The New Reality: You MUST Always Work

Add caption

I didn't work at all, at any of my jobs, on anything for a couple days last week.

I had one of those weird sudden gastrointestinal illnesses that leave you unable to do ANYTHING.

I was lucky. I had the day off from my regular job, and even if I didn't they would have been understanding had I called in sick, and it wouldn't have threatened my future prospects at the company.

I'm also self employed at another job, and now I've fallen behind. But I'm catching up with that now,   so I'm lucky there, too.

But my bit of good luck with jobs and illness is going away fast for the rest of us, it seems.  The way I see it, getting sick to some minds in corporate America is a fireable offense, and falling behind on work, even if no human can do the amount of work demanded in one day, is another Off With The Head crime.

If I were to believe a lot of what I'm reading lately, you are a scumbag if you do not work 24/7. I know that's not true in reality, but in order to survive in this country nowadays, it IS true, unfortunately.

Don't get me wrong. Working very hard is terrific. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. You earn a little cash. You have a sense of pride for contributing.

Everybody must pull their weight. I don't have patience for lazy people, either. So work hard, everyone!

However, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing, and there's a lot of "too much" out there.

That was highlighted last week by that New York Times article on the workplace culture at Amazon that made such a splash.

Apparently, white collar workers at Amazon have to be superhuman. One employee felt compelled to work four all nighters in a row.   One person was pretty much fired because she had the temerity to contract thyroid cancer.

Oe woman was forced to go on a business trip the day after her miscarriage.

NPR, discussing the article, said, "One ex-employee's fiance became so concerned about her nonstop working night after night that he would drive to the Amazon campus at 10 p.m. and dial her cellphone until she agreed to come home. When they took a vacation to Florida, she spent every day at Starbucks using the wireless connection to get work done."

Of course, the white collar workers at Amazon have it easy, compared with some of their past history for blue collar workers in their warehouses.

Amazon had warehouse workers toil in overheated summertime warehouses where temperatures exceeded 100 degrees. Instead of cooling the air and giving the workers a few chances to recover from the heat, Amazon famously stationed a few ambulances outside a Pennsylvania warehouse to cart out heat stroke victims.

Then, they'd just replace the victims with somebody else, unless the poor overheated souls made a quick recovery. Pretty sickly Darwinian, no?

An emergency room doctor finally called federal authorities to report an "unsafe environment" after he treated several warehouse workers. Under pressure, Amazon finally put in a littl air conditioning. At least sort of.

Why did these workers put up with it? Or at least try to? There weren't many jobs in the area, especially when this problem peaked in 2011. So they took their chances.

I guess that's the way things are nowadays. You do what you have to do, given the stagnating wages and iffy job prospects for most of us who aren't in the 1 percent.

Also, despite Jeb Bush's assertion, most Americans really do want to work hard. Again, that's a virtue. But when does it become too much?

As the New Yorker pointed out, the white collar grind at Amazon isn't unique. Employees at elite investment banks and law firms often put in 16-hour days and work weekends.  They get paid a lot, so you can't feel as bad for them as beleaguered minimum wage workers, but still.

Workers at various dot com and other industries are increasingly saying they are being exploited. You know work around the clock, be on call all the time, but not being rewarded enough financially for their efforts.

The Guardian's economic editor, Larry Elliot, cites the decline of unions as a symptom of a return of the extreme pressure on workers last seen in the 19th century.

Unions "were originally formed as a respose to exploitation by 19th century mill owners..... (Keeping) a cowed workforce under the lash with non-stop pressure, bullying and psychological warfare, Bezos is the 21st century equivalent."

Which makes me wonder if the seeds of a new labor movement are starting. It's hard to tell, but I do see news of more and more unionization efforts at various workplaces.

At last check, unionization rates were still declining, but for how long?

It seems like the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders has really taken off in large part because of his long standing campaign to raise the fortunes of workers and to reign in the 1 percent.

It's morning, and I'm getting ready to go to work now. I'm looking forward to it. I want to have a very productive day, and not slack on the  job. Most people feel this way about their work.

The company I work for is being fair to me. Maybe because it's employee owned and we're all in this together?  Maybe my choosing to work for an employee owned firm is a bit of a rebellion against the 1 percent taking everything from their workers, I don't know.

I know it's kind of bad form to whine about the boss man making so much more than you do. But there comes a time when you don't want to cross the line from being an employee to being a slave or indentured servant.

That's why there's so much excitement about Bernie Sanders, and such a strong reaction to that New York Times Amazon article.

