Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We have only two tables. We were going to play outside the rule set. As in "what we as leaders" would do in a firefight. As in the if the rest of squad was in cover but for one unlucky SoB....then we would opt out that unlucky SoB. Throwing the grenades would go forward instead of where the arrow pointed..unless the one was rolled...then the squad would roll to unass the AO. Roll for distance. If under fire then 1" inch deviant comes into play....you know...RL firefight experience entering the game. SOme of us improve a fighting postion in RL...why not the mini's if they don't move or shoot but fortify their position? We're working with Jen on this. We think it'll be a blast. Just that Jen mention has to be military on military and not military vs kids and non mil types.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
LOL damn that's a thread right there....Do infantry MOS's have an unfair advantage over non military. As in mindset on thinking outside the box lol

 Melissia wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Business people are not just accountable to their stockholders.

Yes, actually, they are. That's all that matters to executives' bottom line. Countless examples exist of CEOs making decisions that are incredibly stupid, but happen to please their stockholders.

To clarify this somewhat, you might want to rephrase that as " Countless examples exist of CEOs making decisions that are incredibly stupid in the long term, but generate short term profits, but happen to please their stockholders who have no problem with short term profits."

Warren Buffett had some interesting thoughts on how to fix this, presuming this is actually a "problem". The idea was, I believe, substantially increasing the tax on short-term stock sales, but then after 5 years (or so), completely removing all tax on them which would drastically change corporate culture.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Obamacare and labor unions though.

Also, you know you've been on Dakka too long when you almost add a "u" to labor as an American.

Ethical decisions quite often have much to do with short vs long term gain.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, as a counter point. What on earth makes people think a Walmart Cashier should get benefits?

And "because the employee needs them" is not a good reason. Everybody needs/wants everything.

The employer also needs good employees, and from the managment model I witnessed where I work and it's results, the best thing an employer can do is invest in his employees. This is both in cash and benefit incentives as well as training them above their job level. When I first started working where I do, there were only 50 employees, but the business has since grown to need over 750 in the years I worked there.
As I stated in an earlier post, the workforce is so incredibly well trained, pretty much anyone who has worked there for a few months is more than the equal in lean manufacturing techniques a lot of college graduates posses. As a consequence, the company has people come from all over the world to learn the job relations model of our company as well as our lean techniques.
The mind set of our managment is that a "rising tide raises all boats".
Employers that are not willing to invest in their employees generally end up with short timers who have no loyalty that are always looking for the first way out, with no stake in caring if the business does well or not. Such a company finds itself in a continual cycle of having to train people and dealing with the cost of mistakes during the traing process.
A wise man once told me, "If you want monkeys, then pay peanuts".

It's a mistake to assume that all businesses have the capability or even the need to follow that model, however.

 Valion wrote:
It's a mistake to assume that all businesses have the capability or even the need to follow that model, however.

This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.

Relapse wrote:
This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.

I doubt that's true. McDonald's, for instance, would likely be a lot less profitable if it put employees first. Most businesses that rely on unskilled labor would see nothing but a profit decrease if they suddenly started shelling out Google-style employee amenities.

Relapse wrote:

 Valion wrote:
It's a mistake to assume that all businesses have the capability or even the need to follow that model, however.

This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.

I think that depends mostly upon the job. It's a skilled vs. unskilled labor type of thing, hence a McDonald's which will fire you for being 10 minutes late whereas as at Generic Software Company, you get a concerned call from your boss at 30 minutes late making sure everything is okay (goddamned traffic) and finding out if you need some time off/work from home, and when you do get into the office, there's free coffee/soda/foosball/wii games.

Doesn't keep McDonald's from being on every street corner. Generic Software Company is not doing too bad either from what I hear.

Edit; That thing that was said more concisely just before me.

Grey Templar wrote:Is being a cashier at Walmart worth $10 an hour plus benefits? Hell no. I'd say its barely worth $5 an hour with no benefits.

And what price per hour will you pay to prevent your employee from skimming from the register? Because if your employee cannot afford to eat because of how low the wage is, then you(infinitive, not necessarily you personally) must be impossibly stupid to think the employee will choose to go hungry rather than short the cash register. Sure, if you catch the employee, they can be fired. Then you have to train a new employee (a further cost) and deal with the exact same problem.

Ouze wrote:Also, you know you've been on Dakka too long when you almost add a "u" to labor as an American.

But at least you finally learned to spell it correctly.

Relapse wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, as a counter point. What on earth makes people think a Walmart Cashier should get benefits?

And "because the employee needs them" is not a good reason. Everybody needs/wants everything.

The employer also needs good employees, and from the managment model I witnessed where I work and it's results, the best thing an employer can do is invest in his employees. This is both in cash and benefit incentives as well as training them above their job level. When I first started working where I do, there were only 50 employees, but the business has since grown to need over 750 in the years I worked there.
As I stated in an earlier post, the workforce is so incredibly well trained, pretty much anyone who has worked there for a few months is more than the equal in lean manufacturing techniques a lot of college graduates posses. As a consequence, the company has people come from all over the world to learn the job relations model of our company as well as our lean techniques.
The mind set of our managment is that a "rising tide raises all boats".
Employers that are not willing to invest in their employees generally end up with short timers who have no loyalty that are always looking for the first way out, with no stake in caring if the business does well or not. Such a company finds itself in a continual cycle of having to train people and dealing with the cost of mistakes during the traing process.
A wise man once told me, "If you want monkeys, then pay peanuts".

^This. All of this. Goddammit, when did you & I start agreeing on so much?

Valion wrote:

Relapse wrote:
This is true, but some of the more successful ones I have seen do. Almost without fail, the ones who treat their employees like slaves are nowhere near as profitable as they could be.

I doubt that's true. McDonald's, for instance, would likely be a lot less profitable if it put employees first. Most businesses that rely on unskilled labor would see nothing but a profit decrease if they suddenly started shelling out Google-style employee amenities.

What a lovely strawman you're building.

We're not talking about Google-style amenities. We're talking about health benefits and a livable wage. And for many businesses, including unskilled labour, do you know what the most expensive costs quite often are? The brick & mortar lease, and training. If you have a high turnover, then you will be re-training constantly, which is a sinkhole for operating expenses. Any business that thinks it's cheaper beyond the short term (that is, beyond "this quarter") to get stuck in a perpetual cycle of turnover is not going to be maximizing its profit potential or coming anywhere near it. However, many businesses (often publicly traded ones) tend to see the current-quarter-only mindset as being satisfactory to keep impatient shareholders in line. Unfortunately, this is not a viable, long-term business strategy and often causes first diminishing returns, and then ultimately a loss of profitability.

 azazel the cat wrote:
What a lovely strawman you're building.

We're not talking about Google-style amenities. We're talking about health benefits and a livable wage. And for many businesses, including unskilled labour, do you know what the most expensive costs quite often are? The brick & mortar lease, and training. If you have a high turnover, then you will be re-training constantly, which is a sinkhole for operating expenses. Any business that thinks it's cheaper beyond the short term (that is, beyond "this quarter") to get stuck in a perpetual cycle of turnover is not going to be maximizing its profit potential or coming anywhere near it. However, many businesses (often publicly traded ones) tend to see the current-quarter-only mindset as being satisfactory to keep impatient shareholders in line. Unfortunately, this is not a viable, long-term business strategy and often causes first diminishing returns, and then ultimately a loss of profitability.

And we have proof of that, in the rapid decline of Wal-mart, all fast food chains, convenience stores, gas stations, and of course restaurants.

I don't know. Perhaps you're writing to us from some alternate universe where there's no such thing as low-end labor.

Valion wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
What a lovely strawman you're building.

We're not talking about Google-style amenities. We're talking about health benefits and a livable wage. And for many businesses, including unskilled labour, do you know what the most expensive costs quite often are? The brick & mortar lease, and training. If you have a high turnover, then you will be re-training constantly, which is a sinkhole for operating expenses. Any business that thinks it's cheaper beyond the short term (that is, beyond "this quarter") to get stuck in a perpetual cycle of turnover is not going to be maximizing its profit potential or coming anywhere near it. However, many businesses (often publicly traded ones) tend to see the current-quarter-only mindset as being satisfactory to keep impatient shareholders in line. Unfortunately, this is not a viable, long-term business strategy and often causes first diminishing returns, and then ultimately a loss of profitability.

And we have proof of that, in the rapid decline of Wal-mart, all fast food chains, convenience stores, gas stations, and of course restaurants.

I don't know. Perhaps you're writing to us from some alternate universe where there's no such thing as low-end labor.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman? because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:

I doubt that's true. McDonald's, for instance, would likely be a lot less profitable if it put employees first. Most businesses that rely on unskilled labor would see nothing but a profit decrease if they suddenly started shelling out Google-style employee amenities.

Wal-Mart is declining because they don't pay a livable wage, and thus nobody who works there gives a gak about the place. This is demonstrated in their customer-facing interactions, which in turn hurts the business.

Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?

