Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Business Ethics Queston.

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:07:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Should a company be allowed to make employees take their overtime off on lunch breaks?

example: An employee has 1 hour of OT and they have a 30 min scheduled lunch. This employee must take a 1.5 hour lunch in order to make sure he doesn't acquire OT or he will be reprimanded.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 8:58:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The better question is why not. What is the reason to not allow this?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 9:38:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:07:24 AM, pozessed wrote:
Should a company be allowed to make employees take their overtime off on lunch breaks?

example: An employee has 1 hour of OT and they have a 30 min scheduled lunch. This employee must take a 1.5 hour lunch in order to make sure he doesn't acquire OT or he will be reprimanded.

On a lunchbreak? No. They could force an employee to go home early or come in late the next day, though. If they're forcing you to stay there idle knowing that they're going to put your back on shift, that's essentially unpaid labor hours and that's illegal.

Depends on the state and the country, but it's probably illegal.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:06:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:38:57 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:07:24 AM, pozessed wrote:
Should a company be allowed to make employees take their overtime off on lunch breaks?

example: An employee has 1 hour of OT and they have a 30 min scheduled lunch. This employee must take a 1.5 hour lunch in order to make sure he doesn't acquire OT or he will be reprimanded.

On a lunchbreak? No. They could force an employee to go home early or come in late the next day, though. If they're forcing you to stay there idle knowing that they're going to put your back on shift, that's essentially unpaid labor hours and that's illegal.

Depends on the state and the country, but it's probably illegal.

That's what I was thinking, I'm surprised others don't see it that way.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:37:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:06:48 AM, pozessed wrote:

That's what I was thinking, I'm surprised others don't see it that way.

What you're witnessing on this site is the aftermath of the failure of neo-liberalism, and the over-reaction to that failure.

Unfortunately, most of the people here are too young to have also experienced the failure of the neo-con movement, so they think one is bad and one didn't exist, so they are pro-business to their own detriment.

The pendulum will swing back the other way in a few years. Try not to get caught under it on its way back down...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:39:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.

These people are in their situations because funds are already limited and they are unable to get a loan.
Starting a company or going on strike is not an option for a large amount of people right now.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:40:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:39:00 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.

These people are in their situations because funds are already limited and they are unable to get a loan.
Starting a company or going on strike is not an option for a large amount of people right now.

Is it worse than having to work under the conditions stated above?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:42:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:37:29 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:06:48 AM, pozessed wrote:

That's what I was thinking, I'm surprised others don't see it that way.

What you're witnessing on this site is the aftermath of the failure of neo-liberalism, and the over-reaction to that failure.

Unfortunately, most of the people here are too young to have also experienced the failure of the neo-con movement, so they think one is bad and one didn't exist, so they are pro-business to their own detriment.

The pendulum will swing back the other way in a few years. Try not to get caught under it on its way back down...

I need to get out of my current circumstances before I can worry to much about that one.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:43:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:40:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:39:00 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.

These people are in their situations because funds are already limited and they are unable to get a loan.
Starting a company or going on strike is not an option for a large amount of people right now.

Is it worse than having to work under the conditions stated above?

Hungry and homeless would be worse than those conditions. yes.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:47:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:07:24 AM, pozessed wrote:
Should a company be allowed to make employees take their overtime off on lunch breaks?

example: An employee has 1 hour of OT and they have a 30 min scheduled lunch. This employee must take a 1.5 hour lunch in order to make sure he doesn't acquire OT or he will be reprimanded.

Illegal? Certainly not to my knowledge but I do think the employees would have a case in a lawsuit depending on how they acquired the OT. If the employees were mandated by scheduling or coercion that they work the OT earlier in the week and then had it taken away by abusive lunch break policies, the courts would probably side with the employees (also depending on the judge). But if the employees are on some sort of free clock in system (typically like in retail) and accumulated the OT by not properly managing their time then definitely not.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 11:50:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:43:53 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:40:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:39:00 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.

These people are in their situations because funds are already limited and they are unable to get a loan.
Starting a company or going on strike is not an option for a large amount of people right now.

Is it worse than having to work under the conditions stated above?

