English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Lets say you were in Oprah Winfrey's position, how would you help out the people on your pay roll that make less than $20k a year. Would you have programs for housing or food or other things that could help a family survive financially, or would you perform otherwise?

2006-11-27 07:26:05 · 7 answers · asked by Keith 2 in Social Science Economics

7 answers

I doubt if I were in charge I would compensate the lowest tier at less than $20k a year. I would provide corporate training classes, aggressive tuition reimbursement up to the entire cost of a graduate or undergraduate program, very aggressive 401(k) plans with a 200% company match, medical savings accounts, in-house child daycare and other aggressive programs.

2006-11-27 07:57:07 · answer #1 · answered by KatGuy 7 · 0 0

First of all, I would not have employees [I am referring to full time, not part time 20 hours a week] working below the poverty level. I am pretty confident Oprah pays above the level of poverty--she appears rather conscientious.

I might not be in business long, as that is not the mind set of many large companies. However, the better you treat your empolyees, the better the health and education benefits, the longer they stay and the less turnover a corporation has.

2006-11-27 07:49:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I would immediately reduce the size of the business and provide and unusually high standard of employment for the lowest rungs. Of course people who think this way don't usually run big businesses. Oh well. On the other hand, Oprah does a lot. Why she has to do it all in front of a camera is questionable but at least she does stuff.

2006-11-27 07:31:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Don't think any of you understand the difference between business and charity. No, you're not going to have "programs" for food and housing etc, because if you were willing to spend that money on your employees, you'd just give them a bigger paycheck. If you have "low-income" employees then that means you have a need for unskilled, unproductive labor. That's why they are low-income (Otherwise the market would certainly force you to pay higher incomes whether you want to or not.)

You are not going to pay much for unskilled, unproductive labor, because they are not going to generate much revenue for you. You are not going to pay them so much that you lose money on them, not if you can avoid it. Why? Because if you keep losing money, you'll go out of business and they'll be laid off anyway. You're not doing anyone any favors. And if anyone complains about the low pay, you can remind them that they have just as much opportunity as anyone else to get an EE degree and get a nice engineering job designing robots.

2006-11-27 08:44:44 · answer #4 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0 0

There wouldn't be anyone on my payroll that made less than $20k a year, and that is how I would help them. They would make absolutely no less than $25-30k a year. I would also have scholarships for their kids education and benefits for all employees and their dependents. I would probably help them with relocation costs, if it was required for their job. I am sure I could come up with other ways but these are off the top of my head.

2006-11-27 07:36:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would provide them the information/training necessary to prepare them for one of the many higher paying jobs.

I doubt that someone like Oprah would have employees working at a pay grade that she would consider poverty level.

As an employer, the way you "help a family survive" is by giving them the tools they need to become successful.

2006-11-27 07:35:30 · answer #6 · answered by hueylewis2 2 · 1 0

That's who'd start with first, family.

2006-11-27 07:29:49 · answer #7 · answered by papabeartex 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers