Category: Business

By on

Throughout my work life, I have been told numerous times that my wages were in line with industry standards. For some reason, this bullshit answer actually shuts down any follow up questions regarding increases in workers wages. How can you argue with wages that are in line with industry standards? Every one else is getting the same.

But we should. Start with why is keeping wages in line with the industry standard even the goal. Wouldn’t you want to have the best wages to attract the best workers? Keeping wages in line with a standard wage is unfair to the regular worker particularly if the company is a financial success.

I understand if a company is struggling and needed wage concessions to survive, the employees might agree to those cuts in order to keep the company going. People wouldn’t be saying you have to keep your wages in line with industry standards. The company needs saving, sacrifices have to be made.

Then why would you say that when the company is successful? Shouldn’t the workers share in the success of the company?

The concern is that if one company gives their low wage workers a pay rise, that other companies, within that industry, will have to pay higher wages in order to compete. Yes, exactly, after all isn’t that what market capitalism is all about. The best workers should get best wages. But, no, this isn’t the case. Wage increases at the low end of the scale causes inflation.

This same philosophy, however, does not apply to wages at the high end of the scale. Large increases at the high end of the scale doesn’t cause inflation to the broader economy because fewer people receive them. It does, however, cause wage inflation for those few people who get them. This is why there has been such a dramatic rise in wages for upper management.

This isn’t, however, capitalism because the low wages are artificially low to control inflation which everyone agrees is important except when it comes to prices and executive wages. There is an industry standard for low wage workers and companies want to adhere to this standard to keep wages low across the industry. Inflation, you know.

So whenever I hear people moan about how bad employees are today, I ask — are you paying above market wages in order to get the very best people. If you want good workers, you have to pay for it. Right? Isn’t that the whole spirit of market capitalism. If not, then why exactly do you think your industry standard wages will get you the employees you want? It makes no sense in a capitalist economy. You should expect mediocre employees with little interest in putting in their full effort into the job because they could lose their jobs today and find a comparable job tomorrow.

By on

I had another point I wanted to make in my blog about Free Checking and I realized that I forgot to say it.

Marianne Lake, the evil genius who runs Chase Bank, explained that the elimination of free checking was due to the government cracking down on banks for their late and overdraft fees. She also warned that the end of free checking was going to have the biggest impact on the people who can least afford it.

This is the standard business reaction to anything government does to help regular people. It is actually bad for regular people because business will just find some way around it. You see, Business is trying to do the right thing but Government is forcing their hand. Government is making us hurt regular people because they want to regulate the way business treats regular people. In other words, since Government is preventing banks from screwing regular people one way, banks will just find another way to screw them and it’s all Government’s fault. Lake’s concern for regular people is underwhelming.

Furthermore, who exactly does she think is paying the exorbitant late and overdraft fees now? Billionaires? Vulnerable people are already being taken advantage by her bank just in a different way. Doing away with Free Checking is just another new way to take advantage of them.

So fuck you Marianne Lake and your phony concern for vulnerable customers.

By on

Marianne Lake, who runs Chase Bank, announced that Free Checking is going to end for that bank and she anticipates the other big banks will follow.

I only stay with the big banks for 2 reasons — Free Checking and Free ATM’s. If this ends I see no reason to stay with the big banks. They are completely useless to me as a normal business customer because every time I use my ATM, I am taking money out of my checking account. I am guessing that means if I use an ATM, I will be charged for writing a check. This ends Free Checking and Free ATM in one fell swoop.

The big banks are useless especially to those of us on the more modest side of the pay scale. I tried getting a saving’s accounts at a big bank. It cost more money to have the account than I received in interest. CD’s are better in the sense that I don’t lose any money but when I close out my last CD with a big bank I was getting in the neighborhood of .50 cents. You heard me right — .50 cents.

The sad part of this whole thing is my leaving will not be a problem for my big bank. In fact, a clerk accidentally spilled the beans with me one day when I was trying to find the best place for my $5,000. The answer was loud and clear. I just didn’t have enough money for the bank to bother with my accounts.

By on

After hearing unpleasant information from one of his executives, Elon Musk makes a snap decision to fire her and all 500 members of her staff. He now is trying to rehire some of them back as they are necessary for his business. If this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because Musk made a similar decision when he acquired Twitter. Which leads to the question, how smart can the man be if he keeps making the same mistake over and over again. Has he learned nothing from his dubious acquisition of Twitter? Apparently not.

This notion that we owe the rich some kind of deference because they are better at making decisions is a myth. The big difference between regular people and Musk is that Musk can afford to make mistakes while the rest of us can not. In this case, how many millions of dollars were lost trying to retrieve people who shouldn’t have been fired in the first place? Well, continue on Elon, your brilliance continues to be disputable.

By on

Bob and I recently stayed at a hotel in Hollywood. By and large, it was a good experience. The bill, however, was irritating because the rate changed by $100 based on resort fees and parking fees. I understand why the parking fees might be separate as there are some guests who don’t bring a car.

But resort fees are 100% deception. There is no good reason for them. The guest has to pay them regardless if they used the gym or the pool or whatever amenity the hotel decides to put into the resort fee. So whether you used the resort amenities or not, you are on the hook for paying for them. What is the point of causing all this confusion at checkout? Bob remembers standing in a checkout line where the four people that proceeded him were arguing about the resort fees. Why not just include the resort fee in the hotel rate thus avoiding this problem for both guests and staff at the end of the stay?

