Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
In fairness it's the business owners who are taking all the risks by starting up a business with their own money. If it goes tits up they lose all the money they invested in the business. The employees on the other hand have no vested interest in the business other than the fact they get a paycheck for the work that they do.
I tend to side with business owners for the reasons i've stated above. Also if there's profits the employees are eagerly there with hands out wanting a piece of it. When there is a downturn business owners have to fight tooth and nail to get concessions from the employees.
If employees/unions think they can do a better job of running a business then maybe they should invest some of their own money and start a business themselves.
|
I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh but there seems to be huge sense of entitlement to business owners in your post. Yes they put the money forward upfront, but when you work for a company you also run a risk, you expect to be paid yes, but when business is struggling that doesn't always happen. When you go to work for a company, especially in large corporations, and business decisions are made that result in a decline in business or a closure you also suffer, think of it as being a shareholder that makes a physical contribution rather than a monetary one.
Instead of a corporation, try to look at it from a small business view. If I go to start a company, get it funded but need to hire people to get it up and running, my potential employees are taking a huge risk by joining my company, they have no idea what the future holds, if they do a good job and my company fails, they are out of a job through no fault of their own. Sure they got paid, provided I could afford to pay them, but they are now out of work and may have trouble finding another job. They would also have lost the time they could have put in at another company building their career. To say an employee has no vested interest is a very misguided comment. They have goals in life and are trying to achieve them by working for their employer, and it could all be lost at any moment. They may not be putting money upfront, but they are always taking a risk up front when they are hired for any company.
Now it could be argued that they'll leave if they find a better opportunity, that is possible but not always the case, the same as it's possible for a successful company to be or not be bought out by the highest bidder and have them cut their jobs or for an owner to decide to close up shop for reasons unrelated to how the business is being run.
Unions aren't trying to run a business, they are trying to push for social justice and workers rights to be compensated fairly. They hold companies accountable when they try to avoid giving workers their due. Look at Loblaws vs Walmart, the top rate store workers at superstore make around $10/hour more than the top rate workers at Walmart. Why is that? Is it because Walmart is struggling? Is Loblaws simply making more money? No it's because unions fought for those wages, Loblaws still makes billions in profits annually, the only difference is that their workers can afford to live an average life. Why won't Walmart do that? They have much higher profits than Loblaws, so it would only make sense right? The reality is this, they do not care about their workers, they only care about profits. It's not about how much money they have invested, they have already made more profit than they could have ever dreamed possible at start up, it is a mentality of increased profits at all costs. Other employers may not be as blatant in their ignorance for their employees well being, but please do not kid yourself, employees at any company are essentially a peasant to their employer.
This mindset people have of looking down on workers for not settling for scraps or saying they should be happy to have a job at all is very backwards thinking, would you be ok with slave labour being brought back as long as it wasn't racially motivated? I mean what's the big deal if the boss pays them peanuts, they're lucky to have a job, he put up all the money up front, it's not as if they're being treated this way unfairly, so what if they can't feed their families, why are they owed that? Yeah the boss is making more and more money every year, but he's just making a return on his investment, the worker is lucky to get the same amount of money he made when the business was making 95% less money.