Monday, October 08, 2007

Blog #4 - Do you have a right to your job?

One of the issues brought up in the video on the Homestead Strike of 1892 that we watched on Tuesday/Wednesday was the idea of a worker having a right to his/her job. The workers at the Homestead steelworks believed that they had a right to their jobs, that the right was a fundamental right as an American much like the right to vote or free speech or owning fire arms.

Carnegie and Frick, on the other hand, didn't believe that they had to listen to their unions and no intention of honoring any unions at all. Frick locked out the Amalgamated after their contract expired on June 30, 1892 and with Carnegie's approval, had every intention of breaking the union and replacing them w/ lower paid non-union workers.

As we know, most of the workers ended up out of work for good. Some skilled workers came back in other jobs at lower pay at Homestead. And the Amalgamated Steel Workers Union was gone from Homestead.

Does a worker have a right to his/her job? If so, does it depend on the worker's circumstances (for instance, if the worker is an adult or teenager / full time or part time / has children, married or single)? Why or why not? If not, why not?

If a worker does have a right to his/her job, how can a company downsize in troubled times? What options does a company have when it needs to cut costs? Today, jobs are being sent overseas and people are being laid off during a recession. Would those practices have to stop if unions and workers have more of a say-so in the management of a company?
Due Thursday 10/11- minimum 150 words answer. Please take the time to read over your classmates' responses and comment on/critique their ideas.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

A worker does have a right to his/her job because it does depend on if the worker is an adult, married, or has kids etc. It matters because those people who are married should not have to work as long as the unmarried people because they need time to see their wives or husbands. Adults should have to work longer and harder then teenagers because Adults are more responsible and have a better understanding of what to do and what is going on.
A company should downsize by letting go the people who fall under the catagories of married, have kids, or an teenager first because they are the people who need more time at home. Practices such as jobs being sent overseas should stop because the workers would not approve of it, and would lessen the time that they would have to work.
Ian Perfitt
U.S. History 1st hour

Anonymous said...

A worker does have a right
to his/her job. An adult
should work more than a child because the adult can concentrate more. Plus, I think that an
adult that has children should work less than a one that doesn't. He/she needs to spend time
with them. That's the role
of parents. I also think that workers should be guaranteed their job for a certain amount of time, like a contract. Otherwise it's too easy to fire someone because of a company's financial problems. Except if the worker is really bad, that's understandable, like coming in late, not doing his/her work...

Stephan M.
5th Hr.

Anonymous said...

I believe that a person has a right to their job to a certain extent. Depending on the quality of their work and how often they work. If the person does their work correct and on time and to their best of their ability. The boss has no right to fire the person for no reason. But if the person slacks off and does not do high quality work then the boss has the right fire the person. It shouldn’t matter what the persons age is, if their married, have kids, or how much they work. Some teenagers could do better work then some of the adults. Also not all elderly people are useless in the working field. It shouldn’t matter if they work full time, part time, or over time as long as they are good for the business. Also who cares if the person is married, single or has kids, its irrelevant the working field. Well seeing that everyone at work had the right to their job they would already have less people working at the job because they would have more people doing a hundred percent then a lot of people slacking off. The options the company has in times of troubles are getting rid of some people who only could help they business one way and are easy to learn, and teach the other people the job of the people they just had cut.

Emma Schwartz
Fifth Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that a worker only has the right to his or her job if he or she has signed a legal contract with his or her employer. The employers control how much you make and if you will work or not. They have the right to take the job away from you because they gave it to you in the first place. However, I think that adults should be given more opportunities to work than kids and teenagers because they have to support themselves and their families. If the worker is married and has kids, they need more money in order to support their family. Downsizing in troubled times is up to corporate to decide. I think they should be able to downsize whoever they want to. Like I said before, they gave you the job, they can take it away. When a company needs to cut costs the either need to increase production rates, downsize, or cut wages. If unions had more of a say-so in companies, I think that our businesses would have to only take place in America, not overseas.

Sam C.
1st hr.

Anonymous said...

No, I do not think that a worker has a right to his or her job. People should not be favored for jobs determined by whether they are an adult or teenager, work full time or part time, have children or not, or married or single. If someone is more skilled at a job than another, even if they don’t need the job as much, should be favored for that job. Unfortunately, this is the way the world works. Also, people shouldn’t take their jobs for granted because they don’t have a right to his or her job. It would be way too difficult for companies to determine who is best fit for a job based on all of the other things besides skill and ability. No workers have a right to his or her job because companies do not care whether the worker behind the job need it or not, these companies care about who will perform the job best.

David Mohan
3rd

Anonymous said...

I think that a worker doesn't have the right to his/her job because if their not right for it than the head person wouldn’t hire them. In some jobs, you have to work full time and you have a limited time of vacations. And if you have children that are young, then it is even harder to work and take care of them at the same time. Also if you’re late to work, then you get warning and if you get a lot, they just might fire you and that wouldn’t be good if you have a family that you need to take care of. I think that it is harder for teenagers to get jobs than adults do. In some cases, teenagers like to goof off and not care, while adults are more aware of what is going on. If you’re single, it’s a plus for working full time and you don’t have to worry about your marriage or children. It’s harder for people would are married to work full time.

