# Are Employers taking advantage of Staff in these "recessionary times"?



## Dee101 (13 Jan 2009)

Have heard stories from friends over the past month who feel that their employers are somewhat taking advantage of them because of the recession. Introducing sharp practices and conditions for no other reason than they know people have no choice but to accept because they are "lucky to have a job" (words used to my friend by her supervisor).
This time last year people, if weren't happy in their place of work or were being treated badly, would just leave and find something better. Now the tables are turned and I'm wondering are employers taking advantage of the bad times. Interested to hear your opinions!


----------



## D8Lady (13 Jan 2009)

Wow, that's so eighties! Would really be interested in people's stories on this one.


----------



## baldyman27 (14 Jan 2009)

I guess there are a number of different views one could take on this.

Very often, the employer is the first person to take a paycut, in an effort to protect the jobs of his employees in the short term at least. (this is probably more true for small businesses).

Business, at the end of the day is business, its not charity. If profits are falling, then inputs have to fall too otherwise the business loses viability. One could argue that the profit margins of some businesses in the past few years have been so vast that even a sharp fall in profits would leave a healthy balance sheet - that's another debate.

One could argue that its the employees who 'make' a business in the first place, although there wouldn't be a business in the first place if someone hadn't risked house, savings, life and limb to start it in the first place.

So many sides to the coin, it seems!

As for stories D8Lady, I work in construction and recently heard another contractor say this to one of his workers who came to him wondering where his wages were. (He just hadn't had a chance to hand them out yet)

'Wages???? What do you want wages for??? Aren't you lucky to have a job??'

I thought it was brilliant.


----------



## D8Lady (14 Jan 2009)

baldyman27 said:


> I work in construction and recently heard another contractor say this to one of his workers who came to him wondering where his wages were. (He just hadn't had a chance to hand them out yet)
> 
> 'Wages???? What do you want wages for??? Aren't you lucky to have a job??'



Priceless !


----------



## Sunny (14 Jan 2009)

Dee101 said:


> Have heard stories from friends over the past month who feel that their employers are somewhat taking advantage of them because of the recession. Introducing sharp practices and conditions for no other reason than they know people have no choice but to accept because they are "lucky to have a job" (words used to my friend by her supervisor).
> This time last year people, if weren't happy in their place of work or were being treated badly, would just leave and find something better. Now the tables are turned and I'm wondering are employers taking advantage of the bad times. Interested to hear your opinions!


 
What sharp practices? I am assuming nothing that breaks employment legislation. If not, they are entitled to bring in whatever conditions they wish to help their business if it is struggling. It does sound crazy but people ARE lucky to have a job at the moment. I for one will do everything I can to protect mine. If that means working harder and longer for a while on the same or less pay or less ideal conditions then so be it.


----------



## Caveat (14 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> What sharp practices? I am assuming nothing that breaks employment legislation.


 
Maybe not, but I suppose things like reneging on previous flexibilities re breaks etc, suddenly strictly enforcing certain practices that were previously unenforced etc.

An employer could do things like this without consultation or reprisal I guess?


----------



## Bronte (14 Jan 2009)

Ireland needs to become competetive again and I hope all employees would agree.  That's why we lost Dell.  Working harder means working cheaper means we become more competetive.  Just look at the guys in the carpet factory.  Naps were part of the terms and conditions according to one employee.  And it's now a fact that to have a job is to be lucky.  Heads down everyone and don't rock the boat.  Good times will come again but for now be careful.


----------



## Sunny (14 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> Maybe not, but I suppose things like reneging on previous flexibilities re breaks etc, suddenly strictly enforcing certain practices that were previously unenforced etc.
> 
> An employer could do things like this without consultation or reprisal I guess?


 
I guess but they are entitled to do it. Its their business after all. I am all for employees having good working conditions and protection but I think we all need to pretty flexible at the moment. There is no easy way of this mess. Having said that, I have no time for any employer who employs illegal practices with regard to its employees. They should face prosecution and heavy penalties.