Why don't you look at the "living wage" and compare to the minimum wage you find at your local wal-mart, you will find that it is almost impossible to live on that low a salary.

Grey Templar wrote:Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?

How about the link I posted earlier in the thread?

Also, this

and this

and this one

All of the causes, including internal Wal-Mart memos, are pointing towards customers having no confidence in the company, which is caused by its employees not giving a gak. This comes from being unhelpful, to long lines, to poor restocking. Nobody in Wal-mart cares, and it is reflected. This is a basic tenet of any customer-facing retail store: if your employees do not care, then your customers will not either.

Ok, fair enough. I missed that earlier link.

Still, it is entirely possible for a job to not be worth paying a living wage for.

I still think expecting full benefits working a gak job like a Walmart cashier is unreasonable. Its a gak job that a child could do. Its simply not worth a good salary plus benefits for that reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Walmart is declining? and its because they're not paying what people would consider a decent wage with benefits? You got some proof?

Why don't you look at the "living wage" and compare to the minimum wage you find at your local wal-mart, you will find that it is almost impossible to live on that low a salary.

I don't deny that. But that's not what we were discussing.

Working at Walmart is not something that should, or was ever intended to, be a life-long career path. The fact some people make it their career path is not reason enough to pay a job more than its worth.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Working at Walmart is not something that should, or was ever intended to, be a life-long career path. The fact some people make it their career path is not reason enough to pay a job more than its worth.

If the free market provided enough jobs that people didn't have to work at wal-mart, this might be a valid argument. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Currently, we are suffering from not enough jobs for the people who need them-- and this is compounded by massive amounts of budget cuts, which invariably add more unemployed people seeking jobs (making it harder to find jobs). That combined with people working to a later age (either due to cultural reasons or because of later retirement ages), means that there are really very, very few livable jobs available for people out of high school, college, or trade school.

And as the government budget is cut even more, as productivity increases and jobs are lost to automation, this problem will only get worse.

No, there being a limited supply of jobs doesn't invalidate my argument.

Just because some people have no choice to make it their career path because they can't find anything else has no bearing on the fact the job is still worth jack squat.

The same for someone who's skillset has been invalidated by changing technology. There is no obligation to accommodate. Someone may need something, doesn't mean they are entitled to get it.

You only deserve compensation equal to what your job is worth. Restocking shelves and manning a cash register is not worth full benefits.

@ Azazel, You are quite correct about traing being spendy. I work as a trainer and it costs my company a few thousand to get someone properly oriented and able to turn out good quality product. The company did some research and found it is even more expensive to just have employees learn "On the job", since they had to deal with the inevitable scrap, machine damage, and injury issues a badly trained employee causes. Add into that the fact that in a minimal to no training scenario there are as many ways to do things as there are people. This leads to many difficulties also, such as methods improvement because everyone has their own pet method of doing a job, or the frustration of a new employee being told how to do the same job different ways by different people. I could go on some more, but I think you get the idea.

I have seen companies go under due to poor or no training. Companies in a revolving door scenario because of poor employee treatment make less money than they could, it's a fact of life.

A poll of 16,000 companies was taken and it was found that proper Job Instruction eliminated in some cases, up to 50%. of some of the manufacturing difficulties a company faces.
I also created and taught a Job Relations class for my place of employment and it was found, though polling the same 16,000 companies that 80% of people quit their job do so because of the treatment they get from their supervisors.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Wal-Mart is declining because they don't pay a livable wage, and thus nobody who works there gives a gak about the place. This is demonstrated in their customer-facing interactions, which in turn hurts the business.

McDonalds has recently issued quality reports saying the exact same thing,

The argument that paying people more would raise prices seems superflous to me.

I'll gladly pay a couple extra dollars somewhere if it meant the service would be better.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The argument that paying people more would raise prices seems superflous to me.

I'll gladly pay a couple extra dollars somewhere if it meant the service would be better.

Ironicaly, it might actually decrease prices or at least keep them the same if people are treated well. Based off my observations, treating people well assures a better retention rate, less expensive training, and less scrap, saving the company money at the same time maintaining or improving customer good will.

Might as well post this here since it is the ObamaCare thread of the month:

http://money.cnn.com/m/#!/2013/05/23/news/economy/california-obamacare-premiums.json?category=Latest%20News

 Grey Templar wrote:

You only deserve compensation equal to what your job is worth. Restocking shelves and manning a cash register is not worth full benefits.

What your job is worth according to your employer, or what your job is worth according to the market?

