More than often we see great debates on whether public policy should reflect a greater locus of control or a lazes-fair undertone concerning employer/employee practices. The general process of shaping public policy involves identifying a social issue, formulating options for improvement and the government implementing those changes within the agenda to correct the issue. I personally believe that sometimes political and public figures can influence the outcome, creating bias and sometimes results that benefit them more than the originally intended individuals. However, we have to ask ourselves what is the point of shaping policy either way and how does the actions of the employer, employee and customer influence the outcome.
In our specific case we address the average “wage worker”. There seems to be a clear distinction in work ethic of those who have found themselves in “salaried” positions of higher authorities versus those who are hourly wage workers. There seems to be trend of disdain and lack-luster job performance among younger, often less experienced, hourly employees working in large consumer-oriented sectors (such as retail or the food service industry). There are also countless gripes that could serve as culprits for this type of attitude, but before accepting these gripes a fact we have to look at the nature of the jobs themselves.
Employment opportunities affected most often are your “customer-oriented” jobs. The more direct the interaction with the consumer the more we can say this “new work ethic” has the opportunity to hold true.
So what are some of the similarities?
Whether it’s the local McDonalds maître d’, the infamous Walmart cashier or serial-mall job-discount-seeker they all have quite a few things in common. Other than “a entire generation waiting tables and pumping gas”; Similarities could include high-turnover of employees, relatively low pay or lack of benefits, often understaffed with an extended list of duties, poor or sporadic scheduling, long hours without the possibility of becoming a fulltime employee (slow job advancement) and excessive supervising and governing work policy.
As a result the affects of these problems can be seen in poor customer service provided by the employees, neglectful “I could care less” & “take but no give” behaviors and a overall sense of indifference to meet goals & standards. In the end the general public suffers and eventually the so will the business.
Agendas
What are the social issues?
Well, what is the reason people are willing to take on employment that offers so little in the first place?
Perhaps lack of education and skills. This could be individuals that are straight out of high-school, maybe still in High-school or just got by with a GED with very little or no “real” work experience. Or college students short on time and resources but still need to make ends meet. A very popular situation is a young person in some sort of transitional period. No matter the specifics, most do not see these positions as permanent, only a means to an end.
With this transistional and “only temporary” state-of-mind it’s only natural that workers and even managers will only put so much effort and time into something that will only be for a short while. This situation is problematic because it starts a cycle of neglectful behavior. Take the following example.
If a position normally experiences high employee turnover, often vital training and formalities are looked over by the manager.
As a result an employee may feel over-looked and unconfident in performing the job tasks, given they even know what they are... They may even feel they are incompetent or resentful they are expected to do X-Y and Z, with very little or no training.
However, this job is not going to be a long term situation so the employee makes due and teaches themselves to “get by” and just get paid. “If the manager doesn’t care, why should I?”
Now six months down the an event or occurrence causes upper management discovers deviations from company policy and work standards. Perhaps a worker or customer is severely injured due to negligence, an epidemic of employee theft or maybe several employee at a location discovered they forfeited benefits because they were not informed by managers. Now the operational managers have to correct this with the employees. Resentment often rises because employees only did what they could with the situation but are still confronted as if they did something wrong. Who takes the wrap?
Abuse only begets abuse and the cycle
Options
What are businesses doing to reverse the cycle … are they really ethically responsible for doing anything at all?
This is a question we must ask before we can dive into what needs to be done. Businesses are in the business of making money, can we truly hold them accountable for instilling ethics in employees. Honestly, I don’t think that they are. The only think companies can realistically do is uphold the laws governing employing individuals, obeying laws of occupational safety and providing an environment which values people (customers and employees alike). A company can focus on profit maximization and avoid taking on any social responsibility or they can choose to take the broad approach to include responsibility to things other than profit. However, I am a believer that ultimately companies will be pushed to find an equilibrium between the two or eventually fail. To some degree I also believe it’s unfair to think that businesses know what’s the right thing to do ethically all the time. Sometime they lack the expertise or the foresight to know which decisions will turn out to be mistakes.
What can they do to fix the problem?
As a result business rely on government regulation to help navigate social responsibility towards employees. However, in our specific case can managers effectively uphold these laws. Is it simply enough to have the new summer hire watch the OSHA video and then just jump into working in the stock room. Or should it involve watching the video and then ensuring the hire has the understanding and tools needed to perform the task. The latter may take more time but it could be the difference between a “I don’t know what I’m doing so I don’t care” attitude versus a “my supervisor really cares, so it’s only fair I do too” attitude. A “don’t care” attitude covers more ground and lingers due to diffusion of responsibility what I like to call the “that’s not my job” perspective. Since there are no laws to prevent such behavior it’s entirely up to the company help facilitate a culture of people who care about the business they do. As I mentioned before in the business world not establishing balance could be the company’s demise.
Implementation
What are some of the issues public policy addresses?
Currently the United States department of labor addresses many of the issues that individuals could become resentful over. Such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which states the standards for wages and overtime pay. As mentioned before the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) mandates that employers provide employees with both work and a work environment free from “recognized” serious hazards. Another example is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which requires employers of 50 or more employees to give up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave. With the aforementioned in mind we know that though these public policies and many others are in place, this does not include the responsibility to go above and beyond these statutes. So, contending with mandated treatment; the employee’s satisfaction beyond what the law demands (for many large corporations) becomes secondary. This take it or leave it ultimatum leaves many part-time and hourly wage employees taking it but not leaving it until the reason they took the job in the first place is accomplished.
