Let’s say that I am a business. Why should I care for your family?

DeadSeraph

beezzer
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

That almost sounds like backmail though.

Treat me nice, or you won't get a good product out of me!

Companies used to pay nice wages, good benefits and yet unions would always demand more. Until the point where the companies became unsubstainable.

The individual is responsible for his/her own happiness, health, security.

It is not the responsibility of the government, corporations, to insure that a person is happy.

Good point. I mean, factories in china have suicide nets to prevent their employees from plunging willingly to their own deaths and they still manage to make a profit and churn out decent products. Case closed I guess...

A good example. If we leave the happiness of the individual to government and/or corporations, (like China) then be prepared to see a lot more "suicide nets".

I did not read the thread, only OP article:

You should pay your workers work they did + fair share of profit + if you do bad decision you should pay them work, which did not do any profit. Because your workers probably have no say about your decisions. If you will do so, you will have happy workforce and hopefully trade success. Or you can do it as Wal# an Mc# do it and expect revolution.

If businesses don't take care of their employees, as in making sure those employees can care of their families and themselves, in the end it will cost them customers AKA families and employees.

The impression I get of the attitudes of many here is that people are generally very selfish and ruthless with their families and their so called "property"....

I myself would rather be generous to a fault...

Go ahead, get rich and buy an island quick, it may be the only way the Manson Family can't get to you.

Why won't they let that guy outta prison?, it's said he didn't actually commit any of those acts, why is that?.

Maybe he was right.

beezzer
A symbiotic relationship because one cannot survive without the other.

Um...exactly?

Each SHOULD be equally invested in the health and well-being of the other.

Remember the gold rush back in the 1800's?

Once the act of 1871 was written and enacted; men free to prospect lost that ability to corporations.

Why? Because the Gov. learned about a rich natural resource; gold.

Men used to have the luxury of minding their own business as they prospered on their own merit.

Now the only way for a man to prosper is if he loses his natural identity to an LLC title.

Limited liability company.

Garnering irresponsibilty thru the masses

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


If 30% of the people in the U.S. got cancer today
the gross national production measure would skyrocket,The system has been riged and twisted for profit ONLY and it is now in the best interest of the medical
institution to KEEP PEOPLE SICK to mantain
profits and population control. The system is now consuming the people it was to protect.

kosmicjack

beezzer
A symbiotic relationship because one cannot survive without the other.

Um...exactly?

Each SHOULD be equally invested in the health and well-being of the other.

edit on 1/12/2014 by kosmicjack because: dang quote tags, evil phone

A business owner cannot be invested in the health and well-being of another.

It is up to the individual. The individual is responsible for his/her own health and well-being.

When you cede responsibility for your own happiness to any other authority, then you really can't complain anymore.

reply to post by supergravity

Yes, I know this, there is no profit to be made in curing any illness. The profit is in making people sick and treating them for symptoms to keep them just functional enough to still do their so called "jobs"...Insurance companies love the whole scheme too, nothing like free money from fearful and ignorant people...I noticed the financial industry does the same exact thing, most industries in fact. The entertainment industry puts ideas about what they should have into people's heads, like cars and DVD Blu-Ray and whatever, then the financial sector is happy to grant credit to buy all that junk.

You see?, I am an utter failure because I refuse to go into debt, and don't live my life by the quarter.

Civilizations are not built on a quarterly basis, the quarterly (3 Mo.) crap is the term (one) of financial instruments of credit to grant loans to pay employees. What ever happened to running business on what you actually have to work with ?, like REAL CAPITAL?, like actual wealth?.

Wait!, look here, nothing new....

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

Everything is a trap.

The trap exists solely through the faith of the ignorant masses.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Ultimately you do it because of torches and pitchforks. If you treat others poorly it WILL come back to bite you later.

reply to post by beezzer


Huh?

You just said above that it should be symbiotic.

In other words, mutually beneficial for the health and well being of both....

Your post kind-of is testament what is wrong with the US.

You are of course correct (and I pointed that out many times already) that employers (companies, corporates) are not welfare organizations since they work for profit and it's not their priority nor primary goal to "care" for employees - the employment merely is a bonus from the fact that the company hired you - and this happens because YOU mean profit for the company.

THIS is what a business does, making money & profit.

You then bring up "unions" as if unions are the only way to give employees sort of a protection - but all I can tell you is give examples of how it is in Europe where EACH AND EVERY SINGLE employee has protection and unions do not even have to come into play here.

It's NOT the company's worry about the employees health-care (or unemployment), no company has to bother about this since it's AUTOMATICALLY IMPLIED when you get employment in Europe which exceeds a certain minimal wage threshold. Something like "normal" employment (no €500 job) *without* health insurance does not EXIST. (Employment w/o health insurance exists only for jobs under-the-table which basically are "illegal").

When you get a part-time job which only pays a few €100/month...you then will be covered by additional "government" assistance, in fact you have mandatory health-insurance even if you're unemployed or if you're on welfare.

See how this problem DOESN'T EVEN COME UP in other countries.

If someone thinks it's the EMPLOYERS duty to "care for" the employers...it's bound to create problems as said because it's not the domain of a business to "care for" the people (aside from paying them wages)...respective it will be counter-productive for the business. From that POV if there are laws that "the government" takes care of those things I would feel more secure/better than relying that a boss/business owner (who has entirely different goals) would be responsible for those things. When the gvt handles those things I do at least know that there are no more sinister motives at work since there will be clear laws - and the well-being and protection of people is NOT reliant on the opinion or whatever agenda of single individuals (bosses etc.) or corporates. Let THEM do the hiring and paying, this is their duty. NOT "looking after" and assisting people...this just won't work today. (Different story 50 or so years ago)

reply to post by loveguy


Yeah, and ya know what?, corporations were illegal in the U.S. till right around that same timeframe, hmmmmmmm.......

