It's not at all surprising that the shitters would be insulted by offers of work. The homeless have been insulted by work forever.
Those people are absolutely useless. They could all drop dead and the only people that would give a shit (for a day) would be the folks who have to sweep up their worthless carcasses.
If what's good for shareholders is not what's good for the workers, the shareholders will always win out in this system, if you get hired as CEO or CFO for this company, and you start changing things so that the workers benefit at the expense of the shareholders, you will not have that job for long.
Changing things from the inside, without addressing the structural issues within which you are working, is doomed to fail.
I really like the idea of Germany's Codetermination law, that requires management boards to be split 50/50, with half of the people on the board representing shareholders, and half ot the people on the board representing workers.
This law takes the natural antagonism between owners and workers into account.
Idealists will say "well workers can always just become shareholders", but that ignores the reality of the situation. Most people working for fast food or other low-paying jobs barely make enough money to support themselves or their families, they simply do not make enough money and do not have enough benefits or security to save and invest enough money to really do this. Some people maybe, but most low-payed workers can not.
The evidence of this is clear from looking at the distribution of stock ownership. The top 1% and 10% own nearly all of the financial assets like stocks in the country, the bottom 50% owns nearly none of it. The people working these jobs are in the bottom 50% (or even lower, the bottom 25%), and they own a tiny fraction of a percent of the financial wealth.
So suggesting that subway workers simply purchase subway stock in order to level it out totally ignores the reality of the situation today.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|