Annie Sovran
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that people do have a right to their job, because if a person is not able to keep themselves “alive” financially without a job then that person needs the job for the money. Many people in the world today need to keep their jobs just so that they can pay the rent for their apartment or to keep making money to send their kids to school for a proper education. A parent most definitely should have a job whether part time or full time so that they can keep their kids from being pulled out of school, because they can’t pay the tuition. The parents of the family must always be working, or in many cases at least one of the adults in the family should be working. One parent can be making the majority of the money in a full time job and the other should have a part time job that also brings in some extra money to spend and save for their kids. Parents should really save money for themselves and their kids because wasting money on things that you really don’t need are just slowly making your money go down, and eventually you will be broke but you’ll have all of the materialistic things in the world. A job could mean top college or small university so money also really helps in your everyday education.

Matt Whitney
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

Blake Bogart
3rd hour

I think that a worker does not have a right to his job. Companies are not forced to hire employees so they should be able to lay them off as they see fit. The right to forever work at a company until you quit or retire is not in the bill of rights in our country. Companies often need to downsize or fire people in order to stay in business but if they can’t lay anyone off the company would go bankrupt and everyone who worked there would lose there jobs. Companies often don’t have an other option but to lay people off because they will normally only do that as a last resort. We live in a capitalist society so business owners should be able to set the wages as they please, and during Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s time there was no minimum wage. If the workers disliked their wages they should work at a place that will pay them more. Today companies are sending jobs over seas to pay lower wages. This should be frowned upon by our society but it is not illegal because companies have the right to what they think is best for the company. This would still work even if unions had more power because unions don’t have the power to manage companies even if their members work for them.

Geoff Wickersham said...

Great point, Emma. We aren't a Communist society where everyone is entitled to a job no matter what. Workers' performance does matter and should matter.

But where is the line drawn? When people are productive workers for a company, where do their rights end/begin? Many companies have just picked up shop, left town and left behind hundreds, if not thousands of unemployed workers - many of whom were very productive for that company - just so they could make their products more cheaply in another country.

The management argument would be that if we keep jobs in America, prices cannot be kept as low as those businesses who use foreign labor (whether they're U.S. firms or foreign firms), and that business that employs American workers in the long run will lose business b/c Americans will by the cheaper goods made in other countries. So, to use a cliche, they're stuck between a rock (firing American employees) and a hard place (going out of business by keeping American employees).

Is there a 3rd alternative?

Mr. W.

Anonymous said...

A worker definately has a right to his/her job. I think that it depends on the worker's circumstances because if the worker is a teenager, he/she might not be able to to the job as well as an adult could. On the other hand, a teenager is skinnier and would be able to un-jam machines better that an adult could. If the worker has children and is married, he/she will want to spend time with their family and will not be able to work as much. Also if someone has a child, you wont be able to move them around as much like sending them to other countries. Someone who wanted to work full time would be better and more likely to get the job because they would work more than someone working part time. If unions and workers had more to say then these practices might have to stop because people will not want to leave their home. Today, if we get offered a job with better pay but it is in a different country, the offer is hard to resist.

Richard W.
1st hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that a person does have a right to his/her job. The reason why is because whoever the head person is that hired him/her felt that they can live up to their duties. I also believe that since he/she has the job that they have the right to slack of on their duty. My reason being is because just because you work at a particular area doesnt mean that you dont have the right to just take a break for a couple days. Which is why I think that all people should get days/month off because the people hired you to do the work not to be at the facility everyday. I'm pretty sure that whoever owns the company does not want the workers to be/work there everyday.

Tommy Syrkett
3rd Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that a worker doesn't have the right to his/her job because if their not fit for the job than the erson wouldn’t have hired them.Jobs today you must work full time and you only get a limited time to have a vacation.

Companies now fire alot of people so that they can stay in business. Because if they can’t lay anyone off, the company will go bankrupt and all workes lose there jobs.

If a worker has children then it makes it harder to work & take care them. ITs bad because if you have small children you have to make sure they have everything for the day and its a very important thing. So if you’re late to work, then you might just get fired, so you wouldn’t be able to take care of your family.

Today it is harder for teenagers to get jobs than adults, because teenagers like to mess around and not care. Adults are aware of what they need to do.
SO if a worker desnt lik there job then they should find another job ???. but its not easy to do because jobs today have huge requirements. It would still work even if unions had power because unions don’t have the power to manage companies even if their members work for them.So most of our Jobs are being taking overseas

ashley davis

Allison said...

I think that people do not have the right to their job. This is because whether someone has a family or not should all have the same work times, although, someone who does better at their jobs or has a higher rank should get paid more than someone who does not do as well. I believe this because it is not fair for someone who has a family to work less then someone who doesn’t. Also someone who is better at their job should be rewarded for that instead of getting the same pay as someone who doesn’t do a good job since they create more profit for that business. If companies determined who should work more or less then this would take more effort for the business as well as take more time. This would not benefit the company, so it would be easier for businesses to have everyone work the same amount.

