NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/national/04WAGE.html

Altering of Worker Time Cards Spurs Growing Number of Suits
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: April 4, 2004

As a former member of the Air Force military police, as a play-by-the-rules guy, Drew Pooters said he was stunned by what he found his manager doing in the Toys "R" Us store in Albuquerque.

Inside a cramped office, he said, his manager was sitting at a computer and altering workers' time records, secretly deleting hours to cut their paychecks and fatten his store's bottom line.

"I told him, `That's not exactly legal,' " said Mr. Pooters, who ran the store's electronics department. "Then he out-and-out threatened me not to talk about what I saw."

Mr. Pooters quit, landing a job in 2002 managing a Family Dollar store, one of 5,100 in that discount chain. Top managers there ordered him not to let employees' total hours exceed a certain amount each week, and one day, he said, his district manager told him to use a trick to cut payroll: delete some employee hours electronically.

"I told her, `I'm not going to get involved in this,' " Mr. Pooters recalled, saying that when he refused, the district manager erased the hours herself.

Experts on compensation say that the illegal doctoring of hourly employees' time records is far more prevalent than most Americans believe. The practice, commonly called shaving time, is easily done and hard to detect — a simple matter of computer keystrokes — and has spurred a growing number of lawsuits and settlements against a wide range of businesses.

Workers have sued Family Dollar and Pep Boys, the auto parts and repair chain, accusing managers of deleting hours. A jury found that Taco Bell managers in Oregon had routinely erased workers' time. More than a dozen former Wal-Mart employees said in interviews and depositions that managers had altered time records to shortchange employees. The Department of Labor recently reached two back-pay settlements with Kinko's photocopy centers, totaling $56,600, after finding that managers in Ithaca, N.Y., and Hyannis, Mass., had erased time for 13 employees.

"There are a lot of incentives for store managers to cut costs in illegal ways," said David Lewin, a professor of management who teaches a course on compensation at the University of California, Los Angeles. "You hope that would be contrary to company practices, but sometimes these practices become so ingrained that they become the dominant practice."
...

Now that's some real news. Not this junk they put on TV. I tell people how bad bosses are, but they insist that buying the capital is hard work.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Well, fortunately not all bosses are this way. These are generally cases where there are franchice or corporate incentives to meet certain targets to get extra bonuses or other compensation. Make his bonus dependant on your hours, and saddly wome will look after themself first.


But it is a non-issue in the prefessional world where employees are salaried rather than paid hourly.

But it is a non-issue in the prefessional world where employees are salaried rather than paid hourly.

It's also a non-issue because as soon as such behavior is discovered, it will be punished, as it should be. Some find it fun to paint the entire system as corrupt and evil, (EDIT: based only on the actions of a few and) despite the fact that the system provides the means for prosecuting fraud and abuse, as it also should.

The problem with salaried employees, however, is that they get screwed out of overtime and can be forced to work it without compensation. Wal-Mart is facing a massive class-action suit over this from their lower-tier store management, people who were forced to work 60-70 hours a week with no extra compensation.

But it is a non-issue in the prefessional world where employees are salaried rather than paid hourly.

It's also a non-issue because as soon as such behavior is discovered, it will be punished, as it should be. Some find it fun to paint the entire system as corrupt and evil, (EDIT: based only on the actions of a few and) despite the fact that the system provides the means for prosecuting fraud and abuse, as it also should.I wonder, could a case bemade for theft in that sort of situation? I think you're being a little naive when you suggest that punishment would necessarily come from higher-ups in the company--the higher-ups stand to gain as well, and although they would certainly not openly encourage the behavior, they might turn a blind eye to it or even let the manager off with a slap on the wrist.

Well, that depends on your boss too. Nor am I sure that I neccessarily qualify any Walmart employees as "professional"...

However in today's job market they do often have you over a barrel.

