Hobbesian Manifesto...of an economic sort

[robeiae]

Workers of the World...shut-up and get back to work!

You can't legitmately oppose a sovereign authority that was granted power by a valid social contract. Your chains are an imaginary construct of your own making.

And look at that! Right over there...a football game!




How's that, Mac?

[MacAllister]

Workers of the world--express your personal power. No one OWNS your labor, but you. No one has any specific right to profit from your labor, unless you foolishly give it away, in the unholy name of Corporate Capitalism--which will eventually reduce the economy to so much rubble and create a new serf class.

Unite! Demand economic parity!

[robeiae]

But look...pro wrestling!

[SpookyWriter]

We need serfs if we are to ride the waves of social instability.

[MacAllister]

Spooky, we already have them. We just call them "illegal immigrants" instead of "serf."

[SpookyWriter]

Spooky, we already have them. We just call them "illegal immigrants" instead of "serf."I like serfs better. I may just start referring to illegals are serfs. New catchy phrase that won't offend.

[MacAllister]

Focus, people! Stop watching TV and think about the essential inequity of what a company pays a CEO who does little but move people around like chess pieces, and what that same company pays the guy in shipping, who actually gets product to the customer. And what that company pays the shareholders--who do nothing at all, some of 'em.

[robeiae]

By defintion, serfs are intransient and tied to the land by feudal obligation. Peasants have more freedom in this regard, but not much more.

"Gypsies" would be a more appropriate classification, for a number of reasons. There are few people still alive in today's world that lived in Europe in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. That time and the role of the gypsies therein is largely a void in historical understanding.

[MacAllister]

Eh. I think you could make a case, actually, for illegal workers as a class being tied to "land" in the guise of specific industries.

As for feudal obligation...I'll have to think about that. You might have me, there.

Certainly, though, if we may substitute the labor demand that brings 'em, and the laws that make it so very difficult for them to change classes in an upward direction, then there are valid parallels.

[robeiae]

But "gypsies" is so much nearer the mark. The gypsy population was not recognized as a legitmate part of most nations through which they roamed. They went where the work was, though did have close-to-permanent settlements in some places. And for a people so apart from recognized society, is it any wonder that many were involved in illegal activities?

Think on this: if the gypsy population was still what it was by the time of the Soviet expansion, how would they have been treated, en masse? If they somehow made it through this period, how would the EU view them now?

[MacAllister]

Hmm. To my knowledge, though, entire industries weren't more-or-less dependent upon year-round gypsy labor, to continue to function.

Of course, I could be wrong. What I actually know about gypsies is almost as much as I know about String Theory.

[SpookyWriter]

As for feudal obligation...I'll have to think about that. You might have me, there.There is a certain feudal obligation with serfs in America. I suspect they are obliged to Taco Bell, big farms, and greedy companies that take advantage of their legal status. So the feudal system (in America) might not have Barons or a monarchy, but it does exist in other forms.

[robeiae]

Hmm. To my knowledge, though, entire industries weren't more-or-less dependent upon year-round gypsy labor, to continue to function.Entire industries aren't depnedent on illegal immigrant labor here, not really. companies are just using an available market in labor, illegal though it may be. Stop all illegal immigrant labor and the industries won't go away, they'll adapt. Though your sugar might cost a few more pennies on the pound...

Of course, I could be wrong. What I actually know about gypsies is almost as much as I know about String Theory.The viability of string theory is based on a view presupposing a certain rigidity of space, with limited parameters of n-dimensions. Moreover, the term itself suggests a wholly Euclidean perspective, making it a misnomer from the get-go... :D

[robeiae]

There is a certain feudal obligation with serfs in America. I suspect they are obliged to Taco Bell, big farms, and greedy companies that take advantage of their legal status. So the feudal system (in America) might not have Barons or a monarchy, but it does exist in other forms.But it's not feudal, not in the least. Find a different term.

[SpookyWriter]

But it's not feudal, not in the least. Find a different term.Are they not tied to the land (corporate) owner? So what other term is there to describe a class of peoples who are obligated to their masters (so they don't get turned into CIS) that would be fitting?

