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

It is all rather sad...it seems that it's a crime to strive for equality.
Or to suggest that things should be different.
Sometimes I think we have everything upside down...
And that those who work the hardest earn the least.
And that those in power should never be in power.

And those capitalistic would be company owners should remember.
They are only making money by standing on the shoulders of others.

A minimum wage earner is a slight on us...that we allow it.

reply to post by midicon


There are companies that offer profit sharing and there are unions.
The unhappy worker has many many choices. That's the point. He/she isn't forced to make french fries and live in a box. I understand there are many who have a very tough life, but the fact is that no one is forcing them into their current situation. There are alternatives.

reply to post by spinalremain

Sometimes there are no viable alternatives...
And the lowest paid worker is no less a human being than the company chairman.
Sometimes even moreso...
And god forbid they should ever earn the same...thats just silly isn't it?
The minimum wage is a slave wage...

A cap on wealth might be a better idea...can't see anyone going for it though.

reply to post by Cassius666


i always wonder where the ones who say crap like "find a better job", "go to school", and "low skilled work should get low pay", work.
i bet they make damn good money to be saying/thinking such nonsense like it's so simple.

i'd love to see a switch for a week; every CEO and person who sits on their arse, change places with the ones digging ditches and holding the country up on their broken backs so you can sit comfortably at the top.. then get back to me on how they deserve what little they get.
it amazes me how the ones with great jobs and comfortable lives think they're so much better, or that it's so simple for the lowly peons to just get themselves out of the gutter. especially here on ATS. makes me think there's really no hope.


it's always been my thinking that the ones at the top, make to much. and the ones at the bottom make to little.
it's the lower class that is the cogs in the gears; if the upper class disappeared.. we'd be fine. (better off IMO ) if the lower class disappeared.. we'd be effed (for a while anyway, til we created a new lower class of peons)

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by spinalremain

 

Sometimes there are no viable alternatives...
And the lowest paid worker is no less a human being than the company chairman.
Sometimes even moreso...
And god forbid they should ever earn the same...thats just silly isn't it?
The minimum wage is a slave wage...

A cap on wealth might be a better idea...can't see anyone going for it though.

I completely agree as far as one person being no more or less a human than another. But should the CEO and the entry level mail room employee earn the same amount of money? Hell no. You are right, that's just silly. Some people strive to achieve more, and some don't. The minimum wage is low, but those that desire a better wage work hard to climb that ladder, get more education, and set goals. Where is the incentive to not only grow in your job and advance, but to even put forth an effort if you're getting the same pay as everyone else no matter what?

Originally posted by TheDude2
reply to post by Cassius666

 

i always wonder where the ones who say crap like "find a better job", "go to school", and "low skilled work should get low pay", work.
i bet they make damn good money to be saying/thinking such nonsense like it's so simple.

Well, I'm saying it because that's exactly what I did. I screwed around in my twenties instead of focusing on my career. Eventually I was stuck in bad jobs with low pay. Well, I went back and finished college, got my degree at age 35 and now I have a good job that I could not have gotten without the education I went back and finished.

It is simple. Nobody is out on the street handing out good jobs. There is some effort required on your part. As for only people making "damn good money" making these statements, I suspect I make less than what you consider damned good money.

Originally posted by midicon
And the lowest paid worker is no less a human being than the company chairman.

But we're not talking about the value of anybody's humanity. We're talking about their value as it relates to the company. And the lowest paid workers are simply and honestly worth less to the company than the chairman.

reply to post by spinalremain


Thats what Iam talking about. They live someplace where they have rights (for the time being) where they can organise themselves to better their situation. Its time they do.

Let's define some basic terms here:
Revenue- the money a company takes in as a direct result of selling it's products or services.
Expense- the money a company must expend to produce it's products or services.
Profit- the money left over after using revenue to pay expenses.

Does an employee have any right to negotiate for a portion of the profit? No. The employee has already negotiated for its "wage" which is part of the expense. Increase expenses such as wages and other benefits and profits will decline in proportion.

What I really mean is: "duh": it's capitalism 101 here, no?

Even the concept of "employee owned" companies flies in the face of realism. Such exists only as a means to motivate the employees to increase productivity and cut costs, ie: expenses, and in return get a dividend for the hard work. One could argue that an employee cutting costs and improving productivity gets a raise... akin to the dividend.

