It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it time workers negotiate for a portion of the companies profits?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   


Depending on the job a "honest salary" gets you nowhere. Half of America earns below the poverty line. However all those people selling products at walmart or selling food at one of the various fatsfood chains or providing similiar services, contribute to generating huge profits for the companies they work for. So it aint like the money isnt there, it is, but all the profits go to the company or the shareholders.

So all you have to do is own enough stock, fair enough, but you cant if you dont have any money.

So is it time, all the people who earn around minimum wage form a union and collectively strike or quit their jobs, to negotiate that a portion of the profits is payed out as a bonus to the workers each quarter, say 10 to 25 percent? That would also keep inflation for the workers in check somewhat, seen as they are no longer soley on a fixed income, which they still get.

All they would risk, is a job they still need foodstamps to get by. People working for minimum wage number in the hundreds of millions, if they all go on strike/quit the job, they are not easily replacable, even if you transfer all of mexico into the country and the worst case scenario is, that negotiations fail and they have to get back to a minimum wage job.

And before you say, those jobs are for kids earning disposable income, Burger King isnt a moms and pops corner shop. Its a big corporation posting profit figures in the millions, like many other companies which have a large workforce on (close to) minimum wage.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
So if I open a business with my own money and risk everything now my workers can take my profit away? if you think outsourcing is bad now just wait to something like that to take place. I hate all these union members demanding more and more from companies. Hey if it's so easy to run a business why don't unions open up competition and start their own businesses????? nobody wants to create their own jobs anymore.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
to negotiate that a portion of the profits is payed out as a bonus to the workers



But not all companies make profits all the time.
How about the workers also contribute to paying off any LOSSES incurred by the company each quarter?
Oh? You dont like that?
So let me see if I get your argument straight... You want a cut of the good times, but any bad times are nothing to do with you whatsoever and you want no part of it.

In any case, as you mentioned yourself, a system to pay people a cut of the profits already exists.
Its called SHARES, and any worker in the conpany can buy them today.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Do McDonalds workers deserve to be millionaires? No. Do they deserve to be "middle class" .... NO. Low end no skill jobs deserve low end poor pay. You could pay McDonalds workers $50k a year and a hamburger would cost $20

Do normal middle class folks working for large corporations deserve portions of the profit? Most do! It's called stock options.. most people working for a corporation have stock in the company that earns dividends (you know..... profit) thus they profit from the profit of the corporation.

Capitalism yay

If you have a sucky job and you feel you deserve more .. get a better job! Get an education! and if all that doesn't get you a high paying job ... MAKE ONE, start your own business, create your own ends.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Well it works for NBA players. Club owners make millions, if they are faced with the choice of earning a honest wage or a 7 figure income they have to share with their players, they choose the latter. Earn 5 Dollar an hour because you "dont want to give away your profits" or earn 500.000.000 and pay out 150.000.000 to your players?

Of course being a large workforce, nobody becomes a millionaire working for walmart still, bug maybe they can afford rent AND food. Also you take on less risk than an NBA Club owner, because he committed himself to a fixed salary, but the profits are what they are, if there are none, you just owe the minimum wage.


edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Want a portion of your company's profits? If you're not already in an employee-owned company, quit your job and get a new one in such a company. Also, how's about taking your money and buying stock in your own company? Profits = stock dividends. Or how about this -- start your own company. That way you get to keep all the profits!

Unless you're posting from a communist country, getting some of the profits of the company you work for is pretty easy.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


In a communist workforce everybody earns the same. Also there are no profits. It is about getting AWAY from that situation earning the same wether you generate profits for your company up to half a billion worth or your company breaks even.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Do McDonalds workers deserve to be millionaires? No. Do they deserve to be "middle class" .... NO. Low end no skill jobs deserve low end poor pay. You could pay McDonalds workers $50k a year and a hamburger would cost $20

Capitalism yay

If you have a sucky job and you feel you deserve more .. get a better job! Get an education! and if all that doesn't get you a high paying job ... MAKE ONE, start your own business, create your own ends.



