8 ms·

Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own empl

Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own employees. I can't see how any of this is healthy or helpful. I put a lot of the blame on finance-centric growth-at-all-costs customer and employees be damned thinking. I think it's toxic.

cwkoss 4y ago
The unions that won us the 40 hour workweek and weekends, among many other significant worker protections, lost political power in the 90s when the democrats transitioned to neoliberalism.
- asdff 4y ago
  It's so sad how unions were demonized in recent history. Even on HN I see a lot of commenters making that tired old "lazy union worker" argument come out of the woodwork with any unionization thread. Like, why the hell would you not want to collectively bargain? You really think you have more leverage with your employer as an individual? What negotiation book taught you that strategy, the one called "what not to do"? Its always ironic seeing threads about how software engineers are fed up with stupid corporate stuff, like the interview song and dance or whatever else, then fail to see that by unionizing, software engineers could dramatically change how the entire industry works, and by continuing to just jump ship in hopes of finding better pastures they perpetuate this broken system that just finds another worker to exploit.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  According to the Atlantic, religion gave us weekends and the five day work week https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/where-the-five-day-workweek-came-from/378870/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/where-t...
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
> Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? Because the workforce has had enough of the lopsided equation and is starting to push back.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
If you’ve seen the workforce, I would argue that employers are dealing with some of the worst employees in US History. I’m not joking. Demotivated, constantly job to job, easily bored, poor health, poor “Work ethic,” drug use, alcoholism. Both employer and employee probably share blame for this. This might not be apparent in Silicon Valley, but it is much more real for the rest of America.
- jhonof 4y ago
  Worker productivity is still some of the highest it has been in US history, caring about motivation or "work ethic" is frankly silly considering that isn't what companies are optimizing for. If companies still offered pensions and kept benefits and salary comparable to competitors they wouldn't be seeing job hopping at the rate they are now. It's a free market, want better employees with a higher "work ethic" that will stick around? You will need to compete. This isn't new, my dad growing up worked in IB and would switch jobs, or use existing offers as leverage for salary benefits, once every 2-3 years, and he switched jobs multiple times in my childhood.
- rexreed 4y ago
  The generalization aside, if organizations are having such labor issues, what is the motivation for mistreating employees? Doesn't it just exacerbate and compound labor issues? How is any of this helpful? Just retaliatory?
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    In my opinion the pattern looks very similar to that of an abusive parent/partner. Only rarely do such a person correct their ways once pointed out that they are being abusive, and most only ramp up their abuse to try to "silence" the complaints.
- ben7799 4y ago
  It's very hard to believe things are worse than they used to be. Go back to the "golden age" of manufacturing and boom times in the US post WWII. Drugs were not illegal, drunk driving was not illegal. Drinking lots was totally normal. No one thought any of it was an issue, so they likely were a lot more messed up and just didn't really care. People were taking smoke breaks constantly during the day which was certainly a drag on productivity. All the bad behavior was so normalized they didn't even think it was a problem.
tyingq 4y ago
Perhaps some (ill-advised) attempt to claw back control they've lost over the last couple of years where hiring had become ultra competitive, low-end wages rose to somewhat reasonable levels, etc. Seems like the slide into a recession is some signal to them that they can swing the pendulum back the other way.
- danuker 4y ago
  > control they've lost over the last couple of years Compared to compensation vs. productivity over the last half-century, employers should expect further pushback. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Ooh, I know this one. Nixon came up with a new strategy for jailing and enslaving opponents to conservatism and corporatism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs It was also about when thatcher first had a cabinet seat. After that we had the end of history and the glory of the invisible hand of the free market raining abundance upon all.
    - danuker 4y ago
      I believe your perception is accurate. Nixon also took the dollar off the gold standard "temporarily", and government proceeded to debase the currency continuously since then, hand in hand with the financial sector.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Probably best to be a bit wary of pushing narratives from a group that say the problem is there's too gosh darned much public control over things and we need to deregulate and transfer more power to the financial sector without a caveat then.
  - 4y ago
randomdata 4y ago
An employer is just the employee of next the customer up the chain, and for various reasons, rising interest rates being a big one, that next customer is putting the squeeze on its employees so each link down the chain also starts to feel the squeeze.
- rexreed 4y ago
  I am not understanding your sentiment here. Are you forgiving any employer excesses because they have to respond to someone else? Is there really no limit or accountability? How about the buck stops with the bad employer.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > I am not understanding your sentiment here. Because there is no sentiment. Information does not have feelings.
  - guhidalg 4y ago
