Supreme Court stops Amazon workers lawsuit

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Barcey

My point is that it should be about neither. Assuming blame or fault is an emotional response. If you knew who did it you could take it to law enforcement and deal with the problem.

Systems like that aren't about punishment, they're about prevention. Any employer with any sense would rather convince employees not to steal in the first place than jail them afterwards. That kind of system is a way to (hopefully) convince them "if you try it, we'll catch you, so don't even try."

(I offer no comment on how effective it is, but it's a logical theory.)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by frahse

I guess if it is a real problem for the workers, they could get a better job somewhere else.

Germany, perhaps. (Although there are better employers even in the US.)

Justice Thomas's ruling didn't mention the option of getting a job with a better employer. But it did mention that the issue is "properly presented to the employer at the bargaining table."

Neither Integrity Staffing Solutions nor Amazon would find that a remotely attractive alternative. And if they return to the old long lines (ended by the appeals court ruling in the workers' favor), union organizers might seize on this part of the Supreme Court decision. So my guess is that the employer won't dare return to the old inadequate security staffing level. The workers would then have lost a legal point while winning in reality.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Why is it OK to treat all employees as thieves but not all customers as frauds?

Because the customer is always right - even when he is not. When you return something to Amazon then the CS rep already sees your account and statistics. There is mechanisms in place to prevent too many returns.

The other difference is: the employee costs money by freewilly selling his time, the customer brings in money, by freewilly purchasing something. And since the customer pays the wages for all employees, that makes the customer much more important than the employee ever will be. More important to the business that is.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The other difference is: the employee costs money by freewilly selling his time, the customer brings in money, by freewilly purchasing something. And since the customer pays the wages for all employees, that makes the customer much more important than the employee ever will be. More important to the business that is.

That is a very short-sighted (and very common) view of things. I recall an interview (some years ago) with one of the founders of a computer memory company - the only one in the US that could compete with the Japanese and Korean firms, and it completely dominated the industry), after they'd sold their company for a couple of billion dollars. And paid half of it out as bonuses to employees (the average bonus was year's pay).

The interviewer asked a question that was based on the idea that the customer is his #1 concern, and he said, "No, the customer is my #3 concern. My #1 concern is my employees. My #2 concern is my vendors. And if I take care of #1 and #2, then #3 is already taken care of."

Nobody could compete with his company, and he (and his partner) ended up buying it back a few years later, for 1/10th what they'd sold it for.

Unfortunately, most companies seem to make the mistake of valuing customers over employees.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

Unfortunately, most companies seem to make the mistake of valuing customers over employees.

It depends on what business you are in on which standards apply to customers. It is never acceptable to allow your employees to steal from you only because there will be inevitably customers who will steal.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

It depends on what business you are in on which standards apply to customers. It is never acceptable to allow your employees to steal from you only because there will be inevitably customers who will steal.

That doesn't mean the customers are more valuable than the employees, which is the comment I was replying to. Employees are more valuable because they are the ones who take care of customers. This is universally true, unless the owner is the only one who ever interacts with customers (and generally true even then, if there are employees).

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

That doesn't mean the customers are more valuable than the employees, which is the comment I was replying to. Employees are more valuable because they are the ones who take care of customers. This is universally true, unless the owner is the only one who ever interacts with customers (and generally true even then, if there are employees).

To the business to make money it is much more important to have customers. Without customers there will be no sense in treating the employees like kings. My employer, for example, has four customers. In order to keep current and future business from those customers we will bend over backwards to please them at all costs. Even if it means to temporary treat everybody (the employees) like slaves in order to do so.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

To the business to make money it is much more important to have customers. Without customers there will be no sense in treating the employees like kings.

When you equate "treating employees like kings" with "treating employees decently with fair wages and hours," you are being deliberately inflammatory. I presume to - as you always seem to do - avoid actually addressing what someone said.

And you're evading poorly. Let me give you a more useful example:

Since you have chosen to troll, I haven't bothered to read the rest of your message.

