MrSmith Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 But in your last post you said that companies had no choice but to employ immigrants. :huh: It’s a choice, companies need employees, if our unemployed won’t do the jobs that are available and the government won’t do anything to motivate them and into taking the jobs, then the companies will have to fill the vacancies with foreign workers or cut the service they provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It’s a choice, companies need employees, if our unemployed won’t do the jobs that are available and the government won’t do anything to motivate them and into taking the jobs, then the companies will have to fill the vacancies with foreign workers or cut the service they provide. Not necessarily, boardroom pay is massively overinglated, if lower level staff had to be paid more it might simply mean that more money would got to employees and slightly less to shareholders and senior staff, it would level the playing field a bit. The motivation to work should come from employers who should want to make their jobs attractive to employees, at the moment they have little need to do this as they have an endless stream of labour prepared to work for low pay in bad conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Not necessarily, boardroom pay is massively overinglated, if lower level staff had to be paid more it might simply mean that more money would got to employees and slightly less to shareholders and senior staff, it would level the playing field a bit. The motivation to work should come from employers who should want to make their jobs attractive to employees, at the moment they have little need to do this as they have an endless stream of labour prepared to work for low pay in bad conditions. I can't imagine a situation in which the highest paid in a company will happily give up some of their pay to increase the wage of the lowest and it would be impossible to regulate for. Most British workers are already motivated to work and many work for the minimum wage, we are talking about a the minority that are unemployed and need the motivation to do what many British people already do, work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 A test was done awhile back where 3 mice were put together with no change. A 4th mouse was added with little change, a 5th mouse was added and they found 2 of them fighting and 1 shaking in the corner. It's not rocket is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Not necessarily, boardroom pay is massively overinglated, if lower level staff had to be paid more it might simply mean that more money would got to employees and slightly less to shareholders and senior staff, it would level the playing field a bit. The motivation to work should come from employers who should want to make their jobs attractive to employees, at the moment they have little need to do this as they have an endless stream of labour prepared to work for low pay in bad conditions. I agree, for capitalism to work there has to be a trickle down of some of the money. It feeds the economy. Our recent rise in living condition were funded by cheap credit rather than increased wages, this was always going to be unsustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 A test was done awhile back where 3 mice were put together with no change. A 4th mouse was added with little change, a 5th mouse was added and they found 2 of them fighting and 1 shaking in the corner. It's not rocket is it? yeah stick to 4 mice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I can't imagine a situation in which the highest paid in a company will happily give up some of their pay to increase the wage of the lowest and it would be impossible to regulate for. Most British workers are already motivated to work and many work for the minimum wage, we are talking about a the minority that are unemployed and need the motivation to do what many British people already do, work. Maybe the shareholders of the company will get fed up of the ever increasing executive pay and force their hand? Owners of a company can pay themselves what ever they want to, after all it's their company. Executives have to act in their shareholders best interest, and you have to ask are the levels of executive pay in the companies best interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Maybe the shareholders of the company will get fed of of the ever increasing executive pay and force their hand? Owners of a company can pay themselves what ever they want to, after all it's their company. Executives have to act in their shareholders best interest, and you have to ask are the levels of executive pay in the companies best interest? The shareholders are interested in making money and for the most part have very little interest in the internal politics of the company as long as it makes money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I can't imagine a situation in which the highest paid in a company will happily give up some of their pay to increase the wage of the lowest and it would be impossible to regulate for. Most British workers are already motivated to work and many work for the minimum wage, we are talking about a the minority that are unemployed and need the motivation to do what many British people already do, work. Yes, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I feel that the best incentive to work is for work to provide a significantly better lifestyle than benefits, but I believe benefits should be available to those in need. As for the highest in company willingly giving up their pay - they don't 'happily' give it up but they get away with paying as little as they can do. If they had to pay their workforce more there would be less left over to pay themselves and they would be forced to cut their own wages. If there was more competition for workers their hand would be forced, there's no 'happy' about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The shareholders are interested in making money and for the most part have very little interest in the internal politics of the company as long as it makes money. You've just contradicted yourself by giving a reason as to why the shareholders would be interested. If you'd been following the news you may have noticed that shareholders, and pension funds who as some of this countries biggest shareholders, are starting to take an interest in executive pay, and there are proposals to give the shareholders more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.