No one is expecting to get treated like a superstar. Most folks just want to do their jobs and go home. Why do companies fire their work force and go overseas or hire H1B visas?

Came in here to say this.

Go into software development and work for small businesses trying to compete with Amazon and Google for talent.

"You OK, buddy? You need anything? You want to take another day off at the end of your vacation just to make sure you're feeling good and everything? You want me to zuck your dink when you get back? We're hiring a new catering company because you didn't like the Swedish meatballs at the Christmas party."

How come most employees don’t care about the corporations they work for?

2 reasons.

1. they are cheaper.

2. the get to look "Progressive" by having less native white people in the workforce.hey now....

because #1:most supervisors and managers are not suited for their position

a good company cares about their workers. most are ****in bull**** though

when people get into management positions, their mindset goes on like absolute supreme leader mode. which is wrong. i've seen it happen to two of my buddies when they were promoted to supervisor positions. and people absolutely hated them. i did as well. it also happened to me when i got into a management position, except i had more experience and learned from my mistakes. people loved working with me and in my department after i took care of my team properly. some people don't learn and the workers will always know the supervisor or manager as dickhead boss or *******.

100 percent correct

didnt read through the thread lol. Just thought I’d make a logical point.

Because most corporations are run by selfish people who don't see their employees as people but cogs in a machine, When one breaks, just replace it.

it was logical.and most people are selfish and don't see their companies as anything else than a means to an end. then when that means doesn't suit them anymore they just quit. screw the company trying to replace them or keep up when said employee leaves.

it's human nature. not a corp vs person thing. corps are still run by people.

Because directors are still on staff. We are for them, as labor. They do not understand that they are people too and can get tired of constant loads.

You're wrong on so many levels. People want routine stability. They just want to work and go home and have their weekends to themselves.

I work for a fortune 500 company and my experience is that the company tries as best as it can to take care of its employees. The problem is that when something doesn't go their way, ie time off, they think the company is screwing them over. Some people want the world to revolve around them. Unfortunately you can't run a business like that.

I'd also add that the VAST MAJORITY of people work at 60-75% capacity. They complain about doing work THEY AGREED to do in their job description.

The older I get the more I wish I were a psychopath.

Just how life works, all I know is if they pretend to pay me I’ll keep pretending to work.

Pareto principle.

10% of employees are responsible for 80-90% of the productivity and innovation.

The other 90% of employees at a given corporation are passengers, who should feel lucky/privileged that they are along for the ride and being paid.

One aspect I haven't seen mentioned ITT is fungibility. You don't want to be dependent on any one person.

Warren Buffet said that "I try to invest in businesses that even an idiot can run, because some day, one will." The point being, human beings aren't very reliable. Your ninja coder or rock star CEO could be crippled in a car crash, or get cancer, or leave to be closer to his ailing mother, or just not show up because he has a hangnail,. You get the picture. If you are counting on that guy to show up to work every day, you will inevitably get screwed.

A good business should be able to replace anyone in the company, from the loading dock to the C-suite. The downside is that it's difficult to develop much of a personal feel in an environment where every employee could replaced on a month's notice.

I remember when a Jimmy John's opened up and then they were giving out free subs for the day. The line was unbelievable long. I was in line for about 10 minutes when I thought to myself "what the fuk am I doing here?" I promptly left.

Unless you're in a higher position or work for a smaller company, you're just a spoke in the wheel. Some companies try but you cant please or get to everyone. You also have people in higher positions that dont know that the manager of a chain in some random town is treating its employees like crap.

My last company was a smaller one and gave everyone visa gift cards with a nice amount of money on it. Never seen stuff like that from bigger ones.

/thread

Corporations have no beliefs. People have beliefs. It is in the best interest of People(businessmen) to "care" about their employees because good employees=more profits.

Dafuq, bro. Have you ever heard of a natural monopoly? Are you going to found a startup that routes brand new sewage lines into existing houses' chitters?

