Ok, the premise.
When a party undertakes to be either employer or employee, generally that has some sort of legal strictures between the parties. As laws differ between places, and in execution, prosecution, etc., the legal side kind of devolves to a distinction of local, too-specific, differences.
Instead, let us take up a thought that flew up out of my from the blue.
What are the moral duties in employment?
That’s both the question of “Does an employee have a moral duty to an employer?” and “Does an employer have a moral duty to employees?”
It’s an intriguing (and nagging) question. Even if we posit one argument being “no, no moral requirement at all; the legal is all that exists.” (Without, one hopes, of devolving the discussion to whether morality does, or should exist–even if this is BT <g>).
A sub-argument/position also exists; does the variance in the legal requirements of employment–locality, enforcement, etc.–create a greater or lesser need for morality (or even, perhaps, enourage, ah, differing “moralities”)?
I surrender the floor to await your considered opinions (and brickbats, debris, gumbo recipes, etc.)
Replies
I don't know what this has to do with it but that ''do unto others'' thing is the basis of all my dealings. I consider all my customers my employers. I have no employees, but I expect respect and honesty from all my subs. Again, utilizing the above.
Then again, what the hell do I know from morality-just a dumb carpenter.
A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
Not to take this off on a religous slant, but:
You might be just a dumb carpenter, but then so was Jesus. From what I've been told, and what I've read he had a pretty finely tuned sense of what was moral, ethical, right and wrong.
That's better company to be in than
lovers, buggers and thieves..............A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
yeah , but some of us are just DUMB carpentersMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Hey dummy
54 holes this past week.
More than hi pt of summer.
Better find some employment I guess, the "not in my house" season is over.A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
supposed to be highs of 50 all week
played Sunday.. got there at 7:30.. frost delay
let us out at 10:00... same frost ... what the hey ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Joyce got me a lob and a sand wedge.
Man, if I gain familiarity with that lob, look out.
Never had a dedicated sand wedge either, I might be able to get out with a semblance of consistancy............
yeah right.
Book Week starting tomorrow. Should be able to sneak out. We had a goodly amount of rain last nite, drying out takes a bit of time. Will it ever go below freezing this winter?A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
http://www.quittintime.com/
Never heard a reference to him being a dumb carpenter, just that he was a carpenter.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
jesus I have no problem with...
his followers are another story tho...
Peace
Yes, I tend to agree. Far too many of the "Christians" I meet seem to have missed his message.
As I once read: "Peoples vision of God tends to be an extension of themselves. Small petty people have small petty Gods. Mean, nasty people have mean, nasty Gods."
You have that assessment correct IMHO.
"his followers are another story tho..."I have a friend who wrote a song called "I Know What God Likes", about the Televangelists who act like they have a direct line to God and take people's money because they prey on their fears that they aren't doing enough of "God's Work", inspired by Jimmy Swaggart, et al and written on the way to a gig the morning Swaggart went on TV and admitted all of his BS. A band called Marillion did a gig here in town and the singer was making some comments about having played in Poland, going to Auschwitz and that the human race can never allow something like that to happen again. That we need to watch out for people like Jimmy Swaggart (specifically named) and others like him. This was more than 6 months before the downfall.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Of course.
There is the ethics of honestly in dealings from bioth sides
and of a fair days work for a fair days pay
seasoned with a measure of loyalty, depending on the length and nature of the relationship.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
>> seasoned with a measure of loyalty, depending on the length and nature of the relationship.Does this fantasy loyalty work both ways? There are many examples of employees who worked for one employer for decades who suddenly found themselves out of a job with little or no notice.
Yes, I said both sides. Did you read the rest of my post? a relationship has two sides to it and everything I mentioned has moral obligations on both sides.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Indeed. In my humble opinion, the employer should treat the employee fairly, with respect, and be willing to develop a give and take relationship. Everyone will, at some time, need some flexibility for illness, family, etc. The employee needs to treat the employer fairly, with respect, keep his/her eyes on the goal (profit for the owner), be willing to develop and change. Every employer will, at some time, need extra effort / time to accomplish the goal.
I find that the more rigid and structured the work rules, the less either side is willing to flex to accomplish the main goal. To go back to the original point, in my view, the moral imperative is almost more important than the legal one.
At the office where I work now, we work on Easter Monday and Remembrance Day, which are both statutory holidays, and in return we close the office between Christmas and New Years. However, we all have cell phones and laptops, so we are all willing to react over the holidays to things that need urgent attention. It's give and take, and makes for a much better relationship, while still getting the work done.
It's far easier to have a relationship like this in a small organization than in a big one.
loyalty is Earned plain and simple
Indeed it is, but you have to start from somewhere. If you, as an employee, start out with the idea that your employer is going to screw you, and give nothing more than the bare minimum, you will never get anywhere. If you, as an employer, assume your employee is going to screw you, you will never get anything out of them beyond the bare minimum.
If you start with nothin, that's what you got.
The TeamSamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
seasoned with a measure of loyalty
That's precisely the sort of thing I'm trying to "hash out" a bit.
Is loyalty (or fealty, or whatever) owed? Or, does it accrue?
I'm mentally trying to bash out the difference, to use a billing example, of whether it's "in advance" or in "arrears." And, that notwithstanding any inequality of give-get (as that only muddies the argument).
I'm also exploring here Dr Denning's assertion to managers that most people come to work to do a good job (his intent was to "break" learned concepts held by too many managers, not as an empirical assertion of all employees).
We could probably document legions of employees and employers both who cared not a whit about the quality of their work--but that's a different moral equation.
I'm seeking out the fundamental "why." Should one remain loyal to a louse, a cad, a lout; even if they are loyal in return? Is there, should there be, such fealty as to be required to treat lies as truth? Does it matter if such thiings are shaded? ("Is this color ugly?", for instance, or "Is this a fair price?")Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I'll be back now that this is taking a direction. Gotta run now
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Ah, and therein lie the problems.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
Go ahead, ask me why I hate working for other people.
ask me why I hate working for other people
Ok, "Why?"