Capitalism yay indeed. Are you not allowed to negotiate a salary in a free capitalist society and alternative modes for compensation? You on the other hand seem to know what we all deserve. Attribuiting a salary by skill has nothing to do with capitalism and everything with social engineering. "An unskilled job does not deserve..." that is ANTI-capitalism. Only market value counts. Why shouldnt they find out what their job is actually worth to the owner/shareholder, instead of settling in a situation where only one side did the negotiating? There is a good chance that a company earning 200.000.000 in a BAD year is willing to settle for 150 Million a year, if the alternative is bankruptcy and 0$ which it is if those working for around minimum wage negotiate in an coordinated way.

Oh and next time you call somebody a commie AND THEN voice for attribuiting compensation based on a persons contribution/value to society, look up how communism actually works.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 




In a communist workforce everybody earns the same. Also there are no profits. It is about getting AWAY from that situation earning the same wether you generate profits for your company up to half a billion worth or your company breaks even.


Mmkay.....



Are you not allowed to negotiate a salary in a free capitalist society and alternative modes for compensation?


Sure. You can go to your boss and demand more money. If it's a good economy it might work .. if you did it today They'd probably find a replacement or at the very least tell you to screw off.



You on the other hand seem to know what we all deserve.


I know unskilled labor doesn't deserve as much as a business owner, or that people working for a company are not automatically entitled to the profit of the company.



Attribuiting a salary by skill has nothing to do with capitalism and everything with social engineering.


Um .. no .. actually it has everything to do with supply and demand. Unskilled labor is high in quantity, there are far more without degrees or specialization/trades than there are with them. That means there is an abundance of unskilled labor .. thus unskilled labor will be cheaper. Same thing happens with skilled labor. Because there is a surplus of skilled labor the wages will stagnate until there is a shortage of skilled labor.



"An unskilled job does not deserve..." that is ANTI-capitalism.


Mmmkay



Only market value counts.


Yeah .. based on the supply of the workforce, I know.



Why shouldnt they find out what their job is actually worth to the owner/shareholder, instead of settling in a situation where only one side did the negotiating?


So walmart employees should just call up the CEO and be like "Hey there I'm Jim-Bob-Boo from Kentucky and I was wonderin sirs whatch'y'all think my worth is?"

You worth .. your value .. is based on 1. Degree or specialization. 2. The need for that specialization. 3. The supply of others with that specialization.

If you have no skill, no degree, no specialization, and you're stocking shelves at walmart .. your value is worthless. You're a drone that can be replaced by a monkey if need be with the same results.



There is a good chance that a company earning 200.000.000 in a BAD year is willing to settle for 150 Million a year, if the alternative is bankruptcy and 0$ which it is if those working for around minimum wage negotiate in an coordinated way.


That makes 0 sense. Why would the alternative be $0? People have tried to negotiate the wage at places like walmart .. the result is usually to fire them and hire new minimum wage workers.

Because there are TONS of unskilled workers. And when there's a shortage a company can always find a Mexican to do it for less.



Oh and next time you call somebody a commie AND THEN voice for attribuiting compensation based on a persons contribution/value to society, look up how communism actually works.


I never called anyone a communist? I'm calling some people lazy .. perhaps stupid would be a good word .. but I never called anyone a commie?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Cassius666
 






Because there are TONS of unskilled workers. And when there's a shortage a company can always find a Mexican to do it for less.



So you are fine with the companies using illegal immigrants, which is illegal, mmkay.

Thats why they need to collectively negotiate, so they can not be replaced one by the other, unless all the companies using minimum wage labor find a way to bring hundreds of millions people into the country to work for them and overnight (or at least within 6 months or so).




That makes 0 sense. Why would the alternative be $0? People have tried to negotiate the wage at places like walmart .. the result is usually to fire them and hire new minimum wage workers.


See above. If you loose all your foot soldiers, you dont make a profit. If you can jiggle them all around, then yeah, you pay minimum wage. If you have to choose between making 160 Million a year instead of 200 or taking it all to the bank where you might only get 1.6 Million a year, the situation is different.

