GL Employees Quiting Left and Right
But, I stand by my assertion that seasonal employees have very little rights. It has been an issue that State and Federal Governments have been reluctant to address...likely b/c of the lobbyists of various entities including the amusement park industry.
It just so happens that many workers supplying agricultural labor during the peak harvest period are undocumented. Such people do not exactly have a lot of political power---why would a politician care about them? After all, they can't vote.
To add some perspective, we belong to a farm cooperative. The share price is set to cover farm expenses, and provide a very modest but livable wage to the two full-time farmers. These two supply the produce needs for 110 families for half a year, and the share price is a shade over $775. Members also commit either to contributing ten hours of volunteer time to the farm or to paying an additional $125.
If you work this out, we're paying quite a bit more for vegetables than we would if we were buying them in the grocery store---even a snooty Ann Arbor grocery store like Whole Foods. We do this for four reasons. First, we get much better quality than we could commercially (yes, even from Whole Foods). Second, the kids come with me to the farm and so realize that food actually grows in the ground rather than just materialzes on a shelf somewhere. Third, we know for a fact that no pesticides or other nasty chemicals are used---the farm is biodynamic, which is a step beyond organic on the tree-hugger scale. And fourth, I like supporting local business whenever I can.
We pay dearly for these "advantages," and the only real costs are salaries so that two people can live decently but certainly not extravagently. If everyone who worked a farm were to be paid similarly, food costs would double overnight. That's another good reason why a politician wouldn't touch the issue of "seasonal workers' rights" with a ten foot pole. You think people are P.O.'d about gas at $2 a gallon? You ain't seen *nothing* yet.
Edit: I can't count. *** Edited 5/3/2004 8:03:14 PM UTC by Brian Noble***
Then later...
oldschool said:
...For somebody to state that a company has the right to pay anybody whatever they want is just not correct.
So which is it?
Yes, of course Ceder Point/Fair has the right to set-up their pay structure however they see fit.
I work for the third largest auto insurer in the country. The pay scales vary by location. You can't expect them to pay the same wage for the same job from Cleveland to any other city where the cost of living is higher. You're dealing in ridiculous absolutes here. Even if you could stand by those absolutes, we're still talking about minimum wage non-skilled labor.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
I am not going down the path of selective quoting. That is one of the reasons that I wanted to drop it in the first place. It would appear Wahoo and I seem to be on the same page after todays discussions.
I am going to walk away from this one. Why? Because it is not worth it to me. Also, I have no need to get into some sort of back and forth with the webmaster. To each his own. I feel that I have used examples in their proper place, as well as have shown where I am coming from with my replies as they relate to actual business practices in real world applications.
I do not have experience with the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd largest auto insurer in the country. Merely applications from boardroom meetings, human resource management decisions, one on one dealings with different corporate lawyers, schooling in HR, policy setting of a hire/fire decision level, and other company experience.
Have an enjoyable week, and here is hoping your next visit to an amusement park is what you are looking for on a level of enjoyment. *** Edited 5/4/2004 2:15:31 AM UTC by oldschool***
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Three different locations. Three different "cost of living" base points. Three different pay scales.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I never took the arguement from him as one that a company has no right to pay what they want to pay. Despite the quote pointed out by Jeff, i feel that from his first post it seemed obvious to me that the issue brought up was about covering their collective leagal asses. Which, by the way, is the only reason i have heard suggested yet that makes sense to me as to why they would drop the rates for the management positions or hard to fill front line jobs.
And Jeff i have made plenty of points over the years, and unless you agree with me, or i with you (and yes it has happened) you ignore them or rebuttle with nothing more than opinion or statement with nothing to support it.
Finally i've said it for the last three years now. It's easy to look good and overstaffed on the first weekend with rain and cool weather. Wait until July or when the Clinic comes to town before final determinations are made. *** Edited 5/4/2004 3:39:01 AM UTC by meangene***
needless quotation removed. -J
This is exactly where parts of my original, as well as subsequent replies were coming from. I do not know the history between the two individuals that were referenced in the post I am replying to, so that is the only reason that I am not using the whole quote. Am using the entire amount other than that area.
I apologize to the person that I quoted for not using the full reply. *** Edited 5/4/2004 12:22:09 PM UTC by Jeff***
redman822 said:
Oldschool... AT my old job I amanged PC technicians at three locations across the US. We had three technicians here in the Chicago area who at the time made an average of 44K/year. We also had a tech at our Las Vegas office...he made 49.5K and the final office in St. Louis had two technicians who made an average of 40K.Three different locations. Three different "cost of living" base points. Three different pay scales.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes, you should have had the ability to adjust initial pay offerings according to local/regional COL(cost of living). However, you should not have been allowed to hire whoever you wanted at whatever wage you felt like at the time of the hire. Nor were you probably allowed to give them a raise or adjustment whenever you felt like. Is that correct?
Nothing difficult to grasp from your good example. Having been involved with similar position rankings at different geographic points across the country, I can vouch for your example. An interesting side-bar to that, is gas mileage allowances are across the board. Irregardless of large differentials in per gallon pricing. This has to do with IRS guidelines vs. a compensation law.