----------



## Guest116 (14 Jan 2009)

Its hard to know, I am not sure employers are taking advantage of the situation. I think its more about being cautious as no one really knows how 2009-2010 will turn out.

I know of places where salary increases have been put on hold until the end of the year even though business looks ok for 2009 and the employer made their 2008 profit and revenue targets. Employees have accepted the decision without much issue.


----------



## Caveat (14 Jan 2009)

Sunny said:


> I guess but they are entitled to do it. Its their business after all. I am all for employees having good working conditions and protection but I think we all need to pretty flexible at the moment. There is no easy way of this mess. Having said that, I have no time for any employer who employs illegal practices with regard to its employees. They should face prosecution and heavy penalties.


 
I agree - but it's a bit mean spirited and ultimately probably leads to low morale.

After all, there are more effective ways of gaining competitive advantage or saving money - e.g. working 'smarter' or sometimes introducing flexi-time can benefit both employer and employee.


----------



## FutureProof (14 Jan 2009)

I think this is certainly more frequent in large companies where the individual can make little difference to saving or making money for the business, whereas in smaller companies its easier to work together to work threw this tough period.


----------



## mallow (14 Jan 2009)

Bronte said:


> Ireland needs to become competetive again and I hope all employees would agree.  That's why we lost Dell.  Working harder means working cheaper means we become more competetive.  Just look at the guys in the carpet factory.  Naps were part of the terms and conditions according to one employee.  And it's now a fact that to have a job is to be lucky.  Heads down everyone and don't rock the boat.  Good times will come again but for now be careful.


To actually become competitive with China, India or even eastern Europe for manufacturing jobs means lowering our standard of living to that of those countries.  Most economists are not arguing for that as it would defeat the purpose of economic growth, which is meant to improve living standards, not lower them.  Most of them argue that we need to become a 'knowledge economy', not to attempt to outcompete billions of Chinese which is impossible.


----------



## askalot (14 Jan 2009)

Bronte said:


> Ireland needs to become competetive again and I hope all employees would agree.  That's why we lost Dell.  Working harder means working cheaper means we become more competetive.



We can't try to compete with wage levels of €3/hr and nor should we.


----------



## Bronte (14 Jan 2009)

askalot said:


> We can't try to compete with wage levels of €3/hr and nor should we.


 I'm not suggesting that but if we were say 7 Euros an hour companies might think twice before leaving.  An educated, English speaking workforce with proper infrastructure and facilities is preferable to say India which although low cost is beset with infractureure and utilities that are not consistent.   I don't see any reason why we shouldn't compete with low cost countries, that's originally why we got some of the large multinationals, together with our location, language and work ethic.  Mallow we may have no choice but to lesson our standard of living.  To go back to 1 car instead of 2, no credit cards instead of 4, one home in Ireland instead of an house in Marbella and an apartment in Dubai,  taking the bus instead of a taxi, holidaying in Europe as opposed to Thailand, eating at home as opposed to take-aways.  Is that hardship?


----------



## Sunny (14 Jan 2009)

Bronte said:


> I'm not suggesting that but if we were say 7 Euros an hour companies might think twice before leaving. An educated, English speaking workforce with proper infrastructure and facilities is preferable to say India which although low cost is beset with infractureure and utilities that are not consistent. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't compete with low cost countries, that's originally why we got some of the large multinationals, together with our location, language and work ethic. Mallow we may have no choice but to lesson our standard of living. To go back to 1 car instead of 2, no credit cards instead of 4, one home in Ireland instead of an house in Marbella and an apartment in Dubai, taking the bus instead of a taxi, holidaying in Europe as opposed to Thailand, eating at home as opposed to take-aways. Is that hardship?


 
Do you think anyone that was on €10 a hour was doing any of those things?


