• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Paid What You're Worth" is a myth . . .

Let's change the title a bit. "Earn what you make" fits me better. It means out work the next guy and you get paid more (the unions hate that idea). I have worked union three times and one of which was straight out of a union local. I am strongly opposed to unions as I was raised in union town Chicago the they were and are 100% corrupt as is the city government. You can argue this point but too large a portion of union backers are so solely to get paid while doing as little as possible and I stand by that statement. I am also painfully aware of corporate greed so they can kiss my azz as well. I have always demanded of myself to try to go beyond the assignment given. I want to still be held in a higher regard than my coworkers unless I am part of a solid team of proud workers. In most cases it is easy to excel as too many do just enough to get by.
 
MaggieD said:
Food for thought:



This does make one stop and think . . .

I've never been against private sector unions. I think the unions themselves have lost site of the prize, so to speak, but who can deny the implications of the quote above?

Robert Reich: “Paid-what-you’re-worth” is a toxic myth - Salon.com
Click to expand...
Lots of things to "deny" in the article cited.

Start with the fact that the Average WalMart employee doesnt make $8.80 an hour. That is a figure derived from the TOTAL Wal Mart work force including part time and overseas employees. Add to that the fact that the average WalMart employee is a beyond unskilled worker doing a BEYOND unskilled job. Then look to what unfettered union participation has done to industry and in fact entire cities. Finally...go ahead and imagine what happens when a forced income increase happens at Wal Mart. What happens to the across the board cost of goods and services. Look at how that impacts fixed 'income' (welfare and social security recipients).

But you want to know the biggest argument against Reichs position? It is the CONTINUED ****ing mindless charge to build an economy and recovery on WalMart and McDonalds. Rather than focus on INDUSTRY and jobs which should afford the opportunity for solid and reliable middle income jobs, people like Reich ALWAYS turn to the lowest common denominator and pander to low income workers that would have been better served listening to teachers and career advisors than Reich.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, let's look at that idea. GM had 2013 net income of $3.8 billion with 202K employees or about $18K profit per employee while Walmart had 2013 net incone of $16 billion with 2 million employees or about $8K profit per employee. Of course, that alone is not complettely valid since most GM employees are full time and most Walmart employees are part time but, even assuming that Walmart workers get only 30 hours per week, that would raise the Walmart per employee profit to only $10K - compared to $18K for GM.
Click to expand...

I think that's a more appropriate analysis, though even you have to admit there isn't enough info (ex hours worked) to come to a conclusion.
 
sangha said:
IMO, the amount of profitability an employee creates (relative to their pay) is an accurate measure of that employees "value" to the employer.

If an employee of two businesses in two different sectors contribute $40 dollars of profits (not counting the cost of the labor itself) per hour, then isn't their value to the employer equal? How not?
Click to expand...
There ya go... in your opinion... that's a claim. Can you back it up?
 
sangha said:
IMO, the amount of profitability an employee creates (relative to their pay) is an accurate measure of that employees "value" to the employer.

If an employee of two businesses in two different sectors contribute $40 dollars of profits (not counting the cost of the labor itself) per hour, then isn't their value to the employer equal? How not?
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that people aren't paid that way. If it were a perfect world and Princess Maggie were in charge, as many employees as possible would be paid depending on what they produce. Sounds almost fair, right? Except what I've observed happens is that employers are only willing to pay "so much" for a particular job.

Subjective example from my mom's experience: She worked on piecework at Sunbeam Corporation for many years. Sunbeam rated each job as to what was a reasonable amount of parts to be produced. You were expected to "make the rate" and were given time to learn a job in order to do so. If you made over the rate, you got paid more per hour. Doesn't that sound just peachy? Well, it was!! Except!! That if employees consistently made 112% of rate, the company would come in and re-rate the job.

So...instead of employees finding easier ways to do a job, they were encouraged by other employees (and sometimes brow-beaten, by the way) to always stay right at 110% of rate. A 10% hourly bonus. And no more. Or the company would move the target. Such disincentive!!!

Most employees have no incentive to find better and faster ways to do things. If they do? Many times it costs them money in the end. Fewer employees needed, perhaps. Or expectations are raised. The best employees are disincentivized to get better -- even by their fellow employees.
 
MaggieD said:
It's unfortunate that people aren't paid that way. If it were a perfect world and Princess Maggie were in charge, as many employees as possible would be paid depending on what they produce. Sounds almost fair, right? Except what I've observed happens is that employers are only willing to pay "so much" for a particular job.

Subjective example from my mom's experience: She worked on piecework at Sunbeam Corporation for many years. Sunbeam rated each job as to what was a reasonable amount of parts to be produced. You were expected to "make the rate" and were given time to learn a job in order to do so. If you made over the rate, you got paid more per hour. Doesn't that sound just peachy? Well, it was!! Except!! That if employees consistently made 112% of rate, the company would come in and re-rate the job.

So...instead of employees finding easier ways to do a job, they were encouraged by other employees (and sometimes brow-beaten, by the way) to always stay right at 110% of rate. A 10% hourly bonus. And no more. Or the company would move the target. Such disincentive!!!

Most employees have no incentive to find better and faster ways to do things. If they do? Many times it costs them money in the end. Fewer employees needed, perhaps. Or expectations are raised. The best employees are disincentivized to get better -- even by their fellow employees.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why many rank-and-file employees do not trust employers. Tease and denial.
 
radcen said:
This is precisely why many rank-and-file employees do not trust employers. Tease and denial.
Click to expand...

And exactly why employers distrust unions. Union rules and job descriptions turn mediocrity into an artform.
 
We should pay workers in India what they are worth and see how Walmart holds up.
 
MaggieD said:
Food for thought:



This does make one stop and think . . .

I've never been against private sector unions. I think the unions themselves have lost site of the prize, so to speak, but who can deny the implications of the quote above?

Robert Reich: “Paid-what-you’re-worth” is a toxic myth - Salon.com
Click to expand...

I think towing around gold or silver by the pounds is hilarious...

Truth is most people who are unskilled couldn't even pull a sled of gold, let alone defend it.

A lot of people are not worth what they're paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom