Here we go again ..

I feel people who strike hold the right to do so. Corporations have the right to replace workers who strike with workers who will do it for cheaper, just like workers have the right to go work elsewhere. Any one person has the right to go to their boss and request more money, why is it an issue if they all happen to do it at the same time?
Asking for a raise and striking are two totally different things. Basically holding the company hostage.

I’m not 100% on this but don’t we have scab legislation now as well?
 
Asking for a raise and striking are two totally different things. Basically holding the company hostage.

I’m not 100% on this but don’t we have scab legislation now as well?

They've asked for a raise and the company said no. It's easy to say "find a career you enjoy that pays you well" a lot tougher to accomplish. You have to consider the people striking are often doing so because they are having trouble making ends meet.

Let's use a popular company for reference in my city; AMAZON

Amazon warehouse workers are paid 15.75 an hour while full-time drivers get $18.00. Amazon recently rejected wage increases requested due to inflation. Most of these workers are living paycheck to paycheck to ensure Amazon stays operational in my city and really can't even afford to strike. Meanwhile, Bezos spent $42 million to build a giant clock in the mountains of West Texas. Known as a "10,000-year clock," it supposedly symbolizes long-term thinking. it's being built in the remote wilderness far from any type of development. Where is the balance? To me, a strike is so much more than a person's request to get a fair wage.

I'm all for capitalism but things are getting out of hand. As stated before I've owned multiple businesses with 100s of employees and I've always done my best to pay a fair wage and treat people with respect. It's not hard to do and still get ahead in life.
 
They've asked for a raise and the company said no. It's easy to say "find a career you enjoy that pays you well" a lot tougher to accomplish. You have to consider the people striking are often doing so because they are having trouble making ends meet.

Let's use a popular company for reference in my city; AMAZON

Amazon warehouse workers are paid 15.75 an hour while full-time drivers get $18.00. Amazon recently rejected wage increases requested due to inflation. Most of these workers are living paycheck to paycheck to ensure Amazon stays operational in my city and really can't even afford to strike. Meanwhile, Bezos spent $42 million to build a giant clock in the mountains of West Texas. Known as a "10,000-year clock," it supposedly symbolizes long-term thinking. it's being built in the remote wilderness far from any type of development. Where is the balance? To me, a strike is so much more than a person's request to get a fair wage.

I'm all for capitalism but things are getting out of hand. As stated before I've owned multiple businesses with 100s of employees and I've always done my best to pay a fair wage and treat people with respect. It's not hard to do and still get ahead in life.
Yes that is crazy that he wasted money on something like that. But if you were to take how many employes amazon has and divide that by the 42 million it works out to a 2 cent raise increase per employee if he gave them that money, or $26 dollars a year give or take.

So really looks bad but means nothing.

So even if you took his wage, all the stuff he wastes on it likeky wouldn’t even work out to be a dollar an hour. They employ about 1.6 million people worldwide.

Now get rid of investors that make money doing nothing and you could likely pay better without changing prices, but could you scale to that size without investment money in the time he did?

That being said, I pay my part time students the same as their full time employees make. That pay is pitiful, but could Amazon compete if they paid 20 an hour. That could be about a 5 billion dollar difference to the bottom line if they paid $20 an hour, give or take, I’m just rough estimating.
 
Yes that is crazy that he wasted money on something like that. But if you were to take how many employes amazon has and divide that by the 42 million it works out to a 2 cent raise increase per employee if he gave them that money, or $26 dollars a year give or take.

So really looks bad but means nothing.

So even if you took his wage, all the stuff he wastes on it likeky wouldn’t even work out to be a dollar an hour. They employ about 1.6 million people worldwide.

Now get rid of investors that make money doing nothing and you could likely pay better without changing prices, but could you scale to that size without investment money in the time he did?

That being said, I pay my part time students the same as their full time employees make. That pay is pitiful, but could Amazon compete if they paid 20 an hour. That could be about a 5 billion dollar difference to the bottom line if they paid $20 an hour, give or take, I’m just rough estimating.

The clock is more of a slap-in-the-face reference. He makes so much that he can afford to do ludicrous things while a good portion of his workers struggle to get a living wage. Jeff Bezos reportedly made 7.9 million every hour in 2013. In 8 minutes he makes more than a driver or warehouse worker would make in a lifetime. Again, I'm not against guys making shit loads of money but the scale is off balance with only signs of things getting worse.

Amazon is just a quick example, they are by far not the worst for employee pay, just low-hanging fruit to show imbalance.
 
Last edited:
Maybe what it comes down to is employers will take as much as they can get away with from you, and give as little back as they can. I understand as a company why that makes sense on the surface. But if that's ok and the employees have gone through the steps to make a union their legal representatives, then why can't they use strike as a legitimate legal leverage tool too?

