12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 12345 ...
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn'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.
    Maybe there isn't, but why can't we discuss a new system that might work better? I have none myself, but maybe someone else does.

    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?
    Yes, as a generalization. There are quite a few athletes at league minimum, which is still "high" by most people's standards but isn't multi million dollar a year salaries like the top talent gets.

    Sent from my TegraNote-P1640 using Tapatalk
    01-20-2014 04:34 AM
  2. Chuckcell's Avatar
    47 years a union member here and I want to say this. Worker work that's what defines us. And mangers manage - including managing to get the product done without you if at all possible. Don't ever forget that.
    Your manager may be your buddy, friend, whatever but that will not preclude handing you the pink slip if it can be done. And the reason can be as simple as not liking your face.
    I think that most people want to have a personal self-worth that includes what we do for a living but companies are almost always blind to that. In a union shop you get at least the recognition of being something more than just another cog. You become part of something at your level that changes an "I" to a we. And that's something a good employer should include in the job space but seldom does.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    01-20-2014 04:56 AM
  3. anon8126715'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?
    Not really an oranges to oranges comparison. When you consider that an athlete's salary is dictated by how much money the average fan, or the average sponsor pays, their salaries are more subject to the quality of their product and their performance. Considering a CEO's pay is generally set by board members that are trying to get the CEO to earn as much money for them as possible, it doesn't seem like they're the only ones that should decide the CEO's salary.
    01-20-2014 05:06 AM
  4. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Not really an oranges to oranges comparison. When you consider that an athlete's salary is dictated by how much money the average fan, or the average sponsor pays, their salaries are more subject to the quality of their product and their performance. Considering a CEO's pay is generally set by board members that are trying to get the CEO to earn as much money for them as possible, it doesn't seem like they're the only ones that should decide the CEO's salary.
    But here's the thing, that CEO has to perform in the best interests of the company as a whole if he and the board members wish to earn the most. Like the sports fans and movie goers, the company's performance and salaries are tied to how much product the customer buys and at what price. That is influenced by the corporate culture. While there are different beliefs on how executives think it's best to treat the employees, in the end, they are no more than an expense to the company and it's simply a numbers game.

    And when you consider just how complex the executive carers are, it's a fallacy to expect the average worker or even middle management to accurately judge how much a CEO should make. It's an entirely different skill set needed to run a manufacturing company than to run a CNC machine. Most people would probably crack under their pressures even if they had the skills. The board members understand what it takes. The majority of workers don't. I don't even claim to know what it takes, other than it's high pressure and requires constant learning and adaptation.

    Also read a little on the "Ben & Jerry's (ice cream company) experiment" when they tried to find a CEO to take over. The founders had used a wage cap ratio of 5 to 1 for the highest paid to lowest paid worker in the company when they ran it. When it was time to retire and find an experienced CEO, they couldn't find a CEO willing to take that, even going 17 to 1. Why would someone take that when they could easily make more in other companies? Being philanthropic is nice, and I'd wager most rich people are in their private lives. In the competitive business world, it's pretty cut throat in the upper echelons.
    01-20-2014 07:14 AM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    But here's the thing, that CEO has to perform in the best interests of the company as a whole if he and the board members wish to earn the most. Like the sports fans and movie goers, the company's performance and salaries are tied to how much product the customer buys and at what price. That is influenced by the corporate culture. While there are different beliefs on how executives think it's best to treat the employees, in the end, they are no more than an expense to the company and it's simply a numbers game.

    And when you consider just how complex the executive carers are, it's a fallacy to expect the average worker or even middle management to accurately judge how much a CEO should make. It's an entirely different skill set needed to run a manufacturing company than to run a CNC machine. Most people would probably crack under their pressures even if they had the skills. The board members understand what it takes. The majority of workers don't. I don't even claim to know what it takes, other than it's high pressure and requires constant learning and adaptation.