It is certainly one of the reasons I became self-employed. My boss may be a smart, good looking SOB.. but he is VERY understanding of my personal situation and is always happy to rearrange things as needed! lol

-Z-

for some reason, people seem to have the false image that all bosses are managers of huge companies when in reality, most bosses are small business owners...

Always at the end of the week take a Polaroid to your time card, know how much you make per hour and do the math. When next you get paid and there is a discrepancy in the pay talk to your boss. Start out to the point and ask about it. The times may be rounded. If you think that it's rounded too unfairly tell him that it’s unacceptable. You may get drawn into a long discussion, but you should try to keep it civil. If he ever threatens to fire, threaten with legal action. If you're a risk taker you can always blackmail him too for extra benefits.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

I think you're being a little naive when you suggest that punishment would necessarily come from higher-ups in the company

He didn't.

I wonder, could a case be made for theft in that sort of situation?


If the manager is altering the books to prevent compensation for labor given, then theft is exactly what is occuring.


I think you're being a little naive when you suggest that punishment would necessarily come from higher-ups in the company--the higher-ups stand to gain as well, and although they would certainly not openly encourage the behavior, they might turn a blind eye to it or even let the manager off with a slap on the wrist.

I don't think I suggested any such thing. If a corrupt business is stealing from its employees, then I would not expect said employees to seek justice there. I would expect said employees to contact their lawyers and other legal institutions to seek justice in court, arguing that their private property, their peaceful labor as rendered by their own bodies, was stolen and exploited unfairly.

I was simply attacking the notion that corruption is natural to a capitalist system of economics, considering that the capitalist system of economics naturally provides protection (the right of ownership of ones own body as private property and the right to trade labor [EDIT: rendered by said property] for compensation) intended to fight corruption and theft.

At least one of the companies you listed requires that a hard copy of the weekly payroll be printed and filed. That hard copy shows every manual punch made in the computer, and identifies the operator that was logged in to make those punches.

Several times a year, the store is audited for conformance. If every hard copy is not on file, the store is penalised. If hours are changed, the store must also have on file documentation showing the changes are legitiment and signed by the employee and a manager. If this documentation is not present,the store is penalised, the person making the changes is terminated and the employee is paid for the time. The only people who can make these changes are the management and the personnel manager. No one else has access.

In addition, everytime any employee logs into the computer system, they click an agreement not to allow anyone else to use the system under their log on. Violation is subject to disciplinary action for employees and termination for management.

The problem really is not companies in general, though I am sure there are some that are more problem than not. The problem is management who lack ethics, and many companies have very severe penalties in place to try to prevent those few from marring the reputation of the entire company.

I believe I was fortunate to work in a company that took such steps, and that would also back up and listen when I, both as an hourly employee and later as a salaried manager, refused to follow an unethical directive from a superior. Rather than using my refusals against me, those even higher up investigated and corrected the problems. My mouth never stood in the way of promotion and my concerns were never ignored.

In looking at the behavior of a few managers within large corporations, the fact that it is a few out of hundreds, sometimes thousands, ought to be considered. It is vital to look at how the company addresses the behavior. (Do they investigate all the way up the chain of command, or do they stop with the single individual, or do they ignore it?)

Saying that all bosses are bad is as bad as any other generalisation. And in your example article, the 'gentleman' reporting offenses at two seperate companies after the fact, rather than reporting and rectifying them immediately is no better than the individuals tampering with those records.

I hate my boss, I want his arrogant ass to die.

Capitalism still works. People in Communism wouldn't magically stop being assholes.

I wonder, could a case be made for theft in that sort of situation?


If the manager is altering the books to prevent compensation for labor given, then theft is exactly what is occuring.


I think you're being a little naive when you suggest that punishment would necessarily come from higher-ups in the company--the higher-ups stand to gain as well, and although they would certainly not openly encourage the behavior, they might turn a blind eye to it or even let the manager off with a slap on the wrist.

