![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rather a spinoff of a comment on an article ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
dda linked this weekend, about women's contribution to the paid workforce and the societal expectations of the availability of care for children, elders, and the community. (The article actually talked about the idea that women in particular are responsible for this kind of care, and that combining it with a paid job is a heavy burden-- which raises the sort of meta-question of "is it fair to expect a group of people to be responsible for demolishing stereotypes about themselves?")
Anyways, wandering down the garden path, I remember reading, a couple of years ago, an interesting thread on the Straight Dope. The original post can be summarized as follows:
The poster, a receptionist of some sort at a large company, was contacted on a Saturday by a large client of the company. The client asked to speak with their company rep (i.e. the company employee who handled their account). The receptionist told the client that the person was off work that day and offered to get a message to the rep. The client refused, and demanded the rep's personal cell phone number, which the receptionist refused to give out.
Aside from the privacy issues (I personally wouldn't give out someone else's personal phone number either, although I might well contact them immediately in some circumstances), it brought up an interesting question of how the various parties ought to behave about this situation.
Most people felt that the rep ought to have been contacted, and ought to have helped out the client-- even if it was completely obvious that it wasn't a time-critical emergency, just convenience on the client's part. They also felt that most companies are expected to help in that way. In fact, depending on the rep's position within the company, most people felt that helping the client might be expected of them, and at most would be seen as an action that would reflect favorably for later raises or promotions, not something to be compensated for directly.
Refusing to help, on the other hand, could be seen very negatively-- it could be neutral, if the person had good reason to refuse, such as an extremely ill family member. But in no case would an employee be rewarded for saying "Hey, it's my day off, I'm playing with my kids, and you need to tell the client that I'm available 45 hours a week and they need to call during that time." (For a lovely opposing viewpoint, see here, "You Teach People How To Treat You")
If companies suddenly said "We're proud to do business with you, but we also respect our employees. We compensate them for the work they do and the time that they do it in, so in order to keep costs down, we're not going to disturb them during their time away from work unless it's an emergency," then what do you think would happen?
Well, one interesting perspective on this hypothetical is provided by two companies, Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. The founders of both are devout Christians, and all stores of both companies are closed on Sunday. Of course, it's extremely convenient to work for them if you're a Christian who wants to attend church on your day off, but I believe it would also be beneficial for non-Christians to know that there is absolutely no way, EVER, that they would be asked to work on one specific day off. (Some people have made statements that HL's founder "believes people should be home with their families, not out shopping." However, the official position of the company is that closing on Sunday is a decision made for the benefit of the employees.)
And what's this done to business? Well, Hobby Lobby used to be open 7 days a week, and after they started closing Sundays-- their profits stayed exactly the same. Customers simply began arranging their shopping times to when the store was open.
These are just two companies. They're coming at this from a Christian point of view. What kind of world can we imagine if people decide to do something like this, not simply because of their faith, but because they think people themselves are important-- and employees are people?
dda linked this weekend, about women's contribution to the paid workforce and the societal expectations of the availability of care for children, elders, and the community. (The article actually talked about the idea that women in particular are responsible for this kind of care, and that combining it with a paid job is a heavy burden-- which raises the sort of meta-question of "is it fair to expect a group of people to be responsible for demolishing stereotypes about themselves?") Anyways, wandering down the garden path, I remember reading, a couple of years ago, an interesting thread on the Straight Dope. The original post can be summarized as follows:
The poster, a receptionist of some sort at a large company, was contacted on a Saturday by a large client of the company. The client asked to speak with their company rep (i.e. the company employee who handled their account). The receptionist told the client that the person was off work that day and offered to get a message to the rep. The client refused, and demanded the rep's personal cell phone number, which the receptionist refused to give out.
Aside from the privacy issues (I personally wouldn't give out someone else's personal phone number either, although I might well contact them immediately in some circumstances), it brought up an interesting question of how the various parties ought to behave about this situation.
Most people felt that the rep ought to have been contacted, and ought to have helped out the client-- even if it was completely obvious that it wasn't a time-critical emergency, just convenience on the client's part. They also felt that most companies are expected to help in that way. In fact, depending on the rep's position within the company, most people felt that helping the client might be expected of them, and at most would be seen as an action that would reflect favorably for later raises or promotions, not something to be compensated for directly.
Refusing to help, on the other hand, could be seen very negatively-- it could be neutral, if the person had good reason to refuse, such as an extremely ill family member. But in no case would an employee be rewarded for saying "Hey, it's my day off, I'm playing with my kids, and you need to tell the client that I'm available 45 hours a week and they need to call during that time." (For a lovely opposing viewpoint, see here, "You Teach People How To Treat You")
If companies suddenly said "We're proud to do business with you, but we also respect our employees. We compensate them for the work they do and the time that they do it in, so in order to keep costs down, we're not going to disturb them during their time away from work unless it's an emergency," then what do you think would happen?
Well, one interesting perspective on this hypothetical is provided by two companies, Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. The founders of both are devout Christians, and all stores of both companies are closed on Sunday. Of course, it's extremely convenient to work for them if you're a Christian who wants to attend church on your day off, but I believe it would also be beneficial for non-Christians to know that there is absolutely no way, EVER, that they would be asked to work on one specific day off. (Some people have made statements that HL's founder "believes people should be home with their families, not out shopping." However, the official position of the company is that closing on Sunday is a decision made for the benefit of the employees.)
And what's this done to business? Well, Hobby Lobby used to be open 7 days a week, and after they started closing Sundays-- their profits stayed exactly the same. Customers simply began arranging their shopping times to when the store was open.
These are just two companies. They're coming at this from a Christian point of view. What kind of world can we imagine if people decide to do something like this, not simply because of their faith, but because they think people themselves are important-- and employees are people?
