Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
It's the idea that teachers will just do it any way because they care about the kids that is the insult.
You do a job for your O&G company. The next year, the company comes to you and says "We really need you to do this job again this year. It's integral for us as a business that it get completed, and everyone in the company is relying on you to do it. The whole year will have been a waste of time if you don't do this job, that's how important it is."
"We've also decided that we are going to cut the wage for this job in half."
Do you or do you not feel slighted?
I can't think of a time where I've had a boss come to me and say 'we're cutting your wage in half for the same job and expect you to still do it, but if you don't, that's no sweat off our back, we'll spend more money to get someone else to do it for worse results instead of paying you what we paid last year.'
I don't even think Sliver would do his job for half the wage, even if it meant the bottling machine broke and became unusable as a result, costing everyone else their jobs.
This is on top of things becoming more difficult for teachers anyway. Not only do they work long hours, spend their own money on their students, but now they're supposed work for half wage as well?
I can't imagine an Engineer doing that.
|
Owning a business, I'm pretty much as susceptible to the ups and downs of the market economy as it gets. On my main line of widgets (~35% of my business), we haven't been able to increase our prices since 2008. My costs keep going up, so yes, I do work for less doing the same job year after year. This is very normal for any business owner, or anybody who owns shares in a company. Profits are good some years, not so good other years, and sometimes they are very bad. It's not insulting, just a part of the ebb and flow of the market economy.
Teachers and other government employees are insulated from these types of things that people outside that environment view as normal. If one year a certain job was worth $200 per day and this year it's worth $100, that's okay. Maybe at $200 it was a sweet deal and at $100 it's not as good. If they couldn't fill 70% of the positions a month out I'd tend to agree the pay was too low, but since they are very close to filling all the positions I think it's fairly clear they're close to finding the right spot for this pay.