12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 1234 ...
tools
  1. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I can't speak to any other state than the one I live in, which is Florida. Unless you are going after a contract job and are a specialist and relatively hard to come by, there is no such thing as negotiation. If you won't take what is offered, there's easily 500 - 2000 people behind you who will gladly take it to do the job.

    Even though I'm libertarian, this is an area in which I diverge from mainstream libertarian sentiment. One of the things you often hear libertarians say (and Republicans, too) is we need to get rid of minimum wage laws. The argument is that businesses should be able to decide what to pay based on what a position is really worth. The defense of this is that businesses will only be able to go as low as the market will bear.

    My argument to that is that there is no such thing as solidarity in the workforce, and if someone is desperate, they will sign on for any wage at all. Moreover, people will move in to multi-family living situations if need be. I've seen homes with five or six people in them or more. I've seen apartments with equivalent numbers. God help us if businesses have no minimum wage law to keep them in check. We'd all be living like migrant workers because there would be those groups more likely to do so, which would then allow for further depression of wage rates on everyone else.

    Sorry, but I don't trust businesses, nor do I trust the general public, in such matters as these.
    01-18-2014 11:36 PM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    My counter to your counter is that with the minimum wage being an artificial rate, the so called free market can't work. To put it another way, I often hear the excuse, "If the company paid me more, I'd be more productive." That's the opposite of how it works in reality. You have to prove your worth to the company FIRST so they see that you are capable of providing that extra value worth paying more. When you try to demand more money first, what gives the company any reason to believe you'll make good on your word? All they will see is an employee complaining and be more reluctant to give you a raise.

    But also consider just how few people are on minimum wage. Unless the person is just lazy, they don't stay there long. They will move up into higher paying positions. Why reward that laziness with more money, while at the same time devaluing the other worker's pay that didn't get a raise to match?

    Then there's simply the cost issue. Like increasing corporate taxes, raising the minimum wage is going to eventually hurt individuals. They could raise prices, making it harder to purchase their products and possibly meaning less sales and lower profits. They could hire less people and try to increase the work load on the other workers, screwing people out of a job. The company "absorbs" the cost, which lowers the dividends paid out to share holders. Or they lower the amount reinvested into the company, which stifles innovation and advancements. If you're going to artificially force that on them without requiring anything of additional value from the affected workers, someone else is going to loose.
    01-19-2014 12:29 AM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    My counter to your counter is that with the minimum wage being an artificial rate, the so called free market can't work. To put it another way, I often hear the excuse, "If the company paid me more, I'd be more productive." That's the opposite of how it works in reality. You have to prove your worth to the company FIRST so they see that you are capable of providing that extra value worth paying more. When you try to demand more money first, what gives the company any reason to believe you'll make good on your word? All they will see is an employee complaining and be more reluctant to give you a raise.
    Why not make ALL employees of the company subject to those rules? The problem is we have too many upper management people that are looking to line their own pockets and fleece the company. Just look at the top, CEO pay is out of control and continues to skyrocket. While that's taking place, you won't see an effective and fair system for promoting the best and the brightest because people are busy trying to quantify their inflated salaries. If there was a realistic way for compensating someone for their work then I'd be all for it, but not everyone deserves their salary, and not everyone that works hard gets paid fairly for the amount of work they do.

    But also consider just how few people are on minimum wage. Unless the person is just lazy, they don't stay there long. They will move up into higher paying positions. Why reward that laziness with more money, while at the same time devaluing the other worker's pay that didn't get a raise to match?
    Kind of naive to think that this is how the real world works. Do you also think that people like George W. Bush got into Yale because of how smart they are?