I don't think I suggested any such thing. If a corrupt business is stealing from its employees, then I would not expect said employees to seek justice there. I would expect said employees to contact their lawyers and other legal institutions to seek justice in court, arguing that their private property, their peaceful labor as rendered by their own bodies, was stolen and exploited unfairly.

I was simply attacking the notion that corruption is natural to a capitalist system of economics, considering that the capitalist system of economics naturally provides protection (the right of ownership of ones own body as private property and the right to trade labor [EDIT: rendered by said property] for compensation) intended to fight corruption and theft.My apologies. I was basing my comment on this statement: "It's also a non-issue because as soon as such behavior is discovered, it will be punished, as it should be." You didn't state who would do the punishing when said action was discovered, and I assumed--incorrectly apparently--that you were talking about higher-ups in a company, since getting law enforcement involved in such a situation would be difficult. Sorry about that.

Business ownership is based on robbery. The workers are denied the full product of their labor.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Business ownership is based on robbery. The workers are denied the full product of their labor.Nothing personal Letila, but that statement is almost as false as the lie that taxation is theft.

Business ownership is based on robbery. The workers are denied the full product of their labor.


Whereas in an "anarcho"-communist society, workers are expected to work for no compensation at all, save for the warm fuzzy feeling it might provide. Who is robbing who again? :wink:

Both taxation and capitalism are equivalent to armed robbery. Taxation is armed robbery. If you don't pay your taxes, the government uses force against you.

As for MC, money isn't compensation to me. I want the respect of others in a free society, not pieces of paper that isolate me from the recipients of my products.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I want the respect of others in a free society, not pieces of paper that isolate me from the recipients of my products.

By what right do you aim to force that desire on others, though?

Both taxation and capitalism are equivalent to armed robbery. Taxation is armed robbery. If you don't pay your taxes, the government uses force against you.
Taxes are more like paying for rent, utilities, and other services. If you don't pay your rent they send you to one of their lovely communal apartment complexes that other people pay for because you didn't want to pay.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

To G Bugles: It isn't being forced on you. You could always try to remake capitalism.

To MK Zygo: What a nice way to whitewash things. You are being charged for living and threatened with force. You can't whitewash that.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

...

I like making money and buying things...along with the other 95% or the population

Nice how you've been indoctrinated with this desire.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

It's nice how you've been indoctrinated with yours.

I chose mine through thought. You were given yours by watching too much TV.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

If I didn't like it I wouldn't. I'm not the type of person that does shit he doesn't like.

Are you telling me you don't like Playstation and Nintendo and watching football games on a big screen TV?

Not all bosses are this horrible. Mine's fantastic.

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

To MK Zygo: What a nice way to whitewash things. You are being charged for living and threatened with force. You can't whitewash that.
As I said, the government takes taxes to perform services. One of those just happens to be protection. You give that up and you will be forced to protect yourself.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Protection? From what? Mythical terrorists under every rock?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I chose mine through thought. You were given yours by watching too much TV.


you really like to tell people that they have been brainwashed, just because they don't think the way you do. some people have reached other conclusions that yours through careful thought and personal experience, and not everyone who rejects socialism is a TV-addicted dupe of the media. grow up, and quit expecting everyone to think like you in order to prove they haven't been brainwashed.

Protection? From what? Mythical terrorists under every rock?
You’re only looking at present threats. You can’t just get rid of the government and hierarchies. If the government went away then smaller militaries would spring up and vie for control. Conquest is a sign of strength for an organization and most people want to be led by a strong organization. Despite what your ideal preaches there would be more warlords and piracy because not everybody is going to share in your ideal.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

But it is a non-issue in the prefessional world where employees are salaried rather than paid hourly.

