Homesteading Forum banner
81 - 100 of 158 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #81 ·
Just hypothetically, there is a fella on here that lives a little north of you that claims to pay his highschool workers $20-$25 an hour for day labor, plus bennies and bonuses. Some make even more than that he says.
He is having record profits on lumber, pigs, chickens and seemingly whatever he touches.
Would it be fair to ask him to set up savings accounts and rainy day money for the down times, winter layoffs or sick days? Where would he be if he was the head cook and bottle washer?
No. You don't work, you don't get paid, unless it is some kind of workers comp for work place injuries or whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #82 ·
Are you of the opinion that it should be better for an employee to demand more from his company when the times are good, or to market themselves for every penny they can get?
A person should always be able to move along.

Are you familiar with cliff vesting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,582 Posts
I am self employed and I believe what is left over after paying the bills at the end of the month is mine. I will take and keep the profit and I do not expect the employee to get any. On the other hand they suffer no risk of not being able to pay my bills, UNLESS things get bad enough and then they will loose their job. It’s business, I will protect myself above all, and do not blame a employee for doing the same. I will strive to keep them employed, after all a good employee is the best tool there is in the tool box, and they know that. They are going to charge me what the market will handle. I can pay or they go elsewhere. It’s business.

It’s more than obvious that Deere is charging what the market will handle for their product for as long as they can. Its business. It’s not any different with large corporation or their employees. Those employees know full well that if times get bad they will loose their job and the corporate management will not hesitate to fire them. Why in the world would people not expect those employees to get what they can when they can?

Now one work around of all these issues is profit sharing. It’s fairly common and employees know that they are getting a piece of the profit when times are good. On the other hand, in the back of their mind, they know full well they will be fired if the profits get low enough…………….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
No. You don't work, you don't get paid, unless it is some kind of workers comp for work place injuries or whatever.
My intent isn't to badger, but rather to drill down a bit. I am trying to find your point of differentiating between who deserves profit sharing, if any.
Say you had a stay at home wife who had a very lucrative job offer with travel, that would require a housekeeper, a nanny, maybe someone to manage the horses, or cattle and help with chores, etc. 2-3 people lets say. Without them, she would have to stay home, therefore no fat income, bonuses, vehicle, perks, stock options.
Or similar to the previous scenario, you own a little 5 & 10 store, using highschool kids after school and a couple of full timers. Since labor is the backbone of most every company, don't they also deserve the same path to the profit pie as the Deere workers?
Why should scale matter?
Without a union, how could you be compelled to open your books and pay a fair share to your crews?
Wouldn't coming to work everyday for a slightly above rate and witnessing your own lifestyle create an attitude of envy and resentment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
A person should always be able to move along.

Are you familiar with cliff vesting?
If you are earning top tier wages for a company at the head of the pack, what would be the motivation to move along?

Yes I am aware of cliff vesting and creating multiple streams to enhance employee income.

I am asking you if you believe an employee is automatically worth more because of their owner's earnings?

Is fair a static term or fluid? Does "Fair to share" only apply in the realm of the John Deere strike?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #86 ·
My intent isn't to badger, but rather to drill down a bit. I am trying to find your point of differentiating between who deserves profit sharing, if any.
Say you had a stay at home wife who had a very lucrative job offer with travel, that would require a housekeeper, a nanny, maybe someone to manage the horses, or cattle and help with chores, etc. 2-3 people lets say. Without them, she would have to stay home, therefore no fat income, bonuses, vehicle, perks, stock options.
Or similar to the previous scenario, you own a little 5 & 10 store, using highschool kids after school and a couple of full timers. Since labor is the backbone of most every company, don't they also deserve the same path to the profit pie as the Deere workers?
Why should scale matter?
Without a union, how could you be compelled to open your books and pay a fair share to your crews?
Wouldn't coming to work everyday for a slightly above rate and witnessing your own lifestyle create an attitude of envy and resentment?
You are not badgering. I enjoy putting meat on the bones.


First, let me say, my suggestion is not to mandate anything, or create any new law. It is just another way to reward workers. No one should be compelled by any force other than their conscious.

In the example you used, again, the owner has the right to reward in any manner he chooses, and the market allows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #87 ·
I am asking you if you believe an employee is automatically worth more because of their owner's earnings?
Some might be. It is based purely on contribution to the success of the business. That said, I do think the opportunity of a very profitable business should allow for a very well paid janitor.

Is fair a static term or fluid? Does "Fair to share" only apply in the realm of the John Deere strike?
I cannot think of a situation where fair has multiple meanings. Fair means sharing the success, and sharing the challenges, sharing the lean times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 ·
Workers in various industries nationwide are threatening to go on strike in a sweeping effort to secure higher pay and better working conditions.

