Know Them By Their Fruits

[prisonchaplain]

Here's the scenario:

The supervisor discovers that by rearranging the work hours of his line staff by 30 minutes, he can save the company 8% in wages. The line staff would lose some time differential pay, but with no noticeable change in productivity.

So...he proposes the change of hours. The workers appreciate being able to come in 30 minutes earlier and leave 30 minutes earlier. The supervisor's boss is pleased with the savings.

A month later the line staff have figured out what happened. Their boss sold them down the river, causing all of them to lose over $300 a month, just so he could look good before the muckety mucks.

"And he's supposed to be so religoius...with all his Jesus talk! When it comes down to it, he's just a cut-throat supervisor, like any other."

Thoughts?

[Annabelli]

With the information given, we can only assume that this is a minimum wage sweat shop and the employees are poorly educated. We must also assume that the supervisor's boss is also a production manager or what is commonly known in a sweat shop as a "floor boss." We must also assume that the supervisor is using religious persuasion to motivate the employees to work for less and also to persuade the boss into thinking that he trying to reward the sweat shop showing that he is a deserving employee of his supervisory abilities.

This is a common practice in small business manufacturing companies and the employees usually seek to compensate their losses through government financial programs. The sweat shop industry is a case of bankruptcy waiting to happen.

When all the employees are standing in line to file for unemployment benefits, the religious supervisor will persuade everyone that he tried desperately to save their jobs. Most of the employees will believe him.

[prisonchaplain]

Anabelli, this is a far less severe situation. The workers belong to a reasonably strong union, make solid middle class wages, and the supervisor simply saw it as his duty to lower cost-to-production. When he proposed the change of hours to the line staff they simply failed to realize that the change would bump them out of getting time-differential pay.

So, was the supervisor wrong to help the company at the expense of the workers or was he rectifying an unnecessary little bonus the workers were getting? Was he a climber, or a diligent supervisor? I'm not sure there are right answers.

But here's the larger question: Should have made a different decision if he was thinking, "These guys know I'm a Christian and if I cause them to lose some wages, will they blame Jesus and my religion for what I've done."

[Alaskagain]

Anabelli, this is a far less severe situation. The workers belong to a reasonably strong union, make solid middle class wages, and the supervisor simply saw it as his duty to lower cost-to-production. When he proposed the change of hours to the line staff they simply failed to realize that the change would bump them out of getting time-differential pay.

So, was the supervisor wrong to help the company at the expense of the workers or was he rectifying an unnecessary little bonus the workers were getting? Was he a climber, or a diligent supervisor? I'm not sure there are right answers.

But here's the larger question: Should have made a different decision if he was thinking, "These guys know I'm a Christian and if I cause them to lose some wages, will they blame Jesus and my religion for what I've done."

I started to ask, do they have a union? :)

No, the supervisor was not wrong. It is part of his job to help keep costs down. He may even receive a bonus based on a percentage of company savings. What is wrong with that? The employees have no room to complain here - they were presented with the plan beforehand and they agreed it would be a good idea.

If they are commuting a half-hour earlier and are no longer sitting in bumper to bumper traffic on the freeway, they are probably saving $300 a month in gas, and what is the value of the diminished traffic time and stress? If someone is saying the guy is not a true Christian because of this, they are way out of line, IMO.

The union will probably file a grievance and get the whole thing rescinded anyway. And the company will have to retropay what would have been earned in time-differential, and there goes the supervisor's bonus, increased shareholder dividends, and better stock-options for the line crew.

(I am not ANTI-union, by the way - I am a capitalist; but my favorite way of doing business is worker-owned shareholding - it is the fairest form of capitalism, IMO)

[Annabelli]

Actually with the Union submitted into the story, this could not happen because the workers have a contract. And if the workers have a Union, then they also probably have a 401K. And if the workers have a Union then their supervisor is also a member of the Union. Due to Union organization, one member cannot benefit and break the contract.

