Workers won't get paid time off for Bush speech

[renata]

I am not sure what to make of this. On the one hand it looks like nobody is forcing the workers to attend the speech. On the other hand, it somehow seems petty. Who picks those speech points, anyway? Is the common practice to let employees attend these meetings without having them use up vacation days or make up the time?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030511/ap_on_re_us/bush_omaha_4

Employees of a plastics plant have been told they'll need to make up the time they're off work while the plant is used as the site of a speech by President Bush (news - web sites) on his economic and employment proposals.
...
Bush is expected to speak to the company's 575 employees about how his economic stimulus plan would benefit them.

Airlite president and CEO Brad Crosby said workers will be given one of four options during the visit: work their regular shift in an adjacent plant not visited by the president, take the day off and make up the work on Saturday, use one of their vacation days, or take an unpaid day off.
....
Crosby said he had not spoken to any employees who dislike the options. "I think the overwhelming majority of our employees are just very excited about seeing the president," he said.

However, the company added the fourth option — allowing workers to take a paid vacation day — after the Omaha World-Herald reported Saturday that at least one employee complained about having to take an unpaid day off or make up the work on a normal day off to see the president.

The company planned to shut down the plant's first shift and parts of the second shift Monday to accommodate the president's appearance, Crosby said.
...

Although one of the options for workers was an unpaid day off, Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman traveling with the president in Santa Fe, N.M., said Sunday: "All of the employees at the plant are being paid in full."

...

[Skeptical Greg]

This seems to be the key part of the story...

(option)...work their regular shift in an adjacent plant not visited by the president..


Darn, I'm not going to get paid not to work either.. :(

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Diogenes
This seems to be the key part of the story...




Darn, I'm not going to get paid not to work either.. :(
I bet no one is going to shut down your workplace to turn it into a political rally venue.

Besides, they are working, as backdrops. The place would look pretty silly if the employer didn't provide a cheering crowd.

[renata]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I bet no one is going to shut down your workplace to turn it into a political rally venue.

Besides, they are working, as backdrops. The place would look pretty silly if the employer didn't provide a cheering crowd.

That is exactly what tweaked me wrong. How was this plant picked? Does anyone know what the usual practice is for workers on these types of appearances. I imagine the company supports Bush, and having a televized appearance in their plant may be free advertising. What if all workers said- Forget this, I am not taking a vacation day for this, I am working at the other plant? It seems the company is relying on good will of their workers for self promotion, while at the same time screwing them over.

If they were concerned with productivity, they could have declined to have Bush speak at their plant.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I bet no one is going to shut down your workplace to turn it into a political rally venue.

Besides, they are working, as backdrops. The place would look pretty silly if the employer didn't provide a cheering crowd.


They are not 'shutting it down'...( not all of it, anyway, as clearly stated..)

But yes, my employer has the right to shut down their business anytime they want to.

[Baker]

Originally posted by renata


That is exactly what tweaked me wrong. How was this plant picked? Does anyone know what the usual practice is for workers on these types of appearances. I imagine the company supports Bush, and having a televized appearance in their plant may be free advertising. What if all workers said- Forget this, I am not taking a vacation day for this, I am working at the other plant? It seems the company is relying on good will of their workers for self promotion, while at the same time screwing them over.

If they were concerned with productivity, they could have declined to have Bush speak at their plant.

They offered the workers a fair deal work their shift go to the speech or just take a days vacation are you saying that they should be paid to hear the speech?

[renata]

Originally posted by Baker


They offered the workers a fair deal work their shift go to the speech or just take a days vacation are you saying that they should be paid to hear the speech?

I am torn by this. On the one hand, no they should not be paid to not work. However, one assumes their employers have Bush speaking at that plant for a reason- they must get some benefits. I can see that if people do not show up for the speech, they might get some negative treatment. it just feels unsavory, even if it is their right. It feels they are abusing good will and patriotism of their workers- imagine the embarassment if nobody came! And a vacation day is a big deal, to me at least. I do not know how much vacation these people get, but I would rather spend a vacation day away, or with family then at work listening to a policy speech.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker

They offered the workers a fair deal work their shift go to the speech or just take a days vacation are you saying that they should be paid to hear the speech?

