Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Employees at new casino facing "term limits"   (npr.org) divider line 148
    More: Asinine, term limits  
•       •       •

13819 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2012 at 10:10 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-30 08:56:07 AM  
In no way can this possibly come back to bite them in the ass....
 
2012-01-30 09:01:57 AM  
Good idea. Hire someone, train them to a high level in what has to be a stressful job at times, and then kick them to the curb.
 
2012-01-30 09:09:15 AM  

oldernell: Good idea. Hire someone, train them to a high level in what has to be a stressful job at times, and then kick them to the curb.


My last job was doing technical support for a government contract. I worked on
the front-line technical support line, and there was a back-office bunch of
'technical experts' who did integration testing and the like.

The customer became dissatisfied with the front line tech support, and
demanded that we all be fired and replaced with more senior people like the
people in the back-office team.

Everyone on our team was made to resubmit our resumes and re-interview for
our jobs, and to the astonishment of the contract administrators (who were,
by and large, friends of the back-office 'technical experts') the accumulated
technical knowledge of the 'lousy' front-line technical support team dwarfed
that of the back office 'experts'. For myself, this was my first for-real computer
technical support job, and I had the least amount of experience of anyone on
the team but apparently I did alright, because I kept my job.
 
2012-01-30 09:29:04 AM  
So these workers can expect guaranteed employment throughout the term of their first hiring? Yeah, didn't think so.
 
2012-01-30 09:48:57 AM  
The whole point of this is to eliminate the seniority system, that way senior workers don't have to get raises and they can be dismissed or fired if they worked there too long.
 
2012-01-30 10:13:13 AM  
"What they've done here is set up a system that puts their good performers through a gauntlet of having to compete with people who have no record of performance," says Alice Ballard, a prominent employment attorney who works out of Philadelphia.

That is is a system setup by management too puss to deal with their actual problem employees so just punish everyone.
 
2012-01-30 10:15:08 AM  
I am from the AC area. Its a Robocop Detroit like wasteland of no Jobs. Most Casinos have been laying people off and hiring people strictly part time for years. This is just another business taking advantage of the job market.
 
2012-01-30 10:15:09 AM  
Employment is a zero sum affair. Why is this immoral on the net? Yes, it sucks for their employees, but it's a boon to the thousands of struggling unemployed people who want a shot at a job. Isn't it better for everyone to share unemployment than to have it concentrated on a few people who weren't at the right place at the right time to get in somewhere while the getting was good? This is the equivalent of going to a 30 hour work week to lower unemployment.
 
2012-01-30 10:15:20 AM  
They can definitely stand to rotate out some of those over-the-hill cocktail waitresses.
 
2012-01-30 10:16:21 AM  
Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.

/bootstraps!
//BOOOOTSTRAAAAAAPS!!!
 
2012-01-30 10:16:21 AM  
I guess they want casino workers to unionize?
 
2012-01-30 10:16:35 AM  
How long until we get back to indentured servitude? At the current rate of labor's decline we should start seeing that in maybe 20 years.
 
2012-01-30 10:17:14 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: oldernell: Good idea. Hire someone, train them to a high level in what has to be a stressful job at times, and then kick them to the curb.

My last job was doing technical support for a government contract. I worked on
the front-line technical support line, and there was a back-office bunch of
'technical experts' who did integration testing and the like.

The customer became dissatisfied with the front line tech support, and
demanded that we all be fired and replaced with more senior people like the
people in the back-office team.

Everyone on our team was made to resubmit our resumes and re-interview for
our jobs, and to the astonishment of the contract administrators (who were,
by and large, friends of the back-office 'technical experts') the accumulated
technical knowledge of the 'lousy' front-line technical support team dwarfed
that of the back office 'experts'. For myself, this was my first for-real computer
technical support job, and I had the least amount of experience of anyone on
the team but apparently I did alright, because I kept my job.


This is the first thing I thought of. Contracts, not term limits. There probably wouldn't even be an article if that's how they handled it.
 
2012-01-30 10:17:19 AM  

RexTalionis: The whole point of this is to eliminate the seniority system, that way senior workers don't have to get raises and they can be dismissed or fired if they worked there too long.


What's going to happen is they're going to end up training people for their competition, though I wouldn't be surprised if they have a pretty draconian noncompetition clause in the their employment contract.
 
2012-01-30 10:17:34 AM  
That is not that uncommon a practice in that industry. When a new casino/hotel/resort opens they need to hire several thousand people in a matter of months. Despite their best efforts there are going to be some bad hires in there. During the first year there is a major cost associated with firing these bad hires and replacing them. This type of policy at least reduces the costs and liability associated with firing someone who was a mistake to hire in the first place. Now, if they keep this policy after the first year or so, then that says something else.
 
