Seniority actually HAS VALUE, unless of course you are looking to cut operating expenses.
For certain professions, yes, other, no...and for some, it actually becomes a detriment.
There are example of each of these scenarios.
The medical field is a good example of a field where doing it a long time makes you better at it...if you're a doctor, the more years you have on the job, the more you've seen and the more you know what to expect.
For a profession like mine (Software Engineer), tenure doesn't mean as much since the technology's always changing, it's always a moving target. You get the fundamentals down, but as things shift, it's your job to keep up. A 10-year programmer isn't at any disadvantage to a 20-year programmer in terms of the tools of the trade.
In cases where it's a detriment (my profession again, could have a little bit of that because as people get older and more set in their way, the more they resent change...at least in my experience in my 9 years on the job)...but a clear cut case would be a physical job where you have to lift and move things.
If your job is carrying heavy stuff up a ladder, who's better at it? A 55 year old who's been doing it for 30 years?...for a 30 year old who's only been doing it for five years? Statistically, the 30 year old is going to be more able-bodied than the 55 year old (and yes, I realize there are some rare exceptions to that rule) so does it make sense to pay the 55 year old more than the 30 year old even though the 30 year old can do the job easier/faster?
Your examples are aimed at regular folks, interestingly enough. I don't see you complaining about the fact that many companies are OBLIGATED to do things like help the CEO out with mortgage assistance (yes it happens I used to work at a company that hired a new CEO who moved out to the coast and the company, along with paying him a base salary of nearly a million dollars and several million more in perks, etc. ALSO agreed to help him pay his MORTGAGE as well as his HOME SECURITY.)
No instead we are complaining about the fact that middle class folks might want cable tv???
I'm not complaining about people wanting cable tv...if they choose to spend their money on it, that's fine...
I'm just addressing the false notion that somehow the middle class today has it so much worse than the middle class of the 50's & 60's...
Sure, there's a bigger gap between what they and their bosses make, however, in terms of the things they have access to, they're not really better/worse off than the people in the 50's & 60's (which some liberals view as the glory days of the American economy).
If average worker today has access to the same level of creature comforts that the average worker of 1955 had, what their bosses made should be irrelevant if the argument is that the people in 1955 had it better...
So if WalMart were to "win" by making YOU pay for the health and welfare of their employees you'd be OK with that?
I take it you aren't an American tax payer?
So, shut down walmart, those people who worked for walmart are now unemployed, right? We still have to pay for them, correct?
As I said before, it's not as if "if walmart never existed, the people working there for $8/hour would have $50k jobs instead"