All I would ask you to do, is go back and read my posts in this thread to see where I was going with my thoughts and examples. There were a few main points I was trying to convey, and then a few sub-points that were followed-up by myself.
The only place I've ever worked (and I've been in everything from start-ups to NYSE-traded companies) that had a set scale was a municipality. And that city had screwed up scales where various managers were not paid as much as others (I was one of them), all in the public eye. Even with the legislated scale, it was easy enough to ammend at any council meeting.
Gene: Show me where I disagree with you just out of spite and don't back it up. Dazzle me. I don't know you or care enough to have anything against you. Don't flatter yourself.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
We are talking about a company that was purchased and as such, the new company is fully within its' rights to re-evaluate all employees, their pay rate and whether or not to keep the employees or not.
Ohio, like many states, is an employment at will state. From http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/membersonly/employment.pdf
"...either party to an oral employment-at-will agreement may terminate the employment
relationship for any reason which is not contrary to law."
From the same document, the only exceptions are when "...an employee...is covered by a collective bargaining agreement or an express employment contract."
And even then, in the case where there has been a company buy-out, it can be argued that the contract was with the previous company, not the new owner.
I know of many people who, when their company was bought out, lost their (full-time permanent) jobs as well as others whose pay was cut to bring salaries in line with what the new company pays.
And Jeff, the munincipality you worked for, were the employees covered by a union? I know many governmental type jobs are. If so, that would explain the set pay scales via a CBA. *** Edited 5/4/2004 2:16:06 PM UTC by redman822***
One of my initial "thoughts" on this topic, was CF wanting to put pay scales "similar" to CP so as to allow the exchange of employees between the GL and CP. I do not remember posting that they needed to have exact wage matching levels. It was merely a point on my overall initial replies. Having crafted and worked with a considerable number of employment policies, I was merely talking from experience.
There were several other areas that I highlighted on my personal thoughts as to why they did what they did, including changing the thoughts of the employees that decided to stay, as well as exit those that they felt would not be a good fit for the future plans.
This is stemming from personal cases that I have seen and been involved with as they relate to changing pay, raises, job performance issues, and defined job tasks/needs. A main reason that companies adhere to these standards is in fact to cover their collective Bu!!s.
The supervisor that holds a grudge due to personal beliefs against a specific group of people making subjective task rules and pay raises just should not be allowed to happen. If there are defined job rules and tasks, defined pay raise structures, and mechanisms put in place for reviews/grading then two positives happen. 1. The employee is aware of what is required of them from their employer, and they know what their pay structure is going to be as well as potential pay raises. 2. There is bound to be the potential for less labor litigation.
We could be looking at things on different pages here. While an employer can and should be able to hire in people at the pay structure they deem necessary for reasons that include; local labor markets, being able to make money, changing business models, etc., you will in fact find most companies will have a set of guidelines that outline starting wages, as well as definite rules on how people will get raises and other pay issues once they are hired in.
That is especially true in cases where the prior owner was losing money on the operation of the specified facility...
The reason I asked if oldschool was questioning race preference was because of statements like this.
"The supervisor that holds a grudge due to personal beliefs against a specific group of people making subjective task rules and pay raises just should not be allowed to happen."
Yet another needless quote of the previous post, proving that even pinning a topic asking people not to do it doesn't help. -J
I am unsure how you took the leap on the possibility that I was posting with respect to CP and race employment. The sentence that you are quoting, was merely an example, that at no time was referencing SF, SW, or CF.
It would seem my first post highlighted a few of the areas I was commenting on. Sorry, but there is nothing to spit out here. *** Edited 5/4/2004 10:40:59 PM UTC by Jeff***
CoastaPlaya said:
OlSkoo: Could you "get" to whatever your "point" is right away? Really!
According to others here that have posted the TOS, I am wondering if I should be responding to you. I also looked back at some posts, and it seems as if your use of slang and a cuteness factor could be construed as a TOS breaker.
Have an enjoyable day.
redman822 said:
But again, when a new company buys an existing one, they could deem all positions "open" and re-interview everyone who is working there and then "hire" them back to their original positions thereby a) getting rid of the "dead wood" and b) setting wages to where they want them - not where the prior owner had them.That is especially true in cases where the prior owner was losing money on the operation of the specified facility...
Not disputing those regulations, redman. It would seem we keep getting on different pages here. Most of my examples as they related to pay/raise/labor issues were in part, on a general level vs. my commenting and using those examples directly to this particular situation. There are ways of doing things, and then there are how things are done. I have never disputed that CF can and should be able to hire according to what each of their local markets dictate as they relate to competitive pay pressures. I remember sitting in on a few meetings when a former company I worked at was in the process of purchasing a division of another company. One of the things that was talked about by the President as well as others was the word "perception", as well as the words "corporate culture".
My main point of contention in this subject was when people started talking about companies being able to hire in any new employee at whatever price they feel like doing, and then giving anybody whatever raise amount they want, whenever they want. Local labor pressures, scarcity of qualified candidates, unique regional reasons, cost of living aspects, are all valid and documentable parts of the equation on a company being able to vary the initial pay strucutre. But because they can and they do not have to answer to anybody for doing it, it is not valid.
Have an enjoyable day, and hopefully you will get the opportunity to visit several amusement parks this season.
Closed topic.