What happens when one member of the Union is trying to manipulate the Union with their religious values (rattling their chains per say), the Union bumps them.....and they have a job no more. That person then files a grievance with the Union.

No how do the Union employees feel about that fellow.....hypocrite !!! A large majority of Union workers are Catholic. (Irish Catholic)

[prisonchaplain]

Well, this incident is real, and it did happen. The workers did have the right to negotiate through the union, since this was a change in work conditions. However, none of the line staff realized that this proposal would effect their pay. They simply agreed to work a half hour earlier and leave a half hour earlier. Since they agreed to the change, they have no recourse.

Now, the main focus of this topic is not pro/con unionism (Adam Smith was pro, btw). Rather, it is whether the supervisor, wanting to both make profits for the company and leave a good and reputable witness of his faith (actions not preaching), should have considered a different course, in light of the latter goal.

In other words, if our primary goal in life is evangelism (converting lost souls, not evanglicalism), does this change some of what we do or don't do?

[FrankJL]

Adam Smith wasn't pro-union.

Actually he wasn't anything union - they didn't exist in when he penned The Wealth of Nations in 1776. However reading his works and his discussions of monopoly of labor markets and British corporations would lead one to feel he would be against unions that artificially inflate wages, place restrictions on employment, and cause workers to be less productive at higher wages.

The pretense that corporations are necessary for the

better government of the trade, is without any

foundation. The real and effectual discipline which is

exercised over a workman, is not that of

his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear

of losing their employment which restrains his frauds

and corrects his negligence. An exclusive

corporation necessarily weakens the force of this

discipline. A particular set of workmen must then be

employed, let them behave well or ill. It is upon this

account, that in many large incorporated towns no

tolerable workmen are to be found, even in some of

the most necessary trades. If you would have your

work tolerably executed, it must be done in the

suburbs, where the workmen, having no exclusive

privilege, have nothing but their character to

depend upon, and you must then smuggle it into the

town as well as you can. (Weath of Nations p. 129)

IE... why the Japanese make better cars that sell for less then our US auto companies.

The closest thing to unions during this period would have been trade guilds.

they have no recourse.

Of course they do, after all nobody is forcing them to work there.

[Alaskagain]

1. The company presented the plan to the line staff; the line staff agreed to the change.

2. The line staff did not understand that the plan would cause a decrease in their pay. They would not have agreed to it if they had known.

Now, did the supervisor present the plan to the line staff, or did another company spokesman present the plan? If another company spokesman did, then the supervisor is not responsible for how it was presented (i.e. omitting the outcome of less pay)

If the supervisor personally presented the plan, and he did so in such a way that the line staff made their decision without all of the facts, then yes, he could be considered at fault, because he knew that it would adversely affect the workers.

Even if a company representative is the one who presented the plan, if the supervisor was present during discussion, he could have at any time said, "This is what will happen. You will spend less time in traffic getting to and from work. You may save money on gas. You may be less stressed because of not dealing with heavy traffic. You will have 30 minutes more with your loving families in the afternoons. You will lose time-differential pay. Is it worth it?" I suppose that would have been the totally Christian presentation.

That having been said, however, the line staff should have been intelligent enough to realize they were receiving time-differential based pay. It is rare that people getting paid a differential or piecework rate, aren't on the lookout for any change that will take money out of their paychecks. They do share in the responsibility of the outcome. They can accept that, or they can look with scorn upon the supervisor, because he sneakily and un-Christianly hid the facts during the presentation or in the discussion that followed. I can see that the supervisor is in a tough place, especially if he came up to the supervisory position through the line.

Now, the supervisor can tell the line staff, "I'm sorry I hid these facts from you while you were debating the issue, please forgive me, I feel terrible about it. I got a bonus for doing that, and I'm willing to split it with all of you." Which will probably get him fired. Or, he can tell them "I was doing my job. Why do you say I'm not a good Christian because I am trying to do a good job for the company. When the company makes money, it means job security for a lot of you. When the union contract comes up, and you guys want a 12% raise, does that make you not a good Christian, because you want to take more of the company money and will go on strike to get it?" Or, he can consider the episode closed, suffer through the personal repercussions with grace, and life goes on.