    I think you misunderstood what he said. We are all links on a chain where employers pay us, customers pay our employer, and someone pays our customers. When the source of all the money starts to dry up because of rising interest rates and supply shocks across the world, customers and employees will respond naturally by tightening their purse strings, which ultimately affects how much money we get paid in cash and benefits. You would do the same too if your salary was suddenly slashed by 20%. Does that excuse employers from treating you like shit? No, but it also doesn't excuse you from staying there if they do. You can always communicate with your employers about your grievances, and if they are not addressed your ultimate power is to leave that job. You should not underestimate what employers will do to retain someone...
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  >An employer is just the employee of next the customer up the chain Well that customer must be a real moron to pay so much money for a CEO, which apparently they pay more money than they spend on whatever the actual product is.
frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
> Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own employees. It has always been a them-vs-us situation. It's just that 'them' (management/ownership) have been in a hugely advantageous position for a while and so were able to exercise their power discretely. Now that economic circumstances have tipped slightly in favor of laborers, 'they' have to exercise their power in ways that are more obvious.
- stackbutterflow 4y ago
  Aren't the economic circumstances tipping back in favor to the employers?
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own employees. Always has been. They've never thought of you as anything other than a resource to be exploited as much as possible then discarded. Capital just gets more brazen when it has more power. If you don't like it, stop voting for open fascists.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I have a mild but potentially wild speculation that it might be the internet. The internet allows workers to communicate not just within the company but within the broader ecosystem of work. People are more and more aware of what a raw deal they're getting by executives and companies, and are becoming more and more hostile because they're aware of how hostile companies are to them. Additionally, companies are picking up eye-tracking technology and other hyper-controlling tech that was never feasible a generation ago, leaving employees feeling increasingly taken advantage of.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  Doesn't seem that wild to me, tbh. It's always been the case that the employers are centralized vs. the employees are decentralized, so when it comes to negotiations the centralized party has enjoyed major benefits due to informational assymetry as well as possible coordinated bargaining. Open sharing of information between employees _should_ make it more balanced, which the employers may not be used to.
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
    I don't think this is the case anymore, not with the internet at least. Yes an employer will know what they are paying others at the company versus you, but unlike before, it's exceedingly easy for an employee to come up with the "market number" of what they should be paid. And often times that "market number" dominates whatever numbers an employer might have that they keep to themselves,
    - kjkjadksj 4y ago
      Its marginally better, but reddit threads or glass door are no subsititute for an actual union negotiating on your behalf. Employers can just fire you or let you leave if you get cocky like this. A union otoh can threaten to strike and effectively shut down an entire company.
- mikro2nd 4y ago
  It seems to me more like a USA thing. Maybe some other countries where there is little or no worker protection legislation, too?
rfrey 4y ago
Well, in the early 1900s employers were literally hiring thugs to kill their uncooperative employees, in full view of the public. So I'm not sure it's a new or increasing thing.
- bradlys 4y ago
  It’s a reversion to the early 1900s. It correlates well with Robert Putnam’s newer book. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50124402-the-upswing https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50124402-the-upswing
  - throwaway743 4y ago
    Ooo this sounds super interesting. Just rewatched The Century of the Self and restarted Can't Get You Out of My Head by Adam Curtis/BBC, which seem very much aligned to this. Highly recommend if you haven't seen either yet. Free to watch on youtube
- Sparkle-san 4y ago
  Pinkerton[0] known for being hired to quash unionization attempts still exists to this day and has been used by Amazon and Starbucks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    It's wild that they did not hire some image consultants and change their name in the last 100 years. Though perhaps their notoriety is a net positive in the industry they operate in.
    - routerl 4y ago
      When you hire the Pinkertons, you're hiring legendarily cruel people. That's the brand.
- trackedemployee 4y ago
eli_gottlieb 4y ago
>Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? Because the threat of unemployment isn't so severe right now, so they have to do things the older way by just scamming people into indentured servitude.
AlwaysRock 4y ago
When have employers ever been anything other than hostile with their workforces? America in particular doesnt have a good track record with "employment". Anytime something positive is done its because a company is forced to do it or compelled to do it because their competitors are.
- bityard 4y ago
  I've been at my current employer for 12 years and I have a very narrow tolerance for bullshit so please believe me when I say there are decent employers out there. They are not easy to find, but they exist. I have friends who are in the same boat. And sometimes they are happy enough with their companies that they invite me to apply as well. In my experience, the people who say that all companies are evil are just too lazy to do the work required to find a decent one. Or are projecting their own insecurities or lack of trustworthiness outward.
