Obama economic appointments:

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

So employees are only entitled to whatever their boss thinks they should pay them.

 

Is this a serious question? When you started your business and it folded, were you handing out 6 figure salaries to your installers? Is that why your business failed?

 

The answer to your ridiculous question is YES. That's why I'm called the boss.

[fan for too long 16]

So you admit that you deserve entitlements and your employees don't. Thank you for clarifying your position.

 

If you work for someone, you deserve exactly what your fatcat boss thinks you should have. Get that people. He is entitled to set your wage and you should be happy to have a job.

 

And by the way my one employee who worked for me was paid almost as much as I got. I felt he deserved it since without him I wouldn't have been able to install as much as we did. And this had nothing to do with me losing the business. Just because you own a business, you do NOT own your employees, even though you seem to wish too. LMAO!!!

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

So employees are only entitled to whatever their boss thinks they should pay them. While employers are entitled to exhuberant wages, stock options, and bonuses. Even if their company is groving or not. Entitlement is a two sided street. As far as Obama's view on unions, did you see the Chicago Regional window company that was shut down giving their employees only a 3 day notice. Well Obama backed the employees views that they should get severance pay and pension money's owed. A far cry from the Reagan veiw and any conservative trickle down theory.

 

Can we have an honest discussion about this without the political rhetoric?

 

1) Of course the employees of that Chicago company deserve to receive severance & whatever vacation days are owed to them. Why? Because that's what their CONTRACT called for.

 

But, Bank of America doesn't owe them that $, the company they had a contract with does. Anybody suggesting otherwise is just plain delusional. There's a reason BoA didn't grant that bridge loan, it's a bad loan. The company was obviously in deep trouble with or without the loan. It's not BoA responsibility to cover another companies debts. That's rather absurd.

 

If the company itself has any capital or assets that can be liquidated, then by all means they have an outstanding obligation to their employees.

 

The fact this company closed it's doors on 3 days notice is a pretty good indication they were poorly managed & simply hoping for a hail marry miracle. It sux for their employees, but if the company doesn't have the assets to pay them, they have little recourse, & thier protest is futile. You can't get blood from a turnip! Maybe the union they've been so loyal too and paid dues too should step up?

 

2) How exactly is Obama supporting them? Empty words?

 

3) Comparing this situation to the air traffic controllers is rediculous. Why? Because they too had a contract and THEY VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THAT CONTRACT BY STRIKING.

 

quote:

So employees are only entitled to whatever their boss thinks they should pay them.

 

Employees are entitled to whatever they can negotiate with their employers, period, end of discussion. Employees aren't slaves, they agree to the terms of their employment just as their employers do.

 

And, if that employer goes bankrupt, the employees are in no better position than their employeer. It's rather silly to think otherwise. It's rather silly to think a bankrupt company has the assets laying around to take care of their employees.

 

If the company is bankrupt, the company is bankrupt. That's just the cold hard reality of the situation.

 

quote:

While employers are entitled to exhuberant wages, stock options, and bonuses. Even if their company is groving or not.

 

I'm not sure what world you live in, but business owners don't make $ unless the company makes $. It's rediculous to apply the situations of a very small percentage of mega corps & their CEO's to every business model.

 

These CEO's are employees attempting to exploit the business for everything they can. Business owners don't have that luxury my friend.

 

If my business doesn't generate profits, their is no compensation, and that's the reality for the vast majority of employers.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

It appears BoA has relented to public pressure and extended this failed company enough credit to satisfy their obligations to their employees.

 

Good for those fired employees, but the stupidity of people amazes me. Holding the bank responsible for the companies failures simply because they can afford to pay. Can you say scapegoat? Who would loan a failed business $ to satisfy obligations to it's employees? Especially after the company expressed to the bank it didn't want the loan?

 

This country becomes more amussing by the day. Apparently, this company sticks it's head in the sand while the entire construction industry has been on death watch for two years & when they fail to plan a responsible exit strategy they leave their employees hanging and everybody blames the bank?

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

Charisma...

 

Beer is a right & drinks are on the house!

 

At least until the house goes belly up...

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

So you admit that you deserve entitlements and your employees don't. Thank you for clarifying your position.

 

 

Considering the amount of hours that I dedicate to my business (bookkeeping, sales, web development, etc), that not a single employee would be willing to do, regardless of wage, yes I most certainly do deserve a salary befitting the output.

 

Having said that, every single one of my employees still makes more than I do hourly.

 

***

 

I personally wish your business would have succeeded so that you would have some measure of comparison to rely upon. All you know is that your business, that you likely didn't invest/sacrifice enough in (financially or personally) was a failure and it was anybody's fault but your own.

Had your business succeeded however, and you experienced first hand the extent to which successful business owners are raked over the coals in numerous ways, maybe you would have a different view of the landscape that you are so quick to judge, but frankly don't know $hit about.

[fan for too long 16]

I know enough, having owned a business for over four years that owners are raked as you say. But employees wages at the lower levels have remained stagnant or regressed relative to inflation for 20 years. So your raking does not compare to theirs. I will bet that your employees who make more hourly than you do, work less than full time and this is not their choosing, but yours.

