See there are some interesting stats comming out of the US.

Obbama has placed a 'sealing' on exec salaries in the banks where the gov has helped out.

Now the rest of the world's bankers are poaching these guys for their extrodinary tallents and the 'controlled banks' are powerless to do anything about it.

Take our top execs. I have a fishing buddy who earns about $5millon per year as a trader for one of the big banks. Very high presure job.

Now these guys make 100's of millions for some of our banks through trading, so a $5millon pay packet is chicken feed compared to what they produce for the banks. Most businesses pay around 15 to 20% of turnover in wages, so if the big banks only pay these selected few say 3%, what's the problem. Perhaps they should be on $20 million per year. At least then they would be on a simmilar level.

Yabby
You make some good points. Overall there has to be a better way for business to include workers in other aspects of business.

There are strong arguments and evidence that democratic workplaces fare better than others. This does not mean that managers stop managing but there is more consultation with all the stakeholders in the business (Yes...I went there...the dreaded stakeholder word).

rehctub
It is the job of a trader to make money for the banks that is what they are paid to do. Traders are not the only people making money for the bank, all the employees play a part in the business even if they don't 'bring' the money in. Without employees, the money the traders bring in is moot.

In my experience there is a great deal of stress and pressure at the bottom of the ladder where you are have the skill and knowledge of the coalface but are so disempowered as to have no input into major decisions that can only be derived with knowledge of the coalface. And then having to put up with re-inventing the wheel numerous times.

Getting back closer to the topic, that is why workers need protections, otherwise we face a highly insecure economy and greater pressure on governments (taxpayers) to fill the gaps. Employers have their own interest/lobby groups or Employer Unions, why not the same advantage for workers?

Pelican, a few points here.

Traders are not your average 'bank johny', in fact, they are a very selected group and are under emense stress as one error may cost the bank billions. There are very few 'real traders' in the entire world.

Now as for worker V employers rights, yes, I agree. All's rights must be protected, but, during the past decade or so it would be fair to say that anyone who wanted to work, did work, as there were plenty of jobs around and demand for labour was huge. Many who did work would have been un-employable in normal circumstances, in fact, a trained monkey could have found work a couple of years back.

Now my beef is, now that the demand has dropped, or in many cases, 'stopped', one can't expect employers to pay these 'low skilled workers' what they were getting paid as they are once again 'un-employable' to a certain extent as there are more workers than jobs again and many have much higher skill levels than the ones who currently hold the jobs.

In fact, many top line tradies were gobbled up by the mines and, this allowed 'second rate' tradies to take a strong hold in the main stream of employemnt. Many were simply 'under qualified', but hey, after waiting up to 3 months to get a sparky, or a plumber, you simply took what you could get.

As I have said to Belly on many occations, by all means protect workers rights, but not the unrealistic rights that have been achieved during the 'boom times' of recent years.

Now if you 'boss haters' can't understand this, then it simply comfirms that you are 'one eyed' through and through.

You take what you can get in the good times, but don't give an inch when the tide starts to go out again.
Keep pushing and your jobs you are trying so hard to protect will simply go 'off shore'.

*Overall there has to be a better way for business to include workers in other aspects of business.*

Pelican, oh on that one I agree with you, it is the difference between
good and bad management!

I spoke to a guy at a wire company once. He had been there 30 years
and had never seen the boss! I used to load my export cargo at the
airport. There were huge disputes there between workers and managers,
as the managers would hardly associate with the blue collar workers.
If they'd treated them differently, a whole lot of things would
have been different there.

If I was the boss of a large company, there would be a suggestion
box right on the shop floor, encouraging workers to put forward their
ideas to improve the place, etc.

In fact one can perhaps take it too far, which could be my personal
mistake as a manager. In the end, I had to fire two members of
staff, as I included them so much in how the place was run, that
on both occasions they thought the place could not operate without
them and stopped taking notice of what I or my manager were saying.

But I don't think that is a legal issue, more a management issue.

Given that workers have a major stake in the ownership of virtually
all major ASX companies, I still think it should not just be super
fund managers making all the big decisions, but workers should
have an input, via the fact that they are also owners of the
businesses.

rehctub

I am not minimising the pressure of traders merely also recognising the role of other workers in the big picture. Doctors and nurses are under immense pressure not to make mistakes too.

Think about what traders really do and consider that they don't actually produce anything just shuffle money around similar to a casino game. Their role has only been allocated high status and big bucks due to the economic straightjackets we have built for ourselves.

A keenness to protect workers' rights does not mean one is a boss hater. I have been a boss. I am sure you can see that advocating for one group does not mean you ignore the needs of the other.

Bosses and workers cannot have equal rights per se as they hold very different positions within an organisation that is why it is important to get the power balance as reasonably fair as it can be

Pelican; A keenness to protect workers' rights does not mean one is a boss hater. I have been a boss. I am sure you can see that advocating for one group does not mean you ignore the needs of the other.

I continue to go over old ground, but you either don't recognise my point, or, you choose to ignore it.

As I have said many time, I have no problems protecting the rights of employees.

But, when the overall jobs market slumps, due to a lesoning demand, then some of the rights obtained during the 'boom times' must be reduced as well. Otherwise, we will have an in-balance.

If you truely want to be fair about this issue, then you must agree that what goes up, must also be allowed to come back down again.

If a builder builds say 50 houses per year in boom times and makes say $20K per home, then he would pay anything to have contractors/staff. But, if the market falls and he only builds say 30 per year, with decreased margins due to increased competition, then he should be allowed to trim back on wages/contractors costs as well. Back to the 'basic wage'.

Everyone must share in both the 'gain' and the 'pain'. They (staff/contractors) have certainly shared in the 'gain' during the boom times. Your basic hourly rate for a sparky is now $80. Ten years ago they were lucky to get $30 per hour. So I think the realistic figure lays somewhere in the top third of the current rate.

The builder has slashed his margins, just to keep the wheels turning, why not the worker/contractor as well?

Now I am not suggesting we slash wages, but, if we continue to pay $80 per hour to sparkys, it will simply cost jobs as the builder will become a contractor instead of a builder as the benefits of employing are no longer worth the risks. One would be better off as a worker, rather than a boss. But hey, there are fewer jobs!