Allison K.
3rd Hour

Anonymous said...

I do not think that a worker has a right to their job. Although a company should have a loyalty to their employees they are not required to give them a job regardless of the circumstances. If a worker has extremely low performance they should be fired, that is just good business. If a worker had no risk of losing their job their would be no incentive to work harder. Employees could be as lazy as they wanted. I think that being fired is a necessary consequence. If I worked somewhere with complete job security I would hardly show up. I also believe that a workers living situation should not have a great affect on their job security. However if there is a valid and truthful cause they should get some slack. If this was offered to everyone, people would start abusing their right. A job is a privilege and someone who does not earn it should not have it.

Sarah Zamler
Third Hour

Anonymous said...

I think it depends if a worker does or does not have a right to their job. I understand technically yes it is their job but if their is someone out there that can easily do your job better than you then they should get it. If you are one of those people who just don't do there work or shows up late then you don't deserve it. If you don't want to try hard then how can you deserve it when there is somebody who actually wants to try hard. I mean if you show up late or skip a day for a good reason, such as you lost a finger, you shouldn't lose your job. You should only lose it if you make up excuses continually. Also, if you are injured but you show up on time time and do your work i believe you do deserve your job. Yes, there probably is someone more effecient than you, but it isn't always your fault you got injured and with an injury you're already suffering so why make the injured suffer more when they try so hard?

Katie R.
3rd hr.

Anonymous said...

Although I don't want to copy the answer of another student, I have to agree with opinion of a fellow classmate. A person does have a right to their job, but only to a certain point. It's common to see today good quality jobs are being given to an older genre. Sure, it isn't seen as discrimination or anything personal, just the simple thought that because you are older, you will get the job done better. If anyone of legal age feels they can bring the dedication and determination to a desired job, there shouldn't be any written law stating they can't, and in this day and age there isn't! People go out to find jobs, as in it is THEIR decision. No higher power is saying they must acquire the skills to get a specific job, so in a way people don't have a right to their jobs. If hired, an employee should meet the standards that come with the job, ad if those standards aren't met, it is only right and fair that that person should be fired. After reading this, it may seem confusing as to which I agree with more. Do people have a right to their jobs? Honestly, I don't know. The way I see and hear it in society is once you recieve a job, your life is dedicated to this job to further assist you financially and socially, and so you should have the right to the job that you have put so much of your time and effort into. For instance, the reason we go to school is to get an education that will benefit us in the future so that we may find a job that we enjoy, that nourishes ourselves and the others around us, and to have that special lifelong feeling of accomplishment. If let's say 16-19 years are spent for people to go to school, who is to say that they don't have the right to the job that took them that much time to achieve!? I also have to comment on the issue of social class, and society ruling of the job chosen. Many people will agree that if you are an old, bald, rich man with an opinion and little knowledge of the world, you have the right to the job you have chosen in lets say business. On the other hand, few people will agree that a teenager working at Burger King should have a list of rights to their position. Its sad to think that there is a discrimination among who has the right to what job, but then again we're living in the era of George Bush.....
For a company to cut costs, it would be a good idea to hire people with more than one qulaity that would approve them for their desired job. If one too many people are hired just because they know how to use a computer, or are able to work every night, costs for that company will increase. In conclusion, who is to say that people have a right to their job? Even if I offered a strong argument, I can't really provide a solid answer.

Julia Henning 5th Hour

Anonymous said...

I believe workers have certain rights to his or her job. The workers should have the right to his or her job as long as they are performing their job to the best of their ability. By belonging to a union you have to be able to sacrifice benefits or pay if the company is struggling. But if the company is doing well then you’re able to negotiate the increase of benefits in pay. If a company wanted to downsize they could offer early retirement. With offering early retirement, they could cut cost and hire younger, less paid people. Another way a company could downsize is have people pay for a proportion of their health care. The company could also cut the amount of vacation and sick time they receive. The companies and the unions have to work together for the good of the company and the union.

Emily C.
3rd Hour

Anonymous said...

I think a worker has a right to his or her job. If someone has to take time of work because they have gotten injured to had a baby, they should still be able go come back to work when they need to and know that their role is still the same. But this doesn't mean that workers can fool around at work and do a bad job and still keep their job. A persons circumstances
play a role too. A boss should not just fire a worker with kids and a young family unless there is a good reason. But if a teenager who is still in college is goofing of, he has the right to be fired. If a company needs to downsize, it should fire whoever it needs to. The company should consider wether the person has a family or not in their decision but they don’t have to. If a company has to downsize, the workers the fire should primarily decided by performance. A company should do what will make them a better company not just trying to keep the older people and those with a family. This is what I think about a worker having a right to his or her job.

Robert G. 5th

Anonymous said...

No, I do not think a worker is entitled to his or her job. Having a job is a privileged. It is not a right. There are many people that do not have jobs in this country. If having a job was a right, don’t you think that they would have one. You are being paid for your service. You are taking care of your family on this salary. You are also spending money on yourself.

The employer chooses you to work for them though. They employ you and everyone who is around you. They make the rules and the regulations. They are in charge in the office..