Was Doorman Shown The Door For Being Too Nice?

This New York City apartment building doorman
said he was let go for being too helpful to tenants.  

Can an employee be fired for being too nice to the clients he supposed to be serving?

The answer, apparently is yes, and tenants of a luxury high rise in Queens aren't happy about it, says the New York Post.

Ralph Body was until recently the doorman at the ritzy digs where apartments go for the low, low price of $4,200 per month.

Body said he was told to stop working at the building by the apartment complex's management team, Heatherwood Communities, says the Post article.

According to the Post:

"He didn't just hold the door. He did anything and everything residents asked him to do -- check on pets, clean litter boxes, water plants,  hold packages, even show... apartments to new tenants if need be, he said. 

'Everything I did, somebody asked me to do, or there was a need for it,' Body said."

Of course, there might be other sides of the story we're not getting.

Body probably did do things in the building that weren't under his responsibility. The tenants said he went above and beyond while on the job, so technically he probably did things that weren't strictly authorized by building management.

I guess rules are rules.

The building's residents are rebelling. A petition circulating through the apartments says people want Body reinstated, though copies of the petition mysteriously disappeared from the lobby.

"Going above and beyond your work duties shouldn't be punished - it should be praised," says the petition. "Most tenants can attest to Ralph's kindness and eagerness to make people feel safe and welcome. In a transient city where most people are from other states and countries 27 on 27th was a unique building that truly felt like 'home' from the moment you stepped in the door."

A few of the residents said they would not renew their lease unless Body is reinstated.

Those apartments will be filled if the residents moved out. I'm sure there's a market for an aloof, cold, unhelpful doorman out there. Or maybe a doorman who's not too bright.

Perhaps Carlton the Doorman from the 1970s show "Rhoda" is available.

Woman Fired From Crappy Low Paying Job By Crappy Boss For Saying The Pay Was Low

A minimum wage employee at this Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Days Inn says she was fired after telling a reporter
her minimum wage salary doesn't cover her expenses.  

My latest nominee for the worst boss in America is Herry Patel, who manages a Days Inn in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.

This all started when Washington Post reporter Chico Harlan stopped at the Days Inn to talk to people about an upcoming 25 cent increase in the Arkansas minimum wage.  He was working on an article about the subject. 

Harlan interviewed Patel, who then suggested the reporter speak with Shanna Tippen, a minimum wage employee, about the paltry pay increase coming her way.

Tippen told Harlan that the increase would help a bit, but wouldn't lift her above the poverty line. Harlan dutifully reported all these facts.

In a column in Monday's Washington Post, Harlan reports he's learned that Patel fired Tippen for talking to him. Remember, Patel was the one who suggested Harlan and Tippen have a conversation.

From Harlan's column Monday:

"'He said I was stupid and dumb for talking to (the Post),' Tippen said. 'He cussed me and asked me why you wrote the article. I said, 'Because he's a reporter; that's what he does.' He said it was wrong for me to talk to you."

At that point, she was summarily fired.

There might be more to the story, of course. Maybe Tippen wasn't totally innocent, but this whole thing looks bad.

On the day in which Harlan talked to Tippen about being fired, Patel called the Post because he objected to having been (accurately) quoted that he objected to that 25 cent minimum wage hike.

To be specific, Patel said the tiny 25 cent minimum wage increase was "bad for Arkansas. Everybody wants free money in Pine Bluff."

Yeah, there's nothing worse than somebody who works 40 hours a week and actually expects to make enough money during those 40 hours to put food on the table and pay the rent. How selfish!

Harlan said he tried calling Patel for comment about his firing Tippen, but Patel sounds like a belligerent scardy cat.

Writes Harlan:

"A man who sounded like Patel, reached recently at the Days Inn, declined to comment in several separate phone calls. On one call, the man said he'd never met Herry Patel and did not know who he was. On another call, he threatened to call the police if 'you keep bothering us.'"

Hours after Harlan's story on Tippen's firing was published, there must have been blowback down in Pine Bluff because Patel called Harlan back, finally.

In an update to his Monday Washington Post piece, Harlan wrote that Patel disputed Tippen's version of events. He said she walked out on the job after a disagreement. Patel said he'd approached Tippen to ask about her past criminal record, which was outlined in the previous Washington Post story.

Tippen stood by her story, and said Patel didn't bring up her criminal history during the hiring, and only spoke heatedly to him after she'd been fired.

