MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, September 21st 2018 - 17:49 UTC
Brazil’s Supreme Court voted 7-4 on Thursday to allow companies to outsource all types of jobs, a ruling that confirms the constitutionality of labor rules set last year under a law that was fiercely opposed by unions. Read full article
That's one against the communists.
As all the systems + all the regimes have miserably failed to:
- improve the quality of life
- improve the standard of living
- reduce the costs of living
WHY NOT OUTSOURCE the government itself?
Why not get rid of it altogether ? it only exists to serve itself......and screw the unions, bunch of blood-sucking parasites...
You'd just end up with someone else taking over.
I've never in my life heard anything good about outsourcing, though. It's either a way for companies to screw their workers out of job security and benefits, or an attempt to con taxpayers/investors by hiding the labour cost in a different column, or it means sending jobs abroad so poorly-paid and -trained people can do them cheaper and worse.
chronic i.e pathological
That's one against the communists. You are a perfect example of the following type, Duh.
”So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the HYPOTHESIS THAT LIBERALS ARE MORE INTELLIGENT. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). THE ADD HEALTH STUDY SHOWS THAT THE MEAN IQ OF ADOLESCENTS WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS “VERY LIBERAL” IS 106, COMPARED WITH A MEAN IQ OF 95 FOR THOSE CALLING THEMSELVES “VERY CONSERVATIVE.” The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.”
In THAT case, the whole country will be completely at a loss, if nobody is there to milk it dry?!?!
As mentioned earlier; no one can ever believe that democracy exists in a country when, years after years, more than two hundred million clowns
Don't know how it works in the UK, but the latest STF ruling maintains and guarantees all the outsourced worker's fundamental rights (salary, job security, vacations, retirement fund etc), exactly the same as the regular ones, and has nothing to do with transferring Brazilian jobs abroad.
And in the case that a company using outsourced labour, does not pay correctly, or goes bust for example, the (outsourcing) company supplying such labour is legally co-responsible for all/any rights.
But I suppose that outsourcing has its disadvantages, as well as advantages, and can't it be perfected to when recurring problems are verified ?
the problem is that the 'people' have lost control of government - the latter no longer feels any responsibility towards the former. The only moment in which the politicians interact with the population, is when they 'beg' for votes, after that, with very rare exceptions, to hell with their constituents.
If the workers keep the same rights then what's the point of outsourcing? This is what outsourcing is infamous for in the UK:
And then there are the big cock-ups: the government outsourced security at the London Olympics to a company called G4S, and a few weeks before they were due to start, the company admitted they were short thousands of guards. The gvmt had to call in the police and army to help. There was also Carillion, handing big construction projects; they went spectacularly bust at the start of the year, leaving the government to pick up the pieces. This gives some more examples of outsourcing problems:
I guess at least Brazil is unlikely to suffer with jobs being sent abroad. My company has some departments outsourced to India, and they are always a pain to deal with and never provide a good service. They hire as cheaply as possible and it shows, plus the business culture in India has all kinds of problems. If you do manage to get someone trained up to a decent standard and working with the team, they promptly get moved to a different project and you have to start all over again.
My previous job wasn't outsourced, however, as the new team in Bulgaria was directly employed by the same company. They just paid them less than half what we were getting.
The advantages may not be all tt visible, but 1st, the problem occurs when jobs are exported….not Brazil’s case…the law regulates only domestic work.
The companies can focus on their core biz while outsourcing non-related services - personnel dept., legal dept., cleaning, maintenance, security, transport, call centers etc ; they can expand into physical spaces left vacant by outsourcing, without having to invest in new buildings; they can contract specialized employees at short notice to fill in when someone goes on vacation, avoiding disruption in the productive process (mainly industry) ; It simplifies internal control 'n reduces costs.
Provided Cos pay the employees ‘n outsourcing companies correctly, they greatly reduce labor law suits ; Some might say that the outsourced employees won’t get a promotion in the company they are outsourced to…they could, if the company thinks they're worth hiring on a permanent basis;
The outsourcing permits a company to take people on part-time, like restaurants that only open for lunch, hotels in a tourist town that need extra employees only during high-season. It makes it easier for people to be taken on and at least get some kind of a salary, as versus being unemployed.
The fact the employee who is outsourced might feel more vulnerable, is compensated by the fact he is at least working/getting paid. I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
It’s notorious that certain computer services outsourced to India are a pain in the neck, and th4 up to the company to correct it if they feel it’s harming their image. We're not there yet.
