2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

jowner wrote:

I've worked in an organization where if part time workers hit a certain # of hours a year a full time position had to be created. Guess what the result was? Depressing hours so that full time positions are not made this way.

No one should be really surprised this is happening. Feel free to think hes a dick though.

I think this just keeps coming back to the idea that the only thing a CEO or executive should be concerned about is the bottom line. And that is - both morally and functionally - not true. It shouldn't be surprising, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he could NOT have just said, "This hurts my profits, but our company is built on family and small business values, and I am happy to be part of helping my employees have coverage. Now, buy some of my feel-good, wonderfully morally superior pizza!" That would be an incredible way to garner good will from both sides of the fence on this issue. And on top of that, again, the question of worker incentive and morale comes into play from a business perspective.

So let's not keep waving around the idea that this is obviously the only route someone in John Schnatter's position could take, and thus we must absolve him from any and all judgment regarding his choice.

Bloo Driver wrote:
jowner wrote:

I've worked in an organization where if part time workers hit a certain # of hours a year a full time position had to be created. Guess what the result was? Depressing hours so that full time positions are not made this way.

No one should be really surprised this is happening. Feel free to think hes a dick though.

I think this just keeps coming back to the idea that the only thing a CEO or executive should be concerned about is the bottom line. And that is - both morally and functionally - not true. It shouldn't be surprising, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he could NOT have just said, "This hurts my profits, but our company is built on family and small business values, and I am happy to be part of helping my employees have coverage. Now, buy some of my feel-good, wonderfully morally superior pizza!"

Funny thing is I was poking around on the website to see how Papa John's presents itself:

P.A.P.A.
People Are Priority Always. Our success depends upon our ability, as a team, to work together to achieve our goals and expectations.

http://www.papajohns.com/about/pj_va...

Team Members
People are our most important asset. Papa John's will provide clear, consistent, strategic leadership and career opportunities for Team Members who (a) exhibit passion toward their work, (b) uphold our Core Values, (c) take pride of ownership in building the long-term value of the Papa John's brand and (d) have ethical business practices.

http://www.papajohns.com/about/pj_mi...

so much for all that.

edosan wrote:

The only rational solution? I would posit that a second possible rational solution would for the CEO to not be a dick to his employees.

Of course, I'm sure that previous generations of CEOs said their only rational solutions were to have child labor, ignore health and safety laws, and not have a forty hour workweek.

I mean, it's all about the bottom lie, right?

You look at what the system is designed to do, and you work within those parameters. PJ's and similar operations are designed to move the product to consumers as efficiently and cheaply as possible, so reducing hours to avoid a huge added expense is a logical solution to the problem at hand.

Fish gotta swim.

Now, I shouldn't have said that this is the only rational response, but it's certainly a rational response. At a certain point PJ's can't keep reducing employees' benefits, or they'll start losing good employees to competitors (but given the current employment situation, I really don't think that's an immediate concern).

I think a lot of people want to see some kind of morality from corporations, but in most cases that's a ridiculous expectation for a system whose entire design is to compete as efficiently as possible. Spending money being "nice" is not efficient.

Corporations can be "good citizens" to the extent that the market demands that of them; it's good PR, employees (especially customer service employees) can be more efficient, and such companies can sell things at a premium based on that reputation. This is why e.g. Whole Foods is so successful.

But while there's a market for the upscale "good" employers, there's also always going to be a market for cheap pizza, and (right now anyway) there are lots of unskilled people who would be happy to have part time jobs making that pizza.

I'm not saying you should like how it works, but that's how it works, and any legislation needs to consider this. The outcome of employers limiting hours (even if Papa John himself doesn't, surely somebody will) to avoid FTEs as a result of Obamacare must have been expected. But even so, people who are moved to part time and lose some income might still have a better quality of life due to the government subsidized health insurance they will receive under Obamcare. 29 hours a week near minimum wage with health care is likely better than 40 hours a week near minimum wage without it.

Bloo Driver wrote:

It shouldn't be surprising, perhaps, but that doesn't mean he could NOT have just said, "This hurts my profits, but our company is built on family and small business values, and I am happy to be part of helping my employees have coverage. Now, buy some of my feel-good, wonderfully morally superior pizza!"

I'm not sure you have enough information to definitively declare that a viable option.

Well, it's be a good run, but the election is over and the discussion has moved on. Time for new, issue-specific threads.