Bishop149 wrote: ↑Thu, 3. Jan 19, 16:54
Most of the incidences that gave me this impression I listed in my previous post.
Drink more than about a pint in any particular place and I got looks equivalent to those I'd get if I chose to ummmm "powder my nose" in the UK.
The states involved (in case its relevant) were Florida (mostly), Michigan, Idaho and Washington . . . . I found California to be somewhat more liberal but this might have been an artefact specific to San Francisco (the only city in which I spent any time and well known for its rather unique culture!)
That's weird. I can only attribute that to either your perception or you were ordering a second round of wine while receiving Communion at a church...
"Thank you, minister, that was great! Do you have any Chablis?"
I've never encountered the attitude you're describing.
Morkonan wrote: ↑Thu, 3. Jan 19, 13:45
The main things I was think of in relation to this were:
- Statutory holiday allowance, I know that individual workplaces can grant it but as I understand it the LEGAL minimum is zero. For reference in the UK its 5.6 weeks a year. Most of my US friends are also colleagues and thus are academic research scientists . . .a "good" job, no? There allowance is still a fraction of ours*
It has been a long time since I had to deal with US Labor Law specifics. Some things may have changed. But, AFAIK, you are correct - The employer is not bound to give vacation time. And, certainly, they are required to give pay for time actually worked. But, that does not mean that employees aren't frequently given vacation time or increased pay rates if they have to work during popular Holidays.
- Paid Maternity pay, similar, employers can grant it at their discretion but again the legal minimum is zero. For reference in the Uk its 39 weeks, 6 weeks at 90% pay and the rest at an admittedly low rate of £140 a week.
Family Medical Leave Act - However, it has exclusions and does not provide for "paid" absences.
- Being fired at the drop of a hat. In the UK the ONLY circumstance under which this is allowed is "Gross Misconduct", which is often behaviour of the sort that might well constitute a criminal offence. In the US you can be fired almost at the whim of the employer. There is only a fairly short list of things you aren't allowed to be fired for, which are mostly human rights based, you know race, religion, sexuality etc.
"At the drop of a hat" is somewhat misleading. But, yes, employees can be fired. They can then also receive "Unemployment Insurance" benefits. That is an administered program the employer pays for based upon the number of employees they have. And, those rates will increase for each employee that seeks benefits after being "fired at the drop of a hat." IOW - It is not in the employer's best interest to just unjustly fire people whenever they wish.
- Linking of medical care to employment. Ok this one is a little more complex and not strictly speaking solely under the topic of "Workers rights" but I think it merits inclusion.... it's bloody close to indentured servitude.
Yes, that's a tough one. And, we're still coping with trying to construct something that is fair. But, employer-provided health insurance doesn't stop on Day O for covered employees and there's usually an extension period, AFAIK. For those who can not afford health insurance, there are government programs like Medicaid. Unfortunately, a lot of people are caught between having too much and not have little enough to qualify, at times... ie: Stuck in the sweet spot where they have to be poorer than they are now in order to get help. But, can't afford anything else, anyway.
I'll just pick up on your point about litigation, the company my wife works for routinely breaks employment law. . . . they know they can get away with it because:
If they're breaking the law, it's not going to require anything other than the employee reporting them to the Department of Labor. That doesn't mean, however, the employee will immediately receive civil damages or compensation. But, if the employer is found to have broken the law, a legion of attorneys would likely appear offering deferred/compensated fees based upon how much they could sue for in a civil court.
- Most of their employees at 16-25 are ignorant of the law and would have no idea how to go about litigating and probably couldn't be bothered with the hassle anyway.
It is an unfortunate thing that we don't make it a habit of protecting people from their own ignorance. I think we should. But, if someone is ignorant of employment laws they should act to correct their ignorance when it is made known to themselves. But, in the interest of protecting the ignorance, every employer is required to display "Labor Law" notices and posters in prominent view of employees. You'll usually find these plastered all over the walls in Employee Break Rooms, near water fountains and bathrooms, etc... There are required postings for every State's labor laws and contact information for Labor agencies and further information. Employees must also be informed of certain rights as a matter of their employment and training in many cases.