[SmackDaddy 30]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

I will bet that your employees who make more hourly than you do, work less than full time and this is not their choosing, but yours.

 

I can tell you honestly and without hesitation, that you would lose that bet. It is absolutely their choosing, which is why I stated a page or two back that I was fine with a pay increase in conjunction with an increase in output. My employees, like the majority of Americans, prefer to work the least and get paid the most. That's just not how it works.

 

 

So if I tell you that I make less hourly than my employees, and my employees are paid by the hour, what is your measure of comparison? Do you measure our salaries by the gross pay regardless of a contributional gauge or their lack of interest in taking on my responsibilities? Or do you measure our income according to some sort of standard criteria that would factor in contribution?

 

***

 

If employees on the lower level, as you say, would like to be paid better, than they are responsible for educating themsleves or at the very least broadening or sharpening their skills in order to qualify for that increased salary range.

[fan for too long 16]

I am glad that you actually have full time employees. Most small and large businesses limit employees hours so they do not receive benefits, as if paying for your own insurance was a benefit. I am fine with wages equal to contribution to the business. Hard work should be an American ethic. But as the minimum wage has increased at a snails pace. The upper income wages have increased and an exuberant pace. This is a major flaw in our economy, and unions used to help, but they have been castrated by large corporations and their lackeys in government.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:But employees wages at the lower levels have remained stagnant or regressed relative to inflation for 20 years.

 

 

I am glad that you actually have full time employees. Most small and large businesses limit employees hours so they do not receive benefits, as if paying for your own insurance was a benefit. I am fine with wages equal to contribution to the business. Hard work should be an American ethic. But as the minimum wage has increased at a snails pace. The upper income wages have increased and an exuberant pace. This is a major flaw in our economy, and unions used to help, but they have been castrated by large corporations and their lackeys in government.

 

Most businesses? Perhaps an increasing number would be a fair & accurate statement.

 

There are correlations here you conveniently continue to overlook. Wages are naturally dictated by supply & demand. When that equalibrium is artificially established, employers will work around the system to establish it.

 

As I have pointed out to you countless times, the unskilled job market in this country has shrunk dramatically while the labor pool has grown dramatically. 5 million manufacturing jobs have been permenantly lost & 12 million illegal immigrants alone have entered the US job market. The ONLY way to increase working class wages in this country is to create more jobs than workers and provide businesses with the incentive to hire them. A war on capital will continue to perpetuate this.

 

Nobody is going to pay an employee $12 an hour when there are 50 people who will work for $10.

 

 

It's funny how you leftists cry about middle class wages stagnating over the past 20 years and fail to recognize what has accompanied it (higher taxes + fewer jobs )(larger labor pool) = (stagnating & lower wages). 2 + 2 does indeed = 4.

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by fan for too long:

I am glad that you actually have full time employees. Most small and large businesses limit employees hours so they do not receive benefits, as if paying for your own insurance was a benefit. I am fine with wages equal to contribution to the business. Hard work should be an American ethic. But as the minimum wage has increased at a snails pace. The upper income wages have increased and an exuberant pace. This is a major flaw in our economy, and unions used to help, but they have been castrated by large corporations and their lackeys in government.

Unions have not been castrated. It was elective surgery.

 

As a member of the UAW for nearly 7 years, I saw our union hold their collective arsenal to the heads of the auto industry giants for salaries and benefits that were absurd at best, and blatantly criminal at worst. This was done without the slightest concern for the future of the industry relevant to American workers, with full knowledge that the auto industry could not compete with foreign competitors because of the ridiculous difference in labor costs.

 

Add on to that their insistence on protecting employees that refused to do any level of quality work, and literally preventing the companies from ridding themselves of non-performing employees.

 

They would even institute measures preventing the companies from using advance industrial technologies simply because it would eliminate certain jobs that were currently being done manually (at a higher cost and with far less quality).

 

The unions could have saved themselves about 20 years of time if they would have just gone ahead and burned down all the auto factories in the early 80s. Because that is effectively what they have done.

[fan for too long 16]

quote:

by Mr. Charisma: As a member of the UAW for nearly 7 years, I saw our union hold their collective arsenal to the heads of the auto industry giants for salaries and benefits that were absurd at best, and blatantly criminal at worst. This was done without the slightest concern for the future of the industry relevant to American workers, with full knowledge that the auto industry could not compete with foreign competitors because of the ridiculous difference in labor costs.

 

Why were the union leaders who were pushing this allowed to remain the leaders? It seems it is human nature to corrupt anything that is good, especially when the few have power over the many.

 

quote:

Posted by KITNO: It's funny how you leftists cry about middle class wages stagnating over the past 20 years and fail to recognize what has accompanied it (higher taxes + fewer jobs )(larger labor pool) = (stagnating & lower wages). 2 + 2 does indeed = 4.

 

You also have to include in that equation the massive increase in upper management and CEO's salaries. And the Free trade agreements that our pathetic government have agreed to with the full consent of these CEO's to maximize their profits while raping their American employees by reducing their wages or eliminating their jobs altogether.