[robeiae]

Are they not tied to the land (corporate) owner? So what other term is there to describe a class of peoples who are obligated to their masters (so they don't get turned into CIS) that would be fitting?By defintion, feudal systems involve more than two parties. Feudal obligations must exist throughout a society, at large, for that society to be properly labelled 'feudal.' Thus, the term is not appropriate here. Yes, it's a bit of a catch-22--that's why there have been many scholars who have suggested getting rid of the term 'feudalism' altogether. It's almost as poorly understood and improperly invoked as 'fascism.'

Also:
1) They are not tied to the land/corporation in a legal sense--feudal obligations are enforcable legal contracts, within the framework of a feudal society.
2) Their obligations are self-imposed, any way your slice it. Their potential difficulties with INS and the like are a product of their choices. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but the problem should be characterized correctly.
3) As to other terms--how about 'illegal workers'?

[SpookyWriter]

Good job, Rob. I live to learn. Thanks.

[billythrilly7th]

I'm very happy with the current system.

Thank you.

[SC Harrison]

But it's not feudal, not in the least. Find a different term.

I think Gypsy is a very accurate term, since these migrant workers are drawn to opportunities and are frequently blamed for unsolved crimes as well as bad luck and weather problems. :)

Some other terms may be: Economic Expatriate, NeoNomad or Semiannual Commuter.

[robeiae]

A semiannual conductor is another name for water pipes in Moose Jaw.

[MacAllister]

Okay. I can go with the Gypsy comparison. :P

I'm intrigued at the level of inflammatory language I see used on all sides of the national discussion about illegal immigration--I think it often serves to obscure the issues, rather than illuminate them. But then, I suspect sometimes that's what that level of rhetoric is really designed to do.

[clintl]

But then, I suspect sometimes that's what that level of rhetoric is really designed to do.

Of course. Political discourse in the U.S. has been taken over by marketing firms.

[billythrilly7th]

"You can usually find the correct answer to any issue up for debate by looking in the middle."
Ralph Waldo Thrilly
1904

Shut the border down. Have a guest worker program. Put the people here already on the path to legal status.

It ain't rocket science.

Thank you.

[Medievalist]

I don't like feudal, since as Rob points out, there are no contractual feudal obligations. Serf might work in some very very narrow cases, like corporate farm systems, since the serf was not contractually tied to the land. Gypsy doesn't work since the Rom for cultural reasons do not "work" for non Rom -- such labor violates purity laws, making the Rom who engaged in non-pure practices outcast and unclean.

Migrant workers maybe?

[SC Harrison]

Shut the border down. Have a guest worker program. Put the people here already on the path to legal status.

It ain't rocket science.

Thank you.

It ain't cheap, either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101539.html

The CBO's five-year cost estimates include $800 million to hire 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents; $2.6 billion to build detention facilities for 20,000; $3.3 billion to build and maintain 370 miles of border fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico frontier; and $1.6 billion to establish a computerized system to verify the eligibility of applicants for lawful employment.

The CBO study, released Friday evening, not only details the Senate bill's cost but also enumerates the plan's impact on the population. By 2016, CBO researchers estimate, more than 16 million people would either become legal permanent residents under the bill or attain some other legal status. That total includes 4.4 million legalized undocumented workers, 3.3 million guest workers and 2.6 million family members brought in through the new programs. By 2026, the addition to the U.S. population would jump to 24.4 million.

That number is far lower than the Heritage Foundation's estimate of 103 million immigrants legalized by 2026, a calculation that has been widely circulated in conservative circles. But the CBO estimate is far higher than the 8 million figure White House officials have pointed to in their rebuttal of the Heritage study.

The report said legalized immigrants would represent "only a modest increase" in enrollment for child nutrition programs, food stamps and Medicaid. Caseloads would be 2 to 3 percent higher by 2016, the CBO said.