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

SOSDD....

People forget, educational manipulation makes sure they never remember.

And...why did I say "testament for what's wrong in the US"?

Because you asked "If I have a business...WHY SHOULD I CARE FOR YOUR FAMILY?"....and this is *exactly* what many, if not the vast majority of employers/business ask themselves: "Why should I care.....". Your thread title could not be more clear!

And for that reason it's the more surprising that your system STILL relies on employers for those issues!

Because how can employees be adequately be protected if business owners do indeed, in the very real world, ask themselves this question...and of course they have a right to do so if they themselves struggle, say, are forced to cut costs etc.. See the massive problem here and how those two things are in extreme contrast to each other?

To make it clear: What's wrong is NOT the fact that business owners can simply deny or not choose to "support" their employees, what's wrong is the fact that this IS a responsibility of them and is not handled in a different way.

Your system is still like 50-100 years back in the past where people often had employment for a life-time with a company and where there was indeed sort-of like a "family relationship" with your employer where your work/boss took care of all those things and you could rely on your own well-being simply by being employed.

This doesn't work anymore in a time where companies struggle and where lines of super-cheap workers are waiting to do any work for pennies...where a company knows they will always get someone who does the same job without H/S and for less money and where they do not have a "benefit" by keeping and supporting employees, unlike many decades ago where each single good employee was still an asset you better kept and a company knew that the loss of this employee would be a big disadvantage. (And of course overall better economy etc..etc..)

reply to post by TDawgRex


I've always been taught that a happy employee is a productive employee. Plus, it deals with respect. Without the "cogs" if you will, your business wouldn't even run.

Say there are two janitor jobs doing the exact same job at two different places. One of the janitor is welcomed by your other employees and met with a smile and is asked to join in on company picnics. Now think of the other business where the janitor is looked down upon and not included in the daily life of that business and occasions.

Which one do you think will do a better job? "You reap what you sow".

kosmicjack
reply to post by beezzer

 

Huh?

You just said above that it should be symbiotic.

In other words, mutually beneficial for the health and well being of both....

I countered your definition (parasitic) with symbiotic, in terms of financial aspects.

You countered with the health and well-being point that I never made.

With whom do you rely on to provide health and well-being? Do you rely on yourself to provide, or do you cede that personal aspect of your life to a corporation or government?

pheonix358


Now, the boss wants to make a million dollars and he wants it yesterday. # the workers, who cares. The workers see the attitude for what it is and think # the boss, I'll do the minimum I can get away with.

I think that is all propaganda from the "evil rich" agenda we have been seeing since Obama been in office and he needs to blame them and not himself for the failures so far.

As example take Boeing, who I work for. The CEO made 6 million, and if we took 5.5 million of his money and lets say another 35 million from other execs in the company and gave it to the employees that would give each employee a whopping 20 cents per hour pay raise....

pheonix358
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Take a trip down memory lane or do some research.

In the 1950s, in general terms, people expected a good wage for a good weeks work. The boss made his weeks wages and a profit above that that he would put back into the business or in his pocket. Everybody was happy.

I could say the same to you.

Health care was not traditionally a part of the employer/employee relationship until wage controls were introduced. So in order to compete for and retain talent, businesses started offering benefits in addition to wages.

When the National War Labor Board froze wages as a result of the shortage of workers, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and health insurance was often used in this way. Health insurance was an attractive means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: unions supported employment-based health insurance and workers’ health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes as cash wages were.

In other words, businesses were not offering health care because they cared about their workers. They were doing it to attract labor, because unions wouldn't oppose it, and because it was beneficial to them on a tax basis. In other words, it was in their own best interest.

And guess what Obamacare does now - It makes it not in a business's best interest to provide that particular benefit anymore. This is by design. They want to decouple the employer/employee health insurance relationship in order to get people dependent on a government/citizen health insurance relationship.

And, going back to the quote above. Notice that we no longer have anything close to a labor shortage in this country. So, what possible incentives are left for employers to continue to provide something that is now a real monetary liability for them, especially as they have no shortage of people willing and desperate to take your place if you quit because they drop your insurance. We could explore the topic of whether or not the current glut of labor is also by design.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that your employer cares so much about you that they will risk going out of business to provide for you and your family.

reply to post by TDawgRex


In the old days we used to call it social responsibility. You are participating in society and should give your share. Civic responsibility meant voting and picking up litter if you saw it.

These now appear to be archaic concepts.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Large businesses are shown to behave like psychopaths in a lot of cases, so they won't care about you or your family unless they have to. This is how come it is dangerous to have Monopolies and why regulations have to be put into place.

However, we are always one step away from that failing. If it does fail, expect your quality of life to be reduced, not improved.

ketsuko

And guess what Obamacare does now - It makes it not in a business's best interest to provide that particular benefit anymore. This is by design. They want to decouple the employer/employee health insurance relationship in order to get people dependent on a government/citizen health insurance relationship.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that your employer cares so much about you that they will risk going out of business to provide for you and your family.

I like your post for its accuracy, as usual - but it does seem to suggest that the government / citizen healthcare relationship is safer than the citizen / corporate healthcare relationship, was that intentional, or at least a correct conclusion to draw?