this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
952 points (95.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
6021 readers
4012 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah... no.
Reality is sometimes the boss has to be bossy. Quadrupling salaries and cutting 4 days a week from the schedule sounds great for employees until the business fails.
What should be implemented is a maximum ratio of executive/worker pay (including contractors so they don't just outsource cheap labor to cheat the system) based on 5-year averages.
Without the 5-year rule, and new CEO can come in, give everyone massive raises, and burn the company down for a quick buck.
The boss can still be bossy if elected. Your 5 year rule is silly and does not address the overlying problem, which is that the CEO works for the shareholders and they only care about making record quarterly profit gains at any cost.
The boss does sometimes have to be bossy. If the workers have a stake in the company that actually matters, then they also actually care about the outcome that the company faces.
You're not going to vote to drive something into the ground if you think it will provide you with more value not dismantled and in your pocket.
Workers aren't idiots any more than CEOs are. It's why worker owned co-ops that elect their management do sometimes vote to reduce their own wages. They have a fair stake and want what's best for the business because it's best for them.
What if they work for a company where the vast majority of positions aren't viewed as a "career" jobs?
Not many people want to flip burgers or stock shelves the rest of their lives. If 80% of the workplace doesn't plan on sticking with the company anyway, why wouldn't they elect the person who will triple their salary for a few months before they jump ship to another burger chain?
With that bump in payment, they can afford to spend a few months looking for a job after the one they have goes away because the business went under.