First off, I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in the orientation process that he may be asked to do other duties. Also, nobody "forced" him to perform extra duties- this was a minimum wage at-will job. They asked him, and he was at-will to decline, and they were at-will to release him from employment and allow one of the other thousands of applicants on file to decide whether or not they'd like the opportunity.barbzilla said:Sorry, but you are just plain wrong here. Unless they specifically stated that he would have to preform these "extra" duties, they have no right to "force" him to comply with their wishes that he do so.Ragnar47183 said:Thats called a job. Get used to it.
They sign your paychecks so you do what they want. If you dont like it then you should find another job or wait until you get fired.
We do have unions but:shootthebandit said:Do you guys actually have unions in america? Ive heard your employment laws are pretty lax and people can be sacked without a days notice and dont get a redunancy pay out?paragon1 said:I'm loving all the people in this thread who think the proper response to a boot being on your neck is to kiss the laces.
Also, some people are mistaken about Right to Work. Right to Work legislation typically bans union shops. The right to fire you at any time for any reason is called At Will employment. Common mistake!
In the UK employers need a good reason to sack someone otherwise they can get the pants sued off them for unfair dismissal. If people are being made redundant they usually get some sort of pay out
Captcha: no soup for you. Times must be getting tough
This seems a lot different from UK unions, unions in america seem to employ a lot of bullying tactics where as unions in the UK are a lot more organised and official. Theres only really 2 big unions (unite and unison) and they offer legal advice, personal injury claims if injured at work, employment rights etc. If companies are making redunancies the unions will often pressure employers to find other ways to save moneyRyotknife said:We do have unions but:shootthebandit said:Do you guys actually have unions in america? Ive heard your employment laws are pretty lax and people can be sacked without a days notice and dont get a redunancy pay out?paragon1 said:I'm loving all the people in this thread who think the proper response to a boot being on your neck is to kiss the laces.
Also, some people are mistaken about Right to Work. Right to Work legislation typically bans union shops. The right to fire you at any time for any reason is called At Will employment. Common mistake!
In the UK employers need a good reason to sack someone otherwise they can get the pants sued off them for unfair dismissal. If people are being made redundant they usually get some sort of pay out
Captcha: no soup for you. Times must be getting tough
A. not all businesses are unionized
B. even with unionized businesses, you can sometimes choose to join the union or not (sometimes you are forced to)
C. unions have a history of having ties to the Mafia
Unions in the US have a pretty shady history and are in some cases just as corrupt as the shadiest, greediest businesses in the US. Not to mention, unions are some of the biggest lobbyists in the country.
That's mostly labor unions though. The other unions are usually on the up and up.
Granted, I would imagine C is less true today than a few decades ago, but their image is going to be tainted for a long time. If you found out that your unions were working/owned with/by the IRA, how long would it take for the union's image to get rid of that taint?
Yes, by telling him to do something outside of the listed of his job under the threat of termination, that is FORCING someone to do something. Sure, he could just walk out and quit, but that isn't any better than being fired. You are still jobless, hungry, and (unless you still live with your parents) soon to be homeless. This is a threat to someone's security, which is one of the primary needs of a human being. When you threaten to remove one of their primary needs, you are in the wrong.tangoprime said:First off, I'm pretty sure it was somewhere in the orientation process that he may be asked to do other duties. Also, nobody "forced" him to perform extra duties- this was a minimum wage at-will job. They asked him, and he was at-will to decline, and they were at-will to release him from employment and allow one of the other thousands of applicants on file to decide whether or not they'd like the opportunity.barbzilla said:Sorry, but you are just plain wrong here. Unless they specifically stated that he would have to preform these "extra" duties, they have no right to "force" him to comply with their wishes that he do so.Ragnar47183 said:Thats called a job. Get used to it.