    Then there's simply the cost issue. Like increasing corporate taxes, raising the minimum wage is going to eventually hurt individuals. They could raise prices, making it harder to purchase their products and possibly meaning less sales and lower profits. They could hire less people and try to increase the work load on the other workers, screwing people out of a job. The company "absorbs" the cost, which lowers the dividends paid out to share holders. Or they lower the amount reinvested into the company, which stifles innovation and advancements. If you're going to artificially force that on them without requiring anything of additional value from the affected workers, someone else is going to loose.
    So lower workers' wages so that they can't afford to buy goods and services? That sounds like a good plan for the economy...... Look at it this way, if the rich are given more via tax breaks and loopholes, they're not going to spend money, they're going to put it away, most likely somewhere off-shore. If you provide better salaries for the middle and lower class, they're going to buy more. When people's demand goes up, guess what, supply will also go up and hiring will pick up. This isn't about building up a strong upper class, this is about building a strong MIDDLE CLASS. And just in case you didn't go to school, America was at its best when we had a strong middle class.
    01-19-2014 01:12 AM
  4. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Why not make ALL employees of the company subject to those rules? The problem is we have too many upper management people that are looking to line their own pockets and fleece the company. Just look at the top, CEO pay is out of control and continues to skyrocket.
    Apparently they already do follow a similar rule. From http://business.salary.com/why-do-ce...the-big-bucks/

    "CEOs make most of their money through incentives. As a general rule, base salary accounts for just 20 percent of a CEO's pay. The other 80 percent comes from performance-based pay."

    Kind of naive to think that this is how the real world works. Do you also think that people like George W. Bush got into Yale because of how smart they are?
    Yes. If you can't make it past minimum wage and high enough to live on your own, you've got bigger problems than any government regulation or union contract can fix (other than to over pay you). Now to Bush, are you really gonna throw that out? I guess you've never heard of people that are smart but don't have great social skills. But since you went there, Obama is supposedly a constitutional law professor yet continually steps outside the constitution. Stuff happens on both sides.



    So lower workers' wages so that they can't afford to buy goods and services? That sounds like a good plan for the economy......
    If they can't buy, then companies aren't selling. So the companies lower prices. Yes, that's deflation, but to expect everything to always go up is unreasonable. Eventually, the new natural market balance will be established. Market forces have always worked and always will.

    If you provide better salaries for the middle and lower class, they're going to buy more. When people's demand goes up, guess what, supply will also go up and hiring will pick up.
    But you can't do that in a vacuum. As I pointed out earlier, you have to provide the value first, then you can go for better wages. If you did like in your example and simply increased wages across the board, prices will spike, everyone will pay more for everything, and the purchasing power will remain the same. As will the discrepancy between income classes. Hiring will not go up because all the money from the increased prices will be used to fund the new salaries. It won't be long until people get right back into the same mindset, complaining about not being paid enough but not really doing anything to better themselves. It might not be your ideal, but that's how markets actually work.
    01-19-2014 02:52 AM
  5. llamabreath's Avatar
    When I lived in New York and worked for many years in a major telephone company (working on both copper and fiber optics) I was a member of Communication Workers of America, and was making $32 plus per hour.

    Now, after taking a package to leave the company and relocate here to Atlanta, working for the government (but doing very similar similar work), I struggle to make half that with no possibility of a raise depending on my merits... it only depends on their whim, thus I have no control of my pay at all and nobody to take my side or any of my co-worker's sides.

    We're not even allowed to TALK about unionization at work.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-19-2014 05:03 AM
  6. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    It is very hard to find any job at all here, much less one that pays more than 15-30 above minimum wage. In the last six years, I've had two full time jobs, the one which paid $10, and the other which paid $10.50. The rest of the jobs I have had paid anywhere from $7.85 to $8.50, and all of which were part time. I didn't take any of those jobs by choice, I took them out of necessity.

    What is it exactly you're supposed to do when nobody wants to even respond to job applications? I've lost count of the number of jobs I've applied to directly or through SnagAJob, Monster, etc. So you folks will pardon me if I'm more than a bit tired of hearing the whole "if you're working for minimum wage or are unemployed, you are lazy / not trying hard enough".

