I don't see where I said anything about wages! I figured if i mentioned a union the trolls would come out. It's not always about money. Sometimes you need someone fighting on the employees side. Management sure isn't going to.
7 replies (most recent on top)
You go right ahead and propose unionization if you want mediocre wages with very little chance to promote. Unionizing won't change anything at the top only that they will only pay the minimum of what they absolutely have to, to union workers! Unions protect the dead wood and hold back the bright and energetic.
Agree with you 3scq.
However, the owners of the company a.k.a. the shareholders are supposed to hold executive compensation packages in check. That just doesn't seem to happen often enough.
You're right because what you can legally get isn't always what you should morally get. And that is true for unions too. If you want more money, that needs to be reflected in the benefit provided to the company. That is how compensation works. Unfortunately executives only agree with this once they already have their slice of the pie. A slice that has continued to increase dramatically in proportion over the last 60 years. Employee compensation is unbalanced in corporations today.
Yep, it's greedy when someone wants all they can legally get.
Funny, I remember unions always wanting more and more very year.
How much is enough for you?
I used to really hate unions. Then I spent about a decade in corporate america. The upper end of corporations really are greedy AF. Very little concern for the workers as long as they are well compensated. The majority of profits go to shareholders and executives.
that would be anti-american in our new trump world....how dare the peons stand up to the corporations/russians that make america great! I say you all just go out and junk all of the wells to send RL a nice lesson about how to treat workers....he cant sell San Juan and make his fat bloated bonus for the year.