There are probably some other alternatives out there, these are just my thoughts.

[prisonchaplain]

Adam Smith wasn't pro-union. Actually he wasn't anything union - they didn't exist in when he penned The Wealth of Nations in 1776.

The following is from Wikipedia (I know...many don't like it--however, most of it is a quote from Wealth of Nations, which I've read, and had in mind with my contention that Smith was sympathetic to trade unions).

The 18th century economist Adam Smith noted the imbalance in the rights of workers in regards to owners (or "masters"). In The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 8, Smith wrote:

“ We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate...

When workers combine, masters... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

I SAID: They have no recourse.

Of course they do, after all nobody is forcing them to work there.

While, of course, you are right, do you not see the frustration of workers having suddenly taken an 8% paycut?

Would it really be a wise employer who says, "Don't like it? Quit!"

[rosie321]

1. The company presented the plan to the line staff; the line staff agreed to the change.

2. The line staff did not understand that the plan would cause a decrease in their pay. They would not have agreed to it if they had known.

Now, did the supervisor present the plan to the line staff, or did another company spokesman present the plan? If another company spokesman did, then the supervisor is not responsible for how it was presented (i.e. omitting the outcome of less pay)

If the supervisor personally presented the plan, and he did so in such a way that the line staff made their decision without all of the facts, then yes, he could be considered at fault, because he knew that it would adversely affect the workers.

Even if a company representative is the one who presented the plan, if the supervisor was present during discussion, he could have at any time said, "This is what will happen. You will spend less time in traffic getting to and from work. You may save money on gas. You may be less stressed because of not dealing with heavy traffic. You will have 30 minutes more with your loving families in the afternoons. You will lose time-differential pay. Is it worth it?" I suppose that would have been the totally Christian presentation.

That having been said, however, the line staff should have been intelligent enough to realize they were receiving time-differential based pay. It is rare that people getting paid a differential or piecework rate, aren't on the lookout for any change that will take money out of their paychecks. They do share in the responsibility of the outcome. They can accept that, or they can look with scorn upon the supervisor, because he sneakily and un-Christianly hid the facts during the presentation or in the discussion that followed. I can see that the supervisor is in a tough place, especially if he came up to the supervisory position through the line.

Now, the supervisor can tell the line staff, "I'm sorry I hid these facts from you while you were debating the issue, please forgive me, I feel terrible about it. I got a bonus for doing that, and I'm willing to split it with all of you." Which will probably get him fired. Or, he can tell them "I was doing my job. Why do you say I'm not a good Christian because I am trying to do a good job for the company. When the company makes money, it means job security for a lot of you. When the union contract comes up, and you guys want a 12% raise, does that make you not a good Christian, because you want to take more of the company money and will go on strike to get it?" Or, he can consider the episode closed, suffer through the personal repercussions with grace, and life goes on.

There are probably some other alternatives out there, these are just my thoughts.

1 and 2 make me think of the idea of premortal council.

1. We were presented with a plan. We agreed.

2. Did we REALLY understand what the consequences would be for our decision? Did we understand all the pain and heartache that we'd experience?

Here we are. The choice is made. Deal with the consequences knowing you chose the option.

These people have a job. They enjoyed the extra time with their families. If the expenses were not cut, in the future would they have a job at all? If this boss did not do this most likely someone else would have come in who would not care at all.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll spell out my opinion, and see where it takes us. A Christian should "chose the right," or chose course based on "What would Jesus do?" So, actions are not carried out "to win souls/converts," but because they are godly.

Sometimes godliness will earn us enemies. Sometimes truth is not welcome.

So, we must not choose in order to win friends, nor for self-promotion, but out of sound and wise judgment.

