COMMUNITIES

FUN & GAMES

LIBRARY

SITE INFO

OFFSITE LINKS

SoapZone Community Message Board

Subject:

I don't understand begrudging someone else's pay raise in a different job/state.

From: K_StillNotOver2016 Find all posts by K_StillNotOver2016 Send private message to K_StillNotOver2016
Date: Sun, 06-Oct-2024 12:54:09 AM PDT
Where: SoapZone Community Message Board
In topic: ~*~*~WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 30th POTPOURRI~*~*~ posted by chloe
In reply to: I'm coming at this as someone who's never made more than $20/hour posted by Wahoo
So to me, asking for that much more money is...kind of gross, especially considering how many others are struggling right now just to get by. If over $100K/year is truly, absolutely needed to just meet your minimum needs then yeah, I can understand the argument for it. And I'm sure there are people living in NYC who couldn't get by on $81K/year and might now have anyone else to share the cost. But how much of the demand for higher pay is based on need and how much on want?

Isn't the American dream to be able to make enough to buy a house and a car and send your kids to college? The TOP salary negotiated is around what you need in many of the port towns to make that happen. It might not even be enough. That's not an exorbitant salary ask. It's what used to be expected. It's what we should all expect. They're making it happen.

As a union, they negotiated a pay raise they felt they could get based on the value of their jobs. They rejected the first offer and still got the owners to pay more.

I never said I was "rooting for the really wealthy people". Believe me, as someone making...nowhere near $39/hour, I'm just as p!ssed off about CEO salaries as the next person and probably more because of the lifestyle I have to live to make my salary stretch to cover my needs. I've even said here on SZ before that it baffles, and infuriates, me that I'm now working for a higher end clothing store in a very high end town and making barely above minimum wage. Like, let us workers have a little more of those profits, man! But at the same time, I don't see that ever happening, and most of those CEOs will insist they "worked hard" to get where they are and deserve their obscene salaries (they probably didn't, unless you count putting in long days, and they don't deserve 100% of their salaries, IMO).

But you are making the argument the CEOs want you to make. You feel powerless against the CEO salaries and have put more energy into resenting (or maybe feeling jealous of?) blue collar workers who fought for a better standard of living.

You ask how we can get a more even distribution of funds from CEOs but you're actually seeing it in action at the port. Unions. Unions are one of the best ways to get that done. It's why there have been systematic efforts over the past few decades by these business leaders and some politicians to destroy labor unions. In general, people in unions have better benefits, better pay and can force safer working conditions.

What would it benefit CEOs to get their workers mad at one another?

Because if they can get individual employees at the company to think they're fighting for a finite amount of the pie and in competition with one another, employees won't realize they would be better off as a collective when negotiating for better pay with ownership.

And I'm not questioning the unfairness of capitalism out of control...well, not exactly. I *am* saying making $39/hour and then striking AND turning down a 50% pay raise in favor of even more money is equally bad.

But why is it equally bad? They're not taking money out of your pocket. Having them accept less isn't going to make up for the companies that screwed you over.


3 replies, 109 views
generated page in 0.008 seconds using 13 database requests (reply links generated fresh)
Message archived, no new replies.
back to topic list