How Has The Balance Of Power Changed For Employee - Employer Relationship Compared To 50 Years Ago? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Good discussion on a 32 hour work week https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/32-hour-work-week.812411/

Topic came up for how the balance of power has shifted between Employee and Employer over the years.

Thought it might make a good poll.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, if folks could give context or additional insight on how they vote, that would be helpful.

 

[Drunken knight]

This is not black and white to me...
- in general, there seems to be less loyalty on both sides.
- employers seem to converge more positions these days (employees doing work of 1-2 positions)
- employees have more freedom to move. I think employers recognize that and understand cost of training replacements.
- However, there are more hurdles in the hiring process than decades ago (corporate HR). Even 20 years ago I could knock on doors and quickly find a job.

 

[bigbottom]

I’m not sure whether this answers the power question, but I will note that under today’s laws, employees have many, many more rights than they did 50 years ago, whether it’s workplace safety, discrimination protections, accommodation requirements, prohibitions on harassment, requirements regarding break time, etc., and employers have many, many more restrictions on them today versus 50 years ago on how they treat their employees. I also think many employers understand the cost of turnover and thus expend great resources on retention which shifts power to employees. The fact that many companies are acceding to employee demands for hybrid or remote work speaks to this I think.

 

[bigbottom]

Looking at the question, I’m a bit confused on how I should vote. I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago, but I don’t necessarily think they have more or much more power than employers. I’d say it’s about the same today. So which option am I supposed to go with?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Looking at the question, I’m a bit confused on how I should vote. I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago, but I don’t necessarily think they have more or much more power than employers. I’d say it’s about the same today. So which option am I supposed to go with?

Sorry that's not clear. If you I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago,, then the answer is "Much more power to the Employee"

I mean it for what way things have moved.

I'll add to the descriptions.

 

[bigbottom]

Looking at the question, I’m a bit confused on how I should vote. I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago, but I don’t necessarily think they have more or much more power than employers. I’d say it’s about the same today. So which option am I supposed to go with?

Sorry that's not clear. If you I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago,, then the answer is "Much more power to the Employee"

I mean it for what way things have moved.

I'll add to the descriptions.

Thanks!

 

[msudaisy26]

I think employees have more power than 50 years ago, but I still think the balance is too far in favor of the employers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Interesting. Super small sample size but pretty much a symmetrical distribution so far.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think employees have more power than 50 years ago, but I still think the balance is too far in favor of the employers.

Thanks. Do you have some specific examples?

 

[msudaisy26]

I think employees have more power than 50 years ago, but I still think the balance is too far in favor of the employers.

Thanks. Do you have some specific examples?

Mandatory overtime, letting people go, benefit packages that are not negotiable, in my line of work having an extra curricular activity is mandatory.

Most of this is my personal experience.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The ratio of executive pay to typical worker pay has skyrocketed over the past 50 years (depending on what source you find on this, its somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-1 in 1965, 58-1 in 1990 and currently around 350-1). During the same period, union membership has plummeted from around one-third of all workers to about 10% currently. We've all read about - and many of us have personal experience with - the blue collar worker in the 70's who could buy a house, put his kids through college, take vacations and have a second home on a lake somewhere. These tend to argue in favor of a move toward less employee power. However, I could see an argument that massive pay gap and declining union membership don't necessarily mean the balance of power has changed as those metrics could be based on other factors.

 

[Grahamburn]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

 

[Joe Bryant]

letting people go

Thanks. Do you think an employer should be allowed to determine how many employees are required to do the work?

 

[Kev4029]

I’m not sure whether this answers the power question, but I will note that under today’s laws, employees have many, many more rights than they did 50 years ago, whether it’s workplace safety, discrimination protections, accommodation requirements, prohibitions on harassment, requirements regarding break time, etc., and employers have many, many more restrictions on them today versus 50 years ago on how they treat their employees. I also think many employers understand the cost of turnover and thus expend great resources on retention which shifts power to employees. The fact that many companies are acceding to employee demands for hybrid or remote work speaks to this I think.