Yes, that's flippant; but, even as a sole proprietor, you are someone's employee, if only temporarilly. What morality, ethos, whatever do you bring to that relationship? What are your moral assumptions in return?
That's part and parcel of what I'm trying to discover by discussion here.
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Employee vs contractor/dealer/whatever you want to call it is, as I see it, employee and management agree that the employee will work for that employer for an agreed upon wage (with whatever bennies are offered) for the forseeable future unless it's by contract. There may be written or implied terms re: company loyalty, no-compete clause, confidentiality, etc. Many states are 'At Will" employment states (no indenture) and one side can sever the relationship at any time. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and came to some conclusions while I was an employee. In a nutshell:The employer doesn't exist for the benefit of the employees. They are in that business to make money, not to employ people. Nobody goes into business to lose money unless it's a tax dodge, and that's illegal if by intent. How they make that money is up to them (what the company is, does, etc) and they sometimes need employees to perform certain tasks. If they want to keep good employees, they can. They get to define "good employee" and and have the option to run the business ethically, or not. If they don't want to keep employees for a long time, they won't and if it's an "at will" relationship, they don't have to. How they present the reason(s) for terminating someone is up to them, too. If they do it legally on paper and by procedure, it may be illegal by intent and that's sometimes hard to prove. Some employers look at employees as a necessary evil or a liability, some look at them as an asset. It's hard to find someone who is honest about this at interview time. They can talk it but eventually, their true colors show. Some companies don't give a rat's azz about their employees and if someone is sick, having personal issues or anything that isn't going to help the company, too bad- they'll get someone else. Some will do anything possible to keep them happy, healthy and in the company. Now, the sticky part. The employee is there to do what the employer needs done in order for that business to make a profit. Period. If that person expects to work there for any length of time, the company needs to see them as someone who has a positive impact on the company's bottom line. If an employee thinks:
"If I leave, it may be hard/impossible for the company to replace me. I'm indispensable. There's nobody who does my job as well as I do." That's great to think but is inherently a problem when a company has a single person who is indispensable because if something suddenly happens and that person is gone for good, the company is screwed. A large company may have some skill redundancy (in any area- management isn't immune to this) but a small company can fail when the "good person (or people)" leaves. It may not happen fast but if the wrong things are done after they're gone, the business will not exactly flourish. The employee may expect some form of loyalty from the company- some I have worked with clearly didn't care one way or another. The company will expect loyalty. They don't want to cultivate employee's skills and have them go off and become part of the competition. They don't like to pay people to do nothing (read sick pay, vacation time, training time), don't like to pay other benefits like health insurance. Bottom line, an employee can see themself as the most important person in the company but ultimately, that doesn't matter to anyone but that employee. The company will hire who they want, when they want and offer what they want to pay. If one person won't do it for that pay, someone else will. Sometimes politics plays a part. Sometimes, the management doesn't realize that keeping someone will eventually cause the company to decline and eventually fail, which is happening to one place I worked for (now, an extremely small company). In some cases, they don't realize that by letting someone go, the same thing can happen. Sometimes, the company will change their view that one area of their business is the way they want to make their money and add to another area. The last company I worked for, full time, "let me go" because, "everything you do takes too long". Well, that's BS and I could have prove it. I was, OTOH, the oldest of the people doing what I did there and they have quite a few who worked together at another similar company. They wanted to hire someone else from that company, and he started after I was gone. I know this guy and he doesn't work faster than I do. They haven't added to that department, as the manager had told me that they wanted to. If I had wanted to prove they were wrong in terminating me, I could have and would have gotten some help from my cousin, who is an HR director in CA. That wouldn't have been a problem. The problems would have been, "What happens if this drags out- how am I going to pay the legal fees if I lose, how long will it take and who will hire me if I win?". There were some things that had been bothering me about changes that occurred in the company in the preceding months but they couldn't have possibly "let me go", because I wasn't in the process of leaving and they weren't hindering me. I let them pay my unemployment, took their severance pay and moved on.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
To answer your question on how I deal with my relationship with my customers, I find out what they expect from me in the particular job and tell them what I expect from them, in return. If I can do that or not, I tell them up front and since I work by myself most of the time, if I will need another person to help, I let them know that the other person can be trusted and will do a good job, whatever it is. I do the work as well as I possibly can and if something goes wrong, I make it right. I DO NOT screw people. I charge a fair price (probably not enough) and sell/install equipment that I know to be of high quality- objectively and subjectively. I don't talk badly about people and don't tell others about my customers, some of whom live in extreme comfort. Talking about them could lead to problems since many people can't keep their mouth shut and I don't want to find out the hard way that I told someone who is in that group. I still see customers from the present to close to 30 years ago. Big smiles and waves (if we can't talk) or we'll talk, sometimes I get a phone call from someone I haven't heard from in years just because they were thinking about me. That's a damn good feeling. I haven't been in business for THAT long but as a former employee of other places, I'm still a "friend of the company" to the people I worked with/for, with the exception of only a few people. Those people can pucker up and KMA.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I make it right. I DO NOT screw people. I charge a fair price
Well, see, you are starting from a fairly moral "base." Which may be fairly common in small, one-man "shops."
So, you are starting a relationship with a sound moral start. So, carry that through--what are you expecting in return?
Could be simple in your case; like the customer starts in wanting to pay cash, or skip permits, or some dodge to not pay taxes. Those are clear lapses, and, in the main, illegal.
But, what if the client just lies? Or, perhaps, is, oh, "two faced" (like won't complain about your work to you, but to all their friends and neighbors).
