Kryst51
Singin' in the Hou. Rain
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:02
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,898
What makes the best president? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ajetrumpet
- Start date
Fifty2One
Legend in my own mind
- Local time
- Yesterday, 16:02
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,412
Natural and organic foods are not more expensive then high production psudofood. You do not need large portions of the good food, which is usually sold in smaller portions anyway as they do not expect you to waste 20% of the food by throwing it out or leaving it on your plate or over consuming. Eating less meat and shopping more often for smaller portions of food is healthier all round.
Kryst51
Singin' in the Hou. Rain
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:02
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,898
I have worked in a natural food store. I can buy chicken at the grocery store (say $10 for 6 or 7, if I remember correctly, boneless skinless breasts) freeze it in small packages and use one or two as I need. At my natural food store (where I buy when I can) the organic, non-hormoned, chicken is $10 to $15 for about half as much. It is hard to make a direct comparison as it has the bones, but there it is.
Adam Caramon
Registered User
- Local time
- Yesterday, 19:02
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 822
While I agree, my earlier point was that business being greedy is what requires people to work more (and more specifically more women in the workforce). What I mean by this is that business' often forgo raises, slash benefits, reduce retirement, etc all to protect their bottom line.
If you make $20/hour, and can live comfortably on that, but then your company suddenly drops you to $15/hour, is it greedy to want to retain the things you had when you made $20/hour? Possibly, but I would say it is far greedier on the business' end.
I like where I work, it is a great place, very friendly, lots of opportunities, etc. However, we haven't gotten a raise in 3 years now, which is very frustrating. They claim this is due to the tough economic conditions we face, which is quite logical. They slashed some of our benefits and told us by doing so some of our co-workers' jobs were saved. Most people understood.
However, we then hear about executives receiving a hefty raise. So the question becomes, who is truly the greedy one? From my perspective, an executive should refuse a raise if the common man is not receiving a raise. If the common man is losing, the executive shouldn't be rewarded as they obviously aren't excelling (otherwise they wouldn't need to cut benefits).
Fifty2One
Legend in my own mind
- Local time
- Yesterday, 16:02
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,412
If your immediate supervisor called you into the office and said "Here is $x.00 raise for doing a good job in spite of the recent cuts in benefits" would you ensure all the other employees of the company were equally rewarded or would you just accept it?
A Good Executive should put in place systems to train and or replace staff as part of the process of having a good and profitable business.
Then, all can share in the benefits. The slackers have gone.
A business that can only afford the bosses pay rise is not being run properly and maybe the boss is the one due for training or replacing.
Hard times can hit any business and provided everyone does their best then either all or none share.
Not a socialist concept, just good team building. Communists don't give slackers the big A.
Then, all can share in the benefits. The slackers have gone.
A business that can only afford the bosses pay rise is not being run properly and maybe the boss is the one due for training or replacing.
Hard times can hit any business and provided everyone does their best then either all or none share.
Not a socialist concept, just good team building. Communists don't give slackers the big A.
ajetrumpet
Banned
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:02
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,638
accept it! people not in supervisory roles always have the protection of ignorance.
Adam Caramon
Registered User
- Local time
- Yesterday, 19:02
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 822
I would just accept it. But I'm not an executive, so it is not in my power to make sure the company is properly managing their finances. If I were in turn to say "Please show me all of the financial statements of the corporation so I can justify taking this raise", I'd probably be fired (which would make sense as it is not my job nor role to have such information).
Now, on the flip side, when I was a manager in my old job, I always covered the other worker's shifts if there was a problem. I always agreed to stay late or come in early as needed. I gave the workers a lot of flexibility with scheduling, etc. These are all things that the "bosses" should do, IMO.
Fifty2One
Legend in my own mind
- Local time
- Yesterday, 16:02
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,412
But the executives answer to share holders and not to the employees, if the share holders are happy with the profits from the people they have control over then they will keep the talent and reward them as per their contract.
The "bosses' are the ones who have to react to the decisions of the executive and hire fire cut and reward the employees and themselves.
But when it all comes down to details everyone from CEO to the lowest wage earner - you are all working for the same reason - to make money. And if you do not agree with the return on your efforts, then you need to either change the situation or figure out how to cope with the changes.
The "bosses' are the ones who have to react to the decisions of the executive and hire fire cut and reward the employees and themselves.
But when it all comes down to details everyone from CEO to the lowest wage earner - you are all working for the same reason - to make money. And if you do not agree with the return on your efforts, then you need to either change the situation or figure out how to cope with the changes.
Adam Caramon
Registered User
- Local time
- Yesterday, 19:02
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 822
Well, I work for a nonprofit, so there are no shareholders. But even in the case of shareholders, executives should still be putting the workers first. If all they are worried about is the shareholders, that means they're worried mostly about their own compensation. A good leader puts the workers' needs above their own, IMO.
I don't think it is that cut and dry. I've had two offers of higher-paying jobs, but I choose to stay where I am because I truly believe in our mission. I enjoy working with my co-workers towards a common goal. The money is definitely a large part of working, but it is not the only thing.
Bosses should consider their Workers, but within reason. Some workers will abuse such situations. A good and fair set of rules should be followed. Support the Human Resource just as you do any other Asset of the Organisation, be it profit or non profit. HR (and IT
) are the critical company assets - not always recognised as such.
From the Workers side, and this also applies to employed executives, you always have the option to change your jobs. Your values may conflict with your employer. eg, If you value family life and weekends, don't join the emergency services / armed forces or Walmart. No matter how caring the boss is they can never make you happy.
) are the critical company assets - not always recognised as such.From the Workers side, and this also applies to employed executives, you always have the option to change your jobs. Your values may conflict with your employer. eg, If you value family life and weekends, don't join the emergency services / armed forces or Walmart. No matter how caring the boss is they can never make you happy.