It's also a non-issue because as soon as such behavior is discovered, it will be punished, as it should be. Some find it fun to paint the entire system as corrupt and evil, (EDIT: based only on the actions of a few and) despite the fact that the system provides the means for prosecuting fraud and abuse, as it also should.This is but a small example of such 'abuses' and the penelties are generally not enough of an incentive to change company policy. The fines paid by slaughterhouses for workers killed on the job due to a lack of safty precautions for example are miniscule.

Simple problem, simple answer: Make the fine for each incidence bigger than the salary the employee lost.

You can’t just get rid of the government and hierarchies. If the government went away then smaller militaries would spring up and vie for control.

Exactly. Which leads me to my first theorem of human government:

In absence of hierarchy, hierarchy will arise.

If you ever want to see another really bad boss go to the comic archive at dilbert.com (would set up a link but I don't know how), the comic for 4/3/04 is funny.

You can’t just get rid of the government and hierarchies. If the government went away then smaller militaries would spring up and vie for control.

Exactly. Which leads me to my first theorem of human government:

In absence of hierarchy, hierarchy will arise.

which is flatly contradictaed by the empirical evidence of anthropology.

which is flatly contradictaed by the empirical evidence of anthropology.
I would like to see something to back your claim.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

which is flatly contradictaed by the empirical evidence of anthropology.
I would like to see something to back your claim.

well, you can look in any basic anthropology text in the chapter on political organization. or you could look at murdock's "ethnographic atlas", which shows the existence of numerous societies that can only be described as egalitarian from all over the world. examples include the !kung and the inuit. christopher boehm argues in "hierarchy in the forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior" that egalitariansim is best described as a sort of reverse or anti-hierarchy. but the point still stands that egalitarianism is widespread and fairly common.

The "power vacuum" argument. Good countering, Free Soviets.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

No, you made the claim, you have to present the evidence, not say "go read about it".

Not to mention that every society has always established some form of leadership or "Alpha Male". This is how heirarchies begin. While they are not the giant sprawling beuacracies we have now, there are deffinatly people who make desiscions about what others do.

You can’t just get rid of the government and hierarchies. If the government went away then smaller militaries would spring up and vie for control.

Exactly. Which leads me to my first theorem of human government:

In absence of hierarchy, hierarchy will arise.

which is flatly contradictaed by the empirical evidence of anthropology.

Really? How the hell do you think it came about in the first place, then?

Basically, the invention of farming gave certain people the opportunity to take power by getting food without producing any. Presumably, this sort of thing had never been seen before, so they were taken by surprise and unable to fight back.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Basically, the invention of farming gave certain people the opportunity to take power by getting food without producing any. Presumably, this sort of thing had never been seen before, so they were taken by surprise and unable to fight back.

though in some other places a similar thing seems to have happened even without farming - for example, the northwest coast native americans developed some very hierarchical societies based around fishing.

the essential issue is probably that the taboos on wealth and power accumulation in a few societies lost strength for some reason. along with that the other social structures that upheld egalitarianism were greatly weakened or lost. add increased population density through agriculture those new hierarchical societies were eventually able to dominate most of the egalitarian societies around them through sheer force of numbers.

In the Tlingit tribe of the NW one gained status by throwing the most stuff away. At first maybe it was giving but later they just trashed as much expensive property as they could.

What a great model for America. We already do that with things like prom limousines- what a waste! "Conspicuous destruction."

No, you made the claim, you have to present the evidence, not say "go read about it".

Not to mention that every society has always established some form of leadership or "Alpha Male". This is how heirarchies begin. While they are not the giant sprawling beuacracies we have now, there are deffinatly people who make desiscions about what others do.

what, do you want quotes?

from 'anthropology; 6th ed.' by carol ember and melvin ember, p 389

political decision making within the band is generally informal. the
modest informal authority that does exist can be seen in the way
decisions affecting the group are made. since the formal, permanent
office of leader generally does not exist, decisions such as when has to
be moved or a hunt is to be arranged are either agreed upon by the
community as a whole or made by the best qualified member. leadership,
when it is exercised by an individual, is not the consequence of bossing
or throwing one's weight about. each band may have its informal
headman, or its most proficient hunter, or a person most accomplished in
rituals... such a person or persons will have gained status through the
community's recognition of skill, good sense, and humility. leadership,
in other words, stems not from power but from influence, not from office
but from admired personal qualities.