Is there, should there be, an expectation of matchin morality? Or, is this something that's only earned. Which is getting back to, sort of, "If I am honest, am I owed honesty in return?" And, vice versa, of course.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
What I expect is the same in all relationships. Honesty, which is rarely returned 100%. Unfortunately, there are very few people I will ask for help in most instances because I'm usually left disappointed, one way or another. I know that customers are usually the same in their basic wants- they want the best at the lowest price and are often willing to lie to get what they want. I don't want to believe about people but in my experience, it has been proved too many times to ignore and I have to be a bit skeptical at times. I know that not everyone will do this at all (few) but if someone thinks they're getting screwed, they're perfectly willing to push back. I do low voltage, home theater, networking, phones and distributed audio/video but have done some cabinet work and framing as well. I don't have a license to do electrical supply and won't unless there's already an electrician on the job and it will speed my work up by adding a box for my equipment and they take responsibility, in writing that I did it as their helper. Otherwise, I won't do any work that needs a permit, without one. I don't care how they want to pay but they get paperwork and I charge taxes for what falls under "Taxable". Period. It's my azz as much as theirs and if I don't show the taxes charged and paid, they are liable for the taxes if they're audited. I have been in retail long enough (and had a tax attorney as a customer) to have a pretty good grip on what is legal or not. If I have questions, it's easy enough to find out. I'm not in any rush to get screwed. If they lie and I have been paid enough to CMA, I'm done since they have breached the contract and although I haven't had that happen yet, I will go after them if I stand to lose enough. If they lie about me and it gets back to me, they get a letter and at least one phone call. If what they say is true, I can't really do much but if it's their side vs mine and their story is wrong, they can be liable. With a new customer/client, I start with a clean slate. If they have a reputation for bad things, I lean toward skepticism and watch them like a hawk. If that reputation is bad enough, I won't deal with them unless we talk about what I have heard and they can convince me that they won't do it to me. "If I am honest, am I owed honesty in return?" And, vice versa, of course. I have no problem with this at all. Better than, "Do unto others before they do unto you".
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Lamours' CowboySamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
And another thing, in the vast majority of cases, an employee giving two week's notice is useless. It helps the employer but IMO, about 99.99999% should just leave after they give their notice. They won't do their job up to spec and just don't care. Yes, there are exceptions but from my perspective on both employee and management sides, they should just leave. Too many chances for them to leave details unfinished and then, it's left in someone else's lap to cover for it later. Then, there's the possibility of them stealing things and justifying it in their mind ("They owe me"). I left one place to go to another company because of some things that happened between me and the owners but I worked just as hard and as well as any other day- if I had done something wrong, I would have heard about it. The owner never told some of the people that I was leaving. I did, however, get a lot of phone calls asking how some things were done, where some things were, how to contact some people at manufacturers, etc. My phone number list was there, the technical manuals were there, I didn't hide anything and everything was in plain sight. These were things that someone else in the company should have known. I kept no secrets, other than the fact that I was looking for another job because certain people can't keep their yap shut. Same thing happened when I left the new place to move up in another company- phone calls, etc. I still see a lot of the people I worked with and with the exception of a few who nobody else liked either, it's always good to see or hear from them.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
The Rugged IndividualistSamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
I guess you'd have to define 'morality' or 'morals' in relation to the conduct of an employee or employer. More than likely, the concept of morals can be equated to ethics, or applied ethics, where a code of standards should be applied. It should work both ways.
As a professional engineer, I'm somewhat bound by my license and 'professional standing' to apply a code of ethics to everything I do - the general public is my employer, in a sense, so I am bound to that code even though some of my customers have no concept of ethics or morals sometimes. I just do the best I can. Sometimes it means I lose business. You can look up "Engineering Ethics" or "Order of the Engineer" on Wikipedia and read all about it.
I know that a couple of past employers have been less than ideal in terms of "morals" - one guy, during my college years, used his business as a front for drugs. What really sucked is that the business (an independent pizza place with delivery) did REALLY well, all homemade dough, roast meats, sauces, french fries, etc. and we were BUSY. But he ruined it all with the drug deals. Another one, in the construction trades, was not always honest in his financial dealings with customers, often significantly overbuying materials and warehousing "leftovers" and then charging the next customer all over again for the leftovers, thus making a 100% or more profit on what was essentially the first guy's materials. I got out of there fast.
There should always be an understanding of right-vs-wrong for an employee-employer relationship. Unfortunately, it's almost never written down, as in: 'you have the right to call me on the carpet if I think you're f*c&ing up and vice-versa' and it rarely works both ways - it's called a whistle-blower and people like that, right or wrong, usually lose their jobs.
I realize this didn't answer your questions very well, but it's a wide-open field of discussion. I know some really nice guys who are otherwise as slimy as you can get when it comes to relationships with both employees and customers. I also have known guys who took every chance they could get to screw over their employer and steal whatever wasn't nailed down (and a crowbar to get at the stuff that was).
this didn't answer your questions very well, but it's a wide-open field of discussion
Well, in reverse order, that's why I posed the question, to learn from the answers; thus it is a "well" answer.
You are touching upon my other nagging notion about the "building blocks" of such things. That, since the various laws all vary (and then their execution and prosecution each vary, too), does that encourage more or less moral behavior (in either employer or employee)?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
The MonkSamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
Prefer the term Ethics over Morality myself. But Yes, in everything . I sleep well at night without a guilty conscience.
I have walked from more than one employment situation where I felt my ethical presence was being used as a cover for unethical behaviour. I cannot condone behaviour by staying and keeping my mouth shut.
It is the holidays. Can't we talk about somthing easy like framing a step ceiling or rebar configurations in a monolithic slab?
Somebody mentioned The Golden Rule, Do to others as you would have them do to you, and I agree.....a simple and short rule that covers so much.
Can't we talk about somthing easy like framing a step ceiling or rebar configurations
<G>That's why I put this in Business, not Construction Techniques <g>
I'm really seeking out assumptions as much as anything else, too (the better to not get to "how'dya frame a trapezoidal-plan, dissimilar pitched dormer, on a vented roof, for less than $30/sf?" sorts of questions.)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Yes Capn, I was just joking and did comment on The Golden Rule.
I'm really seeking out assumptions
I would assume that a trapizodial plane would be framed in similar fashion to a rectangular or horizontial plane, but you ask 10 different carpenters and you get 10 different answers, some of which may be morally wrong.
That's both the question of "Does an employee have a moral duty to an employer?" and "Does an employer have a moral duty to employees?"
