Wells Fargo worker aks CEO for $10k raise by email, CC's and invites 200,000 other employees - Polidicks

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46217218']At my workplace one of my coworkers is getting this sort of treatment. She's in her mid-late 60s and works a few other jobs. She's been with the company for 15 years. Obviously being older she does have some special needs, but it hasn't been an issue and it's never been unreasonable. The past year she's specified her requested work times, things like only 4 hour shifts or not fridays and thursdays, nothing crazy. Almost every request is honored as a rule at my workplace, which has been awesome, but she has hardly ever gotten hers honored. Recently, though, she's been having issues with her back and hips and it's almost certainly from her work here. So she requested shorter shifts and the requests weren't honored. She went to a doctor and they confirmed that it's probably because of her work there, so they sent a note stating she can't work more than 4 hours at a time and not consecutive days. By no means is this an unreasonable request, since at this point most people are getting short shifts and don't work several days in a row anyhow. Management's response was to give her no hours, for four weeks and counting. She's on the payroll, on the schedule, just given no work. for weeks. This is obviously an attempt to get her to quit. What sucks is that a year ago this wouldn't have flied, you would have had a small revolt on your hands by the front end staff who would have made their opinions known and expressed that in comments and actions against management, but since then most of the people who worked with her and knew her have been replaced by seasonal people and themselves replaced by new workers who aren't established yet. So yea, this is exactly how employers handle that sort of thing. It won't be an outright thing, they'll slowly fuck him until they find a reason to justify it and then they'll play it off like it was the proper thing to do, even though everyone breaks that rule or whatever.[/QUOTE] you could pass a petition around your coworkers to help that woman get her requests honored, or everyone who signed the petition quits. it'd probably help if all of you handed it over to management as well it's a bit risky and they might think it's a bluff but, worth a shot maybe

according to the email, he was saying that by just cutting this half of the quarters earnings they could across the board raise wages and still make almost as much money as they did last year, their profit last year was 20.3B according to him, so knocking 3B out of it shouldn't be any worse of an expenditure than building new buildings or paying more dividends Reallt the problem with corporate pay is that the companies today rarely give stock options to their workers so workers aren't invested in the company and they don't see any of the profit from the company just their meger salery

