Is this true, and if so, what do you think?!

Options
1356

Replies

  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    The National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal for him to fire anyone for trying to form a union, or for forming one. I doubt this is true because he would most likely be paying more in legal fees and lawsuits than he would if he just gave them a rasie.

    Have none of you ever worked in retail? The National Labor Relations Act is only relevant for certain industries. Retail is not one of them.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    . Why is it so difficult for some to see the cause-and-effect?

    Oh... and even if the CEO decided not to pay himself ANYTHING for a year, that $760,000 isn't going to be enough to pay ALL of his employees to be full-time.

    That's why reform is needed on a whole scale. It DOES lead to cuts and unemployment. There's got to be a way to set it up so it isn't like that - or at least to soften the blow.

    Also, I just find it difficult to work up sympathy for the dude making 760,000 a year taking a 10% paycut verses his under 20,000 a year paid employees. Why is it so easy for people to feel for the guy who makes more money?

    Because $76,000 a year isn't even going to scratch the surface.
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,735 Member
    Options
    537231_525092940858389_1676060287_n.png

    If this is accurate...wow...

    Makes me think twice about ever giving THEM my business...

    ...because anything produced by a site called www.theeverlastingGOPstoppers.com must be completely accurate and non-partisan, right?

    :huh:
  • quirkytizzy
    quirkytizzy Posts: 4,052 Member
    Options

    Because $76,000 a year isn't even going to scratch the surface.

    It wouldn't. But I'm amazed at how people just....don't seem to mind. The inequality is off the scales - and if they're not actively DEFENDING the inequality, they are very much "meh."

    It baffles me.
  • Findekano
    Findekano Posts: 116
    Options

    Because $76,000 a year isn't even going to scratch the surface.

    It wouldn't. But I'm amazed at how people just....don't seem to mind. The inequality is off the scales - and if they're not actively DEFENDING the inequality, they are very much "meh."

    It baffles me.

    I have to agree here. People are either defending the guy who makes mind-blowing amounts of money and doesn't care for the well-being of his workers, without whom he would have NOTHING, or they're saying, "Not my problem."
  • Findekano
    Findekano Posts: 116
    Options
    537231_525092940858389_1676060287_n.png

    If this is accurate...wow...

    Makes me think twice about ever giving THEM my business...

    ...because anything produced by a site called www.theeverlastingGOPstoppers.com must be completely accurate and non-partisan, right?

    :huh:

    Nope. Doesn't have to be. But coming from a partisan source doesn't make it inherently false, either, which is why I asked. I never said, "ZOMG THIS IS 100% TRUE! BEHEAD HIM!" did I?
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options

    Because $76,000 a year isn't even going to scratch the surface.

    It wouldn't. But I'm amazed at how people just....don't seem to mind. The inequality is off the scales - and if they're not actively DEFENDING the inequality, they are very much "meh."

    It baffles me.

    First off, let me just say that I know nothing about this particular company other than they are grossly over-priced.

    I defend businesses because I am a business student working on my MBA (yes I'm bragging a bit there).

    I am not offended by his salary for a couple of reasons. First, I aspire to achieve that. He didn't just get handed this position, nor was he born into it. That man worked his butt off for many many years. Secondly, assuming that this is a corporation, he doesn't get to make any decisions about his salary. The board does. Usually, if a board demands for pay cuts, EVERYONE including the CEO, has to take the pay cut. Thirdly, if this is a sole proprietorship, and his employees feel like they are being treated unfairly, then he won't be able to retain good employees, won't be able to operate, and will lose a TON of money anyway.
    And finally, my boss manages 'X' amount of people. I would expect him to make more money. Likewise, his boss manages 'X' amount of people and I would expect him to make more than my boss. And likewise, up the chain. How much should the man make if he is managing 100,000 employees?
  • diodelcibo
    diodelcibo Posts: 2,564 Member
    Options

    Because $76,000 a year isn't even going to scratch the surface.

    It wouldn't. But I'm amazed at how people just....don't seem to mind. The inequality is off the scales - and if they're not actively DEFENDING the inequality, they are very much "meh."

    It baffles me.

    Inequality happens frequently; one cannot change that.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options

    Because $76,000 a year isn't even going to scratch the surface.

    It wouldn't. But I'm amazed at how people just....don't seem to mind. The inequality is off the scales - and if they're not actively DEFENDING the inequality, they are very much "meh."

    It baffles me.

    Inequality happens frequently; one cannot change that.

    Thank you! No one ever said life was fair. I tell my kids that all the time.
  • abrewer563
    abrewer563 Posts: 122
    Options
    The National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal for him to fire anyone for trying to form a union, or for forming one. I doubt this is true because he would most likely be paying more in legal fees and lawsuits than he would if he just gave them a rasie.

    Have none of you ever worked in retail? The National Labor Relations Act is only relevant for certain industries. Retail is not one of them.