    Also read a little on the "Ben & Jerry's (ice cream company) experiment" when they tried to find a CEO to take over. The founders had used a wage cap ratio of 5 to 1 for the highest paid to lowest paid worker in the company when they ran it. When it was time to retire and find an experienced CEO, they couldn't find a CEO willing to take that, even going 17 to 1. Why would someone take that when they could easily make more in other companies? Being philanthropic is nice, and I'd wager most rich people are in their private lives. In the competitive business world, it's pretty cut throat in the upper echelons.
    I'm willing to bet you that a CEO's duties aren't as difficult as they're made out to be. The CEOs from the "golden years" didn't require exuberant salaries. You mean to tell me in this day and age when computers and technology has made life simple for most every task, somehow a CEO's job is that much more demanding?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    01-20-2014 10:01 AM
  6. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Also read a little on the "Ben & Jerry's (ice cream company) experiment" when they tried to find a CEO to take over. The founders had used a wage cap ratio of 5 to 1 for the highest paid to lowest paid worker in the company when they ran it. When it was time to retire and find an experienced CEO, they couldn't find a CEO willing to take that, even going 17 to 1. Why would someone take that when they could easily make more in other companies? Being philanthropic is nice, and I'd wager most rich people are in their private lives. In the competitive business world, it's pretty cut throat in the upper echelons.
    That is because they all started patting themselves he back and boosting their own pay.

    Remember most boards members are CEO's of another company said CEO is on.

    It very much you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. The corruption's got into place and what was consider insane a few years ago became the new norm.
    Your example does nothing to address the long term out of control raise in their pay.
    01-20-2014 10:43 AM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm willing to bet you that a CEO's duties aren't as difficult as they're made out to be. The CEOs from the "golden years" didn't require exuberant salaries. You mean to tell me in this day and age when computers and technology has made life simple for most every task, somehow a CEO's job is that much more demanding?

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    If you think it's so easy, why aren't you out there trying to get a position as one and undercutting all the other CEO's pay? And even if you do treat all your employees top notch, keep in mind that one wrong move could affect thousands of innocent livelihoods under your command and destroy the company. A bad product launch, quality control problems, estimating sales wrong and screwing up budgets, and on and on. Computers are wonderful things, but they can't do everything, and certainly don't have a gut instinct to take chances.
    01-20-2014 11:02 AM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    If you think it's so easy, why aren't you out there trying to get a position as one and undercutting all the other CEO's pay? And even if you do treat all your employees top notch, keep in mind that one wrong move could affect thousands of innocent livelihoods under your command and destroy the company. A bad product launch, quality control problems, estimating sales wrong and screwing up budgets, and on and on. Computers are wonderful things, but they can't do everything, and certainly don't have a gut instinct to take chances.
    I'm not part of the "good ole boy" club. It's a relatively exclusive club. Why else do you think they made a big deal when GM promoted its FIRST female CEO? I personally think it's a shame that the culture is so status quo.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    01-20-2014 11:11 AM
  9. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I'm not part of the "good ole boy" club. It's a relatively exclusive club. Why else do you think they made a big deal when GM promoted its FIRST female CEO? I personally think it's a shame that the culture is so status quo.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    It is a "good ole boy" raciest club. They never will admit it but from my uncle who is up their and smashed into the glass ceiling.
    If you are not a tall white male with a good wife chance are you never will get it. They do not tell you this part as it is illegal but truth is that is what it is. Same thing was told to me by a ceo who fits the white male look. He knows it and disagrees with it but that is the rules.
    01-20-2014 11:34 AM
  10. Timelessblur's Avatar
    If you think it's so easy, why aren't you out there trying to get a position as one and undercutting all the other CEO's pay? And even if you do treat all your employees top notch, keep in mind that one wrong move could affect thousands of innocent livelihoods under your command and destroy the company. A bad product launch, quality control problems, estimating sales wrong and screwing up budgets, and on and on. Computers are wonderful things, but they can't do everything, and certainly don't have a gut instinct to take chances.

    Again you have provide nothing explain why their total composition is growing so out of line with their workers. You keep trying to make up excuse but CEO pay has been growing at an insanely faster rate that the workers. You have been ask multiple times on this and still no response.
    01-20-2014 11:36 AM
  11. llamabreath's Avatar
    It is a "good ole boy" raciest club. They never will admit it but from my uncle who is up their and smashed into the glass ceiling.
    If you are tall white male with a good wife....
    Or maybe it's just because they know how to spell.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-20-2014 11:41 AM
  12. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Or maybe it's just because they know how to spell.


    Maybe some people have dyslexia. I recommend thinking before throwing insults like that.