People in the western hemisphere are lucky enough to live someplace where they are free to do things, like organise themselves and negotiate, without being driven back to work under a beating of batons, its time they take advantage of it.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Organize for more money all you want.. it only increases the cost of services? Basic Capitalist principle. Pay the guy nuking a McDonalds burger $20/hr and the cost of a Bigmac goes from $5 to $20 dollars. He ends up making the same.

There HAS to be a "bottom" in the economy.. otherwise we can all be equal ----- equally poor.

Ask Russia. Latvia. Belarus. Romania. Armenia. Yugoslavia.

Ask them how "equal pay" worked for them.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Never did I advocate equal pay. How you can interpretate that is beyond me. Not everything you can not grasp is communism. Also equal pay isnt communism either. But equal pay is what we have now. Walmart, all the fastfood chains, counltess of other jobs pay about the equal wage of minimum wage. About half the country earns equal pay. Equal pay is what a worforce negotiating in an organized way could move many people away from.

Only if people are willing to pay 20 Dollar the Burger will cost that much, else all it will do is cut into the profits of the shareholders and like I said, 150 Million does not sound so much worse than 200 Million.

Also not everybody will be better off, only the companies who have a profit to begin with, will have a profit to share with the workforce, so what I laid out does not increase inflation the way say, doubling minimum wage would.

Also if the price goes up, so do the profits of the company, assuming consumers swallow it and then part of the profits are again payd out as a bonus. And because the worforce isnt on a fixed income the income increases decreases depending on the profits, which reflect inflation as well, so more people will be able to consume. Minimum wage does not keep track with inflation. It is a far cry away from equal pay too. If Taco bell makes a profit of 50 Million and MCD make a profit of 500 Million, assuming a worforce of the same size, the difference in quarterly bonuses payd out to the workers would differ by a factor of 10. How is that for motivation?

Of course those who work for minimum wage at a company that does not turn out a profit will be hit hard, but like you said, there has to be a bottom somewhere, but the people should ask themselves if they want to be the bottom, being told their job is not even a real job, a job only kids working parttime should do, even when they earn the company they work for half a billion in net profits a year.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
All of this is a great argument and the system is flawed and difficult to adjust to make it work for the entire country. Having said that... niether party is even dicussing this. They are simply deciding how much the Government will take from us. Giving the rich guys money to the government through higher taxes wont help the poor.

The real changes have to take place between how much is given to shareholders and how much is given to the work force. I honestly don't think it is fair to pay the work force who actually do work, less to just give millionairs a dividend. I think some form of capital gains payout cap on each company related to worker salary should come into play rather than just giving government our money.

Doing actual work should pay more than just investing in a stock and sitting on your fat rear end at home or on your yatch. This system keeps average Joe who can never afford to buy stock down and keeps wealthy families rich weather their decendents really earn it (through work) or not.

I know people who have never worked a day in their life. They just keep moving their moms money around to the next bubble and cashing out. Money for nothing. It is a system not intelligence that allow the rich to keep being rich and the poor being poor. Sure there are a very few people who breakthrough to become wealthy occasionally but there simply is not enough room for everyone to do that.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


If a person takes a job and is told they get $10. an hour, thats your pay.
If the company makes millions each year...good.
If you think your entitled to some of that, beyond the $10 an hour your getting..your crazy.
You have not invested your money into the company, nor did you take any risk for it..you just recieved a job for an honest days work, for an honest days wage. If your not happy quit..someone else will be happy to have a job and make that $10. an hour.

Your not entitled to anything other than what you agreed to, when you took the job...your not forced to stay there...if you don't like it that they make money...quit. I will say this though, a company that makes money is good to be at, because it means job security instead of worring about layoffs and unemplyment...maybe thats what you want, something for nothing.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well it works for NBA players. Club owners make millions, if they are faced with the choice of earning a honest wage or a 7 figure income they have to share with their players, they choose the latter. Earn 5 Dollar an hour because you "dont want to give away your profits" or earn 500.000.000 and pay out 150.000.000 to your players?