Yes by law they do.
Tim
That's both the question of "Does an employee have a moral duty to an employer?" and "Does an employer have a moral duty to employees?"
Yes by law they do.
I disagree - law, by design, governs conduct, and in a few cases, presumed intent, but not morality. Maybe we are defining terms differently - to me, morality is a personal code of conduct, a sense of "right and wrong" that may well vary between individuals. In contrast, ethics is more precisely and specifically defined, by law.
Sex discriminaton is one , etc.
Harrasment . Naughty words.
Tim
Sex discriminaton is one , etc.
Harrasment . Naughty words.
OK, but those are conduct, not moral issues.
Sex discriminaton is one , etc.
Harrasment . Naughty words.
OK, but those are conduct, not moral issues.
Discrimination isnt conduct as well as race , while relegion could be I guess.
I guess you would put covet the bosses wife into conduct so I see your point .
Some certainly could be both and here is the rest of the story. <G>
I believe taking a phone call on a cell phone while clocked in and not clocking out is both. Showing up late 10 minutes and getting started 15 minutes later while clocking in at the scheduled work time is both. The list goes on and the repetition of abuse.
My Dad used to say I want 8 hrs work for 8 hrs pay. He was correct. Dont charge him for 8 hrs work when the time doesnt match.
Many times in our type of work we are called on to be trusted. Whether we are working directly for the homeowner or the contractor. Tradesman are sent out to do jobs on others houses and they should be expected to have moral conduct.
The way I see it anyway.
Tim
How can conduct be separate from morals?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
How can conduct be separated from morals?
Ever heard of hypocrisy?!
Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for hypocrites. Repentant sinners could be forgiven, but hypocrites wouldn't think to ask for it!
"Ever heard of hypocrisy?!"Oh, THAT! Ya know, I see so much hypocracy that it didn't even enter my mind when I asked about it. I think I basically expect it from people and now it's almost like I'm setting myself up for disappointment by asking for honesty and morality but knowing that I won't get it.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
How can conduct be separate from morals?
My point was that the law can only control conduct, not morals. In other words, the law can dictate what you do, but can't control what you think and feel.
Morals have deep roots, conduct is on the outside. Morals are taught but there's no guarantee that they'll stick. If they are taught and aren't accepted by the person, bad conduct is going to happen. Some people aren't taught to be moral but still arrive at the conclusion that being good is better than being bad. If someone has no moral issue with killing, the odds of them taking a life are higher than someone who thinks it's morally wrong. Conflict can also exist between morally right/wrong and good/bad conduct. A classic example is: it's wrong to steal but is it wrong to steal in order to feed people who are starving? From the outside, it looks like bad behavior until the reason is stated. Laws define good conduct and specify penalties for breaking the laws, they don't control it. The person controls their own conduct. Hopefully. My next point would probably be better as a new thread but the morals/conduct issue is the reason I don't think gun control laws will work. They want to make it harder to buy a gun LEGALLY but I think we all know that it's very easy for someone to buy one ILLEGALLY. The problem has more to do with behavior than just making it hard to buy the weapon. Some people can own, handle or keep a gun safely. Some can't help but spray lead all over the place. Some of the people who kill others have no problem with the fact that they did it, some did it in a fit of rage (passion, etc) and some are sorry. Of the last group, I'm sure some of them say they're sorry but it's more for the loss of their own freedom than for the victim. In these cases, there's definitely a moral/conduct issue.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Your question might be, "Does the employer owe any special duty of care, fealty etc. to the employee?", I'd say that the answer is yes. The duty of care arises from the fact that the employer has the balance of power in the relationship.
Is that fealty earned, or is it merely due? The power structure exists from day one. But I think that the duty of care for an employee by an employer increases with years of service.
I'm taking the normal responsibilities of fair treatment on both sides of the employee/employer relationship as given. These constitute a contract which can be broken by either side, and can result in a termination of the relationship.
How should this special duty of care manifest itself? Let's take an example. An employee becomes disabled and can no longer do the job they were hired for. Does the employer simply terminate them, or do they have a responsibility, if possible, to find them light duties that they can perform? What if they don't carry out these duties as effectively as someone hired specifically for this task? Does the responsibility end there? We're getting down into the weeds- I'm not sure about that one! Fortunately, in my own company's situation, the person in question fit his new role very well and is thriving there. We'd have been greatly disserved by simply putting him out to pasture when he became disabled. Being fair to this particular person was not only great for morale, it was also good business.
I'd also argue also that an employer has the resposibility to its other employees, and to its customers, to terminate any employees who are not upholding their end of the bargain. Incompetents who cannot be trained should be fired, for the benefit of those who are left holding the bag.
<<I'd say that the answer is yes. The duty of care arises from the fact that the employer has the balance of power in the relationship. >>I think you have identified one of the key points in this discussion.<<Is that fealty earned, or is it merely due? The power structure exists from day one. But I think that the duty of care for an employee by an employer increases with years of service.>>Yes. Especially in the context of the relationship you described. It is a set of well-defined explicit expectations (you will drive nails, ideally in the right place at the right time) and I will pay you a certain amount per hour, and more importantly to this discussion, a set of poorly-defined implicit expectations that are probably more germane to the question.An example that probably falls short but will get the discussion going; if I have two employees, both been with me for six months, one of whom is always looking for ways to do a little more and make the company run better, one who is always looking for ways to do a little less for the same pay.They both get into some difficulty under identical circumstances.Setting aside any natural human inclinations, strictly as an employer to I have an identical obligation to each of them, if any?
<<t's an intriguing (and nagging) question. Even if we posit one argument being "no, no moral requirement at all; the legal is all that exists." (Without, one hopes, of devolving the discussion to whether morality does, or should exist--even if this is BT <g>).>>
Agreed -- we need to leave the legal component out for at least two reasons -- for most practical purposes you either are or are not breaking the law, and we know for sure there are all kinds of behaviors that are not illegal but are most certainly immoral.