    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-20-2014 11:45 AM
  13. llamabreath's Avatar
    It wasn't an insult.
    It was a compliment to the people you were insulting.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-20-2014 11:46 AM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    Or maybe it's just because they know how to spell.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    I've actually worked for managers that couldn't distinguish between "there", "their", or "they're". The worst offender would use "supposibly" instead of "supposedly". Not that I am a grammar na...(wait is that word censored?) But it is sad when a manager doesn't know basic grammar skills.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    01-20-2014 01:16 PM
  15. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I am a blue collar, working class, union electrician and I am proudly represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, Chicago, Illinois.

    First off, lets talk about right to work laws. What right to work laws do is they give employees of a unionized shop the right to reject the democratic process voted in by the majority of employees. They need not pay union dues nor follow any contract rules voted in by the majority of the employees. When you think about it, it's no different than writing a law that allows people to reject a democratically elected representative (city council, congressman...etc...) and not follow any laws or taxes backed by the majority of the people. Right to work laws are simply antidemocratic.

    Why do employees vote in favor of union representation? It's real simple, they aren't being listen to. Case in point, the Hawthorne Study. Back in 1924 a study was done at a Western Electric factory to see what could be done to increase worker productivity. So they formed employee feedback groups. They started with lighting, brighter lighting, then lower lighting. Then they went on and tried different break schedules, lunch schedules, shortening the work schedule...etc,,, What they discovered was, no matter what they did, it increased productivity. After 8 years of experiments, they saw the light and were able to concluded that employee involvement (being listen to) is what works to increase productivity.
    I could see maybe requiring a fee for collective bargaining actives, but there is no reason for a company to require membership in a union for employment. Any individual should have the right to work without such ties if they choose to. A union should not control the hiring activities of the employer. Some chooses to work somewhere just like the employer chooses who works there. It is a mutual relationship that either party can leave. Not compatible to a democratic nation or the like. If employees do not like it, they leave. They do not vote on management like elected officials or fund the facilities. They do not necessarily own the company. It is the company's property and business that the employees are choosing to be apart of. If they want to change it, they can invest in the company.


    I have known many different union organizer throughout my life, from many different unions. One thing they always tell me is, if a company tries to fight the union, they know they'll win, but if the company fights and corrects the issues causing the employees to want union representation, they'll lose. It that simple. Now, if the VW plant is smart and forms employee feedback groups and listens to their employees and takes corrective action, the union won't be voted in, but if they decide to try any fight the union head on, they'll lose.
    VW is an interesting case actually. From what i am reading, in Germany unions are used as a employee controlled method of feedback. Not necessarily an Employer vs Employee scenario. VW actually seems to be encouraging the plant to unionize. Like I implied, my contact within the plant believes that if a secret ballot was held there would be a large majority against unionizing. We will see what happens.




    Unions come about because of unbalance. This imbalance can be caused by either employers or employees. Either side can get greedy and impose will upon another.

    Me personally? If I feel the need to unionize, I will just find a new place to work. Myself and several in my family have worked for decades in a field that is dominated by unions, but in facilities and companies that do not have them. We have all worked our tails off and been well compensated for it. And during the economic crisis when the union facility down from my house was laying people off, the facility my father build the same products in never missed a day's work with no threat of layoffs. Heck. The company I work for now has never laid off a full time employee despite being 65+ year old global company that i guarantee you have used or owned a product of. I see no need to have any sort of representation. I can represent myself just fine. Thank you. If I am not happy with my salary or benefits, I can ask for better or leave. If everyone else would do the same, I do not think unions would ever be needed.

    If an employer does not see the values of workers then i will not work for them. It is as simple as that. I do not understand why people think "they are evil and we must force them." If you do not like it, get off your rear and work somewhere else or stop complaining. This is not the days of coal miners and company dollars. Find another job and move.
    01-20-2014 02:11 PM
  16. anon8126715's Avatar
    I could see maybe requiring a fee for collective bargaining actives, but there is no reason for a company to require membership in a union for employment. Any individual should have the right to work without such ties if they choose to. A union should not control the hiring activities of the employer. Some chooses to work somewhere just like the employer chooses who works there. It is a mutual relationship that either party can leave. Not compatible to a democratic nation or the like. If employees do not like it, they leave. They do not vote on management like elected officials or fund the facilities. They do not necessarily own the company. It is the company's property and business that the employees are choosing to be apart of. If they want to change it, they can invest in the company.




