|
really, now, Roachboy, do I detect a "false consciousness" argument wafting out of that last post? Surely you should know better. Give people some credit for thinking for themselves. As for the CEO being hard-working, well, most are, but they're not paid for physical hard work, they are paid for a constellation of traits that is rarely found together all in one person, which is why they are so eagerly sought after and so highly paid. Not many people have vision, leadership ability, financial savvy, product knowledge, people skills, economic understanding, aggressiveness, analytical ability and other stuff all rolled into one package. That's why there are so few truly great CEOs. Think of Lou Gerstner or Jack Welch or Steve Jobs. It takes enormous talent and intelligence to run a multibillion dollar, multi-10,000s of employees organization, position it for the future, support the various constituencies, institute change, etc etc etc. I could never do it (which is why I'm in a job much more closely suited to my skill set). I expect most of the people here couldn't either.
Will, you are right that the people who do the work, down in the bowels of the corporate hierarchy, should be respected. I don't know how often I have posted about this - not very many, I suspect - but I have long been a staunch advocate of the view that any boss who does not treat his/her employees well is an ass, and deserves to lose his shirt. "Well" is relative and subjective, of course, but the fact is that for any job that requires a modicum of judgment - and most do nowadays - it's very hard to find good people whom you trust and who don't have other baggage. At my firm I don't do the hiring (though I have some input to policy) but I can tell you we always make sure to take care of our employees because we don't want to lose them and because replacing people is a horrendous job (the only thing worse is firing people - firing someone is the worst part of being a boss, even when it's well deserved). People are not fungible in most jobs.
However - the fact of the matter is that my firm exists because a couple of my partners founded it 20+ years ago and took a risk, because I and my partners bust our butts to bring business in the door and take care of the clients, and because I'm wiling to take the risk of having my assets on the hook to our landlord for our lease (which means that if we have a downturn in business I can lose everything). I'm very eager to keep our employees happy, but the fact is that they get paid, in full and on time, twice a month, with no risk and no obligation other than to show up and do their job. If there is a business downturn, they will still get paid but I might not. Matter of fact there have been times I have gone two months without a penny of income because business was slow -- but we damn well made payroll, and the employees got paid, as did the landlord and the electric company. So yes, I do think I'm entitled to make more than my employees. A lot more. I do a lot more to create wealth than they do. (Why didn't we lay people off when business was slow? Easy - bad times don't last forever, but good people are hard to find. I'd rather keep good people and take the hit myself than have to scramble when the business picks up). And I can tell you with 100% certainty that most bosses are more like me than like the cartoon image that people around here are peddling. I know because that's my client base.
|