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.
Why does a minimal skill job have to pay a living wage? Disney or any other company isn't a social welfare agency. Does running a popcorn stand at Adventure Land entitle you to a home in the suburbs and an SUV. How about getting a college degree or technical training to be able to get you into the middle class.
Why does a minimal skill job have to pay a living wage? Disney or any other company isn't a social welfare agency. Does running a popcorn stand at Adventure Land entitle you to a home in the suburbs and an SUV. How about getting a college degree or technical training to be able to get you into the middle class.
Agreed, these are entry level jobs. Not meant for breadwinners leading families.
It was a silly response to a silly question. I think you posed the question believing that it was some sort an "A-Ha! Gotcha!" But it's not. The simple, correct answer to the question is "Whatever amount the market determines is correct for the position."
Do you disagree?
I do disagree in the current market and political climate because I've read enough stories of companies avoiding paying worker's compensation claims, and lobbyists working to roll back labor protections that have been put in place by blood.
Unless an adequate alternative can be produced without federal, state, or local laws, it is in my, and other employee's best interest to retain at least the minimum compensations due if we die or are injured on the job.
Quote:
Is it the market or union negotiations that determines the amount?
Private sector unions are subject to market forces. Employees are part of the market, employees that collectively bargain generally are a stronger market force than individual employees. So, both, basically.
Let's face it, whether or not you think that Disney is paying fair here for so-called low-skill, you have to remember what they did to their high-skill tech workers. That shows for certain that Disney is a cheapskate company, as does their crazy entrance prices. If they charge that much, is it that much to give their workers a raise?
This is not news. My spouse roomed with (a) Cinderella over thirty years ago and the princess had to work other jobs just to cover her part of the rent. Most of the hourly 'face' cast members invariably must be doing it for more than just the money - and that has been the case for decades.
Sears workers shared with Disney an incredible espris de corps. Look what the Sears people got for decades of loyalty: nothing.
I do disagree in the current market and political climate because I've read enough stories of companies avoiding paying worker's compensation claims, and lobbyists working to roll back labor protections that have been put in place by blood.
Unless an adequate alternative can be produced without federal, state, or local laws, it is in my, and other employee's best interest to retain at least the minimum compensations due if we die or are injured on the job.
Private sector unions are subject to market forces. Employees are part of the market, employees that collectively bargain generally are a stronger market force than individual employees. So, both, basically.
This is rather convoluted and doesn’t appear to answer the question, so I’ll try again. Do you disagree that market forces should determine wages/salaries?
And one more thing, employers don’t have the ability to avoid paying a valid workers comp claim, as they don’t pay it - workman’s comp insurance pays it.
Last edited by TaxPhd; 03-05-2018 at 12:58 AM..
Reason: Stupid auto-correct.
Let's face it, whether or not you think that Disney is paying fair here for so-called low-skill, you have to remember what they did to their high-skill tech workers. That shows for certain that Disney is a cheapskate company, as does their crazy entrance prices. If they charge that much, is it that much to give their workers a raise?
Without intimate knowledge of their cost structure (among other things), it is impossible to reasonably conclude such a thing.
And therefore there is no context within which a discussion can take place between you and I regarding my comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
It's funny how some people can't understand the side of the business owner/management.
Considering something else more important doesn't mean someone doesn't understand something. As a matter of fact, my prioritization comes in the context of a career as a management consultant for (what was at that time) one of the Big Six accounting firms, during much of which I was indoctrinated to parrot similarly immoral perspectives. My worldview has matured since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Those that assume the greatest risk should earn the greatest profit from taking that risk.
Again, that kind of binary thinking reflects an immoral perspective. Since your interest is "purely intellectual" you not only shouldn't object to that characterization, but if you are being honest then you shouldn't even care about that characterization. Let's again test the integrity of your statement here by watching to see if you feel compelled to respond to the characterization.
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.
Sounds like Sears