Yr 1st link, on outsourcing UK’ public services….considering that most public services, here anyway, are so crappy, I believe most people – except public servants – would welcome privatization, or outsourcing svcs to the private sector. They’d be more efficient, 'n save taxpayer money.
Have 2 replies ready re Arg turnout in streets.., Bzln elections polarized..
Kanazawa's research is a two-edged sword; he also demonstrates convincingly that high IQ people are suckers for silly religious/secular fads, have higher rates of suicide and divorce, make worse parents, and lead less happy lives than average people do. There is no magic bullet and there certainly is no master race.
REF: the problem is that the 'people' have lost control of government:
Maybe the population found an easy way out - of assuming NO responsibility whatsoever - by WILLINGLY handing over the key of the safe to the thieves - for more than THIRTY years - virtually BEGGING the crooks to go on stealing endlessly.
So why is there a bit of a whimpering now [and nothing more than a bit of a whimpering]?
Besides fretting+fussing, the masses+elites do NOTHING! And that's not all: They STILL think that the fault lies with the politicians! Something similar to a lady [???] going into the badlands, showing off her well-endowed self [!] and then shouting RAPE!
By the way:
I was thinking that we only hear of the cases where it goes badly, and not those where everything is fine, so probably there are times when outsourcing works well. But for workers, it's not at all a compensation that at least they have a job, because outsourcing does not create new jobs, it just takes existing ones and makes them less secure. It often also means cuts to pay and benefits, makes it harder to bargain collectively, and harder to get recognition individually, since the people who are in the best position to judge their work aren't the ones with the power to give them a pay rise or promotion. All very good for employers, and possibly the tax payer - IF the services really are cheaper and better run - but very bad for workers.
At worst you find the outsourced companies focus on cost cutting above all else, and as they get no benefit when the company does well, they have no incentive to provide good service. You just get a race to the bottom.
Don't blame the victims. Your scenario isn't realistic at all, but plenty of people are forced to live in the 'badlands' and do get robbed, or raped, or murdered. They don't have a choice, and neither do the voters when everyone is corrupt and it was mostly hidden until recently.
REF: Don't blame the victims:
REF: everyone is corrupt. It was mostly hidden until recently
Well, now that the cat is out of the bag; what would the masochist playing victims [or the other way around] like to accomplish [if they have nothing better to do]?
Are they really very keen to ACT against the victimization?
- Watch these victims flocking together - REF: football
- Watch them disappearing - REF: Fighting Corruption
- Watch them remain voiceless by Choice - by their own Preference!
More than Thirty Years of corruption and the victims finally awoke from their stupor NOW - after legally offering special protection, special rights and special privileges to the crooks [and that too under a shameful (shameless) political system]?
Hats Off to the democracy - Brazilian Style!
TH has the nasty habit of omitting information that goes against his biased narrative. And 'he' considers himself a member of an imaginary master race.
- because outsourcing does not create new jobs...it might, if a company feels encouraged to outsource when it needs extra labour only temporarily, instead of obliging its employees to work (expensive) overtime. Looks like you're analyzing it only from the UK's experience/perspective ;
people who are in the best position to judge their work aren't the ones with the power to give them a pay rise or promotion....Disagree - many temp workers in commerce (large employer) taken on during special holidays /events, end up being taken on permanently if they perform well…If a temp worker shows he’s competent, the outsourcer will hear about it…IF they have no incentive to provide good service, that is definitely an idiotic attitude...might as well shoot themselves in the foot then.
Years ago I took on many trainees, as temporary workers....after a few months (sufficient time to evaluate them), quite a few were taken on permanently. Anyway, it's no use going against a global business trend.
Re yr Don't blame the victims, to ”:o))”, If he's referring to those who vote for the same corrupt politicians, election after election - and they will very likely do it again in Oct., - then they ARE to blame....the fact which we commented on a few days ago, that most people are more concerned with carnival and soccer, instead of about whom they intend to vote for, is what perpetuates this situation.
Even IF the future president-elect, whoever it may be, might be nothing to write home about, at least vote conscientiously for your reps in Congress...they are the ones who can, if they are well intentioned, rein in the executive branch when needed, and support good projects, or fight against bad ones.
Looks like you're analyzing it only from the UK's experience/perspective ;
Probably, and I don't know how different Brazil is. Here unemployment is (officially) low, but there are a lot of people underemployed, or with crappy, insecure jobs, and they are not happy about it. It's easy to underestimate how important security is when economists are only interested in wealth, but it's really essential for planning your life and having a family.
