5 ms·
> If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92% This assumes that the increase in profit is attributable primarily to the CEO. Well, that at
by amarshall 3y ago
> If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92%
This assumes that the increase in profit is attributable primarily to the CEO. Well, that at least 43% (40/92) of it is.
> Just ask for what you think you deserve and don't work if you don't get it. It's as simple as that.
This only really works with unions. Fortunately, these workers have one.
- nerdponx 3y ago> Just ask for what you think you deserve and don't work if you don't get it. This is the most wildly privileged take possible on the issue.
- prawn 3y agoI agree. Someone in the leadership tier can generally get by longer without desperately needing to work; their house is often paid off, they get dividends from shares, etc. Down in the blue collar ranks, many of those people are scrounging to stay on top of rent, or pay a mortgage, or getting hit by rising food costs. Many workers aren't in a position to change jobs on a whim.
- tbrownaw 3y agoIt's probably a bit easier if you can collect unemployment for refusing to work, like I hear California is doing.
- sudosysgen 3y agoIt's called a strike and it seems to be working. The key is that everybody does it at once.
- WalterBright 3y ago> The key... If that were true, the pay of every non-union employee would be minimum wage.
- sudosysgen 3y agoThat does not follow in the slightest.
- Jensson 3y ago> This assumes that the increase in profit is attributable primarily to the CEO. Well, that at least 43% (40/92) of it is. The CEO's didn't get 100 billion extra pay, they just got 40% more than before not 40% of all the profits.