The ratio of executive pay to typical worker pay has skyrocketed over the past 50 years (depending on what source you find on this, its somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-1 in 1965, 58-1 in 1990 and currently around 350-1). During the same period, union membership has plummeted from around one-third of all workers to about 10% currently. We've all read about - and many of us have personal experience with - the blue collar worker in the 70's who could buy a house, put his kids through college, take vacations and have a second home on a lake somewhere. These tend to argue in favor of a move toward less employee power. However, I could see an argument that massive pay gap and declining union membership don't necessarily mean the balance of power has changed as those metrics could be based on other factors.

I think these two posts completely encapsulate the relationship between employer and employee. To me, it seems like there is significantly more power on the fridges of the relationship per the post from @bigbottom but ultimately real world pay (arguably the #1 factor in the power of the relationship) has fallen over the last 50 years, as @CletiusMaximus said.

So, I guess employees have more power over their relationship with their current employer, but employers have more power in the labor market on the whole. While not the question, I would say white collar men probably have it a little better than 50 years ago, while blue collar men have it a little worse (safety is way up, but pay is way way down). For women in the workforce, I think things are significantly better than 50 years ago for a variety of reasons (discrimination, safety, opportunity, pay, etc.) and female employees also have significantly more power in the employee/employer relationship than they did 50 years ago.

Ultimately, I voted employees have significantly more power as I do think that is true on a micro level, but on a macro level societally, workers may have less power to influence large changes than they have at any point in the last 80 years.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

Agree. Think is largely depends on the job and where we are in the economic cycle. Tech was red hot 2-3 years ago, you could name your price and conditions. Cooled substantially to the point of layoffs. Healthcare to a lesser extent. 2-3 years ago nurse travel contracts were twice what the are now to the point where it’s not even profitable in a lot of places and they’re taking staff jobs again.

 

[bcat01]

In Ohio the employee is going to try and take power in November. A group is trying to get a $15 minimum wage in the state constitution. This includes tipped employees.

 

[msudaisy26]

letting people go

Thanks. Do you think an employer should be allowed to determine how many employees are required to do the work?

That on is tough. In my line of work we are always short staffed and underpaid, so maybe I am a bit jaded after all the years.

 

[UncleZen]

letting people go

Thanks. Do you think an employer should be allowed to determine how many employees are required to do the work?

Of course. Employees will purposely work slower in factory environments when they know the work is low just to try and fool mgmt. It doesn't work though.

In any case, I did vote there is more power to the employees. The lack of loyalty on both sides has made it this way in my opinion. It's often hard to hire and retain people so employers give in to more things for the employees.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Almost none of us work blue collar jobs, so we're unaffected by the annihilation of unions. Are you an auto worker, longshoreman, trucker, etc.? You had more power 50 years ago.

 

[TLEF316]

I feel like workers (as a whole) have more PROTECTION but maybe less POWER. (Speaking strictly about the white collar world, as I dont have any experience elsewhere)

In most places/fields you cant just get fired for basically no reason. You generally can't be sexually harassed or discriminated against (again...in most places. I know it happens) without repercussions. Safety is obviously better. We've gained some new benefits as society has changed (parental leave. Work from home in professional fields)

But at the same time, I dont think the every day worker has gained too much (and might have even lost some) ability to actually generate CHANGE at their job. I feel like companies just do what they want and just compensate their best workers well enough that they'll just keep their mouth shut and keep producing.

I think COVID also gave a LOT of people (especially people new to the work force who didn't know any better) a lot of false confidence about how valuable they are and what they can get away with. Lots of churn among the young people in my field as they realize that "work" isn't all just Zoom calls in your pajamas and mid-afternoon nap breaks. Still seeing lots of folks pushing the line too far, (recently had someone go to Mexico for 3 weeks, not tell anyone and then have their friend swipe them in 3x a week. They got caught and eventually fired) not really producing, getting dinged for it and then jumping ship to a new company (who will hire them because they have "experience" at a best-in-class employer.....even if their "experience" was them sucking at their job and not working very hard)

 

[nightmare]

Power = money. We can keep changing jobs and make ? more an hour or a little better benefit.

Shareholders are cleaning house with little planning for economic downturns for there company.

Easy vote for more power to the employer.

 

[ProstheticRGK]

Looking at the question, I’m a bit confused on how I should vote. I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago, but I don’t necessarily think they have more or much more power than employers. I’d say it’s about the same today. So which option am I supposed to go with?

Sorry that's not clear. If you I think employees have “much more” power today than they did 50 years ago,, then the answer is "Much more power to the Employee"

I mean it for what way things have moved.

I'll add to the descriptions.

I voted more power to the Employer, but it was before I read this exchange.

Comparatively, Employees have way more freedom of mobility and labor rights than 50 years ago.

But, the balance of power is still skewed significantly toward the Employer. The one with the capital always has the advantage in a quasi-capitalist economic system.

I also think the wealth/income strata of the average FBG will skew this result away from what a true national average would be.

 

[the moops]

in my line of work having an extra curricular activity is mandatory.

Can you explain this?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Power = money. We can keep changing jobs and make ? more an hour or a little better benefit.

Shareholders are cleaning house with little planning for economic downturns for there company.

Easy vote for more power to the employer.

To be clear, the question I'm asking is if the balance has changed compared to what it was 50 years ago. Not who has the most power now.

Compared to 50 years ago, the balance of power between Employee and Employer is:​

 

[msudaisy26]

in my line of work having an extra curricular activity is mandatory.

Can you explain this?

Education.

So some type of math club, robotics, fun run, chaperoning dances, pick up lines, lunch monitors.

While one is mandatory. I can't think of a single teacher I oversee that does less than 2.

 

[the moops]

in my line of work having an extra curricular activity is mandatory.

Can you explain this?

Education.

So some type of math club, robotics, fun run, chaperoning dances, pick up lines, lunch monitors.

While one is mandatory. I can't think of a single teacher I oversee that does less than 2.

Ahh I see. Yea I remember when I taught there was similar "rules" in place

 

[Ilov80s]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

But isn’t that mostly due to the loss of pensions which is clearly a huge loss for employees?

 

[bigbottom]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

But isn’t that mostly due to the loss of pensions which is clearly a huge loss for employees?

That’s a good point.

 

[Ilov80s]

Almost none of us work blue collar jobs, so we're unaffected by the annihilation of unions. Are you an auto worker, longshoreman, trucker, etc.? You had more power 50 years ago.

The 3 largest unions aren’t necessarily blue collar: teachers, government workers, healthcare.

 

[higgins]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

But isn’t that mostly due to the loss of pensions which is clearly a huge loss for employees?

No — pensions have simply been replaced by 401k’s (or the equivalent) and they can be readily “transferred”.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

But isn’t that mostly due to the loss of pensions which is clearly a huge loss for employees?

At least in my profession, the concept of employee movement and "loyalty" between employer and employee, running both ways, has dramatically changed since I've been an adult. It used to be that a young employee joining a company meant a long-term commitment running both ways. The senior generation of workers would eventually gracefully make way for the youngers to advance and share in the enterprise value that was built on their sweat. Now, a young employee will move to the company across the street for $5k and a free lunch, while firms will ramp their staff numbers up and down to leverage and exploit market trends as the wind blows.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Almost none of us work blue collar jobs, so we're unaffected by the annihilation of unions. Are you an auto worker, longshoreman, trucker, etc.? You had more power 50 years ago.

I definitely had more power 50 years ago. I worked exclusively from home and my mom made me sandwiches on demand.

 

[Grahamburn]

Like most things it varies depending on the demand for the job.

I do feel like the employee making the decision to leave is significantly easier than it used to be.

But isn’t that mostly due to the loss of pensions which is clearly a huge loss for employees?