IF “they have no incentive to provide good service”, that is definitely an idiotic attitude
No, that's an idiotic situation. If they WILL be rewarded for hard work, then it's a foolish attitude, but if not one cares or recognises good service, it's rational to do the minimum and spend your energies elsewhere, like looking for a better job.
But if you were taking on temp workers years ago then what does the law change exactly?
at least vote conscientiously for your reps in Congress
Maybe that part is true. Although with all the threats and bribery going on, it seems many people aren't making a free choice. Is it just me or where the percentages voting for different parties in the presidential election quite different to those in congress?
“Here unemployment is (officially) low, but lot of people are underemployed, etc” ; If there aren’t sufficient full-time jobs to go around, what do you expect companies to do ? Seems a global problem, which might improve when the global economy does. Didn't say REWARD hard work, but have it (if well done) RECOGNIZED…besides don’t you expect your subordinates to do their best ? if they don’t, get rid of them ‘n take on someone who does. After 40 years in business I’ve seen a lot.
Perhaps for civil servants, if no one recognizes hard work, “it's rational to do the minimum and spend your energies elsewhere”…the typical approach of (most lower) civil servants here…not because their work might not be recognized, but because they cannot be sacked. If they really thought they weren’t being given a fair deal, then quit ‘n join the private sector…but here they won’t – with so many benefits, exclusive to the public sector, and can’t be sacked, who’d be so stupid ?…’n it stinks, when you consider who pays their salaries.
Years ago, the ‘temp’ rules were slightly different, more rigid, but if you didn’t like their work you could replace them with a minimum of hassle…today things are more flexible (without reduction of employee’ rights), and their rights are gteed ; the contracting company ‘n the outsourcing one, have the same obligations, which doubly ensures their rights.
“it seems many people aren't making a free choice”…how come ?? isn’t everyone free to vote for whom they want ?
Due to the 2 rounds, and so many prez candidates, the two finalists may have received, for ex., less than 15% each. In the 2nd round, one will obviously receive a majority of the total votes, but will not necessarily have the support of at least 50% + 1. The president’s party alone is unlikely to have a majority in Congress, being forced to make coalitions/keep everyone ‘happy’. It’s to be expected the more powerful party elects the prez, but does not mean the same always happens in Congress.
The companies could bear the risk instead of individuals. No solution is ideal, but the economy is meant to serve the people, not the people serve the economy. If more job security means slightly slower growth, that may be a tradeoff worth making in certain circumstances. And I don't think there's much difference between recognise and reward, if you mean giving someone a permanent job, or putting them closer to a promotion or pay rise. If the civil servants have no incentive then that needs changing, is there no chance of promotion if they do a good job?
Were the temps employed directly by your company previously?
isn’t everyone free to vote for whom they want ?
You said in the favelas the gangs would threaten people to make them vote for a certain candidate, and in the NE the oligarchs bribe the voters, but I guess they could decide to vote for someone else and lose the bribes.
@JB & DT
REF: if they are well intentioned, rein in the executive branch when needed, and support good projects, or fight against bad ones:
Yes, they ALL are Well-Intentioned as far as their Constantly-Fattening Overseas-Accounts are concerned.
Fight against bad ones? Who is out there to FIGHT; if it's not one football fan of one team against another?
REF: I guess they could decide to vote for someone else and lose the bribes: You mean to lose their very precious income? Please Think AGAIN!
The companies could bear the risk instead of individuals.........right, so the company takes all the risks, aggravated by the fact that companies here pay exhorbitant taxes (over 100% ) on the payroll....and when/if they go bust, everyone loses their job....
The economy is NOT meant to serve the people - the government is. The economy is the result of people looking after themselves 'n what they produce, it wasn't created to serve anyone, as it is not an end in itself. If someone participates actively in the economy, it's presumed they are productive, and taking care of themselves (and by that I don't mean politicians).
Being rewarded, or recognized, only has the same meaning when your recognition leads to rewards, such as a promotion. People can be rewarded for doing nothing, or not much, as is common in civil service here in Brazil.
If the civil servants have no incentive, then that needs changing, is there no chance of promotion if they do a good job?
then that needs changing....sounds idealistic, things you'd like to change when YOUNG, because later you realize it ISN'T going to change...not as long as the civil service has benefits the private sector doesn't (unfair), and civil servants can't be sacked - unless they commit some heinous crime.
Besides, when you look at most people who do have, or try to get jobs in the civil service - excluding in politics, for mostly obvious reasons - you realize they are not particularly motivated in the first place, looking mainly for job security and 'pensions equal to their salaries' (until recently, as now being reduced in a 30 year scaled transition).