I really thought the must be a good reason but, as of yet, the only thing I can find is deception. The resort fee hides a portion of the room rate to the customer. The guest thinks that they are paying $200 for their room but when they depart they are actually paying $250 after the resort fee is added. Many customers don’t discover this until they are leaving the hotel. So why do hotels risk pissing off their customers with this silly trick while also taxing their staff with explaining the bill to angry guests? Why not just include it in the rate?

Because it brings in revenue. In 2015, resort fees brought in 2.47 billion dollars. What is worse, as I looked into resort fees, it is even more deceptive than tricky customers into booking at a low rate and charging a higher one at check out. It is also a way to avoid paying taxes. Hotel occupancy taxes are usually higher than the regular sales tax. The quoted rate is charged the occupancy tax while the resort fee is given the lower sales tax. If the hotel is particularly crafty, they then can charge the higher tax on the resort fee while only being charged the sales tax by the government. The hotel then pockets the difference. The guest is screwed and the government is screwed. Who checks their bill for the correct tax being charged? Who would even know that a difference tax should be charged? Who even knows what the local tax rate should be? I wouldn’t until now.

Furthermore, the hotel only has to pay commission to travel professionals who book their hotels on the room rate and not the resort fee. I don’t know what else to say about this. They are ripping off their travel partners. If I were Kayak, Expedia or Priceline, it would make me a little leery of the hotels that use this practice. Where else are they being shifty about? It doesn’t exactly give one confidence in the veracity of the hotel.

The most irritating thing about resort fees is there is no justifiable reason to have them other than deception. Hotels are being deceitful to their guests and to travel professionals. They are making their staff defend a deceptive practice and they might even be engaging in a little tax evasion. Why is such a clearly deceptive practice still legal?

By on

I love this guy.

His boss hassled him whenever his company’s Instant Messaging software told the boss how long he has been gone. You know what I mean. Every employer uses some form of instant messaging software that always narcs you out — think Microsoft Lync that tells people how long you have been gone with the green light/yellow light red light gizmo. This tool fights the boss who needlessly monitors your work time when they are happy as a clam with you work otherwise. This guy’s device moves your cursor while you are away from your desk which tricks Microsoft Lync into thinking you are at your PC. Green light instead of yellow light or red light — if you know what I mean. And image what your boss will think with all of those nine and ten hour days. And, really, who gets harmed in the deal.

Here is the link. https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/mouse-movers-market-corporate-productivity-tracking.html

By on

The resignation of Jon Gruden has raised a lot of hackles with conservative columnists. It was a little shitty how his emails came to light, but when you make enemies, as Gruden has, you should expect these enemies to use any weapon they can find against you. The bottom line is that Gruden sent prejudice-laden emails. If he had paid any attention to the HR videos that every other employee in the civilized world is subjected to, he would have refrained from sending them in the first place. After years of incessant lectures regarding appropriate e-mail procedures, everyone should know that once you press send your email is both stored forever and can be sent absolutely anywhere. So, this incredibly responsible and privileged man ignored the rules of corporate e-mail etiquette and got caught. He now paid a high price for doing so.  

This is why HR departments worldwide conduct classes to instruct employees what is appropriate behavior to avoid such embarrassing situations.  HR, also, reminds us that if that e-mail is sent on a company server and/or with a company email address, your company has the right to read your emails.  If your emails are deemed inappropriate, you could be disciplined up to and including termination. I find it difficult to believe that someone at Gruden’s level didn’t know that words like “faggot” and “pussy” are offensive words. Everyone knows that e-mails are not private that is why HR instructs employees to be careful when sending them.

More importantly, Gruden is using blatantly homophobic, sexist and racist words while communicating with other top executives associated with football. He says he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. Maybe Gruden reasons that he was only talking about the size of DeMaurice Smith’s lips. He could be talking about any person of any race who happened to have big lips. Right. Context is everything here. He was describing a black man using one of the most frequently used stereotypical descriptions of Black people.   

Even if we could give him some wiggle room for his big lips comment, what was his intention for “faggot.” Any person living in 21st century America knows that the word “faggot” is an offensive term. There is absolutely no debate about “faggot” which undermines his argument about not having a racist bone in his body. He seems pretty comfortable using homophobic language when describing gays, then it also seems likely that he is just as familiar with the racial epithets.

Some argue that OK he may have used colorful language but this was a private email. He never intended for anyone other than Bruce Allen to read it.  This is a troubling argument because Gruden manages blacks, women and gays.  How can a person be a private racist and a public non-racist? Is that even possible? It is not something you can turn on and turn off whenever you move from public to private. If, as a work colleague, you have Gruden’s homophobic statements, how confident could you be that Gruden treats his gay employees fairly. At the bare minimum, it should make you suspicious.

You would think that someone would have reminded Gruden about his phrasing. From what I can determine, absolutely nobody said a word to him about his choice of words. None of these men owed their jobs to Gruden, they could speak freely without fear of losing their jobs.  Yet, they said nothing. Indeed, they carried on with their conversation as if this is the way they talk every day.  Conversations filled with racist, sexist and homophobic innuendo.

And, to their argument that Gruden doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.  These men probably believe it. They don’t see any harm in talking like this with other white men. They have a very narrow definition of racist. To them, a person has to be a member of the KKK or the Nazi party before a person can be considered a racist.  Every other White is basically OK.  Their casual racists remarks are forgiven.  He was just being funny. He doesn’t really mean it. He would never do anything to physically harm someone. The KKK is a racist but a white man noticing that a black man has big lips – that isn’t racist, it is observation.

So much for all these HR trainings having any effect on the workforce. Clearly Gruden and Allen need to attend another course.