RL Anger



  • As requested by Cobalt, post your anger/irritations/rl peeves here.



  • Why is it a top 100 company doesn't offer a Living Wage to it's employees while talking about employment as a career. Grr. Something to fix.



  • That's an awful lot of companies in general. Indentured servitude and poverty keep employees from leaving because they will probably starve to death if they quit or leave. Woo.


  • Admin

    An old favorite is the CEO making a statement they just can't accord to keep everyone so <X> people need to lose their jobs, when s/he's personally paid a thousand times what they make.

    So, in essence, they could have cut the same costs by getting rid of the CEO and kept a thousand people employed - which of course would have been the crazy thing to do.



  • People say that a lot, @Arkandel, but it rarely comes up how much money those fat cat CEOs bring into the company. Through their connections, through their influence, through any number of things that have a vastly wider scope and impact on the bottom line than the blood and sweat of Faceless Workerbots 1-500.

    I'm not trying to defend the vastly overinflated payrolls these guys bank, but the simple truth is that the work put in by any given worker, or even hundreds or thousands of workers if the company is large enough, probably barely puts a dent in the earning (or more specifically the facilitation of the ability to generate earning) power its CEO brings to the table. This can vary a lot by company, but is often enough true.

    Besides which, while the CEO isn't always the owner, it is often enough that suggestions that they get rid of the CEO instead of laying people off is a bit like saying your house would always be clean if you moved out onto the street and sealed the whole thing up. It may be true, but since you're the one the thing is meant to benefit that doesn't make a lot of sense.


  • Admin

    @HelloRaptor said:

    People say that a lot, @Arkandel, but it rarely comes up how much money those fat cat CEOs bring into the company. Through their connections, through their influence, through any number of things that have a vastly wider scope and impact on the bottom line than the blood and sweat of Faceless Workerbots 1-500.

    Sometimes they make money. Sometimes they lose money - way more than any single employee could possibly lose it, yet the golden parachute clauses ensure they go away still making a killing. While the random guy who gets laid off for whatever reason (it can be that he got sick and they didn't give a shit or that he's a lazy jerk) gets peanuts.

    In other words, CEOs - or highly ranked managers in general - don't necessarily generate revenue for their company.


  • Pitcrew

    The air conditioning is out in my office. I am annoyed and sleepy and such. VENT!


  • Tutorialist

    @Luna said:

    As requested by Cobalt, post your anger/irritations/rl peeves here.

    Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank yoooooouu~



  • And it largely depends on where the CEOs money comes from. A pay cut for the McDonalds CEO for example won't help a single fry cook. Those are not his employees. It's a lot more nuanced than most people want it to be.



  • @Luna said:

    And it largely depends on where the CEOs money comes from. A pay cut for the McDonalds CEO for example won't help a single fry cook. Those are not his employees. It's a lot more nuanced than most people want it to be.

    That too.


  • Coder

    @HelloRaptor I can't really give specifics other than what I look up right this second, but from what news I pay attention to, CEO pay has never correlated to company performance. Top link I found was a Forbes article from last year that suggests that CEO pay is even negatively correlated to company performance.



  • @Glitch
    Ooookay? I didn't suggest any correlation between CEO pay and company performance, only that the influence that CEO has on company performance is significantly greater than that of any single worker or group of workers of the size discussed in most layoff situations, primarily because the scope of action and influence had by either is on a completely different scale. That's not really the same thing at all.


  • Coder

    @HelloRaptor said:

    it rarely comes up how much money those fat cat CEOs bring into the company.

    I associate company performance with financial performance. That statement reads to me like CEOs are responsible for bringing money in to the company and, therefore, positively impacting the bottom line of a company. I'm saying they do not generally bring anymore to the table than anyone else and that, according to that study, they may in fact act as a detriment in some important cases. I do not deny the scope of their position, but I do contend that they are not necessarily money-makers for the company.


  • Politics

    @HelloRaptor said:

    I didn't suggest any correlation between CEO pay and company performance, only that the influence that CEO has on company performance is significantly greater than that of any single worker or group of workers of the size discussed in most layoff situations, primarily because the scope of action and influence had by either is on a completely different scale.

    You're right, that's not the same thing. Glitch is also correct; a really shitty CEO can take a company down no matter how proficient its workforce is.

    What matters is that a working classical capitalist model posits that a company's workforce enjoy greater wages based on productivity. When wages increased commensurate with productivity, the United States's economy grew stronger and more robust. When this ceased being the case, in or around the late '70s, the country's began an inexorably debt death-spiral that it isn't coming out of, even now.

    It's not about living wage: it's about paying your workers fairly based on their productivity. Unfortunately, no one honestly likes the idea of taking a pay cut when their performance is terrible, so they are willing to accept a consistent paycheck even if their productivity increases over time.



  • @TNP ... But RuPaul is COOL! I have to catch up on their shows now.

    And yeah, I get it. I was in a bit of a funk and it just felt kinda bad.


  • Pitcrew

    Pettiness Peeve: Every time Troy posts about Fallcoast on the TR Facebook I want to post my Hitler video.


  • Pitcrew

    Doubleposting: Expanded my gmail menu and found an entire folder of old emails from an ex. Whoops!



  • @tragedyjones I have that for my ex husband but only because he was being an ass during the divorce.


  • TV & Movies

    Workplace Wrath: Applied for a transfer months ago with my employer and I keep getting the runaround..


  • TV & Movies

    Doubleposting: And the news from Greek financial crisis as well as the recent court decision spawning right-wing Christians to think that it is the end of the world according to Revelations. Gee! It would have been so much simpler if the Romans just legalized same sex marriages thus ushering in the eschaton 2000 years early!

    (Nota Bene: I am not picking on conservatives or Christians, as I am myself a theist as well as a right-leaning libertarian. Just tired of people who nitpick scripture and get their understanding of a 1-2nd century document written in a Hellenistic world from Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins).



  • The homopocalypse is upon us!

    ... or something. Texas state officials are still trying to figure out if they can refuse to provide licenses to same sex couples. They probably will because they can. Sometimes I love my state, and then sometimes I wish our politicians would burst into flames.

    If it's your damn job to issue marriage licenses and everything is legal and in line, issue the fucking license.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MU Soapbox was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.