There have been some great replies so far, some of which I could not add to. The most interesting replies so far seem to be orbiting the concept of reciprocity.
OK, so where does reciprocity fit into morality, at least in the context of employment?
some of the basic document to consult would be the Papal Encylicals starting with "Rerum Novarum"..
the church in the 19th & 20th centuries became very concerned about the dignity of labor and some of the moral implications..
here's some starting points...
<<<
View ImagePope Leo XIII
View ImagePope John XXIII
View ImagePope Paul VI
View ImagePope John Paul II
Laborem Exercens: On Human Work
of course to me morality comes down to me.... what i have gleaned in my 62 years on this earth..
some of the old chestnuts really do stand the test of time & circumstance.... do unto others as you would have done unto you
and the basic premise of honesty in all dealings .. without too much shading of the the truth
my philosophy , as an employer, is .. the health of the company comes first... without the company nothing else is possible..
so.. in order to honor those warranty issues with customers, FIRST, we have to stay in business.... so we can't very well make all our decisions on the premise of "the customer is always right".. as we well know... the customer is often wrong.. dead wrong.. which is why they hired us in the first place.. to make things right
inevitably a time will come ( and another time will come ) when times are so tough that the company has to go into a survival mode... and triage has to be performed... separate the dead and the living
survey the living to see who has the best chance of surviving under the new economic circumstances
all of this assumes that the social safety net is in place: these are real employees and we've been paying unemployment insurance to the state for this very possibility: that some employees will have to be laid off...... or in the case of an employee who is not working out.. who is having a detrimental effect on the company .. then termination with the usual unemployment benefits to cushion the blow.
since honesty is the basis.. it is also a two-way street.... i strive to be honest with my empoyees and i expect them to reciprocate.... i notice that if i am leniant in giving time off when requested, i don't get too many "dying grandmothers"... and we both know that my leniency in the past entitles me to ask a favor or imposition in the future if the health of the company requires it
the caveat is: not everything is a genuine emergency
i am one of those who thinks the labor market needs laws protecting the worker... capitalism, given an unfettered society, will crush the worker... historically they always have..
although we are not a union shop, i firmly believe that the health of the middle class is absolutely dependent on there being strong unions... no unions... no middle class.. or at least not in the percentages we have come to accept as the "middle class "
legally both parties must observe the law.. neither party ( employer or employee ) should put the other party in violation of the law.. wether it is business law, civil law, or the laws governing a safe workplaceMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
By God I'd work for you any day.
I'd work for you any day
Too true.
Starting to look like this crew (unsurprising, really) may be too "good" to approach this. Pretty consistent feedback of holding values no matter what; of answering inequity with morality--truly noble beyond measure.
Makes me wonder a bit if that's a reflection of "western" (as in New World) or of being "middle class"; neither of which admits to much knee-bending to one's "betters." And, of course, "New World" is no guarantee, as there's plenty of Owner = Patron and Worker = peon to be found in this hemisphere.
Perhaps, we in this group at least, are relatively free of work situations where employer is inately superior and employee inately inferior in either "class" or "stature."Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
i read way too much Jack London growing up to ever bend the knee
ever see the movie " Mattawan ".........??
and then there are the Rhode Island history stories
the mill workers in Phenix being machine gunned by the National Guard
or the "black list " of "trouble makers"...
when Ronny Rayguns broke the Air Traffic Controllers, it encouraged management to push the envelope and break the unions
i remember the Brown & Sharpe workers getting pepper -sprayed on the picket line by the local cops
but .. that isn't really what you are getting at , is it ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
that isn't really what you are getting at , is it ?
Strooth, 'twould not be <g>.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
And then there was the False Creek (Vancouver, BC) Kerkoff job that was totally non-union, and the unions started picketing it because they said, "It should have been a union job.". The Labour Relations Board; (pro-union agency) said "Okay, you can picket, but only 12 pickets per gate!" The unions had 1200 people surrounding the site, blocking the roads, and then.... they started trashing the site; They opened the fire hydrants and flooded the site, and trashed the 2 cranes that were there. The concrete contractor came by and got his truck totally demolished. The guy has a gimped leg, and the news showed these Union goons, verbally abusing and shoving this guy around. The Vancouver City Police were videotaping the entire show, BUT NOT ONE CHARGE WAS LAID!!!!. The entire population of the greater Vancouver area, watched the whole disgraceful show on TV, but nothing was done. It left a very bad taste in everyones mouth.
And then there was our Teamsters rep who signed the contract "on our behalf", selling us out to the company. We didn't get a thing we asked for, but our rep got a new pickup truck and a Mexican vacation out of the deal.
If you want to see abuse of employees, just look at the trucking industry. When I came back to electrical, I was amazed at what the perks and benefits were. I had spent 10 years on the road, working for what amounted to about $8.00 per hour, working 60-80 hours a week, NO benefits, and never home. Plus the fact that the dispatchers lied on a consistent basis, and we drivers were treated worse than the trucks we drove. We were considered to be "pieces of equipment"... you know... "the nut behind the wheel" type thing. The trucking industry is crying that they are 10's of thousands of drivers short, but if they had treated the drivers with a modicum of respect, there wouldn't be so many retired drivers. I enjoy driving, but I left that industry because of that crap.
When I see some greenhorn kid crying that $10.00/hr is not good enough for unskilled labor... I will let him go before I lose it and slap him upside the head. We may be tight in the labour market here, but with some people, you are better of cutting them loose, than risking the costs entailed with repairing his foulups.
Loyalty???
I have found that the companies will DEMAND your loyalty, but will not give any in return. How can they? A corporation is a "legal" person... not an actual person. It may be run by flesh and blood persons, but they are restricted in their dealings by the demands of the corporation. There is no such thing anymore as a lifetime job.
locolobo
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Enlightened Self InterestSamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
You da MAN Mike!!!Peace
I'm certainly no expert on labor issues, but I was under the impression that the middle class arose from small businesses, especially trading and shop keeping. I don't see how that is connected to labor unions. I am also under the impression that the middle class preceeded labor unions.Are you certain about your connecting of labor unions and the middle class?