An example of a generic Labor Law poster -
1 These things generally get posted all over the place, but particularly, and in accordance with the law, in places employees would be likely to frequent. If an employee doesn't read them, it's not the employer's fault.
- Even if they DID lawyer up, it would be a case of the legal resources of a multi billion dollar company verses those of a teenager who can barely make rent.
That depends on what they're "lawyering up" about. If the employer committed an illegal act, no "lawering up" is necessary - They report the act to the appropriate agency. If they are "lawyering up" for a civil case, that's a different matter.
- In the unlikely event they lost a case, well that one settlement is probably a price well worth paying for the extra profits gained by exploiting your workforce.
While things like this do happen, it seems you're painting a somewhat dystopian picture of things. Bad actors do exist and if they're bad enough, they generally end up going bankrupt. That isn't saying that employers do not attempt to make money on the backs of their labor... but that's what they do, anyway. And, if they do it unfairly? Well, that's wrong. But, not every employer out there acts like you do. I know I certainly didn't.
"Exploiting" the workforce is what employers do. I think people forget that, these days. Too many bright-eyed young people jumping into the wide world of "real life employment" seem to have some sort of idea that the business they are working for is somehow supposed to exist for
them alone. That is not how real life works. It doesn't mean an employer can't treat their employees very well, but it does mean that the employer can not ignore its obligations to stay in business by attempting to make enough money to pay its employees...
I do agree, however, that an employer that unfairly exploits their labor or that preys on the misfortunes of others to extract labor is "evil." Evil is always wrong.
This in a nutshell is why Unions are needed.
I was under the impression Union membership was even rarer in the US than it is here, where it has been declining since the 80's.
Unions are still present fairly strongly in certain industries and professions, but their collective bargaining power has reduced over the years. Many of the things unions were originally formed to combat have been recognized and are now combated by Federal and State agencies specifically designed for that purpose.
*In fact the reason my friend got married on the 4th of July is because its one of the few days they could both get off work. As I travelled around on that trip I discovered this was INCREDIBLY common, my answer to the standard "Hey, why are you visiting the US?" question was: "My friend is getting married on the 4th of July! Fancy that!". . . I was stunned how often I got the response; "Cool, so did we!".
I'd say more than half of the couples I spoke to also got married on a US public holiday, for work reasons.
Obviously, it depends on the type of job they're working, what the labor competition for that is and what inducements for hiring qualified employees the employer has put into place. In many cases, employees may not be eligible for many of the perks of their job until they've worked there long enough. And, in some cases, especially in low-skilled positions, there will be few written benefits for most employees and they have to rely on a good relationship with their employer.
I haven't worked every job or been in a hiring capacity in every profession, but I don't know of any employer that wouldn't,
given sufficient notice and the ability to do so, attempt to arrange and coordinate a holiday for a worker who was getting married. It's possible, but it's certainly not normal for an employer to refuse to attempt to work out something in such a situation. Was the employer notified within sufficient time and/or attempts made to work out a solution?
While I won't argue that some of the situations you present are certainly plausible, some of the specifics you have mentioned are not as common, IMO, as you characterize them to be. BUT, and it's a big "but"
, it is true that some workers in certain industries are often at the mercy of their employer in many situations. But, those are generally unskilled labor sorts of jobs where competition for the job, itself, is greater than the employer's competition for labor. (ie: Anyone can do the job and many people lacking skills compete for them.) In some cases, certain highly skilled jobs have "seniority" sorts of positions where new employees end up not obtaining many of the privileges that more longer-term employees are afforded. I'm thinking things like entry-level medical/nursing positions, where there most definitely must be someone on duty and the FNG gets the crappy rotations until they prove themselves. This surely isn't an indication of general bad employment practices, just simple work culture - The FNG always gets shafted. But, next year, they'll be the one benefiting from the next FNG getting shafted by being forced to work the Holiday schedule.