Forgot your password?
TankKiller, March 5, 2013 in Debating Floor
You've potentially just started a forum war of epic proportions ...?
The CEOs even have little incentive to keep a company running beyond the short-term. Many fly-by CEOs will cut experienced workers to bring in cheaper labor, then wonder why quality plummets and maintenance costs go up after a few years. They cut out anything that drives innovation like research and development departments because they are not immediately profitable, then wonder why their businesses stagnate after a few years. Then, when the company starts failing, most have multi-million-dollar golden parachutes to get them through their "rough time" finding another company to drive into the ground. Even worse, with all those changes that they make when they initially take over, it's easy to get with another company when they can point to a chart and say, "when I took over X, in the first Y quarters X saw record profits, which made the investors happy!"
Or something like that. I'd get sources/examples and flesh it out more, but Skyrim awaits.
Edit: Speaking of, this was in the feed today: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/1727249/
At least the Swiss are getting around to dealing with a huge part of the problem.
Sadly the rest of the world seems to be following.
I really surprised to say this but I actually like you posting this video.
No real 1% vs 99% Occupy Wall Street propaganda, just facts cleanly laid out without any smoke and mirrors (as far as I can tell).
I especially like the reality , ideals and expectation comparisons they give you a better insight into the information presented.
Im no economist or social engineer so I cant really comment on the causes or solutions to such a problem but in a modern economy with industrialization and mass production this
almost inevitable with large scale corporations growing to meet global markets, massive amounts of wealth flowing to an individual or small group. Combine this with that lovely bottom line that
every business is looking at and the doctrine of increasing efficiency and profit which is at the expense of the worker (normally).
Perhaps we need more of the paternalistic approach to business ,with the employer truly caring for the well being of their employees?
Keeping wages down: a company teaching other companies methods to not hire U.S. workers so they can apply for more, and far cheaper, H-1B (non-immigrant visa) workers:
Now, legally speaking, a company is supposed to pay a H-1B worker the same wage as they would a non-H-1B worker. However, they get around that by using the method described in the video. Say, they want to hire a worker with a university degree and 5 years experience for 25k a year when the average starting wage the market has with zero experience is 50k. The company will automatically disqualify any applicant who put a desired wage anywhere above the 25k they are seeking, even if the worker would accept a lower-than-what-they-printed-in-the-application wage if asked. Since the company does not seem to be able to find anyone "willing" to take their low wage or anyone who fits into their odd-ball requirements, they go the H-1B route and hire that worker for 25k.
The hiring company also has far and away too much power over the H-1B worker. If the workers find they are being exploited as such, the company can threaten to send the worker back to their home country as a way to keep them quiet since, as non-citezens, they have almost no rights they can exercise within the U.S. legal system for recourse. Another thing is the worker might not want to risk the low wage they are getting: while it may be fraction of an entry-level wage in the U.S, it may be significantly more than they make within their own country.
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Already have an account? Sign in here.