But that may understate the political costs of those entitlement claims. Over the next decade, legalized workers and their families, in addition to guest workers and theirs, would claim $24.5 billion in tax refunds through the earned income credit and child credit, $15.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid, $5.2 billion in Social Security benefits and $3.7 billion in food stamps and child nutrition programs, the report estimates.

I'm sure the Mexican government will love this.

[Dawno]

Focus, people! Stop watching TV and think about the essential inequity of what a company pays a CEO who does little but move people around like chess pieces, and what that same company pays the guy in shipping, who actually gets product to the customer. And what that company pays the shareholders--who do nothing at all, some of 'em.


Uh, a good CEO can move the valuation of a company by millions, even billions of dollars - shared by employees and shareholders alike. I agree there are excesses out there, but most CEOs make a difference in their companies through their leadership.

A great shipping guy gets paid a fair wage to scan bar-codes. Not really a fair comparison...

I love ya anyway, Mac. When the revolution comes, please put in a good word for me...

[MacAllister]

I will, Dawno. :) No worries.

My point, really, is that none of those millions or billions are real--they're largely projections of worth, based on "owning" labor provided by others.

[Dawno]

hmmm - seemed real to me when my bonus check was bigger this year than last...*shrug*

If there was just one successful example of a workable alternative to the system we have now I'd be more receptive - I'm all for people getting a fair share of the fruits of their labor, I just haven't seen any system that doesn't appear to just want to make everyone equally poor...

[Medievalist]

If there was just one successful example of a workable alternative to the system we have now I'd be more receptive - I'm all for people getting a fair share of the fruits of their labor, I just haven't seen any system that doesn't appear to just want to make everyone equally poor...

Yep.

I admire the Shakers, enormously, but the no sex thing kind of kills the future; and I think it's telling that very few of the adopted children became Shakers.

The other example of a genuinely working shared society, medieval monasticism, fails for some of the same reasons.

But we must do better than we are doing. I just don't know how or what, on a global or even state level.

[blacbird]

One of the key points of CEO compensation in the U.S. is that, overall, it has gone up over the past 25 years by more than an order of magnitude relative to the lower end of the pay scale in corporations. And you don't have to look very far to find lots and lots of examples where the compensation of CEOs and other high-postioned corporate officers bears no relationship to their performance as measured by the profitability of the companies they run. Not to mention the outrageous "golden parachute" contracts that, in some cases, have made it worthwhile for some CEOs to run their companies into the ground and walk away with millions.

It is purely reprehensible for corporate executives to cut staff or staff pay, and receive huge bonuses for doing so. If you're running a company that is having financial trouble that obliges you to lay people off and reduce pay and benefits, the least you can do is likewise reduce your own. How often does that happen?

caw.

[Dawno]

John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems took a salary cut to $1.00 per year after he had to lay off Cisco employees in 2001 and stayed at that $1.00 salary until the company had turned the corner in '04.

We point fingers at the excesses - but what percentage of the total ownership of business in the US (all business) are we really talking about? I'd be interested in real figures.

[robeiae]

IMO, there are many problems with corporations in the U.S. Many of these problems stem from poorly conceived laws and rules governing the structures of corporations in general.

That said, there is an expectation out there that large corporations must adhere to some kind of higher standard than much smaller corporations and businesses.

Example: Let's say I own a small lawn-care company. I started with just myself, then added workers as my business grew. I have a number of corporate accounts and the business has become very profitable. I've added equipment and more trucks, along with more workers. At some point, I stopped doing the actual lawn-care work, owing to the need of managaing the company, getting new business, and the like. I have an office, wharehouses for my equipment, and maintenance staff. I'm doing very well and making a great deal of money. And why shouldn't I reap the benefits of all my endeavors? After a time, I discover that my profits are going down. In fact, I'm in danger of actually losing money. What do I do?

Well, let's say I investigate my company to see what's going on. I dicover that my employees are becoming less productive. A crew that used to do 5 jobs a day is now doing 3. Worse still, that crew used to have 4 on the team, but now has 5. I'm not billing as much on a daily basis--that's the essential problem. So what do I do? I tell my employees, many of whom have been with me for quite some time, to start pulling their weight or I'll start replacing them. Is that wrong of me? By visiting job sites, I discover that a handful are doing almost nothing. I fire them and trim the crew size back to 4. Some others quit, so I replace them with new people who now have lower salaries. Is any of this wrong?