What makes you think an employee has not the right to negotiate for a portion of the profits? There is no such law, just like there is no law against exporting jobs to places where workers are denied basic human rights.

Say I start a business in my garage.

It does well and I start to do so that I have to hire some additional people.

Do they deserve a percentage of the profit? The profit is essentially what a small business owner gets to live on.

Time goes on and my business continues to grow. Now, I have 20 employees but we've hit a rough spot in the economy. If I wish to keep my business open, I need to put more money into it. Or since we have profit sharing, do the employees also need to kick back some of the money they've made in previous good years?

Profit sharing is a good idea but I think that there have to be reasonable limitations on it, especially for a small business.

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by spinalremain

 

Sometimes there are no viable alternatives...
And the lowest paid worker is no less a human being than the company chairman.
Sometimes even moreso...
And god forbid they should ever earn the same...thats just silly isn't it?
The minimum wage is a slave wage...

A cap on wealth might be a better idea...can't see anyone going for it though.

You're using hyperboles.

Firstly, I agree that a person's worth is not financial. Some of the greatest people I have ever known have been poor. I have known great people with money too, but point being that their money has nothing to do with how I see them.
Secondly, the argument that the fry cook is just as much of a good person as the CEO has absolutely nothing to do with the frycook deserving the CEOs money. The CEO is the one who invested and made the company. It's his. The profits are his to do with as he sees fit. Just because people are poor does not mean that they are somehow owed others money.
Yes, some people are in dire situations. That's life. Life is cruel. I do not see, however, that CEOs sharing their profits with workers fixes anything though. They'll just outsource to China and India even more than they do now.
I think you're way overcompensating for the fact that there are poor people. Maybe we should start small. Have everyone in the US pay either a flat tax or the same percentage at the least.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by spinalremain

 

Thats what Iam talking about. They live someplace where they have rights (for the time being) where they can organise themselves to better their situation. Its time they do.

They do. Labor unions are the answer. Proper wages, overtime pay, benefits, educational programs, etc.............. These things are agreed upon for length of contract and voted upon the next cycle.
One doesn't need to be part owner of said company to receive what they're looking for.

This has been a question that has been debated about since this country became industrialized The answer was yes it was time which lead to the rise of the welfare capitalists and the labor unions. From that time there has been a direct and strategic move by those business owners to destroy the efforts of organized labor. It was they that lobbied for 3rd world trading partners and right to work laws. And it was our Government that allowed it.

Henry Ford understood it best, that his labor was his best asset. High wages and good benefits attracted the best and most loyal people he could find. He didn't view it as taking less profit for himself as much as he saw it as investing back into the economy as a whole.

reply to post by Cassius666


in modern corporations, the ceo and the owners can easyly manipulate the profits and debt.

a corporation can lose money while those at the top get rich.

a new form of accounting would be needed.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Say I start a business in my garage.

It does well and I start to do so that I have to hire some additional people.

Do they deserve a percentage of the profit? The profit is essentially what a small business owner gets to live on.

Time goes on and my business continues to grow. Now, I have 20 employees but we've hit a rough spot in the economy. If I wish to keep my business open, I need to put more money into it. Or since we have profit sharing, do the employees also need to kick back some of the money they've made in previous good years?

Profit sharing is a good idea but I think that there have to be reasonable limitations on it, especially for a small business.

Well in your situation agreeing to something like that seems like a gamble so I bet you wont. Also 20 employers you replace easily. But if all of the minimum wage earners at walmart fast food chains and similiar corporations put down their job, the situation is different. Chances are if put under pressure thes prefer to make less millions than closing shop.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by Wildbob77



Well in your situation agreeing to something like that seems like a gamble so I bet you wont. Also 20 employers you replace easily. But if all of the minimum wage earners at walmart fast food chains and similiar corporations put down their job, the situation is different. Chances are if put under pressure thes prefer to make less millions than closing shop.

Nonsense. All you are saying is instead of people striving to achieve more and working towards their goals, they should all just walk away and demand more. Again...nonsense! What part of entry level jobs are you struggling to understand? Entitled, spoiled brat nonsense!

Technically they wouldnt demand more. With an added bonus most would earn about as much as people on minimum wage did 30 years ago, IF their work translates into a profit for their company. And yes, why shouldnt workers try and srongarm companies into paying out some of the profits, if they prefer that over going out of buisness? Because it angers you? Companies are certainls not squeamish when it comes to reducing cost and their methods anger many people but they do it annyway.