Here's what the Apple Glasgow retail store union negotiated for itself

Comments

• Reply 1 of 12

  lkrupp Posts: 10,557member

  February 10, 2023 9:48PM

  "The agreement and union is a significant win for staff, as other Apple Stores haven't been so lucky. For example, the St. Louis Galleria Mall Apple retail store abandoned its attempt to unionize in November, blaming the company's opposition to such attempts.”
  
  That’s a damned lie. It has been verified by journalists that not enough employees were willing to join and the effort therefore failed. The union involved falsely spun it as illegal pressure from Apple.
  
  “guarantee pay equity and fairness” which means everyone gets the same pay whether they work hard or not. There’s no incentive to work hard, to go the extra mile for the customer at all which is the hallmark of unionism. One self-dedicated worker may do 80% of the work while five others do 20% but they get the same paycheck. I know because I actually worked in such an environment. The managers knew who worked and who was just there to collect a paycheck, so guess who they assigned the tough jobs to knowing those jobs would get done?

  

   2Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
• Reply 2 of 12

  laytech Posts: 342member

  February 10, 2023 10:53PM

  Unfortunately, unions cannot help themselves but push for demands / benefits that are out of touch with reality. If it was just about pay and being reasonable, I’d support unions but I have yet to find one that does not end up taking the ….. 
  Give a tiny bit and their greed kicks in. Shame as the original intent of unions was positive and made great changes but with so many work place laws these days, they are almost redundant.
  I have seen union cause jobs loses for the very thing they were supposed to help prevent.

  edited February 2023

  

   3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 3 of 12

  hedware Posts: 105member

  February 11, 2023 1:59AM

  Watch out! Lots of doom and gloom wailing can be expected from the No Bill of Rights for Workers’ Americans. 

  

   2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 4 of 12

  radarthekat Posts: 3,938moderator

  February 11, 2023 3:15AM

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  edited February 2023

  

   3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 5 of 12

  ionicle Posts: 98member

  February 11, 2023 10:03AM

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  

   2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 6 of 12

  radarthekat Posts: 3,938moderator

  February 11, 2023 12:14PM

  ionicle said:

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  I can certainly commiserate with your example.  I doubt the Apple Store situation is that extreme, but surely there are many situations that are.  Living here in The Philippines I’ve seen the government here raise the minimum wage a couple times.  It’s around 400 pesos at the moment, around $8.  The difference here is that it’s not an hourly wage; it’s a daily wage!  I tip here far more often and at far higher amounts relative to the cost of the service or food purchased. It’s something I can do to help those I interact with here who live under a very oligarchical economy.  Tipping here isn’t even the custom.  

  
  

  Back to the western hemisphere, there’s certainly a very large disparity between those on the front lines dealing with customers or manufacturing the products and those who are in management or are the owners.  There’s certainly too much pressure to maximize profits, and then grow them every year.  I applaud businesses that organize themselves to remove the layers of management and flatter the organizational chart.  In my
  career I threatened to quit more then once when it was attempted to promote me out of my ‘doer’ status into managing others.  I was a bit in the role Jony Ive served in Apple.  I designed all the software and managed its development, but I refused to manage the people working with me. My view always remained that I was one of them, a doer rather than a manager.  And that sincere stance endeared me to my coworkers and also kept me closer to the minute details, making us all a more efficient team.  Even as VP of product development I insisted on keeping the org chart flat and never had any direct reports; we all worked as a team, all equals, with compensation based upon merit and not titles.  I think it was that way for Jony Ive too; he was a designer, not a manager and I think Apple respected that.  

  
  

  Tesla also has a flat org chart, but obviously Musk has benefitted greatly from his large percentage ownership.  It’s difficult to reconcile such enormous rewards for an individual person, no matter what he has contributed.  But there’s a bit of a lesson from Warren Buffett in that regard.  Buffett sees his wealth as claim checks on society.  He feels that it was the society he came up in that allowed him to acquire such wealth, and so he ultimately owes that wealth back to society.  Musk seems a variation on this theme.  When someone stands out as being able to create enormous good for society, maybe it’s appropriate that such a person has control over enormous resources (money) as this is a person who has shown the capability to direct capital to greater positive outcomes than practically anyone.  And indeed we see Musk using his money not to live a lavish lifestyle but rather to attempt to better society. Whether  we agree with his specific means to do so is another question.  
  

