Re: God bless the coal miners!

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:39:55 -0600, Ken Cashion <kcashion@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:48:59 -0600, Wilbur Slice
><wilbur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:01:22 -0600, Ken Cashion <kcashion@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It's not his problem. His problem is that he doesn't get paid for work he's
>>>>doing.
>>>
>>> Work has no value. I can dig holes and fill them in all
>>>day...lots of work there, but little constructive use of my time.
>>
>>Doesn't matter. The work itself has value - most laborers like that
>>get paid by the hour. Whether the work has any "value" to the
>>business owner is irrelevant, they will, must and should be paid for
>>their work. The financial risk is the business owner's.
>
> Sorry...I think not.
> They are not being paid to work. They are being paid to
>produce.

No, sorry. Proof of that is that if they work and produce nothing (no
coal, shale, whatever), they still get paid. The company might lay
them off and close the mine, but for the hours they actually worked,
they do get paid, whether or not they produced anything of value for
the employer.

There ARE some situations where workers get paid to produce - it's
called piecework. Sometimes farm workers are paid by the bushel the
pick, or facory workers are paid by the bicycle they assemble, etc.
But I'm pretty sure mine workers are not paid by the ton of coal they
produce.


> They are being paid to make money for their employer. Each
>hour, they should make for the employer more than they are being
>given.

Sorry, no. Most employees of a corporation are not involved in the
revenue stream. Sales people are. Consultants (like myself) are,
through direct billings. But maintenance personnel, HR, secretaries,
security guards, etc. do not make any money for a company. They are
overhead - expenses. That's not to say their work is not important or
necessary, but it isn't involved with making money for the employer.

And some entities, like, say, NASA, don't actually sell a product at
all. The employer doesn't make money, and yet the employees get paid.
Even if they crash a lander on Mars.


> If digging a ditch, I would think it should be on a near
>hourly basis.
> If operating a small company, the guy might only need to be
>productive a few times a year to "cover" his salary.

How many trash cans must the janitor empty before the company has made
enough money to cover his salary?


> If some dude is making a few million a year and twice that in
>bonuses and profit sharing, then he only needs to be clever once in
>his career and be worth his pay.

Sooo... the more money you make, the less you have to work?

> When a company has a net worth in
>excess of some big countries' budgets, one mistake can cost more than
>the guy is worth. By the same token, making one clever and wise
>decision can be worth many times his career's salary.
> As an example, when I was making $25,000 a year, I was the
>last one who could have found a $250,000 redundant charge. If I had
>not caught it, the company would have paid it. Though my supervisor
>laughed, he understood when I said, "OK, I am through for the next ten
>years. My salary is made. Now YOU be clever."


And you all laughed, because that was, of course, a joke.


>
>>> The miner is getting paid what his work is worth. His work is
>>>producing nothing of value. He gets a share of that nothing.
>>
>>Nope. Not unless when the mine rakes in huge profits the worker also
>>gets a share of those huge profits. But guess what? In the vast
>>majority of cases they don't. The workers get paid an hourly rate. If
>>the mine does not produce, they still must be paid.
>
> No.

Yes. By law.

>They will be laid off.

That is a different thing. For the work they did - for those hours
they showed up and punched in - they MUST be paid. Regardless of
whether the mining company made a profit.

> And all their unproductive work
>will have contributed to the closure...but they will never understand
>this.

No, no, no. It wasn't "their unproductive work" that contributed to
the closure. it's not THEIR fault if there are no diamonds left in
the diamond mine. It's the lack of diamonds (or coal, whatever) that
causes the mine to be closed.

Sure, if there ARE diamonds in the mine and the miners just aren't
getting them out, that's different - then their lack of productive
work would indeed be their fault.


> They will talk about the big company taking advantage of the
>little guy.
>
>>I worked on a project for 3M for 4 and a half years back in the
>>1980's. They ended up not selling any of those systems and they shut
>>the project down. Do you think I didn't get paid?
>
> They ended up not selling those systems ... but do you think
>that your salary was on overhead for four years?

Yes, of course. What do you think it was? The company made no money
from the work I did. but I got paid nonetheless.


