Job benefits

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by towny

'Divide and rule' is an easier principle to implement in a large organisation like PwC than it is going to be in Jerrek's firm - which, unless he comes up with an unusually big idea is likely to number only a few employees for at least its first few years. Jerrek may not formally recognise a trade union but if his small band of wage slaves gang up on him he will be forced to recognise it. If he doesn't, he could threaten to sack them (which would be huis right), but losing your entire workforce overnight is a sure way to delay (or even prevent) delivery to your customers, and guess what happens then...

But the need for unionisation of a small group of IT professionals, or the need to recognise a union is unlikely to be necessary.

Unionisation works best where you have large groups of (and I hate to use the word) 'commodity' employees, bank tellers, packers, call centre ee's with whom union negotiation should be a more effective way of managing the ee's. This assumes that the Union and the Eer are both working with similar goals in mind. Where these ee's are not unionised then they are the ones most likely to get screwed. Take the HSBC cleaners for example.

http://icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk/th...name_page.html

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The work place will be very strongly oriented towards the Republican or Conservative party, with easy to use forms for employees to make contributions.

Of course, you would more than likely also have to put such forms in place so that employees could make "easy" donations to the Republicans, otherwise you have instigated discrimination in the work place.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Of course, you would more than likely also have to put such forms in place so that employees could make "easy" donations to the Republicans, otherwise you have instigated discrimination in the work place.

Assuming you mean Democrats - I don't think Jerrek has any scruples about discriminating against them.

Originally Posted by towny

Assuming you mean Democrats - I don't think Jerrek has any scruples about discriminating against them.

Damn your eagle eyes.

I did indeed mean Democrats, and I can well believe that Jerrek wouldn`t have any problem with that form of discrimination, but that doesn`t mean that the employment laws would look on it in the same light. I don`t know about over there, but you more than likely couldn`t get away with it over here.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But the need for unionisation of a small group of IT professionals, or the need to recognise a union is unlikely to be necessary.

Unionisation works best where you have large groups of (and I hate to use the word) 'commodity' employees, bank tellers, packers, call centre ee's with whom union negotiation should be a more effective way of managing the ee's. This assumes that the Union and the Eer are both working with similar goals in mind. Where these ee's are not unionised then they are the ones most likely to get screwed. Take the HSBC cleaners for example.

http://icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk/th...name_page.html

Less than 14% of people in the United States are unionized, and that includes the socialist north-east. Do you really think the IT sector have unions? Unlikely. Besides, I'll treat my employees as equals and I'll make them happy. Happy employees work harder, which means my company(ies) do better.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Of course, you would more than likely also have to put such forms in place so that employees could make "easy" donations to the Republicans, otherwise you have instigated discrimination in the work place.

I'm not discriminating against anyone, nor am I preventing anyone from exercising any legal rights. I can make whatever forms available to my employees that I want.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I'm not discriminating against anyone, nor am I preventing anyone from exercising any legal rights. I can make whatever forms available to my employees that I want.

But if you don`t make those forms available for use, regardless of where the political financing ends up heading, then that is a form of discrimination, as essentially you are getting assistance if your political opinions happen to coincide with yours. Now, even I would not necessarily argue that this is a form of discrimination that is particularly worth worrying about, and as I said, discrimination law over there is probably different to here, but in the UK you probably wouldn`t get away with it.

Surely there's no harm in checking that you are going to get bitten by a litigious employee somewhere down the road?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But if you don`t make those forms available for use, regardless of where the political financing ends up heading, then that is a form of discrimination,

Not really. We only consider discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and disibilities.

If I put down forms for 5 charities, I don't have to put forms down for all 70,000 charities in Canada. That would be stupid and impractical.

as essentially you are getting assistance if your political opinions happen to coincide with yours.

Absolutely, just like if I prove only forms for the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Asthma society, I'm doing the same thing. Nothing wrong with it.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Less than 14% of people in the United States are unionized, and that includes the socialist north-east. Do you really think the IT sector have unions? Unlikely. Besides, I'll treat my employees as equals and I'll make them happy. Happy employees work harder, which means my company(ies) do better.

That all sounds nice and easy the way that you put it Jerrek but don't forget that your employees will be human beings with the human traits of jealousy and greed. You may see a vision of what your company will be like at the moment but will that vision remain the same in the future? You will be influenced by people around you, wife, partner, children, employees, customers, suppliers, etc and will their hopes and expectations be the same as yours?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Not really. We only consider discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and disibilities.

Then that is different to the legal situation in the UK (potentially). Over here, you are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of "religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief", amongst many other things. There has not yet been a test case, as far as I know, there is currently a grey area as to whether political alignment comes under the remit of "philosophical belief." If such an issue does come to court, it will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

That all sounds nice and easy the way that you put it Jerrek but don't forget that your employees will be human beings with the human traits of jealousy and greed. You may see a vision of what your company will be like at the moment but will that vision remain the same in the future? You will be influenced by people around you, wife, partner, children, employees, customers, suppliers, etc and will their hopes and expectations be the same as yours?

What are you saying and how is it relevant to the discussion?