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;46217636]Ehhhh no. Sorry to water down your economic perspective, but to assume that a raise will increment productivity... That's wrong as hell. And its something max weber notticed in his book about prothestant etics and capitalism which is today a standard preposition in macroeconomics. Now, if everyone was given 10.000, it would mean everybody was still, when compared against others, in the same position as before. And we kinda (I include occupy wall street in this) agreed that the issue was relative poverty, not absolute poverty. [seed eater] I assume that by your flag you are living and working in the us. Well, that kind of thing would have hardly happened here in Argentina or Europe. Does she belong to a syndicate/union? One issue with the kind of capitalism you pals have is that workers are atomized and thus don't have many means to impose their will (ofc, can be justified or not). Its awful to see the treatment that lady gets, but if an organization from the state could penalize the company for such a dick behaviour, being that she wants to keep working wiith an adjusted salary (I assume) plus having her condition fully justified.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately our workplace is not unionized, although I'm working to change that. She actually was the largest advocate for a union, which is my suspected reason for the treatment she got, and was herself a union steward/representative at a previous retail workplace. The US is very anti-union and after the complete decimation of the workers' movement in the 1970s so soon after its resurgence, it's just so difficult to get by if you're in a shit position. [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Jojje;46218266]you could pass a petition around your coworkers to help that woman get her requests honored, or everyone who signed the petition quits. it'd probably help if all of you handed it over to management as well it's a bit risky and they might think it's a bluff but, worth a shot maybe[/QUOTE] I would have had more faith about this if it was the old guard, because we'd previously done planned efforts to exert our will in terms of management going against our needs and being inconsiderate of us, but these new folks could get beaten with a club and they'd seem to think it was justified. The disposition has swung strongly away from pro-worker to pro-management, and they've taken care to alienate everyone who resisted them. Which to be fair my employer is as fair as a capitalist can be in most occasions. Our corporate office sucks, but our store director is usually a moral, charitable woman who accommodates workers most of the time. It's really only when corporate cracks down or there's a major disagreement that there are issues. I've tried a petition in the past to save the skin of a worker who was fired under circumstances that are pretty sketchy- unproven accusations and guilt by association type stuff- and even with popular support most folks are unwilling to put themselves under management's scrutiny or gain ill favor. Ain't no solidarity anymore, I tell ya.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;46217636]Ehhhh no. Sorry to water down your economic perspective, but to assume that a raise will increment productivity... That's wrong as hell. And its something max weber notticed in his book about prothestant etics and capitalism which is today a standard preposition in macroeconomics. Now, if everyone was given 10.000, it would mean everybody was still, when compared against others, in the same position as before. And we kinda (I include occupy wall street in this) agreed that the issue was relative poverty, not absolute poverty. [seed eater] I assume that by your flag you are living and working in the us. Well, that kind of thing would have hardly happened here in Argentina or Europe. Does she belong to a syndicate/union? One issue with the kind of capitalism you pals have is that workers are atomized and thus don't have many means to impose their will (ofc, can be justified or not). Its awful to see the treatment that lady gets, but if an organization from the state could penalize the company for such a dick behaviour, being that she wants to keep working wiith an adjusted salary (I assume) plus having her condition fully justified.[/QUOTE] You assume this is being applied to an entire population, it is not. So what some stuck up capitalist says in opposition to the distribution of wealth isn't applicable. Those people will be richer than people who were equivalent to them previously and will have a better quality of life than before because the rest of the population which they are relative to are the same as they were before. If you want to get all capitalist it is a good thing to pay your workers more, more disposable income for the workers means they will spend that money and stimulate the economy.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46217218']At my workplace one of my coworkers is getting this sort of treatment. She's in her mid-late 60s and works a few other jobs. She's been with the company for 15 years. Obviously being older she does have some special needs, but it hasn't been an issue and it's never been unreasonable. The past year she's specified her requested work times, things like only 4 hour shifts or not fridays and thursdays, nothing crazy. Almost every request is honored as a rule at my workplace, which has been awesome, but she has hardly ever gotten hers honored. Recently, though, she's been having issues with her back and hips and it's almost certainly from her work here. So she requested shorter shifts and the requests weren't honored. She went to a doctor and they confirmed that it's probably because of her work there, so they sent a note stating she can't work more than 4 hours at a time and not consecutive days. By no means is this an unreasonable request, since at this point most people are getting short shifts and don't work several days in a row anyhow. Management's response was to give her no hours, for four weeks and counting. She's on the payroll, on the schedule, just given no work. for weeks. This is obviously an attempt to get her to quit. What sucks is that a year ago this wouldn't have flied, you would have had a small revolt on your hands by the front end staff who would have made their opinions known and expressed that in comments and actions against management, but since then most of the people who worked with her and knew her have been replaced by seasonal people and themselves replaced by new workers who aren't established yet. So yea, this is exactly how employers handle that sort of thing. It won't be an outright thing, they'll slowly fuck him until they find a reason to justify it and then they'll play it off like it was the proper thing to do, even though everyone breaks that rule or whatever.[/QUOTE] Assuming your flagdog is right, In most states zero hours qualifys for unemployment.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;46216575]I've been here since 2008 and I still don't or ever will probably get gold membership. Sometimes you just got to accept that not everyone can make the american dream.[/QUOTE] I used to want to reach the post cap to get gold. But then I remembered it was gone.

Actually if you think about it, in a medium-large company, if [B]everyone[/B] quit their job at the same time, the company would go bankrupt in a few weeks, or sustain massive damage.That would be about the only way you could get the wages to go up, by rallying everyone in the company by saying either wages go up or we all quit. Either way, the guy forgot about shareholders; if lowering wages for the employees would make their shares fare better, they wouldn't think about it for a second. Raising wages on the other way means less profits for them to cash in on, so I doubt it would happen. Also, isn't the CEO basically also an employee to the shareholders? I mean, if he goes all Robin Hood he'll get fired in 2 seconds, won't he?