My company paid the outsourcer, which was responsible for the temps. Today, my company would also be responsible.
People ARE free to vote...IF they have to subject themselves to threats etc, it's probably not much better, but not the same as not being able to. And being bribed to vote, is their option.
Note I said IF, IF, IF...
”companies here pay exhorbitant taxes (over 100% ) on the payroll
What? That can't be right. If companies often go bust in Brazil then I think that is why, and not inflexible labour laws. But why do you believe the workers should bear all the risks?
'The economy is not an end in itself'
I agree, but politicians and economists treat growing it as an end in itself, no? That is what I am objecting too, because other things can be more important.
People can be rewarded for doing nothing, or not much”
That's exactly the same problem as never rewarding people, because there is no incentive to work hard. And if it's impossible to sack people then they have no need to maintain even a minimum standard, so you're screwed. Why do you think it's impossible to change, did even Temer refuse to look at it?
RE your other replies, I'm sure I've posted in a few other places. Here, for example: http://en.mercopress.com/2018/08/31/india-announces-its-first-manned-space-mission-to-cost-us-1.4bn
The sum of it ALL:
The labor laws have nothing to do with payroll taxes, altho their negative effects - whichever or, if any - can aggravate the company's financial situation. But what makes you presume - erroneously - that I think the workers should bear ALL the risks ? The risks, one way or the other, should be, and are usually borne by all.
Me :'The economy is not an end in itself ; You : I agree, but politicians and economists treat growing it as an end in itself, no?”
Don't think so....the economy has a life of its own and is affected by the rules the politicians make and/or by decisions in government. You would think that the politicians would be earnestly interested in seeing the economy going well, wouldn't you ? but it's not the case here....their own belly buttons are more important, as we have seen, by Congress's refusal to approve essential reforms (to allow the economy to get back on track), by Lula's insistence to put his personal interests above the need to calm things down and allow investments, jobs, to come back....If the economy is doing well, the rest usually falls into place....in a country with a serious govt, well understood.
””People can be rewarded for doing nothing, or not much”...that's what happens here....as I said, those who join the civil service are looking mainly for security....and those, DO get rewarded, usually for doing nothing...they get promotions, bonuses etc, just for completing 'time' in the job...if they were ambitious, and looked for reward through deserved promotion, OK, but they are gteed rewards regardless. Govt and civil servants have always looked after each other, in detriment of the private sector.
Temer tried several things to reduce govt spending (to avoid cuts in investments) but was defeated at every attempt...try eliminating a Ministry, and a whole lot of useless jobs, and see the resulting chaos....you've no idea how absurd things can get here.
Tks, have posted under India's 1st manned space mission
And now; THIS:
what a biased article, full of BS....but I'm sure lots of idiots lap it up...
Why d'you think I meant the companies should bear all the risks? In reality there will always be risks for both, but sometimes it becomes too one sided.
But how the heck do the taxes work that they can be so ridiculously high?
You would think that the politicians would be earnestly interested in seeing the economy going well, wouldn't you ?
Yes, you would.
If the economy is doing well, the rest usually falls into place
To some extent. But there are other things the government needs to worry about, right? Some of which will take priority at times.
Promotion based on time served was one of those bad business practices I was referring to in India. Promotion on merit is the way to go, and there does need to be a way to get rid of people who aren't up to scratch.
Was Temer defeated in reducing government spending because the ministers wanted to protect their own departments? Or what?
Re the article, it's not completely accurate, but I think it has a point. Most of Brazil's problems pre-dated Lula and still haven't been solved.
Why d'you think I meant the companies should bear all the risks?
Because, after the exchange of a few posts, starting with yr remark (10th post abv) The companies could bear the risk instead of individuals, I said right, so the company takes all the risks, aggravated by the fact...., already 'implying' they could share them...to which you asked But why do you believe the workers should bear all the risks?... and to which I replied But what makes you presume - erroneously - that I think workers should bear ALL the risks ? The risks, one way or the other, should be, and are usually borne by all.
But it's not important, looks like we both think the risk should be shared.
IF sometimes it becomes too one-sided, is relative 'n can't always be helped....parting from the principle 1) no business owner, or shareholder, wants to see his business (or employees) go down the drain - after all it IS his capital that will pay the ultimate cost - and/or 2) the employee can always look for a job elsewhere (not to mention he has the faculty to leave the Co whenever 'he' chooses), you must agree that the bigger risk, relatively speaking, is the company's.
