Thursday, May 21, 2009

Corporate Horseshit and Bad Economy Meet Political Correctness

I'm slightly annoyed by this particular article, which I believe originated in the Wall Street Journal. For the sake of time I'm not going to quote and pick apart the whole thing, only the parts that irritate me the most. You can find the full article here.

The basic point is that as the job market bellies up, employers must decide who gets the sore ass and who gets to stay a bit longer. The basic point I'm making is that Americans in general are stupid (yeah I said it what of it) and therefore, employers are often also stupid. Why you might ask would you make such a general statement about Americans in general? No I'm not French, I just don't like the way this country is run and I don't like the way most of the people here think.

The article talked about "age discrimination" and various other reasons for losing or keeping jobs. What it all boils down to is whiny, hippie-ass, horseshit. Let me explain to you why I think that.

Discrimination as something that can bring about lawsuits is a steaming pile of shite. This is completely subjective. What one person sees as "discrimination" simply because the outcome didn't suit them, is a perfectly fair practice in the mind of somebody else. Most people just want to make an excuse for why they aren't a turd and should be valued even though they are a turd and have no value.

Employees in their 20s and 30s are finding themselves more at risk of a layoff, according to labor lawyers, as employers look to avoid age-discrimination lawsuits by adopting a "last one in, first one out" policy and turn to tenure as a means of conducting layoffs. In some cases, young, childless professionals say they feel they're being targeted in layoffs, while employees who have families to support are given special consideration.

While no age group is exempt from layoffs, younger workers seem to be shouldering a larger percentage of the burden, according to recent Labor Department figures. The unemployment rate for those between the ages of 25 and 34 was 9.6% in April 2009, up from 4.9% a year earlier. For those ages 55 and older, the unemployment rate was 6.2% in April 2009, compared with 3.3% a year earlier.

Why the fuck should younger people get laid off just because older people will sue. If the older person is the better employee then there is no way that the employer will ditch them for the young one. This is simply good business practice. I say this knowing full well that the young employee being kept is the one who probably lives to work. This person likely works more hours than I would be willing to and has a personal life that suffers because of it on occasion. I don't agree with employers making employees work a 12 hour day but if the employees are willing to be a social retard and work all day I would save money by working them too if I were the employer.

Older workers probably make more too I'm sure some say, that's true. I've found in my travels in the business world that the extra money they make is as often as not... unearned. More money for being there longer instead of better work is not a worthy argument for the employee.

Companies don't like [layoffs by seniority], but [they're] also the easiest to defend," says Gerald Hathaway, co-chairman of the business-restructuring practice group with employment law firm Littler Mendelson. If you have a bona fide seniority system it's a defense for any type of discrimination, according to the law, he adds.

This next section annoyed me the most of all the sections. In fact, now that I'm back to it I'm getting pissed off just thinking about it.

The emotional impact of layoffs can affect a manager's decision when it comes to choosing who gets the ax -- and that can also disproportionately affect younger workers. "It takes a tremendous toll on managers," says Mitchell Marks, a professor of organizational change in the College of Business at San Francisco State University. Mr. Marks says when layoff decisions come to a tie breaker, personal and family situations often come into play.

"I've had plenty of managers sit me down and say 'Joe's spouse just got diagnosed with cancer but Jane's spouse is an M.D.,' " says Mr. Marks of the explanations of how a layoff has been decided. The same decision-making process can occur when choosing who gets laid off between a single 20-something employee or, say, a 50-year-old employee with two kids in college.

Now I can deal the the spouse having cancer vs. the spouse who's an M.D. that's a no brainer. It's the single 20-something vs. the 50-year-old with kids that pisses me off. I realize these aren't that much different in some respects but they are in others. Why should that 20-something have to move back in with his or her parents or put his or her life on hold because of somebody else's life choices?

I'm not 20-something but I am single (for the moment... from marriage status point of view) my girlfriend and I have discussed marriage, but neither of us want kids. When that happens and we're without kids but some other family chooses to have kids, why should I pay the price for that. If you choose kids in this world you choose the additional risk that goes along with it. I'll be honest with you, I don't want kids for many reasons and I don't feel sorry for them if you're the poorer worker and end up jobless.

This is how life should work. Better worker keeps the job and what irresponsible choices you made with your penis shouldn't affect me. This is why our country is the mess that it is. This really is the nice way to do things, the moral way and what not. The moral, nice way, is how mankind destroys himself. This goes right along with the rider theory. If you have 5 people and 5 horses you'll move great. If you keep picking up riders along the route you're going to get slower and slower and have to stop for more breaks. Eventually you'll have so many riders and not enough horses and the horses backs with break and the caravan stops. Our caravan is stopping motherfuckers!


Svetlana Gelman, 24, worked in the marketing department of a law firm until December when she was laid off. She feels strongly that her age and the fact that she doesn't have a family to support put her at greater risk before the layoff. Ms. Gelman says she was competing head-to-head with another employee with a child, who was hired a few months after Ms. Gelman and often would use her sacrifices as a parent to tout her dedication to the firm. "The person was very tactical, she would bring the child in, spoke about him all the time and would say things like 'My child is sick but I'm still here,' " says Ms. Gelman.

And as work became more scarce and layoffs loomed, Ms. Gelman says she was let go while her colleague remained, despite the fact that Ms. Gelman earned less and often worked longer hours because of her co-worker's child-care responsibilities.

People with kids piss me off. If you want them they are your responsibility. Don't ever expect me to pick up your slack or feel sorry for you because you chose to have kids. If you can't have kids and carry your own weight then make the fucking choice because I won't work an extra 12 seconds to facilitate that choice you made.

Still, there are ways younger workers can go about safeguarding their jobs. High-maintenance attitudes typical of younger workers also make them more prone to the chopping block in a down economy, says Bruce Tulgan, author of "Not Everyone Gets a Trophy." Twentysomething professionals tend to demand flexibility, responsibility and high pay, he says -- all things that aren't going to be well-received in this environment.

This is understandable to a point. Work is work, you can't have everything you want. I also have seen another side of this working as a consultant. Far too many employers expect employees to work 6 or even 7 days a week at shifts of 10 or 12 hours. This is borderline criminal if not absolutely unacceptable. Maybe some people want to to earn extra money and if that's the case it should be optional. That has turned into a requirement for getting the job in the first place. It's no wonder we're a society of pissed off, overworked, overstressed, disasters that we are.

I sincerely think this should be illegal. I won't go into a long drawn out detail but I'll briefly make a point. What happens at the end of a long work day? Is your mind as fresh? Do you think as clearly or try as hard as the beginning of the day? Sometimes maybe, many times probably not as much. What happens if we take that work day from 8 to 12 hours a day? Now we add Saturday to the schedule too? You pick the line of work and I'll tell you why this person will do a shoddier job. Now do you want somebody constructing a skyscraper in this manner? Do you want operated by an ER doctor under these circumstances? I think not.

No comments: