On 4/7/2013 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:27:51 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:




Big corporations can afford to give these perks, but small business
seldom can, and that's why I think making laws to force them can be highly
damaging to the society. Let those who can give those perks, but let smaller
outfits find a way to eek out a living without government interference. One
can always choose where one wants to work. I worked for both big and small
outfits in my working life, and there were both advantages and disadvantages
to both.

I partly agree. First, the government should not be telling me how to
run my business and what I must give for benefits.


But there is a conundrum. We tried the let business do anything it wants
(Vanderbilt/Rockefeller/Morgan) and they showed how badly some can
behave once they obtain control. I want minimal government involvement
but I also recognize where it needs to be involved. We only need to look
at the FSU to see the other side of the coin with total government
management. Moral of the story? Extremes are never good.


Our current "free market" is just a fantasy thing often spouted by the
extreme right. If it were an "free market" if you screw up you take it
on the chin and in recent times that would simply mean that many banks
and brokerages would simply be gone. Our current capitalist profit
socialist loss system is just plain wrong.



Well run smaller business are profitable and pay good salary and
benefits. Some smaller business could afford to give better benefits
if they charge appropriately for their services. I've seen many small
employers try to increase their customer base by offering low, low
prices. OK, if you want to work cheap fine with me, but don't
complain you are not making enough money.

Exactly, size has little to do with it. The ethics of the owner(s) is
the determining factor.

I worked for a small company and received excellent benefits and profit
sharing. In return I managed as if I was the owner and made a good
income for him. The owner did not have heirs so he decided to sell the
business. We produced a great product, had a great reputation and
customers were treated well and kept coming back. It was bought by a
much larger company whose attitude was that employees were a burden and
clearly not as smart as the owner. Little by little the key people left.
The place lasted 3 more years before it was bought cheap by a competitor.



If you want to attract the best employees, you have to offer at least
equal to what the competition offers. If I want to offer a better
product than my competition, I have to have the best material and best
people working with it. You get a different labor pool to choose
workers from at $8 an hour, $10 an hour, $25 an hour.

Payroll has a lot to do with attitude. I was at a meeting with two
small business owners. At the end, one said to the other, now I have
to go back and do what I hat the most, payroll, and give a way a lot
of money. The other said, that is the best time of the week. I know
that if I'm paying a lot of money to employees, they are making money
for me too.

Its that greed thing. Some is good and excessive greed where you think
you are the most important person and everyone else is dirt is wrong.