Fat Cats v Workers

[Aqua]

What I read in the paper today really sickens and disgusts me. Sainsburys are to stop the workers Christmas bonus. Their profits ar slipping but yet their new chief executive (yes you have guessed it) IS GETTING A BONUS. Its the same old story, THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER. SHAME ON YOU SAINSBURYS, A MILLION TIME OVER. I get the feeling, you will all agree with me.? It would also be interesting to see what happens in this situation in other countries?

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

It would help if I knew which country Sainsbury's was in before I commented about other countries.

 

[Agrippa]

I think it'd be more accurate to say the 'rich get richer and the poor get poorer in relation to the rich', which is quite different.

 

[jgarden]

Last year the CEO of the largest steel company in the city, took a multi-million dollar bonus and "ran." Six months later the company declared bankruptcy and wanted to reopen the contracts and pensions for current and retired workers. Apparently, the company, with the government's consent, had not contributed to the employee pension plan for the last 10 years.

This was based on the premise that the company was "too big" to go bankrupt. Interestingly enough, even though there is only one pot of money, there was enough for more management bonuses (even as the company lawyers were going into court). The company refused to roll back management bonuses, and citicized the union for having a "bad attitude."

 

[desi]

Why do people complain about CEO's getting paid alot more than workers? That's the way it is and has always been. If you want the dough do what it takes to get to the top. Complaining about it is futile unless you espouse communism which is worse than the corrupt capitalist system we have.

 

[billwald]

"Apparently, the company, with the government's consent, had not contributed to the employee pension plan for the last 10 years."

These days better to have a union pension plan. Or a Deferred Comp Plan that is portable.

 

[making me a bord join it]

WHAT i DANT GET IT

 

[desi]

... or you could save on your own for your retirement. Companies are often crooked and fickle toward their workers.

 

[AnonymousRex]

Why do people complain about CEO's getting paid alot more than workers?

I admit that to assert that all corporate executives are evil and selfish is a sweeping generalization, but some of them are guilty of hoarding more wealth than they actually need at the expense of those working for them. Many businesses today, for example, engage in outsourcing, which eliminates jobs here and shifts them to third-world dystopias, where they pay the workers significantly less (by our standards) to meet the same, if not higher, production quotas. From a biblical point of view, this sort of business practice is grossly unethical. It is the responsibility of the employer to pay his or her employees a fair wage.

That's the way it is and has always been.

Surely you do not believe that this is sound reasoning. I could use the same line of argumentation to justify the practice of slavery.

Complaining about it is futile unless you espouse communism which is worse than the corrupt capitalist system we have.

This statement leaves me wondering exactly what you believe about economics, since you appear to contradict yourself by condemning communism and referring to capitalism as "corrupt" simultaneously. I personally endorse capitalism simply because it has proven to be the most efficient and productive system we have historically attained. I would agree with your sentiment (I think) that planned economies are grossly inefficient and ultimately fail at delivering the high standard of living we already enjoy here. However, I also believe that there is an absolute standard of business ethics to which all entrepeneurs should adhere. One of these ethical norms is sufficient pay for work done by their subordinates. If they violate this norm then they should be held accountable for it by either the government, their workers or their clientele. Ultimately, of course, God holds them accountable.

AnonRex

 

[desi]

I admit that to assert that all corporate executives are evil and selfish is a sweeping generalization, but some of them are guilty of hoarding more wealth than they actually need at the expense of those working for them. Many businesses today, for example, engage in outsourcing, which eliminates jobs here and shifts them to third-world dystopias, where they pay the workers significantly less (by our standards) to meet the same, if not higher, production quotas. From a biblical point of view, this sort of business practice is grossly unethical. It is the responsibility of the employer to pay his or her employees a fair wage.

I could be misunderstanding you AnonymousRex, but you may be reading something into business as it works in the real world. An employers sole responsibility, especially in corporations, is keeping in the black-profitability. The more money a business makes the better the executive looks to his bosses. If this means outsourcing, cutting wages, laying people off... guess what happens.

Surely you do not believe that this is sound reasoning. I could use the same line of argumentation to justify the practice of slavery.

Read what Jesus said about slavery before you pick up this banner. Yes, owners of business usually dictate the terms of employment.

This statement leaves me wondering exactly what you believe about economics, since you appear to contradict yourself by condemning communism and referring to capitalism as "corrupt" simultaneously.