  
  

  So I guess in summary I don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad thing that some are able to attain outsize wealth, I do think there should be strong protections against abuse of the power and authority that comes with outsized wealth and position.  We should not rely upon workers having to revolt to protect them against tyrants like the boss you describe, but we should also not create new tyrannies that some unions have come to represent.  In all things, balance is key.  

  edited February 2023

  

   2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 7 of 12

  red oak Posts: 1,113member

  February 11, 2023 4:35PM

  ionicle said:

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  It is YOUR responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable in the workforce.   Education, certificates, taking risk, working harder than the next person.   Create your own opportunities.  The owners you criticize are the ones paying 50%+ of all the taxes 

  

   1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 8 of 12

  get serious Posts: 102member

  February 11, 2023 5:13PM

  red oak said:

  ionicle said:

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  It is YOUR responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable in the workforce.   Education, certificates, taking risk, working harder than the next person.   Create your own opportunities.  The owners you criticize are the ones paying 50%+ of all the taxes 

  Corporations pay 4% of US taxes. Individuals Pay over 40% of US taxes. 

  

   1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 9 of 12

  hedware Posts: 105member

  February 12, 2023 1:48AM

  What alternative universe are you living in? Employees pay the taxes and employers dodge paying their share of taxes.
  red oak said:

  ionicle said:

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  It is YOUR responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable in the workforce.   Education, certificates, taking risk, working harder than the next person.   Create your own opportunities.  The owners you criticize are the ones paying 50%+ of all the taxes 

  
  

  

   1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 10 of 12

  pablorph93 Posts: 3member

  February 12, 2023 1:49AM

  ….Corporations pay 4% of US taxes. Individuals Pay over 40% of US taxes. 

  
  

  Who pays the other 56%?

   0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 11 of 12

  radarthekat Posts: 3,938moderator

  February 12, 2023 2:37PM

  get serious said:

  red oak said:

  ionicle said:

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  It is YOUR responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable in the workforce.   Education, certificates, taking risk, working harder than the next person.   Create your own opportunities.  The owners you criticize are the ones paying 50%+ of all the taxes 

  Corporations pay 4% of US taxes. Individuals Pay over 40% of US taxes. 

  I think he was saying the owners, not the corporations themselves. I don’t know the numbers so he may be correct or incorrect, but just clarifying what was being stated.  

   0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
• Reply 12 of 12

  red oak Posts: 1,113member

  February 12, 2023 3:11PM

  Hedware said:

  What alternative universe are you living in? Employees pay the taxes and employers dodge paying their share of taxes.
  red oak said:

  ionicle said:

  radarthekat said:

  Apple invests a tremendous amount to build out and operate a physical store.  It would seem proper that they would then have the lion's share of control over the operations that go on within that store, including authority to determine pay and benefits. 

  
  

  What doesn't seem proper to me, and this is my issue with unions, is that a disproportionate amount of control should find its way into the hands of a group of people who have relatively little invested into the store or at risk with regard to the total cost of the store and its ongoing operation.  Unionized workers ability to shut down an entire store under certain conditions seems way out of proportion to their investment in the design and engineering and corporate decision and management processes required to have brought such a sophisticated operation into existence, to keep it supplied, to do all its marketing and to develop its efficient management and operations plan.  

  
  

  Workers provide valuable service to an Apple Store, but that value is compensated via the pay and benefits they agreed to when they took the job. 

  
  

  Perhaps I am naive (I'm sure I'll be educated here by some posters if I'm not seeing this clearly), but it just seems to me that unions sometimes wield disproportionate power relative to their contribution of required investment to establish and feed an enterprise such as an Apple Store.  

  
  

  Seems to me that their right to vote with their feet, combined with the protections of the labor and workplace safety laws, is adequate balance on their side of the ledger.  

  
  

  I never worked in any unionized business.  My high school diploma meant that I started out in a $6.50/hour job, in 1985, and it was through my contributions that I climbed the ladder to one day become co-founder and VP of product development of my third startup.  Perhaps this colors my views, which are that you gain the power to make changes and wield authority by moving up through the ranks.  My years of military service prior to 1985 may also have colored my view.  You get it when you earn it, not by banding together to revolt, in a manner of speaking. 

  
  

  /rant

  In fairness i never saw it from the other side….
  
  from my perspective, when the boss turns up in a new mercedes s-class with all the bells and whistles then claims he cant afford to pay staff more than minimum wage… really enrages me, and makes me want to fight back, as without the workers working for minimum wage, the business would grind to a halt and he wouldnt be able to afford that car, his 5 bed detached house and acres of land or anything else, im not saying he shouldnt benefit from building a business, he absolutely should, but why should i be driving a 16 year old car, struggling to put food on the table while he changes his brand new car every year when i am one of the people making him so much money…
  
  He should slow down his spending a bit and give us a pay rise so we can afford to live a bit more comfortably, i doubt it would hit his living standards too bad if he gave us all an extra few quid per hour….
  
  it goes both ways, we have no union, but i feel if we did we might be able to get a better deal

  It is YOUR responsibility to improve yourself and make yourself more valuable in the workforce.   Education, certificates, taking risk, working harder than the next person.   Create your own opportunities.  The owners you criticize are the ones paying 50%+ of all the taxes 

  
  

  https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
  
  You should try basing your arguments on facts and not emotions 

  

   0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative