Should people who support raising wages start their own businesses that pay wages they feel are appropriate?

[Winchester]

Just curious.

[little2add]

it worked well for henry ford just over one hundred years ago, very well

~    In 1914, Henry Ford made a big announcement that shocked the country. It caused the financial editor at The New York Times to stagger into the newsroom and ask his staff in a stunned whisper, “He’s crazy, isn’t he? Don’t you think he’s crazy?”

That morning, Ford would begin paying his employees $5.00 a day, over twice the average wage for automakers in 1914.

[Winchester]

it worked well for henry ford just over one hundred years ago, very well

~    In 1914, Henry Ford made a big announcement that shocked the country. It caused the financial editor at The New York Times to stagger into the newsroom and ask his staff in a stunned whisper, “He’s crazy, isn’t he? Don’t you think he’s crazy?”

That morning, Ford would begin paying his employees $5.00 a day, over twice the average wage for automakers in 1914.

So that's a 'yes'?

 

 

[little2add]

i would love to, but one needs money to make money.  as we all know one can not live on love and good intentions

[Winchester]

i would love to, but one needs money to make money.  as we all know one can not live on love and good intentions

One can't, but many can.

 

 

 

[elizabeth09]

If they have a great business idea and they can keep it running.

[chrysostom]

A Seattle group pushing for a $20/hr minimum wage offered a $13/hr position.  They said that they simply couldn't afford to pay much more.  Hummmmm.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-a-socialist-partys-13-hourly-rate-has-some-seeing-red/

So I guess they would have picked the "no" option.

[Winchester]

Like Gandhi said: "Legislate the change you want to see in the world."

[elizabeth09]

My brother started a business while back.  It's still up and running.  Right now, only another brother is helping him with our dad.

[TotusTuusMaria]

I studied entrepreneurial business to impact culture for Christ through the powerful means of business; desiring to implement Catholic Social Teaching into the day-in-day-out of my business. I think underlining all of this is a desire for the human person to be treated with dignity and to receive a fair wage. However, what a fair wage is, is debatable though the Church has informed us it needs to take into consideration vocation and marital status (with or without kids?), skill, merit, and experience. 

I took over ownership of my business last year and since then have adjusted wages (almost everyone saw an increase which had not been had for nearly three years... not even just an increase to counter inflation), and I have hired two more employees. I pay at least $2 over minimum wage and most that I contract receive a bit more than that. I did have to lessen some hours and take on more work myself, but this is the type of thing that I believe our Church calls for... for leaders to be servants... for each person and their work to be treated with the dignity that it deserves while also keeping in mind the common good of the business and ALL its stakeholders (not just the employees). I cannot pay everyone $15 or $20 an hour, but I empathize with those who want too. I doubt their overall, general knowledge of business and what it takes to make a business run... but I do empathize with their underlining desire. 

Unfortunately I think most businesses cannot live by $20 an hour for everyone or $70,000 annually for everyone and if that were dictated I think it would be detrimental to our nation. Small businesses - which our economy is in part largely built on - would go under. I know I couldn't continue to do business. But, leaders sacrificing and giving the best to their employees - creating an amazing corporate culture and treating them with the dignity both them and their work deserves - should most certainly be done. And, if someone can sustain a business and do that - they should. We need more business, more jobs, and more opportunities for growth individually and as a nation...

 

 

Edited November 7, 2015 by TotusTuusMaria

[Lilllabettt]

 However, what a fair wage is, is debatable though the Church has informed us it needs to take into consideration vocation and marital status (with or without kids?), .

 

 

Well, what you're describing above is illegal. Employers aren't supposed to ask people whether they are married or have kids, let alone base their salary on something like that.

I'd like to add the above is one excuse people used to fire women before men and pay them less. Because it was thought they didn't "need" money. 

[Winchester]

 

Well, what you're describing above is illegal.

But not immoral.

[Lilllabettt]

But not immoral.

Well I think sex based wage discrimination is immoral. I think the idea of compensating providers more, and  firing non-providers first will always lead to discrimination against women.  I also have a problem with the idea that a single person's work has less value and should therefore be compensated less. 

but the question of whether everyone deserves a living wage is separate from whether some demographics  should be paid more than others. 

[TotusTuusMaria]

 

Well, what you're describing above is illegal. Employers aren't supposed to ask people whether they are married or have kids, let alone base their salary on something like that.

I'd like to add the above is one excuse people used to fire women before men and pay them less. Because it was thought they didn't "need" money. 

"In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. 'Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages" CCC 2434. 

I think in this instance referenced above we are turning Family Responsibilities Discrimination on its head. The reason why Family Responsibilities Discrimination exists is to protect caregivers from negatives (passed over for promotion, demotion, harassed, terminated) due to their family/care-giving responsibilities.