    You try being un- and under-employed as long as I have and then come tell me how it feels. Until then, shut your pie wholes because you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-19-2014 11:04 AM
  7. llamabreath's Avatar
    It is very hard to find any job at all here, much less one that pays more than 15-30 above minimum wage. In the last six years, I've had two full time jobs, the one which paid $10, and the other which paid $10.50. The rest of the jobs I have had paid anywhere from $7.85 to $8.50, and all of which were part time. I didn't take any of those jobs by choice, I took them out of necessity.

    What is it exactly you're supposed to do when nobody wants to even respond to job applications? I've lost count of the number of jobs I've applied to directly or through SnagAJob, Monster, etc. So you folks will pardon me if I'm more than a bit tired of hearing the whole "if you're working for minimum wage or are unemployed, you are lazy / not trying hard enough".

    You try being un- and under-employed as long as I have and then come tell me how it feels. Until then, shut your pie wholes because you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
    After reading your posts over the past year, I know for a fact that you're a lot more intelligent than a $10 per hr menial job, let alone a career.

    Just a couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to move SW Florida and put in for jobs all along I 75, from Tampa to Ft. Myers. I convinced my wife to also.

    I quickly got an interview with the City of Tampa and drove down there, but didn't get the job and thought maybe I should just stay here in Atlanta making half what I made in NYC because my job here is secure.

    Then the City of Ft. Myers (where you are) called me and asked me to come down for an interview. I drove down the night before the interview and literally got hired during my interview that morning and they said they would allow me a month or so to leave my old job and make the big move.

    Long story short -
    After some intense family discussions (including with two teenagers, smh) I chickened out and we stayed here.

    Then my wife got an interview to work for the State in Ft Myers, but didn't get the job.

    Then I got an interview to work for Sarasota and was offered the job and took it ... because my wife was able to grab a State job in Tampa around the same time (as you probably know, the commute for me from Tampa to Sarasota was just over an hour, which is bearable (and relaxing) to me).

    Needless to say, we made the move and yet still moved back here (reasons for this in another post). :banghead:

    My point (although probably not obvious to ANYone reading this ), is that there has to be some skill you have, some kind of talent, or some degree or certification you can get or already have to make you more viable to the workforce.

    I truly find it hard to believe that you're having such a difficult time considering the intelligence I see in your posts on a near-daily basis.

    There has to be something keeping you back.

    * I've been holding this post back for quite awhile because I was afraid you would be offended by it in some way.
    I'm just trying to figure out why someone like you is only making $10 an hour. Was it always like this for you, or was it mainly since the recession?


    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    Tall Mike 2145 likes this.
    01-19-2014 12:22 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Apparently they already do follow a similar rule. From http://business.salary.com/why-do-ce...the-big-bucks/

    "CEOs make most of their money through incentives. As a general rule, base salary accounts for just 20 percent of a CEO's pay. The other 80 percent comes from performance-based pay.".
    And most of those incentives are tied to the stock price.
    Not tied to long term heath of the company or what is best.
    Jack up stick prices by keeping employee pay low or layoffs. Both tend to boost stock prices.
    Or they get massive bonuses for screwing over employees.
    I would say it was ok if the employees got say but they get none. They get screwed and zero say.

    So no that is not a good argument when total compensation for conan executives has been going up massively out of line with employees and what is worse in the US it is even out of line with the rest of the world.

    So sum it up saying it is tied to incentives is why it is OK is crap. It is just the bs that you brought hook line and sinker.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-19-2014 12:33 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    This topic is like most of the topics that tend to polarize this country (I can't speak for other countries, but I suspect it holds true elsewhere). On the one hand, you have people that have never had a negative experience (or any experience) about a given topic, and thus see things as black and white. On the other hand, you have people that have seen some injustice, agony, and inequalities and don't see things as absolutes.

    My biggest example of this is **** Cheney, almost about as red as you can get, save for his lesbian daughter. I'm sure he loves his daughter unconditionally, and because of that, he has a liberal's perspective about gay/lesbian inequalities. Had he not had a lesbian daughter, I guarantee you that he would not have this stance on gay/lesbian rights.