    VW is an interesting case actually. From what i am reading, in Germany unions are used as a employee controlled method of feedback. Not necessarily an Employer vs Employee scenario. VW actually seems to be encouraging the plant to unionize. Like I implied, my contact within the plant believes that if a secret ballot was held there would be a large majority against unionizing. We will see what happens.




    Unions come about because of unbalance. This imbalance can be caused by either employers or employees. Either side can get greedy and impose will upon another.

    Me personally? If I feel the need to unionize, I will just find a new place to work. Myself and several in my family have worked for decades in a field that is dominated by unions, but in facilities and companies that do not have them. We have all worked our tails off and been well compensated for it. And during the economic crisis when the union facility down from my house was laying people off, the facility my father build the same products in never missed a day's work with no threat of layoffs. Heck. The company I work for now has never laid off a full time employee despite being 65+ year old global company that i guarantee you have used or owned a product of. I see no need to have any sort of representation. I can represent myself just fine. Thank you. If I am not happy with my salary or benefits, I can ask for better or leave. If everyone else would do the same, I do not think unions would ever be needed.

    If an employer does not see the values of workers then i will not work for them. It is as simple as that. I do not understand why people think "they are evil and we must force them." If you do not like it, get off your rear and work somewhere else or stop complaining. This is not the days of coal miners and company dollars. Find another job and move.

    I don't expect employers to put employees ahead of their greed. If it was the norm then you would still have a pension system in place that actually worked. Instead you have companies that have no problem raiding the employee pensions funds and leaving employees high and dry.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    01-20-2014 04:18 PM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I don't expect employers to put employees ahead of their greed. If it was the norm then you would still have a pension system in place that actually worked. Instead you have companies that have no problem raiding the employee pensions funds and leaving employees high and dry.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    If you do not read the massive claim on every pension plan in existence that says that it could be taken at any time or you do not see that companies go under sometimes, you need to reevaluate you thought process. Never ever count on something you cannot control. Social security included. Plus as I already said, pension plans are not sustainable long term. People live too long and too many eventually get into the program. I would rather have the money up front anyway. That way I am responsible for me. The way everyone should be.

    Companies generate profits. That is what their purpose is. Nothing else. Keeping workers and treating them well has proven to be a great way of generating profits. If your employer does not recognize that to the point you feel the need to hold a gun to their head, then you should probably change jobs.
    01-20-2014 04:32 PM
  18. palandri's Avatar
    I could see maybe requiring a fee for collective bargaining actives, but there is no reason for a company to require membership in a union for employment. Any individual should have the right to work without such ties if they choose to. A union should not control the hiring activities of the employer. Some chooses to work somewhere just like the employer chooses who works there. It is a mutual relationship that either party can leave. Not compatible to a democratic nation or the like. If employees do not like it, they leave. They do not vote on management like elected officials or fund the facilities. They do not necessarily own the company. It is the company's property and business that the employees are choosing to be apart of. If they want to change it, they can invest in the company.

    VW is an interesting case actually. From what i am reading, in Germany unions are used as a employee controlled method of feedback. Not necessarily an Employer vs Employee scenario. VW actually seems to be encouraging the plant to unionize. Like I implied, my contact within the plant believes that if a secret ballot was held there would be a large majority against unionizing. We will see what happens.

    Unions come about because of unbalance. This imbalance can be caused by either employers or employees. Either side can get greedy and impose will upon another.

    Me personally? If I feel the need to unionize, I will just find a new place to work. Myself and several in my family have worked for decades in a field that is dominated by unions, but in facilities and companies that do not have them. We have all worked our tails off and been well compensated for it. And during the economic crisis when the union facility down from my house was laying people off, the facility my father build the same products in never missed a day's work with no threat of layoffs. Heck. The company I work for now has never laid off a full time employee despite being 65+ year old global company that i guarantee you have used or owned a product of. I see no need to have any sort of representation. I can represent myself just fine. Thank you. If I am not happy with my salary or benefits, I can ask for better or leave. If everyone else would do the same, I do not think unions would ever be needed.

    If an employer does not see the values of workers then i will not work for them. It is as simple as that. I do not understand why people think "they are evil and we must force them." If you do not like it, get off your rear and work somewhere else or stop complaining. This is not the days of coal miners and company dollars. Find another job and move.
    LOL! Where to start.