  - AlwaysRock 4y ago
    I'm pretty happy in my job now. I've had at least one job in the past that I was pretty happy with as well. The issue is that the companies that are nice to work for are typically not the companies that pay all that well. At least not well when compared to companies that are less nice to work for.
rr888 4y ago
> Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? They aren't. This is one unexpected headline. Most companies are being very nice to their employees because they know the job market is tight.
_fat_santa 4y ago
I have a different take that most of the other comments here. I think what we are seeing is a direct reaction to what happened in 2020/2021 with many non-skilled positions. We had the "great resignation" where employees were the ones holding the cards. Many places like McDonalds and other low-wage jobs had essentially bidding wars for employees and if you weren't keeping your wages at the current market rate, folks would quickly bounce to greener pastures. Some employers rightly saw this as them just needing to pay more, offer greater benefits, and attract employees in a "positive" way. But for every business that did it in the "positive" way, you had many more that did it in a "negative" way by coercing their existing workforce to stay. If you're running a McDonalds and you're paying your employees $12/hr while all your competitors are going to $15/hr, your only option for retention is to either raise your wages or to coerce your employees from leaving. Some places did it the right way by offering more money because that what the market demands, others did it in a coercive way of making employees pay for training and other BS.
- conductr 4y ago
  This is my answer and I see it in the board room. Management feeling a lack of control as the leverage has shifted to workers is a major point of contention right now. Management is responsible for controlling costs and they have basically no control. They're also rich enough they are tone deaf to what inflation does to people at the lowest income levels. Generally they're also old enough to be tone deaf of all of the economic problems that younger generations have faced (student loans, underemployment, gig economy, etc). They also usually like to control productivity, so this is where the production of salaried employees comes into question - especially around WFH where the company/management is not bought in on that construct. A recent example that almost made me laugh in the meeting, some of our senior living businesses have had major staffing issues (the industry pays nothing to do what is a difficult and disgusting job). Employees basically gave up working overtime or picking up extra shifts, etc. When asked why we don't leverage them more, the operations guys gave a couple politically correct answers but they kept getting drilled by some members of senior management (basically telling him to do what ever is needed to force these people to work and do it with no extra budget! ) so the guy said something like "look, we pay these people $12/hr to wipe old people's asses. They all have second and third jobs and we're almost certainly not even their #1 employer if given a choice. They literally can not get called in or pick up extra shifts when it's needed by us. They're already working a shift somewhere else. We need to pay them enough to give a damn or overstaff so there's always someone available. Both costs money but our businesses problems are not theirs so you choose"
brightball 4y ago
Just as another perspective here: I've also seen employees fighting to avoid paying back optional signing bonus that were given under the condition of staying for a couple of years...not attached to training at all. It's difficult to separate "I don't think I should have to pay back anything, period" from "I don't think I should have to pay for training". The training case can be made sure, but when somebody accepts some form of benefit with the explicit terms: if you leave before X you have to pay it back, I don't see the issue if the terms were clear. EDIT: Now I'm curious about the down votes? Where is the issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements?
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  The "issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements" comes about when there is a power asymmetry between the two parties signing a contract. The reason we have tenant rights, and bans on indentured servitude, and employee rights is because when there is a power imbalance between the two parties the less powerful can often find themselves pushed into extremely unfavorable circumstances, to the point that it has societal-level negative effects. So we ban certain kinds of one-sided contractual clauses. And then corporations include them anyway, because they calculate that there's a non-zero chance that individuals will abide them regardless of their legality. The number of completely unenforceable non-compete clauses I've seen in California is astonishing. Likewise, I've seen blatantly illegal lease agreements. The common factor? One party has far more negotiating power than the other.
  - brightball 4y ago
    Signing bonuses though? Here's an extra 5-10% of your first year's salary (optional) if you commit to hanging around for 2 years. I don't see the asymmetry there?
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Because it's easier to crunch a spreadsheet than it is to do proper management. Leadership? Ha! We use that word too often when it does not apply. Think about it. Them - If you leave, you're going to pay for your training. You - Ok then, I don't want to learn anything new. As long as Humans are positioned as just another Resource, we're going to see this type of (i.e., clueless) self-defeating decision making.
- jrockway 4y ago
  I think humans actually get treated worse than actual resources. I've never heard of charging a vehicle for its past oil changes when it inevitably fails beyond repair, for example.
Nasrudith 4y ago
I personally suspect that their minds were broken by the great recession spoiling them. They already got in the habit of unreasonable demands in employees, this seems like an extension of that dysfunction to me.

