Do coroporations really generate profit "on the backs of the workers?"?

Question

Typically this statement refers to the rank and file worker.

Is it true?

Companies in the same industry but with different growth rates and profit margins tend to pay their blue-collar labor at about the same rates. Is the Gap lagging other retail outlets because their blue collar workers aren't stacking the shelves as well? Or is it because the designers and buyers and management - all of whom are at high risk of losing their jobs - are performing poorly?

What if a company loses money - should the assembly-line workers share in the losses?

Who adds the value to a company - the people who design the product? The people who figure out the most efficient way to mass-produce it? The people who secure the patents and capital to mass-produce it? The people who provide the capital, who could lose their entire investment? When you buy stock in a company are you considering these people or the guy who loads boxes of the company's product onto a truck?

Answer 1

Every business makes money by having productive workers. Workers are selling their skills and or labor and are free to go to the highest bidder. Like the products they are making, each workers' skill has a "market value". The "on the backs of the workers" slogan is inferring that workers receive nothing and can't leave.....which is total b.s. This is why sometimes unions are actually hurting the workers. They are demanding more than the skill is worth and it sometimes makes the company less profitable.
If I were investing in a company, I would want a skilled workforce that was treated fairly but I would also expect the company to be profitable.

Answer 2

Kodak hasn't made executive decisions to move into digital and so 30,000 workers have been 'terminated.'
IBM miscalculates entry into personal computers, again thousands terminated, plants shut, workers out. Then changes their workers pensions
The auto industry...once the most productive, with union benefits
and still the most successful even with union wage scales and benefit packages...loses market share hand over fist to Japanese car makers who pay the same rates, but make better executive decisions when it comes to the design and reliability of their cars. US automakers, blame the factory workers for their union benefits, not the designers and executives for their lack of foresight. Literally hundreds of thousands of rank and file workers have and will lose their jobs due to poor management.
A man who can put together a chassis, middle-aged, owns a home, works hard, makes no decision has his livelihood destroyed, by the white collar decision maker. If the company loses money the white collars go to other industries, paper pushing is paper pushing, but where does the chassis builder go?
Business ideally is a balance between worker and the owners when its seriously out of balance neither does well. As an investor I look for that balance between box packers to insure worker happiness and productivity and a good sound management team with the capability to have vision and sound ideas.
An unhappy workforce that feels its being taken advantage of, means high turnover and in the long run less profit for me.
Do they generate profits on the backs of their workers? On their sweat yes, sure they do, if they make their workers feel like that though, they have a losing proposition and they don't get one dime of my money.

Answer 3

Of course companies earn "on the backs of" their employees, but this is not limited to the lowest level employees. In any company, all levels of employee are NEEDED to make the whole thing run...you can't have a company that is notihng but R&D-ok, they've got great ideas, but who will seel those ideas to the marketplace, or manage the payroll for those workers, or maintain the company's facilities? If you think about any type of company, you surely must realize that without all types of employees, the company will suffer. This very fact is the reason that years ago, companies used to refer to their employees as personnel, and now they are refered to as human resources--there is a recognition that your human capital is a resource which must be viewed as such.

Answer 4

Of course its true.. how else would a corp generate a profit.. No workers.. no profit.. Sheesh...

I'm not saying its always a bad thing.. the workers need the work, and so do the corps.. done right its a symbiotic relationship.. they both depend on each other... and both profit

Answer 5

Of course capitalists earn capital by exploiting their workers. If they didn't make money off them, why would they freely choose to hire them?

We know why workers "choose" to work - they have no choice.