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
well, my impression is that the middle class came from two things: and bear with this simplistic essay:
1st... the end of an agrarian economy..
2d .... a higher standard of living
.... the middle class was a minority.. the majority was the working poor, and the poor
if you read about labor strife... factory workers, railroad workers, miners, these were the majority.. and they were not middle class.. they were working poor
it was not until these occupations were unionized that tthe standard of living rose to the point that they were no longer "working poor" but were in fact , the new middle class.. with disposable income
Henry Ford recognized this .. that he could sell a lot of cars if his workers could afford to buy them.. but he was also an old school capitalist...
the unionists were equated with the anarchists.... and it was the duty of society to protect the decent people form the bloody anarchists
so , the yellow journalists of the day ( Fox News precursor ) always protrayed the unions as being anarchists.. and the police, the national guard and the company goons were all used to impose the Owner's will on the workers.....
it took union blood in the streets to change the perception of the voters and elect govt. that would protect the workers.... and bust the trusts that controlled govt.
this was the true genesis of the middle class.. not a small bunch of shop keepers
but hey, whadda i no ?Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Interesting. Your description made sense to me in a certain way, but upon reading the "middle class" entry in Wikipedia it seems that what I thought was more-or-less the original definition. Your take on the term came much later and seems to be more of a strictly American take that developed during the past century.Check it out if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
BTW, you might find it interesting that the labor movement got a big boost from events that took place in my neighborhood. Most notably, the "Ludlow Massacre". It happened that big city east coast reporters came here about 90-100 years ago and reported the outrageous things that went on in the name of the mine bosses.There is not even one coal mine operating in our county now, but the good and bad of those days does linger on a bit. The primary bad being that the wealth was created and hauled away without being fairly shared and that the local environment took a terrible hit from which it has never fully recovered.The good is that the locals were united by the common enemy. Now we have loads of good old German-Mexican families, Lebanese-Mexican families, Italian-Mexican families and other sometimes humorous and surprising mixes of ethnicity. How many Basque-Penitente families in your neighborhood? ;)In our area we have very little racial animosity, go 60 miles farther southwest and it begins to be a bit ugly sometimes. Down there they didn't have the common enemy.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
>> emphasized the immorality of keeping economic control in the hands of a fewI haven't seen any effort on the part of the Catholic church to practice this bit of preaching.That is clearly not how the Roman church is run.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
As an direct employer of eight people and a person who is responsible for all sub contractor relationships, I view the relationship as a two way street. As the employer, I am hiring an individual to be part of group that through its efforts help support the families of everyone in that group.
I feel personally responsible for each and every family that is associated with my company. My employees rely on me to make sure the company is run in a manner that gets them:
1. A consistent and reliable source of income
2. A place that provides benefits for successful performance (i.e. health insurance, bonuses, hopefully a retirement program in 2007)
3. A place to have a career and to practice and grow your trade in a safe, productive and enjoyable manner
From those employees I expect
1. Honesty, integrity, and excellence in everything they do in the name of the company
2. A work ethic that ensures we complete our work in a professional, effecient, and safe manner
3. Participation in making our company a good place to be.
4. Some level of loyalty and respect. Get what you give.
The same holds true for my subs and vendors. I expect complete integrity and fairness in all of my dealings.
For those employees and subs who did not get it, they are no longer around. For those that do, they are virtually part of my family.
The same holds true for clients. I treat you by the Golden Rule, I hope you do the same for me. If not, we probably won't work together again.
Happy New Year
Bruce
"As the employer, I am hiring an individual to be part of group that through its efforts help support the families of everyone in that group."But that's not the reason you're in business and need employees, right?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
The reason I am in business is because carpentry is my passion. Despite my father's best efforts to make sure I didn't get into the trades here I am. The reason employ people is I wanted to pursue bigger projects and I hoped to find people with that same passion and luckily I have. As Michael Gerber puts it I am technician with an entrepeneurial urge.
Fortunately for me I have run into this site and folks like Mike Smith, Jerrald Hayes, Piffen, and many others who have improved my business sense while at the same time allowing me to continue pursuing the passion.
Based on your previous posts it is obvious you have had some very negative employment experiences. So have I. I use those experiences as a guides as how not to run a company. This approach may seem somewhat romanticized, but it is how I want my company to continue to be. An employer/employee relationship does not have to be a parasitic one. I think it can and should be a symbiotic one.
I know the standard business model is not like this but after Jerrald Hayes introduced the book "The Company We Keep" I realized that this business model is feasible. It may or may not be the most profitable--but it is not always about the money. I left a six figure engineering job to pursue this passion. No regrets.
After reading "The Company We Keep" I realized I could build a company where employees could become a bigger part of the picture. We are well on our way to accomplishing that. Has this approach impacted my bottom line-for the short term-maybe. For the long term-I don't think so-probably improved it.
Bruce
"Based on your previous posts it is obvious you have had some very negative employment experiences."It was that obvious, eh? I agree with you- I think treating employees well should be a no-brainer but too many think they should be treated like small, furry or scaled animals (or something other than what they are). Sure, it costs money to do that but in hte long run, it's a heckofa lot better way to do things. Too many companies "making sound business decisions" by thinking like an accountant and making sure all of the beans are counted and not "wasted". The reason I asked if you were in business to support your employees is that, as I said before, businesses exist so the owner(s) can make money and you basically agree but you showed that you aren't aligned with the ones who want "profit at the absolute lowest cost and to he!! with everyone but me and mine". What they sell/do/make is up to them. The methods they use to go about it and the way they treat their employees makes all the difference in the world. Too many companies treat their employees like garbage and still survive while companies that are better to work for fail. I hope your employees remain loyal, your customers see that you want to be better than the rest and you are successful.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I've condensed my Mission statement down the the following: "Dedicated craftsmen having a great time building beautiful, high performance homes for enthusiastically satisfied clients." I'm totally with you on the Michael Gerber influence. I think I have read E-myth Revisited at least three times and given away 8 copies to struggling builders. We're here because we love the work, and we're discovering that there can be as much craftsmanship in being the conductor as in being the violinist. And there is good business sense to treating your team well and letting go of anyone who isn't up to the level you set. Fire quickly, if you treat your team well there will be a waiting list of folks looking for a chance to make the cut. Beth and I've been doing it for a while and are starting to see payoff in both peace of mind as well as cash in the bank, split 60/40 with the employees after salaries and expenses. We divided 52K profit sharing amoung our crew this year and took out 79K for ourselves, which is still a modest profit on 1.4 mil in sales and definately sustainable for the forseeable future. Giving your people a piece of the action can really be a boon to your personal bottom line. I'm reading "The Company We Keep" now but I'm not quite ready to give the employees ownership of the company. I like cutting them in on the profits without giving up any control of the overall operations. I've had long term good guy employees go bad on me a couple of times now, one after ten years working with me. Very glad I was free to fire his #### and move on.