from an article called "Impact of the Human Egalitarian Syndrome on Darwinian Selection Mechanics" in the july 1997 issue of The American Naturalist

...Egalitarianism does not just happen; it is made to happen (Lee 1979; Boehm 1982a, 1993; Woodburn 1982). All nomadic foragers are egalitarian, a pattern that makes the adult males, and sometimes also the females, into equals as household heads. They are politically egalitarian to the degree that named leadership roles are lacking or devoid of authority, status differences among politically autonomous household heads are muted, and individuals who try to influence group decisions must do so very circumspectly. The guidance mechanism for this deliberate behavior is an egalitarian ethos (Cashdan 1980) that involves a set of indigenous attitudes that make for strong valuation of personal autonomy of adults (Gardner 1991). These values help generate group hostility toward any individual who even attempts to assume a serious role of authority in the band, let alone baldly tries to coerce other adults. Alpha-male types are not allowed to flourish, even though the tendency to engage in status rivalry and seek dominance persists and can still be expressed within carefully circumscribed limits (see Fried 1967).

In effect, there is a vigilant sharing of power by an entire band (Boehm 1994b) that makes its decisions by consensus, just as there is vigilant sharing of large-game meat (Erdal and Whiten 1994). Political bullies and overly aggressive or highly successful individuals, who might wish to monopolize resources such as meat or women, are subject to sanctions that include not only gossip but direct criticism, ridicule, ostracism, exile, and execution (Boehm 1993). This means that reproductive advantages associated with high rank in other hierarchical species (see Ellis 1995) are reduced. Underlying this suppression of competition and domination are counterdominant attitudes (Erdal and Whiten 1994) that spring from a natural aversion to being subordinated (Boehm 1984, 1997; Knauft 1994b), and in effect they turn the usual primate dominance pyramid upside down: the group, acting decisively as a subordinate coalition, decisively dominates its alpha-male types instead of vice versa (Boehm 1993; but see also Boehm 1994b, 1997; Erdal and Whiten 1994, 1996; Knauft 1994b).

Most self-aggrandizing or dominant behavior is nipped in the bud, but occasionally a shaman, who uses power selfishly rather than altruistically as is socially expected, may intimidate group members to the degree that he becomes a despot. He then begins to monopolize food or women (Balikci 1970). If magical antidotes do not seem to be working, eventually there will be a conspiracy to eliminate him by means of physical execution (Boehm 1993). Less feared would-be dominators can be coped with through ostracism or exile, which also impose reproductive costs. Very often, ambitious or aggressive individuals (including group leaders) decide not to take such risks, even though their deviant domineering propensities may be apparent to everyone (e.g., Briggs 1970). In effect, the group intimidates its stronger, more gifted, or more assertive members to keep them in line, but at the same time it uses them, in strictly limited ways, for purposes of leadership or meat procurement.

Everywhere nomadic foragers arrive at very similar general covenants about how people should behave: they favor political autonomy, sharing, cooperation, and being helpful to others (Knauft 1991). We also know that morality always has to work against certain aspects of human nature that make for selfishness, nepotism, and aggressiveness (see Campbell 1972, 1975). On this basis, the degree of sharing and cooperation we see in forager groups results not only from innate tendencies but from awareness of rewards that cooperation can bring and from fear of censure or worse if one behaves deviantly. Certain forms of nonaltruism, such as trying to control other household heads or failing to share meat, are deemed to be very seriously deviant....