Fair point. The incentives to stay aren’t as great.

 

[Judge Smails]

Complicated answer. The one truism is that there is absolutely zero loyalty on either side. Companies have proven that they will whack you in an instant, no matter what their profits look like. Layoffs left and right and it feels that you have a barcode stamped on your forehead. Whatever it takes to make the company #. No pensions. On the flip sides employees realize that and they now will leave at any time for more money or a better gig. You see resumes with umpteen moves all inside 2 years. That would have been career suicide in the past - less so now. A key reason for this is employees have more transparency in pay, and companies aren't adjusting their valuable employees to market comp. Meaning if they hired a great younger employee at 75K, that employee performs for many years, gets mostly merit increases with a few slight bumps, and maybe they are making $95K in 4-5 years. Meanwhile, when that employee leaves they are hiring that same spot day 1 for $115K because that's market. Employees know that in order to make market money 9 times out of 10 they have to leave their present company. Companies don't want to set the precedent and start doing market adjustments for a big swath of employees, so turnover is rampant.

Employees have more protections now, including non-competes getting banned.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Complicated answer. The one truism is that there is absolutely zero loyalty on either side.

I would add, I don't think this is universal. It may be true for a great many large companies.

But for a ton of smaller companies, I think the dynamics can often be different.

I do think it starts with the assumption it has to be fair for both sides.

An employee offers their services in exchange for money / benefits from the employer.

The work offered and the compensation paid should be equal so that there aren't any other significant factors.

An employer can't under pay and expect the employee to stay because of "loyalty" or some other reason.

An employee can't do way less work than they're being paid for and expect the employer to just pay for some outside reason.

It has to work for both sides.

And like anything, there has to be reason and understanding.

The cashier at the grocery store I like said something to me about how long she'd worked at the store. I said something like "It must be a good place to work". And she commented that she'd had some special thing come up years ago and the company did way more than they had to in helping her. It was pretty clear she was now loyal to the company. Stuff like that happens sometimes and that's reasonable.

But for the most part, the work offered and the compensation given for the work has to be equal.

 

[WVU Alum]

I have a pension. What it means for me is that after a certain number of years it is not in my best interest to leave. I’m in local government, so I do have the opportunity to move between departments, but our locality has lots of money and we have been getting some market adjustments in the last few years. The good thing is that I now make more than a comparable position anywhere near me.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I have a pension. What it means for me is that after a certain number of years it is not in my best interest to leave. I’m in local government, so I do have the opportunity to move between departments, but our locality has lots of money and we have been getting some market adjustments in the last few years. The good thing is that I now make more than a comparable position anywhere near me.

Where I’m at too. Hospital I work at got rid of pensions 15 years ago and replaced that with a 2% match 403B. Nobody stays anymore which I think they prefer because older employees are more expensive. I’m lucky enough to have started shortly before the pension ended. It’s now at the point where it adds roughly 30k a year in benefits to my base package. It goes a long way in keeping me there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

One thing I think some companies miss: A good company finds out what an employee wants.

And it's not always money.

Money of course is the main thing usually. But different people put all kinds of different values on things like Title, Hours required, Flexibility, Work from Home, Work from Office, Insurance, Benefits, Retirement, Can you bring your dog to work and a million more things.

None of those are right or wrong or good or bad. But they all have a value. And they're not the same for everyone.

 

[nightmare]

One thing I think some companies miss: A good company finds out what an employee wants.

And it's not always money.

Money of course is the main thing usually. But different people put all kinds of different values on things like Title, Hours required, Flexibility, Work from Home, Work from Office, Insurance, Benefits, Retirement, Can you bring your dog to work and a million more things.

None of those are right or wrong or good or bad. But they all have a value. And they're not the same for everyone.

When a person quits a job it's usually triggered by bad management/manager.

Almost all non management jobs have comparable starting pay (within that field), benefits,
and set pay raises. The difference is your lower tier management with how hard they get
"pushed" and does it get pushed onto you.

