4 ms·

A properly united rank of employees will ensure the salaries are appropriate - who says they have to be cut? That’s just a scare tactic - why not scare the emp

A properly united rank of employees will ensure the salaries are appropriate - who says they have to be cut? That’s just a scare tactic - why not scare the employer? Cuts both ways.

thunky 4y ago
Because not all companies have incredible profits. They have to manage their money, and a big part of that is salary. I know it's convenient to believe that all employers are greedy Scrooge McMusks taking advantage of their employees, but most businesses are actually small and run by normal people just trying to keep the lights on without losing their shirt.
- flandish 4y ago
  I’m not speaking about a five person bakery, I am speaking about corporations run by a class of owner far and beyond that of the “mom and pop.” Walmart/Starbucks know if emps talk they unionize…
  - thunky 4y ago
    There's a lot of room between Walmart and "mom and pop". And I would guess that the majority of employees work for a company in that middle area. Try running a job search on any big job board and you'll see what I mean.
    - flandish 4y ago
      I dont disagree. Except that I think at all levels employees discussing wage and benefit helps the employees and provides more look into what is being kept from them. Stronger employees will make stronger product. Even if that means stake/shareholders, who do not make the product, will receive less return on investment. So: what is the purpose of business? Provide jobs? Provide ROI? And at what ratio? Once that is decided, it’s easy to figure out what’s “allowed.”
      - thunky 4y ago
        Agree to disagree. Even for a company that advertises and publishes their pay scales, an employee at level x will look at another employee at level x (with the same experience, same tenure, same everything) and think: "this isn't fair, I'm way more valuable to the company than they are". And maybe they're right, or maybe not. But the employee believes they are being treated unfairly all the same.
        flandish 4y ago
        Fair enough on the agree to disagree. Enjoyed the thread! Go enjoy your day, my friend.
        thunky 4y ago
        Same to you!
number6 4y ago
The problem with salarys is, that they rise and fall as the market does. If at your company labor is in demand there might be a bunch of people who are getting paid more because people are needed. Some years later the labor market relaxes and now labor is cheaper. People still get hired but with smaller salarys. Economically this makes sense. Now we have a bunch of people who are earning too much for the same work. Wouldn't it be fair for them to cut their salary? Where should the employer take the money to pay above market rates? He would have to charge the customers extra and maybe lose some of them. This could lead to job loss for the newer hired.
- flandish 4y ago
  You’re describing the concept that owning a business is difficult. That’s not the problem of the employee to figure out. They’re exploited in exchange for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer. Owning a business is hard. Being a human is harder. Leave some of the challenge up to the business. ;)
  - thunky 4y ago
    > They’re exploited This is an unproductive view, imo. On the whole, business owners stick their necks out to start a business and provide their employees with a job that they can sustain their life with. > for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer. Yes of course. Why shouldn't the business owners be rewarded for building a profitable business and giving their employees a living? That's what capitalism is all about.
    - flandish 4y ago
      Your fault here, and it’s not really anything more than marketing taking its toll: is that you apply the gamble and stress that exists to small business as if it also exists to places like walmart. Walmart has ZERO real human “neck stuck out” stress when you get to the top and have billions racked up. Yet Walmart still dislikes it when employees discuss wage. Why?
      - 4y ago

A properly united rank of employees will ensure the salaries are appropriate - who says they have to be cut? That’s just a scare tactic - why not scare the employer? Cuts both ways.

thunky 4y ago

Because not all companies have incredible profits. They have to manage their money, and a big part of that is salary. I know it's convenient to believe that all employers are greedy Scrooge McMusks taking advantage of their employees, but most businesses are actually small and run by normal people just trying to keep the lights on without losing their shirt.

flandish 4y ago
I’m not speaking about a five person bakery, I am speaking about corporations run by a class of owner far and beyond that of the “mom and pop.” Walmart/Starbucks know if emps talk they unionize…
- thunky 4y ago
  There's a lot of room between Walmart and "mom and pop". And I would guess that the majority of employees work for a company in that middle area. Try running a job search on any big job board and you'll see what I mean.
  - flandish 4y ago
    I dont disagree. Except that I think at all levels employees discussing wage and benefit helps the employees and provides more look into what is being kept from them. Stronger employees will make stronger product. Even if that means stake/shareholders, who do not make the product, will receive less return on investment. So: what is the purpose of business? Provide jobs? Provide ROI? And at what ratio? Once that is decided, it’s easy to figure out what’s “allowed.”
    - thunky 4y ago
      Agree to disagree. Even for a company that advertises and publishes their pay scales, an employee at level x will look at another employee at level x (with the same experience, same tenure, same everything) and think: "this isn't fair, I'm way more valuable to the company than they are". And maybe they're right, or maybe not. But the employee believes they are being treated unfairly all the same.
      - flandish 4y ago
        Fair enough on the agree to disagree. Enjoyed the thread! Go enjoy your day, my friend.
        thunky 4y ago
        Same to you!

number6 4y ago

The problem with salarys is, that they rise and fall as the market does. If at your company labor is in demand there might be a bunch of people who are getting paid more because people are needed. Some years later the labor market relaxes and now labor is cheaper. People still get hired but with smaller salarys. Economically this makes sense. Now we have a bunch of people who are earning too much for the same work. Wouldn't it be fair for them to cut their salary? Where should the employer take the money to pay above market rates? He would have to charge the customers extra and maybe lose some of them. This could lead to job loss for the newer hired.

flandish 4y ago
You’re describing the concept that owning a business is difficult. That’s not the problem of the employee to figure out. They’re exploited in exchange for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer. Owning a business is hard. Being a human is harder. Leave some of the challenge up to the business. ;)
- thunky 4y ago
  > They’re exploited This is an unproductive view, imo. On the whole, business owners stick their necks out to start a business and provide their employees with a job that they can sustain their life with. > for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer. Yes of course. Why shouldn't the business owners be rewarded for building a profitable business and giving their employees a living? That's what capitalism is all about.
  - flandish 4y ago
    Your fault here, and it’s not really anything more than marketing taking its toll: is that you apply the gamble and stress that exists to small business as if it also exists to places like walmart. Walmart has ZERO real human “neck stuck out” stress when you get to the top and have billions racked up. Yet Walmart still dislikes it when employees discuss wage. Why?
    - 4y ago