The parent company of the Days Inn in Pine Bluff, Wyndham Worldwide, seemed to wash its hands of the situation.

The company said in a statement, "While we do not control or oversee staffing decisions at our franchised locations, we do require that each independently owned and operated hotel comply with all local, state and federal laws, especially as it relates to employment practices."

Way to sidestep things, Wyndham. Labor laws are weak in Arkansas, so Patel probably was complying with Arkansas law. Federal law is pretty hands off in this area, too.

Ever think to look into whether or not this firing was ethically OK, even if it was legal?  

Look, I get it. Raising the minimum wage probably affects prices for all of us. But NOT raising the minimum wage does, too.

I'm not happy with the idea of paying taxes for government assistance so that people who are working 40 or more hours a week can survive.

I'd much rather pay an extra nickel or whatever for a Big Mac or a cheap toy at Walmart so that people can make a livable wage.

I also get it that the CEOs of these big corporations ought to be making much more money than the chambermaids, the hamburger flippers and the gal behind the register at the mini-mart.

Still, I don't think making it a little easier for people to make ends meet without government assistance will ruin the frickin' economy.

With the income gap in this nation putting us into another 1890s Guilded Age, maybe it's time to put a little dignity back into working for a living. That means paying people fairly when they do work, and not kicking them aside if they object to NOT being paid fairly.

I know my little screed here won't make any difference on this topic. But the more we all say it, and the more often, the better off everybody will be.

Including the ultra-rich CEOs. After all, employees who are treated fairly tend to do a better job. And maybe make more money their employer, too. 

Don't Order Through Amazon Because Owners Think Their Employees Are Indentured Servants

Amazon just dropped an odious noncompete
rule on its workers after The Verge exposed
the clause, which technically would
prevent former Amazon employees from
working anywhere else for 18 months after leaving.  

Here's another reason to hate Amazon.

The giant online retailer had a horrible non-compete clause for warehouse workers that, if strictly enforced, would prevent them from working pretty much anywhere else for 18 months after leaving Amazon.

The Verge exposed this horrible work rule last week.

Amazon announced a day after The Verge article  appeared that it would get rid of the non compete clause.

I'm sure that's only because of the bad publicity. They probably would have had that clause forever.

When the publicity dies down they'll probably either reinstate the policy or come up with something more odious.

Here's how the clause worked, according to The Verge. 

Seasonal employees at Amazon warehouses had to promise not to work at any company where they "directly or indirectly" support any good or serve that competes with those they helped support at Amazon, for 18 months after their brief stints at Amazon ended.

Since Amazon sells basically anything, it almost seems like workers after leaving Amazon couldn't work at anyplace that sells anything.

That would be really tough to do, wouldn't it? Given that most businesses exist to sell something.

"It is quite broad in its scope," says Orly Lobel, a professor of labor and employment law at the University of San Diego, who has studied noncompetes extensively and reviewed the Amazon agreement.

Non-compete clauses can be great and totally legit, if focused properly.  If somebody learns specialized insider information at Company A, that corporation doesn't want the employee to quit and immediately go to a competitor and spill all those secret trade beans.

Usually, people who are under such non-compete clauses can go to work right away for another company, as long as they're not a direct competitor in that specialized field.

Amazon, however, takes things much farther than that, and targets a huge class of workers not normally subject to non-compete requirements.

The Verge article, quoting Lobel, said there could well have been more at work with this non-compete language than just trying to protect closely held company data:

"Although companies may push noncompetes on low wage workers to keep trade secrets from leaking, there's also a more cynical explanation: to simply deprive competitors of employees to hire,  according to Lobel.

Noncompetes can also depress workers' wages. Traditionally, a key strategy to keep employees from defecting to a competitor has been simply to offer competitive wages, but a company that uses non-compete agreements can feel less pressure to pay well."

Well, you gotta hand it to Amazon, then. They found a creative way to screw the little guy, again.

Of course, the workers involved in the Amazon non-competes could have declined to take the job in the first place.

But most low income people, desperate for jobs and money, don't read dense legalese they sign. Or they figure they have no other options, or that these noncompete agreements are just the way things are.

Once hired, the workers feel stuck.

Says Lobel in The Verge article:

"People very well might decide that, despite their unhappiness with their job, despite the fact that they think they can do better with another employer, they might decide that it's just not worht the risk and that they should just lay low."

Yep, that's a mild form of indentured servitude in my book.