----------



## mallow (14 Jan 2009)

We got those investments because we were a low cost economy.  We no longer are.  This process has happened before to other countries and it was inevitable it would happen to us. You can't pick a random number of, say, €7 per hour, and say that that would make us competitive and only reduce those workers standard of living a little bit.  We don't decide what standard of living would make us competitive, the likes of Dell do.  What's the point of economic growth if we have to reduce our standard of living to those of the developing world in order to put a roof over our heads?  Things like computers need to stay near to their markets in Europe that's true.  But most manufactured goods can be shipped from China. so our location is no advantage.  That's the reality of manufacturing today and that's globalization.  Are you prepared to lower your standard of living to that of a Chinese factory worker?  Choosing to race them to the bottom in order to survive is biting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## Dee101 (14 Jan 2009)

Caveat said:


> Maybe not, but I suppose things like reneging on previous flexibilities re breaks etc, suddenly strictly enforcing certain practices that were previously unenforced etc.
> 
> An employer could do things like this without consultation or reprisal I guess?


 
Yes Caveat these are the sort of things I am talking about, nothing illegal but things that they will do just because they can and with the attitude that they no longer have to worry about staff being happy and contented in their job because let's face it, they know they have 10 other people knocking down the door to replace one person if they are not happy and decide to leave.

I take other people's points about everyone having to work harder to keep their jobs, that's a given. Just don't like to hear stories of employers being mean spirited towards their staff just because they feel they have the upper hand in the current climate. By the way I am not talking about business who are suffering or on the verge of going bust. There are plenty out there who are still very well enough in the recession and although they need to be cautious this should not be unneccesarily at the expense of their staff's morale or happiness - things are bad enough as they are.

Was just interested to see if anyone had any stories of their own to add.

I think it's horrible that it seems some employers are behaving like this and taking advantage of the bad times.


----------



## Latrade (14 Jan 2009)

Dee101 said:


> Yes Caveat these are the sort of things I am talking about, nothing illegal but things that they will do just because they can and with the attitude that they no longer have to worry about staff being happy and contented in their job because let's face it, they know they have 10 other people knocking down the door to replace one person if they are not happy and decide to leave.
> 
> I take other people's points about everyone having to work harder to keep their jobs, that's a given. Just don't like to hear stories of employers being mean spirited towards their staff just because they feel they have the upper hand in the current climate. By the way I am not talking about business who are suffering or on the verge of going bust. There are plenty out there who are still very well enough in the recession and although they need to be cautious this should not be unneccesarily at the expense of their staff's morale or happiness - things are bad enough as they are.
> 
> ...


 
I'm probably missing the point, but the summary seems to be that employees were taking advantage during the good times by not adhering to agreed standards because the employer didn't enforce them/employees had more options to leave the company. Now the employer has chosen to enforce the previously ignored standards, they're the big bad guys?


----------



## Latrade (14 Jan 2009)

jaybird said:


> Why do we never hear the argument for lowering the wages of the middle management and above who did in fact have the apts in Dubai and the villa in Marbella? Surely it is them who should lower their standard of living, instead of making the working poor even poorer?


 
Couldn't agree more and neither would employers seeing as there have been and continue to be significant management level layoffs. Most "right-sizing" excersises are seeing middle and senior management losses rather than shop floor. The difference is, those losses don't enjoy the same newsworthiness as shop floor redundancies.


----------



## Bronte (15 Jan 2009)

jaybird said:


> Why is that those who argue for lowering the minimum wage are never those on it? Most of us never had any of those things in the first place.
> 
> Why do we never hear the argument for lowering the wages of the middle management and above who did in fact have the apts in Dubai and the villa in Marbella? Surely it is them who should lower their standard of living, instead of making the working poor even poorer?


  I agree that the difference between the standard of living for those on the minimum and management is too large.  It's true that many people still live in poverty in Ireland, our level of children in poverty is actually 3rd world and nothing has changed there during the boom which is actually shocking when one thinks about it.  My argument was primarly about competitiveness. And even those on lower wages, it seemed to me (and I could be wrong) borrowed for a car, a couch, a flat screen TV or a holiday, xmas presents etc.  That's also what I was referring to in relation to standard of living.  I don't make the tax rules which keep people in poverty.