Shortly thereafter, my profit levels start going up again. Now, I think my approach was sound and fair. And I think most people who were in my shoes would have done the same thing. But at no point did I, the owner and boss, theorize that I should give myself a paycut as a means of solving the problems. My employees were expected to do what I paid them to do. The ones that couldn't or wouldn't went somewhere else. My responsibility as the boss was to run the company effectively, not to insure that everyone I hired could keep their job, no matter what.

Now, consider the expectations some have for large companies with regard to their employees. Are they fair? Are they consistent with the expectations here? If not, why?

[SC Harrison]

John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems took a salary cut to $1.00 per year after he had to lay off Cisco employees in 2001 and stayed at that $1.00 salary until the company had turned the corner in '04.

We point fingers at the excesses - but what percentage of the total ownership of business in the US (all business) are we really talking about? I'd be interested in real figures.

The recent legal actions against Skilling, Lay, Evers, et al, have (hopefully) opened the eyes of boards to the potential for accounting sleight of hand from leaning to heavily on performance goals for compensation. This is, of course, assuming the board members themselves have the long-term interests of the company at heart. Here are some numbers on earnings for 2004:

http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html

The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003.

And 2005:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/20/ceo-pay-options-cz_sw_0420ceopay.html

New York - The chief executives of America's 500 biggest companies (as measured by a composite ranking of sales, profits, assets and market value) received an aggregate 6% pay raise last year, which pales in comparison to their 54% pay raise in 2004. In total, America’s top executives earned a healthy $5.4 billion last year.


I've never been comfortable with the idea of compensating corporate officers with stock options, and I'm even less comfortable with it now. The temptation to artificially manipulate the stock price by concealing losses from poor-performing divisions and other forms of misinformation is not only unhealthy for the corporations themselves, it has also damaged the confidence of investors and altered their buying/selling habits.

Then there are the honest guys:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32915

NEW YORK—Bellcroft Industries CEO Robert M. Burdick said Monday that he spends up to 30 percent of his $2.4 million salary keeping himself out of jail. "Accountants who can hide illegal profits and lawyers who know how to set up off-shore companies don't come cheap," Burdick said. "My recent 20 percent raise isn't that great when you consider how many people I have to pay to keep me out of prison." In addition to losing 30 percent off the top each year, Burdick spends 5 percent of his income on taxes.

Heh heh. :)

[clintl]

Example: Let's say I own a small lawn-care company. I started with just myself, then added workers as my business grew. I have a number of corporate accounts and the business has become very profitable. I've added equipment and more trucks, along with more workers. At some point, I stopped doing the actual lawn-care work, owing to the need of managaing the company, getting new business, and the like. I have an office, wharehouses for my equipment, and maintenance staff. I'm doing very well and making a great deal of money. And why shouldn't I reap the benefits of all my endeavors? After a time, I discover that my profits are going down. In fact, I'm in danger of actually losing money. What do I do?

Well, let's say I investigate my company to see what's going on. I dicover that my employees are becoming less productive. A crew that used to do 5 jobs a day is now doing 3. Worse still, that crew used to have 4 on the team, but now has 5. I'm not billing as much on a daily basis--that's the essential problem. So what do I do? I tell my employees, many of whom have been with me for quite some time, to start pulling their weight or I'll start replacing them. Is that wrong of me? By visiting job sites, I discover that a handful are doing almost nothing. I fire them and trim the crew size back to 4. Some others quit, so I replace them with new people who now have lower salaries. Is any of this wrong?

Shortly thereafter, my profit levels start going up again. Now, I think my approach was sound and fair. And I think most people who were in my shoes would have done the same thing. But at no point did I, the owner and boss, theorize that I should give myself a paycut as a means of solving the problems. My employees were expected to do what I paid them to do. The ones that couldn't or wouldn't went somewhere else. My responsibility as the boss was to run the company effectively, not to insure that everyone I hired could keep their job, no matter what.