2012-01-30 10:17:53 AM  

Wise_Guy: They can definitely stand to rotate out some of those over-the-hill cocktail waitresses.


They are. The age-discrimination excuse is new uniforms.

Never been to AC. Never want to go.
 
2012-01-30 10:19:15 AM  
AC is an armpit. It was nicer before the casinos.
 
2012-01-30 10:19:19 AM  
Don't like it? Don't go work for this ONE business. Jeeze, quit being such cry babies.
 
2012-01-30 10:19:31 AM  
This is NOT term limits. This is salary caps.

After 6 years of raises (hah!) the most expensive employees will be terminated by new hires who make a fraction of what their previous counterparts made.

It's too bad there isn't a way employees could band together in some sort of organization to secure decent wages and benefits including job security.
 
2012-01-30 10:20:04 AM  
And really there's nothing wrong with this practice, as long as it doesn't violate any preexisting agreements between the employer and employee.

Can whine about ethics all you want, but generally employment agreements do a good job of covering the employer's ass. It's just unfortunate that so many people are too lazy or ignorant to be aware of their legal rights (and the limitations thereof) as an employee.

Don't read, just sign at the X, etc.
 
2012-01-30 10:20:10 AM  
I have no issue with this. If you already have proficiency at the job getting hired again should be easy if you don't, then tough shiat. Think about it this way firing an employee these days is a real pain in the ass, if if you do everything correctly you might still have to defend your actions in court which is expensive, bad PR, and time consuming. If people didn't hop on the attorney bandwagon every time life is a little difficult then maybe this wouldn't be necessary.
 
2012-01-30 10:20:35 AM  

pion: RexTalionis: The whole point of this is to eliminate the seniority system, that way senior workers don't have to get raises and they can be dismissed or fired if they worked there too long.

What's going to happen is they're going to end up training people for their competition, though I wouldn't be surprised if they have a pretty draconian noncompetition clause in the their employment contract.


In a free market,m something that does not exist you would be right. Currently in Atlantic city if you work at any Casino that isnt the Borgata you do not make decent money as a front line employee. The Employees at the Borgata are not applying to the Revel, everyone else and their mother is. There is no other competition, you could probably make more in 15 hours at the revel in its first few years than 40 at one of the older Casinos that thrive on senior citizen slot machine day tours.
 
2012-01-30 10:22:04 AM  

RexTalionis: The whole point of this is to eliminate the seniority system, that way senior workers don't have to get raises and they can be dismissed or fired if they worked there too long.


NJ is already an "at-will" state so there's not much preventing them from doing that right now if they want to.

I can definitely see benefits to this type of system. I can think of plenty of people, both past and present, who've managed to get their feet in the door and then just coast along on fumes to the detriment of the company and their co-workers. Nobody likes that guy who never gets anything done on time and never seems to know quite what he's doing but never gets fired just because he manages to make himself just useful enough that it's more of a hassle to get rid of him and rehire than to just tolerate him.

In fact, I would be gung-ho for this type of system if there were one stipulation: if you're going to lose your job for not growing adequately into the role (why pay someone who has four years of raises if they're not doing any better than someone looking to get entry level pay for the same work?) then you should be rewarded for successfully proving your value and being kept on.

After all, being rehired into your own position implies on some level that your experience is of value to the company, so you should be compensated appropriately.

Of course, we all know that's not going to be part of the deal and I know that because...

management positions won't require people to reapply

In other words, the layer of largely pointless idiots that usually need the most churn gets the least which implies that the whole point is just to screw cheap labor out of the uneducated and desperate portion of the workforce and give nothing in return.

I'll try to remember that about Revel if I ever go to Atlantic City and be sure to spend my money appropriately....
 
2012-01-30 10:22:12 AM  
"Ballard thinks that "other reason" is probably age. "
And the ability to pay the new hire a cheaper wage...
 
2012-01-30 10:22:30 AM  

Tommy Moo: Employment is a zero sum affair. Why is this immoral on the net? Yes, it sucks for their employees, but it's a boon to the thousands of struggling unemployed people who want a shot at a job. Isn't it better for everyone to share unemployment than to have it concentrated on a few people who weren't at the right place at the right time to get in somewhere while the getting was good? This is the equivalent of going to a 30 hour work week to lower unemployment.


You need to take an intro econ course at your local community college.
 
2012-01-30 10:22:42 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: This type of policy at least reduces the costs and liability associated with firing someone who was a mistake to hire in the first place. Now, if they keep this policy after the first year or so, then that says something else.


did you read a different article? it says every 4 or 6 years they have to reapply it isn't a probationary period.
 
2012-01-30 10:22:50 AM  

pion: RexTalionis: The whole point of this is to eliminate the seniority system, that way senior workers don't have to get raises and they can be dismissed or fired if they worked there too long.