You do have certain rights as a worker. You know, good working conditions, and etc. Your employer should not treat you unkindly or anything else like that but they have a right to fire you when you are not doing your job, or when a company has a downsizing or anything else like that.

Whitney S.
1st hour

Anonymous said...

I feel that no one should be safe from being fired from their job. If someone were to mess up horribly and were to negatively impact a large amount of people, they should be fired. For smaller mishaps and mistakes, i think that the workers record and history should come into play. A worker who has been working at a company for twenty years with out any major mistakes should be cut some slack if he makes some minor mistake like forgetting to turn the lights off when he leavs the building. But if the new guy does something along those lines, he should be punished. Not necesarilly fired, maybe just get yelled at by his boss or something like that. This action could also be something that pushes the boss to the point of firing the one guy in the building who doesn't do his work and who's always late.
A boss doesn't have ultimate power. He/she can't just fire someone for no good reason. The situation of the workers family or lack there of shouldn't matter about his working rights. His family isn't there with him at work, so why should his boss change the way he/she treats him just because he has a couple kids? Age of the worker can matter. The worker should know what he's getting himself into before he starts the job and so should the hirer. A sixty year old man probably shouldn't try to be in an athletic field. A hirer should realize that this elderly man may not be suited for that job. This way the worker isn't dissapointed if he gets fired.

Jake B.
5th hour

Anonymous said...

Does a worker have a right to his job can be answered different ways. If I am employed by a company and I work hard, do a good job, and do what is expected of me, I would think that my job is safe. If I am a poor employee then I believe that the company has the right to replace me. I also think if a company is in financial trouble, and they are going to have to downsize, I would hope that the workers that have been there the longest and have good work records would be the last to leave. I do not feel age or sex should be important in the decision of keeping my job. If a worker is part time then I would expect him to be fired before me, if I worked full time. I do not believe being married or single should have any effect on who leaves or keeps a job. Single workers have to support themselves as much as married workers. A company that needs to downsize should help workers find new jobs and help educate them to learn new skills. When a company is in financial trouble it needs to look at everything they can to survive, for example, cost cutting and down sizing. A union can help protect jobs from being lost and from being sent overseas, but I don't think they can help the company with management. I read some of the blogs and found them to have good ideas and were interesting.

Justin Laffer
5th hour

Anonymous said...

Does a worker have a right to his or her job?
For the most part i do not believe that a worker is entitled to their job. I say t his because if a person has no worry of being fired from his or her job, they will not perform very well at their job, and will slack off. Also, a company should not have to keep someone working who doesn't have enough skill if they don't want to because then nobody would have to have any talent at what they do because the comapny wouldn't fire them. If they did have a right to their job, the company would have to lay people off to downsize because they couldn't afford to pay everybody. They also might have to start not paying people as much as they usually would. About people being laid off during recession; yes, if the unions had more of a say those practices would stop. If the union all demanded certain things form the company, and stuck together, the practices would stop.

Sara Dziubek
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

In mypoint of view i feel that they do have a right to his/her job but they also don't have a right. I'm sure in many situations the compony has a right to fire or let go of an emploie becase if they employ is not doing his\her job and the compony feels that the right thing to do is let go of a person so there compony is saved. But i also feel that your right to have a job has to do in commitment and how much you really need it however apperciat it. For instice if you are a mother of a big family your husband works most of your older children work, you obvosuly have your family working so you can give your family a good life and not worry about there futrue. What has been going on for the past week has a point to why people have a right to there job, if someone who has beed working for this compony for over 30 years and now after 30 years and after all of this work that this person has done for this compony isnt fare to just fire them because they basicly devoted most of their life to work and help out a compony and for the compony to just fire the person who has stuck with the job and was a good emplye has a right to his/her job.

Gina Kalabat
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

A worker does not a right to his or her job for a few reasons. Companies don�t just hire employees that need a job, they look for workers that are the best and that are good at what they do. Companies don�t care if you are an adult or a teenager or if you�re married or single. Bosses could fire an employee who have been with the company for twenty years and bring in a younger person who may be better or more skilled. Companies don�t care if you have a wife and kids to take care of they will still fire you if you are late or miss a certain amount of days or break some rules, which would make taking care of your family very hard. Companies are looking for young more skill fill workers and could fire an employee at anytime so workers do not have a right to their job.

Stefanos T.
3rd Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that a worker does have a certain hold on a specifice job. I think that if a worker is more than qualified for a specific job then , they should also recieve more previlges.I dont think that age necessarily has anything to do with it ,if a teenager and an adult both do the same job,they should recieve the same pay as well as the same benifits. But i do think that marrital status should determine certain things such as pay. If a worker has a spouse and children ,they should recieve more sick days , because what if the children get sick and are to young to take car of themselves.As for moving jobs over seas ,i dont think that it is necessarily fair because sometimes that job is all a person knows and is nto able to support themselves .When a company plans on moving i think that worke should be given a couple year notice.


Symonne SMith 3rd

Anonymous said...

