Titanic99 Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 I never gave an opinion either way. I just understand the real world not this fantasy world you seem to occupy. Well I hope I never get to inhabit this real world of yours, if you are happy that employers can sack people in order to boost their profits by sending thier work abroad then you are welcome to it. ---------- Post added 18-01-2013 at 21:40 ---------- Has any employee ever left your employer because they have moved to a job with better prospects and/or more pay? Yep they have, but I don't get the relevance to this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 What's different though, the employer does it to boost their profits rightly or wrongly, this guy does it to make more money. Both are wrong, yet only one of them seems to be being criticised. But the employer does it legally if they go through employment regulations and keep employees/unions informed at all stages. The employee guy went behind his employers backs by outsourcing his job. His contract was between him and his employers, nobody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 But the employer does it legally if they go through employment regulations and keep employees/unions informed at all stages. The employee guy went behind his employers backs by outsourcing his job. His contract was between him and his employers, nobody else. If something is legal it doesn't make it morally correct though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 [/color] Yep they have, but I don't get the relevance to this thread! The relevance to this thread is that both employers and employees can act in their own best interests. And they usually do. It is their choice. You seem to be saying that it is wrong for an employer to move jobs to a cheaper country if it is beneficial for their finances yet employees be able to change jobs if one with more pay/better prospects come along? ---------- Post added 18-01-2013 at 21:49 ---------- If something is legal it doesn't make it morally correct though. No it doesn't. Was it morally correct for the guy in question to outsource his job without telling his employer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Afraid not, I've just read my contract and there's no mention of my employer being allowed to make me redundant in order to outsource the work to South East Asia. There is, you can be made redundant if your job no longer exists. It's a standard clause. So back to square one, why is it acceptable for employers to be able to do this but not employees? Nope, we're back to what I already said. Has any employee ever left your employer because they have moved to a job with better prospects and/or more pay? Indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 If something is legal it doesn't make it morally correct though. You seem to be under some delusion that the profit making world of business has a moral duty to look after you no matter what the costs to the business. WAKE UP. A business has one sole purpose. Make money. An employee is paid to do as they are told and be a cog in thier machine. Your reward for being there is your nice regular salary and statutory benefits. If you dont like what that particular company does - then you are free to leave and go to another one or start your own. You are entitled to a regulated amount holiday and leave. You are protected by a maximum working hours. You are entitled to statutory break periods and time between shifts. On the flip side an employer is free to recruit or make redundant as they see fit in line with their profits and overheads. They are perfectly free to reduce, cut or outsource those overheads. They are perfectly free to close the firm if they see fit. Harsh as it is - the law offers statutory redundancy and statutory rights for those unfortunate employees in that situation. See some laws benefit employees/some laws benefit employers. 50/50. Remember, they are not there to operate morally. They just need to act legally and within their terms of employment. An employee does not have to be moral either they just have to adhere to their terms of employment. 50/50 again. Now back to this rediculous thread. This clever dick (an I am convinced that's exactly what he though he was) employee outsourced was not his to do so. He had absolutely no right legally or morally (since you are so keen on the subject) to use his employers property and send it to another party to make money for HIMSELF. You can dress it up how you want but as far as I can see its pure theft. Whichever way you look it. This guy was using somone else's resources/intellectual property/data/possessions without authority/permission or ownership. Whether you like it or not the company is in the right here. I dont know quite what planet you are on but you really need to come down to earth and take your place in the real world. If you want to live in some morally fair utopia then you are out of luck. The human race has never been equal. There will always be workers and there will always be bosses. You cant have everyone equal. How would society really work like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 The relevance to this thread is that both employers and employees can act in their own best interests. And they usually do. It is their choice. It's not the same thing though is it. If an employee is leaving for a bigger salary the employer can match it if he wants to keep them. If an employer wants to increase his profits by outsourcing work abroad then the employee can do nothing about it. So the two are totally different. ---------- Post added 18-01-2013 at 22:47 ---------- You seem to be under some delusion that the profit making world of business has a moral duty to look after you no matter what the costs to the business. WAKE UP. A business has one sole purpose. Make money. Agree, but likewise this guy had the same priciples yet he gets chastised for doing it whilst his employers get well rewarded when they do it. Personally I don't like that type of world, irrespective of whether or not it is legal. ---------- Post added 18-01-2013 at 22:49 ---------- On the flip side an employer is free to recruit or make redundant as they see fit in line with their profits and overheads. They are perfectly free to reduce, cut or outsource those overheads. They are perfectly free to close the firm if they see fit. Harsh as it is - the law offers statutory redundancy and statutory rights for those unfortunate employees in that situation. Correct but do you like that type of arrangement ---------- Post added 18-01-2013 at 22:53 ---------- Remember, they are not there to operate morally. They just need to act legally and within their terms of employment. An employee does not have to be moral either they just have to adhere to their terms of employment. 50/50 again. So effectively what your saying is that we'll make laws to make it legal for employers to do this but not for employees. Thank you for backing up my assertion that we have one set of rules for employers and another for employees. I happen to think this is morally wrong, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickM Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Communists believe that the 'exploited' working class will eventually rise up against the upper classes (business owners etc), our whole world is built around the exploitation of others really. Looking at the way capitalism has panned out with all of the wealth now concentrated in very few hands I think the 99%/occupy movement is only the start of things to come, more and more people are gradually being asked to suffer under austerity whilst obscene (and ever increasing) amounts of money are being thrown around at the top. How is it sustainable without some kind of mass unrest? Anyway, on topic but the breach of security is obviously the main issue here but that said even if it weren't the issue the business could have just outsourced to China themselves if they had wanted to, he should have been grateful just to have such a lucrative job given that someone in China would do it for 5 times less. Just because businesses exploit people without any conscience doesn't make it right for people to exploit people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordonb Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 To quote post 48 "If an employee is leaving for a bigger salary the employer can match it if he wants to keep them." Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay the extra money plus if there is a large number of employees covered by a union agreement the extra money will have to be paid to them all. This could well push the price of the finished product above what the customer wants leading to a fall off of work and redundancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Well I hope I never get to inhabit this real world of yours, if you are happy that employers can sack people in order to boost their profits by sending thier work abroad then you are welcome to it. ---------- Post added 18-01-2013 at 21:40 ---------- Yep they have, but I don't get the relevance to this thread! You seem to be fighting a one man campaign to make yourself look like a moron, and you are doing really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.