-
jain.chakresh
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:43 pm
"Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company."
Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Essay
I agree with the author in saying that salaries of corporate executives should not not be linked to those of lowest-paid employees. Though some people argue that salaries should be linked, yet they fail to analyze that if the salaries of the two groups be linked, there will be no respect from the latter to the former, no reason to go up the ladder in management chain, and no competition, so eventually businesses on a whole will suffer.
The main point that those people have failed to look for is that if the gap between salaries of two groups be reduced, the sense of competition to go higher up in the ladder would no longer remain, resulting in the unwillingness of people to work, and hence will impact the businesses on a whole. The resulting impact will be more than what labor disputes are causing currently.
Moreover, a great manager can have a very good understanding with his staff and hence can convince and lead them to be productive and loyal. In this way, s/he can maintain a very good repo with his/her workers. Thereby, increasing the relations between management and workers. For example, Henry Ford, in the early stages, maintains a very well repo with his employees because he understands that his employees are his key strength. The employees did like to work for him under any circumstances because he take care of their problems. Later, these employees also became the loyal customers of Ford, thereby increasing the revenues and hence profitability of Ford in longer run.
Finally, a good manager by helping his employees in their personal problems can encourage them to be more productive. For example, the great businessman Mr. Oogle Link, founder of iMedia, initiated the idea of "child-care programs" at work. So that, his employees can easily take care of their children while working. This way these employees became more productive than ever before.
In conclusion, the author's criticism of those arguing for bridging the gap between executives managers and labor class, is well reasoned. The points: improved relations between two groups, reducing costly disputes and increasing worker productivity can only be achieved by bridging the gap between salaries that these people argue can easily be achieved without linking the salaries of two groups.
Which do you find more compelling, the contention that worker and executive salaries should be linked, or the response to it? Support your position with reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Essay
I agree with the author in saying that salaries of corporate executives should not not be linked to those of lowest-paid employees. Though some people argue that salaries should be linked, yet they fail to analyze that if the salaries of the two groups be linked, there will be no respect from the latter to the former, no reason to go up the ladder in management chain, and no competition, so eventually businesses on a whole will suffer.
The main point that those people have failed to look for is that if the gap between salaries of two groups be reduced, the sense of competition to go higher up in the ladder would no longer remain, resulting in the unwillingness of people to work, and hence will impact the businesses on a whole. The resulting impact will be more than what labor disputes are causing currently.
Moreover, a great manager can have a very good understanding with his staff and hence can convince and lead them to be productive and loyal. In this way, s/he can maintain a very good repo with his/her workers. Thereby, increasing the relations between management and workers. For example, Henry Ford, in the early stages, maintains a very well repo with his employees because he understands that his employees are his key strength. The employees did like to work for him under any circumstances because he take care of their problems. Later, these employees also became the loyal customers of Ford, thereby increasing the revenues and hence profitability of Ford in longer run.
Finally, a good manager by helping his employees in their personal problems can encourage them to be more productive. For example, the great businessman Mr. Oogle Link, founder of iMedia, initiated the idea of "child-care programs" at work. So that, his employees can easily take care of their children while working. This way these employees became more productive than ever before.
In conclusion, the author's criticism of those arguing for bridging the gap between executives managers and labor class, is well reasoned. The points: improved relations between two groups, reducing costly disputes and increasing worker productivity can only be achieved by bridging the gap between salaries that these people argue can easily be achieved without linking the salaries of two groups.