Of course being a large workforce, nobody becomes a millionaire working for walmart still, bug maybe they can afford rent AND food. Also you take on less risk than an NBA Club owner, because he committed himself to a fixed salary, but the profits are what they are, if there are none, you just owe the minimum wage.


edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


So because your not a millionaire you have a grudge? People, if you buy there tickets, shirts, hats and so on...you support them...so stop paying for there gear, tickets and don't go to any games.

I am so sick of people thinking they are ENTITLED to more or are mad because they think life isn't fair. Who are you to tell me how much I can or cannot have or make? I wish I could feel sorry for you, but its hard when people get a degree, in underwater pasket weaving...then wonder why they can't find a job or make any money.
Common sense, is a thing that a lot of people have seemed to have lost a lot of, over the years....why don't you file a law suit on the schools you went to, for letting you pass? You'll probably win that one, judging from the contents of what you want.
edit on 24-1-2012 by saltdog because: spelling



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Wages should be set based on the desirability of the job. Thus the guy who shovels sh.., makes more than the guy who sits in the a/c figuring out the next pile for him to shovel. You could also base pay on caloric expenditure. Thus those who do the most physical work make the most.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


OH so if I bust my hump at a job and get to be a boss and progress up the chain..I get paid less?
So I guess since the owner of the company does nothing, they get nothing? WOW you must have been in a very liberal school...that isn't how the real world is...LMAO..



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Never did I advocate equal pay. How you can interpretate that is beyond me. Not everything you can not grasp is communism. Also equal pay isnt communism either. But equal pay is what we have now. Walmart, all the fastfood chains, counltess of other jobs pay about the equal wage of minimum wage. About half the country earns equal pay. Equal pay is what a worforce negotiating in an organized way could move many people away from.


At best, this statement is disingenuous. Are there many jobs that START at minimum wage? Sure. This might be a hard concept to grasp, but there are plenty of opportunities in many of those companies to work your way up the ladder. The problem is that the younger generations have a very false senses of entitlement and don't want to work their way up the ladder or expect to climb that ladder in two or three months. I promise there are plenty of people in those companies that started out at minimum wage and now earn a decent living. It took time and they were rewarded for their work.

Your post appears to indicate that these are minimum wage jobs that the employees are stuck in forever. That is simply not true. It's up to the employees to work towards climbing the ladder, not the employers.

I'm curious what you think a good yearly income is for the average American?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


In addition some companies would prefer that you work up their ladder and as such will provide you with additional education, which to me is better than just forcing them to raise your wage. While that helps them by providing them with an employee with the education they need for their workforce and it provides better opportunities for employees. While cliche happier employees are indeed more productive.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltdog

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well it works for NBA players. Club owners make millions, if they are faced with the choice of earning a honest wage or a 7 figure income they have to share with their players, they choose the latter. Earn 5 Dollar an hour because you "dont want to give away your profits" or earn 500.000.000 and pay out 150.000.000 to your players?

Of course being a large workforce, nobody becomes a millionaire working for walmart still, bug maybe they can afford rent AND food. Also you take on less risk than an NBA Club owner, because he committed himself to a fixed salary, but the profits are what they are, if there are none, you just owe the minimum wage.


edit on 23-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


So because your not a millionaire you have a grudge? People, if you buy there tickets, shirts, hats and so on...you support them...so stop paying for there gear, tickets and don't go to any games.

I am so sick of people thinking they are ENTITLED to more or are mad because they think life isn't fair.


Where did I express any grudge? I think you have trouble grasping the contents of a text. I merely said that the workers should do what NBA players did. Find out what shareholders/owners are willing to pay to a crytical part of the machine that makes them money. What harm is in that, what is communist about that, how is that NOT free market at its best?

They can always say no and opt to take their money to the bank and sell everything if they dont like to make 150 to 175 Million a year instead of 200 Million a year, but if only one side negoatiates, you will never find out how much of their profits they are willing to part with.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
No.

If they're unhappy with their current situation they can look elsewhere for work which is more suitable to support their lifestyle.

If the wroker desires to be worth more then they can create their own wealth or invest in someone elses. Working for a corporation should not equate to part ownership because they wish it did.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join