Consideration as to whether the organization is successfully recruiting and retaining people it deems satisfactory is due to the compensation package really being all that competitive or market forces that create disproportions in supply and demand causing working citizens to take whatever they can get has to be made before answering that question. You could, of course, chalk this up as a consequence of living in a free society or free market economy, and to a certain extent that may be true. However, I don't believe we really live in a true free market economy, and the negotiating field is always biased to employer benefit.
I think it depends on where the employee is working/applying to. Yes, in situations like most of EMS, the drastic oversupply puts power firmly in the hands of the employer, as does many other low level positions. To save a long reply, I think there's a big difference between how companies value exempt vs non-exempt positions for reasons inherent to what the job entails and what is actually expected from the employee. However, it's interesting that some jobs are deemed, for what ever reason, to need protection while other jobs don't. Who's looking out for the hours worked and protecting employees who work under a salary instead of hourly wage? Shouldn't the government step in and demand bonuses if a salaried employee works more than 40 hours a week? Is there some sort of inherent difference between exempt and non-exempt jobs themselves that removes many of the labor protections for exempt positions, or is it an issue with the individuals who largely fill those positions?
I would say the employee is responsible for knowing what his rights are, when labor and/or health & safety regulations are being circumvented (to the best of his ability), and how to tactfully bring this to the appropriate person within that organization's attention. None of this is particularly useful, however, when the employee is effectively on his own and has no one advocating for him or looking after his own rights. The employee is at tremendous disadvantage in such situations, and it is simply naive to think otherwise.
So, the individual has no duty to argue or show why they deserve a higher wage or better benefits package? No duty to show what they bring to the company or distinguish themselves from others?
Unfortunately, historical precedent indicates that a disinterested third party with a democratically endowed legal authority to regulate and enforce such matters appears to be necessary. I don't think the government needs to be getting into the details or specifics of typical compensation packages, but rather should support collective bargaining rights and enforce health and safety standards that are actually meaningful.
However many of the things being discussed (such as how much vacation should be required) doesn't fall into health and safety standards.
The median wage is the typical metric used in discourse related to the financial situation of the typical American worker since, as you know, the "median" of a data distribution is insensitive (or, less sensitive) to outliers. If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the mean wage of everyone in the bar has just increased dramatically even though that's not an accurate reflection of reality. Because of that, every economist I've read or followed uses median wages to discuss the situation of the typical American worker.
Which is why it's useless when comparing to productivity. If I've just increased efficiency, the median wage isn't going to change when I fire 2 workers and give a raise to a third, but productivity is going to increase. I'm making more product with less employees, which is a good thing as I should be more competitive in foreign markets.
Well, I don't think it's particularly helpful to get bogged down in specifics; but, clearly the situation we have now is inadequate. I'm not aware of any state (certainly California is not one of them) nor any federal legislation that requires employers to provide any paid vacation time. Meanwhile, the European Union mandates its member countries to require employers to provide at least 4 weeks of paid vacation (which is distinct from "sick time"). I think that would be a good starting point. As to the slippery-slope concern I think once people feel as though their basic needs are met they typically don't ask for much more in the way of concessions. Also, it cuts both ways. As an employer I don't have to provide my employees vacation time, so why not take it a step further and take away overtime, or scheduled breaks, or weekends, and so on?
Well, I would rather work weekends than weekdays actually (free time when things are actually open, and largely empty). I wouldn't necessarily mind negotiating what overtime is considered, especially since overtime does have the potential to harm both companies and employees (for example, if I want to work 4 12 hour shifts a week, my company could say "no" due to the 8 hours of overtime under federal work rules. They hire a second person, maybe part time, maybe full time. Thus I lose out on 12 hours of work, and the company has to pay to train and outfit an extra person, and depending on status, pay for benefits. Hence making this a lose-lose situation for everyone involved).