More than 100,000 unionized employees — between Hollywood production crew members, John Deere factory workers and Kaiser Permanente nurses — have overwhelmingly voted to authorize strikes and are preparing to join the picket line unless they get stronger collective bargaining agreements.

Thousands are already on strike, including 2,000 New York hospital workers, 700 Massachusetts nurses and 1,400 Kellogg plant workers in Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
Yet, when you hear of politicians and employees referring to "fair share" how many of them are including those lean times?
I know of no employment agreement that includes them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
Some might be. It is based purely on contribution to the success of the business. That said, I do think the opportunity of a very profitable business should allow for a very well paid janitor.


I cannot think of a situation where fair has multiple meanings. Fair means sharing the success, and sharing the challenges, sharing the lean times.
Then it sounds like you are advocating for pay to be based on a sliding scale, determined by the success of the employer, rather than area, experience, market, current wages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
I'll include merit in the above. I was told numerous times by management and Union reps in several jobs, both private and government, that merit increases were not allowed. What would have been fair for one was not considered fair for the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #92 ·
Yet, when you hear of politicians and employees referring to "fair share" how many of them are including those lean times?
I know of no employment agreement that includes them.
Please do not equate any idea I might share with the thieves we vote into office. I hate who they are and what they do

My bonus was less, my raise was smaller during lean times. You should not expect to share the good, if you are unwilling to share the bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #93 ·
Then it sounds like you are advocating for pay to be based on a sliding scale, determined by the success of the employer, rather than area, experience, market, current wages.
It is one factor, but all those things are factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #95 ·
Sure hope this doesn't get ugly.
Last thing we need is for Deere to relocate overseas.
Would it not be management's obligation to move their company to a an area with lower wages? Management is responsible for maximizing profit. High labor costs eats profit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,126 Posts
Would it not be management's obligation to move their company to a an area with lower wages? Management is responsible for maximizing profit. High labor costs eats profit.
I'm not taking your response too serious as I see that many of your threads and comments are simply to get people thinking and in some cases to "stir them up", which is fine.

Anyone with half a lick of sense realizes that labor is only a small piece of the cost in manufacturing a piece of equipment. There are also huge costs involved to pull up stakes and relocate.
However, it wouldn't be the first big business that organized labor (the UAW) has sunk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
Please do not equate any idea I might share with the thieves we vote into office. I hate who they are and what they do

My bonus was less, my raise was smaller during lean times. You should not expect to share the good, if you are unwilling to share the bad.
Which is why I consider "Fair" a foul four letter f bomb when it comes to jobs, taxes and opportunity.
I am asking you how you can equate fair to one area of the workforce without including the whole? You are already living in a "where is mine" society; fair to the majority does not include the bad times.
Fair to most means more of what the ones with the most have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,340 Posts
I'm not taking your response too serious as I see that many of your threads and comments are simply to get people thinking and in some cases to "stir them up", which is fine.
I consider on line discussions with persons of interesting views to be engaging. In this case I am simply trying to absorb a rational.
More often than not, those with a strong opposing opinion are dishonest cowards. They cannot defend what they many times already know is a weak argument, so they change the subject or refuse to answer questions.
They are a waste of time.
When discussions are honest, not trolling, and willing to examine other ideas, there is little of the juvenile behavior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #99 ·
Fair to most means more of what the ones with the most have.
I do not let others change the definition of a word, or sully its meaning. Fair means fair to all parties.

I can see how the definition of "fair" is subjective. What is fair to one, might not be to another. Simply said, fair means neither party feels disadvantaged or taken advantage of by their circumstances.

@Fishindude is right, I do post to provoke thought.

My thought is - Too much wealth is landing into too few hands. Nothing good will come from that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,837 Posts
Discussion Starter · #100 ·
I'm not taking your response too serious as I see that many of your threads and comments are simply to get people thinking and in some cases to "stir them up", which is fine.

Anyone with half a lick of sense realizes that labor is only a small piece of the cost in manufacturing a piece of equipment. There are also huge costs involved to pull up stakes and relocate.
However, it wouldn't be the first big business that organized labor (the UAW) has sunk.
I am very serious.

I do try to make people think. I never intend to make someone mad, or "stir them up". I can't help if thinking is hard on some people.

I have moved plants, and it is just a cost of doing business. The most basic cost benefit analysis.

Our tax code is such that the cost to relocate is a good write off. It is a business expense. And I can carry it on my books until I need it.

Plus, our tax code makes moving a business to lower tax countries attractive.

The US government dos not do anything that makes sense, but stupid people feel good about it because they don't think, they don't get "stirred up".
 
81 - 100 of 158 Posts
Top