They sign your paychecks so you do what they want. If you dont like it then you should find another job or wait until you get fired.
you my friend need to run the world... or at least a union.chadachada123 said:He's half-right. His mentality is wrong (in my opinion), but his answer ("if you don't like it, leave it") is correct. If more workers stood up to employer bullshit and didn't accept minimum wage if the business makes fuck-huge amounts of money, then the power dynamic would shift from "They [the business] owns you" to "You and them are business partners."
I doubt that Ragnar has that in mind, given his phrasing, but we shouldn't think of businesses as some magical entity with unlimited power. All it takes is enough workers with the balls to fight for what they feel is right to change things for the better.
If EVERY Walmart worker refused in the manner of the OP, and were accordingly fired, Walmart would have to either scrounge for idiots, the high schoolers, or the massively desperate, or change their policies/ideology.
Edit: (As a side note, I feel the same way about consumers, as well. Stop giving businesses like Walmart money if they are treating their workers like shit or have a greed-fueled mindset, and we would see said businesses either die out or adapt. The bus boycotts during the Civil Rights Era worked because it affected the pockets of the greedy fucks in charge)
I think the only problem with your theory is that based on what I have seen of Wal-Mart (when visiting the US and when they brought out ASDA here in the UK) the above mentioned idiots, high schoolers and massively desperate seem to be target of their recruitment strategy already.chadachada123 said:If EVERY Walmart worker refused in the manner of the OP, and were accordingly fired, Walmart would have to either scrounge for idiots, the high schoolers, or the massively desperate, or change their policies/ideology.
Small but important point: There is no union at any Wal Mart in the United States. The corporation has been very diligent in making certain that any attempt to create a union is ended as quickly as possible.Meriatressia said:I would say you should have done what you were told. You were lucky to have a job. But they did sack you unfairly
You should go to your union and and take them on for unfair dismissal.
You should have gone to you union when they asked you to do things beyond your paygrade, and had your unionwoman/man deal with it.
Maybe the reason you did'nt get as much was because of the time you were there. Maybe if you'd shown willing, you have got more money.
That would work if it was run fairly of course. But if it was corrupt, then they could have been in the wrong.
Either way, get your union onto it.
Most of that is right wing anti-union propaganda. Which was used to pass what's called a "right to work" law in something like 30 out of 50 states, which allows employers to fire their employees at any time without cause. It's basically impossible to claim wrongful termination in a right to work state, because only an idiot boss actually gives a reason. You could get fired for being in any given protected class, and it wouldn't matter as long as your boss wasn't braindead in addition to being a bigot.shootthebandit said:This seems a lot different from UK unions, unions in america seem to employ a lot of bullying tactics where as unions in the UK are a lot more organised and official. Theres only really 2 big unions (unite and unison) and they offer legal advice, personal injury claims if injured at work, employment rights etc. If companies are making redunancies the unions will often pressure employers to find other ways to save moneyRyotknife said:We do have unions but:shootthebandit said:Do you guys actually have unions in america? Ive heard your employment laws are pretty lax and people can be sacked without a days notice and dont get a redunancy pay out?paragon1 said:I'm loving all the people in this thread who think the proper response to a boot being on your neck is to kiss the laces.
Also, some people are mistaken about Right to Work. Right to Work legislation typically bans union shops. The right to fire you at any time for any reason is called At Will employment. Common mistake!
In the UK employers need a good reason to sack someone otherwise they can get the pants sued off them for unfair dismissal. If people are being made redundant they usually get some sort of pay out
Captcha: no soup for you. Times must be getting tough
A. not all businesses are unionized
B. even with unionized businesses, you can sometimes choose to join the union or not (sometimes you are forced to)
C. unions have a history of having ties to the Mafia
Unions in the US have a pretty shady history and are in some cases just as corrupt as the shadiest, greediest businesses in the US. Not to mention, unions are some of the biggest lobbyists in the country.
That's mostly labor unions though. The other unions are usually on the up and up.
Granted, I would imagine C is less true today than a few decades ago, but their image is going to be tainted for a long time. If you found out that your unions were working/owned with/by the IRA, how long would it take for the union's image to get rid of that taint?