    1. Collective bargaining, notice the word "collective" which means, shared or done by a group of people. It would be nice to do business by a wink and and a handshake, but any smart business man or attorney knows you need to get it in writing so there's no misunderstanding. If you go to buy a house, you hire an attorney and get everything in writing, you do it collectively with your attorney. Collective bargaining with your employer is no different, you negotiate a contract with your employer to determine hiring, pay, benefits, hours, leave, job health, safety policies... etc...You simply get everything in writing, and both sides agree everything is fair. What's wrong with that?

    You say, "...I see no need to have any sort of representation. I can represent myself just fine. Thank you..." and that's fine, go ahead and do that, but don't infringe on my right to collective bargain for better pay and benefits. Here we go again with the "we" and "me" debate.

    2. I am not familiar with the current UAW, VW situation. From what you're saying, it sounds like VW is encouraging the plant to unionize and or form a "German-style labor council". Here's a recent article: UAW says will be in VW's Tennessee plant by June - paper | Reuters What I can tell you, is I know German workers at the VW plant in Germany gave a concession to VW a few years back to keep their factory in Germany open. I believe they increased their weekly work shift from 28 hours to 30 hours at the same pay rate.

    You know it's funny, many European countries broke the 40 hour work week years ago. They see people from the states on TV saying, I work 60 to 70 hours a week and they think we're nuts. They ask questions like, Don't you have a family to care for? Children to raise? Social interaction with friends and family? Do you have any hobbies? It's like people in the states are programmed to automatically say they work 60 to 70 hours a week when asked, or else they'll be considered lazy.
    01-20-2014 06:17 PM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    You know it's funny, many European countries broke the 40 hour work week years ago. They see people from the states on TV saying, I work 60 to 70 hours a week and they think we're nuts. They ask questions like, Don't you have a family to care for? Children to raise? Social interaction with friends and family? Do you have any hobbies? It's like people in the states are programmed to automatically say they work 60 to 70 hours a week when asked, or else they'll be considered lazy.

    Don't the Japanese work even more hours than us and make US look lazy?



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    palandri likes this.
    01-20-2014 06:21 PM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    Don't the Japanese work even more hours than us and make US look lazy?



    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    I am not familiar with Asia, I am more familiar with Europe.

    Working time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This looks pretty accurate at least for what they are saying about Europe. There's a Japan, South Korea section also:

    ...Most countries in the developed world have seen average hours worked decrease greatly. For example in the U.S in the late 19th century it was estimated that the average work week was over 60 hours per week.[20] Today the average hours worked in the U.S is around 33,[21] with the average man employed full-time for 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time for 7.7 hours per work day.[22] The front runners for lowest average weekly work hours are the Netherlands with 27 hours,[23] and France with 30 hours.[24] At current rates the Netherlands is set to become the first country to reach an average work week under 21 hours.[25] In a 2011 report of 26 OECD countries, Germany had the lowest average working hours per week at 25.6 hours.Countries where people work least - NBC News.com ...
    01-20-2014 06:29 PM
  21. anon8126715's Avatar
    The CEO of Costco seems to have the right idea. I have both a Sam's club membership and a Costco membership. While the prices of Costco are a tad bit higher, and they don't have as many of the staple items that they carry at Sam's Club, I'd much rather go to Costco because I know I'm not subsidizing some billionaires that will only work their employees 30 hours a week to avoid paying them benefits. If the Costco CEO can run Costco the way he does with the salary he's decided to give himself, and pay his employees a good wage, why can't other multi-billion dollar companies do the same?

    Costco CEO Craig Jelinek Leads the Cheapest, Happiest Company in the World - Businessweek

    Joe Carcello has a great job. The 59-year-old has an annual salary of $52,700, gets five weeks of vacation a year, and is looking forward to retiring on the sizable nest egg in his 401(k), which his employer augments with matching funds. After 26 years at his company, hes not worried about layoffs. In 2009, as the recession deepened, his bosses handed out raises. Im just grateful to come here to work every day, he says.

    This wouldnt be remarkable except that Carcello works in retail, one of the stingiest industries in America, with some of the most dissatisfied workers. On May 29, Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) employees in Miami, Boston, and the San Francisco Bay Area began a weeklong strike. (A Walmart spokesman told MSNBC the strike was a publicity stunt.) Workers at an Amazon.com (AMZN) fulfillment center in Leipzig, Germany, also recently held strikes to demand higher pay and better benefits. (An Amazon spokesman says its employees earn more than the average warehouse worker.) In its 30-year history, Carcellos employer, Costco, has never had significant labor troubles.