    The differing points of view seem to be apparent when it comes to unions. Working for a union has its merits and its follies. When I worked for a union, there was no incentive for people to do better than the next guy. Everyone got the same pay raise as the person next to them. The longer you worked there, the easier a job you would get (although I'd see some women getting easier jobs with less seniority, but that was because they were women-- of course screaming reverse sexism was never a good idea). Thus, I can see how some people that have never had bad employer experiences would find that to be very off-putting.

    On the flip side, you have employers that don't care much about their employee performance as much as just wanting someone to coddle their delicate egos. This seems more of a detriment to the company than a union (if the union is a good union). With a union, you'll at least get a certain consistent level of work, it won't be the best, but it won't be the worst either. With a regular shop, all it takes is one bad manager that uses his/her position to satisfy their narcissistic needs. If you've NEVER had such a manager, consider yourself lucky, but believe me they do exist.

    I actually can share the opinion that unions aren't exactly good for a company. Believe me, I would love it if hard work translated to success in life, news flash, it doesn't. I remember working for one company that was severely short staffed (a department with 4 engineers down to 2 engineers because one engineer quit and another had a stroke), and thus I had to put in 84 hour work weeks (more like 100 hours, but I had to claim 84 to meet guidelines) and do what I could to keep the department afloat because I felt it was my duty. When profits for the company weren't as high as the board members thought they should be (they were still profitable, just not obscenely profitable), I became a casualty of a mass lay-off, not exactly what you want to hear after pouring your heart and soul into a company. When I look back at some of the people that were let go, and some of the people that weren't, it was obvious to me that management didn't really know what was going on, and I can see why working in a unionized shop can seem more appealing at times.

    When you consider this country's history, and how our country's strength coincides with a strong middle class, (take into account that unions only help bolster the middle class), I don't know why anyone would insist that right now isn't the best time to talk about the benefits of being a union member. Just think of it as a pendulum, you have the unions on one side, and the CEO/shareholders on the other side. Considering that we're seeing the widest disparity between the poorest and the wealthiest in history, don't you think it's about time the pendulum swings in the opposite direction?
    01-19-2014 01:16 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    And most of those incentives are tied to the stock price.
    Not tied to long term heath of the company or what is best.
    Jack up stick prices by keeping employee pay low or layoffs. Both tend to boost stock prices.
    Or they get massive bonuses for screwing over employees.
    I would say it was ok if the employees got say but they get none. They get screwed and zero say.

    So no that is not a good argument when total compensation for conan executives has been going up massively out of line with employees and what is worse in the US it is even out of line with the rest of the world.

    So sum it up saying it is tied to incentives is why it is OK is crap. It is just the bs that you brought hook line and sinker.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    I hate to say it, but some people are just blind to the facts. I'll post this up again, the top 100 CEOs per salary. Take the LOWEST paid salary on the list $18,755,923, take the AVERAGE MEDIAN FAMILY income in 2012 (can't find 2013 numbers) of about $50,502, it would take that family THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE YEARS to make the same amount that the LOWEST paid CEO on that list makes IN A YEAR. I can't for the life of me understand how people are perfectly fine with this.

    Just to drive my point home, for that same family to make what the Oracle CEO makes, it would take over NINETEEN HUNDRED YEARS.