> Somebody was
>producing money for that company. (I hope I didn't have stock in it.
><g>)


Post-it notes and Scotch Tape. Neither of which had anything to do
with my project. So my work there (and everybody else on that
project) did not contribute to 3M's revenues. They made no money from
our work. And yet we all got paid.


>
>>> The
>>>mine owner gets his share of nothing in the cost of wear on machinery,
>>>etc.
>>
>>The mine owner bears the financial risks. That's capitalism. He also
>>reaps the financial rewards.
>
> True, but it is still a give and take situation. He needs the
>labor. They need to work for him. However, it is true that he can
>just shut the place down and go play golf and live off his money.

Of course he could. But he doesn't because he wants to make more
money.


> The workers cannot do this.

Sure they can. Escept they have to play par-3 nine-hole courses. And
they have to carry their own clubs.


> This is why there are those who say that the poor have more
>need of the rich than the rich, the poor.
>
>>>>The mine owner operated a system something like 'sharecropping' but I'm
>>>>prepared to bet he didn't operate a profit sharing system for when things
>>>>were good.
>>>
>>> Profit sharing? What a strange idea. Many workers want to a
>>>share the owner's profits; few want to share the owner's loss. <g>
>>>
>>>>> His brother was a butcher. I asked him who should pay for the
>>>>> parts that he didn't sell, the butcher, or the customer who did even
>>>>> receive those parts. He wasn't sure about that one.
>>>>
>>>>His brother makes a profit.
>>>
>>> By collecting more than his costs. And his costs include the
>>>waste. So the customer pays for the waste in the price of the
>>>take-outs. The mine owner was paying for the wear and tear on
>>>equipment that is producing waste, the price of the slate took that
>>>into account. The buyer paid for that burden...when the mine produced
>>>slate to be sold.
>>
>>And part of the costs are the miner's paychecks. They must be paid
>>whether the mine produces profits or not.
>
> No production and there will be nothing to pay the miners.

Not true. That's WAY too simplistic an analysis. First of all,
typically a mining company owns more than one mine, and if one mine
isn't producing, others are, and the non-producing miners are paid
from that money. And even if a company isn't making a profit at all
(maybe not even any *revenue* at all) they STILL have to pay their
employees. By law. And the employees get paid first - before any
creditors.

Some companies operate for YEARS withotu profits - and yet they pay
their employees.


>So
>they will be sent home. This is still the give and take of business.
>I love it. It works good.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't work they way you've been describing it.


> I read the other day that 8% of Americans are millionaires. I
>need to check that. It could be true. But, of course, a million
>isn't like a million used to be. <g>

If you own a house in California, you're probably a "millionaire".


> Remember, all this started with there being two viewpoints to
>most issues. By my offering a contrary viewpoint does not mean that I
>condone or promote the activity expressed in my observation.

But your analysis was simply factually wrong. Employees (including
miners) DO get paid, even if they don't produce income for their
employees. Maybe not long-term - they will lose their jobs, as you
pointed out. But for the hours they worked, they DO get paid. And
most employees are NOT tied directly (nor even indirectly) to the
revenue stream. They are overhead. An cost of doing business.
Necessary overhead, but overhead nonetheless.


> I could say that Hitler's boots were always polished real
>good. (That is true.) But I hardly would suggest that was of much
>significance in the behavior of the overall man. <g>


He loved his dog, too.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God bless the coal miners!
    ... >coal, shale, whatever), they still get paid. ... They are necessary for the mine to make any money but on any given ... Most employees of a corporation are not involved in the ... why in a 1900 Welsh slate mine and a current corporate structure. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • AARP Voter Fraud Article - Misrepresentation
    ... Paid GOP workers say they misled Wis. ... The employees told The Associated Press on Monday they were hired by ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: John H, Per Your Request
    ... New employees get two ... > of paid sick leave a year. ... >>> practice of some 825 patients, about a third of which are ... >>> Licensure background check, submission of recommendations by ...
    (rec.boats)
  • John H, Per Your Request
    ... New employees get two ... > of paid sick leave a year. ... >>> practice of some 825 patients, about a third of which are ... >>> Licensure background check, submission of recommendations by ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: John H, Per Your Request
    ... New employees get two ... > of paid sick leave a year. ... >>> practice of some 825 patients, about a third of which are ... >>> Licensure background check, submission of recommendations by ...
    (rec.boats)