Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….
-
Markets are highly moral in their effects on humanity, IMO, even if the morality is an emergent property rather than a foundational principle. So start there and make corrections if absolutely necessary. One can imagine capitalism run amok where mega-corporations siphon all money and pay enough to keep employees from starving. In such a case, a government would need to step in, with the obvious remedy being taxes and redistribution, rather than imposing laws on the corps to pay more.
-
@89th said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
No
No
No
N/AKinda, with caveats. It is not the moral and ethical responsibility of employers to offer a living wage for full-time employees, but I believe it is good business. It becomes even better business for employees with more experience and skills. I don't mind paying PT people more per hour, but it causes staff trouble if A) PT employees have less duties and responsibilities and B)the pay differential is significant. I do believe PT positions for students are beneficial for the business and the student.
-
The issue here is what jobs are intended to be 'living wage' jobs and which are merely supplemental or unskilled and hence worth less. I don't see any particular reason someone should expect to be able to raise a family by flipping burgers in someone else's store.
-
Seems that whether jobs are ever "intended" to provide a living wage is the root of the question. The intention of creating the job is to provide value to the company, and if human capital is necessary for that, then the human providing the capital can value a living wage as they see fit, and agree to the job as they see fit. Any "intention" behind a company creating a paid role beyond providing economic value to the company, is probably more public relations than reality.
-
I don't think companies have a moral obligation to do anything other than follow employment laws and treat people fairly (whatever that means). I do question whether it is beneficial to society as a whole to have jobs where people working full-time are not able to earn a living wage, and therefore tax payers end up subsidizing the companies that are essentially saying that they cannot stay in business without this subsidization.
I was only joking
-
I don't think companies have a moral obligation to do anything other than follow employment laws and treat people fairly (whatever that means). I do question whether it is beneficial to society as a whole to have jobs where people working full-time are not able to earn a living wage, and therefore tax payers end up subsidizing the companies that are essentially saying that they cannot stay in business without this subsidization.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
I don't think companies have a moral obligation to do anything other than follow employment laws and treat people fairly (whatever that means). I do question whether it is beneficial to society as a whole to have jobs where people working full-time are not able to earn a living wage, and therefore tax payers end up subsidizing the companies that are essentially saying that they cannot stay in business without this subsidization.
So should all those positions be broken down to part timers instead? Then the obligation to pay a living wage is out. The woman working 38 hours at McD’s becomes 2 HS students working 20? Of course, that means she’s out of work, entirely.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
I don't think companies have a moral obligation to do anything other than follow employment laws and treat people fairly (whatever that means). I do question whether it is beneficial to society as a whole to have jobs where people working full-time are not able to earn a living wage, and therefore tax payers end up subsidizing the companies that are essentially saying that they cannot stay in business without this subsidization.
So should all those positions be broken down to part timers instead? Then the obligation to pay a living wage is out. The woman working 38 hours at McD’s becomes 2 HS students working 20? Of course, that means she’s out of work, entirely.
@LuFins-Dad said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
I don't think companies have a moral obligation to do anything other than follow employment laws and treat people fairly (whatever that means). I do question whether it is beneficial to society as a whole to have jobs where people working full-time are not able to earn a living wage, and therefore tax payers end up subsidizing the companies that are essentially saying that they cannot stay in business without this subsidization.
So should all those positions be broken down to part timers instead? Then the obligation to pay a living wage is out. The woman working 38 hours at McD’s becomes 2 HS students working 20? Of course, that means she’s out of work, entirely.
I don't think there's really an easy answer to this - the issue is that when people are unable to get jobs that pay well enough to live they end up getting the work that is normally intended for students etc.
Not to worry, the machines will be doing it all soon anyway.
-
I assume it makes perfect business sense to employ full timers with full benefits rather than the sorts of people who would settle for part time, no benefit work. That's the market still working at least to some degree, where people with valuable human capital can command valuable compensation. If they can be adequately replaced by people willing to work for much less, then that's what the market would settle on. I don't think many of these full time jobs are charity jobs, motivated by philanthropic concerns of management.
Education is extremely important.
-
Though I assume LD is now faced with a decision of replacing full timer(s) with part timer(s), knowing the part timers would be able to provide the same value to the company, for less money.
@Horace said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
Though I assume LD is now faced with a decision of replacing full timer(s) with part timer(s), knowing the part timers would be able to provide the same value to the company, for less money.
Nope. This is completely driven by the McDonalds thread.
-
I assume it makes perfect business sense to employ full timers with full benefits rather than the sorts of people who would settle for part time, no benefit work. That's the market still working at least to some degree, where people with valuable human capital can command valuable compensation. If they can be adequately replaced by people willing to work for much less, then that's what the market would settle on. I don't think many of these full time jobs are charity jobs, motivated by philanthropic concerns of management.
@Horace said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
I assume it makes perfect business sense to employ full timers with full benefits rather than the sorts of people who would settle for part time, no benefit work. That's the market still working at least to some degree, where people with valuable human capital can command valuable compensation. If they can be adequately replaced by people willing to work for much less, then that's what the market would settle on. I don't think many of these full time jobs are charity jobs, motivated by philanthropic concerns of management.
