Users cite executive compensation excess as moral framing
6 Sep 22 6:33 PM · 3d ago · 20 comments · 1 source · development 6 of 7
Comments invoke billionaire political spending, executive bonuses, and CEO salaries as context for employer unwillingness to grant worker raises. One user notes billionaires spend $300M on political ads rather than pay modest taxes, framing this as parasitic behavior.
“A billionaire will spend $300 million on political ads rather than just pay $3 million in taxes. This says a couple things... $300 million is nothing to a billionaire, and they desire to exit society while still benefiting from it. (AN ACTUAL PARASITE)”
preppercat.bsky.socialmcsquared.bsky.social Bluesky user initiating discussiontransitfossil.bsky.social Bluesky commenterpocketprogrammer.bsky.social Bluesky commenterkevindhull.bsky.social Self-identified CEO, Bluesky commentersmedleybutlerghost.bsky.social Bluesky commenter
The whole story postscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 17 voices · best of 20 · verbatim
-
Those are the best managers - the ones who roll up their sleeves and get down in the trenches with you.
-
Had this happen in 2017. I asked for less work and more money as I was doing 3 times as much as a guy who was just recently hired (I'm Utah and a woman, so, yeah, that's par for the course). They refused, I left. They hired 2 people to replace me. Costing them so much more. Morons.
-
also their refusing to go to a 4 day work week in spite of the data
-
It’s not about the money - it’s all about the corporate desire to push the lie that all workers are easily replaceable.
-
Same thing happened to me. Except it took 2 new inexperienced people to replace me. Heh heh heh heh heh. 🌊
-
Corporate power is America’s largest source of income inequality!
-
which depends on the job market, I suppose.
-
This, 100%. I’ve been telling people for decades that when an employee leaves, it’s harder on the company than the employee. The EE gets a better job and more money. The ER loses experience and must spend to replace the EE. Plus, the remaining workers often must cover for him, building resentment.
-
THE POINT IS STOPPING YOU FROM ASKING FOR THAT $4,000 DOLLARS.
-
You forgot the costs of training and on boarding.
-
The crux of these kind of stories can be found in the story the firing/hiring manager tells his boss.
-
Working class needs to buck the fuck up and push back against these greedy tyrants. Fucking stooges.
-
Have had similar experience, several times! Most recently, the subcontractor I worked for (having also worked for the previous subcontractor as well, for a total of nearly 15 years), changed yet again. I wasn't even interviewed to continue. In the 3 month interem,they divided my job into 4 positions
-
9,000×12= 108,000 4,000x12= 48,000 108,000+6500= 114,500 114,500-4,000= 110,500 Annual paid: (on the new hire) 110,500 that years on wages. 110,000-48,000= 62,000 62,000 money difference on wages that year. Between the two parties. Not sure where this 15k coming from. I can't reread while I'm typing
-
At my last job I was amazed at the idiots who were promoted & then, between their incompetence & their insecurity, got some of our very best folks to leave. It had become, like the Epstein administration, a system of sycophancy. One of the best days of my life was the day I told them to pound salt.
-
The ONLY way any of that makes sense is either they wanted the person to leave. Or they didn't want every other current employee to ask for the same £4k rise and chose to send a message can pass off the new hire as worth extra pay because they are an external hire.
-
Obviously, the former employee's productivity & work product didnt warrent a salary increase and his replacement was seen as an improvement.
All 7 developments of Bluesky users debate corporate wage resistance as class… →
Bluesky