Jump to content
IGNORED

What is the job of an employer?


revolutionist90

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  460
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   42
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/16/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/26/1990

What is the job of an employer?

Hopefully this topic is not controversial. I was listening to Mike Rowe (the host of Dirty Jobs) the other night on Huckabee. They were talking about the need to increase minimum wages and provide healthcare to all workers so the employees can live their own version of a content lifestyle. Mike Rowe stated plainly that he does not think the employer should be entitled to provide for basic necessities of the employee. So I guess the employer is to provide a pay for an honest day's work. The retirement/insurance should be overseen by the employee in their individual life. 
 

I have very little say because I have never had health insurance provided by my employer but I have had my taxes taken out towards medicare/government stuff. I am starting my own retirement fund with a roth ira so I don't know the other side of the coin. I've only worked part-time because I am an undergrad. There is the problem with part-time work. It seems that part-time work was intended for those who already had a stable financial bearing and needed some extra money instead of something that is suppose to compromise the entire financial plan for the person. But presently part-time jobs are more prevalent that full time due to the poor economy at the moment so some people seem to be expecting the same benefits of full time with part time work.
 

So is the job of an employer to provide retirement/insurance? Are such prices already taken out of the paycheck and into a fund already? Should the employee have full responsibility over their retirement and insurance plans? Is the employer just entitled to give a safe environment, appropriate hours and a paycheck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  15
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/05/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Now I don't know about the employer providing these things but I think it is a respectable company that does.  It makes it to where they respect you for what you do and want to see you do okay in life. 

 

I hate working, I hate my job and I would love to quit but then I look at my 401k that has built up over the years and it makes me very interested in staying.  I think compaines that don't offer these things probably have a high turnover rate and get treated the same way they treat their employees

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Three Biblical principals for a Christian Business

 

1. Integrity-It is about doing what is right rather than what is expedient.Truth and honest

 

2. Commitment to excellence Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.

 

3. Committment to its people- This includes the area of fair compensation,performance,recognition and providing growth opportunities,both professionally and personally.

Colossians 4:1Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

I think its great when an employer offers benefits-but I don't think they should be forced to. That's part of the reason there are so many part time jobs-not all employers can afford health insurance. Keep in mind they have to live on a budget to and in this economy if you forcibly raise the cost of making your product by requiring a company to give health insurance it can't afford, it leaves the company with only 3 options if it wants to stay afloat:

1: raise the cost of the product or service

2: eliminate full time positions in favor of part time positions

3: ship more jobs overseas and eliminate jobs here.

Some companies will even use a mixture of the above. and none of them are good for the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  1,294
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  31,762
  • Content Per Day:  5.26
  • Reputation:   9,760
  • Days Won:  115
  • Joined:  09/14/2007
  • Status:  Offline

When the economy was booming and it seemed that money was not an object as it is today, companies included benefits in  their hiring package to get the best employees to join their company.  Companies battled each other for the best employees.

 

It is not their responsibility to provide any more than, and I say this with tongue in cheek, honest pay in a safe environment.  We can evaluate our worth to a company by how much we make.

 

As for part time work, they say it is cheaper for a company to hire 100 part time workers than it is for them to hire 50 full time workers, when you take benefits into account.  The problem with this idea is that these part time workers are not as dedicated as a full time worker, they cost more to train, they take longer to become efficient in their jobs, and there is no true job security ... so the question is, does it really save the company money in the long run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  46
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   6
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/29/2013
  • Status:  Offline

It would seem there sole responsibility is to keep there thumb on working peoples head while pocketing the profits for themselves, You can find these research numbers everywhere.

 

 

Average workers wages for the last 30 years haven't even kept up with the cost of inflation yet corporate wages have increased by 400% according to this graph some estimate it's as much as 800% so this graph is conservative.

 

In the 50's and 60's most any married man, average worker, could afford to support a family and buy a modest home "not on welfare", today a single man is lucky to afford an apartment and a car. Today on these wages a man and woman with children  making less than say 35,000 qualifies for financial aid.

 

blog_executive_comp_wapo_0.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

The minimum wage should have reached 21.72 an hour in 2012 if it kept up with increases in worker productivity, according to a March study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. While advancements in technology have increased the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a set amount of time, wages have remained relatively flat, the study points out.

Even if the minimum wage kept up with inflation since it peaked in real value in the late 1960s, low-wage workers should be earning a minimum of $10.52 an hour, according to the study.

 

 

All the while taxes for the higher wage earners has dropped so the numbers don't lie, but the precept that Ronald Reagan brought to the conservative party shows that putting money in the pockets of the rich doesn't equate to better quality of earned income for the working class. Not to mention that huge corporations in many case pay zero taxes.

 

071212krugman2-blog480.jpg

 

26 of the 30 companies continued to enjoy negative federal income tax rates. That means they still made more money after tax than before tax over the four years!

– Of the remaining four companies, three paid four year effective tax rates of less than 4 percent

(specifically, 0.2%, 2.0% and 3.8%). One company paid a 2008-11 tax rate of 10.9 percent.

In total, 2008-11 federal income taxes for the 30 companies remained negative, despite $205 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
Overall, they enjoyed an average effective federal income tax rate of –3.1 percent over the four years.

Amongst the 30 are corporate titans such as General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, and Mattel. The only four companies that slipped into positive tax territory were DTE Energy, Honeywell, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, with DuPont the only one that paid more than 4 percent over the four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...