cwkoss 4y ago

The unions that won us the 40 hour workweek and weekends, among many other significant worker protections, lost political power in the 90s when the democrats transitioned to neoliberalism.

asdff 4y ago
It's so sad how unions were demonized in recent history. Even on HN I see a lot of commenters making that tired old "lazy union worker" argument come out of the woodwork with any unionization thread. Like, why the hell would you not want to collectively bargain? You really think you have more leverage with your employer as an individual? What negotiation book taught you that strategy, the one called "what not to do"? Its always ironic seeing threads about how software engineers are fed up with stupid corporate stuff, like the interview song and dance or whatever else, then fail to see that by unionizing, software engineers could dramatically change how the entire industry works, and by continuing to just jump ship in hopes of finding better pastures they perpetuate this broken system that just finds another worker to exploit.
missedthecue 4y ago
According to the Atlantic, religion gave us weekends and the five day work week https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/where-the-five-day-workweek-came-from/378870/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/where-t...

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

> Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? Because the workforce has had enough of the lopsided equation and is starting to push back.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

If you’ve seen the workforce, I would argue that employers are dealing with some of the worst employees in US History. I’m not joking. Demotivated, constantly job to job, easily bored, poor health, poor “Work ethic,” drug use, alcoholism. Both employer and employee probably share blame for this. This might not be apparent in Silicon Valley, but it is much more real for the rest of America.