Because the market is influenced by popular opinion, and if enough people are annoyed by the lack of benefits for the relevant group of employees then the value of those employees will increase.

The market of course.

And not nearly enough opinion exists to make benefits mandatory for such a low end job. Benefits are a portion of whatever the position's Salary is. Its like saying the job's worth 10 times, or whatever amount, the current salary when you say a cashier deserves benefits. Utterly ludicrous.

 Breotan wrote:
So, I guess this is some sort of vindication for people who were trying to prevent Obamacare from becoming law. Too bad the unions were more involved in anti-Republican activism and less in the welfare of their members.

I think it's absolutely fascinating that a clear cut case of unions wanting to maintain one of their protected, over-expensive niches, and worrying that reforms will produce a better result for employees and employers while leaving them out of the loop and not getting their cut... and the Republican cheerleaders ignore all that because they get to complain about Obamacare some more.

I mean, fething hell, if there was one thing you people could be relied on I thought it would have been union bashing.

I guess ultimately this is just one more point of evidence of the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Frankly, I still see unions as unfortunate but necessary despite their many flaws. Businesses certainly cannot be trusted to keep the best interests of their workers in mind, and they have far, far more power than the workers do. So rather than force the businesses to do things directly via law from lawmakers influenced by lobbyists, and who don't understand or care about the situation of the workers in each industry, having an organization of the workers is best, although perhaps it should be better regulated to make sure it doesn't become corrupt like the companies it is supposed to watch over.

Absolutely. But the problem is how little time unions spend on those basic, non-glamorous jobs (legal representation for workers, working with employers on occ health and safety matters etc) and how much time the spend trying to protect/expand their power base, and how much of member's money basically gets channeled straight in to political causes.

It's a tough issue, because the assumed answer of the right is 'therefore no more unions' and the assumed answer on the left is either 'pretend nothing is wrong' or 'pretend it's the least worst option', when it seems to me the only good answer is 'better unions'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So the business owners should continue operating their business at a competitive disadvantage?

Offering a plan over and above what was absolutely necessary would have been just as much of a 'competitive disadvantage'* under the old scheme.

The point being, of course, that better schemes didn't automatically produce a "competitive disadvantage", because better insurance plans are desired by employeers, just like more pay and better working conditions are. As such, it would depend on whether the extra money the employer paid for a scheme was sufficiently appreciated by current and potential employees, allowing the company to attract more and better employees in exactly the same way as a higher rate of pay would.

And, of course, the labour market right now is somewhere between poor and really very gak. Which everyone should appreciate means bargaining power lies with the employer, allowing him to, you know, cut the remuneration he pays to his employees. In an ordinary job market employees would respond by looking for work elsewhere, but in this market jobs are hard to come by, and as a result the employer cuts where he can. This would be true, Obamacare or not. That an employer might say 'Obamacare' as he's doing it only means that employers will use easy scapegoats as they do what they'll always do in a poor labour market.

EDIT - Your next post comments on the poor timing of Obamacare, and that I'll grant. It would be better if this came in during better economic conditions, but that's true of lots of things. When the political environment is as it is, you move important legislation when you can. Waiting for the perfect economic circumstance to line up with the rare event when you have the political power to deliver this kind of legislation basically means doing nothing, ever. And the US health system is the product of being allowed to drift for too long, and the end result is that you are paying an outrageous amount for a middle of the road healthcare system.

The problem with unions is that you only ever hear the bad stories about them. Living here in North Texas, the only union you ever really hear about is the pilots' union for American Airlines, and it's hard to feel sympathy for them when they want to go on strike to get more money when they already make six figures and only work 3-4 days a week, and so on and on.

That's an exaggeration, but it's how it gets played out in the media whenever union negotiations get involved.

You never hear the good stories about unions anymore.

 Redbeard wrote:
Absolutely. Obamacare does nothing to address the ever-increasing costs of healthcare, it just shifts the burden of who pays for it.

That's completely wrong.

The profit making of private insurers is now capped, as they have to spend most funds collected on medical services for their members. There is going to be a not-for-profit company set up to examine the comparative effectiveness of research techniques. And perhaps most importantly, you will now have, finally, real competition in your healthcare through the healthcare exchanges. Payments to hospitals and doctors will shift to a payment for condition model as opposed to a payment for procedure model, removing the bizarre incentive that currently exists for over treatment.

And there's a load of other minor little reforms, on stuff like reducing payments to hospitals who have high rates of preventable re-admissions, giving them incentive to prevent such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Valion wrote:
The ACA is bad legislation that nobody read before passing. Simple as that.