 

[ProstheticRGK]

Complicated answer. The one truism is that there is absolutely zero loyalty on either side.

I would add, I don't think this is universal. It may be true for a great many large companies.

But for a ton of smaller companies, I think the dynamics can often be different.

I do think it starts with the assumption it has to be fair for both sides.

An employee offers their services in exchange for money / benefits from the employer.

The work offered and the compensation paid should be equal so that there aren't any other significant factors.

An employer can't under pay and expect the employee to stay because of "loyalty" or some other reason.

An employee can't do way less work than they're being paid for and expect the employer to just pay for some outside reason.

It has to work for both sides.

And like anything, there has to be reason and understanding.

The cashier at the grocery store I like said something to me about how long she'd worked at the store. I said something like "It must be a good place to work". And she commented that she'd had some special thing come up years ago and the company did way more than they had to in helping her. It was pretty clear she was now loyal to the company. Stuff like that happens sometimes and that's reasonable.

But for the most part, the work offered and the compensation given for the work has to be equal.

I’m in healthcare, and even here, I’ve had managers/directors who treated me like I was an inconvenience for having really severe medical issues in my immediate family.

The place I work now, My manager and director both went above and beyond to take care of me during some really hard times. It meant the world to me. I am dog-loyal to both of them- I’d run through walls for either of them. My manager, who recently moved on to another position, was the best manager I ever had- the ultimate “servant leader”. She was probably 15-20 years my junior, but she taught me more about leadership than anyone else I’ve come across.

The world would be much better if more people learned the value of treating people better, but especially those in leadership roles.

 

[Judge Smails]

Complicated answer. The one truism is that there is absolutely zero loyalty on either side.

I would add, I don't think this is universal. It may be true for a great many large companies.

But for a ton of smaller companies, I think the dynamics can often be different.

I do think it starts with the assumption it has to be fair for both sides.

An employee offers their services in exchange for money / benefits from the employer.

The work offered and the compensation paid should be equal so that there aren't any other significant factors.

An employer can't under pay and expect the employee to stay because of "loyalty" or some other reason.

An employee can't do way less work than they're being paid for and expect the employer to just pay for some outside reason.

It has to work for both sides.

And like anything, there has to be reason and understanding.

The cashier at the grocery store I like said something to me about how long she'd worked at the store. I said something like "It must be a good place to work". And she commented that she'd had some special thing come up years ago and the company did way more than they had to in helping her. It was pretty clear she was now loyal to the company. Stuff like that happens sometimes and that's reasonable.

But for the most part, the work offered and the compensation given for the work has to be equal.

Agreed - the larger the company the less the mutual loyalty

 

[parasaurolophus]

Kind of depends which jobs we are talking about.

Ate at a cafe rio for lunch today. Had to practically scream my selections to both workers because they both had airpods in and couldnt hear.

They are in no danger of losing their jobs and are being paid 16 bucks an hour plus tips.

 

[fatness]

The ratio of executive pay to typical worker pay has skyrocketed over the past 50 years (depending on what source you find on this, its somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-1 in 1965, 58-1 in 1990 and currently around 350-1).

Sorry to only snip part of your post Cletius, but it's the part I want to comment on. This vast pay disparity, more than anything else, shows that employers have far more power today than 50 years ago. Ultimately work is trading services for money. A much larger part of money coming into companies today goes to employers, not employees. Over time, company income has been sucked upwards. Benefits and working conditions and pay for employees are not usually based on what's a fair distribution, but on what's the minimum to keep this employee or these employees satisfied enough to stay, at least until the company doesn't want them any more.

I grew up in the 50's and 60's on a street where everyone owned their home. There were plumbers and carpenters and foremen and salesmen who were the sole breadwinners for their family, and they all owned their home. That doesn't happen much these days.

When I left home to go to college my parents had no money to give me but I got scholarships and 2 small loans to get me through along with the money I had saved from working and from selling my guitar and amp. The vast majority of people I went to HS with either went to college or started working fulltime, moved out, and got an apartment. That was just what was normal. Those things aren't often possible any more for HS grads.

