Johnny rotten

“Again Col proves his complete vacuousness on value. “

I have been patient but it is you who is reducing the debate to name calling.

When you lift your game out from spouting the self-serving rhetoric of the terminal failure who now aspires to nothing better than finding “a free ride for JR at someone elses expense” and a justification for you to excuse your own indolence and missed opportunities through exacting what substitutes for revenge in your small (and getting smaller) sphere of influence; then please come and challenge some of the points of value which I have made.

However, remember, the weapon in debate is wits, before you come back make sure you do not arrive unarmed and show yourself up as a miserable pissant devoid of constructive thought.

It is gross hypocrisy for someone like you, as obviously vacant of reasoning, to suggest anyone else is “vacuous”

Col Rouge,

"Criticize CEO’s as individuals, please do not make generalization to a particular job role the worth of which is negotiated with the business owners."

You know that I am unable to criticise CEO's by name - undoubtedly my comments would be deleted.

However, I can draw upon my experience.

Not long after I joined this company, the director decided to employ "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" qualified departmental managers, who had never had experience on any shop-floor. Previously, management had come through the ranks and knew the workings of every aspect of the job. To assist this new breed of management, the company brought in time-and-motion experts, who provided "quotas" without consideration of machine malfunction, nor man-power loss due to illness, and other normal things which occur in industry. They even measured movements and time taken. To ensure budgets looked "healthy", a number of the "new breed" would not replace faulty equipment, but hoped that it would last beyond its "use-by" date. Morale plummetted.

The Liaison Office had an open-door policy for all. However, workers saw us as management, therefore, "them", and never came to discuss issues.

Middle management, identified us as "threatening". We compiled regular reports on their departments; we could also draw against their budgets (apart from having our own). Consequently, the reports we received from departmental heads, were only those they wanted us to see. It was generally acknowledged that there were "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" -(how often is this apparent in companies?) - and workers were disadvantaged, but they never complained openly - at least to us.

cont ...

Some managers, through inuendo and subtlies, even lies, were quite happy to step upon, or sacrifice another's career for their own. These particular individuals always came across as the most efficient and loyal to the company. I don't believe that this doesn't occur now.

Much of this information came from cleaners and painters (always ubiquitous), who would speak freely to me. They didn’t have university qualifications, but they certainly weren’t dim. Obviously, I ALWAYS verified what they told me before acting. Being before laws against sexual harrassment, women workers were particularly vulnerable.

Fortunately, having "an ear to the ground" (cleaners and painters), all such issues - whether unjust complaints against workers or colleagues, were addressed as fairly as possible. I resigned after seven years, taking a completely different direction in career. I didn't like "business culture".

I wonder how many major companies see their workers’ wellbeing as valuable as quotas and dollars. I am all for high profits, but I question whether workers get wages and bonuses, if any, relative to their contribution. I repeat, I am not a socialist.

Incidentally, a number of management decided to go it alone, starting up their own businesses. Most failed.

I still cannot see how the huge amounts many CEOs receive can be justified.

Indeed, I know of one such CEO - he achieved an Olympic gold medal in the 1950’s - his name, certainly not his intellect - "the wheel was turning, but the hamster was definitely dead" - saw him reach CEO status, with an obscene payout.

Bureaucrat, departmental official who follows orders without intelligent judgement at the expense of peoples' needs.
As much as I would like everyone to be able to plan their life ahead & into retirement, many are simply unable to do so for a variety of reasons. I suffered setbacks due to crime & again through so-called justice relating to that crime. I find it obscene when the Board earns millions & yet other people lose money because that Board's company failed to provide the promised service which many people relied upon when making fateful decisions. Worse still are those bureaucrats who gamble with public funding when they've arrived at a position they're totally inept in (i.e. the Peter Principle) & accountability is nowhere to be seen. I & many people I know have had to leave positions & start anew because of these integrity devoid creatures. They can continue to salary sacrifice towards their retirement whilst their victims have to struggle on & get condemned for not properly planning ahead. There couldn't be many bureaucrats out in retirement land & feel good about their circumstances if they had a conscience. Same goes for quite a number of CEO's.

Col Rouge

Danielle has presented the case regarding the inequities between workers and management so well, that you most certainly lose that debate.

Interesting that you are so excessively defensive to criticism. Johnny really touches a nerve with you doesn’t he? Doth protest too much methinks.

And doth too nasty for reasonable debate, but I’ll try.

You argue against welfare for disadvantaged people, but are clearly defensive for government aid for yourself, in the form of tax breaks and negative gearing.

Negative gearing is a rort – yes it is legal, but it is still a rort. That you are so defensive about it means that deep down you know it is simply legalised manipulation of the tax system. You claim to be some sort of accountant or financial advisor, so you know full well what a money scheme for the wealthy, negative gearing truly is.

Negative gearing provides a tax break to property investors, allowing those who own a second home to deduct the cost of interest payments and rental expenses from their tax. By allowing investors to claim a loss, negative gearing encourages speculation; if prices go up, you win; if prices go down, the government will cover part of your loss.

A win/win for the already wealthy. No wonder you defend it so savagely.

Col,

Danielle, Fractelle, and JR have said everything that presently needs to be said so I have nothing to add in response to your reply.

JR,

"The inability of some to walk in another’s shoes leads to some of the greatest inequities. Perhaps if a CEO tried to live for 6 months on the income of their lowliest employee, they would understand a little more what life on the edge is really like."

The CEO might discover that, in order to survive, the lowliest employee has already made the "sacrifices" they make to put away $1, 000 per month in Super.