I'm used to a lot of content free opinions on Dakka, but the negative opinions on ACA seem to set a new standard. Now, I'm not picking on you Valion, just picking yours out as one example of many, but it's remarkable how many posters are able to post some variant of 'ACA is bad' and not actually extrapolate on that.


It seems the only other debate points made against ACA basically boil down to 'here's a news article from a pundit hack/someone with an obvious personal benefit from the old healthcare system complaining about ACA' ie the OP's story, or 'here's a personal anecdote about something I am perceiving as bad, which some other person explained to me was due to ACA, without ever actually explaining why'.

I don't think I should have to explain why each of those debate approaches don't really offer anything of value. And I'll leave it as speculation up to the reader as to why they appear to be the only kind of points made against ACA.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm confused.

No kidding.

Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman?

Yes.

because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:

No, it isn't. I'll explain again, and I will try to use smaller words this time.

If the only key to profitability was happy employees, then there would be zero reason for every business out there not to have Google-style amenities. That of course is not the case. Some businesses in some industries simply do not need to worry about retention because they pull the low-hanging fruit of the labor market.

While I'm sure you find your self-admitted leftist Forbes contributors' opinion piece compelling, it glosses over a massive difference in the way the two companies do business right at the top of the article: Costco brings in half a billion in membership fees that Walmart doesn't.

A better case study would be T-Mobile versus the rest of the American wireless market. T-Mobile goes out of its way to pay its customer support reps more, and trains them for a ridiculously long time. They routinely win JD Power awards for their customer service. They're still losing out massively to Verizon and AT&T.

 djones520 wrote:
I do have to wonder why it's an employers responsibility to pay more then what a job is worth, because some adults made poor choices in life and ended up only being employable by fast food places and grocery stores.

While I agree that it is up to the individual to acquire the skills to be able to command a higher rate of pay, your assumption that such a system has anything to do with 'what a job is worth' is very, very wrong.

Economics does not work that way. 'Worth' is an impossible nonsense, and no economist will touch it with a 10 foot pole. Every job is necessary, it might be easier and therefore cheaper to find an airplane mechanic than a pilot, but you need both to get the plane to its destination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
The individual limits themselves on what they can actual do. What are they willing to sacrifice to get the "job" they want.

The number of people who aren't in the job they want, either settling for something much lower, or not in any job at all, increased dramatically in the wake of the GFC.

As such, your complaint that people who aren't in the job they want purely through personal reasons means that for as yet known reason, in late 2008 and through to the present a lot of people suddenly got a whole lot lazier. Or possibly the system matters a lot more than you realise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They may not be lazy, but that still doesn't mean they should be paid any more than what the job is worth.

'Worth' isn't a thing. It's just placing a moral judgement on a system that has nothing to do with morality.

Consider a geologist here in Australia. You commit to a four year degree, with no idea what the market will be like when you graduate - if long term projections for commodities prices are good and the mining companies are looking to expand then you can walk in to a $150k+ plus job. If long term commodities prices are down and there's little exploration, then you will not get a job. The individual is just as hard working, just as 'worthy', but the market changes and therefore so does his pay.

Now, the market is by fair the most efficient means we have for allocating resources. Realising it isn't fair and has nothing to do with the actual worth of a person doesn't mean we have to throw it out. It just means we have to get rid of all this (typically self-congratulating) moral nonsense in which a lowly paid person is only 'worth' so much.

 Valion wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I'm confused.

No kidding.

Are you saying that you're not equating health care and a livable wage to Google-type amenities in a blatant attempt at a strawman?

Yes.

because I'm pretty sure this is what you said:

No, it isn't. I'll explain again, and I will try to use smaller words this time.

If the only key to profitability was happy employees, then there would be zero reason for every business out there not to have Google-style amenities. That of course is not the case. Some businesses in some industries simply do not need to worry about retention because they pull the low-hanging fruit of the labor market.

While I'm sure you find your self-admitted leftist Forbes contributors' opinion piece compelling, it glosses over a massive difference in the way the two companies do business right at the top of the article: Costco brings in half a billion in membership fees that Walmart doesn't.

A better case study would be T-Mobile versus the rest of the American wireless market. T-Mobile goes out of its way to pay its customer support reps more, and trains them for a ridiculously long time. They routinely win JD Power awards for their customer service. They're still losing out massively to Verizon and AT&T.

The question here is if T-Mobile is offering the buyers what they want as opposed to their competitors. You can have an excellent program in place to train people how to make apple pies, as well as treat your employees like gold, but if the customers are wanting peach pie you will lose out to the peach pie maker.