    Actually retail store employees have every right to unionize if they choose, most companies are anti-union though and try and instill doubt in their employees to keep them from unionizing. This happened with Target in 2011.
  • Hadabetter
    Hadabetter Posts: 942 Member
    Options
    People shopping for the lowest prices don't always think about the company policies which allow these lower prices. Price shopping doesn't sound quite as wonderful when you realize that the employees at the bargain store may have to work when they are ill else use a vacation day, or they don't get benefits at all because their hours are kept just below the full-time employee threshold, or their company has taken advantage of high unemployment by paying bare-bones wages which wouldn't retain employees in a normal economy.

    When when making purchases you're not only buying the desired products, but in a very real way you are voting your support of that company's corporate citizenship, including its treatment of employees, environmental impact, support of certain political causes, etc.

    Just my 3 cents.
  • LuckyLeprechaun
    LuckyLeprechaun Posts: 6,296 Member
    Options
    . Why is it so difficult for some to see the cause-and-effect?

    Oh... and even if the CEO decided not to pay himself ANYTHING for a year, that $760,000 isn't going to be enough to pay ALL of his employees to be full-time.

    That's why reform is needed on a whole scale. It DOES lead to cuts and unemployment. There's got to be a way to set it up so it isn't like that - or at least to soften the blow.

    Also, I just find it difficult to work up sympathy for the dude making 760,000 a year taking a 10% paycut verses his under 20,000 a year paid employees. If that paycut at the top of the chain makes it difficult to live, UR DOIN' IT WRONG. Why is it so easy for people to feel for the guy who makes more money?

    Because without THAT GUY none of his employees would have a job. It was HIS hard work that created the business that is now employing them.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    The National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal for him to fire anyone for trying to form a union, or for forming one. I doubt this is true because he would most likely be paying more in legal fees and lawsuits than he would if he just gave them a rasie.

    Have none of you ever worked in retail? The National Labor Relations Act is only relevant for certain industries. Retail is not one of them.

    Actually retail store employees have every right to unionize if they choose, most companies are anti-union though and try and instill doubt in their employees to keep them from unionizing. This happened with Target in 2011.

    Most states are right-to-work. I don't know about yours though. Right-to-work means they can fire you for whatever reason they want so long as they are prepared to pay or fight an unemployment claim.
  • Findekano
    Findekano Posts: 116
    Options
    People shopping for the lowest prices don't always think about the company policies which allow these lower prices. Price shopping doesn't sound quite as wonderful when you realize that the employees at the bargain store may have to work when they are ill else use a vacation day, or they don't get benefits at all because their hours are kept just below the full-time employee threshold, or their company has taken advantage of high unemployment by paying bare-bones wages which wouldn't retain employees in a normal economy.

    When when making purchases you're not only buying the desired products, but in a very real way you are voting your support of that company's corporate citizenship, including its treatment of employees, environmental impact, support of certain political causes, etc.

    Just my 3 cents.

    I like you.
  • Hadabetter
    Hadabetter Posts: 942 Member
    Options


    I like you.

    :embarassed:
  • MbiggsHFD319
    MbiggsHFD319 Posts: 427 Member
    Options
    makes me no dif. I have never even been to one of those stores and cannot imagine that I ever will. Just doent make since to me to drive so far to buy overpriced "whole foods" when I can shop locally to help save our small town's job seekers and buy locally grown in-season items.
  • ahviendha
    ahviendha Posts: 1,291 Member
    Options
    unfortunately it is true, and even though i don't usually shop there anyways i definitely won't after his fascism comment.

    when are CEO's gonna learn to keep politics out of business?
  • forgtmenot
    forgtmenot Posts: 860 Member
    Options
    Nope it does not change my mind.

    Morality does not coincide with my nutritional needs.

    ^This. (we don't have a whole foods where I live, but I have shopped there before and I would again if I lived near one)
  • ahviendha
    ahviendha Posts: 1,291 Member
    Options
    . Why is it so difficult for some to see the cause-and-effect?

    Oh... and even if the CEO decided not to pay himself ANYTHING for a year, that $760,000 isn't going to be enough to pay ALL of his employees to be full-time.

    That's why reform is needed on a whole scale. It DOES lead to cuts and unemployment. There's got to be a way to set it up so it isn't like that - or at least to soften the blow.

    Also, I just find it difficult to work up sympathy for the dude making 760,000 a year taking a 10% paycut verses his under 20,000 a year paid employees. If that paycut at the top of the chain makes it difficult to live, UR DOIN' IT WRONG. Why is it so easy for people to feel for the guy who makes more money?

    Because without THAT GUY none of his employees would have a job. It was HIS hard work that created the business that is now employing them.

    that's an assumption.
  • quirkytizzy
    quirkytizzy Posts: 4,052 Member
    Options

    Inequality happens frequently; one cannot change that.

    No, it is not possible to erase it completely. But it can be worked on. Some examples are grossly imbalanced. Besides, we worked on women's inequality. We are working on setting straight gay inequality. (Pun not intended.)

    Simply because we cannot upend the problem entirely does not mean we shouldn't work on doing what we can. Arguing otherwise is nothing more than simple apathy - which has never helped anything.

Categories