As I noted near the top of this post, The Guardian newspaper reported that Amazon said it was ditching the non-compete agreement shortly after The Verge publicized it.  Amazon said they didn't apply it to hourly workers, such as those that work in warehouses anyway.

Then why did Amazon make them sign the stupid thing? (See above.)

Of course, I'm suspicious. That Amazon folded on this so quickly suggests to me they have another sneaky way to screw low wage employees up their sleeve.

Besides, this type of non-compete was probably unenforceable anyway. Plus, it's not known to have been actually enforced on Amazon low wage workers

But the warehouse workers didn't know that. They also figured they'd have to hire lawyers to fight it, and who on a near minimum wage job can afford a lawyer?

Besides, courts have sided with Amazon in the past when it comes to screwing over or not screwing over workers.

In warehouses, workers had to go through a security screening before they left their shift for the day to make sure they weren't stealing stuff. That part is fair enough.

But this would often take a half hour or more of waiting in line and such for each worker, and they weren't paid for it.

Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court said this was OK, because the time waiting to be screened wasn't an "integral and indispensable" part of their job.

True, but it should have been free time. Unless Amazon warehouse workers all thought they would like nothing better to do on their time off from work than hanging around warehouses waiting to be checked to see if they were thieves.

I know other major companies don't treat their employees well. (Hello, Walmart!)

But Amazon seems to just have disdain for its rank and file workers.

I don't call for boycotts. Do what you want.

But for me, I will NEVER order anything through Amazon. Unless they start treating their employees with maybe just a little respect.

Should You Be Paid While You're At Work? Court Says No, But....

The U.S Supreme Court said last month
you don't have to pay these warehouse workers
for some of their time on the job.
Unfair, yes, but we wouldn't want to dent
a billionaire CEO's salary, would we?  

I was annoyed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision recently that said companies don't have to pay employees for all the time they are at work.   

Yes, you still have to pay people, but some companies now have these security checkpoints where people end up waiting in line for a half hour or more daily to be checked to make sure they're not stealing stuff.

Amazon warehouses in particular are famous for this.

The court decided that companies don't have to pay employees for the time they wait in line to prove they aren't a criminal stealing from the company.

In the Supreme Court case, two employees of Amazon Distribution Centers in Nevada said the half hour wait for the security screening took a half hour each day when they left work, so they should be paid for that time.

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling and said while the screenings are for the benefit of the company, the security screening ws not part of their job duties.

Which confuses me, since their bosses are making them stand in line for the security screening, but what to I know?   How is it not a job duty if the boss says you HAVE to stand in these lines or be fired?

As Slate pointed out, this also means that companies like Amazon have no incentive to limit the time employees wait in security lines. The attitude might become, "If it takes an hour, who cares if we're wasting our employees' time We don't have to pay for it."

As if these employees' burning desire is to spend their time away from work standing in security lines at the place they work.

I'm sure this unpaid security line stuff is just super for morale. But what do the companies care? To them, employees are just a mindless herd, like in a cow barn, and shouldn't demand niceties like being paid for being at work.

Consumerist tells us, however, that some states have laws saying that you have to pay workers who are, well, at work. There are lawsuits by business trying to overturn these state laws, but other states are considering enacting laws that make employers pay people who are at work.

Look for some court decisions over these state laws in the coming months.

Retailers say paying employees to go through security screenings, i.e. making them work, will be awfully expensive for them. But I dunno. I bet if they raise prices by a penny for some of their products, they'll recoup things nicely.

Or do they prefer that employees spend their entire day working for them, and not get paid at all for anything?

Geez, maybe we could take this one step further and not pay employees at all for working. Slavery would be great for the bottom line, not to mention the CEO's pay, wouldn't it?

Your Tax Dollars At Work: You're Not Getting The Bargain You Think You Are at McDonald's, Walmart

I'm like the conservatives: If you're able to work you should at least try to find a job and well, work.   I don't want my tax dollars going to able bodied people so they can get food stamps and other benefits.

Worker demonstrate for higher wages
at McDonald's in New York recently  

Which is why I'm pissed off at outfits like McDonald's and Walmart.

Wuh, what?

It turns out there are a bunch of able bodied people out there collecting food stamps, Medicaid and such. These people are working, so you'd think they shouldn't get such benefits. But their wages are so low, they qualify.

So to some extent, our tax dollars are not propping up some lazy, shiftless would-be workers who should just get off their duff and well, work.  Our tax dollars are already going to already insanely rich corporate executivesso they can pay low wages and let the government, i.e. us taxpayers, foot the bill for the living expenses these workers can't meet on their low wages.