With all due respect, if you let the situation develop to that point in the first place, you're not a very good manager. A good manager would have acted much earlier, when less draconian measures were needed.

When I was in business school, getting my MBA, I was introduced to a very powerful theory - the Service-Profit Chain Theory - which basically states that every business really has three sets of "customers" (constituents it needs to keep happy) in order to maximize its profits - the people who buy its products and services, its shareholders, and its employees. And the reasons it needs to keep its employees happy are (a) it costs a lot both in terms of recruiting and in terms of training to replace employees, and (b) the longer employees are in a job, the more they know, the more efficient they are, and most importantly, the better they are able to provide quality service to the people who are buying things from the company. And to the extent that it has been researched and tested, the Service-Profit Chain Theory does seem to work, and unfortunately, there are many businesses around that don't practice it.

So my contention is that in your lawn service scenario, you are making a postulation that is inconsistent with good business practices.

[robeiae]

So my contention is that in your lawn service scenario, you are making a postulation that is inconsistent with good business practices.That may very well be the case. But are you therefore saying that I have to adhere to 'good business practices' as a pre-condition to owning and operating a business? People make mistakes and people often wait to correct those mistakes, unfortunately. The questions I posed remain.

As to the Service-Profit Chain Theory, it's just that: a theory. It's not a law or a requirement, is it? And while we may wish that all businesses operated with complete rationality, that's a pipe dream to expect it--like expecting all people to act rationally.

And within that theory is a an assumption: "the longer employees are in a job, the more they know, the more efficient they are, and most importantly, the better they are able to provide quality service to the people who are buying things from the company"

My personal experiences are quite inconsistent with this assumption. It can be true for some employees, but it can also be false for some employees. If evidence exists that it is more likely true then not (and I've never seen any such evidence), the obvious consequence of this would be that it would be less applicable as the number of employees under consideration decreased.

Obviously, I constructed an extreme example, we can take a step back and assume potential changes at earlier times, too. And even then, I would ask if I was behaving appropriately when I terminated employees or the like because I saw the begginings of problems.

[English Dave]

That may very well be the case. But are you therefore saying that I have to adhere to 'good business practices' as a pre-condition to owning and operating a business? People make mistakes and people often wait to correct those mistakes, unfortunately. The questions I posed remain.

As to the Service-Profit Chain Theory, it's just that: a theory. It's not a law or a requirement, is it? And while we may wish that all businesses operated with complete rationality, that's a pipe dream to expect it--like expecting all people to act rationally.

And within that theory is a an assumption: "the longer employees are in a job, the more they know, the more efficient they are, and most importantly, the better they are able to provide quality service to the people who are buying things from the company"

My personal experiences are quite inconsistent with this assumption. It can be true for some employees, but it can also be false for some employees. If evidence exists that it is more likely true then not (and I've never seen any such evidence), the obvious consequence of this would be that it would be less applicable as the number of employees under consideration decreased.

Obviously, I constructed an extreme example, we can take a step back and assume potential changes at earlier times, too. And even then, I would ask if I was behaving appropriately when I terminated employees or the like because I saw the begginings of problems.

Wtf is all this about Rob?

You took your eye off the ball. Roll up your sleeves, grow some balls. Hire the right people and pay them the right money. The grass isn't always greener.

[Dawno]

I haven't thought this all the way through yet - but I think there's something valuable in the following statistics. We're only focusing on one part of the picture - big corporations...


Small Business Effects on the Economy (http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html) The estimated 25.8 million small businesses in the United States:

Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade
Employ 50 percent of the country’s private sector workforce
Represent 97 percent of all the exporters of goods
Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms
Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States companies
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, June 2006.

[robeiae]

Wtf is all this about Rob?

You took your eye off the ball. Roll up your sleeves, grow some balls. Hire the right people and pay them the right money. The grass isn't always greener.You lookin for work?

[English Dave]

You lookin for work?

Can I get next week off to go to a wedding?

[robeiae]

Yes. But that's your vaction for the next two years.

