Herman Cain: It's Your Fault if You're Unemployed

[Coito ergo sum]

Democracies give everyone a vote on things subject to being voted on. A majority of the residents in my town can't vote, for example, to have a slumber party at my house at which I will supply snacks and beverages. My vote trumps them all, in that context.

They should be able to (and in fact can) but if society is that screwed up to choose that then the problem isnt democracy its the people and area you live in.

They can't in my country. My private property right gives me the absolute say on who can enter, except in limited circumstances. I can even order a police officer off of my property, if he's not there to arrest me and doesn't have a warrant.

If 51% of population want to make it legal to shoot the other 49% then there is zero point in having any higher laws preventing them as your country is finished anyway.

That extreme example aside, the majority quite often can be swayed to vote for terrible things. That's why the vicissitudes of the majority are tempered by structured, constitutional government.

[Cunt]

That's why you need to get things in writing. If it's not in writing, the boss and you can always change the terms. The boss can add work to the job by saying "I need you to do this." You can say,"sorry boss, no my yob, mang." In which case he can say either, "o.k., fine," or "well, I don't need you anymore." Similarly, you can say after working there for 3 months, "boss, this is unreasonable work you have me doing, and I need to only do 80% of it..." and the boss can either say "o.k." or "no, keep doing all the work." You can then say "I quit."

Maybe in the Big Rock Candy Mountains, but in reality, the majority of employment contracts say 'other duties as assigned' or some such. This means that an employee can always be given more to do, and can like it or quit.

No business could run under those terms, but the proletariat are expected to.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's why you need to get things in writing. If it's not in writing, the boss and you can always change the terms. The boss can add work to the job by saying "I need you to do this." You can say,"sorry boss, no my yob, mang." In which case he can say either, "o.k., fine," or "well, I don't need you anymore." Similarly, you can say after working there for 3 months, "boss, this is unreasonable work you have me doing, and I need to only do 80% of it..." and the boss can either say "o.k." or "no, keep doing all the work." You can then say "I quit."

Maybe in the Big Rock Candy Mountains, but in reality, the majority of employment contracts say 'other duties as assigned' or some such. This means that an employee can always be given more to do, and can like it or quit.

No business could run under those terms, but the proletariat are expected to.

In the real world, most people don't have any written employment contracts.

The difference is that businesses work by job or project, not by hour. When I hire a business to make me widgets, I don't pay them by the hour. I don't care how long it takes them to make the widgets. If they can get it done in 2 seconds, that's their business, not mine. That's not how employees perform services.

[Seth]

"Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Better than one big wolf doing the deciding for everyone.

If a 1000 people work in a factory which they consider dangerous they can either use negotiate with the owner to try and improve things who may or may not be interested of their can elect a government that will who certainly will listen as they outnumber the owner 1000 to 1.

I do my investing via the ballot box

Or, they can organize public protests, petition the government to improve workplace safety, or find another job. When enough people refuse to work in dangerous conditions, the company will go out of business or will rectify the problem.

Your plaint is a red herring because we're not discussing workplace safety, we're discussing wages and compensation.

And when it comes to what a private employer chooses to pay, it's not the business of government to dictate that, it's a negotiation between the workers and the employer, who may, if he wishes, refuse to pay what the labor force is asking, in which case he will not have any employees and will go out of business.

Obviously he doesn't want to go out of business and he NEEDS qualified, skilled and loyal employees in order to make products and sell them at a profit, so he is forced by the free market for labor, in which workers are free to take better jobs elsewhere, to negotiate a fair, agreed-upon wage with his employees.

[Seth]

The vast majority of non-citizen, and non-legal resident aliens working in the farm industry are, in fact, legal. Only a small percentage of farmworkers are illegal. So, in no sense of the word can it be said that "illegal aliens" do work Americans "won't" do.

A quick web surf suggests that about 25% of all farm workers are here illegally:

Nearly a quarter of all farm workers are here illegally, and according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 17 percent of those cleaning the nations' offices and 12 percent preparing food in the country don't have legal work papers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5250150

Granted NPR is not the most reliable source, but given their liberal leanings, those numbers are probably lower than the reality rather than higher. If your numbers for citizen and legal resident farm workers are correct - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - then the arithmetic says that there are more foreign farm workers here illegally than on legal H2A visas.

