Is it unethical for me to not tell my employer I've automated my job?

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Jul 01, 2017, 2:10 AM UTC

rubber_duck wrote: post #432

nwatson wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually the people who take a crap job like that simply don't spend that much time on intellectual pursuits to begin with. There are many who through circumstance or poor (or good?) choices ended up with the crap job but nevertheless pay attention to the larger world around them learn as much as they can. Maybe they studied history and are working in an Amazon warehouse. There is a lot of "squandered" intelligence…

I've worked this kind of job when I was younger - I think "a lot" is overstating it. There may be some people above the level working those kind of jobs but most are not really what you would called untapped geniuses. These are folk you can't rely on pressing a few buttons in the correct sequence when the situation is life threatening. Guesstimate : a lot of them are sub 100 IQ. Educated people working in professions…

Post by incatalyst » Sat, Jul 01, 2017, 6:19 AM UTC

ourmandave wrote: post #280

timthelion wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it bad for the employer to get 8x as much out of some workers?

I don't understand the down votes and all these answers. If I'm paying strictly for pieces produced (e.g. apples picked, widgets assembled) why would I balk at paying you for all of them if you're capable of 8X the average. I'm not losing anything. Hell, I should be studying you to see how you're so efficient and apply that to my production (assuming you're not Superman hiding out). Of course, that's not the same as…

Post by kyberias » Sat, Jul 01, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

Post by greggman » Sat, Jul 01, 2017, 6:12 PM UTC

s73ver wrote: post #486

greggman wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not my understanding at all. In the USA employers own the work of their employees if that work is related to the employer's business which this clearly is. No clause or contract is required for this to be the case. It's the default state. It might be different in other countries but I doubt it. Employees have a "duty of loyalty". https://www.google.com/search?q=employee+duty+of+loyalty That would seem to incl…

If that were the case, they wouldn't need those clauses inserted into contracts. The idea of any kind of "duty of loyalty" is absolutely laughable in this day and age. Employers have long since rejected any sense of having loyalty to their employees. Also, if you're going to link to something, at least link to the Wikipedia article on it. Linking to a Google search is pretty dickish.

Post by ruricolist » Sun, Jul 02, 2017, 7:02 AM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #180

ruricolist wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with piece work (in an agricultural context, at least) is that is reveals a wide discrepancy in productivity between workers. The most productive workers are usually about 8x as productive as the average. Employers balk at the prospect of paying that much extra, so they create various kinds of mixed schemes that cap the worker's pay regardless of how much actual work they do. So the practical result of pi…

Do you have a source for that 8x figure? I have heard the term tossed about in the context of engineering, but agriculture is a surprise! When I picked blueberries as a summer job there certainly wasn't an 8x difference between workers. Perhaps between us and the you-pick people?