[clintl]

That may very well be the case. But are you therefore saying that I have to adhere to 'good business practices' as a pre-condition to owning and operating a business? People make mistakes and people often wait to correct those mistakes, unfortunately. The questions I posed remain.

As to the Service-Profit Chain Theory, it's just that: a theory. It's not a law or a requirement, is it? And while we may wish that all businesses operated with complete rationality, that's a pipe dream to expect it--like expecting all people to act rationally.



Absolutely, it's not a pre-condition. I doubt that most business owners know the theory exists. I'll also say that of the three companies I've worked for in my career, the one that put the most effort into creating a positive work environment for its employees was by far the best managed overall and the most successful financially.

As a theory, it has been tested by collecting data in the banking industry, and the data supported the theory. Bank branches with high employee satisfaction and high employee retention rates also had higher customer loyalty and customer satisfaction rates. And that's the other benefit - it costs much less to retain customers than it does to acquire new customers.

When you get to very small companies, I agree, the results can vary widely, but remember, you're dealing with very small sample sizes.

At the end of the day, it's still the manager's responsibility to create a work environment where the employees understand what is expected of them, are motivated to meet the expectations, and have the tools to get the job done.

[English Dave]

Yes. But that's your vaction for the next two years.

You see?

If you've got talent you can negotiate! :)

[clintl]

Just as an additional comment regarding the value of providing a positive work environment for employees, I'll note the example of Nugget Markets (http://www.nuggetmarket.com/), a small local grocery chain that was named this year as one of Forbes' 100 Best Companies to Work For. Despite not have the purchasing power of the big chains (and thus charging a little more), it does very well competing with them in our local area. While some of the big chains are contracting, it's expanding into new communities. I shop at my neighborhood Nugget all the time, and the store is always clean and organized, the product variety is better, and the employees are always cheerful and helpful.

[RG570]

CEOs provide "leadership"...haha!

They're slave drivers. Nothing more. They are utterly pointless, except as placeholders in a social hierarchy.

The saddest thing about this thread is that it illustrates just how deeply everyone has adopted the viewpoint of their oppressors.

[robeiae]

As a theory, it has been tested by collecting data in the banking industry, and the data supported the theory. Bank branches with high employee satisfaction and high employee retention rates also had higher customer loyalty and customer satisfaction rates. And that's the other benefit - it costs much less to retain customers than it does to acquire new customers.This points to some of the problems with the theory. I suspect that required skills for a particular job play a significant role in the theory's applicability, as do long-term potentials within a company/industry.

Look at my example, again. Workers in labor intensive occupations can show increased productivity through increased skill levels, but they can also show increased productivity through increased effort. And if the occupation has physical demands, age becomes a factor, as well.

Part of the problem here is the perceived 'career track' that is often associated with a job. The implied career track of a job can be a huge incentive for maintaining employee satisfaction and productivity. Those jobs without such a track become 'dead-end' jobs. How do you maintain productivity within an industry where this is the norm?

[English Dave]

CEOs provide "leadership"...haha!

They're slave drivers. Nothing more. They are utterly pointless, except as placeholders in a social hierarchy.

The saddest thing about this thread is that it illustrates just how deeply everyone has adopted the viewpoint of their oppressors.
As a graduate of Capitalism is Bad 101 I wholeheartedly agree.

[robeiae]

Damn straight! I wanna be a shepherd.

[English Dave]

Damn straight! I wanna be a shepherd.

I regret to inform you that the position of shepherd has been filled. However you did impress us with your interview. The vice president of sheep has just become available. Would you be interested?

[Medievalist]

Damn straight! I wanna be a shepherd.

Having actually worked as a shepherd, I urge you to reconsider.

[SC Harrison]

Part of the problem here is the perceived 'career track' that is often associated with a job. The implied career track of a job can be a huge incentive for maintaining employee satisfaction and productivity. Those jobs without such a track become 'dead-end' jobs. How do you maintain productivity within an industry where this is the norm?

The best way to maximize efficiency, even on a scale such as the landscaping crews, is to incentivize the operation. More lawns = more pay, bonuses for bringing in new clients, perfect attendence bonuses, etc. You will still have a high turnover rate due to the nature of the job, but this approach encourages discipline down to the lowest levels, and turns each employee into a business partner.

As far as career-track approaches in larger organizations, I've found that people often make some weird choices. As many of these tracks lead to managerial positions early on, you can see a marked drop in both performance and motivation in some, simply because they're not wired for leadership. You can school them all you want and you still end up with a follower. The mistake that many managers make is assuming the fault lies with the employee and not the system that manages the employees. Unfortunately, the ability to gauge the managerial aptitude of an employee is one of the traits of a good manager. :)

[English Dave]

Part of the problem here is the perceived 'career track' that is often associated with a job. The implied career track of a job can be a huge incentive for maintaining employee satisfaction and productivity. Those jobs without such a track become 'dead-end' jobs. How do you maintain productivity within an industry where this is the norm?

I doubt if Lawn Dogs have an eye on career track unless you incentivize them that way. Lawn Mower. Senior Lawn Mower. Supervising Lawn Mower.

I kid but I don't.

Anyone successful who employs people has to employ the RIGHT people. They only keep the right people if they feel valued. Finding and keeping the right people is the mark of the good CEO.

[robeiae]

Anyone successful who employs people has to employ the RIGHT people. They only keep the right people if they feel valued. Finding and keeping the right people is the mark of the good CEO.But of course, so when a new CEO comes into a mess and addresses the problem by taking an axe to the deadwood, he's automatically a villian? Or how about a current CEO who realizes his mitakes and seeks to correct them? And in so doing, both benefit from their stock otions increasing in value...that's a form of incentive, as well--authorized by the company's board and/or shareholders.

[English Dave]

But of course, so when a new CEO comes into a mess and addresses the problem by taking an axe to the deadwood, he's automatically a villian? Or how about a current CEO who realizes his mitakes and seeks to correct them? And in so doing, both benefit from their stock otions increasing in value...that's a form of incentive, as well--authorized by the company's board and/or shareholders.

I've obviously missed out on some part of the previous postings. Mainly the bit about sacking people.

Seriously, can anyone help out? I'd be grateful.

[SC Harrison]

I've obviously missed out on some part of the previous postings. Mainly the bit about sacking people.

Seriously, can anyone help out? I'd be grateful.

Basically, some believe if a business entity is forced to cut costs through benefit reductions or restructuring, those in upper management should not be rewarded for making these changes that adversely affect those lower on the totem pole. This belief is right but it's also wrong.

It's right because an ethical person should not want to benefit from another's suffering.

It's wrong because cost reduction with an eye towards increased profits is one of the main responsibilities of those in upper management. If taking these steps is going to adversely affect the ones at the top, they may be hesitant to take the steps, which can be fatal to the continued solvency of the organization.

I personally believe other forms of cost reduction and/or creative manpower utilization should be explored in depth before "sacking" occurs. It doesn't usually take away the need for layoffs, but it almost always reduces the number of folks who get the axe.

[English Dave]

Thanks SC.


I think that there are can always be times when you have to sack people. I used to be an accountant who specialised in 'Corporate Recovery' which is code for someone fvcked up.

[Dawno]

CEOs provide "leadership"...haha!

They're slave drivers. Nothing more. They are utterly pointless, except as placeholders in a social hierarchy.

The saddest thing about this thread is that it illustrates just how deeply everyone has adopted the viewpoint of their oppressors.

Well, I'm convinced. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. I'm going out to join the Communist Party right now and throw off the shackles of my oppresors (good salary, paid vacations, stock options and health plan) after reading such a persuasive argument.

Tell me, what will my glorious future look like? I mean I've all seen how well the large scale alternatives to capitalism have worked so far and I'm a bit nervous.

[clintl]

A good CEO provides valuable strategic direction and leadership.

A bad CEO can destroy a company. I've worked for a company that had one of these. It wasn't pretty, and the only thing that saved the jobs that were saved was an acquisition.