A properly united rank of employees will ensure the salaries are appropriate - who says they have to be cut? That’s just a scare tactic - why not scare the employer?
The problem with salarys is, that they rise and fall as the market does. If at your company labor is in demand there might be a bunch of people who are getting paid more because people are needed. Some years later the labor market relaxes and now labor is cheaper. People still get hired but with smaller salarys.
Economically this makes sense. Now we have a bunch of people who are earning too much for the same work. Wouldn't it be fair for them to cut their salary?
Where should the employer take the money to pay above market rates? He would have to charge the customers extra and maybe lose some of them. This could lead to job loss for the newer hired.
You’re describing the concept that owning a business is difficult. That’s not the problem of the employee to figure out. They’re exploited in exchange for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer.
Owning a business is hard. Being a human is harder. Leave some of the challenge up to the business. ;)
You’re applying small business romanticism to corporate behavior. A trope designed to ensure this idea that benefits corporations the most remains in place.
Even for a mom and pop - yes. They work on the concept of exploitation if the workers do not also own the business…
I really enjoy this conversation. Is there a way to reach out to you? I guess we will hit the thread limit soon.
There is a problem with worker's owning the business. They almost never do and aren't interested in owning it. This would also include owning the debts and possible failures
This is an unproductive view, imo. On the whole, business owners stick their necks out to start a business and provide their employees with a job that they can sustain their life with.
> for wage at the lowest possible cost to the employer.
Yes of course. Why shouldn't the business owners be rewarded for building a profitable business and giving their employees a living? That's what capitalism is all about.
Your fault here, and it’s not really anything more than marketing taking its toll: is that you apply the gamble and stress that exists to small business as if it also exists to places like walmart.
Walmart has ZERO real human “neck stuck out” stress when you get to the top and have billions racked up.
Yet Walmart still dislikes it when employees discuss wage.
You don't get to be a big business without being a small business first.
I agree with you that it's in Walmart's interest to not want employees to discuss wage. If I was in their position I wouldn't want my employees talking about it either, even if I'm doing my best to be "fair". That's just because there's no such thing as "fair", especially at Walmart's scale.
And we have arrived at where I am with my opinion: that unless we al talk, some business will get to use “don't talk or else” as a spooky tool to enable more of the “less fair for some.”
I need to admit: I am a leftist, an iww member, and far too underfed in the last few days so my replies probably seem punchy.
I’m really just pissed that I have an opportunity for a cool tool at my shop but have to write the script in bash because if I wrote it in say Rust, it’d be just as cool but not supportable after I left. :p
Because not all companies have incredible profits. They have to manage their money, and a big part of that is salary.
I know it's convenient to believe that all employers are greedy Scrooge McMusks taking advantage of their employees, but most businesses are actually small and run by normal people just trying to keep the lights on without losing their shirt.
I dont disagree. Except that I think at all levels employees discussing wage and benefit helps the employees and provides more look into what is being kept from them.
Stronger employees will make stronger product. Even if that means stake/shareholders, who do not make the product, will receive less return on investment.
So: what is the purpose of business? Provide jobs? Provide ROI? And at what ratio? Once that is decided, it’s easy to figure out what’s “allowed.”
Even for a company that advertises and publishes their pay scales, an employee at level x will look at another employee at level x (with the same experience, same tenure, same everything) and think: "this isn't fair, I'm way more valuable to the company than they are". And maybe they're right, or maybe not. But the employee believes they are being treated unfairly all the same.
But would you be ok taking a pay cut in order for you and your equivalent peers to make the exact same amount?
Cuts both ways.