Options:
1. Be inconvenienced by going to a different site.
2. Be inconvenienced by working on what would normally be a day off.
3. Don't get paid.
...and then, when complaints came in, add...
4. Use up your vacation time.
These are your options whether or not you want to hear the President speak.

Fair or unfair, the word that comes to my mind is "tacky".

Really, the employer has every right. Actually, having the option of getting paid to hear the Presiden'ts speech could be considered unfair.

The least "tacky" thing to do, would have been to schedule it on a weekend. Liddy Dole came to my company in 1996- on a Saturday.

The next least "tacky" thing, IMO, would be to give all employees a region-wide "company holiday", and attendance at the President's speech would be optional.

I think that what the company did comes right below that on my "tackiness meter".

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by renata


I am torn by this. On the one hand, no they should not be paid to not work. However, one assumes their employers have Bush speaking at that plant for a reason- they must get some benefits. I can see that if people do not show up for the speech, they might get some negative treatment. it just feels unsavory, even if it is their right. It feels they are abusing good will and patriotism of their workers- imagine the embarassment if nobody came! And a vacation day is a big deal, to me at least. I do not know how much vacation these people get, but I would rather spend a vacation day away, or with family then at work listening to a policy speech.

Are you not aware, that politicians give speeches at all kinds of work places, all the time?

No one is being forced to participate.. No one is being denied the the choice to work.. Just not at their regular post...for ONE day!!!


People are required to be away from their regular location all the time, for all kinds of reasons..

What is your problem...:confused:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Options:
1. Be inconvenienced by going to a different site.
2. Be inconvenienced by working on what would normally be a day off.
3. Don't get paid.
...and then, when complaints came in, add...
4. Use up your vacation time.
These are your options whether or not you want to hear the President speak.

Fair or unfair, the word that comes to my mind is "tacky".

Really, the employer has every right. Actually, having the option of getting paid to hear the Presiden'ts speech could be considered unfair.

The least "tacky" thing to do, would have been to schedule it on a weekend. Liddy Dole came to my company in 1996- on a Saturday.

The next least "tacky" thing, IMO, would be to give all employees a region-wide "company holiday", and attendance at the President's speech would be optional.

I think that what the company did comes right below that on my "tackiness meter".

Inconvenienced..:rolleyes:

Boo Hoo Hoo...:

[renata]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Are you not aware, that politicians give speeches at all kinds of work places, all the time?

No one is being forced to participate.. No one is being denied the the choice to work.. Just not at their regular post...for ONE day!!!


People are required to be away from their regular location all the time, for all kinds of reasons..

What is your problem...:confused:

Does the alternative plant location have a full complement of staff? I assume they do. How can they fit extra 575 people? Is that really a viable option, or an excuse - well, you don;t have to give up your day, you could work elsewhere.

My problem is that this is, as specious_reasons put it , this was tacky at best. They are within their rights, but it still smells. I have never had a politician give a talk in my workplace. However, since this is reported, it appears that this decision is an anomaly, and most companies would take the free publicity, the good connection and the good will and pay for their workers to attend speech by the President.

[Skeptical Greg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by renata


Does the alternative plant location have a full complement of staff? I assume they do. How can they fit extra 575 people? Is that really a viable option, or an excuse - well, you don;t have to give up your day, you could work elsewhere.

If you are really concerned, why don't you try to contact someone at the plant, and see how they feel, or exactly how they are going to accommodate the choice to work at the alternate site?


My problem is that this is, as specious_reasons put it , this was tacky at best. They are within their rights, but it still smells. I have never had a politician give a talk in my workplace. However, since this is reported, it appears that this decision is an anomaly, and most companies would take the free publicity, the good connection and the good will and pay for their workers to attend speech by the President.