Scheduled breaks? Out of the 4 places I've worked, only 1 gave scheduled breaks. I don't think I can remember what a scheduled break was, and I definitely don't miss having a half hour of unpaid lunch time when it comes to EMS. Actually, come to think of it, I largely wouldn't have minded not having a half hour lunch break when I worked at the movie theater, provided I'd have the opportunity to pool my 2 10 minute breaks in an 8 hour shift. Oh, but right. I don't have the ability to negotiate that.
I will also say that I've never felt that I've been intentionally screwed at anyplace I worked at.
As far as specifics, specifics are important. If you don't have a goal set, what are you working towards beyond an ambiguous "more"?
Since when does having access to actual, usable vacation time to at least minimize the impact such things have on a person's professional life amount to being immune to life's misfortunes? If it actually is in their control then I don't think we have anything to disagree about. My point is simply that more often than not it really isn't, but is rather a result of their employer's austerity.
I'm going to pool these together.
What about the impact of the discussion of wages and benefits when someone was first hired? If an employee makes a less than ideal decision during the hiring process, why is that the employers fault?
As far as control, I've yet to be forced to work any job. If I decided to quit a job, nothing would have stopped me. There is no gun to my head forcing me to get up and go to work or school. The decision to make no decision and the decision to take no action are still decisions and in the control the individual. The decision to take a job is still in the control of the individual.
Maybe I'm living with rose colored glasses from having part time entry level or technical positions (I'd argue that an EMT at an ambulance company is entry level whereas an EMT at an amusement park is more technical in the sense that the supervisors and managers really aren't in a position to question or over rule reasonable judgement calls) while a full time student, but I think that employees largely have more power than they think they do, and thus are largely unwilling to wield said power. I also think that most employees largely fail to appropriately distinguish themselves and/or show their value, which hinders how the market should work through no fault of the employer. Any job is an opportunity, its just that most employees don't act like it is.
I think that the typical person's culpability when such matters go awry is hardly a clear-cut case. Once again, if we're talking about situations where a person is simply being negligent, then there's really no disagreement. I'm saying that more often than not it isn't negligence it's exploitation from predatory employers, financial institutions, health insurance providers, etc. I mean come on, after all that has happened in recent years in American society it should really be apparent that the typical working American is basically just getting screwed.
Does exploitation occur? Sure, but at the same time not everything is exploitation, especially in situations where, as discussed above, the employee agrees to the situation. If an employee fails to ask about or for vacation days, then it's the employee's fault. It's like in Pirates of the Caribbean when Barbosa and Elizabeth were negitiating the end of hostilities against Port Royal. Is Barbosa exploiting Elizabeth when she fails to include her return as part of the deal, or since she didn't bring it up, can he assume, as he did, that it must be meaningless?
Really? In how many contexts is negotiation between employer and potential employee on equal terms? Especially in EMS. Why should I as an employer even bother listening to this candidate's terms when there are tens if not hundreds of others just like him?
If I can show that I'm going to show up on time, work hard, respect the equipment, provide good customer service, and write billable reports with minimal problems, then I've distinguished myself from a lot of the applicant pool. Similarly, those reasons are good reasons later on to bring up when I'm looking to renegotiate the terms of my employment for, say, a raise. Now, yes, this should be expected from all employees, but you should know better than that.
Similarly, once at the company, if I've proven useful to help in the training/QI department, or supervision, or plenty of other ways (some official, some not), then I should be able to leverage those for better terms. How many people holding labor jobs both distinguish themselves like that and meaningfully articulate it.
In an ideal world, yes; but, in the interest of fostering a fair and just society things like this are often necessary. Sure the FLSA is not perfect, but I think the spirit of it is reflective of reality and is in accordance with the protection and advocacy of the poor and marginalized. People in executive, consultant, administrative, etc. positions are simply in a better position to advocate for themselves and are not nearly exposed to the sort of exploitative risk as "non-exempt" employees are.
Are they in a better position because of the abilities of the employee or because of the actual job that they hold?