The company uses leverage against us all. If you are lucky enough to have some leverage back, is that not ok?

You can value what your employees contribute or not. But the damage to morale and productivity and quality and reputation as an employer is a big long term cost the company will pay on their bottom line for bickering over a perhaps deserved raise.

Personally I've seen what most employers will try to get away with if they think they can. If there's a union, or a good union there to maybe hopefully keep them on track, that may well save you someday.
 
The clock is more of a slap-in-the-face reference. He makes so much that he can afford to do ludicrous things while a good portion of his workers struggle to get a living wage. Jeff Bezos reportedly made 7.9 million every hour in 2013. In 8 minutes he makes more than a driver or warehouse worker would make in a lifetime. Again, I'm not against guys making shit loads of money but the scale is off balance with only signs of things getting worse.

Amazon is just a quick example, they are by far not the worst for employee pay, just low-hanging fruit to show imbalance.
Did he personally take it as take home pay, or was that money used to expand the business?

Was that net worth or actual in the bank money?
 
To me jobs in that low of a wage category are for students and kids working summers. Every person working there applied for, interviewed for, and accepted the job knowing the wage. Why complain now?

Nobody is forcing them to stay there.

Anyways, I’m not going to argue my point anymore. It was just an opinion and I voiced it. We are each entitled to our own.

I run a smaller (40 person) company and things like employee retention, attendance, attitude and effort are important to me. So I pay at the very high end of the industry where I’m from. Although most were hired out of high school at 18$ an hour ( or less depending how long ago ) and have worked their way into foreman or operator positions.
 
Did he personally take it as take home pay, or was that money used to expand the business?

Was that net worth or actual in the bank money?

He doesn't take that kind of money home as the tax implications would be insane. Your questioning is a bit irrelevant considering the game is to take home as little as possible.. did he pay for the clock? no, probably wrote it off somehow. Did he pay for his home in NYC? (biggest real estate deal NYC in history) or the place in Florida he just bought for 126m? No, it would most likely be a holding corp. He also didn't buy his 65m jet or a rocket ship company. I'd be surprised if he made over a million a year on paper, doesn't mean anything tho.

edit: I don't mean for that to come off as aggressive.. lol..
 
Last edited:
He doesn't take that kind of money home as the tax implications would be insane. Your questioning is a bit irrelevant considering the game is to take home as little as possible.. did he pay for the clock? no, probably wrote it off somehow. Did he pay for his home in NYC? (biggest real estate deal NYC in history) or the place in Florida he just bought for 126m? No, it would most likely be a holding corp. He also didn't buy his 65m jet or a rocket ship company. I'd be surprised if he made over a million a year on paper, doesn't mean anything tho.

edit: I don't mean for that to come off as aggressive.. lol..
What I mean is, is this his paycheck or his companies revenues that are used to further expand his business?

I’m not sure of the tax laws in the USA, but likely like here you may have a tough time writing off personal residences. Even within a holding company. I guess he could say it’s for rental income, but I wonder if the IRS would agree with that.
As I said I’m not sure what their laws are.

Clock maybe, but that only saves him the tax money.

Obviously we all try to pay as little tax as possible.

So essentially he personally doesn’t make the 8 million or so an hour, but his company does. I wonder what all the expansion that he has done has cost, so parting of his operating expenses and if that was minused off that number value.

Is he extremely well paid, obviously. But look what he built. I am a bit envious, but not jealous.

Could he pay his staff more, obviously, but I bet his expansion plans would have been greatly slowed, so HE made the decision to prioritize the growth over the people.

I can’t believe he can maintain enough staff for operations at that pay rate. I guess that is what the market will bear. Not saying it’s right, but just stating my opinion.
 
I changed my mindset about 12 years ago, started to pay more and then had better qualified people apply and essentially skipped over the ones I would have hired before for cheaper (and put a lot of training into) for the better candidates.

My labour costs are higher, but I also get less errors, no one calls in, and they are more involved. I also stopped micromanaging and instead explain how their work effort benefits them in pay, so it’s in their best interests for the company to be sucessfull. It does cost me more money. It didn’t completely balance out, just my mental/stress workload reduced.

For me it has worked wonderfully, but I am at a point where I do not need extra money to expand, I will likely only do this another 12 years and retire, I’m going to milk it as much as I can. When you are at max capacity all the time, you profits are at their highest.

Now if I was going to expand, then I would pay less to increase profits, then once I expanded would have to pay less to stay profitable and I would have done what I did for years. Teach the one’s who fell thru the cracks to be good employees (it was a ton of work, but worked well, I just don’t want to deal with that much stress anymore, constantly babysitting)
 
Top