Hungry and homeless would be worse than those conditions. yes.
Then it's surely a good thing that the company offers them work.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:12:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:50:00 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:43:53 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:40:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:39:00 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.

These people are in their situations because funds are already limited and they are unable to get a loan.
Starting a company or going on strike is not an option for a large amount of people right now.

Is it worse than having to work under the conditions stated above?

Hungry and homeless would be worse than those conditions. yes.
Then it's surely a good thing that the company offers them work.

Sure, but does that make it right for the company to take advantage of them?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:13:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:47:06 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:07:24 AM, pozessed wrote:
Should a company be allowed to make employees take their overtime off on lunch breaks?

example: An employee has 1 hour of OT and they have a 30 min scheduled lunch. This employee must take a 1.5 hour lunch in order to make sure he doesn't acquire OT or he will be reprimanded.

Illegal? Certainly not to my knowledge but I do think the employees would have a case in a lawsuit depending on how they acquired the OT. If the employees were mandated by scheduling or coercion that they work the OT earlier in the week and then had it taken away by abusive lunch break policies, the courts would probably side with the employees (also depending on the judge). But if the employees are on some sort of free clock in system (typically like in retail) and accumulated the OT by not properly managing their time then definitely not.

Noted, thank you for that.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 12:30:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 12:12:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:50:00 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:43:53 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:40:52 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:39:00 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:30:44 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:13:11 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 9:01:33 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:53:40 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/4/2013 8:10:50 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Yes.

Why?

The workers can choose who to work for.

Not necessarily in this economy. Quite a few of people live in a situation where they have to take what they can get and cherish it.
They shouldn't.
Our unemployment rate isn't where it's at because there is all kinds of opportunity here.
Start companies then.
Is it fair for a company to take advantage of those people and their situations?
If everyone stopped working at these companies and instead at companies with good business practices, the companies with bad business practices would be forced to change or go bankrupt. That's the basis of strikes. The companies aren't some evil entity. People give them the power to do what they do. There are always alternatives.

These people are in their situations because funds are already limited and they are unable to get a loan.
Starting a company or going on strike is not an option for a large amount of people right now.

Is it worse than having to work under the conditions stated above?

Hungry and homeless would be worse than those conditions. yes.
Then it's surely a good thing that the company offers them work.

Sure, but does that make it right for the company to take advantage of them?

I don't really even see it as that.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 3:57:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 8:07:24 AM, pozessed wrote:
Should a company be allowed to make employees take their overtime off on lunch breaks?

example: An employee has 1 hour of OT and they have a 30 min scheduled lunch. This employee must take a 1.5 hour lunch in order to make sure he doesn't acquire OT or he will be reprimanded.

In this example, the employee is only working 8 hours, but scheduled for 9.5. The lunch is unpaid, and should be calculated for OT consideration.

It is odd, but perhaps necessary to schedule this way. Same goes for working four 12-hr days, then three, and no OT. If you don't like it, demand a raise for the loss of personal time (i.e. the fact that you are scheduled longer), demand not being scheduled like this, or look for a different job.

Should I demand OT pay if I have two extra commutes, but only log in 40 hours/week but am required to work all 7 days?
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2013 4:45:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/4/2013 11:37:29 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/4/2013 11:06:48 AM, pozessed wrote:

That's what I was thinking, I'm surprised others don't see it that way.

What you're witnessing on this site is the aftermath of the failure of neo-liberalism, and the over-reaction to that failure.

Unfortunately, most of the people here are too young to have also experienced the failure of the neo-con movement, so they think one is bad and one didn't exist, so they are pro-business to their own detriment.

The pendulum will swing back the other way in a few years. Try not to get caught under it on its way back down...

This is laughable, businesses were allowed to flourish under the golden age of capitalism. There were progressive taxes, but only due to Keynesian Economics, which I also agree with. I think that Supply-Side and Keynesian Economics can go hand in hand and work fine. This is what we essentially had, loose business regulations and supply-side with Keynesian. It's called a healthy medium Malcolm. It has been proven that extremely high taxes are detrimental to the economy, but so are extremely low taxes.