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 doesn't Mr. CEO do all the work himself? Why does he need employees? Why does he feel he should benefit most from what it took a group of people working towards a common goal to accomplish? Why should they not get an equal share of the success? Why is the fruit of their collective labor being funneled upward to a select few execs rather than shared in an equitable manner? I'm not asking for equal pay, I'm saying there needs to be more equality. The gap is a ratio of about 475 to 1. This is a tragedy.
Can you run the company?
Or are you employed to fit part A to part B and repeat process for 8 hours?
employee, Definition:
A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation
CEO, Definition:
The executive who is responsible for a company's operations
They don't live in vacuum. Their compensation is dependent upon the success of the company which in turn depends upon the employees. Their compensation has everything to do with that of the employees.
Yep and if the employee doesn't get the job done they hire somebody who does. Just like if the CEO doesn't get the job done they hire one who does. Is that FAIR enough for you?
Yep and if the employee doesn't get the job done they hire somebody who does. Just like if the CEO doesn't get the job done they hire one who does. Is that FAIR enough for you?
No, for one gets a multimillion golden parachute. The other may be homeless.
Ok, justify it then. When the very workers they are CEO of are losing pay, losing jobs, how does the CEO deserve one extra penny? Oh I get it, they are Job Creators. Oh wait, they aren't hiring. Oh I know, they work harder then their employees. Oh wait, that's not it either. They have more on the line. Oh wait, they lose their job they hit the jackpot. It's sickening and immoral, borderline criminal.
The corporation exists to make money for the investors through whatever legal means are available. If the CEO make money for me, I care less how much he or she gets. If my investment loses money, it won't matter how much the CEO makes compared to the workers.
Ok, justify it then. When the very workers they are CEO of are losing pay, losing jobs, how does the CEO deserve one extra penny? Oh I get it, they are Job Creators. Oh wait, they aren't hiring. Oh I know, they work harder then their employees. Oh wait, that's not it either. They have more on the line. Oh wait, they lose their job they hit the jackpot. It's sickening and immoral, borderline criminal.
I don't need to justify anything. If he's within his negotiated compensation package, what business is it of yours what he makes? Let me give you a clue: NONE.
How is he any different than Pujols signing a quarter of a billion dollar contract to play baseball?
Liberal jealousy of those who have climbed to the top is ridiculous. You spout "facts" about everybody under him suffering, but you have no real solid proof of any such thing other than the liberal media's "rich hating" agenda.
But if the rich happen to be liberal... they get a pass.
The fruits of a companies labor isn't being shared equitably. It's largely or entirely being driven to the top man. So not only does he keep his job, he makes millions. The people who made it possible simply get to keep their job and enjoy wage stagnation or wage cuts as of late. How about those moneys get spread out among everyone who had a stake in it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zembonez
I don't need to justify anything. If he's within his negotiated compensation package, what business is it of yours what he makes? Let me give you a clue: NONE.
Because he did it on the backs of his employee's work. They are getting stiffed by the very man who gains the most from their own labor and effort.
So what? The CEO doesn't need to know what goes on in your husbands plant. His responsibilities are different. The CEOs compensation has no bearing on your husbands compensation.
-sigh-
Did I say it did?
But when one makes things that make a difference when troops live or die, dont you think its kind of a good idea if those widgets actually work, or would you rather they blow up, and the consequences can just fall where they may?
No, for one gets a multimillion golden parachute. The other may be homeless.
One was able to negotiate the terms of his employment. The other apparently not. If you desire one of those parachutes then put yourself in the position to negotiate for one don't attack one for being in that position. Sour grapes is all I hear from you. How bout get off your butt and work for something instead of expecting it handed to you?
The fruits of a companies labor isn't being shared equitably. It's largely or entirely being driven to the top man. So not only does he keep his job, he makes millions. The people who made it possible simply get to keep their job and enjoy wage stagnation or wage cuts as of late. How about those moneys get spread out among everyone who had a stake in it?
You are simply wrong, the compensation of the CEO isn't taken from the workers, it is taken from the shareholders. If the CEO made less, you would not make more.
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.