If we take that number, 25%, as the true number, it still means that it is flat out wrong that "illegals are doing jobs that Americans WON'T do." The remaining 75% of folks doing those jobs are either American citizens or legal aliens. Americans WILL do those jobs. I know that for a fact because Americans do, in fact, do those jobs.

The unemployed factory workers and paper-shufflers won't. The fact that some Americans will do field labor does not impugn the fact that American farmers generally cannot hire a sufficient number of American workers for the fields so they are forced to hire illegal immigrants. In Palisade, CO this year, fruit growers offer $25 per hour for orchard workers to anyone who needed a job. They found almost universally that the local American workforce that was unemployed would show up for a day, or perhaps two, and would then simply abandon the job because it's fucking hard work and they would rather take unemployment than sweat in the orchards. Orchardmen need reliable full-time workers who will stay the entire season, because you can't learn the work overnight, it takes skill and experience.

The same is true of farmers nationwide. They can offer well-paid jobs doing manual field labor to Americans, but they can't find enough of them to fill their needs, so they resort to those who are accustomed to such work, the illegal aliens, who come here precisely because they know they can find work because most Americans are pampered and lazy.

Not all, by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly most of those who are currently unemployed, who could be employed if they were willing to relocate and do the sort of hard manual labor that's available, but won't. That's because the government is paying them to stay unemployed, and unemployment checks are easier to pick up than onions.

If government cuts off the checks, and people start to get *really* hungry, they will begin to take the jobs that need to be filled in order to eat.

[Coito ergo sum]

The vast majority of non-citizen, and non-legal resident aliens working in the farm industry are, in fact, legal. Only a small percentage of farmworkers are illegal. So, in no sense of the word can it be said that "illegal aliens" do work Americans "won't" do.

A quick web surf suggests that about 25% of all farm workers are here illegally:

Nearly a quarter of all farm workers are here illegally, and according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 17 percent of those cleaning the nations' offices and 12 percent preparing food in the country don't have legal work papers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5250150

Granted NPR is not the most reliable source, but given their liberal leanings, those numbers are probably lower than the reality rather than higher. If your numbers for citizen and legal resident farm workers are correct - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - then the arithmetic says that there are more foreign farm workers here illegally than on legal H2A visas.

If we take that number, 25%, as the true number, it still means that it is flat out wrong that "illegals are doing jobs that Americans WON'T do." The remaining 75% of folks doing those jobs are either American citizens or legal aliens. Americans WILL do those jobs. I know that for a fact because Americans do, in fact, do those jobs.

The unemployed factory workers and paper-shufflers won't. The fact that some Americans will do field labor does not impugn the fact that American farmers generally cannot hire a sufficient number of American workers for the fields so they are forced to hire illegal immigrants.

The stats are the stats. at least 75% of farm workers are either American citizens or legal resident aliens. The rest are primarily legal nonresident aliens and some illegal aliens. Plenty of Americans won't do that kind of job, of course. I wouldn't, but I'm qualified for more and I have a situation that is better than that. However, there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs, and plenty more would if the number of foreign workers were limited.

[
In Palisade, CO this year, fruit growers offer $25 per hour for orchard workers to anyone who needed a job. They found almost universally that the local American workforce that was unemployed would show up for a day, or perhaps two, and would then simply abandon the job because it's fucking hard work and they would rather take unemployment than sweat in the orchards. Orchardmen need reliable full-time workers who will stay the entire season, because you can't learn the work overnight, it takes skill and experience.

I'd love to see the article on that. It is in the interest of the farmer to claim that no Americans will work for $25 an hour because orchard picking is too hard. It justifies hiring immigrants (legal or otherwise). I am not sure I buy it. $50,000 a year to pick fruit. I highly doubt it would be hard to fill those jobs if people could get their from home.

The same is true of farmers nationwide. They can offer well-paid jobs doing manual field labor to Americans, but they can't find enough of them to fill their needs, so they resort to those who are accustomed to such work, the illegal aliens, who come here precisely because they know they can find work because most Americans are pampered and lazy.

