tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post5880862098562581431..comments2023-11-02T09:53:09.569-04:00Comments on Groves U.S. History Blog: Blog #4 - Do you have a right to your job?Geoff Wickershamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07430848929082686290noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-62639947224415007622008-01-28T08:14:00.000-05:002008-01-28T08:14:00.000-05:00Yes a worker has a right to his/her job, because t...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. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Lajuan Montgomery 4th hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-79011367644993612012007-10-26T14:25:00.000-04:002007-10-26T14:25:00.000-04:00Lydia Gaiterswell the issue of homstead has may is...Lydia Gaiters<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-33198983658497288922007-10-26T10:07:00.000-04:002007-10-26T10:07:00.000-04:00A worker does not have a right to his or her job, ...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.<BR/><BR/>ben G.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-36317327560693206472007-10-26T09:23:00.000-04:002007-10-26T09:23:00.000-04:00I belive a worker definatly has a right to his or ...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.<BR/><BR/>~Ryan l.<BR/> 5th hour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-68876517578367843882007-10-19T08:56:00.000-04:002007-10-19T08:56:00.000-04:00blog #4I do not think a worker has a right to his ...blog #4<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Jenna K 1st HourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-56442984997003787502007-10-17T15:35:00.000-04:002007-10-17T15:35:00.000-04:00These days I believe that people do have a right t...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.<BR/><BR/>Anthony Deza<BR/>1st HourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-29733544154233728922007-10-12T11:02:00.000-04:002007-10-12T11:02:00.000-04:00Blog #4 Mary M. A worker does have his/her right t...Blog #4 <BR/>Mary M. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-48699340264604582682007-10-11T23:27:00.000-04:002007-10-11T23:27:00.000-04:00I agree with a lot of the responses that people ha...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.<BR/><BR/>Rachael Tyndall<BR/>1st hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-86929230504632708822007-10-11T23:25:00.000-04:002007-10-11T23:25:00.000-04:00I believe that a person does have a right to their...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. <BR/><BR/>Brooke H.<BR/>1st hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-17873903599840202222007-10-11T22:20:00.000-04:002007-10-11T22:20:00.000-04:00No, I don’t think that a worker has the right to h...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.<BR/><BR/>Derek M.<BR/>1st HourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-71642485661376478722007-10-11T22:12:00.000-04:002007-10-11T22:12:00.000-04:00I don’t think that a worker has his right to his j...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.<BR/><BR/>Chris Elliott 1st hourAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01776199659671834186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-49196121433163605002007-10-11T21:18:00.000-04:002007-10-11T21:18:00.000-04:00I think the workers have a right to their jobs. I ...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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jason S.<BR/>1st hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-8463882499013403582007-10-11T20:34:00.000-04:002007-10-11T20:34:00.000-04:00I think that if the worker is an grown man with a ...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.<BR/><BR/>josh L<BR/>5th hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-74124682454420667142007-10-11T19:46:00.000-04:002007-10-11T19:46:00.000-04:00I think that a worker has a right to their job in ...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. <BR/><BR/>Maher Abou-Rass<BR/>1st HourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-58837128334677890512007-10-11T17:13:00.000-04:002007-10-11T17:13:00.000-04:00I believe a worker does have a right to their job ...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<BR/><BR/>Lauren Babb<BR/>1st hrAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-48943102135129528012007-10-11T12:40:00.000-04:002007-10-11T12:40:00.000-04:00A worker does have his/her right to their job. It ...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. <BR/><BR/>Mary Mc Keon<BR/>3rd hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-62192184872429130452007-10-11T11:26:00.001-04:002007-10-11T11:26:00.001-04:00I think that a worker has some right to their job....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. <BR/><BR/>5th Hour Phil BoltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-79852066626891394392007-10-11T11:26:00.000-04:002007-10-11T11:26:00.000-04:00I do not think a worker has a right to their job. ...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.<BR/><BR/>Matt B.<BR/>5th hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-33591356237539693042007-10-11T08:19:00.000-04:002007-10-11T08:19:00.000-04:00channelgray1st hour Do you have a right to your Jo...channelgray1st hour Do you have a right to your Job?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-40678147804331225142007-10-11T07:33:00.000-04:002007-10-11T07:33:00.000-04:00I think that yes, a worker does have a right to hi...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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>TJ Hyland<BR/>5th HourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-84728143443027601492007-10-11T00:27:00.000-04:002007-10-11T00:27:00.000-04:00Jumi Cadmus3rd hr.The issue of the homestead steel...Jumi Cadmus<BR/>3rd hr.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-21827732512679671892007-10-10T23:26:00.000-04:002007-10-10T23:26:00.000-04:00I don’t believe that a worker should have full rig...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. <BR/><BR/>Barbara Moore<BR/>3rd hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-67934985556393912542007-10-10T22:35:00.000-04:002007-10-10T22:35:00.000-04:00In my opinion no, I do not think a worker has a ri...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.<BR/><BR/>Melanie Shaw<BR/>3rd hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-58437290044748027452007-10-10T22:27:00.000-04:002007-10-10T22:27:00.000-04:00Its alot harded for people with alot of family or ...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.<BR/><BR/>jessie best<BR/>5th hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27943050.post-43360185977786700222007-10-10T22:10:00.000-04:002007-10-10T22:10:00.000-04:00I think a worker has a right to his or her job reg...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.<BR/><BR/>Fran Wanetick<BR/>3rd hourAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com