In fairness that adds up though. They’re spending that to stop the union because it’s cheaper than giving everyone a raise. Logically if it’s the cheaper option it’s more affordable.
What? Saying it’s fair to say that they consider the cost of stopping unions as cheaper than giving everyone a raise is not the same as saying its fair to overpay themselves while underpaying employees.
Logically if it’s the cheaper option it’s more affordable
If you mistreat your workers, productivity suffers compared to what it would be if you paid them properly so they’d be happt. Then even when your costs are lower, your revenue is as well.
Meaning paying your workers would mean you’d be making more money, despite the increased costs. So it’s actually more “affordable”.
In fairness that adds up though. They’re spending that to stop the union because it’s cheaper than giving everyone a raise. Logically if it’s the cheaper option it’s more affordable.
Except that they’re not giving you a raise while they live a life of luxury and you eat ramen every night and sweat every day.
Where’s the fairness in that?
I don’t remember saying that is fair, or that it’s the right or moral decision.
“In fairness that adds up though.”
That wasn’t you?
What? Saying it’s fair to say that they consider the cost of stopping unions as cheaper than giving everyone a raise is not the same as saying its fair to overpay themselves while underpaying employees.
If you mistreat your workers, productivity suffers compared to what it would be if you paid them properly so they’d be happt. Then even when your costs are lower, your revenue is as well.
Meaning paying your workers would mean you’d be making more money, despite the increased costs. So it’s actually more “affordable”.