BigRedBuster Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Ummm....who is asking someone to bend down and kiss someone's feet?I believe the employer should respect and be thankful the employee is there doing their job. The employee should respect and be thankful the employer hired them and has a job for them. When that happens, it's a good healthy relationship that both benefit from. I also believe this happens way more often than not. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I also believe this happens way more often than not. I agree. Link to comment
irafreak Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Screw the Angels! Go Royals! Link to comment
tschu Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't look at anyone involved as a "charity". But, that doesn't mean you can't be thankful that someone hired you. I guess I'm probably taking the comments farther than what was meant. I just get frustrated because sometimes there is an attitude that business owners or people who employ people are greedy bastards. In reality, you hope it is a mutual benefiting relationship that the employee is thankful for the job and the employer is thankful for the work that is getting done. You can absolutely be grateful that someone hired you. But that doesn't give the hiring entity the right to take the position of being someone who creates jobs out of the goodness of their heart. They have a need for work to be done; they have a need for that extra labor in order to grow their own business. They are not creating jobs just in order to be a good citizen or something; it's because they need work done. Now if they choose to hire you personally over another person, that could be a personal favor, or something to be grateful for. But the actual creation of the job means nothing. Link to comment
Junior Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't look at anyone involved as a "charity". But, that doesn't mean you can't be thankful that someone hired you. I guess I'm probably taking the comments farther than what was meant. I just get frustrated because sometimes there is an attitude that business owners or people who employ people are greedy bastards. In reality, you hope it is a mutual benefiting relationship that the employee is thankful for the job and the employer is thankful for the work that is getting done. You can absolutely be grateful that someone hired you. But that doesn't give the hiring entity the right to take the position of being someone who creates jobs out of the goodness of their heart. They have a need for work to be done; they have a need for that extra labor in order to grow their own business. They are not creating jobs just in order to be a good citizen or something; it's because they need work done for their own profit. Now if they choose to hire you personally over another person, that could be a personal favor, or something to be grateful for. But the actual creation of the job means nothing. I added a key designation. And profit is fine and great. But like you said, it isn't out of some sort of charity. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This conversation reminds me a time a very long time ago when my father was walking through the business that he owned. A fairly new employee comes up to him kind of upset and says..... Employee - "Mr. Smith, I finally realized why you hired me". Dad - "why is that?" Employee - "The only reason you hired me is so you can make more money". (said in the most disgusting voice as though they had just discovered that hitler was actually a bad guy) Dad - "Congratulations...you are right". That employee didn't last long. Look....anyone who thinks they are hired for any reason other than to make the company more money is delusional or just plain stupid. And, if you aren't making the company more money, your job is not going to last long. There isn't anything wrong with that situation and that is reality. That doesn't mean business owners are big mean monsters or that they are taking advantage of these poor employees. It also doesn't mean anyone has to bow down and kiss anyone's feet. Link to comment
tschu Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I never said they were monsters. I said that employers don't get to claim any moral superiority for creating a job. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm still not seeing where Mike Rowe said that Beck did have any moral superiority because he created a job. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm still not seeing where Mike Rowe said that Beck did have any moral superiority because he created a job. Exactly. I fail to see where people are coming up with this idea that anyone is acting like employers are giving some charity or that anyone should bow down and kiss their feet. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What would you guys call it, exactly? He probably included the statement about Beck employing 300 people for a reason, right? Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 can we all agree that the problem is not making the employers rich, it is making the shareholders rich? what do they provide to a company or the economy? furthermore, they often handicap a business by not being able to see past the next quarter. You honestly don't think someone investing their money in a business so they can expand and grow adds anything to the economy? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What would you guys call it, exactly? He probably included the statement about Beck employing 300 people for a reason, right? If Beck wasn't successful at what he is doing or, if he would choose to simply go away and drink margaritas in the Bahamas the rest of his life, those 300 people wouldn't have that job. That isn't charity. Beck is obviously doing that a) because he likes what he does...and b) wants to make more money. Again, that isn't charity. However, he has chosen to keep those 300 people employed. Does he deserve to be put on some pedestal of some high all mighty charitable person because of that? No....but, it's still his choice to do so and for those 300 people, that's a good thing. It's no different than a small business person in a small town. They come up with an idea and invest their money in building that business. They then employ people to make their idea a success. Yes, ultimately making them more money. Now, that person could choose to not invest that money in a small town in Nebraska. But, they did. And, for those people who are employed there, that is a good thing. This also reminds me of something that was floating around Facebook not too long ago. I saw it several times and it just made me roll my eyes and shake my head. It said, "America was built by men in denim and destroyed by men in suites". Really? It was built by both and can be destroyed by both. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I thought Mike Rowe was referring more to his ability to employ 300 people despite being a horrible, psychotic, nasty, hateful racist. Link to comment
Abdullah the Butcher Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I thought Mike Rowe was referring more to his ability to employ 300 people despite being a horrible, psychotic, nasty, hateful racist. Wat Link to comment
Recommended Posts