    Ticker Company CEO Name Year Compensation ($)
    ORCL ORACLE CORP Lawrence J. Ellison 2012 $96,160,696
    TSLA TESLA MOTORS INC Elon Musk 2012 $78,150,010
    GBL GAMCO INVESTORS INC Mario J. Gabelli 2012 $68,970,486
    ATVI ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC Robert A. Kotick 2012 $64,942,306
    CBS CBS CORP Leslie Moonves 2012 $62,157,026
    LNG CHENIERE ENERGY INC Charif Souki 2012 $57,518,332
    CACC CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP Brett A. Roberts 2012 $54,282,500
    MCK MCKESSON CORP John H. Hammergren 2013 $51,744,999
    DISCA DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INC David M. Zaslav 2012 $49,932,867
    HCA HCA HOLDINGS INC Richard M. Bracken 2012 $46,359,246
    LINTA LIBERTY INTERACTIVE CORP Gregory B. Maffei 2012 $45,302,040
    JEF JEFFERIES GROUP LLC Richard B. Handler 2012 $45,182,239
    LVLT LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS INC James Q. Crowe 2012 $40,708,970
    XOM EXXON MOBIL CORP R. W. Tillerson 2012 $40,266,501
    DIS DISNEY (WALT) CO Robert A. Iger 2012 $40,227,848
    NUAN NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS INC Paul A. Ricci 2012 $37,077,679
    YHOO YAHOO INC Marissa A. Mayer 2012 $36,615,404
    RL RALPH LAUREN CORP Ralph Lauren 2012 $36,325,782
    NKE NIKE INC Mark G. Parker 2012 $35,212,678
    PLL PALL CORP Lawrence Kingsley 2012 $33,862,509
    VIAB VIACOM INC Philippe P. Dauman 2012 $33,450,824
    HON HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC David M. Cote 2012 $33,247,178
    CVX CHEVRON CORP J. S. Watson 2012 $32,227,122
    NLY ANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Michael A.J. Farrell 2012 $32,016,284
    WRB BERKLEY (W R) CORP William R. Berkley 2012 $31,296,780
    PRU PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC John R. Strangfeld Jr. 2012 $30,693,655
    TYC TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD Edward D. Breen 2012 $30,552,734
    KO COCA-COLA CO Muhtar Kent 2012 $30,460,186
    PM PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL Louis C. Camilleri 2012 $30,304,091
    REGN REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS Leonard S. Schleifer M.D., Ph.D. 2012 $30,047,097
    NWSA NEWS CORP K. Rupert Murdoch 2012 $30,022,292
    JNJ JOHNSON & JOHNSON William C. Weldon 2012 $29,838,259
    EBAY EBAY INC John J. Donahoe 2012 $29,705,081
    CMCSA COMCAST CORP Brian L. Roberts 2012 $29,124,014
    SBUX STARBUCKS CORP Howard Schultz 2012 $28,909,773
    MDLZ MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL INC Irene Rosenfeld 2012 $28,811,314
    DUK DUKE ENERGY CORP William D. Johnson 2012 $28,655,920
    OXY OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP Stephen I. Chazen 2012 $28,519,053
    AXP AMERICAN EXPRESS CO K. I. Chenault 2012 $28,491,734
    LYV LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT Michael Rapino 2012 $28,479,535
    MCD MCDONALD'S CORP James A. Skinner 2012 $27,741,408
    UTX UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP Louis Ch?nevert 2012 $27,562,325
    LMT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP Robert J. Stevens 2012 $27,549,444
    BA BOEING CO W. James McNerney Jr. 2012 $27,484,138
    DVA DAVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS Kent J. Thiry 2012 $26,799,121
    TRW TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP John C. Plant 2012 $26,203,477
    TWX TIME WARNER INC Jeffrey L. Bewkes 2012 $25,889,823
    GE GENERAL ELECTRIC CO Jeffrey R. Immelt 2012 $25,806,352
    PFE PFIZER INC Ian C. Read 2012 $25,634,136
    ABT ABBOTT LABORATORIES Miles D. White 2012 $25,118,836
    MDT MEDTRONIC INC Omar Ishrak 2012 $25,025,639
    GPS GAP INC Glenn Murphy 2012 $24,627,812
    BLMN BLOOMIN' BRANDS INC Elizabeth A. Smith 2012 $24,450,233