You speak in generalities. I gave you the numbers. More than 1/2 of all the farmworkers ARE Americans, and of the remaining that are not US citizens, they are mostly "legal." That being said, the fact is that Mexicans come to the US with no ability to get much else in terms of work, and those are the kind of jobs a lot of them were doing in Mexico. They want to come to the US to get those jobs because what pays pennies in Mexico pays dollars i the US, and substandard wages here gives them a boatload of cash to send home. So, we have a supply of workers from Mexico that are affirmatively coming here seeking out those kinds of jobs. Americans who grow up here see many more opportunities as within their grasp. It's not that no Americans will do those jobs, it's that some Americans wil not do those jobs.

Not all, by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly most of those who are currently unemployed, who could be employed if they were willing to relocate and do the sort of hard manual labor that's available, but won't. That's because the government is paying them to stay unemployed, and unemployment checks are easier to pick up than onions.

If government cuts off the checks, and people start to get *really* hungry, they will begin to take the jobs that need to be filled in order to eat.

There are enough already willing to do that work. If we cut off the supply of illegal workers and H-2A workers, the farmers would find workers - they would not let their crops die.

[Seth]

The worker is not "exploited" in the least because he agrees to do a fixed amount of work for a fixed wage, which he gets paid whether or not the product he contributes to is ever sold.

Just a thought here, Seth, but every time I have worked for a wage - EVERY time - the bosses have added work to the job without increasing pay.

So? His job as boss is to utilize his workers as efficiently as possible and get them to do as much work as physically possible in order to maximize their investment in the cost of labor. Your job is to do the work that he asks you to do as quickly, competently and efficiently as possible consistent with safety. If your boss sees that you have idle time on your hands and could be working harder, it's his right to give you other things to do.

What the worker is supposed to do is a fixed amount of work for a fixed wage, I agree, but what actually happens is quite different.

Get it in writing, or work as hard as you can no matter what he asks. The former will not get you promoted or get you a raise. The latter will.

Bosses take advantage, and even the best of them don't like to see their employees 'sitting around', even after they have finished what they contracted to do.

Well, that depends on the contract. Most salaried or wage employment contracts are for a day's work for a day's pay. What that work consists of is determined by the boss, not by the worker. If you're a carpenter, you contracted to engage in carpentry eight hours a day with time for breaks and lunch, and your job isn't done until the day is done.

If you have a labor contract, like for example auto workers, you have specific job duties to be performed in a specific manner for a specific period of time, and you are entitled to hold him to that contract. That's what unions are for, to negotiate such things. Then again, the business owner is not under any obligation to agree to such a contract if he can find workers willing to work under different contract conditions for lower wages.

If you're an independent contractor and have contracted for specific work, then when you're finished, you're done...unless, of course, you want ANOTHER contract with that company, which may require you to go the extra mile to induce them to hire you again.

Because of this, I have come to realize that 'work ethic' phrase which is tossed around is really a 'slave ethic'. No business would or could agree to do work for money if the work could include 'other duties as deemed necessary by the boss' while not including more money.

Again, you're hired to do a day's work for a day's pay. What that specific work consists of is not for you to determine. If the boss wants his lead engineer to clean the toilets in the building, well, that's what the lead engineer is obligated to do, because that's what he's getting paid to do...a day's work for a day's pay.

I have started applying a 'business ethic' to my work. Since then, most wage-paying employers won't agree to anything. They simply MUST have something in their contract which allows them to ask for more without paying for it.

They are fully entitled to ask for and expect you to work hard all day, every day for each and every day that they pay you to do so doing whatever they tell you to do. You have a free choice to work hard all day, every day doing whatever the boss asks, or you may quit your job and enjoy your leisure time without the benefit of a paycheck from your former employer. It's up to you. But your boss doesn't have to pay you to stand around the water cooler talking about the last football match you attended. You are stealing from him when you fail to give your all each and every day, and he has every right to find something else for you to do, or fire you, if you're idling about.

The law generally requires that you get a lunch break and, generally, two short rest breaks during a working day. Other than that, he has every right to expect your full, undivided attention and your maximum labor output in return for what he's paying you. If you are expecting something else, you are sadly mistaken in your analysis of what the general wage labor contract consists of.