IMHO, the above scenario would have been righted had the supervisor disclosed the effect--you'll lose a bit of pay on this. If the change was important (the company will be in bad shape if we do not cut expenses), the workers might well buy-in. However, if this is all about the supervisor looking good--truthfulness would have nipped the plan in the bud, and resulted in no embarrassment or harm to anyone.

[rosie321]

I'll spell out my opinion, and see where it takes us. A Christian should "chose the right," or chose course based on "What would Jesus do?" So, actions are not carried out "to win souls/converts," but because they are godly.

Sometimes godliness will earn us enemies. Sometimes truth is not welcome.

So, we must not choose in order to win friends, nor for self-promotion, but out of sound and wise judgment.

IMHO, the above scenario would have been righted had the supervisor disclosed the effect--you'll lose a bit of pay on this. If the change was important (the company will be in bad shape if we do not cut expenses), the workers might well buy-in. However, if this is all about the supervisor looking good--truthfulness would have nipped the plan in the bud, and resulted in no embarrassment or harm to anyone.

Do we know for sure what the supervisors intentions were? Were there any hidden pressures applied? In the world of business and politics sometimes there are behind the scenes pressures. While the supervisor should be honest and truthful aren't others under christian obligations too- love, forgiveness...?

No harm to anyone? Is there any good way to let people know they are going to be losing money? That the company is in bad shape and needs to cut expenses? What difference would this knowledge have made? Couldn't it have made things worse? Those who could not handle the loss would choose to look for another job no matter how the information was presented. Instead of getting people all distressed these families were able to enjoy quality time with their family. Work quality did not decrease during that time because people weren't all discouraged by the future. A temporary cut in the business world might be enough to turn around a flailing company.. If work ethic is high, people are happy the tough period might be passed and they might get their money back later on. On the other hand, if they thought the company was failing the work quality may have changed, workers may have left forcing more expenditures on training new employees...

The supervisor may be christian but he still is human. The supervisor cannot control everything. Did he profit from his employees suffering? If he got a bonus through the cuts maybe he could ask that the bonus be divided up. Otherwise I do not see that the supervisor did anything contrary to scriptures or his christian beliefs. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

The employees agreed to the wage change. Reminds me of the parable in the bible about the laborers who started at different times. The first agreed to the pay and the other came along and the first was upset because the other got paid more.

In today's business climate I guess I just can't see that the supervisor did anything wrong from the scenario you presented.

[onyx]

Here's the scenario:

The supervisor discovers that by rearranging the work hours of his line staff by 30 minutes, he can save the company 8% in wages. The line staff would lose some time differential pay, but with no noticeable change in productivity.

So...he proposes the change of hours. The workers appreciate being able to come in 30 minutes earlier and leave 30 minutes earlier. The supervisor's boss is pleased with the savings.

A month later the line staff have figured out what happened. Their boss sold them down the river, causing all of them to lose over $300 a month, just so he could look good before the muckety mucks.

"And he's supposed to be so religoius...with all his Jesus talk! When it comes down to it, he's just a cut-throat supervisor, like any other."

Thoughts?

From this description you've given PC, it would seem that the whole thing was the supervisor's idea.

He discovered the potential saving and also instigated the proposal.

He is being a valuable employee by looking at ways to save his company money.

One might say that the staff had a responsibility to fully investigate the proposal before agreeing to it.

Perhaps their union officials etc., should have asked more questions and advised their members accordingly.

However, it would seem that the supervisor has not provided a full disclosure of the financial consequences for the staff.

He told them what they would gain, but did not tell them what they would lose.

From the story above, he was well aware that the staff would lose differential pay.

He did not give them the whole picture and all of the information needed to make a fully informed decision.

This is his omission in terms of honesty and integrity - both as a Christian and as a supervisor.

IMO, the staff reaction is very understandable.

Onyx

[Canuck Mormon]

Here's the scenario:

The supervisor discovers that by rearranging the work hours of his line staff by 30 minutes, he can save the company 8% in wages. The line staff would lose some time differential pay, but with no noticeable change in productivity.

