Wednesday, 22 February 2012
-
US Returning to "Lowest Bidder Employment" with Term Limits for Jobs
Way back when in US history before unions came along to actively fight for worker rights and protections, employers had all the leverage as there were far fewer jobs than the amount of people who needed them.
Companies were easily able to get people willing to work for low wages in dangerous and/or hostile environments just so they could earn enough to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their family.
The establishment of unions helped workers ban together to force employers to raise wages and living conditions that we have inherited and enjoy today like the 40 hour work week, minimum wages, weekends off, health and retirement benefits, the end of child labor, etc...
Now, modern times have seen dramatic changes in the landscape. Unions are often viewed by many as being universally corrupt and/or outdated, and little by little the protections and benefits achieved by them are slowly being whittled away.
Older generations were provided with company pensions that offered a guaranteed payout when they retired. This was replaced with 401(k)'s which put most of the burden on the employee rather than the employer to invest their money well.
Health benefits were often provided to employees who retired from a company for life. Now fewer companies are offering health packages at all and the ones that do are requiring employees to share more of the cost.
If you're not part of the top 20%, wages have mostly been flat for decades when adjusted for inflation.
Now in this brave new world of shrinking wages and benefits, a NJ casino in Atlantic City is breaking "new ground" in turning back the clock on worker rights with job term limits. How it works is that people will be hired for a 4 to 6 year period, and then after that will have to reapply for their jobs that are now open to all other interested candidates.
Say goodbye to seniority or any remnant of job security as we used to know it.
Here's the article: Link
And here's an article snippet:
"A new casino set to open in Atlantic City, N.J., has announced it will set term limits for its front-line staff. When employees' terms run out, they'll have to go through the hiring process again. The casino says the policy will keep its service fresh. Others say the company is taking advantage of a tough job market.
From bellhops to dealers, employees of the new casino — called Revel — will be hired for terms from four to six years. After that, they have to reapply for their jobs and compete against other candidates."
It's clear this is a paradigm shift in the landscape of jobs and worker rights/protections.
You can be CERTAIN that other companies are watching this new idea closely and if it works - this will set the blueprint for other companies to follow suit.
Don't fool yourself into thinking you are safe and this will never apply to you. If you work in a field that has more job applicants than jobs available, it's a candidate for this new type of hiring practice. In an era of continually decreasing jobs, the leverage employers have in making these kinds of changes will only increase.
So it would seem the clock is quickly turning back to the days where you had lowest bidder employment where those who are are the most desperate and willing to work for less and less will be the new "employee of the month".
This does not bode well for the future....that is, unless you're an employer set to bonus from this.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to SoullFire's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in SoullFire's local time zone: GMT -08:00 (Pacific Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (6)
Sigh. You can never win.
Just today I was discussing with someone about unions and the way he described it, unions are nothing more than leeches on the economy. That and pensions.
I can understand his stance on it, but I know you can't just judge one side of the equation. Unions may not be the best as it doesn't take into consideration the actual worth of their members' labor, but it does help to better working conditions for all involved. On the other hand, no unions mean fairer job distribution and provisioning of money where it's due. But stagnant work conditions will flourish. And thus, less progress.
So hard to reconcile the two. As is most things in life.
Ya I noticed that too. Unions are important. It's too bad...and not encouraging at all.
i think i work in a hostile environment (all males on my team who throw sexist jokes around on the trading floor) and the conditions are terrible (I don't get any privacy being on the floor, they all know what I do!), I definitely work more than 40+ hours per week during my winter/spring/summer breaks when I work full-time, and I don't get any bonuses while everyone else does! I think that's unequal treatment :/ seriously!
Its not very relevant to your post but I was actually talking to my friend 2 weeks ago and he had mentioned korea has some kind of system like that set up but with big companies I believe.
Its not that that they go through a hiring process again but instead they could simply release them after years of working with the company.And the reason for releasing the "old" employees is because the company wants new young ones.But it didnt make too much sense cause wouldnt the "old" employees have built enough experience by then?
@juslitome - Well, like people, there are many types of unions- some good, some not so much. But the problem is opponents to unions take the worst case examples and try to brand all of them with the same negative image. Now your friend's negative view on unions is interesting. If he is a wealthy business owner, then his attitude makes sense. However, if he works for someone else, then he is likely naive about the benefits unions provide as he his arguing against his own best interests- one day he may likely find his own job replaced to suit his employer's whims without regard to his assumed rights. The bottom line question is are there minimum standards that an employer needs to provide for their workers? The basic purpose of unions was to set minimum standards. If the answer is no, then there is nothing stopping an employer to take advantage of desperate people by seeing how low they can go in pay and working conditions and still get them to work. Think of the elimination of minimum wages, no health or retirement benefits, and working 6 days a week over 10 hours a day- as other countries with minimal to no worker rights do.
@Kittyluve - Yeah, unfortunately it appears things are on track to get worse instead of better.
@TheFashionableEconomist - Ah, but you're in a field that has much more leverage than other occupations. :) If you are good, you are not easily replaced and so you have built in protections.
@LAXSFTOK1 - "Old" employees have experience, but they also have higher salaries to go with it. So basically older employees are being punishing for doing their jobs well and getting promoted as companies replace them with younger and cheaper workers. A company figures they can hire 2 or 3 new workers with the salary of one older worker who was paid well. They lose experience, but they think that the extra workers can make up for it.