Showing posts with label employee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employee. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Contrarian definition of a worker
A worker is a person who is told he or she earns too much by someone who "earns" way too much.
Labels:
earnings,
employee,
employer,
excessive pay,
executive,
high-pay,
income,
livable wage,
plutocrat,
worker
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Absentee capitalism and participant capitalism
I thought I had posted the following in January after reading the article on co-op statistics. It was a fluke that my January notes file was open and open to this article. But I couldn't find it among my actual posts. Better late than never!
Capitalism thrives all over the world, but few of us see much of it, being blinded by the ads of the multinational corporations. The co-operative movement is a huge source of personal investment by workers or customers. Actually it is so huge that co-operatives provide over 100 million jobs around the world, 20% more than multinational enterprises. (Source: Statistical information on the Co-operative Movement). Then there are all the individual or small group owner-operator enterprises that still exist, though less and less in retail.
I can't complain too much about absentee capitalism because I get a portion of my income from dividends of corporations whose leaders I don't remember past skimming the annual reports. However, we do buy most of our groceries at Whole Foods Co-op in Duluth where we are owner-members.
My chances of serving on a board of one of these large corporations are as much as the proverbial snow ball*, but if I so chose, I would be welcome to run as a candidate for the board of Whole Foods Co-op (actually getting elected and serving well are different issues).
* For readers who are not familiar with American idioms - As much chance as a snowball in Hell
Capitalism thrives all over the world, but few of us see much of it, being blinded by the ads of the multinational corporations. The co-operative movement is a huge source of personal investment by workers or customers. Actually it is so huge that co-operatives provide over 100 million jobs around the world, 20% more than multinational enterprises. (Source: Statistical information on the Co-operative Movement). Then there are all the individual or small group owner-operator enterprises that still exist, though less and less in retail.
I can't complain too much about absentee capitalism because I get a portion of my income from dividends of corporations whose leaders I don't remember past skimming the annual reports. However, we do buy most of our groceries at Whole Foods Co-op in Duluth where we are owner-members.
My chances of serving on a board of one of these large corporations are as much as the proverbial snow ball*, but if I so chose, I would be welcome to run as a candidate for the board of Whole Foods Co-op (actually getting elected and serving well are different issues).
* For readers who are not familiar with American idioms - As much chance as a snowball in Hell
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Another example of the lop-sided "free" market
I recently saw a letter to the editor or an online comment that an employer will pay you what your worth, implying take it or leave it.
But who is deciding "worth"? Is it an employer who has carefully considered the benefits of an employee and what the current market price is for said employee? Or is it a penny-pinching Scrooge who will pay as little as possible, regardless of how much benefit (and profit) the employee will bring to the employer?
If the labor market is truly free, both employer and employee will have sufficient information to judge what a "fair" wage is. If the labor market is truly free, potential employees should be free to enter or leave it. Too often, this is not the case, many potential employees are not free to leave the labor market, unless there is free food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their families.
But who is deciding "worth"? Is it an employer who has carefully considered the benefits of an employee and what the current market price is for said employee? Or is it a penny-pinching Scrooge who will pay as little as possible, regardless of how much benefit (and profit) the employee will bring to the employer?
If the labor market is truly free, both employer and employee will have sufficient information to judge what a "fair" wage is. If the labor market is truly free, potential employees should be free to enter or leave it. Too often, this is not the case, many potential employees are not free to leave the labor market, unless there is free food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their families.
Labels:
employee,
employer,
free market,
labor market,
Scrooge,
worth
Thursday, April 08, 2010
The friendly IRS
Tonight I had another encounter with a friendly government employee. Some people consider that an oxymoron, but I have often found that people employed to give service generally give good service, whether in government or private enterprise.
I had difficulty finding the PDF for a tax schedule at www.irs.gov. I could find the instructions for it but not the form itself. I finally went to the help page, looked up the number for the web page help desk, and dialed it. With two more numbers I reached a very friendly fellow in one ring, and he led me to the form in two steps.
I should have asked if he was a government employee or a contractor. Whatever, somebody on the government side was responsible for being sure those on the front line were friendly.
I had difficulty finding the PDF for a tax schedule at www.irs.gov. I could find the instructions for it but not the form itself. I finally went to the help page, looked up the number for the web page help desk, and dialed it. With two more numbers I reached a very friendly fellow in one ring, and he led me to the form in two steps.
I should have asked if he was a government employee or a contractor. Whatever, somebody on the government side was responsible for being sure those on the front line were friendly.
Labels:
employee,
friendly,
government,
IRS,
service
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Whose entitlement?
Business Week, Oct. 15, has a feedback section on a previous article on overtime.
Several of the respondents complain of a litiginous society with an entitlement mentality. One thing often overlooked in these kind of arguments is that more suits are filed company against company than individual against company. On entitlements, who are those feeling entitled: employees requesting just payment for their time or employers demanding more time than they are willing to pay for?
One business administration professor wrote about letting the "market work". She forgets that a truly free market consists of willing buyers and sellers with complete information on the transaction, the ability to quickly enter and leave the market, and no consequences affecting other than the buyer and seller. Employment is not easily entered or left, especially quickly.
Several of the respondents complain of a litiginous society with an entitlement mentality. One thing often overlooked in these kind of arguments is that more suits are filed company against company than individual against company. On entitlements, who are those feeling entitled: employees requesting just payment for their time or employers demanding more time than they are willing to pay for?
One business administration professor wrote about letting the "market work". She forgets that a truly free market consists of willing buyers and sellers with complete information on the transaction, the ability to quickly enter and leave the market, and no consequences affecting other than the buyer and seller. Employment is not easily entered or left, especially quickly.
Labels:
employee,
employer,
employment,
overtime pay,
wages
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)