Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Was anything said anywhere about LESS pay
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
They are saying they will take LESS money
|
You quoted me, but I was responding to ustwo's statement.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you, I can only imagine that you're purposely being argumentative because of whatever opposition you have toward my political orientation.
Workers take home less money when they work less hours, businesses don't pay a worker a lower payscale when they work less hours. Businesses pay workers a lower or higher payscale depending on how good a job they do. In fact, the general right-winger responses to threads regarding minimum wage, living wages, "appropriate" compensation, & etc. is always that employees ought to increase their productivity (not hours worked, but quality of work) and bring more value to the workplace in order to earn a higher hourly wage.
That's the response, but when I repeat it in this thread, in support of a unionized worker to demand more money for better service or trade a lower demand for crappier service, then all of a sudden I'm talking alien-speak. you no comprendy anymo. So I guess that argument is just made for expediency, not that you actually believe people earn what they deserve. High pay == good service/difficult job/education; low pay== shitty service/easy job/skillless...at least, that's the general argument from conservative members on this board and often elsewhere.
So maybe you and ustwo can explain why in this particular case agreeing to a lower payscale (or not as high of a raise, if you prefer) in exchange for less quality work chaffs you so much. That seems to be the MO of employers and employee relationships when deciding on raises--how good a job did you/are you doing (NOT how many hours did you work this week, as you suggested).