RobP in relation to the crux of your argument, one way that workers at the coalface (should that be solarface) can share in the wealth of their labour is to become an automatic shareholder in the company.

When the business does well the worker also get a proportional bonus in the same way as the CEO or senior executive team even if it is a smaller percentage.

This creates incentive, increases productivity/quality and reduces disparity at the same time.

*one way that workers at the coalface (should that be solarface) can share in the wealth of their labour is to become an automatic shareholder in the company.*

This is what pisses me off about this "them verus us" argument,
which so many claim.

Workers at the coalface already have 9% of their salary paid
into their super funds, even if companies make losses. Take
a good look at the major shareholders in the top 200 ASX
companies and it is largely super funds, representing the
owners of the companies, ie workers.

It seems to me that it has never occured to the likes of Antonios
and others, that he and other workers in fact own the "big business"
which they claim to hate.

Yabby
Mine is not a 'them vs us' argument but a win/win argument I would have thought.

Do you really believe workers own the company merely through shares via superannuation? That is too simplistic Yabby.

Workers are not empowered shareholders - they have no say in how these companies are managed, how high executive salaries, bonuses or payouts should be. Workers have no power to prevent pillaging by corrupt executives and how many workers have had their super lost to mismanagement and fraudulent practices. Many are now totally reliant on the government Age Pension or have to remain in paid employment for much longer to recoup losses.

It doesn't have to be a them vs us argument.

*Workers are not empowered shareholders - they have no say in how these companies are managed,*

Of course they are, but most simply can't be bothered. Workers
can remove their money from one super fund, join a super fund that
suits their beliefs etc. Some super funds are in effect run to a
large extent by unions and do extremely well!

Workers are free to ring their super fund, express their opinion
and threaten to withdraw their membership if that super fund does
not care a hoot about their interests. If more did it, you can
bet your bottom dollar that super funds, who are there to represent
workers, would pay attention!

Most workers simply can't be bothered.

Why should I have to advance a reason for why Sarah and co should pay her fees back? Isn't it obvious from what I've already stated? It's because she is an undeserving beneficiary, simple as that. If either of you (Pericles, palimpsest) worked at the coalface, you'd know that.

Don't imperiously give me this crap about the laws of commerce, Pericles. All of man's laws (including the laws of commerce) are unfair on the ordinary people. In other words, there is a limit to which they can work before they are deemed to have reached their limit. And the system quickly sorts them out. The only people for whom these rules do not apply are the Anointed Ones. I can only assume that by your tacit support for Sarah, you are her are as one in that regard.

Now which part of "She gets good money for simply posing in front of a camera, no shedding of sweat, but just to look her lovely self. It is completely unfair that such disparity between effort and reward occurs." as I put earlier, don't you understand. It's clear to me that you guys have never seen life from below the cloud layer. And BTW, it's not class warfare (it may sound like class warfare because I had to borrow, at short notice, a language to get across what I'm trying to say), it's at its core a FAIRNESS issue. Get it yet??

The fundamental base of social injustices is what Antonios referred to earlier. Why is it that some jobs are valued and remunerated more than others, especially celebs? Who set the template for this? It's as though at some early point in man's evolution, a large rock was dropped in a shallow pond and the waves have been rebounding ever since. Why, for example, is commerce regarded more highly than human or social endeavours? When you think about the implications of this question, you'll realise that many other types of iniquities arise from it, given how hard some people chase money in their lives.

RobP

I take greater issue with CEO's and other executive staff than I do with Sarah Murdoch et al.

The disparity between workers and executives is beyond any concept of parity.

BTW Doing casual work in film and TV as I do; I am aware that it is a lot harder than it looks. But I really don't want to argue with you on this. I agree that A list celebs get paid more than they are worth but linking this to Pacific Dunlop is tenuous at best and pointless at worst.