Workers who leave the head office to buy a cup of coffee are costing an Australian mining firm too much money, according to its boss.
Managing director of Mineral Resources Chris Ellison said during a financial results presentation on Wednesday he wants to “hold staff captive all day long”.
“I don’t want them leaving the building,” he said.
The head office in Perth has a restaurant, nine staff psychologists, a gym, and other facilities designed to encourage staff to stay in the office. “We have a lot of different benefits that we have brought on,” said Mr Ellison, whose company has a strict “no work from home policy”. "Why have I done that? Because when I get them first thing in the morning, I want to hold them captive all day long. I don’t want them leaving the building.
As the one calling the shots, he’s entitled to run the business that way.
As employees in a free society, his people are free to leave if they don’t like it.
If he turns out to be wrong and the arse falls out of the company as a result, the board will hold him accountable.
No one is forced to do anything here. Everyone is able to make decisions that change their outcomes.
deleted by creator
And the free market clapped and gave everyone $20.
However as a common carrier they should be bound by rules like other providers of public infrastructure. To say that if people don’t like it they can leave trivialises the situation. People are being subjected to private propaganda and private censorship on a platform that masquerades as a bastion of free speech. Doesn’t matter if it’s Twitter or Facebook or Instagram , they are purveyors of other people’s ideas. If they manipulate or distort or censor then they should be sorted out.
Legally, sure. But I don’t care whether someone is legally allowed to be abusive, it’s still abuse, and their abusive attitude towards workers earns outrage.
And sure, employees can probably leave legally, but if we allow this abuse to be normalized then there won’t be another place to go in the industry. There is economic asymmetry at play, it’s not viable to just leave a job whenever it treats someone badly. There are only so many jobs available and the market is increasingly moving towards monopolization in many industries.
People don’t just work in shit jobs because they haven’t considered leaving. They have legal freedom, but they are not empowered to leave without ending up somewhere just as bad or risking unemployment. So even if no-one is forced, they’re inherently pressured, and that pressure is enough for them to accept abuse in order to keep themselves and their families off the dole. We need to create a society with an economy where people aren’t subject to the whims of their employers.
lol - what abuse? He said these things in an earnings presentation, probably to board and investors.
All I’m saying is that the headline itself smacks of outrage reporting, and there’s no more substance in the article itself to add context to what he said, and how. So, I choose to engage a little critical thinking and consider that he might have been responding to a investor question along the lines of, “This is a mining company - why the fuck are you spending money on a restaurant and childcare centre?”.
And I don’t see any evidence anywhere that his people are enduring shit jobs. Their building has a restaurant, a gym and a childcare centre. Putting aside his choice of words, it sounds like he’s investing heavily in trying to alleviate employee pain points, so he gets the best out of them. I’m not seeing anything anywhere where he’s forcing people to work long hours, or for shit pay, or under any number of other shitty circumstances.
Like I said: outrage reporting.
Attempting to (softly) control other peoples’ basic freedom, and their social life while at work, restricting them and alienating them from anything outside the office. The problem isn’t their choice of words, nor that they admitted it to investors.
Maybe the way I’m saying this sounds melodramatic, that I’m jumping to the extreme case and assuming the worst. But those worst cases happen regularly, and these are the warning signs - when the owners want increasing control over workers to extract more profit, to “get the best out of them”. Those employee pain points are social life: the company wants a childcare centre, a restaurant and a gym because “I don’t want them leaving the building.”, “I don’t want them walking down the road for a cup of coffee. We kind of figured out a few years ago how much that costs.” They could have lied and said they did it to improve worker wellbeing and get the best out of them, to reduce the travel-time needed, or any other seemingly innocent reason.
This attitude makes the universal truth clear, a board and investors see their workers as a resource for extracting maximum profit. It has to be that way, that’s how they compete and survive. And it alienates workers.
I didn’t say they were. I don’t know their conditions. I’m refuting the common attitude that workers are just free to leave when they’re being abused.
You have a point. They said the quiet part aloud because their audience didn’t need the propaganda bullshit they would have told other people. And so, they admitted an outrageous truth which, well, is pretty normal among businesses. The journalist is taking a quote and shining the headlights on them. But, they are not inventing a fake problem. There’s no ethical justification for saying they don’t want people leaving the building to enjoy a walk and a coffee on their break. Employer exploitation of workers is a real issue in society at large, it deserves attention, and this outrage is an opportunity to give it the attention it deserves.