Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go out and start and operate a business for awhile and then come back and see how much of your own nonsense you really believe. An employee has no "right" to sharing anything, if profit sharing is something that an employer offers as a benefit then so be it, other wise an eployee is entitled to an honest days wages for an honest days work.
The workers make the business a success or a failure imo.
Meanwhile the Ceo is probably making millions but somehow that never makes it in the news and I wonder why.
When there was talk of trying to limit CEO's salary all I kept hearing from the right was "free market".
So according to some people on here its perfectly ok to pay 300 million to a CEO but the little guy can eat crumbs.
I wonder how many of these posters live in the south and other low cost areas. That is not a lot of money in NYC.
The workers make the business a success or a failure imo.
The workers aren't the ones risking their own livelihoods and life savings on a venture. It's this sense of entitlement to more than you get because "you helped" that really grates on me. You were hired to do a job. You agreed to a certain wage. That's all you're entitled to per the contract. Yet so many of you think you should be entitled to a cut of the profits on top of it because you "deigned" to help by taking the job.
Odd, though...I don't see any union members offering to help chip in to cover a company's losses when the company starts losing money.
I still dont understand what is so wrong about a stagehand making that kind of money? Maybe we all should join unions so we can command that salary instead of trying to make his lower.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that I keep hearing "everyone should start a business. What no one mentions is that its nearly impossible for everyone to have a business and the fact about 50% of businesses fail in their first year.
OK, let's make an analogy: Grocery clerks.
A grocery chain unionizes (and yes, they do exist). The cashiers make 15 dollars an hour, the stockers make 12 dollars an hour, and the cleaning crew makes 10 dollars an hour.
Suddenly, they demand that the cashiers should make 25 dollars an hour, the stocks should make 20 dollars an hour, and the cleaning crew should make 16 dollars an hour. You can't just fire them all and replace them with people who will do the work for 15/12/10 because there's a union contract and all sorts of regulations. You have no choice but to raise the salaries for EVERYONE, whether they deserve it or not. You can't even lay people off to compensate for the added expense of labor costs because the bargaining agreement says you can't.
So what do you have to do? You have to raise prices on everything in the store. Which makes it cost more for all the customers. Who can't afford the cost increases. Who then go to your competitor, causing you to lose even more money. See where this is going?
Now, for the reality check: Supply and demand. There are a LOT more people who can do stagehand work than who can run a multi-billion dollar company (and spare me the rhetoric about a banker running the bank into the ground, it's anecdotal and specious). The free market dictates that whoever owns the theatre should be able to hire whoever is qualified that is willing to do the work for the lowest price. Think of it like gas stations across the street from one another. THey are free to get into price wars. Union rules, however, handcuff the owners and force them to negotiate with people holding their business hostage for ever-increasing cuts of the profits with no ability to simply replace them with workers who will do the job for the old rates, even if such workers exist. It's wrong. Meanwhile, there are a lot fewer people who can run the company, and a lot of companies who need talent like that, so they can negotiate prices UP because it's higher demand than supply.
The workers aren't the ones risking their own livelihoods and life savings on a venture. It's this sense of entitlement to more than you get because "you helped" that really grates on me. You were hired to do a job. You agreed to a certain wage. That's all you're entitled to per the contract. Yet so many of you think you should be entitled to a cut of the profits on top of it because you "deigned" to help by taking the job.
Odd, though...I don't see any union members offering to help chip in to cover a company's losses when the company starts losing money.
The workers do make the business a success or failure. If I was your employee and I came to work on time,did extra hours without being paid,and turned down a raise because it woild have resulted in a loss for your company,how am I not helping to make profits for your company?
What if you had high turnover rates? Are you saying that won't affect the companies' profits,gains and losses?
The companies with better paid employees perform better,look at Google with its low turnover rates.
The workers do make the business a success or failure. If I was your employee and I came to work on time,did extra hours without being paid,and turned down a raise because it woild have resulted in a loss for your company,how am I not helping to make profits for your company?
What if you had high turnover rates? Are you saying that won't affect the companies' profits,gains and losses?
The companies with better paid employees perform better,look at Google with its low turnover rates.
But if you're in a union, you DON'T come in and do extra hours without being paid, you don't turn down a raise, etc. The company can't even ASK you to do these things, because the union would get up in arms and demand that you be limited to X hours of work per week and that you are entitled to a raise of X% regardless of your performance or the company's health.
BTW, the companies with the highest paid workers? Are typically companies that aren't unionized.
Ever hear of the saying "you get what you pay for?" If I were your best and brightest employee,and
If I knew the guy across the street was getting paid more for the exact same job, I would try to get hired over there.(I'm using the supermarket analogy you have above)
You would lose my skills and services. Also you would have to worry about employee morale.
The power of unions: Average stagehand at Lincoln Center in NYC makes $290K a year | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/power-unions-average-stagehand-lincoln-center-nyc-makes-290k-year - broken link)
I don't even know what to say.. Really, I am totally lost for words.. Someone help me out on this one.
Well, look at it this way, that makes them Obama's "rich" and any minute now I expect other Dem union groups to go to their homes and protest just like they did with the AIG executives.
Meanwhile the Ceo is probably making millions but somehow that never makes it in the news and I wonder why.
When there was talk of trying to limit CEO's salary all I kept hearing from the right was "free market".
So according to some people on here its perfectly ok to pay 300 million to a CEO but the little guy can eat crumbs.
I wonder how many of these posters live in the south and other low cost areas. That is not a lot of money in NYC.
I live in San Francisco, which is even more expensive than NYC (depending on where you draw city/county lines), and have no problem with CEOs making whatever they do... especially since my father was a CEO, hehe. And no, he made nowhere near 300 million!! In fact, he took a pretty large pay-cut from his Senior VP position with another corporation, in order to accept that CEO position. Besides, who on earth makes that kind of money, aside from the 4-5 CEOs of our very largest corporations? I don't know if my father used union workers for anything, so it might not be relevant to the discussion - just wanted to say that where you live has little bearing on what you believe, in terms of who deserves to earn what.
I do generally support unions, mostly because I was a union worker myself, as mentioned earlier. But at the same time, I don't begrudge anyone in a high-earning position. That's just petty and resentful, IMO, and ignoring how hard they worked to get there. My overall opinion on wages lean more towards government regulations, i.e. raising the minimum wage according to COL, and fairly enforcing labor laws... honestly, I'd like to see us in a place where we don't NEED unions at all. I'll admit a lack of in-depth knowledge on the whole situation, though, so my thoughts could change with further study.
Last edited by gizmo980; 12-29-2010 at 01:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
