UNIV 3539 Blog

While I understand that Ford was simply trying to make-up for his miserable workers who were slaving for him in a very unsatisfying job, I think the may have went a bit too far with this method. He felt that to find good workers he could lure them in with a promise of outstanding wages, thereby having one solid, reliable worker for slightly more than the waste of ten unreliable workers. He thought that good workers began at home. However, having one of his departments go to be practically voyeurs in someone's home is entirely unacceptable. A risk always exists when management hires a new worker, and going as far as sending people to check up on the potential worker's family life is an extreme way to make sure management isn't wasting their time or money. Also, I think that a separation should always exist between home and work. I do not bring my home-life to work, and I do not bring my work-life home unless it is to plan a budget with my paycheck. While the people may meet with Ford's approval to be deemed a "good worker" based on home life, which does not mean that they can do their job properly. Being in a management position for a short time myself, I have learned that just because someone seems nice and is pleasant to work with does not at all mean they are a good, efficient worker. Home and work are always separated and for good reason. They are two independent variables where one has to change demeanor and actions between each world. Ford's idea was not only ludicrous but completely too intrusive.

Fords concern with his works is legitimate and understandable. If he was going to start shelling out more money for workers he wanted to make sure that he was getting a return on his investment. Though his actions are good in intention and easy to read, they are not fair to workers. Employers should not have any say or interaction with their employees personal lives. it does not really happen to much today because people simply do not like it. Fords efforts to convert his workers to the traditional "American" life style was full of good intentions. He wanted workers who would not only give him a return on his investment, but would also show up for work, work hard and commit themselves to the company. this is not any different from what companies want today, they are just less evasive about their methods. Ultimately it is wrong for the employer to dictate the lives of its workers but it has happened, and still happens some today. some jobs today don t hire smokers based simply on the fact that they smoke. there are many ways employers dictate what their employees act like and live like. Fords actions were wrong but no more wrong than any other companies.

Fords approach had some positive as well as negative points. His attempt to insure his employees learned English was a good point. In order for these immigrants to be able to funtion effectively and efficiently they needed to be able to speak and understand English. The presence of a language barrier could have slowed down production and caused unnecessary delays and errors. His idea of his employees putting a few dollars aside weekly to purchase a car was another one of his good ideas. However his other tactics were much too intrusive. Although health and lifestyle may contribute to one's job performance there are other factors to consider. For instance, the working conditions should have been scrutinized just as the home conditions were. Terrible working conditions can cause a healthy individual to fail to produce at work. Some people believe in playing hard on the weekend. But by the time Monday rolls around they are equally if not better prepared than those who sat at home all weekend. They have cleared their minds, released some stress and frustration about their jobs, and now they are ready to go to work.

I don't think employers should have any say over their employers private lives. Henry Ford's efforts to ensure his workers learned English, didn't drink or gamble and lived in singl-family homes was too invasive. Unless the behavior inhibited the workers ability to perform their job, it shouldn't matter whether or not the employee drinks or gambles. Learning English should not be a requirement as well as that is not a necessity when building cars. Henry Ford should not have to invade people's lives ino order to find good workers. He should have been able to use the interview and resume process in order to find the workers he needs.

Employers should have say over their workers? private lives only if it affects their job performance. Ford wanted to make sure that his employees? personal lifestyle would not interfere with his company?s production. It could very well have caused a domino affect. Ford realized that if there was peace in the home then his company would run smoothly. Many times people have a tendency to bring their problems to work, Ford was trying to prevent this from happening.

Henry Ford?s efforts to insure his worker?s learned English, lived in single family homes, didn?t drink or gamble and the workers adopting American values was definitely intrusive. This violated the workers privacy and their freedom.

Of course Henry Ford was overstepping his authority! I would even make the argument that he was probably wasting valuable time and money on the Sociological Department of his company. I can't imagine how a worker or his family would tolerate the intrusiveness of the company. Sadly, many had to tolerate it because they so desperately needed the money. The only aspect of Ford's ideology that I understand is his desire to teach English to immigrant workers. That is something that was probably necessary for the workplace. Also, I think Ford was probably doing those workers a favor by educating them. Without them being able to learn in the workplace, an immigrant may have great difficulty in seeking that education elsewhere. There was much wrong about Ford's philosophy, but there was at least some good in the midst of it all.

Amy Cox (Wiley)
On the Line- Blog

When the private lives of the worker interferes with job performance and company?s reputation, and then I believe it is the employers concern. For example, I work in healthcare if we had caregivers in the newspaper for drug abuse, they could not continue to work at the facility. Family members don?t want loved ones cared for by drug abusers. I don?t see why such screening when your just building of vehicle. I would think if the work was so hard the alcoholics would not be able to keep the pace on the line. I believe job performance should be the main way to determine employee worth. Sociological Department did share information which would make the employees ?better people? by educating them about the American way but it did seem to cross the line. Due to this training and incentives the employees were able to purchase vehicles sooner than most Americans.

I don't feel as though employers should have a say about their employees private lives. I am in this same situation today. I don't feel as though what goes on outside work have anything to do with work. There are certain stipulations that my job have that we are made to abide by. Once you leave your work premises I think you are entitled to do whatever you please as long as it doesn't violate laws already set. Ford's concern about his employees' personal lives was just going overboard. This was too intrusive. It's as though he is imposing his morals on everyone else, and saying like it or else. I understand that he wanted dependable workers, but I think he was using his money to control.

I think that for any employer to try to control what their employees do outside of work is just a little to much. If a person's work is not affected it should not matter what a person does outside of the work place. Even today I think that sometimes employers try to place restrictions on their workers, but not nearly as plainly stated as Henry Ford did at his plant.

Employers should not have say over their workers' private lives unless it is affecting their job performance. The methods of Henry Ford do seem a little too intrusive, but it was a different time then. The U.S. was in the midst of the Great Depression, and jobs were hard to come by. Because of this, a lot was expected of the workers. It is even worse because the workers did not have any rights (as in a labor union) or any organization to stand up for them. The values of the time were also different, and that is probably why something like this type of intrusion was not questioned.

I don?t feel that it is appropriate for an employer to have say so over their worker?s personal lives. In some cases , if it affects the person job performance or the companies reputation, it may be necessary. But by all means , Ford?s approach was very intrusive. He should have put more efforts into improving the work environment and investigating those issues instead of going into people?s homes.