Bottom line: Your Big Mac or the so-called bargain you find at Walmart might be costing you more than you think.

 McDonald's actually advised a worker, Nancy Salgado, who couldn't get by on her fast food wages to apply for food stamps and Medicaid. 

The nation's minimum wage over the past decade or two hasn't kept up with inflation. Many employees at fast food joints and discount stores make minimum wage or just a little above that.

I'd love to find a way to figure out how much my Big Mac would cost if I factored in the money I'm paying for people's food stamps and such.

 To be fair, Salgado is an activist advocating for higher wages for fast food workers.  And it's true some employees of fast food places and discounters like Walmart are just teenagers or whatever trying to make an extra buck.

But still, why are we subsidizing the very, very rich owners of these outfits by using our tax dollars to let them pay employees low, low, wages. We clearly aren't getting the bargain they've advertised.

According to the National Employment Labor Project, McDonald's alone costs taxpayers $1.2 billion annually because employees need public assistance because their wages are so low.

Yes, I know this is a complicated issue. I'm no economist, so I'm not sure how a living wage for everyone would affect the overall economy.

But when something doesn't seem fair, like this situation, there really needs to be a fix. I'm certainly willing to pay a bit more for a Big Mac rather than pay for somebody's food stamps so a corporate executive can get even richer.

Here's an (edited) YouTube recording of Saldago's McDonald's call

Monitoring Workers To Death?

Apparently, at an Irish grocery chain called Tesco, workers now have monitoring devices strapped to them that examines their every move, making sure they do their work at a frantically fast pace, or else!

For example, they face potential penalties for taking a bathroom break or a sip of water.

Every company has to monitor employees.
But when does it go too far?  

Well, if machines don't take bathroom breaks, why should humans?

Reports The Independent of Ireland:

"A former staff member has claimed employees are given marks based on how efficiently they work in a bid to improve productivity and can be called in front of management if they take unscheduled toilet breaks."

Tesco said the armband devices eliminate the need for workers to carry around pens and paper when logging deliveries or shipments, according to the Independent article.

But former employees say the devices are more sinister than that. According to the Independent:

One former employee said the device provided an order to collect from the warehouse and a set amount of time to complete it. If workers met that target, they were awarded a 100 per cent score, but that would rise to 200 per cent if they worked twice as quickly. The score would fall if they did not meet the target.

If, however, workers did not log a break when they went to the toilet, the score would be “surprisingly lower”, according to the former staff member, who did not want to be named but worked in an Irish branch of Tesco. He said that some would be called before management if they were not deemed to be working hard enough. “The guys who made the scores were sweating buckets and throwing stuff around the place,” he said." 

 According to Salon, which picked up the Independent article, this micro-monitoring of employees has been building steam for some time now. Keystrokes are monitored in the customer service department. Call center conversations have time limits, and at some places, if employees take too long, watch out!

All this might end up backfiring on companies which are trying to boost productivity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a report on job stress, has this to say:

"Some employers assume that stressful working conditions are a necessary evil-that companies must turn up the pressure on workers and set aside health concerns to remain productive and profitable in today's economy. But research findings challenge this belief. Studies show that stressful working conditions are actually associated with increased absenteeism, tardiness, and intentions by workers to quit their jobs-all of which have a negative effect on the bottom line."

It also affects the product or service we the consumer get:

Citing research by John Gillion and Torin Monahan, Salon notes:

"For example, nurses are no longer taking the time to get to know their patients because hospitals make more money when more people are hustled through. In the past, nurses had ways to circumvent hospital pressure. Now, electronic tracking of patient movement means that medical profressionals will spend far less time with you when you are sick."

Obviously, we all want to be productive. There are lazy people out there that need to be prodded, but generally most workers do want to get things done and have a sense of accomplishment.

I also think it's more than OK to encourage and push employees into better productivity where possible. But I worry a few companies just think of employees, especially the low level, poorly paid ones, as little more than draft animals or machines that can be goosed and revved up to beyond maximum capacity.

And then, when these overworked and overheated human employees burn out, toss them in the Dumpster with the rest of the broken machines and get a new one, then repeat the process.

Seems to me this rather inhumane business model is great for short term profits, but not long term viability. Who wants to work for a company that treats you like a slave, and who wants to buy stuff from a company that treats people like that? Not only because of the ethics involved, but can we really trust hyper-exhaustive, resentful employees to make a quality product or service?