Mutual at-will employment?

Post Reply New Topic

What would be the effect of allowing the employees of a corporation be able to vote upon the employment status of the levels of management in control of them, such that a 2/3rds majority vote against a member of management would terminate that manager's employment and an unanimous vote would also have them blacklisted?

What you are talking about is communism and I don't agree with that.

Read the novels from 100 years ago that used terms like "hired man" or hired boy".
A servant talked about his "master".

Up until the 1950's working for someone else was a disgrace.

Any decent man would get his own farm or set up a blacksmith shop or get a horse and wagon and haul freight.

In those days a man would stand on his own two feet and never allow another man power over him.

Communism is allowing employees to get rid of crappy leadership? Or do you mean corporations themselves are communist?

I am not sure this really solves issues though. Corporate employees are not literally invested, despite the fact that some are very emotionally invested, but not only that, but such a rule would probably prevent a number of lay-offs that may actually make economic sense. That ends up being a problem because it will cause more companies to go bankrupt, increase prices of goods and other things when this should not happen.

Now.... I do think that ideally companies should try to form good labor-management relationships, and that this is really important, but, rigidly enforced systems could easily be problematic.

I was a child in the 80's, so obviously this wasn't ever part of my experience or thought. But I have to say, there is something to be said for that. I went from a job in grad school that I was perfectly suited for to working in public and private schools where my job was really more about making my employers happy.

I still teach, but only on an individual basis. I can pick and choose my students, and the only people I answer to are parents of students or adult students--and with them, my attitude is "If you don't like it, you can take your business elsewhere. I don't need you THAT bad!" My only "boss" coordinates non-credit activities at the extension campus where I work, and my only accountability there is that I set my own rules and show up when I say I will. Not many people I know work in a position in which they can set there own pay.

I also work for a church in which I'm subject to the wishes of the pastor and music minister. Because I'm well-suited to that line of work as a pianist and because I'm very flexible in my approach to church music, it works out best for everyone. Very few people around here can even DO what I do, so on the Sundays when I travel to play at different churches in an orchestra, the whole musical part of our worship service has to be almost completely rearranged to account for my absence. It is a sad fact of life that so many people depend on me and I try my best to always be there to provide teaching and performing services. But at the same time, it feels good to be needed so much.

As to the OP, it certainly sounds like a good idea. Corporations are accountable to their investors, certainly. The only way I can see what 'keet is saying could work would be the business owners only hire the best workers in the industry. Democratically they could vote among their own who will lead/manage them based on demonstration of key skills. I don't think anybody like authority vested in people they don't like/don't get along with. I kinda see it working like a monarchy. The "king" hires the best people to do the work and appoints qualified key people as managers on a provisional basis. After a period of time, say, six months, the boss evaluates the work of the managers and asks other employees to nominate from themselves who they would like to see take over on a semi-permanent basis or to continue with provisional management. In this way, everyone wins. The employees get to decide who they want to lead them. The employer wins in that he ultimately has final approval of who gets the job.

At will employment should be the only kind of employment. Blacklisting verges on the unjust. Just because someone has failed in one firm that is no reason to believe he will fail every firm.

ruveyn

Hence the reason for unanimity for the criteria of blacklisting. Unjust? What do employers care about justice in general? Practically all that they care about is the bottom line and the protection of their assets. They only care about justice when it affects them personally in a manner against them.

Do you think it is in the interest of an employer to take the word of another employer against a person without looking at the person. That is a way to miss out on good employees. Blacklist is usually not based on performance on the job, but on political attitudes. Not a very good reason for firing someone and an even worse reason for not hiring someone.

ruveyn

A good employer would probably have at least one vote in his favor. This is not the word of an employer, but the word of the workers who served under this type of employer. But fine, if you think blacklisting people is wrong, I have minimal objections. I feel like I've been treated as such, but it is probably because I'm too honest at interviews and tend to complain about Wal-Fart. Managers should have some form of checks and balances, and not just from above - the people they kiss up to - but even moreover checks and balances placed upon the managers by the people under their dictatorship.

It is fairly well known that a large number of the people selected to have power over others within an organization really are not suited for this role, and do considerable damage to a lot of people.

It would make sense to have some sort of controls on these people, rather than letting them do as they wish and get away with whatever they wish.

For example, you are not (or should not) get to be a police officer with a gun if you are the sort of person who is going to misuse your gun and abuse member of the community. There are (or should be) some sort of psychological evaluations or profiles that must be passed, and an officer that abuses his position should not be allowed to continue as a police officer.

The same sort of standard should apply to people selected for supervisory roles.

Every good manager sucked as a manager at some point. I'm unsure about giving all managers a psychometric test to get in, it'd make all managers the same and ruin varying styles of management. There should be a standard, for example proper complaints procedure and accountability.