jhonof 4y ago
Worker productivity is still some of the highest it has been in US history, caring about motivation or "work ethic" is frankly silly considering that isn't what companies are optimizing for. If companies still offered pensions and kept benefits and salary comparable to competitors they wouldn't be seeing job hopping at the rate they are now. It's a free market, want better employees with a higher "work ethic" that will stick around? You will need to compete. This isn't new, my dad growing up worked in IB and would switch jobs, or use existing offers as leverage for salary benefits, once every 2-3 years, and he switched jobs multiple times in my childhood.
rexreed 4y ago
The generalization aside, if organizations are having such labor issues, what is the motivation for mistreating employees? Doesn't it just exacerbate and compound labor issues? How is any of this helpful? Just retaliatory?
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  In my opinion the pattern looks very similar to that of an abusive parent/partner. Only rarely do such a person correct their ways once pointed out that they are being abusive, and most only ramp up their abuse to try to "silence" the complaints.
ben7799 4y ago
It's very hard to believe things are worse than they used to be. Go back to the "golden age" of manufacturing and boom times in the US post WWII. Drugs were not illegal, drunk driving was not illegal. Drinking lots was totally normal. No one thought any of it was an issue, so they likely were a lot more messed up and just didn't really care. People were taking smoke breaks constantly during the day which was certainly a drag on productivity. All the bad behavior was so normalized they didn't even think it was a problem.

tyingq 4y ago

Perhaps some (ill-advised) attempt to claw back control they've lost over the last couple of years where hiring had become ultra competitive, low-end wages rose to somewhat reasonable levels, etc. Seems like the slide into a recession is some signal to them that they can swing the pendulum back the other way.

danuker 4y ago
> control they've lost over the last couple of years Compared to compensation vs. productivity over the last half-century, employers should expect further pushback. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Ooh, I know this one. Nixon came up with a new strategy for jailing and enslaving opponents to conservatism and corporatism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs It was also about when thatcher first had a cabinet seat. After that we had the end of history and the glory of the invisible hand of the free market raining abundance upon all.
  - danuker 4y ago
    I believe your perception is accurate. Nixon also took the dollar off the gold standard "temporarily", and government proceeded to debase the currency continuously since then, hand in hand with the financial sector.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Probably best to be a bit wary of pushing narratives from a group that say the problem is there's too gosh darned much public control over things and we need to deregulate and transfer more power to the financial sector without a caveat then.
- 4y ago

randomdata 4y ago

An employer is just the employee of next the customer up the chain, and for various reasons, rising interest rates being a big one, that next customer is putting the squeeze on its employees so each link down the chain also starts to feel the squeeze.

rexreed 4y ago
I am not understanding your sentiment here. Are you forgiving any employer excesses because they have to respond to someone else? Is there really no limit or accountability? How about the buck stops with the bad employer.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > I am not understanding your sentiment here. Because there is no sentiment. Information does not have feelings.
- guhidalg 4y ago
  I think you misunderstood what he said. We are all links on a chain where employers pay us, customers pay our employer, and someone pays our customers. When the source of all the money starts to dry up because of rising interest rates and supply shocks across the world, customers and employees will respond naturally by tightening their purse strings, which ultimately affects how much money we get paid in cash and benefits. You would do the same too if your salary was suddenly slashed by 20%. Does that excuse employers from treating you like shit? No, but it also doesn't excuse you from staying there if they do. You can always communicate with your employers about your grievances, and if they are not addressed your ultimate power is to leave that job. You should not underestimate what employers will do to retain someone...
bobkazamakis 4y ago
>An employer is just the employee of next the customer up the chain Well that customer must be a real moron to pay so much money for a CEO, which apparently they pay more money than they spend on whatever the actual product is.

frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago

> Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own employees. It has always been a them-vs-us situation. It's just that 'them' (management/ownership) have been in a hugely advantageous position for a while and so were able to exercise their power discretely. Now that economic circumstances have tipped slightly in favor of laborers, 'they' have to exercise their power in ways that are more obvious.

stackbutterflow 4y ago
Aren't the economic circumstances tipping back in favor to the employers?