I love your mission statement. I have about six drafts of one that I have not been able to complete. I am glad to hear about someone else sharing a similar business strategy and thanks for sharing some numbers as well.
As to ownership, I really appreciate your insights as well. I believe at a minimum employees should partake in the profits. Great info. Thanks a bunch.
Thanks, you can read the entire business plan at http://www.dyss.net/chandler/article.php?story=20040714205641959 I have committed to reviewing and revising it every spring so it is now due for revision. We started posting it on-line in 2002 when Professional Builder magazine put us on their "Best Builders to Work for in America" list. Hopefully it will get a complete re-write again in a month or two. My wife wants me to take her out to Austin to visit the home of James McMurtry and the Heartless Bastards and I have an old friend, Staven Moore, at the architecture school there so I'll look you up when we make it. Hasn't your local Green Building group partnered with the NAHB Green Building Initiative? If so how has that worked. Here in NC we have an established state green building certification that is failing to thrive and a strong GBI coming up aggressively trying to bring lots of mainstream builders, realtors, and developers into the green movement. What has happened is we are viewed with great suspicion by the solar builders due to the fact that we are associated with NAHB and because we are willing to work with tract builders who are building hundreds of $160,000 starter homes as well as the McMansion guys with their starter castles. We co-sponsored the NC Sustainable Energy Association's solar home tour this spring but it's still a little competitive feeling. Just wondered if you had any experiance on trying to bring the greens and the mainstreamers together.Be wellMichael
Michael
Thanks for link.
I am not fully in tune with the NAHB and the local green building efforts. The local chapter of the NAHB is mainly tract guys who I have nothing in common with and frankly I have been too busy to get involved on the green building side of things-even though I fundamentally agree with many of the green building efforts.
I am somewhat cynical about certain local green building effort. Most of the tract builders qualify as "green" per city standards even though they still do the bare minimum and quality of construction is not a criteria.
The City has created a significant solar energy sector-primarly by subsidizing a significant portion of the projects- I believe upto 75%. Don't get me wrong, if solar power is feasible, I am all for it. I just have a hard time knowing my tax dollars are subsidizing a whole niche of our industry particulary after receiving my estimate for next years taxes.
Shoot me an email if you are headed to Austin. I would love to show you around.
Bruce
Sorry for the hijack
Bruce I absolutely agree with you about solar tax farming for the wealthy. And I have recently been in a GBI certified green tract house with green certified carpet and vinyl siding and just a generic feeling house, $160 K new including the lot so what did I expect, (though on our site is my version, 185K new with the lot, "the Goldmine house" http://www.ChandlerDesignBuild.com) But we had our green auditing person down from Canada and part of that day was to walk through a house that had failed the GBI just to get a sense of how we would approach a builder that wanted us to certify something that wasn't kosher. And here is this god awful scrapped earth subdivision of two story slab houses at $155K with the AC in the attics and jumper grills and 2x4 framing with closed corners but he's using ladder tees and vinyl siding and poor black families thinking they're moving up in the world to buy this junk. And this builder was proud enough of this garbage that he thought it should be GBI certified!After you look at that and then you walk into the GBI certified $160K house and it's still masonite doors and vinyl siding but there is no duct work in un-conditioned space and it meets energy star and the ugly carpet is at least Green Label certified and the beige paint job is low VOC and the roof overhangs and flashings make sense and I'm willing to concede that this is a big step in the right direction. Especially since this guy is building 150 of these things this year and competing at $5,000 more than the piece of garbage version across the highway. I really want to get behind him because it's a step in the right direction. So I'm going over there on my own time to train his sales people on how to explain to their buyers why this house that looks identical to the cheaper one across the highway is worth spending an extra $5K on. I just read the Tipping Point and I think we have a chance to alter the way homes get built here in America if we focus on bringing up the bottom instead of being like LEEDS and just focusing on the top 10%. I'm not even marginally in tune with the NAHB and have never attended a local membership meeting. But I've gotten a lot out of their Builder 20 program over the last ten years and the research center has given me some useful information over the years and I like competing in their contests (nice odds) And the Custom Builder symposium is alone worth the price of membership. I love to hate the International Builder Show but there are some gold nuggets there, I got to have coffee and chocolate with Sarah Susanka last year because of the IBS. And the NAHB green building symposium is getting interesting and the Green Building Awards are a good contest, and they gave me a groovy second place trophy last year for my office so I need to be greatful for that. And the Green Building Initiative rocks so I can tolerate a bunch of greed head free market republicans if that's what it takes to play in that ballpark.I too apologize for the hijack. I'm kind of new to this break time thing and still learning the ropes. I'll look you up when I head to Austin.All the best Michael
The Manor LordSamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
"I feel personally responsible for each and every family that is associated with my company."
I absolutely agree with this sentiment and the points that you have outlined.
The purpose and goal of the company is not this but it is a consequence (for me) of having employees.
There has been much discussion about reciprocity but I am always confused by this. I have enough difficulty in holding up my end of ethical obligations. If I try to judge others I am unable to distinguish between what their intent is and what their capabilities are. In judging ethical behavior whether your own or everybody else's, assessing intent is all importatnt.
