3 ms·

So they should get the rewards without the risk? By claiming it would be a poor investment for someone who can't afford the risk, you're implicitly arguing that

So they should get the rewards without the risk? By claiming it would be a poor investment for someone who can't afford the risk, you're implicitly arguing that the actual owners are taking a bigger risk than the employees, and thus it's unsurprising that they capture the rewards from growth.

simonh 13y ago
Working for a company that could go bust at any moment isn't sharing in it's risks? Really?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Any company could go bust at any moment, and the only risk to you is the transactional costs of finding a new job. Those could be high, but it's not your current/prospective employer that's determining what that amount is, it's a function of the labor market and your own value. Beyond that, it's not as if you're putting any of your own money on the table. Ownership (whether that be private management or shareholders) is putting their money on the table. If you'd like a higher risk/reward level, negotiate for equity or other variable compensation.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
By claiming that the owners are taking a bigger risk than the employees, you're implicitly arguing that employees are taking some risk. Thus, it's surprising that they capture none of the rewards from growth.
- run4_too 13y ago
  There is nothing stopping the union from re-negotiating the contract that exists today, the same way management wanted to re-negotiate the contract that previously existed.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Except for the fact that many unions don't exist now. Of course, your suggestion also implies a labor market balance that simply does not exist. The article is actually about the fact that corporations are realizing record profits by employing fewer people and paying less to those whom they do employ. It's a buyer's market for labor. Not exactly a strong negotiating position for the worker.

3 ms·

So they should get the rewards without the risk? By claiming it would be a poor investment for someone who can't afford the risk, you're implicitly arguing that

by twoodfin 13y ago

simonh 13y ago
Working for a company that could go bust at any moment isn't sharing in it's risks? Really?
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Any company could go bust at any moment, and the only risk to you is the transactional costs of finding a new job. Those could be high, but it's not your current/prospective employer that's determining what that amount is, it's a function of the labor market and your own value. Beyond that, it's not as if you're putting any of your own money on the table. Ownership (whether that be private management or shareholders) is putting their money on the table. If you'd like a higher risk/reward level, negotiate for equity or other variable compensation.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
By claiming that the owners are taking a bigger risk than the employees, you're implicitly arguing that employees are taking some risk. Thus, it's surprising that they capture none of the rewards from growth.
- run4_too 13y ago
  There is nothing stopping the union from re-negotiating the contract that exists today, the same way management wanted to re-negotiate the contract that previously existed.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Except for the fact that many unions don't exist now. Of course, your suggestion also implies a labor market balance that simply does not exist. The article is actually about the fact that corporations are realizing record profits by employing fewer people and paying less to those whom they do employ. It's a buyer's market for labor. Not exactly a strong negotiating position for the worker.