It really depends on the job. I bet McDonald’s and Walmart are better off 2 with part-time HS and college kids filling a role than they are getting 1 full-time adult that can’t find a better option…
-
@LuFins-Dad , you framed the questions wrong.
I would frame my position like this: if a person works full time (“full time” as defined by the society, call it a “community standard”), then that person should earn a living wage of one. Of course one can cobble up multiple “part time” jobs to assemble a “full time” workload, so it need not be “one employer’s” job to provide all the income enough for one person to live, just that each job should pay (at the minimum) an hourly wage that when they all add up to a “full time” workload, that the aggregate income constitutes at least a “living” income.
In contemporary American society, we take “full time” to mean “40 hours a week.” So figure out a reasonable weekly “living” income, divide that by 40, add a reasonable fudge factor to account for “sick days,” and I’m OK with calling that hourly rate a “living wage.”
It boils down to how much we value “work.” The amount of cash you are willing to fork out for “work” shows your minimum valuation of “work.” If you want to claim that you value “work,” pay for it like you mean it.
-
@LuFins-Dad , you framed the questions wrong.
I would frame my position like this: if a person works full time (“full time” as defined by the society, call it a “community standard”), then that person should earn a living wage of one. Of course one can cobble up multiple “part time” jobs to assemble a “full time” workload, so it need not be “one employer’s” job to provide all the income enough for one person to live, just that each job should pay (at the minimum) an hourly wage that when they all add up to a “full time” workload, that the aggregate income constitutes at least a “living” income.
In contemporary American society, we take “full time” to mean “40 hours a week.” So figure out a reasonable weekly “living” income, divide that by 40, add a reasonable fudge factor to account for “sick days,” and I’m OK with calling that hourly rate a “living wage.”
It boils down to how much we value “work.” The amount of cash you are willing to fork out for “work” shows your minimum valuation of “work.” If you want to claim that you value “work,” pay for it like you mean it.
@Axtremus said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
~~@LuFins-Dad , you framed the questions wrong.
I would frame my position like this: if a person works full time (“full time” as defined by the society, call it a “community standard”), then that person should earn a living wage of one. Of course one can cobble up multiple “part time” jobs to assemble a “full time” workload, so it need not be “one employer’s” job to provide all the income enough for one person to live, just that each job should pay (at the minimum) an hourly wage that when they all add up to a “full time” workload, that the aggregate income constitutes at least a “living” income.
In contemporary American society, we take “full time” to mean “40 hours a week.” So figure out a reasonable weekly “living” income, divide that by 40, add a reasonable fudge factor to account for “sick days,” and I’m OK with calling that hourly rate a “living wage.”
It boils down to how much we value “work.” The amount of cash you are willing to fork out for “work” shows your minimum valuation of “work.” If you want to claim that you value “work,” pay for it like you mean it.~~.
All you had to do was say yes to #2. See how much easier that is?
The Brad
-
@Axtremus said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
~~@LuFins-Dad , you framed the questions wrong.
I would frame my position like this: if a person works full time (“full time” as defined by the society, call it a “community standard”), then that person should earn a living wage of one. Of course one can cobble up multiple “part time” jobs to assemble a “full time” workload, so it need not be “one employer’s” job to provide all the income enough for one person to live, just that each job should pay (at the minimum) an hourly wage that when they all add up to a “full time” workload, that the aggregate income constitutes at least a “living” income.
In contemporary American society, we take “full time” to mean “40 hours a week.” So figure out a reasonable weekly “living” income, divide that by 40, add a reasonable fudge factor to account for “sick days,” and I’m OK with calling that hourly rate a “living wage.”
It boils down to how much we value “work.” The amount of cash you are willing to fork out for “work” shows your minimum valuation of “work.” If you want to claim that you value “work,” pay for it like you mean it.~~.
All you had to do was say yes to #2. See how much easier that is?
@LuFins-Dad said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
All you had to do was say yes to #2. See how much easier that is?
LOL
-
@Axtremus said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
~~@LuFins-Dad , you framed the questions wrong.
I would frame my position like this: if a person works full time (“full time” as defined by the society, call it a “community standard”), then that person should earn a living wage of one. Of course one can cobble up multiple “part time” jobs to assemble a “full time” workload, so it need not be “one employer’s” job to provide all the income enough for one person to live, just that each job should pay (at the minimum) an hourly wage that when they all add up to a “full time” workload, that the aggregate income constitutes at least a “living” income.
In contemporary American society, we take “full time” to mean “40 hours a week.” So figure out a reasonable weekly “living” income, divide that by 40, add a reasonable fudge factor to account for “sick days,” and I’m OK with calling that hourly rate a “living wage.”
It boils down to how much we value “work.” The amount of cash you are willing to fork out for “work” shows your minimum valuation of “work.” If you want to claim that you value “work,” pay for it like you mean it.~~.
All you had to do was say yes to #2. See how much easier that is?
@LuFins-Dad said in Employment Ethics/Morality Questions….:
All you had to do was say yes to #2. See how much easier that is?
That would not be Axian.