So...he proposes the change of hours. The workers appreciate being able to come in 30 minutes earlier and leave 30 minutes earlier. The supervisor's boss is pleased with the savings.

A month later the line staff have figured out what happened. Their boss sold them down the river, causing all of them to lose over $300 a month, just so he could look good before the muckety mucks.

"And he's supposed to be so religoius...with all his Jesus talk! When it comes down to it, he's just a cut-throat supervisor, like any other."

Thoughts?

The supervisor's first responsibility is to his family. If he hadn't saved the company money, he could lose his job. What was he to do? It doesn't matter if he was a Christian or not, he was simply doing his job. We don't know how he felt about having to implement this change. I'm sure he felt bad about it. The people complaining about it should ask themselves if they would do any different in his position.

A few years ago, I had a boss who was Mormon. In fact he was a good friend of my family. He came to me and said that I was going to have to work Monday to Friday, instead of Tuesday to Saturday. The big deal here is that Saturdays are only a half day. He also said that my cheques would not change. So in effect, my hourly wage was decreasing. Not once did it cross my mind that he shouldn't do this because he was a Christian. He was a business owner, trying to cut costs.

[prisonchaplain]

[The supervisor's first responsibility is to his family. If he hadn't saved the company money, he could lose his job. What was he to do? It doesn't matter if he was a Christian or not, he was simply doing his job. We don't know how he felt about having to implement this change. I'm sure he felt bad about it. The people complaining about it should ask themselves if they would do any different in his position.

You assume that he had to do it. If so, could he have been upfront about the change? You'll go home earlier--but you'll get less pay. We have to do this to meet cost-to-production goals. In the scenario I present, he did not disclose the loss of wages that would result from the change.

A few years ago, I had a boss who was Mormon. In fact he was a good friend of my family. He came to me and said that I was going to have to work Monday to Friday, instead of Tuesday to Saturday. The big deal here is that Saturdays are only a half day. He also said that my cheques would not change. So in effect, my hourly wage was decreasing. Not once did it cross my mind that he shouldn't do this because he was a Christian. He was a business owner, trying to cut costs.

In your scenario the boss was upfront. Furthermore, he was the owner. Those factors absolutely mitigate the assessment of the action, imho.

[Gwen]

from the original description the boss sounded like he was being sneaky. there are lots of ways to save the company money, that may have been the most obvious or first idea that could work but that doesn't mean it was the only one that would work; he just failed to look long enough and be creative enough. perhaps if he had discussed the goal with the employees they could have come up with some ideas of their own that they could be supportive of without deception.

i think the employes could have had a huge error in thinking as well. if they are saying he's not a christian like he claims due to this devious behavior then fine. but if they are using his actions to say christianity must not be true cause this man does this, that is jumping the gun a bit.

i rarely think about how someone will view the chruch before making my decisions. i make my decision of how i want ppl to view me based on my religion yes, i do consider how i will be seen based on my decisions, if they make a connection to the chruch when viewing my actions great, but it's not at the top of my list of things to consider. the only exception to that is when i am acting in a church capacity (ie something as rs or yw's pres in the comunity or with the members). when i see others actions i don't usually take their religion into account, it's who they are, that's it.

[a-train]

We cannot avoid others finding fault in us. They found fault with even Jesus in whom was no fault at all. All we can do is refrain from finding fault with others. When we realize that we need not assign fault at all, nor seek judgement, we are spared the burden associated there with.

If this man is truly a Christian, and we need not make any estimation of whether or not he is, his ultimate loyalty is neither with the employees or the boss, but with the LORD. However, his loyality SHOULD BE with the boss in terms of his occupation and I would not judge him for it.

I can see the disappointment in those whose wages are lowered, however their judgmental attitude towards this man is the easiest to discern of all. Even if he IS a no-good lying thug, we need not judge him or blame. For, if we understand where all things come from, we know that this man is NOT our Provider. We do NOT get our daily bread from this man. The LORD will provide. To take up a fallen countenance in this case is to disavow the Providence of God.

-a-train