Dear Readers:
As I write this the big news is fast-food workers asking for $15/hour and striking to get it. Perhaps it will be outdated in a week (which is when it will print) but for now it is dirtying my litterbox, to coin a phrase, and I want to discuss it!
If you recall my last column, Tazi’s Corner #55 – Potential vs. Practice (A Labor Day Lesson) – you
know my feelings on political subjects; I don’t like to get involved in them.
This issue, however, does not strike me as political but rather as ethical –
work ethical, to put it succinctly.
There are reasons low-skill, low wage jobs exist. Simply
put, it is because there is a need for them. These jobs, however, are in high
demand because the under-educated and unskilled are not in demand for other
jobs, creating one market for a large number of people, from teenagers to former
homemakers who are looking for a little extra money. The laws of supply and
demand state that when you have more workers than you do jobs, the terms are
not all that friendly towards labor. Minimum wage is, as comedian Chris Rock
once said, an insult. It basically tells an employee “if I could legally pay
you less, I would”. While I agree that the minimum wage should be increased to
match the rate of inflation, I do not believe it should outstrip the value of
the job.
In all sincerity, I do not think a job flipping burgers at
McDonald’s is worth more than double the current minimum wage. The position is not
on par with being the grill chef at a fine dining establishment, nor does it
require a degree from Culinary School. Low wage, unskilled jobs should be a
starting point in one’s working life, an inspiration to train for something
better, not a lifetime career choice. Corporations like McDonald’s and Dunkin’
Donuts (among others) actually have college scholarship programs for their
employees, as well as training opportunities for promotions to management, all
of which can lead to better paying positions that pay the living wage people
are seeking (which is pretty low for a teenager living with Mom and Dad) and that
require a fair workload to earning ratio. This brings me to my next point:
Executive pay.
Once upon a time CEO’s and other executives made, on
average, 40x what the average worker made; now that number is approximately
400x what the average worker makes, when
you include perks like bonuses and stock options. (Before he retired, former
Disney CEO Michael Eisner was making more per second than his park workers made per hour. Disney Corporation is leading the charge against hiking
the Federal minimum wage, claiming it is unaffordable for their business and
would hurt their stockholders. How is
this defensible?).
Now I realize that bonuses and stocks are not guaranteed,
that bonuses can be rescinded and stocks can lose money and that accepting them
in lieu of cash is a gamble; but when your base pay is more than enough to live
a life of extreme comfort that risk is a low one. Moreover, if it were a high
risk option, why would so many executives
gladly accept such compensation packages? These men and women did get where
they are by taking risks, but not by taking stupid
risks; rather, calculated risks that stood a good chance of paying a good
dividend. Whether it was working unpaid overtime as an entry-level worker or
accepting a promotion that meant frequent travel (and thus time away from
family) these risks had a good chance of paying off in the near future and the
sacrifices made were worthy of the rewards received. In short, the risk of
losing money on these variable compensations is low, while the chance of gain
is quite high.
That being said, why not offer these options to all employees of publicly traded
corporations – from entry level to executive? Stock can be offered in lieu of a
pay raise, keeping workers at the minimum wage but with a small share of the
company and quarterly dividends paid or reinvested for more stock. Another way
to accomplish this would be through a small, weekly payroll deduction taken
each week and put towards the employee price
per share of company stock, in addition to a pay raise sufficient to bring
minimum wage up to what it should be to remain steady with inflation. In a
short time, dividends received will more than cover the weekly deduction and
“McJobs” would suddenly be a more attractive employment option that would offer
a living wage for those willing to invest in their future.
Whether a company realizes it or not, human resources are
their most important resources. Without employees, a company cannot run;
happier employees mean more productive, more loyal workers (as Costco discovered when it raised its hourly wage to $11.50/hour and actually saved
money in the long run due to lower employee turnover). Employees must remember
that a high paying job is a privilege, not a right. A person has the right to
be paid the minimum wage that is set by the government and a right to not be
discriminated against on the basis of age, sexual orientation, gender,
religious affiliation, or creed. Note that educational level, lack of skills
and work ethics are not among the protected characteristics; it is up to the
employee to make the changes that will make them a more valued employee. Prove
yourself to be irreplaceable and you will find your value reflected in your
paycheck – if not with your current employer than with one who realizes your
worth. Strike over a demand for grossly inflated pay and all you will see is a
day’s wages lost.
Snuggles,
TaziP.S. CLICK HERE to read about a bill that supports limiting the amount of tax deductions businesses can take for bloated CEO pay (thus reducing taxpayer subsidies.) It is sponsored by Rhode Island's U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D) and Connecticut U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal. Then, think about it: Your charitable giving deductions are limited. Your medical expense deductions are limited. Why are businesses not limited for their "operating expenses"?
Ask Tazi! is ghostwritten by a human with a Bachelors of Arts in Communications. Tazi-Kat is not really a talking feline.
No comments:
Post a Comment