| does the soultion i presented to maintain the salary gap between ceo's and associates seem as a fair and reasonable one? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 4 | ||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 477
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:16 am Post subject: A solution between the wage gap of associates and ceo's | |
|
All of us want to make more money. Whether you a ceo, mid level manager or sales associate. The problem is that ceo's are proportionately making way to much money over the average associates in not only our company but in other companies nationwide. Please do not fall into the propaganda crap that footsolider tries to post about what ceo's of a top 50 fortune company should make and how it is a free market and let them pay the ceo whatever they want. I really and truly believe that a good solution would be to tie the ceos salary directly into the average of what the associates make. That number should be anywhere from 25-50 times that of the average salary of an associate. The incentives for ceo's to raise their own paychecks would be to make more money for the company as a whole and making more money for associates. The more on the average the associates make the more the CEO makes. So basically we force the ceo to want us to make more money. As it currently stands in most contracts with ceos and fortune 500 companies there is no stipulation that I know of that ties CEO wages directly with the average salaries of the associates that work for the company that they head up. This way it is a win win situation for everyone.
The more the company and its employees make the more money the CEO makes. I really believe that the gap between ceo's and associates are too great. Footie shouts off that our ceo should be paid great sums of money for doing a good job and to let the market decide. I am not arguing that we are not a top 50 fortune company but I would love to see a comparison of the average salary of our workers compared to the average salary of the top 50 fortune companies in the country. We would be pathetic compared to the likes of the Intel’s, the Microsoft’s and the general motor types. Hell the only company that I can imagine that we would have a better then average pay in the top 50 companies would be walmart and that is pathetic. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 477
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:55 am Post subject: | |
| Do you agrees agree or disagree? | |
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:57 am Post subject: | |||
Of course we make less SM, this is retail. Do you really expect Sears associates to be paid like they work for a tech company like Microsoft. As I posted earlier, Sears just cannot afford to pay us much more and still be profitable. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 477
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:29 am Post subject: | |||
CCC's wrote
That is a bogus remark. They can pay us more. Higher wages can attract more productive workers. More productive workers increase productivity (sales that is) and sears generates more revenue to offset added expense of wages. What I am talking about is exactly what companies that are unionized do. They realize hell we have to pay these people more lets be creative and find more ways of being productive. It forces corporations to be creative and look for ways to offset costs and in the end they might be making even more money taking aside the added costs in wages. If we had a better inventory system that truly gave us needed merchandise when we needed it, we could generate many more sales instead of saying "Sorry we are out of stock but we can order it" and the customer walks out. Yes in the short term it could cost the company money but in the long term (which is the most important thing for a company) higher wages will mean people will stick with their jobs longer and will help them be more seasoned and making them more efficient at doing their job, increasing sales, cutting down turnover rates of people quitting, cutting training costs down because so many people do not want to quit as they did in the past, with fewer people quitting we can keep a certain level of production running at all times. You say sears cannot afford to pay for us but really they can but they do not or do not seem to be willing to do so. IF that was really true then they could not pay ceo's so much. If there is a will there is a way and I believe the associates need to make that will happen. People complain on here unions wont help they are corrupt that is just being negative. No union is a magical answer to anyone’s problems but it is a start to fix things, it helps stop the bleeding. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:44 am Post subject: | |
|
SM,
While I agree with you in theory, the reality of the situation leads me to a different conclusion. If you look at past postings detailing info from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, a union does not necessarily equate to higher wages. In fact in the past 10 years non-unionized workers have had a greater increase in compensation than non-unionized workers. I know, wages are not the only factor, and in fact agree with you that unions may help certain types of workers such as manufacturing. But can you honestly tell me that people are now looking towards retail as a career? Of course there are long term associates that will retire with the company, but most new associates only expect to be with the company a short time. The days of picking retail as a new "career" are over. A union will not change this fact. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 477
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 8:57 am Post subject: | |||
CCC's wrote
With so much competition now a days that could very well be true. The company does seem to be moving towards more of a part-time worker company. But, for people like me who go to school and are planning to be with sears for 4-5 years while they go to school I believe it is in our best interest to make it the best company we can. Of course unions are not the magical answer and can always mean higher wages. There is more though to unions then just better wages, its called better and more equal treatment for all. Say a union gave workers at sears on the average only a 10 percent raise of their pay. Well maybe they could have impacts on other areas. Say for instance abolishing the points system. Having a union steward to go to when problems arise with management so you have someone to go to and not feel so defenseless. How about actually getting a job description once and making them stick to it? When I started I never had to stock shelves or do any of the sort when I first started in electronics about four years ago. Now they expect us to stock shelves like we are hourly workers. If we had a union before that clearly stated our job duties we would have never been in that position. I do not like going to work every day knowing that they can change my job descriptions on the fly because it is not written in stone anywhere. How about vacation? Maybe increasing vacations for long time workers and giving an increase in vacation pay to part-timers. How about making requirements for managers in that they need to sell on the sales floor for x amount of years before they can become a lead then a manager? Or having over half of the management per store being promoted within vs. pulling managers from around the area creating animosity between workers and managers since they have not built up a good repor and trust over the years since they never worked together as associates first. Medical costs. Putting a freeze on our current rate for x amount of years. There is just more then paying people more when it comes to unions. It's about respect and fairness as well. If sears will not give us the respect I and others feel they deserve then we will make them give it to us by creating a union, making our voice heard and protecting not only ourselves but for the people yet to come after us. |
|||
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Midwest, IN
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:38 pm Post subject: | |
|
benifits seem like a good idea.
what does anyone else think... i know it can be hard to pay workers, but if we found more productive workers i think searsmatrix is right, for some of us who work hard and see others make the same (hourly obviously) it seems ... well you get the point |
|