What's going to happen is they're going to end up training people for their competition, though I wouldn't be surprised if they have a pretty draconian noncompetition clause in the their employment contract.


Their competition aren't hiring, either. Also, I can't imagine they'd be able to have a noncompetition clause. Courts tend to frown upon overly broad non-compete clauses, especially where there's no real issue of trade secrets passing between parties.
 
2012-01-30 10:23:14 AM  

trappedspirit: Don't like it? Don't go work for this ONE business. Jeeze, quit being such cry babies.


Exactly. The only time this becomes a problem is if every business starts to adopt it and enough people are willing to work under those extremely disadvantageous conditions. People with enough self-respect and awareness will be unable to make a living.

The Invisible Hand says indentured servitude is what the market wants...?
 
2012-01-30 10:24:02 AM  

oldernell: Good idea. Hire someone, train them to a high level in what has to be a stressful job at times, and then kick them to the curb.


If you want it to be easy to get a job, it needs to be easy to lose a job, too. Think about it from the employer's view: if you hire this guy, the government requires a ton of red tape and possible law suits if he doesn't suit you. Of course, the employee can fire the employer (it's called "quitting") for any reason or no reason. So, hiring people is risky. It's risky because of employee protection laws.

This employer's response is natural. It's good for all capable, motivated people looking for work. No, the employer will NOT make it difficult for good performers to get rehired; it's just common sense.

If you don't like this plan, then (a) work somewhere else and (b) blame the unbalanced "employee protection" regulations.
 
2012-01-30 10:24:04 AM  
So, what's the term limit for an executive at this company?
 
2012-01-30 10:24:26 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: This is NOT term limits. This is salary caps.

After 6 years of raises (hah!) the most expensive employees will be terminated by new hires who make a fraction of what their previous counterparts made.

It's too bad there isn't a way employees could band together in some sort of organization to secure decent wages and benefits including job security.


I'm typically not one to side with a union but THIS is a clear cut example of where you want one.
 
2012-01-30 10:24:55 AM  
Like it or not, you can't get complacent if you have to compete against someone coming in fresh and eager every few years. Another benefit to the company is that each employee has to individually renegotiate their wage every time. That will keep labor costs down.

I don't see them getting a lot of re-ups. Employees would get sick of this pretty quick when they can get more stable employment elsewhere. Combine that with how quickly people get sick of service sector jobs, and they will turn over their entire staff quite frequently.
 
2012-01-30 10:25:04 AM  
TFA: "To her, this reapplication process looks like a low-profile way for the casino to regularly weed out older employees."

ding ding ding. Note this only applies to 'front line staff'.
i.e. The jobs that casinos have long tried to reserve for the young and attractive.

If they at all believed in the 'management philosophy' they're hiding behind, they'd apply it to every employee, from the top-down.
 
2012-01-30 10:25:14 AM  

Tommy Moo: Employment is a zero sum affair. Why is this immoral on the net? Yes, it sucks for their employees, but it's a boon to the thousands of struggling unemployed people who want a shot at a job. Isn't it better for everyone to share unemployment than to have it concentrated on a few people who weren't at the right place at the right time to get in somewhere while the getting was good? This is the equivalent of going to a 30 hour work week to lower unemployment.


Reduced work hours are OK as long as prices on consumables and common assets (ie real estate, autos) decline in proportion to the income reduction, or common infrastructure is established to compensate for the lack of individual access to private resources. Otherwise, it's just another wealth transfer reduction and redistribution of total available resources toward high concentration among fewer individuals.

If the goal is to create a China-like labour system, I wish someone would just come out and admit it. The sooner we can stop dicking around with BS and illusions, the faster we can move on to the result and aftermath of such a system coming to it inevitable collapse.
 
2012-01-30 10:25:25 AM  
I think it really matter how it is actually implemented. At most non-union employment nowadays, especially in at-will states like California, you can be let go at any time with no notice no matter how long you've worked there. I know a lot of people who work on contracts that need to be renewed every six months. I've worked in sales roles where they actively let the person with the worst sales go every quarter. So I don't see how this is any worse than most employment situations today.

Next, as long as it is clearly part of the employment contract when hiring, the employee is fully aware of the risk. Yeah, it sucks that the current employment environment can make this still look attractive, but remember we're talking about casino front staff and greeters -- not really the definition of a skilled employee.

So it is really dependent on how they deal with the re-hiring. If they hire most back and cull out the duds, then it is a legit strategy for keeping your staff top-notch.

However, I personally think that in this case (being a casino) they are doing it so they can keep only they young chicks or at least those who haven't lost looks or got into bad shape. But that's similar to many spokesperson type contracts, so again hard to see the outrage.
 
