4 ms·

he got out of it (salary ... This is an argument I've heard many employers use that is factually incorrect. Every month, employees freely give their time to a

by sambeau 12y ago

he got out of it (salary ... This is an argument I've heard many employers use that is factually incorrect. Every month, employees freely give their time to a company. The company is in debt to the employee. At the end of that month there is a financial reckoning and the debt is repaid. The moment the employee comes to work the following day the company is debt to the employee again. I cannot stress this enough - for the whole month it is the Company that is in debt and should call itself lucky, not the employee. It is employees that keep the economy going - not employers - as, at the end of each month billions have been lent to Companies by those who work there.

nathell 12y ago
Not necessarily; that depends on one's particular arrangements. I, for example, get paid approximately mid-month, so I start out indebted to the company each month and the balance gradually shifts over time.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  I believe only the USA pays bi-monthly; elsewhere you usually only get paid monthly.
  - noblethrasher 12y ago
    I'm an exempt employee in the US and get paid monthly. The classified employees at my organization get paid weekly.
gkya 12y ago
Is this your own opinion, or is there some books/articles/etc. backing it? I'm asking this because this stance you depict seems really correct and I'd like to find out more on it if possible.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  There are exceptions, but most people are indeed paid like this, at the end of the month (or the end of the week). But this is more an outlook than a hard fact. Another outlook is, the employee should count herself lucky to be authorized to work for a company. The company provide money to the employee, which means it feeds her. If it didn't the employee would have to find another benevolent corporation, or starve. Now there is still the occasional maverick who tries to start her own business, but mostly, employees rely on companies to eat. Yet another outlook is, the company don't feed the employee. The customers of the company feed the employee. Which is why the customer is king: piss him off, and you won't see him again. Do that too much, and you your employees will starve. It will be your fault, and maybe the fault of some of your employees. It's certainly not the fault of the customer, who has every right to choose what to consume. I personally find these three views (the one you awnsered to, an the two I mentioned) a bit extreme. But they're not strawmen either. Some people really do believe that. In my opinion, this is the sign of a deep problem. I don't know what exactly, but something is off with the current customer/employer/employee arrangement.

by sambeau 12y ago

nathell 12y ago

Not necessarily; that depends on one's particular arrangements. I, for example, get paid approximately mid-month, so I start out indebted to the company each month and the balance gradually shifts over time.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
I believe only the USA pays bi-monthly; elsewhere you usually only get paid monthly.
- noblethrasher 12y ago
  I'm an exempt employee in the US and get paid monthly. The classified employees at my organization get paid weekly.

gkya 12y ago

Is this your own opinion, or is there some books/articles/etc. backing it? I'm asking this because this stance you depict seems really correct and I'd like to find out more on it if possible.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
There are exceptions, but most people are indeed paid like this, at the end of the month (or the end of the week). But this is more an outlook than a hard fact. Another outlook is, the employee should count herself lucky to be authorized to work for a company. The company provide money to the employee, which means it feeds her. If it didn't the employee would have to find another benevolent corporation, or starve. Now there is still the occasional maverick who tries to start her own business, but mostly, employees rely on companies to eat. Yet another outlook is, the company don't feed the employee. The customers of the company feed the employee. Which is why the customer is king: piss him off, and you won't see him again. Do that too much, and you your employees will starve. It will be your fault, and maybe the fault of some of your employees. It's certainly not the fault of the customer, who has every right to choose what to consume. I personally find these three views (the one you awnsered to, an the two I mentioned) a bit extreme. But they're not strawmen either. Some people really do believe that. In my opinion, this is the sign of a deep problem. I don't know what exactly, but something is off with the current customer/employer/employee arrangement.