I find that if I just worry about the morality of my own behavior, others usually respond with their best. I can't expect any more than that. Thanks for this discussion as a way to kick off the new year with our best efforts.
Schelling,
I think you nailed it with "intent". I too have a hard enough time keeping myself straight without judging everyone else. I suppose I have relied on my gut feelings in many of these instances and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.
When I left my engineering job, I was a bit cynical about corporate dealings. I had my fair share of run-ins with upper management. My last engineering position was with a small firm, very successful, closely held by two very decent gentleman. Before I left I asked one of the owners what was the secret to success. I was hoping for some profound wisdom. He said don't work for jerks. They take up to much energy, their never happy, and they tend to consume you.
I realized then that was my challenge when working for bigger corporations was the jerks. I also know how easy it is to become one. I try each day to make sure I don't become that jerk. I know some days I do not succeed, but most I do.
I have also found that the intent of jerks is usually contrary to my best interests.
was the jerks. I also know how easy it is to become one. I try each day to make sure I don't become that jerk. I know some days I do not succeed, but most I do.
Ooooh, now that's interesting.
Not that you have to work at being better than your nature--I'm thinking that's, well, ah "second nature" to many of us here.
No, the notion of "jerk" (and not a soda fountain operator, either).
I do believe I want to definitely think about the "f(x)" if you will, where x is "jerk" [operator] "moralaity/ethical" (yeah, that's right, "I'll never use calculus when I grow up " . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Hmm: do you have any more of a responsibility toward the faithful or successful employee than you do to the one who is less faithful? I'd say that if they are both still employees, both deserve the same minimum standard of care. You may choose to go the extra mile for the better employee out of a special debt of earned gratitude.
Say you come on hard times and the business needs to lay some people off. You establish the priority in the way Mike describes: you keep the keenest and most versatile people- the ones who will give the business the best chance of survival through the slow times. When you lay off both the excellent and the slack employees, you owe them both letters of reference, but whereas one letter may be glowing, the other might say, "He performed his tasks adequately and competently while in my employ". We owe a duty of care to prospective future employers of these people too, don't we?
As to sharing the profits: this is a given. At its most basic, a business is an algorithm which maximize profit and retained earnings for its shareholders. But the leaders of many successful businesses realize that there's a feedback loop missing in the normal algorithm which treats employees merely as a cost centre rather than as a potential profit centre. Unless the employees get feedback to promote exceptional performance, their motivation will suffer. Pats on the back are nice enough, but most employees realize that the only way a corporation can truly value its employees is in terms of money. Though it's often said that money is a poor motivator, this is a truism: a statement which has a kernel of truth but which is extended beyond its validity. The absence of money is the surest de-motivator, and money in sufficient quantity, properly distributed and directly tied to collective performance surely is a significant motivator!
Our business has it written right into the shareholders' agreement that 20% of the before-tax profit of the corp goes directly into a profit-sharing pool, which is to be divided amongst the employees by the management. The total is determined by the performance of the corp as a whole, and so the team realizes rather quickly that it is in their individual best interest to do what is in the corp's best interest. There's no "tall poppy" penalty, nor is there any benefit to stepping on others to get ahead, so there's no reason to do anything other than your best. The place actually works as a true team as a result. Collaborative work, mentoring of new staff, load-sharing, and individual sacrifice for collective benefit are the rule rather than the exception. Though the system is not transparent and has some other imperfections, in this corp it motivates people to an enormous extent.
The key is to make this feedback signal strong and clear enough, and that's where most businesses fall down. Greed and/or stupidity on the part of shareholders and/or senior management tends to dumb down the bonus/profit sharing system to the point that it actually becomes de-motivational for most employees. It's too little to be any significant motivator, or it's so ill-distributed that only a few benefit to a motivational extent such that jealously and/or exploitation results. Or it offers something less enticing than cash, such as shares etc., with strings attached (i.e. tied to retention etc.) and becomes confusing in its true intent. Done right, this is a sure-fire way to improve company performance.
The key is to make this feedback signal strong and clear enough, and that's where most businesses fall down
That's a powerful observation, one one not limited, I'm thinking, to large corporations. I still feel some loyalty-pride-whathave you to the last big outfit I worked for; but less than none for their management. That's a slef-inflicted injury, too. No matter what management "said," it was what they "did" that mattered. After you set, nay cement, an impression "mine first, yours second" in your employees, that's something that is just not going to "get better" without some major (real painful and sacrificing) changes.
But, maybe this is "jerk" behaviour, too . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Integration of philosophical, moral, and/or ethical situations-I know I never covered that in Calculus or differential equations. I do believe the f(x), namely the magnitude of the jerk in question, is a very dynamic situation. My general experience is that if one has some success at being a jerk in small situations, they soon realize or believe they will have great success in all situations.
Unfortunately, the equation, in my opinion, becomes unstable fairly quickly and has definite limit on the upper level of integration. Namely, one cannot start at zero and take said equation to infinity-eventually it will destabilize and things will fall apart.
Sooo, the next issue becomes at what point does the equation destablize. My hypothesis is that it happens rather quickly. So I try not to go there.
Let me know how your math works out.
Bruce
Let me know how your math works out
LoL!
Well, "venal sinner" has some sort of proximal equivalence to "jerk," so far, but nothing I'd set to a variable quite yet. This is complicated a bit with most of the moral sins being illegal; muddying the issue a tad.
More to ponder (which makes for a confused thirst at times . . . <sigh>).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Call it morality or just good business sense, read the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins the kind of people you want for employees are exceptionally talented and trustworthy folks. You will earn their loyaly by treating them like human beings and demanding excellence from them in return. It is much, much more fun to be part of a winning team than to tolerate mediocrity.
So skip the moral duty and go for ethical business practices because they contribute to the bottom line and to the quality of life at work.
Good.
Gawd.
I'm speechless
SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo
I was fired from a job simply because I would not cheat customers. When people found out I was offered some great jobs. I ended up with a better job and more pay after the mess.