----------



## Complainer (17 Jan 2009)

Whatever about specific employers, there is little doubt that our current economic crisis is being used as an excuse to try to cut the standard of living of ordinary workers - a 'shock doctrine' if you will, as has been used all round the world in hard times, from Chile to Iraq to Russia to New Orleans.

A classic example of this is the IBEC proposal to eliminate the defined benefit pension scheme for new entrants to the public sector - see  [broken link removed]. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of this proposal, it has absolutely no relevance to our current economic climate. Any savings accrued from such changes would only have an impact when these employees reach retirement age, i.e. 20/30/40 years down the line. This is pure opportunism by IBEC - attempting to use the economic disaster created by the banks and builders as an excuse to squeeze nurses, teachers, gardai, dole office staff etc. Dispicable conduct....


----------



## ashleylane (4 Mar 2009)

I do feel like I am being takin advantage of. First off I work in a small business (4 employees). My employer fired our accountant and hired another accountant on part time to do accounts payable only. Everything else was thrown on me. My work load more than doubled. We have two techs and two office workers (myself being one of them). My employer cut pay on one of the techs by $5/hr. This would make sense if the economy was having an effect on my company, but it isn't. Actually we have made more profit in the last 4 months than this company has ever seen.  When I brought up getting me a raise to my boss shot it down by saying "with the way the economy is, giving raises is out of the question."  Then about a week later his son (the other tech) comes to me and tells me that his dad is going to give him a $2/hr raise in a couple weeks. 
I'm sure you can all see why I fell like I'm being takin advantage of.  I am the lowest paid employee yet I have the biggest work load.


----------



## FutureProof (5 Mar 2009)

I do feel like some companies are taking advantage. I started my job 3 months ago on a introductory rate, due to end a few weeks ago. As soon as i was due to go up to a decent wage, the did a company wide pay freeze, so now even if I get promoted I will still be on my introductory rate, its a joke. Although I am just happy to have a job at the moment


----------



## Paulsgirl (5 Mar 2009)

I know of places where salary increases have been put on hold until the end of the year even though business looks ok for 2009 and the employer made their 2008 profit and revenue targets. Employees have accepted the decision without much issue.[/quote]

Thats whats happening where I work and we all just accept it.  No problem at all.  Would rather have a job paying the same as last year than have none at all so no salary increase for a year won't kill me.


----------



## Hobbs256 (7 Mar 2009)

Hearing this every day "you are lucky to have a job", this is coming from a senior manager over our department, he is using the recession as an excuse to delegate more work out, the problem is that he is doing less and less work for the good salary that he is getting, in fact I think he is very lucky to have a job!


----------



## Joe_scooter (7 Mar 2009)

Too right it's happening. 




Hobbs256 said:


> Hearing this every day "you are lucky to have a job", this is coming from a senior manager over our department, he is using the recession as an excuse to delegate more work out, the problem is that he is doing less and less work for the good salary that he is getting, in fact I think he is very lucky to have a job!


----------



## Doolox (8 Mar 2009)

Which is why it is in everyones interest to sovle the unemployment problem once and for all. A good level of social welfare aids everyone in their bargaining position at work, if it was lower the bosses would only lower everyones wage to match the new lower rate.
Until we get full empoyment again we can do nothiing but sit tight.


----------



## Omega (8 Mar 2009)

*Re: Are Employers taking advantage?
* Some undoubtedly are. In my former company, I was issuing weekly and monthly sales reports and had been doing so for several years. The revenue figures for 2008 had been rising steadily until early November when I left the company. Three weeks later, the company announced over 100 redundancies and a pay freeze/short time working for 2009 based on sales figures allegedly falling in key markets by up to 50%! I cannot believe that such a fall took place - unless it all happened suddenly in a very short period.....


----------



## z103 (8 Mar 2009)

> I cannot believe that such a fall took place - unless it all happened suddenly in a very short period.....


Believe it or not, it is happening.
I really is happening very quickly, and yes, in the space of a couple of months.


----------