    NOC NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP Wesley G. Bush 2012 $24,411,853
    KRC KILROY REALTY CORP John B. Kilroy Jr. 2012 $23,804,530
    EXC EXELON CORP John W. Rowe 2012 $23,483,442
    FE FIRSTENERGY CORP Anthony J. Alexander 2012 $23,310,829
    DG DOLLAR GENERAL CORP Richard W. Dreiling 2012 $23,160,197
    DOW DOW CHEMICAL Andrew N. Liveris 2012 $22,989,668
    WFC WELLS FARGO & CO John G. Stumpf 2012 $22,873,085
    POST POST HOLDINGS INC William P. Stiritz 2012 $22,744,428
    AXS AXIS CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD Albert A. Benchimol 2012 $22,674,021
    COF CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP Richard D. Fairbank 2012 $22,605,374
    DF DEAN FOODS CO Gregg L. Engles 2012 $22,533,094
    CAT CATERPILLAR INC Douglas R. Oberhelman 2012 $22,374,744
    T AT&T INC R. Stephenson 2012 $22,234,703
    DHR DANAHER CORP H. Lawrence Culp Jr. 2012 $21,898,728
    TJX TJX COMPANIES INC Carol Meyrowitz 2013 $21,768,800
    JCI JOHNSON CONTROLS INC Stephen A. Roell 2012 $21,382,876
    LYB LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES NV James L. Gallogly 2012 $21,242,927
    AGN ALLERGAN INC David E.I. Pyott 2012 $21,164,198
    CBE COOPER INDUSTRIES PLC Kirk S. Hachigian 2011 $21,128,672
    F FORD MOTOR CO Alan Mulally 2012 $20,955,806
    CSC COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP Michael W. Laphen 2012 $20,859,081
    SD SANDRIDGE ENERGY INC Tom L. Ward 2012 $20,764,622
    FSL FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR LTD Gregg Lowe 2012 $20,745,087
    QCOM QUALCOMM INC Paul E. Jacobs 2012 $20,730,873
    WMT WAL-MART STORES INC Michael T. Duke 2013 $20,693,545
    TGT TARGET CORP Gregg W. Steinhafel 2012 $20,647,464
    WLP WELLPOINT INC Angela F. Braly 2012 $20,590,781
    BEE STRATEGIC HOTELS & RESORTS Laurence S. Geller 2012 $20,559,749
    MPC MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP Gary R. Heminger 2012 $20,398,168
    CVS CVS CAREMARK CORP Larry J. Merlo 2012 $20,330,097
    BLK BLACKROCK INC Laurence D. Fink 2012 $20,231,401
    AMG AFFILIATED MANAGERS GRP INC Sean M. Healey 2012 $19,800,156
    CMG CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC Steve Ells 2012 $19,741,296
    NBR NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD Anthony G. Petrello 2012 $19,734,569
    APC ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP R A. Walker 2012 $19,664,885
    MRX MEDICIS PHARMACEUT CP Jonah Shacknai 2011 $19,636,817
    BBY BEST BUY CO INC Hubert Joly 2013 $19,550,692
    COP CONOCOPHILLIPS R. M. Lance 2012 $19,287,218
    LTD L BRANDS INC Leslie H. Wexner 2012 $19,232,970
    UNP UNION PACIFIC CORP James R. Young 2012 $19,114,972
    VPRT VISTAPRINT NV Robert S. Keane 2012 $19,043,339
    DE DEERE & CO Samuel R. Allen 2012 $19,031,943
    RTN RAYTHEON CO William H. Swanson 2012 $19,024,036
    INTC INTEL CORP Paul S. Otellini 2012 $18,991,300
    FDML FEDERAL-MOGUL CORP Jos? Maria Alapont 2012 $18,988,692
    PNR PENTAIR LTD Randall J. Hogan 2012 $18,772,054
    PIR PIER 1 IMPORTS INC Alexander W. Smith 2013 $18,755,923
    01-19-2014 01:31 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What is it exactly you're supposed to do when nobody wants to even respond to job applications?
    The reason no one seems to be responding to job applications is because any time a position opens up, they are bombarded with hundreds, if not thousands of apps. Even with computer assistance to pre-screen them, it's a very daunting task to go through them and everyone starts to look the same. I've heard many stories of people that have filled out hundreds of applications, basically just throwing darts, hoping someone will call them back for an interview. Sadly, most of them never get that call. From what I've been hearing, networking is the current best way to look for jobs.

