DaveO wrote:... It's been interesting to see calls from the CBI and even the odd Tory MP recently that firms should ensure they reward their workers appropriately so they are part of any recovery. If you wanted any indication they are not, then this has to be it ...

I also noticed that despite the CBI boss telling his members to pay the workers more this was short lived in that as soon as Ed M says he's going to ensure agency workers (on permanent contracts) aren't ripped off and are paid the same as directly employed permanent staff doing the same job, they oppose it.

DaveO wrote:No. You missed the point about companies making super-normal profits. Paying workers based on the value that they create doesn't mean distributing all the profit back to them. It means an equitable distribution of profit based on what the company can realise by selling what the labour force creates for a profit, not selling for a profit and at the same time driving wages down regardless of how much profit is made.

It's been interesting to see calls from the CBI and even the odd Tory MP recently that firms should ensure they reward their workers appropriately so they are part of any recovery. If you wanted any indication they are not, then this has to be it.

By the way, I don't think they are being altruistic here but realise Labour have a point that whatever the economic figures say polling shows few believe that they are benefiting and unless that changes it could hurt Tory election hopes.

I also noticed that despite the CBI boss telling his members to pay the workers more this was short lived in that as soon as Ed M says he's going to ensure agency workers (on permanent contracts) aren't ripped off and are paid the same as directly employed permanent staff doing the same job, they oppose it.

John_D wrote:The alternative is to be nice to each other, not be slaves to artificial constructs like markets and not try to fleece all and sundry.

El Barbudo wrote:Expecting a large shareholder-owned company to act morally is, generally, futile.
Its raison d'etre is to make as much money for shareholders as possible and will put itself at a disadvantage, compared to its competitors, if it fails to utilise profitable options that may be morally repugnant to others amongst us.
In short, such businesses are, at best, amoral and we cannot expect different.

Hence, if we want to utilise the wealth creation of capitalism within a moral framework, then it is the job of government to regulate, i.e. impose popular morality by statute.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:
Profit is not a bad word.

Sal Paradise wrote:...There are limited things government can do without negatively impacting the competiveness of individual businesses especially if we want to encourage exports.
...

SmokeyTA wrote:It’s a zero sum game. There is a finite amount in the world. Profit somewhere = loss elsewhere.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:What about the small businessman? The person who has an idea and who decides to back themselves, putting a lot of time and effort into growing the brand. Are they also amoral, when in the fullness of time they can enjoy the salary/profits that their endeavours brought them? The nice house in a decent area, enough in the bank to pursue an expensive hobby, or fund a private education for their children etc etc. In short, enjoy the fruits of their labours...

rumpelstiltskin wrote:Do we also disregard the jobs they may have created directly for their staff, or indirectly through the suppliers they use?

rumpelstiltskin wrote:Are you actually proposing that at some point in the success of this enterprise, you would expect Big Brother in the shape of HMG, to impose whatever is the fashionable thinking, and set mandatory limits on the amount of profit that this business is making?