It isn't anywhere near fair, and a perfect example is that when hiring someone to clean a place of business on a wage, most business owners would add more duties whenever the janitorial staff was 'sitting around' (finished their duties).

Of course they would, and rightfully so, if they are paying for a full day's work. Now, if you hire janitorial staff by the hour, and only pay them for the hours they work, then when they complete the day's work, you send them home and the pay stops. That's commonplace. Take serving food as an example. The staffing is set based on what the predicted customer load will be given the time of day. If business is unexpectedly slow, it's perfectly appropriate for a manager to cut wait staff and send them home. The boss is under no obligation to pay idlers in any job. If there's not enough work to be done, and there's nothing else you can be reassigned to do to make it worth his while to have you around, then he's entitled to send you home, and your pay stops when you clock out.

If you're on salary, meaning you get paid the same each week regardless of the hours you work, then he's fully entitled to make use of you as much as he likes because that's the nature of a salaried position. You sacrifice the predictability of an hourly wage for the higher pay that comes with a salary, but the quid pro quo is that your boss can demand more of you to make it worth his while to pay your salary. If you don't like the demands he places on you for overtime work, then find another job. Remember, you do not have a RIGHT to work for him, you work at his pleasure and convenience.

You are also free to work for yourself by creating your own business...where you will quickly find out that being the boss ain't all it's cracked up to be and you'll likely end up working more hours than any of your salaried employees just to make it work.

Trust me, if you don't like being asked to work hard for someone else, you'll absolutely hate working for yourself, when it's YOUR assets on the line if you slack off.

When contracting a cleaning company, more duties almost universally means business owners being charged more.

Right. But that's because a cleaning company can move employees from one place to another to keep them working all the time. If they do more work for one company, the cleaning company gets paid more, but the cleaning employees make the same amount of money every day for a full day's cleaning regardless of which facility they happen to be working in, so you're right back where we started with this: employees get paid for a full day's work, nothing more, nothing less.

[Seth]

It's not an inherent concept in working at a job that if you are given a task and finish it in 6 hours that you ought to sit around and relax the remaining 2. If you're paid by the hour, the boss can give you work to do, and when you finish, he can give you more work to do. Or, he can stop you half way through and put you on another project. You'd be free to refuse, of course, or quit.

Some people have it better than others, and some employers are more enlightened than others and try different business models. I knew a fellow who worked for Bendix in Daytona Beach, FL back in the mid-70's. The company expected him to make X number of cable assemblies each month. They set the quota and the particular work conditions allowed the employees to work whenever they wanted to complete the quota. He had his own workstation and it wasn't an assembly line, so he could build cables any time.

He would work about 10 days straight, 15 or more hours a day, to build his quota of cables, and then he took the rest of the month off and would go sailing. He lived full-time on a 60' sailboat and would take off to the islands or wherever on his time off. Great job for him. Not one most people can have.

But the point is that the employer makes the rules, not the employee.

[Seth]

That's why you need to get things in writing. If it's not in writing, the boss and you can always change the terms. The boss can add work to the job by saying "I need you to do this." You can say,"sorry boss, no my yob, mang." In which case he can say either, "o.k., fine," or "well, I don't need you anymore." Similarly, you can say after working there for 3 months, "boss, this is unreasonable work you have me doing, and I need to only do 80% of it..." and the boss can either say "o.k." or "no, keep doing all the work." You can then say "I quit."

Maybe in the Big Rock Candy Mountains, but in reality, the majority of employment contracts say 'other duties as assigned' or some such. This means that an employee can always be given more to do, and can like it or quit.

No business could run under those terms, but the proletariat are expected to.

That's because that's what they are getting paid for.

[Coito ergo sum]

The worker is not "exploited" in the least because he agrees to do a fixed amount of work for a fixed wage, which he gets paid whether or not the product he contributes to is ever sold.

Just a thought here, Seth, but every time I have worked for a wage - EVERY time - the bosses have added work to the job without increasing pay.

So? His job as boss is to utilize his workers as efficiently as possible and get them to do as much work as physically possible in order to maximize their investment in the cost of labor. Your job is to do the work that he asks you to do as quickly, competently and efficiently as possible consistent with safety. If your boss sees that you have idle time on your hands and could be working harder, it's his right to give you other things to do.