I think that every worker has a right to a job. Nobody should be excluded from a chance to earn money without at least one good reason. There has always been a variety of jobs available. Therefore each person is allowed to find the job which better fits his personality and abilities. Jobs were different not only from field to field but within the same field there are many different levels of difficulty and skill. If there are multiple job choices, a person can easily be able to chose the job that he prefers most and best suits him. The job you choose will determined how much money you will be paid not your age, gender, race, or personal circumstances.
Marta Elia
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

I don’t think a worker has a right to his/her job. You have to earn your job, because if you are slacking and not doing what you are supposed to be doing while you are at work you can’t think that they owner/boss/manager will keep paying you. It would not be fair to the other workers who are actually working. Also, if you start slacking at work and not doing what you are supposed to, then the owner/boss/manager doesn’t fire you other people will stop doing work too. Sooner or later no one will be doing their work and the company will suffer. It doesn’t matter who you are if you’re not doing your job you either need to be told to step it up or be fired. When you are the owner of a company you can’t have feelings about which the people are you just need to worry about how the business is doing. If you have feelings about firing someone then your business won’t succeed because everyone will think that there is no way they will get fired so they won’t work as hard. But when you do fire people then the workers know that they have to work as hard as they can or else they will not work for your company anymore.

Pat R.
5th Hour Us history

Anonymous said...

I don’t think that a worker has a right to his or her job. I believe that the employer should be able to have full control over his or her company and should be able to do whatever they want with the workers. If cuts have to be made or budgets need to be downsized then that has to happen and that decision should be completely up to the employer (boss). I don’t think that workers should get paid depending on age or sex. I think that every worker should be paid just as much as the other workers depending on the job. Back in the days of Carnegie steel, if a 25 year old man got paid $500-$600 year then a 25 year old woman that does the same job should be paid just as much. There also shouldn’t be unions because if a company has to downsize, then unions always get in the way and that can pose big problems for a company.

Matt Merrifield
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

I think a worker has a right to his or her job regardless of anything that happens. If the worker is a teenager or a child then the amount of work that person should do is the amount that they can. You shouldn't over work someone or then they won't have energy or strength to continue. The company can downsize in troubled times by giving everybody equal amount of work instead of some people doing more or some doing less. The options a company has when it needs to cut costs is thinking about if the worker will have nothing when the job is done and that sort of things. The practices of having people go over seas would still continue of the management has more say. The workers can't do anything about it.

Fran Wanetick
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

Its alot harded for people with alot of family or that are married to work because they get paid less because the woman gets less. they think that if she gets more then it is just extra spending money. but really its not. if your single your lucky because you get to keep all the money for yourself. when your late you get a warning and if you keep being late then you have a higher risk at getting fired. if you are less skilled at something you also might have a lower chance of getting the job that you want because you can't do it as well as someone who is very good at it. and that means that you might get a lower pay.

jessie best
5th hour

Anonymous said...

In my opinion no, I do not think a worker has a right to their job. People should be chosen for their jobs by the performance they will be able to obtain within the company. If someone is more skilled at than another person and they are going for the same job regardless of their age, the person who is more skilled should be chosen. However, sometimes the person who is chosen might not need the job as much as the other, but eventually the person who lacks in the skill will be able to improve their skills for later on positions relating towards the company. . I do think that it would be difficult for an adult who is married, has children and is planning on working full time for a position because they could periodically be interrupted within their families. It would be easier for a company to rely more on someone who is single because almost all their life is based on pursing that job that will help them to be successful and become married. If a teenager was going up against someone who is not married and has no children it would most likely be more difficult for them to get the job because some people believe that they are not as committed or take it as serious as other people could be. If a company based their judgments on things irrelevant towards them, it would be too complicated for companies to decide who is best for the job, which is why no worker should have rights to their jobs.

Melanie Shaw
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

I don’t believe that a worker should have full rights to their job. There isn’t a bill for it like there is for the right to hold arms, freedom of speech etc. However it does seem a little cruel to fire people for one bad day of work. I do believe that the management of the company should have the most power. I believe this because they are the ones in charge, they are the ones who know who they are looking for to hire, and without them there wouldn’t been any jobs. Downsizing should be easier because those cut should not rebel back. The right to a job should not be based on whether or not you’re married or single. Single people might have just as much to pay for as a married person with children. The right to a job should be based on average performance. If you’re a skilled worker who has an off day you should have the right to keep your job. If you’re a slacker who has an easy job I say fire him and give it to someone who really needs or wants it.

Barbara Moore
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

Jumi Cadmus
3rd hr.

The issue of the homestead steelworks workers believing that they have a right to their job is unreal to me. I don't agree with them because I believe everyone should work to get their job, therefore, I believe that people shouldn't have a right to their job. Whoever works hard deserves a job. If you don't work hard enough, then you might not get a job. In our times, working hard to me means going to school and getting a good education. Also people shouldn't have a write to their jobs because in most jobs, there a many skills that are required to perform well in the jobs. Not always do people carry these requirements.

Anonymous said...