I don't have any historical references on hand to defend what you are saying (women were denied fair-wage based on the idea they didn't "need" it). They might exist, but it seems to me an illogical assumption to make. Everyone needs a wage or source of income to survive. And, even a careless observer will recognize the destitute state of women throughout generations who have been left widows, single mothers, and/or orphans without a provider. I could imagine a businessman giving such a weak, ridiculous excuse, but I cannot fathom that being what he truly thought. 

However, ... I do know of several cases where women were denied a fair wage because they did need it but were presumed due to the possibility of pregnancy and leave that it would not be a profitable decision for the business. Obviously, this is unjust and even if it did not violate a law pertaining to FRD it violates Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which are federal).  It seems more reasonable (though unjust) for the businessman to overlook giving women a fair or high wage due to the perceived liability of pregnancy or weak physical/mental strength. Hence, the legal acknowledgement of FRD and the federal laws mentioned above. Obviously, this assumption by businesses is all wrong and a huge reason why JPII acknowledged in his Letter to Women the great profitability women bring to business, even with perceived liabilities (though they are not) of leave and pregnancy. The humanity, empathy, and sensitivity women possess and bring to their work are a huge asset for a business and for the world. Business should morally and (I would argue) for the sake of positive corporate culture adjust itself to the realities of its workers (i.e. women have children) and provide for women to be both mothers and employees. 

However, back to FRD... there is no federal law that expressly prohibits FRD. It might be in some states or counties, but it is not in mine. And for all anyone knows the business could have an anti-nepotism policy (prohibiting spouses or family members from working in the same company/department) and that might be the reason the employer inquires. 

And, while some employers might find it in their best interest (being a public, corporate entity with no soul which employees hundreds of workers viewed as valuable based upon their utility) to not ask about marriage status as it could be perceived as them trying to discriminate unjustly against their pawns... that is not the case of my business. We are a privately held, family business  with 10 employees that we view as valuable because they are human beings. We look out for their best interest and take an interest in their lives and families because we care about them and realize that if we have to choose between a more efficient day or their good or their families' good... we choose them, trusting that the return on that investment will come in time. Our employees are our friend and (we consider) family and from a  business perspective, our finest assets. Looking out for them and their families is of concern for us and that is not illegal and justice demands it. 

And too, since I am the only single employee (and a female as well) I would be the only one that would presumably complain about not being given a wage to support an entire family (that I don't have). But, I am not... I am championing my employees who I love and respect being given a wage that helps them to support their families in this economy while I am given a wage according to my own family status, skill, time, and merit. It is just. 

[TotusTuusMaria]

Well I think sex based wage discrimination is immoral. I think the idea of compensating providers more, and  firing non-providers first will always lead to discrimination against women.  I also have a problem with the idea that a single person's work has less value and should therefore be compensated less. 

but the question of whether everyone deserves a living wage is separate from whether some demographics  should be paid more than others. 

Sex-based discrimination is immoral. It has occurred, and hence why we have federal laws like Title VII and the CRA of 1964. However, too... having the perspective of both employer and employee to both men and women... I will say this... 

There has been discrimination against women based on their sex, but there has been a huge lie told by politicians and feminist propagandists that women receive less on average than men "for the same job." This, is not necessarily true and there is not statistical data to support this in its entirety, which is what they are claiming. An interesting video to watch is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhCRaWRnPEU

Fair wage and equal rights should be fought for and defended (and I would like to think I am one of the first to do that being a business employer and employee that is a woman seeking to do business according to Catholic Social Teaching), but "it is critical to root our arguments in truth." 

And to the second point... no persons work is of greater value. All men are created equal and their work is of equal value (when performed with equal skill and time) and all work has dignity. But, wage is not something given to an individual simply according to work, which is what the Church is saying, I believe. Agreement between parties (what is the tradeoff going to be for work and pay) is not sufficient to justify morally the amount received in wages. That is just the reality of the matter. We are not talking about denying anyone anything that is not justly theirs. As a single woman I deserve to be justly paid for my work according to my state, skill, time, and merit. However, if there is a man or a woman with children working with the same skill, time, and merit as myself and receiving an income proper to the work but which is only comfortablly able to be lived upon by a single person, then there is a problem. The children or he/she will do without and that is unfair since all are due based on their dignity and work what is necessary for their good materially, socially, and culturally, and spiritually. 

Paying an unjust wage is a sin which cries to heaven for vengeance (James 5:4, CCC 2434). I am able to live comfortably, and I have everything I need on the wage I receive. I even have a little more at times then I perhaps need. I am not being treated unjustly. I experience little to no harm materially, socially, culturally, and/or spiritually. My business is committing no wrong morally by paying me such a just wage.

They would be doing a wrong morally if they denied that same comfortable living in all facets to a family or denied a man/woman what was necessary for his/her family. It would cry out for vengeance.

Every single situation is unique and justice is not the same for everyone. That is a totally American idea that I just don't find logical or sustainable. 

 

 

And, after reflecting, even the State acknowledges that a family and a single person should receive different financial justices (i.e. taxes, legal benefits due the married couple or those with child). So maybe it isn't even an American idea... but something more socialist. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by TotusTuusMaria