    Talk to your friends and family, the parents you know from your kids extracurricular activities, the neighbour down the street, people in your field you may know online, etc. See if where they work is needing someone with your skills and have them drop a line for you. They can go to HR and be like "I know this guy..." It may sound like it's giving in to the good ol' boys mentality of being hired, but it's a way to make your application stand out and be given a second look. An application can't really speak for things like your work ethic and attitude, whereas a good (and of course honest) friend can point out those good qualities about you from experience.

    Something to think about, at least, as a different approach to the problem.
    01-19-2014 02:26 PM
  12. louisstone's Avatar
    And most of those incentives are tied to the stock price.
    Stock price reflects the market's belief in the long term prospects of the company. That seems properly aligned with the interests of stakeholders.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    01-19-2014 02:30 PM
  13. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Stock price reflects the market's belief in the long term prospects of the company. That seems properly aligned with the interests of stakeholders.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    But those interested are that of free and screwing over employees.
    It more just another reason why companies can not be trusted to do the right thing and need more heavy handed regulation.

    Also how it is done ceo are short term thinking. If they can boost the stock right before the options come good then oh look they will.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-19-2014 02:33 PM
  14. louisstone's Avatar
    But those interested are that of free and screwing over employees.
    I guess that's a difference in our perspectives. I don't think there is an active thought in management's heads seeking to screw the employee.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    01-19-2014 02:41 PM
  15. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I guess that's a difference in our perspectives. I don't think there is an active thought in management's heads seeking to screw the employee.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    No what it is management looking for ways to keep employees salaries as low as possible and not looking for what is best for employees.

    Like anyone who thinks not talking about salary primary reason is for any other reason than to keep wages down is deluded. It is to prevent wage increases and to under pay people as much as possible.

    I can promise you that companies hate sites that give data on salaries market rate.

    They look for ways to keep wages down and I only see crap arguments that try to explain way executive pay increase is so out of line compared to their work force.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-19-2014 02:51 PM
  16. anon8126715's Avatar
    I guess that's a difference in our perspectives. I don't think there is an active thought in management's heads seeking to screw the employee.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    That's because it's so ingrained in their heads and it comes second nature.

    When I worked at one company, the manager would expect you to be in the work area at 6:59, not at 7:00, nor 7:04. Part of what was required for me to get to my workstation was for me to put on a "bunny suit" (see below) for the company because the area was a class 100 (100 particulates per unit) work area. If I was in the gowning area at 7:00, I was considered late. When it came time to leave at 7:30 (12 hour shifts), I couldn't just leave, if there was something that needed to be done, I had to stay until it was done.

    Under normal conditions, it would take me 40 minutes to get to work. I would leave 1 hour early so that I could get to work on time. A few times I got to work and in the gowning area at exactly 7:00. He insisted that I was late. I told him that I leave my home 1 hour prior to my start time, and that some days I would see 1 accident and make it on time. If I saw more than 1 accident on the road, I knew I was going to be late. His answer to me was that maybe I should leave another 30 minutes early. I asked him if he would pay me when I got to work if I got to work 30 minutes early. He gave me an emphatic "no". His other suggestion was for me to sell my house and move somewhere closer (would've been crazy to move to that part of the area since I was in a central location AND the company was known for layoffs) or find a job closer to my home. I looked him square in the eye and said, "I think you're right", and handed him my badge.

    I guess I'll agree with you that it wasn't an active thought, it was a passive thought on this guy's part. Some managers have this notion that they're overlords and need to be treated like royalty. You are the manager of my role with the company, you are not the manager of ME as a person. A lot of managers can't distinguish between the two, but many managers expect you to be a subordinate of theirs even off the clock.