I think that yes, a worker does have a right to his/her job. The circumstance should matter. If someone is married, that person shoold have spare time to spend with his family. If he is a teenager(as long as he works as hard as a normal person) he should still be able to recieve some "slack". I'll admit that sometimes, depending on the circumstances, a worker can not do his fair share of work. But that does not mean that all of his rights can be thrown out the window. Workers are just regular people, and as regular people that deserve a right to their job. Women should not have to work as hard as men because they usually have families that they have to care for. A single person should have to stay longer than a child, or someone with a family, but that also means that they should get more money. Regardless of who you are, married single a child etc..., you should have the right to your job and not recieve unfair treatment from the head of your company.


TJ Hyland
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

channelgray1st hour Do you have a right to your Job?

I believe that a worker does not have a right to their job because America is a free country and if a worker did have a right to their job I believe that that would make us socialists. A company can downsize in its troubled times by cutting jobs and putting people out of work especially if they are not skilled and cannot find another job.
The options that a company has when it needs to cut costs are to either cut wages in peoples pay or to fire people. Although many people do have children and spouses to support that still doesn’t mean they have a right because a company can fire them at any time, many people will stay with their job because of these reasons even if they are being paid low wages, and losing benefits.

Anonymous said...

I do not think a worker has a right to their job. I think that people should be chosen for their jobs by their skill. If someone is more skilled at than another person and they are applying for the same job, I think the person who is more skilled should be chosen for it. Also sometimes the person who is chosen might need the job a lot more than the other person or he might not. Unskilled people who aren’t as good as others still have an advantage because they will be able to improve their skills over years to come. Also, people who are married, and have kids who are planning on working full time could have to be stopped due to a family related issue. It’s a lot easier for a company to rely on someone who’s single because they can devote all of their time to their job. If a teenager was applying for a job, they are just kids so they would still be in school and sports they would be more dedicated to that instead of work. Instead of trying to make a living, I think more kids would want to get money for themselves. When a company really just needs to make money, they need to hire the best to make money and even fire some people if they need to. That’s why workers shouldn’t have rights to their jobs.

Matt B.
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think that a worker has some right to their job. If the worker is dedicated and always works hard for their job then I believe the worker has a right to their job. The worker should have worked more than 5 years at a certain job to have a right to it because if you only work for a few years then you really should have no right to it. Also, if you are lazy and do not always work your hardest then you do not have a right to it because you are not working hard for your job in the first place. I think that you should probably be an adult to have a right to your job because when you are a teenager you are not always as responsible as an adult and still do not have the full responsibilities of an adult yet. I think that you can only be assured a job when it is full time. It really should not matter about your status in life of whether you have children or are married because it is not about that at the job it is about how hard you work.

5th Hour Phil Bolton

Anonymous said...

A worker does have his/her right to their job. It does depend on the worker’s circumstances and whether they are an adult or teenager, full time or part time worker, and if their single, married, or have children. It depends on their circumstances because if a worker happens to be a single mother of four kids, works and gets paid the same amount as a worker that happens to have two kids, a wife in which he has a part time job, with then entails two ways in which that family is getting income, then the women that’s paying for herself along with four kids is living off the same salary as the worker with two kids and another end of money coming in to support that family. These issues should not be equal for everyone, they should be looked at and then discussed with the worker and fixed for the few or several that are living under circumstances where it’s hard to get by with what they have going for them. If a worker has it’s rights to his/her job, the company can downsize in troubled times by offering a severance package which is a negotiation in which could include job training to start at a new job, or possibly money in place of the job. Another option would be an early retirement option. Another option is fart-time or job sharing. To answer the last question, the jobs may be moving overseas because of the labor cost and the employment is cheaper overseas. The workers and the unions don’t necessarily have a say in the management of the company, so the practices wouldn’t have to stop. They don’t have a say because the company’s management figured that it would be cheaper and the company would become more successful for the new arrangements for the company.

Mary Mc Keon
3rd hour

Anonymous said...

I believe a worker does have a right to their job in this day and era. It depends on the job for example my mother is an internal auditor at Ernst & Young, and they are family first corporation. This means her company understands the needs that go along with having a family. So yes, I do believe the circumstances are a large factor in worker rights. When your a teenager that works it is very frustrating because the government regulates how much a teen can work. Which can sometimes become frustrating simply because we would like to work more hours but cannot because we are so RESTRICTED. As I have stated in the beginning that a worker rights all depend on the job that you have. I do believe that people today have great rights , and the advances the Americans have come to receive those rights is commendable, and they will continue to get better as we continue to work on them

Lauren Babb
1st hr

Anonymous said...

I think that a worker has a right to their job in some ways. Yes he/she does commit to a job and do their work. But no because the company is the one who hired that person and they can have an equal say or an even greater one in a person’s job because they are the one’s that hired them and wanted them. So they can do such things as firing if that is necessary to help the company. But the company should also take in the situation of the employee with things like family and the situation of the family. And if there’s a worker who really needs to keep his job and the company decides to fire him and others than that should be fine. Companies have a greater say in things like firing or sending people to other countries because they gave the job and they should be able take that job away. So workers do have a say in their job but it doesn’t really compare to the say the company has on the worker’s job.