Not as much of the work-generated income is going to workers these days, and more is going to employers. It's a big change since 50 years ago.

 

[Nugget]

I voted more to employee. I am in a knowledge position and was able to shift to a work from home model to better parent my kids. I have 4-5 meetings a month that are hard scheduled, everything else I basically control. I can work from anyplace that has wifi, and I can get work done at 6am or 9pm.

If I’m let go, I’m looking at 6-9 months of severance pay. I could get another job that pays the same or better tomorrow, but without the scheduling/ work from home benefits.

My daughter works childcare and teaches dance. She can get as many hours as she wants and there are lots of job postings. She also uses the connections for babysitting gigs that run $20+ hour. Gig economy makes workers less dependent on employers. This could change when she no longer is on my health care.

 

[Max Power]

I voted more power to the employer. I'm getting a peek behind the curtain on how defense contractors create and submit their manpower bids to the government. Employees are a commodity in these transactions. Pay structures are generally agreed on between all the companies and the bid differences tend to come down to overhead and operating costs. This ensures an analysts with X amount of years would get paid in the same 10% range regardless of company/contract just so these companies aren't constantly taking people from each other.

 

[Max Power]

I think this topic also has an interesting twist when applied to the sporting world. If you take basketball as an example, the employee has much more power than even 20 years ago. Players force their way off teams all the time now. A player is more likely to ask for a trade and even name his destination.

Football is probably still even. I don't think an individual player has as much power as in the NBA. However I think that may be changing with the NIL deals. There was real concern for a while that if Caleb Williams wanted to name his destination, he would have the most power to do it than anyone before him. I think that may continue with the next generational QB talent.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think this topic also has an interesting twist when applied to the sporting world. If you take basketball as an example, the employee has much more power than even 20 years ago. Players force their way off teams all the time now. A player is more likely to ask for a trade and even name his destination.

Football is probably still even. I don't think an individual player has as much power as in the NBA. However I think that may be changing with the NIL deals. There was real concern for a while that if Caleb Williams wanted to name his destination, he would have the most power to do it than anyone before him. I think that may continue with the next generational QB talent.

In fairness, 50 years ago the NFL didn't have free agency. It was difficult for players to change teams at all.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I think this topic also has an interesting twist when applied to the sporting world. If you take basketball as an example, the employee has much more power than even 20 years ago. Players force their way off teams all the time now. A player is more likely to ask for a trade and even name his destination.

Football is probably still even. I don't think an individual player has as much power as in the NBA. However I think that may be changing with the NIL deals. There was real concern for a while that if Caleb Williams wanted to name his destination, he would have the most power to do it than anyone before him. I think that may continue with the next generational QB talent.

John Elway did it 40 years ago & Eli did it 20 years ago.

 

[Max Power]

I think this topic also has an interesting twist when applied to the sporting world. If you take basketball as an example, the employee has much more power than even 20 years ago. Players force their way off teams all the time now. A player is more likely to ask for a trade and even name his destination.

Football is probably still even. I don't think an individual player has as much power as in the NBA. However I think that may be changing with the NIL deals. There was real concern for a while that if Caleb Williams wanted to name his destination, he would have the most power to do it than anyone before him. I think that may continue with the next generational QB talent.

John Elway did it 40 years ago & Eli did it 20 years ago.

I realize it has happened and I'm not overly familiar with Elway's situation, didn't he threaten to go play baseball instead? The Mannings' were decently well off and could afford to play hardball. Jim Kelly didn't go to Buffalo for two after getting drafted because he had other options with the USFL at the time. Once that window closed players were basically forced to go to the teams that drafted them.

I was viewing this through the lens of Caleb Williams was individually wealthy going into the draft. He had a net worth of between 3-5 Mil. If he wanted to sit out a season, he had ample resources to do so. That is about to be the new normal with the top picks.