That depends on the deal, Seth. If the agreement was that the job would be limited to certain functions, and when those functions were complete the employee would remain on call for those functions, then the boss would not have that right. Contract rights arise by agreement.

Naturally, if there was no specific agreement, and the deal was that the employee would work for employer by the hour and do the assigned tasks, then you are correct. Tasks are assigned, and the employee does them, or not. If not, the employer would have the choice to pay him anyway for doing nothing, or fire the guy.

[Jason]

That's why you need to get things in writing. If it's not in writing, the boss and you can always change the terms. The boss can add work to the job by saying "I need you to do this." You can say,"sorry boss, no my yob, mang." In which case he can say either, "o.k., fine," or "well, I don't need you anymore." Similarly, you can say after working there for 3 months, "boss, this is unreasonable work you have me doing, and I need to only do 80% of it..." and the boss can either say "o.k." or "no, keep doing all the work." You can then say "I quit."

Maybe in the Big Rock Candy Mountains, but in reality, the majority of employment contracts say 'other duties as assigned' or some such. This means that an employee can always be given more to do, and can like it or quit.

No business could run under those terms, but the proletariat are expected to.

That's because that's what they are getting paid for.

If the employment contracts of the majority of employers contains such a handy loophole (handy for the employer), what they're getting paid for is.. what again?

[Seth]

The worker is not "exploited" in the least because he agrees to do a fixed amount of work for a fixed wage, which he gets paid whether or not the product he contributes to is ever sold.

Just a thought here, Seth, but every time I have worked for a wage - EVERY time - the bosses have added work to the job without increasing pay.

So? His job as boss is to utilize his workers as efficiently as possible and get them to do as much work as physically possible in order to maximize their investment in the cost of labor. Your job is to do the work that he asks you to do as quickly, competently and efficiently as possible consistent with safety. If your boss sees that you have idle time on your hands and could be working harder, it's his right to give you other things to do.

That depends on the deal, Seth. If the agreement was that the job would be limited to certain functions, and when those functions were complete the employee would remain on call for those functions, then the boss would not have that right. Contract rights arise by agreement.

Correct. But that's a very specific contract and most employees don't have that sort.

[Seth]

That's why you need to get things in writing. If it's not in writing, the boss and you can always change the terms. The boss can add work to the job by saying "I need you to do this." You can say,"sorry boss, no my yob, mang." In which case he can say either, "o.k., fine," or "well, I don't need you anymore." Similarly, you can say after working there for 3 months, "boss, this is unreasonable work you have me doing, and I need to only do 80% of it..." and the boss can either say "o.k." or "no, keep doing all the work." You can then say "I quit."

Maybe in the Big Rock Candy Mountains, but in reality, the majority of employment contracts say 'other duties as assigned' or some such. This means that an employee can always be given more to do, and can like it or quit.

No business could run under those terms, but the proletariat are expected to.

That's because that's what they are getting paid for.

If the employment contracts of the majority of employers contains such a handy loophole (handy for the employer), what they're getting paid for is.. what again?

A day's work doing whatever the employer demands as quickly and efficiently as possible of course. What do you think they are getting paid for, exchanging idle gossip and eating doughnuts?

[MattShizzle]

They really should have to have a job description for every job out there that says what the job entails and they should NOT be allowed to include things like "other duties as assigned." There is not anywhere close to enough regulations as to how businesses should run. Businesses should be told by the government how they are allowed to run - especially how they can treat their workers.

[Seth]

They really should have to have a job description for every job out there that says what the job entails and they should NOT be allowed to include things like "other duties as assigned." There is not anywhere close to enough regulations as to how businesses should run. Businesses should be told by the government how they are allowed to run - especially how they can treat their workers.

Why? That sounds like the plaint of a lazy socialist who wants to get something for nothing. No nation that's ever tried what you suggest has ever lasted very long before disintegrating. We're seeing places like Greece and the UK doing exactly that right now as a result of the sort of lazy dependent-class entitlement mentality you just demonstrated in your post.

If you don't want to work hard every day in return for getting paid, then don't, but don't expect to get paid for not working hard.