    Costco Wholesale (COST), the second-largest retailer in the U.S. behind Walmart, is an anomaly in an age marked by turmoil and downsizing. Known for its $55-a-year membership fee and its massive, austere warehouses stocked floor to ceiling with indulgent portions of everything from tilapia to toilet paper, Costco has thrived over the last five years. While competitors lost customers to the Internet and weathered a wave of investor pessimism, Costcos sales have grown 39 percent and its stock price has doubled since 2009. The hot streak continued through last years retirement of widely admired co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Jim Sinegal. The share price is up 30 percent under the leadership of its new, plain-spoken CEO, Craig Jelinek.
    Despite the sagging economy and challenges to the industry, Costco pays its hourly workers an average of $20.89 an hour, not including overtime (vs. the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour). By comparison, Walmart said its average wage for full-time employees in the U.S. is $12.67 an hour, according to a letter it sent in April to activist Ralph Nader. Eighty-eight percent of Costco employees have company-sponsored health insurance; Walmart says that more than half of its do. Costco workers with coverage pay premiums that amount to less than 10 percent of the overall cost of their plans. It treats its employees well in the belief that a happier work environment will result in a more profitable company. I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits, says Jelinek. It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. Its really that simple.

    In February, Jelinek set Costcos convictions in ink, writing a public letter at the behest of Nader, urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time since 2009. We know its a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty, he wrote.
    The letter barely moved the needle. Although President Obama echoed Jelineks sentiment and called for a $9-an-hour wage in his State of the Union address, Congress is deadlocked on the issue. But Jelineks letter had a secondary effect. It cast a brighter light on Costcos philosophy and created a stark contrast with its competitors.

    That juxtaposition raises an important question: Can the rest of corporate America become more like Costco? Or will Costco, buffeted by the same disruptive changes affecting all of retail, be forced to become more like everyone else?


    The Issaquah (Wash.) headquarters of Costco, 20 miles from Seattle, radiate frugality. The floor of the executive wing is covered in faded blue carpet, and in the boardroom, six faux-wood tableswhich would look at home in a public school teachers loungeare jammed together. On the walls are several Van Gogh and Picasso prints (less than $15 at Art.com), along with two badly staged photographs of the companys board of directors. In one, a picture of Jelineks head has been awkwardly taped onto the frame, hovering above a Weber grill.
    palandri likes this.
    01-20-2014 06:49 PM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Again you have provide nothing explain why their total composition is growing so out of line with their workers. You keep trying to make up excuse but CEO pay has been growing at an insanely faster rate that the workers. You have been ask multiple times on this and still no response.
    It's what the market can bare. Plain and simple. As long as the company can remain competitive, then they will be able to sustain those high earnings. The repressed average worker wages doesn't always work, because if you drop those too much, then the company will falter. Either from low worker productivity, or simply not enough workers. If that happens, the CEO's income goes down from loss of performance pay. So there is a market based balance, even if you think it's lopsided.

    And as I've said before (possibly in another thread), my happiness with my pay is based on what lifestyle I can live. I don't suddenly hate my pay because of how much more the CEO makes. Or anyone else for that matter.
    01-20-2014 06:53 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    It's what the market can bare. Plain and simple. As long as the company can remain competitive, then they will be able to sustain those high earnings. The repressed average worker wages doesn't always work, because if you drop those too much, then the company will falter. Either from low worker productivity, or simply not enough workers. If that happens, the CEO's income goes down from loss of performance pay. So there is a market based balance, even if you think it's lopsided.

    And as I've said before (possibly in another thread), my happiness with my pay is based on what lifestyle I can live. I don't suddenly hate my pay because of how much more the CEO makes. Or anyone else for that matter.
    Is this before or after upper management fleece the company?
    01-20-2014 06:59 PM
  24. xchange's Avatar
    It wasn't an insult.
    It was a compliment to the people you were insulting.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    Now that was funny! :-D

    But I think what he was trying to say was that it's all just a lie perpetuated by the man to keep a brother down!!!
    01-20-2014 09:02 PM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    Now that was funny! :-D

    But I think what he was trying to say was that it's all just a lie perpetuated by the man to keep a brother down!!!
    I know.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-20-2014 09:20 PM
350 12345 ...

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