4 ms·
If employees unionising is particularly costly to business, could it be because the employees are being exploited? If paying your lowest tier workers a living
by skyyler 4y ago
If employees unionising is particularly costly to business, could it be because the employees are being exploited?
If paying your lowest tier workers a living wage and good benefits would disrupt the business, could it be that your business relies on suffering to exist?
- antisthenes 4y agoBy that standard, ~50-60% of the restaurant industry shouldn't exist. Which, honestly, maybe it shouldn't.
- chaosharmonic 4y agoI mean, the restaurant industry is getting hit disproportionately by employees leaving in droves...
- bloody-crow 4y agoBusinesses typically pay market rate. If this rate creates suffering situations, it's a problem of the market, not particular employer. If living wage is substantially different from the market rate, employer cannot afford it without going out of business. Employers don't have infinite money, they have checks and balances. Paying employees more would require different pricing model, for example. If your pricing is far enough from what customer is ready to pay, customer is not paying and you end up out of business. Basically, employer's responsibility is to pay market rate, not living wage. If there's a disconnect, it needs to be addressed on the legislation level, not individual employer level.
- em-bee 4y agomarket rate is a function of the availability of labor. not a function of the profitability of a business. a low market rate means that there are a lot of poor schmucks willing to work for scraps. if a business can not survive without paying a living wage then it should not exist in the first place. no amount of legislation can fix that