Maher Abou-Rass
1st Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that if the worker is an grown man with a family then he has a right to his job because he needs to take care of his family and house bills and anything else. If its a child i think that they should have to give up there spot at a job for a man that needs it. I also think that if someone who has four kids should get paid more money then someone with one or two kids because they have more to feed and take care of.If there single they should get paid more to so they can take care of the kids alone.

josh L
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think the workers have a right to their jobs. I think this because everyone in the world has to support his or her family in one way or another. Very few made it rich and owned companies, but the majority were workers for those companies. The management of the companies ruled everything about them. The workers couldn’t do anything about it because they needed a job and money to support their families. Many companies kept lowering their pay to maximize the profits of the company. This infuriated the workers. The workers need to make a living and the pay is not enough for it. The workers work twelve hour days for less than two dollars a day. The workers deserve their jobs because they work so hard for so little and need to make a living. When the workers join unions to make their working conditions better and their pay more respectable many of them got fired. This was not fair to the workers because they deserve better than what they get because of all the hard work that they put in to the company to make it work. Everyone deserves a job. Everyone at some time needs to support a family or themselves and it is not possible without a job. It is not fair that for all the work that the workers put in, they get barely anything back. That’s the ways it has been, and that’s the way it will always be. The workers have barely any say in Corporate America.


Jason S.
1st hour

Chris said...

I don’t think that a worker has his right to his job. This is actually a really bad question because the workers are given their job by there bosses so they never really earned it. First off there is no law or legal binding for workers to keep their job so it is not a right. A job could be looked at as a position in football. This is not a right to start on a football team the same way it isn’t a right to have your job. It is something you earn and can be taken away whenever your boss wants. The workers in the strike are very stupid by doing all this because if they go on strike the bosses could just fire them because its not really their job it is who ever they want to give it to. This shows how bad of a question this is proving that you do not own your job.

Chris Elliott 1st hour

Anonymous said...

No, I don’t think that a worker has the right to his/her job. First of all the employers, or people in management control how many hours and what days the worker will be working and also how much you are being paid. If workers were allowed to have rights to their jobs, then the management couldn’t control much of what the workers would do. Workers shouldn’t have rights to their jobs because keeping your job you can’t slack you need to be working your best at all time or they can fire you because they did give you the job in the first place. It is common for companies to have to downsize and cut costs, so if the company needs to fire a worker or cut they’re wages, they should be allowed to because if they couldn’t, then companies would be going bankrupt. Also workers who have families and need the money to support their family shouldn’t have to worry about having time with their family during work, they should worry about getting the money so they can take care of them. All in all, having a job is a privilege, you need to respect what the company wants if you want them to keep you doing they’re work.

Derek M.
1st Hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that a person does have a right to their job. It should not matter how old or who they are. It does matter what the persons circumstances are. Everyone who applies for a job knows whats expected of them. They are supposed to be there on time, get their job done and to not make a fuss about anything. I don't think that it matters what kind of home life you have. If you are single, married, or have kids. They hired you probably not knowing any of that. Special privileges should only be given to those who have earned it, like Jake B. said. This also goes for teenagers and adults. Some teenagers may be more capable of doing something more efficiently. For example, getting all their work done ahead of schedule or just obeying the rules. Same with the adults. Both the teenagers and adults should be treated equally, isn't that what America is known to have? "Equality"? As for letting people go, every employee knows what he or she is getting into, if they cant do what is expected of them than they boss certainly does have a right to let them go. Making people move over seas is reasonable because like what Mary said, the company believes that it is cheaper there, which it is. If an opportunity comes at you like that, a good thing to do is take it and make it worth your while.

Brooke H.
1st hour

Anonymous said...

I agree with a lot of the responses that people have previously made. I think that workers have a right to their job up to a certain point. They should have a right to their job if they are working hard and up to the standards of the company. But if the worker is not completely serious about the job, they don't deserve the rights. If someone doesn't really care about the outcome of their work they should not have the right of that job because they are probably the people who are doing the minimal amount of work. I also agree with the statement someone said about workers that have the right of their job would stop caring about the actual work and would fool around and not work hard because they know they can't lose their job; that is also true. I think the right of the job shouldn't depend on the worker's circumstance, but instead should focus on the worker's dedication and commitment. When a company needs to cut costs, I think they should cut the jobs of those who slack off and don't work hard, even though--in many cases-- the people who slack off and don't work hard are the people who need the money the most, but it should be up the worker to decide what their commitment is and if they don't work up to the companies standard, they can be fired.

Rachael Tyndall
1st hour

Anonymous said...

Blog #4
Mary M.

