On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:57:36 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message

The reality is that it is the combination of the investment and risk
by the employer and the input of labour by the employees.

And the labour want a piece of the action of which they created, which they
should be entitled to.

The "action" is created, by definition by the employer. He has set
up the business and employs people to work in it.

The employee does a piece of work and is paid. That his his piece of
the action.

Where is your difficulty with that?

Otherwise they act as one to get the message across.
You are so naive you think the world is perfect.

On the contrary. I know that it is not. I also know that it is
foolhardy to attempt to achieve things to any significant degree by
the use of a group.

There are some greedy and
callous managers.

There are all kinds of greedy and callous people in all walks of life.



The employees achieve an objective
(be it a defined goal or number of
hours worked) and they get paid for it.

..and they see the yearly profits and say, eh mate, we want some of that, we
made it.

.... and they get it.

For example, a company mentioned recently in another thread:

In round numbers:

Gross profit: £2.7M
Operating costs: £2M (including £1.1M in wages and salaries)

leaves
Operating profit: £700k

less Corporation tax: £240k

leaves £460k profit after taxation

They paid £100k in shareholder dividends and reinvested the remainder
back into the business.


So..... out of the total profits:

The employees made around £800k (net of tax)

The government made around £800k as well in corporation and income
tax.

The shareholders made £100k of which the government would have made
around £30k.


The reality of all of this is that the employees should be knocking at
the government's door. That is where the other major slice of the
pie is going after the employees piece.....

Sorry, but you are looking in the wrong place....





If you take a look at the accounts of any profitable company you will
see that a substantial chunk goes on wages and salaries so there is a
sharing of the income from the customer.

If you look at the accounts of some companies they could afford to give the
employees £2K each as a bonus, and it would only scratch the profits. But
they don't.

The more sensible approach
would be to come to terms with
reality and provide the employer
with a constructive and compelling
set of reasons why he would wish
to pay more.

Yep. Like saying, we have seen the
bottom line and we make all the wealth
and want some of it.

Oh puhleez......

Matt, you mean they should be ripped off, after creating all the wealth? I
know you are not very bright, but you can't be that dumb.

Look up the companies that work to Quaker ethics: Honeywell, IBM, Cadburys,
Clarke's Shoes, Huntley and Palmer, etc.

--

..andy