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Truly this is becoming a them-vs-us situation with management and board vs their own employees. Always has been. They've never thought of you as anything other than a resource to be exploited as much as possible then discarded. Capital just gets more brazen when it has more power. If you don't like it, stop voting for open fascists.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I have a mild but potentially wild speculation that it might be the internet. The internet allows workers to communicate not just within the company but within the broader ecosystem of work. People are more and more aware of what a raw deal they're getting by executives and companies, and are becoming more and more hostile because they're aware of how hostile companies are to them. Additionally, companies are picking up eye-tracking technology and other hyper-controlling tech that was never feasible a generation ago, leaving employees feeling increasingly taken advantage of.

polygamous_bat 4y ago
Doesn't seem that wild to me, tbh. It's always been the case that the employers are centralized vs. the employees are decentralized, so when it comes to negotiations the centralized party has enjoyed major benefits due to informational assymetry as well as possible coordinated bargaining. Open sharing of information between employees _should_ make it more balanced, which the employers may not be used to.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  I don't think this is the case anymore, not with the internet at least. Yes an employer will know what they are paying others at the company versus you, but unlike before, it's exceedingly easy for an employee to come up with the "market number" of what they should be paid. And often times that "market number" dominates whatever numbers an employer might have that they keep to themselves,
  - kjkjadksj 4y ago
    Its marginally better, but reddit threads or glass door are no subsititute for an actual union negotiating on your behalf. Employers can just fire you or let you leave if you get cocky like this. A union otoh can threaten to strike and effectively shut down an entire company.
mikro2nd 4y ago
It seems to me more like a USA thing. Maybe some other countries where there is little or no worker protection legislation, too?

rfrey 4y ago

Well, in the early 1900s employers were literally hiring thugs to kill their uncooperative employees, in full view of the public. So I'm not sure it's a new or increasing thing.

bradlys 4y ago
It’s a reversion to the early 1900s. It correlates well with Robert Putnam’s newer book. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50124402-the-upswing https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50124402-the-upswing
- throwaway743 4y ago
  Ooo this sounds super interesting. Just rewatched The Century of the Self and restarted Can't Get You Out of My Head by Adam Curtis/BBC, which seem very much aligned to this. Highly recommend if you haven't seen either yet. Free to watch on youtube
Sparkle-san 4y ago
Pinkerton[0] known for being hired to quash unionization attempts still exists to this day and has been used by Amazon and Starbucks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  It's wild that they did not hire some image consultants and change their name in the last 100 years. Though perhaps their notoriety is a net positive in the industry they operate in.
  - routerl 4y ago
    When you hire the Pinkertons, you're hiring legendarily cruel people. That's the brand.
trackedemployee 4y ago

eli_gottlieb 4y ago

>Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? Because the threat of unemployment isn't so severe right now, so they have to do things the older way by just scamming people into indentured servitude.

AlwaysRock 4y ago

When have employers ever been anything other than hostile with their workforces? America in particular doesnt have a good track record with "employment". Anytime something positive is done its because a company is forced to do it or compelled to do it because their competitors are.

bityard 4y ago
I've been at my current employer for 12 years and I have a very narrow tolerance for bullshit so please believe me when I say there are decent employers out there. They are not easy to find, but they exist. I have friends who are in the same boat. And sometimes they are happy enough with their companies that they invite me to apply as well. In my experience, the people who say that all companies are evil are just too lazy to do the work required to find a decent one. Or are projecting their own insecurities or lack of trustworthiness outward.
- AlwaysRock 4y ago
  I'm pretty happy in my job now. I've had at least one job in the past that I was pretty happy with as well. The issue is that the companies that are nice to work for are typically not the companies that pay all that well. At least not well when compared to companies that are less nice to work for.

rr888 4y ago

> Why are employers increasingly being so hostile with their workforces? They aren't. This is one unexpected headline. Most companies are being very nice to their employees because they know the job market is tight.

