated, Wal-Mart would go bankrupt, but it's the biggest retailer in the US, which implies the customers who shop at Wal-Mart do not place worker treatment as a priority.

But ultimately, again, if employees in a workshop want to end abusive management practices in the face of an indifferent or hostile owner(s), the historic solution is to unionize. It's not a utopian solution by any stretch of the imagination. It's a real-world solution that has and continues to work for those who are lucky to be in unions.

[rug]

28. Surplus value.

[Boojatta]

32. What is the meaning of "surplus value"?

How do you calculate the value of an investor's contribution to a business?

When a company's shares are first traded on a stock exchange, are those shares usually a bargain?

Are the people who originally invest in a business, who make it possible for the business to get started, extremely likely to sell their shares for less than they are worth?

Are entrepreneurs constantly offering big chunks of valuable new businesses for small amounts of money?

Perhaps you have used Google without paying. Has Google provided you with some surplus value?

[rug]

33. It is the increased value added by human labor. That is what is exploited.

[Boojatta]

39. This thread is about exploitation of people.

I don't know what it means to exploit an "increased value." You said that the increased value is added by human labor, but that doesn't explain what you mean or why you consider it relevant to this thread.

[rug]

46. If you are paid $100/day to produce $1,000 in products, what do you call it?

[Boojatta]

49. I don't know what "$1,000 in products" means.

Products are not money. To convert products into money, one might need advertising, warranties, inventory, distribution channels, contracts with retailers, etc.

It also takes time to convert products into money. If I get paid for work before the conversion is complete, then someone is providing a financial service to me.

Let's go back a step. Many kinds of products are designed. If I didn't create the designs, then I do not deserve full credit for producing the products.

Many kinds of products require components or materials from suppliers. If I am not the supplier, then I do not deserve full credit for producing the products.

To create products, I may be using tools and machinery and working in an appropriate building. If the tools aren't mine and I don't own the machines and the building, then I do not deserve full credit for producing the products.

If I wanted to supply everything and take all of the risk and take responsibility for my own cash flow, then I would start some kind of small business. However, if for some reason I wished to focus on physical products, then I would probably provide some kind of maintenance service for physical products. I doubt that I would even try to make products unless I thought people were willing to pay a premium for something because it is has some unusual qualities and is not widely available.

[aikoaiko]

31. Living beyond one's means and credit card debt.

without the personal debt, many could tell their employers to shove it.

[Boojatta]

36. Interesting cultural observation!

I would probably not have thought of including that even if I had spent a long time thinking of options. I hope you have no objection if I use it as an option in a future poll.

[aikoaiko]

48. Use the idea as you see fit. nt

[ncteechur]

41. Wal-Mart

[Boojatta]

43. 1.3 million "associates" employed by Walmart in the USA

is not a significant fraction of the total number of employees in the USA.

[tnlefty]

42. Greed.

Greed, greed and more greed.

[ikojo]

44. The lack of unions in most places of

employment in the US. Workers don't have anyone fighting on their behalf. Corporations buy politicians who write laws in their favor.



http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/classifieds/employment/16899151.htm

Unions continue national decline
Just 12 percent of U.S. workers were members in 2006. Pa. and N.J. dipped.

snip

Nationally, union membership is at its lowest point since 1983, the first year the government collected the data. The percent of union workers in the workforce fell to 12 percent in 2006 from 12.5 percent in 2005 and from 20.1 percent in 1983.

snip

Of the 15.4 million union members that remain nationally, 7.5 million, or just under half, live in six states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The six states, which also include California, New York, Illinois and Michigan, account for one third of wage and salary employment nationally.

[geardaddy]

45. Other...

No legal oversight on corporate business practices.

[IanBean]

47. Employees allow it

The owners are much better organized than the labor. Any employee is free to tell the boss to treat them better or shove it. Of course if an employee does do that, then someone else is ready and waiting to do the job for less pay.

[Boojatta]

51. Kick

[Nikia]

54. Many employees don't have contracts

Given that in the current business environment that employees sell their labor to their employer, often exclusively, contracts should be required by law. Almost every business has a contract with major business customers and suppliers. Employees should get contracts too, even if they aren't in a union.

[Cerridwen]

55. Corporate and business melding with the government which

was meant to control them in the interests of We, the People.

edit to add:

For examples, start your research just before the creation of the private banking concern known as the Federal Reserve. Look very closely at industrial involvement and influence around 1900; give or take about 10 years. There was some before that time frame, it becomes more obvious and pervasive during and following that time.

This has been going on long before reagan, bush, clinton, or shrub.

[DireStrike]

56. Many, many things

Overpopulation. The decline of the labor movement, caused partially by a declining sense of the community and civic duty. Horrendous exploitation of foreign workers, providing VAST pools of labor that costs almost nothing.

Money traveling upwards perpetually into the hands of the ultra rich, who actually think they DESERVE it instead of the reality - the single greatest determinant of financial success, far greater than education, greater than even connections, is indeterminate. In other words, luck.

[Boojatta]

58. "Overpopulation."

Is there more exploitation of employees in Japan than in Mexico?