2012-01-30 10:26:27 AM  
So, I guess Newt's casino sugar-daddy can get him a job after he loses the GOP nomination to Mitt. Right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
2012-01-30 10:26:35 AM  

Dogberry: So these workers can expect guaranteed employment throughout the term of their first hiring? Yeah, didn't think so.


that's what was on my mind. generally, creating a term overcomes the presumption of at-will employment. but, the article said, they can still fire them at any time. I don't necessarily trust journalists' legal opinions, but I assume that's what the casino wants.

well, I personally think putting a term on employment means no more at-will, so they'll need to show cause to fire. although, I also live in the clouds with unicorns.
 
2012-01-30 10:26:41 AM  
Good news is that if they decided not to re-hire you once your term ended there is no way for them to fight your unemployment.
 
Ant
2012-01-30 10:26:42 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: This is NOT term limits. This is salary caps.

After 6 years of raises (hah!) the most expensive employees will be terminated by new hires who make a fraction of what their previous counterparts made.



This! It's capitalism at its finest!
 
2012-01-30 10:26:43 AM  

Degenerate Monkey: trappedspirit: Don't like it? Don't go work for this ONE business. Jeeze, quit being such cry babies.

Exactly. The only time this becomes a problem is if every business starts to adopt it and enough people are willing to work under those extremely disadvantageous conditions. People with enough self-respect and awareness will be unable to make a living.

The Invisible Hand says indentured servitude is what the market wants...?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-worst-cities-finding-job-222659548.h t ml

6. Atlantic City-Hammonton, N.J.

12.4% unemployment and rising. Getting a job there is no where near as easy as you make it out. Thats the BS "unemployment" and not even real unemployment.
 
2012-01-30 10:27:45 AM  

madgonad: How long until we get back to indentured servitude? At the current rate of labor's decline we should start seeing that in maybe 20 years.


The present trend is actually preferable (to business) compared to formalized indenture practices. By definition, those have things like "rules" and "limits". Historically, such practices were instituted as a replacement for or alternative to things like debtor's prisons, chattel slavery, and serfdom, depending on the place and era you're talking about. Present movement in the labor market is seeking those conditions, not moving away from them...
 
2012-01-30 10:27:46 AM  
The casino says the policy will keep its service fresh young.

Fixed it for them.
 
2012-01-30 10:27:55 AM  
You can bet this doesn't apply to management.
 
2012-01-30 10:28:20 AM  
Don't know much about casinos, but I could actually see this working if it was applied to management in a few select industries. Bypass the drama of unions and capping low income salaries for actual performers, and go for the entrenched jugular. Shakeups in management could keep everyone on the level, and skim the money off those that are already overpaid.
 
2012-01-30 10:29:14 AM  

oldernell: Good idea. Hire someone, train them to a high level in what has to be a stressful job at times, and then kick them to the curb.


My best friend's division was being out-sourced to India, and they actually wanted him to fly to India and train those people who would be taking his job

He quit that day.
 
2012-01-30 10:30:30 AM  

Trance750: You can bet this doesn't apply to management.


It says exactly that in the article. Shameless.
 
2012-01-30 10:31:07 AM  

Trance750: You can bet this doesn't apply to management.


Why should it? A successful manger has to cultivate business relationships over a long period of time introducing high turnover in mangement would negatively.....

Sorry I can't keep this up without laughing.

/in management
//on fark
///that just about says it all
 
2012-01-30 10:31:41 AM  

piperTom: oldernell: Good idea. Hire someone, train them to a high level in what has to be a stressful job at times, and then kick them to the curb.

If you want it to be easy to get a job, it needs to be easy to lose a job, too. Think about it from the employer's view: if you hire this guy, the government requires a ton of red tape and possible law suits if he doesn't suit you. Of course, the employee can fire the employer (it's called "quitting") for any reason or no reason. So, hiring people is risky. It's risky because of employee protection laws.

This employer's response is natural. It's good for all capable, motivated people looking for work. No, the employer will NOT make it difficult for good performers to get rehired; it's just common sense.

If you don't like this plan, then (a) work somewhere else and (b) blame the unbalanced "employee protection" regulations.


My only issue with the thought process of "good performers" getting rehired is wages. They are the number one controllable expense and I can see some idiot bean counter who says "only X number of people will be rehired regardless of performance because they are too expensive."I you watch, 6 years from now that's exactly what will happen.
 
2012-01-30 10:32:10 AM  
More goodness from the 1%.
 
2012-01-30 10:32:22 AM  

Degenerate Monkey: The only time this becomes a problem is if every business starts to adopt it and enough people are willing to work under those extremely disadvantageous conditions.


Having to prove that you have a worth in the market place is now a disadvantage???
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report