It's true that monopoliesareregulated, but that's not to say that they only exist because of regulation and that we could just wave our capitalism wand to have free competition. Some fields are non-competitive simply by nature. So what we do is either place those businesses in government hands, nationalize them, or break them apart into artificial competition, because a private utilities company that could shut off all of our chitters for a month unless we agreed to a 50x rate increase is too dangerous to be left alone.

Which businesses are non-competitive?

Because it's an employers market. They don't have to care, there is always another scrub willing to take chit and do their job for minimal pay.

Bull**** and naive

Oh chit, there's tons.

Off my head:

-Utilities. That's the econ 101 textbook example, so that's kind of cheating.

-Oil. It takes hundreds of billions of dollars to lease a field, install drills hundreds of feet under the ground, lay pipes to pump that crude oil out to sea, build a tanker the length of four football fields, send that ship halfway around the planet, build a square mile sized refinery to pump the tanker's crude into, and then lay thousands of miles of pipes across a continent to distribute it. And you have to pay that off $2.50 a gallon at a time.

-Telecom. Are you going to lay millions of miles of new phone lines across the country?

-Railroads, same deal. They put those tracks down 150 years ago when there was nothing in the way, it's going to be hard to compete now.

-Semiconductors. Looking it up, TSMC's latest cutting-edge foundry just cost them $20 billion, and the technology in the process they're using is double-plus-secret chit. Even if you did have $20B to drop on your own foundry, you'd never beat the big boys on innovation and you'd struggle to beat them on price. It's not a monopolistic market, there's still a few different competitors in the field, but it's effectively closed to new players. If any of them tried to merge, I wouldn't be surprised to see some anti-trust chit.

-Sports. The AAF just found out how hard it is to found a new pro sports league. Even if youdidbuild a league the size of the NFL, the NFL has a sweet deal with Congress where they're considered a nonprofit and don't pay taxes, so they basically have a built in 10%-30% cost advantage over any competitor (depending on how much taxes you think an $8 billion a year business would really pay).

Basically, the formula for non-competitive businesses is to find a field with extreme infrastructure costs and/or huge scaling advantages. That way, you could never be as profitable as the big guys without having a similar sized operation, and you could neverbuilda similar sized operation without 10 to 11 figures of capital (that you would need to make one hell of a return on).

I guess in the very strictest sense of the word, no business istrulynon-competitive; it kind of operates on a spectrum. On the "soft" end, you have things like the semiconductor market where there are half a dozen players still competing but no new companies can join, and on the "harder" end, you have stuff like that toilet example where the plumbing is hard-wired into the walls and sewers and you literally couldn't compete without destroying an entire city. I mean theoretically you could even dothatif you had more money than God, but in general, those businesses are close enough to where I'd call them untouchable.

that's the point. the majority people are disposable, and have no real distinguishable talent. and they get treated that way....
people with unique talents get treated that way... like people with unique talents....

I work for Costco and they treat us like Gods. I literally have to go out of my way to get fired. Customer complaints basically mean nothing cause even management knows most customers are idiots. Been there a long time and seniority is a joke there too

Part of the problem was the shift to a a complete focus on share holder value (which are based on very short term quarterly reports) rather than long term profit and sustainability. In the past (not the very distant past when factory workers were getting hands chopped off by machines), corporations had to at least sort of care about their employees because they were seen as investments. Then again, that period only lasted for several decades vs. the thousands of years the elite basically used slave labor, so what you see now is probably the natural state of things.

this has been the most cool headed and rational misc thread i may have ever read

good points from both sides

only reds calling people retards

no one screeching

what a beautiful thread

Who says they're disposable? We don't know what most people do at work, but I'd imagine most are good workers but would be better workers if they actually received compensation or were actually appreciated

Would you go above and beyond if your company rewarded it? You'd be that guy 1st to the office and last to leave?

I believe if some of these corporations can get away with paying you $1/hr, they would. That's not to say you couldn't find anything better, but it's the fact of the matter. The Industrial Revolution shouldn't have had horrible working conditions not to mention making kids work.