Communism sounds great but fails every time. Capitalism is corrupt but works better than anything else.

I also believe that there is an absolute standard of business ethics to which all entrepeneurs should adhere. One of these ethical norms is sufficient pay for work done by their subordinates. If they violate this norm then they should be held accountable for it by either the government, their workers or their clientele. Ultimately, of course, God holds them accountable.

AnonRex

So long as it is profitable not to abide by an "absolute standard of business ethics" bosses will not use them. This means they will do what they can get away with to avoid paying workers more than they absolutely have to. My views are admittedly pragmatic as they are from my experience. God will judge us all, how many wrong people have you met who cannot justify themselves in their own mind?

 

[MikeK]

I admit that to assert that all corporate executives are evil and selfish is a sweeping generalization, but some of them are guilty of hoarding more wealth than they actually need...

Do you "hoard more wealth than you actually need"?

 

[AnonymousRex]

I can see that I've stepped on a few toes, so I'll do my best to explain myself.

Desi,

I could be misunderstanding you AnonymousRex, but you may be reading something into business as it works in the real world. An employers sole responsibility, especially in corporations, is keeping in the black-profitability. The more money a business makes the better the executive looks to his bosses. If this means outsourcing, cutting wages, laying people off... guess what happens.

Appeals to "reality" don't justify any business practice that entails stealing wage money from those who work for it (in other words, paying them a wage/salary that is not in accordance with the cost of living). Consider the words of Amos: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, because they sell the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of sandals." (Amos 2:6) While this is not a condemnation of capitalism, it is a condemnation of this particular unjust business practice of maximizing your wealth at the expense of those who work for you. Of course, I would agree with you curing this ill lies not in implementing an economic system where the employer is forced to relegate his/her earnings to society, either directly or through the state. However, he/she ought to take God's precepts of giving to heart, and act accordingly lest he/she incur His wrath.

Read what Jesus said about slavery before you pick up this banner. Yes, owners of business usually dictate the terms of employment.

It was not my intention to debate the merits of slavery when I said what I said. I was merely critiquing your appeal to tradition ("that's the way it's always been done"), which is technically a formal logical fallacy.

Communism sounds great but fails every time. Capitalism is corrupt but works better than anything else.

You'll get no argument from me here. In my opinion, communism always fails because its premise is an understanding of truth that violates the law of non-contradiction.

So long as it is profitable not to abide by an "absolute standard of business ethics" bosses will not use them.

Over an extended period of time, they will suffer. There was common aphorism uttered by workers in the old Soviet Union: "they pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work." That's just as applicable here as it was there. If you don't sufficiently pay your workers, they will not have enough incentive to do a good job, and as a result the quality of your goods/services will suffer. Consequently, your clientele will lose confidence in your ability to provide something of worth, which will subsequently cost you (potential) revenue. If you treat your employees poorly by constantly badgering and denigrating them, then the Ministry/Department of Labour will intervene and fine you, imprison you, or both. Or, your workers could opt for "direct action" and organize themselves into a union and go on strike, forcing customers away from your enterprise. Or, they'll simply quit their jobs and move on to something else, which will create a high turnover rate and damage your reputation. It pays to pay your employees. Give and it shall be given unto you.

Mike,

Do you "hoard more wealth than you actually need"?

In retrospect, I will admit that my assertion was highly subjective. After all, how much is enough? To some $40,000 per year is enough. For others that amount exceeds hundreds of millions. To determine a sufficient value, I suppose one would have to examine the cost of living. In my personal opinion, a successful businessman could live comfortably on $60 000 per year (at least in America). If he/she wishes to make more, then he/she may do so through investing in stock or some other form of capital.

Have I hoarded wealth? Yes, I probably have. Does that make it right? No.

AnonRex

 

[billwald]

The Libertarian solution to the evil empolyer problem is labor unions and consumer action, not legislation.

 

[AnonymousRex]

Bill,

I would agree with what you've said, but as I understand it, not even labour unions escape the criticism of some libertarians since the former could theoretically constrain an otherwise free market by stifling production should they decide to strike.

Nevertheless, I believe that people who are committed to improving their working conditions by taking the time to organize - thereby risking the security of their jobs - are individuals of principle and have my utmost respect.

AnonRex