That is how you avoid answering what the other person said.

If you have employees who deal with customers, it will screw up your business very quickly if you have pissed off employees. The way you keep customers happy is to have the people who actually interact with them do a good job. That would be . . . your employees.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by taustin

If you have employees who deal with customers, it will screw up your business very quickly if you have pissed off employees. The way you keep customers happy is to have the people who actually interact with them do a good job. That would be . . . your employees.

Wait, does that mean it is all right to treat warehouse workers however you like, since they don't interact with customers?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Wait, does that mean it is all right to treat warehouse workers however you like, since they don't interact with customers?

I do. I line mine up, drag out the cat-o-nine-tails, and whip them, twice daily. It does wonders for employee morale. Oh, and, BTW: no, I don't pay them for the 30-minutes-day that they have to stand there and take it.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I do. I line mine up, drag out the cat-o-nine-tails, and whip them, twice daily. It does wonders for employee morale. Oh, and, BTW: no, I don't pay them for the 30-minutes-day that they have to stand there and take it.

Hitch

But somehow they still love you.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I do. I line mine up, drag out the cat-o-nine-tails, and whip them, twice daily. It does wonders for employee morale. Oh, and, BTW: no, I don't pay them for the 30-minutes-day that they have to stand there and take it.

Hitch

In the case of Amazon, the warehouse workers in question certainly do interact with customers. Not face to face, but the people who pull an order, stick it in a box and send it to the UPS truck are certainly interacting with customers.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

In the case of Amazon, the warehouse workers in question certainly do interact with customers. Not face to face, but the people who pull an order, stick it in a box and send it to the UPS truck are certainly interacting with customers.

If I had an employee that treats a customer like crap, because he thinks he is entitled to do so, then that employee needs to be taken care of. If he doesn't do what he is being paid to do (treat customer good), then he needs to adjust or get fired. If he cannot handle that he gets paid to treat the customer better than he gets treated at work, then dealing with a customer is not a thing he should be doing professionally.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by taustin

In the case of Amazon, the warehouse workers in question certainly do interact with customers. Not face to face, but the people who pull an order, stick it in a box and send it to the UPS truck are certainly interacting with customers.

Excuse me, you seem to be acting on a different definition than the one most people understand...

In any event, I agree with DuckieTigger -- someone who is being paid to do a job should not be totally shocked to find out that the job is the priority.

You seem to be arguing from the perspective that the ultimate goal is to make employees happy -- you are wrong. The ultimate goal is to make profits. That means making customers happy. Making employees happy is only necessary insomuch as that makes the company operate more smoothly, which is not necessarily a high bar. It certainly is not necessary to make them happy when they make you unhappy -- I believe this all started because Amazon somehow got the wild idea that they were suffering from abnormally-noticeable theft?

It is always a balance between pushing your workers to work harder and not pushing them beyond the point where they say "enough is enough, I'm out of here".

Generally speaking, I shouldn't think it pays off to tiptoe around your employees; at least, the vast majority of economic history has revolved around big employers of some denomination being more interested in the business than the employees' sublime happiness, and so far it has paid off -- in spades. All around.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

In any event, I agree with DuckieTigger -- someone who is being paid to do a job should not be totally shocked to find out that the job is the priority.

Well, thank you very much. It is sometimes rare to hear a simple "I agree" as response. You and me both know that we don't agree on everything - otherwise discussions would be meaningless.

You seem to be arguing from the perspective that the ultimate goal is to make employees happy -- you are wrong. The ultimate goal is to make profits. That means making customers happy. Making employees happy is only necessary insomuch as that makes the company operate more smoothly, which is not necessarily a high bar. It certainly is not necessary to make them happy when they make you unhappy -- I believe this all started because Amazon somehow got the wild idea that they were suffering from abnormally-noticeable theft?

Very well said. It is exactly the point I tried to make. Your version sounds more sophisticated.