We all know what happens when the workers go on strike but what happens when...
what happens when the owner goes on strike?
Will the workers be able to run those businesses? If not, who is more important; the worker or the owner? Is it easier to replace the owner or the worker? If it is easier to replace the owner, why aren't there more owners? Is there a special skill required of owners just like workers have special skills? Skills that are hard to master?
|
2
points
1
point
Not necessarily. The owner can live of his assets and stretch it by investing. He really doesn't need the workers unless he doesn't have enough assets saved up. The workers need him for a job. NOTE that a CEO runs the company but may not own it. Also note that the reason a strike works is because the owner is usually caught off guard and can't liquidate his assets quickly enough. But once things settle down, if the workers really pissed him off, he can liquidate his assets and shut the place down. Then it would be the workers who would be caught off guard. Finally, notice that losing money is not the same thing as not making as much as before. An owner will just not make as much as before, where as a worker loses wages that he (normally) wont be able to recoup ;) Side: The workers get screwed
He can shut down all production and a bunch of people will lose... Consumers, Customers and the Workers. The business owner (depending on how large his business is) can easily live off of his assets for awhile. If we're talking a major CEO, he can just shut down a few branches for a while and watch the maggots squirm. LOL, I love Capitalism. Side: Shit Happens
1
point
You must have read the same book I'm reading. But that's right. The owner can live of his assets and stretch it by investing. He really doesn't need the workers unless he doesn't have enough assets saved up. The workers need him for a job. NOTE that a CEO runs the company but may not own it. Also note that the reason a strike works is because the owner is usually caught off guard and can't liquidate his assets quickly enough. But once things settle down, if the workers really pissed him off, he can liquidate his assets and shut the place down. Then it would be the workers who would be caught off guard. ;) Side: Shit Happens
1
point
There's no difference between an owner leaving all of his/her workers, or all of the workers leaving their owner. You can already see this with many unions. A group of people don't need an owner to do work, although there usually must be some sort of structure to the group. The difference is, with a union you get a sort of bottom-up election of the management, whereas with a business you get a top-down appointment of the management. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Generally speaking, a business doesn't create work. The work is there to be done with or without the business. But, there is strength in numbers, which is why most people belong to either a business or a union. Side: You get unions
1
point
1
point
An owner needs money and idea and certain business skills. He may or may not know the nuts and bolts down to the last guy on the totem pole but if an owner goes on strike, to what end does it behoove him to do so? He loses his profits and he may lose his business altogether. Workers are needed to run the nuts and bolts of his/her business so I think it's absolutely a hand in hand propostion. An owner is nothing without his workers and workers are nothing without their paycheck. They need each other to survive. Side: He loses money
1
point
A business owner may go on strike to teach people a lesson. Namely that they need him more than he needs them because he provides goods and services and jobs and (if he's a successful business owner) he may have enough stashed away to live comfortably for the rest of his life. Side: The workers get screwed
1
point
I find it amazing that so many people think that business owners are greedy. Maybe they just like what they do. NOTE: a business owner's job is to cut cost. If he does his job well, he gets punished for it by being called greedy. He should be proud of his cost cutting methods, especially if can pass those savings on to the customer and his workers. To say that an owner never passes some savings to his customer and his workers is crazy talk. How else can he remain competitive? Also, many people look at business owners as a bad guy. But business owners provide goods, services and jobs. A lot of people benefit from business owners but a lot of people would spit on them. That's not right. Those people are a bunch of ingrates. Side: The workers get screwed
There is a short gap on the supply side of the supply-demand equation. Competition sees the opening and increases supply. Aproximately the same number of people who lost their job while the one boss was on strike will be hired by the competition. The guy on strike loses money, but no one cares. Side: He loses money
1
point
Sure, but a lot of those people did. Then somewhere else where they make or do the same thing, increased their business. And they hired more people in whatever area they are in. Unless a person is the only person in the world who makes or does something, if people want what is made or done, they will get it somewhere. Side: He loses money
|