[QUOTE=godfatherk;46220594]Actually if you think about it, in a medium-large company, if [B]everyone[/B] quit their job at the same time, the company would go bankrupt in a few weeks, or sustain massive damage.That would be about the only way you could get the wages to go up, by rallying everyone in the company by saying either wages go up or we all quit.[/QUOTE] That's called going on a strike.. I don't know how it is in America, let alone Romania, but in Finland it's obviously illegal go on a strike if there is an existing agreement between the employees' and employers' organizations. [editline]13th October 2014[/editline] But yeah, it's good way to get what you want. An example would be our dockers; they can effectively stop Finland's entire exportation if a deal is not made.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;46216575]I've been here since 2008 and I still don't or ever will probably get gold membership. Sometimes you just got to accept that not everyone can make the american dream.[/QUOTE] This is a British forum dumbass

Or he'll get fired and find another person who will do the job for even less money. This is the USA, greed trumps all.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;46216575]I've been here since 2008 and I still don't or ever will probably get gold membership. Sometimes you just got to accept that not everyone can make the american dream.[/QUOTE] A tear shed for the lost. 1000 posts and however many years it was at that time interval was my savior.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46220443]You assume this is being applied to an entire population, it is not. So what some stuck up capitalist says in opposition to the distribution of wealth isn't applicable. Those people will be richer than people who were equivalent to them previously and will have a better quality of life than before because the rest of the population which they are relative to are the same as they were before. If you want to get all capitalist it is a good thing to pay your workers more, more disposable income for the workers means they will spend that money and stimulate the economy.[/QUOTE] First of all, the macroeconomics concepts I mentioned are justified today due to microeconomics. So yes, it applies. For anyone interested in the matter, the concepts are wages, substitution and income effect. Second, "Some stuck up capitalist" Oh sorry, I didn't know Krugman, Stiglitz, Mankiw, et al are stuck up capitalists. You seem to understimate these people a little bit. Third, the letter by this worker claims that a rise in wages will raise productivity. That's what I'm debating here. Not necessarily. As their wages are raised, workers see that they can gain the same as before working less. That's what I meant when Weber said that what's happened during the industrial revolution. Capitalists tried to increment productivity by raising wages yet it stayed at the same level. That's something you can observe in the labor supply curve as a "turn around" when the wage gets too high. Note: Weber was not a stuck up capitalist. [QUOTE]Those people will be richer than people who were equivalent to them previously and will have a better quality of life than before because the rest of the population which they are relative to are the same as they were before[/QUOTE] So overall, you're raising inequality?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46222657]This is a British forum dumbass[/QUOTE] said nobody fucking ever

Wells Fargo actually donated $20k to the [url=http://www.creatingitfutures.org/]IT Ready[/url] program after watching a day of class when I was going there. We didn't have our own PCs to build or take apart other than old pieces of shit so they're using it for a bunch of cheap DIY kits for the future

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46221550]That's called going on a strike.. I don't know how it is in America, let alone Romania, but in Finland it's obviously illegal go on a strike if there is an existing agreement between the employees' and employers' organizations. [editline]13th October 2014[/editline] But yeah, it's good way to get what you want. An example would be our dockers; they can effectively stop Finland's entire exportation if a deal is not made.[/QUOTE] In the US it's only illegal if there's a no strike clause in the bargaining agreement. Also illegal are strikes in some economic sectors, like teachers (doesn't stop them), police, firefighters, medical workers, and sometimes longshoremen, miners, and oil workers. Also, sympathy strikes and general strikes, which are legal in most countries, are illegal in most cases, even though they're legal in most countries. It's weird how the US has some very pro-union laws, yet so many anti-union laws.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;46222657]This is a British forum dumbass[/QUOTE] No, this is Gary's forum. He just happens to be British.

Really though, if you don't defend your interests, nobody else will. And if the only way to get your wage higher is to also get another 200k people's wages higher, then do something like imagined in the OP. Better to just ask for a personal raise if you feel you deserve it, though. Otherwise, if you feel like everyone's wage should go up, get into politics, lobbying or something...