Your problem? I still do not understand why this is a problem for you at all, other than ' ideological ".. Why don't you talk about why this is a problem for 'you' , rather than your perceived problems for someone else?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Inconvenienced..:rolleyes:

Boo Hoo Hoo...:

Hey, most people might just be inconvenienced, but some people:

- Might not be able to work on weekends.
- Might be out of vacation time.

I feel it's tacky because the employer is incurring costs on its employees so a politician can have a photo op.

(Removed a bullet on edit, after re-reading the thread)

[specious_reasons]

renata,

Something does bother me, though. I think the reason why this even made the news is because:
- the company started out being "tacky"
- It was GWB's appearance.

Actually, it would probably hit the news if it were Lieberman, Kerry, or Edwards.

Diogenes is probably right, stuff like this might happen all the time. It's not newsworthy.

My take is, the press is casting about, looking for how it wants to frame the upcoming election. Wouldn't it be great if the current George Bush fell into the same traps as the elder?

One news story I remember was the "cash register" story. George Bush (#41) visited a grocery store, and was so "out of touch", he had to ask if what he was standing in front of a cash register.

The story is false (he was asking if it was a certain kind), but it plays into a perception of the man the press was selling.

I imagine we'll hear more stories like this in the next few months, where the press will try a few stereotypes out, to see of they capture the public imagination, and run with the one that "sells".

Remember, GWB was "honest but stupid", and Al Gore was "smart but slippery". Facts were bent (for both) to help fit the press' mold.

Makes me shudder to think.

[renata]

I do not know the normal procedure for compensating workers in these situations, I wish I did. I just had an uneasy feeling. I can see both sides' viewpoints, but I can't help but think that the fair thing to do would be to give employees a day off and invite them to attend the speech. I can not honestly justify it, because, once again I can see both sides to the story. Perhaps it is just my bleeding heart talking here..:) Really, who benefits from this- Bush and the company. Who is inconvenienced the most- the workers.

The cash register story was unfortunate. However, I have not seen antyhing poor, wrong or right to stick to this Bush yet. I do not think it is a partisan story, I am sure it would have been reported for Clinton as well.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Baker
They offered the workers a fair deal work their shift go to the speech or just take a days vacation are you saying that they should be paid to hear the speech? If my employer wants me to attend a meeting, they're going to pay me to attend, even though I'm not doing the work they normally pay me to do. I think this employer, which has asked its employees to attend this meeting, should offer to pay them for their time. They obviously want the employees to attend, or they're going to look pretty stupid presenting the President in front of an empty room. Certainly the employer has the right, but if it were me, I would hold a grudge against my employer that a day's wage would be well spent avoiding.

[Crossbow]

The policy of this company is consistent with my workplace.

I work at one of the buildings that is near the state capitol building and as one can imagine, there are periodic appearances by politicans running for office, hold rallies, make speeches, etc.

And in just about every case, one must arrange to take time off in order to attend these events because the state does not want to pay to not work.

[Baker]

Originally posted by renata
I do not know the normal procedure for compensating workers in these situations, I wish I did. I just had an uneasy feeling. I can see both sides' viewpoints, but I can't help but think that the fair thing to do would be to give employees a day off and invite them to attend the speech. I can not honestly justify it, because, once again I can see both sides to the story. Perhaps it is just my bleeding heart talking here..:) Really, who benefits from this- Bush and the company. Who is inconvenienced the most- the workers.

The cash register story was unfortunate. However, I have not seen antyhing poor, wrong or right to stick to this Bush yet. I do not think it is a partisan story, I am sure it would have been reported for Clinton as well.

This isn’t new every President we have ever had has done this I’m not sure about the procedure my self you would have to look back over the last 20 years and see how it was done before to say if it is wrong or right for the most part very few people miss out on a opportunity to see the President in person.

[Nyarlathotep]

I used to work at a factory. We never ahd a political rally their but if it was shut down for any reason (equipment failure, power outage etc.) we got the exact same options as the workers at this plant did and I suspect that if we HAD been closed down so a politician could appear there it would have been the same deal. So I don't feel too sorry for them, it's just the way factories are.