_fat_santa 4y ago

I have a different take that most of the other comments here. I think what we are seeing is a direct reaction to what happened in 2020/2021 with many non-skilled positions. We had the "great resignation" where employees were the ones holding the cards. Many places like McDonalds and other low-wage jobs had essentially bidding wars for employees and if you weren't keeping your wages at the current market rate, folks would quickly bounce to greener pastures. Some employers rightly saw this as them just needing to pay more, offer greater benefits, and attract employees in a "positive" way. But for every business that did it in the "positive" way, you had many more that did it in a "negative" way by coercing their existing workforce to stay. If you're running a McDonalds and you're paying your employees $12/hr while all your competitors are going to $15/hr, your only option for retention is to either raise your wages or to coerce your employees from leaving. Some places did it the right way by offering more money because that what the market demands, others did it in a coercive way of making employees pay for training and other BS.

conductr 4y ago
This is my answer and I see it in the board room. Management feeling a lack of control as the leverage has shifted to workers is a major point of contention right now. Management is responsible for controlling costs and they have basically no control. They're also rich enough they are tone deaf to what inflation does to people at the lowest income levels. Generally they're also old enough to be tone deaf of all of the economic problems that younger generations have faced (student loans, underemployment, gig economy, etc). They also usually like to control productivity, so this is where the production of salaried employees comes into question - especially around WFH where the company/management is not bought in on that construct. A recent example that almost made me laugh in the meeting, some of our senior living businesses have had major staffing issues (the industry pays nothing to do what is a difficult and disgusting job). Employees basically gave up working overtime or picking up extra shifts, etc. When asked why we don't leverage them more, the operations guys gave a couple politically correct answers but they kept getting drilled by some members of senior management (basically telling him to do what ever is needed to force these people to work and do it with no extra budget! ) so the guy said something like "look, we pay these people $12/hr to wipe old people's asses. They all have second and third jobs and we're almost certainly not even their #1 employer if given a choice. They literally can not get called in or pick up extra shifts when it's needed by us. They're already working a shift somewhere else. We need to pay them enough to give a damn or overstaff so there's always someone available. Both costs money but our businesses problems are not theirs so you choose"

brightball 4y ago

Just as another perspective here: I've also seen employees fighting to avoid paying back optional signing bonus that were given under the condition of staying for a couple of years...not attached to training at all. It's difficult to separate "I don't think I should have to pay back anything, period" from "I don't think I should have to pay for training". The training case can be made sure, but when somebody accepts some form of benefit with the explicit terms: if you leave before X you have to pay it back, I don't see the issue if the terms were clear. EDIT: Now I'm curious about the down votes? Where is the issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements?

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
The "issue with an expectation that people follow through with signed agreements" comes about when there is a power asymmetry between the two parties signing a contract. The reason we have tenant rights, and bans on indentured servitude, and employee rights is because when there is a power imbalance between the two parties the less powerful can often find themselves pushed into extremely unfavorable circumstances, to the point that it has societal-level negative effects. So we ban certain kinds of one-sided contractual clauses. And then corporations include them anyway, because they calculate that there's a non-zero chance that individuals will abide them regardless of their legality. The number of completely unenforceable non-compete clauses I've seen in California is astonishing. Likewise, I've seen blatantly illegal lease agreements. The common factor? One party has far more negotiating power than the other.
- brightball 4y ago
  Signing bonuses though? Here's an extra 5-10% of your first year's salary (optional) if you commit to hanging around for 2 years. I don't see the asymmetry there?

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Because it's easier to crunch a spreadsheet than it is to do proper management. Leadership? Ha! We use that word too often when it does not apply. Think about it. Them - If you leave, you're going to pay for your training. You - Ok then, I don't want to learn anything new. As long as Humans are positioned as just another Resource, we're going to see this type of (i.e., clueless) self-defeating decision making.

jrockway 4y ago
I think humans actually get treated worse than actual resources. I've never heard of charging a vehicle for its past oil changes when it inevitably fails beyond repair, for example.

Nasrudith 4y ago

I personally suspect that their minds were broken by the great recession spoiling them. They already got in the habit of unreasonable demands in employees, this seems like an extension of that dysfunction to me.