    Right to Work and Unions-bunny-u00252bsuits.jpg
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-19-2014 03:04 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I agree that manager may have been a bit strict and tactless, but it's also the employee's duty to make sure they can show up on time. It's also unreasonable to expect your company to pay anything extra simply for you to leave home earlier. But let's say they did. All that would do is lower the hourly rate, delay raises, lower bonuses, etc. My advice to people having to do some things like that off the clock is to look at your post check and ask yourself if you're happy with how much you made for the work you did. It's kinda like working 40 hrs at $20/hr vs 20 hrs at $40/hr plus 20 hrs volunteered. At the end of the week, it doesn't matter how you're paid, but how much.
    01-19-2014 04:42 PM
  18. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I guess that's a difference in our perspectives. I don't think there is an active thought in management's heads seeking to screw the employee.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    The problem is employees have zero repression and their interest are not being looked at.
    It is sad but I believe we are getting to the point that in any publicly traded company that the employee control 1/3 of the bored. Those 1/3 of the bored investors have zero say over. Each employee gets who has been there at least 1 year gets one vote for those seats. This means the employee have people on the bored looking at there interest.

    Share holders control the other 2/3s.

    This is better than Germany where the workforce controls 50% which I think is 2 much. But I believe they need a voice of people who first intersted is the employees and not the share holders.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    01-19-2014 04:54 PM
  19. louisstone's Avatar
    I work 10 hour days regularly (with a minimum 1 hour commute each way).

    But, the check I take home fairly represents the value I have established for my labor. Working a straight 8 hours would be nice, but is unrealistic once you've moved into a salaried position.

    So, I can consider it $20 an hour for 8 hours or $16 for 10. If I feel like $160 was the value of my day's labor, that's what matters.

    --
    Somebody, somewhere, right now is stuffing Twinkies in their shorts.
    01-19-2014 08:41 PM
  20. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I'm confused. Isn't the job of a corporation to make as much money as possible? Why would anyone expect them (in general) to care about their employees to the level that's being discussed in this thread? Unions formed initially to improve the quality of the work environment and general quality of life for the labor force. You can find any number of arguments on both sides that say Unions aren't needed anymore vs are absolutely necessary still.

    I didn't take the time to find the article, but I did read somewhere that a really high percentage of union funds go towards expansion of the union itself, and not so much actually helping the members of the unions. Out of curiosity, has anyone looked to see how much the executives of the larger unions make per year?
    01-19-2014 09:53 PM
  21. anon8126715's Avatar
    Out of curiosity, has anyone looked to see how much the executives of the larger unions make per year?
    Not nearly as much as the ones I posted earlier, about as much a percentage that they used to make when we were a more prosperous nation.


    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    01-19-2014 10:08 PM
  22. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Not nearly as much as the ones I posted earlier, about as much a percentage that they used to make when we were a more prosperous nation.


    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    I did a quick Google search and couldn't find much info newer than 2010. Hoffa of the Teamsters made about $330,000. So honestly, not as much as I thought.
    01-19-2014 10:17 PM
  23. oz123's Avatar
    My union has a membership of 100,000 and the National President has a salary of $97,000 (AU) I consider this to be a very reasonsble salary. But as in any organisation there are a lot of overheads.
    palandri likes this.
    01-19-2014 10:49 PM
  24. xchange's Avatar
    The bottom line is this. Unions, as faulty and corrupt as employers as they can sometimes end up being, are the only check in place our system has to reign in UNchecked employers from abusing their power. It's not perfect but if a single one of you can illustrate a better working system that's already in place I'm all ears.
    01-19-2014 11:36 PM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    On the topic of excessive CEO pay: If you're against it, what's your view on athletes and movie stars being paid millions as well? Are they also over paid?
    01-20-2014 02:29 AM
350 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. How do I transfer pix from my Mac to this thing?
    By thebignewt in forum Verizon HTC One
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:16 AM
  2. How to relock the boot loader and unroot the galaxy nexus.
    By Ridgerunner20 in forum Verizon Galaxy Nexus Rooting, ROM's, and Hack's
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 05:25 AM
  3. Possibly Switching from Verizon to T-Mobile
    By wodehousefan1 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 01:58 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 02:33 PM
  5. Galaxy Note 3 "Unable to connect to proxy server"
    By Jelly Belly in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 03:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD