An old man's career goes flat, Snackbar moves to open deck

Okay, substitute your immediate manager for Daske's executive group. They get a 10% raise while you and your fleet manger get a 2% raise. Are you happy or willing to band together with the drivers and SPD office staff to get an equivalent raise?

Does your opinion change if the monetary equivalent of 10% raise for the executive group represents a 20% raise for rank and file?

 

What about the 31K a year you mentioned? Rent? How about a house payment , $7-800 a month? Which is what mine is.

It's called living within your means, I'm forced to do it, why not UAW members?

 

I have two thoughts:

First, assuming a person is living within their means - why shouldn't they do everything within their power to advance their means?

Secondly - why shouldn't the executive group and shareholders experience the same returns as the workers?

 

I agree, the CEO's pay is way out of line. Advancing their means is one thing. This 40 some % is just a bit outrageous. Plus working 32 hrs, and being paid for 40 hours.

Is it Japan, where the CEO can only make a certain percentage, above the average worker?

 

At what point is it enough money? I’m on pace to do 148k this year, 104,800 YTD. That’s why I don’t care about tarp pay, with paying me to tarp loads that are already tarped, I probably make more then my fair share.

I also love well within my means, which I understand is much easier to do when I’m single with a high income. That being said I’m also debt free, will have the house and 5 acres paid off in 8 years, and I drive a 2006 cord ranger that I paid cash for.

I work with multiple people who make nearly as much as me and are flat broke. Like driving a truck full time and declaring bankruptcy. But at least they have a nice new 70k pickup to set in the parking lot while they are on the road.

 

Yes, Japan has some kind of structure where the executive can't make more than a certain multiplier. And the Nordic countries have a publicly accessible database of the income of every single individual. Both policies would do wonders for our economy.

As to the 40% raise - that's representative of what the Big 3 executives and board members have received in the last few years.

 

So given a choice between working for less than what you consider your worth or quitting, you'd quit. No objection from me on that. But you are holding your breath and stomping your feet by withholding your labor from them.

Enough people do that, then the company will either raise wages or go out of business because they "can't find anyone to work". That is the market at work. The question is who runs out of money first - ownership or labor?

If Company A decides they aren't being paid enough for the work for Company B and tries to negotiate a new contract, would anyone blame Company A when Company B refuses to negotiate? No, because they're both 'companies'. But if the workers of a company band together and form an entity to negotiate from a position of strength they are "throwing a hissy fit and blocking their company from doing business". The Big 3 are free to hire replacement workers - if they can find them.

You've said multiple times that unions were worth it back in the day (or words to that effect) but that they've lost their way in recent times. To a point, I'd agree - particularly exchanging wage increases for benefits. I know when I was in the teacher's union, my local sold out new teachers to benefit teachers on the cusp of retirement. If we were having this discusion circa 2003 I would be in lock step with you, but the facts on the ground are that management/dividends are getting a 40% raise while the only benefit workers are getting is a reach around. When Parliament created a similar situation in 1774 the various colonies created the Continental Congress. Were they terrorists as well?