Taxes here are high in order to pay for : govt inefficiency, waste, privileges...and of course, good ole corruption. Just abt everything 'n anything is taxed....latest ex : 2 weeks ago the post office announced it would charge an extra R$ 15,00 on every individual international order, regardless of the fact that the freight /delvry costs - at both ends - is already prepaid....representing an extra cost of US$ 275 million/yr to the consumers.
In our civil service, promotion is seldom based on merit. It does not work as in the private sector.
Ministers trying to protect their depts' investments is one thing, the problem is govts - on all levels - have no interest to reduce 'their' cost, ie., high salaries, benefits, privileges etc.
Article:casts the facts with a definite leftist bias, or spin, to them.
Re risk, if it's a small company it's about equal, but for a large one the risks should average out. If you have 1000 employees, you know that a certain percentage of the them are going to leave each month, it's something you can plan for so it's not going to cause the same kind of problems as a worker unexpectedly losing their job. Besides, laws on notice benefit both, by giving the employee time to find another job if they are made redundant, and the employer time to recruit a replacement and get the employee to document any specialised knowledge or hand it over to colleagues.
”no business owner, or shareholder, wants to see his business (or employees) go down the drain
Both of those want to see higher profits, and saving on labour costs is a good way to do it. And normally they do want to see the company succeed, though there are those other type of investors who take over companies in order to loot everything of value, and it generally ends with the company filing for bankruptcy and everyone else getting screwed.
the employee can always look for a job elsewhere”
True, but not much use if they are all equally insecure. And as I mentioned, the employee has to give notice to the company too, so both benefit from that.
The new tax sounds very annoying. Everything here is taxed too, but at least we get something back from it. Schools, hospitals, police, fire service, etc. Roads, although they need serious attention. It must be much worse in Brazil where taxes are high and services still suck.
In other words, depending on the size of the company, and on who the employee is, risk may weigh more on one than the other. In a small company if a key employee leaves (for ex., a very good salesman...it may not be so easy to find a replacement, with the aggravation that he will probably go to the competition. In a big company, where responsibilities are more divided, replacements are easier and won't have the same effect. If a company goes bust that's the end for the biz owner, the employee gets paid off, receives unemployment insurance while he looks for another job...each case can be very different. I was very pleased to see my company do well...in the old days this meant a fat bonus at the end of the year....a reward for everyone due to their dedication.
OK, the employee may need to give notice, but if his mind is somewhere else, might as well get rid of him immy. Anyway, job satisfaction and the market will, to an extent, be a factor in the employee's dedication...or lack of it.
We just pay (taxes) through the nose and get very little, or nothing back ; in most cases, nothing. That is only one side of the problem, the other is these taxes/ fees are stipulated arbitrarily, with no guarantee they will solve the problem, as when government receives more money, it usually becomes more wasteful. Talking of roads, specifically highways still under Federal (or State) jurisdiction, they are usually is a deplorable state, full of big holes and very dangerous...not to mention the damage to vehicles, and consequent extra cost of maintenance. The famous transamazonica, that goes through parts of the Amazon rain forest, is just a mud trap, where at times not even a 4-wheel drive gets through.
The government is not only bad at administering public things, but at controlling the private sectors that have concessions. The Federal regulatory agencies, supposed to avoid abuse of big biz 'n defend consumers, are so onesided, would be better if they didn't exist.
Yeah, employees leaving is much more likely to be a big problem in a small company, where there is often only one person doing each job. And the company going bust is also much more likely to be a problem for a small business owner who depends on it, whereas the people running big companies usually know what is coming and have stripped as much of the assets as they can. It's not uncommon for bankrupt companies to fail to pay their employees their last month's wages, as well as stiffing suppliers etc (who sometimes then go bankrupt through no fault of their own).
In the companies I've worked for, the top management tells us constantly how great everything is and how well the company is doing, and then when it's time for bonuses, suddenly everything changes and we're not doing well enough, haven't met our targets etc. Easy for them to make the targets unreasonably high, and people get cynical after this has happened a couple of times. When someone left, the company always wanted to use the notice period for them to finish off or hand over things they were working on, and pass on whatever specialised knowledge they had to colleagues. When people are made redundant it's a bit different, they'll probably be resentful of the company and the company might prefer to just pay them their notice and send them home.
The government is not only bad at administering public things, but at controlling the private sectors that have concessions.
That's pretty depressing, seems you're screwed either way. What's wrong with the agencies?
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!