A worker does have his/her right to their job. It does depend on the worker’s circumstances and whether they are an adult or teenager, full time or part time worker, and if their single, married, or have children. It depends on their circumstances because if a worker happens to be a single mother of four kids, works and gets paid the same amount as a worker that happens to have two kids, a wife in which he has a part time job, with then entails two ways in which that family is getting income, then the women that’s paying for herself along with four kids is living off the same salary as the worker with two kids and another end of money coming in to support that family. These issues should not be equal for everyone, they should be looked at and then discussed with the worker and fixed for the few or several that are living under circumstances where it’s hard to get by with what they have going for them. If a worker has it’s rights to his/her job, the company can downsize in troubled times by offering a severance package which is a negotiation in which could include job training to start at a new job, or possibly money in place of the job. Another option would be an early retirement option. Another option is fart-time or job sharing. To answer the last question, the jobs may be moving overseas because of the labor cost and the employment is cheaper overseas. The workers and the unions don’t necessarily have a say in the management of the company, so the practices wouldn’t have to stop. They don’t have a say because the company’s management figured that it would be cheaper and the company would become more successful for the new arrangements for the company.

Anonymous said...

These days I believe that people do have a right to thier jobs. Unlike the old days, people can ask for individual raises that would be considered by the management. If you asked for a raise back then, I don't think they would even care. If an adult is raising his or her family (with children) then they should be givin more money than the guy (or girl) without a family because the person with the family needs the money to support them. When companies cut costs or move overseas, they don't even ask or care about the workers. They just lay everybody off. If they were in troubled times they would cut costs or fire some people. I think they should just fire the people that don't have families because they dont really need the job, they can go find another one that pays enough money to support themself. I think if workers had a say in what happened to their companies then they would not want the company to move and we wouldn't be in a recession. Things would be different. More people would be employed and the economy would grow more efficiently. Their would be more companies around in the United States.

Anthony Deza
1st Hour

Anonymous said...

blog #4

I do not think a worker has a right to his or own job, even though I will be mad at thinking this later on in life when I have to work for house payments and etc. We have the right to earn jobs, but we also have the right to lose jobs. If we are slacking off or not doing what were supposed to, then we don't desire to keep the job, espically if someone else is willing to do that same job and be better at it. There are also no laws stating that you must be able to stay at the job your at until the day you die. I think that is a good thing though, because if you really don't like the job you have or the pay your getting then you would be able to quit and find a new more desirable job for you. I think that in some places it is actually a lot easier for a teenager to get a job then an adult. In a lot of stores, people would rather heir teenagers because it makes their store look more cool.

Jenna K 1st Hour

Anonymous said...

I belive a worker definatly has a right to his or her job because having a job is one of the most basic ways of making money to sustain life in our community today. everything in our community starts with money some way or another and without it it is very hard to do anything, such as buying food to eat or owning a car for transportation. I dont think a company has the right to take away a persons job for no reason because if a company cant handle a cirtain workload or payload for people then the company itself needs to cut costs, not the people that work for them. sometimes when the economy is down they have to lay off people from work or fire people completely simply because they cant stand the workload and are paying out more money than they are making. when a company needs to cut costs, some options they have are use cheaper parts if they make some kind of product for purchase or use less people during work if they provide a service. i dont think that the unions would be able to stop peoples jobs from being sent overseas because, even thought it is inconveniencing them by usually making them make a permanant move, they still have their jobs and the company is offering them a different position in their work, then they can either take the job that is given to them or quit and move elsewhere. if workers had more say so in some of the management of a company, some things would probably go wrong with money and job positions because higher-up and more experienced workers would try to get as many people a good job that pays high which would take away from the company's funds.

~Ryan l.
5th hour.

Anonymous said...

A worker does not have a right to his or her job, they have the privelege to have that job. If they don't do their work, then they can get what they deserve, or if somebody better and more qualified comes and asks for a job, then you can get replaced, and they could pay the newer person less money too. They do not have that right. But if they have a special circumstance like being below the poverty line, and need to work multiple jobs part time, or a full time job and a part time night shift, then they should definitely be in some sort of program that gives them that benefit and reassurance. If they do have a right to their job, they oculd accept a paycut to keep the job if the company needs to downsize in a troubled time. The company's options when it needs to cut costs are basically cut wages and/or lay off workers, and laying off workers can sometimes be easier then giving pay cuts, because not everyone would accept that they have to take a paycut. Some unions and workers might be able to influence the practices of sending people overseas and laying them off during a reception, if the did have more of a say-so in the management of the company. Having any more say than what they might have is always an improvment and an influence.

ben G.

Anonymous said...

Lydia Gaiters

well the issue of homstead has may issues of jobs and minimum waging. as it says that mosts unions and workers are influenced my managements of other companies, there for i think that the issue is always brought towards the public because of Carnagie and fricks view over homstead. in my conclusion the public is always brought into the wrong decisions and then is later layed off from their jobs.

Anonymous said...

Yes a worker has a right to his/her job, because they need to have money for, the house, kids, marriage, that’s what a job depends on. The adult should work more than the or there kids. It’s not possible for the child to work more than their parent. I think the child should let the parent provide for them. Its the parents job to keep their children happy. I also think that workers should be guaranteed jobs for a certain amount of time, like a phone contract. The employers controls how much they make and if you work and will not work. Our elders should be given more opportunity than us as teenagers and things in that nature. it’s really hard for a marriage to last if you work all the time, like if you work all the time its not easy to go on vacations, dinners and most of all see your family.




Lajuan Montgomery 4th hour