When foragers suppress differences among individuals, they understand exactly what they are doing in terms of evening out disparities in authority, status, or material resources, and such leveling has profound effects on the expression of social hierarchy. This is true not only with simpler foragers as defined by Woodburn (1982) and Knauft (1991) but also with complex foragers (Price and Brown 1985) and a wide variety of postdomestication populations living in small tribal communities (Service 1975) and also certain modern utopian groups (Wilson and Sober 1994). All may be considered intentional communities that are ideologically committed to substantial equalization of power and material benefits (Boehm 1993)...

and there's plenty more where that came from. the point is that in many human societies there were not people who made decisions for others and those that tried were not treated kindly.

They weren't given names or formal positions. It stil lhappened. You articles even said this.

They didn't have a formal method because they were small and didn't need a large beaurocratic method.

All you've done is proven that there were leaders and people who helped make the desiscions for the good of the group. Even if it was a position that was loved, it was still used.

They weren't given names or formal positions. It stil lhappened. You articles even said this.

They didn't have a formal method because they were small and didn't need a large beaurocratic method.

All you've done is proven that there were leaders and people who helped make the desiscions for the good of the group. Even if it was a position that was loved, it was still used.

Free Soviets, you were unable too refute the counter arguments the last time you were arguing this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125840&start=80) (and in essence claimed ignorance).
While there may have been a small number of soicieties which repressed dominance heirarchies, even the papers you posted admit they were not able to do so completely. Furthermore, those are a small minority of cases, which are probably quite recent. The vast majority of all societies have had quite clear dominance heirarchies.
Also note that dominance heirarchies are observed in most (if not all) social animals, particularly the other apes.

Free Soviets, you were unable too refute the counter arguments the last time you were arguing this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125840&start=80) (and in essence claimed ignorance).
While there may have been a small number of soicieties which repressed dominance heirarchies, even the papers you posted admit they were not able to do so completely. Furthermore, those are a small minority of cases, which are probably quite recent. The vast majority of all societies have had quite clear dominance heirarchies.
Also note that dominance heirarchies are observed in most (if not all) social animals, particularly the other apes.

actually, i claimed anthro minor and appealed to the authority of boehm and lee and woodburn and others (because an anthro minor doesn't stand much chance on his own against an archaeology grad student) and asked for cites on the claim that egalitarianism is recent, not widespread, and the result of previous domination. i still would like to see some, especially from lee because the most recent stuff of his i've seen (for example, his articles in the cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers) looks much the same as his old stuff does. its not exactly easy to argue against an unsourced claim other than by citing sources - which i had already done.

and about the dominance hierarchies in apes, this is clearly where we get our tendancy to form them, but it also shows the seeds of our ability to form what boehm calls reverse hierarchies. the coalition building of chimps and bonobos, for example, was essentially modified in at least some human societies as a way to keep the hierarchy flat.

They weren't given names or formal positions. It stil lhappened. You articles even said this.

They didn't have a formal method because they were small and didn't need a large beaurocratic method.

All you've done is proven that there were leaders and people who helped make the desiscions for the good of the group. Even if it was a position that was loved, it was still used.

leaders with no power and who will be turned against the instant they try to make decisions for people are different from leaders who rule over others.

While there may have been a small number of soicieties which repressed dominance heirarchies, even the papers you posted admit they were not able to do so completely.

i have to wonder then how it is possible that murdock's 'ethnographic atlas' contains, in the words of lee, "literally hundreds of non-state societies..." that fit the basic egalitarian pattern of 'primitive communism'. (reflections on primitive communism, richard b. lee. in hunters and gatherers, vol. 2: history, evolution, and social change)

I think some people have a different definition of a boss than others. For instance, some people think only the owner of a business is the boss, whereas some people feel that anyone who has authority over anyone else is a boss. Under the first definition, certainly there would be more bosses who are small business owners than bosses who are corporate owners. However, under the second definition, more bosses would work for corporations, due to the huge amounts of middle management.

My apologies, Free. I mistook what you said as a claim of ignorance. I will relay the request for the citations.