Right, but the reviews take place toward end of year or in January, and it doesn't make sense to go through that process and include employees you're about to fire in the bonus pool.
Figure out how to argue for more headcount, by expanding the scope of the team or by asking reports to narrow the breadth of their work to create headcount gaps.
Plenty of people only have a SSN card and a birth certificate, as they neither drive (perhaps due to age or preference) or travel by plane (often for financial reasons or preference).
As I said in my other reply, their lack of governmental identification is by choice. Should they choose to not obtain them even if they have the opportunity, then that is their problem.
I doubt I'm going to change your mind on this, but I think you are under-estimating the difficulty of getting ID in certain parts of the country, for certain people. For example, people living on reservations often have difficulty getting ID because the DMV/other agencies are hundreds of miles away, many lack transportation, many lack the necessary documentation required to get the IDs, some states have put legal hurdles in the way (many homes on reservations don't have legal addresses, for example).
No doubt there are some specific people who will have difficulties obtaining identification for no justifiable reason. Such barriers to access should be rectified.
However, we are speaking in general rather than specific contrived what-ifs. The vast majority of people have the opportunity to obtain multiple forms of governmental identification that are accessible and affordable.
Such barriers should be rectified before making ID mandatory. If the response to that is "well then we'll never be able to implement this!" then one should have a period of deep reflection on why that is and its implications.
When it comes to creating systems whose consequences infringe on rights things like "the vast majority" aren't valid escape hatches. This is doubly true when the folks making the rules have political motivation for disenfranchising the very same group who doesn't have IDs in this case. In fact, when such discrepancies are pointed out and then are instituted anyways, such biases functionally become the point of the institution and increases culpability rather than decreases it.
> No doubt there are some specific people who will have difficulties obtaining identification for no justifiable reason. Such barriers to access should be rectified.
They should be, yet somehow that is never part of the plan in bills that require these IDs. And isn't it curious that the areas where these difficulties are found are almost always correlated with minority demographics? Weird.
What about people with disabilities who wouldn’t be able to get a license, and can’t afford / don’t have a way to travel to get ID at the DMV or whatever? Also, do you think Facebook should have more requirements to access than going to a grocery store or taking a bus or any other infrastructure activity you might do? Almost nothing requires double photo IDs, this requirement is ludicrous regardless of if you happen to be privileged enough to have good health and money and time to have multiple photo IDs and it’s not an issue for you personally.
IDs issued by the state are generally free or very close to free as far as I'm aware. State-issued IDs usually have no requirements for issuance other than having residency in that state.
>Almost nothing requires double photo IDs
From experience, anything that is very and truly important has always demanded I produce multiple forms of identification. Usually 2 or more.
$130 is not "too expensive", especially when it's a one-time expense every 10 years. What level of destitute do you have to be for that to be expensive?
As for illegal aliens, they are illegal. They shouldn't be getting IDs issued by the government in the first place, be it state or federal, and should be deported as they are found.
>In a small company, a real conversation is possible.
Why do you think employees have enough leverage across most SMBs to the extent that workers shouldn't organize?
Even SMB owners and managers organize adversarially against their workers (eg by setting compensation and benefits per VC or consultant provided guidance on labor market, by hiring HR specialists to coordinate with managers on keeping wages as low as the market will bear). Why should workers not in turn organize in those cases?
A real conversation is generally not possible anywhere. Your boss has enormous power over you and the reality is that even if you are somehow special, they won't see you that way. It sounds hopeless, but if you approach your boss in this manner (he couldn't care less whether or not you do actually get hit by a bus) the negotiation is easier to do.
In my experience, I have seen more power imbalance at small/medium sized businesses. Whereas larger companies you tend to get lost in the bureaucracy and have the ability to switch teams/orgs and get out of bad situations. HR is usually more helpful with this too.
