Cheri wrote:
Doe your owner hold a gun to your head to force you to drive for him at the rates he payes you?? I know no one at Load 1 is holding a gun to your head...
No one needs to use a gun, when the 'choice' is take it or leave it, and it's the same choice wherever you go, if you leave it.
The point is whether everyone who contributes to a success should be included in the rewards of that success, or only some of them. Is a driver's contribution and effort worth less than the office staff's?
As for Shareholders being entitled to a profit..nope, its till a risk..just ask those bond holders that barry screwed over when he forced the BK of GM..
Investors should accept that the risk is part of the deal, win or lose. It was originally a win-win proposition: investors had more money than they knew what to do with, so they used it to finance someone with a potentially profitable product or service, but no money to make it happen. Both parties stood to make good profits, without risking any more than they could afford - a perfect match. Now, investors are demanding a profit, and the times they don't get it they scream bloody murder.
.its all risk based, but low or no returns and even losses usually end up with less investment, that a company will do all it can to keep iinvestors...its the way it is and should be....
The way it is, yes. The way it should be? I don't think so. A well run company shouldn't NEED investors, and when they do have some, investors shouldn't be forcing management's decisions - if the investors are going to make they decisions, who needs management?
No one is entitled to a job, you don't get one just because you were born...no one starts a business to provide employment..it comes because the company needs people to provide their labor ...the business pays what it does to maintain profitability..if thats not enough, then don't work there, it really is that simple....and it certainly isn't the governments place to provide jobs that add to the economy...and the offer from the governement to give "tax breaks" for each employee that a company hires is nothing short of stupid for companies that aren't in need of employees when no one os buying their products or services....are companies just suppose to hire people just to make sure thay have a job? If there is no need or production to support them, who is suppose to pay for them??? that is the stupidity in barry offering tax breaks to companies that don't have a need for employees..
Did you read the comment "Keep kicking a dog, eventually he'll bite'? And do you understand that the constant refrain "Nobody is entitled to a job. Or healthcare. Or to be treated as a human who would like to contribute, but can not find the 'opportunity' that people keep insisting is out there [people who clearly haven't had to look for a job any time lately!] is very much like kicking a dog?
Oh and yes i did answer the thread titles quetion, by stating i have made more each yr i am stating i have had a raise each yr...the fact that i am doing it this yr while driving less was stated at the end of the post where i was saying barry had nothing to do with the increase in the money i have made...
You don't get it, do you? Making more money does not equal a raise!!! There are many ways to make more money, but a raise has one meaning only, and you didn't get one. [Or you did, and aren't talking about it, which I don't believe is the case.]
Oh and to answer your question in the quote above, no, you aren't...its what is expected from you each tie you except the haul....you except it at the offered rate, beyond that...nothing else is due....
