Only a few days ago, I wrote a pessimistic article
about the treatment of employees and workers
with flexible and temporary contracts in The
Netherlands:
The
ideal workers are people, whose knowledge and skills would always be fully up
to date. They would not be overly ambitious and would never become bored by their jobs, even when their jobs would be boring, as a matter of fact.
They
would be fully skilled and trained at any given moment, and in possession of
the latest knowledge and techniques, regarding all important working areas and
technical developments. And companies would not have to invest one penny in
them, with respect to courses, workshops and trainings!
These
workers would only require a moderate salary or hourly fee and when their
services would not be required anymore, they would leave the company
instantaneously.
Hence:
the ideal worker does not require anything special, does not ask for anything
and gives his very best on a daily basis, until his services have become
superficial.
And
an optimal labour market – to the eyes of many entrepreneurs – would be akin to
the physical Law of Communicating Vessels: a labour force, which is so flexible
that it always appears at the place and time where and when it is needed most.
High demand for labour would immediately lead to high supply. Low demand would
immediately lead to a magical disappearance of the labour supply…
While I’m still very much behind the contents of this
article, with respect to The Netherlands, I have lately noticed that there is a
contrary movement going on in the United States.
There, suddenly all kinds of companies – seemingly especially
the ones which happened to administer extremely low paychecks to their
personnel on the workfloor – started to pay their personnel better wages, in
exchange for their services. The – probably incomplete – list of names contained, in no
particular order (thanks to Robin Fransman (@RF_HFC on Twitter)):
- Aetna
- Gap
- Walmart
- Ben & Jerry's
- TJ Maxx
- McDonald's
- Ikea
- Starbucks
- Costco
- Shake ‘n Shack
It seemed as if these companies finally understood that
their basical (i.e. minimal) wages had “dropped” to truly embarrassing levels –
either through inflation or (involuntary) wage reducation. In some cases, this forced their personnel to take two or three subsequent jobs, in order to earn
enough money for a decent living for themselves and their family.
At the same
time, the salaries and remuneration for the executives of these and other companies
had risen to equally embarrassing levels, the other way around.
For me, it would be a very hopeful event when the race
to the bottom for minimal wages would indeed have ended, with respect to the lowest wages in the
United States. This race to the bottom is a race with only losers among the personnel AND the
company itself.
One of the most heartwarming events of late – although it could
be a kind of marketing stunt with a limited duration – was the action at the
American company Gravity. The following snippets are from De Telegraaf:
Dan
Price, CEO of the American company Gravity, is going to pay his personnel at
least $70,000, irrespective of their activities.
The
CEO surprised his total staff of 120 employees with the announcement that their
salaries soon would be raised to $70,000 per annum; even for the lowest in rank or for the
simplest activities.
The
trigger for this event was a research study into happiness, read by Price, in
which the conclusion stated that people, who break through the boundary of
$70,000 per year, enjoy much more opportunities and happiness in their lives.
In
order to pay for this massive raise, the CEO reduced his own salary to $70,000 per annum from $1 million. The remainder should be paid from the annual profit, which
amounted to $2 million last year.
I know that there probably are many people, who will call
this man Dan Price a lunatic or a dangerous “communist”. I, however, give him a
big round of applause, for acknowledging the fact that ‘it are all the bricks,
which form the foundation in a company’ and not only the top bricks.
Of course, I am not adamantly against differences in
salaries, as some jobs do require much more knowledge, experience, insights,
stamina and wisdom than other jobs.
Nevertheless, I love the signal that is
emitted by this very action: “You are my staff
and I see you all as equally important for the success of my company, as I am”.
This is a very strong signal indeed.
During the crisis years from 2008 until 2014, many commercial
services and food & beverage companies took their lowest ranked staff for
granted and ignored the fact, that these people could not live a normal life from
the very size of their paychecks. And that, while knowing that this is exactly the
personnel, which forms the bill board for their companies; people, whose smile,
politeness and kindness can make a difference for their customers every day.
It would be great when this is indeed the beginning of a
turnaround development in the USA and I hope that Europe and many other
countries will follow this new development.
A company for whom this development is yet ‘a bridge
too far’ is the Dutch, multinational supermarket chain Ahold / Albert Heijn. The
CEO of this company, Dick Boer, was in for a big surprise during an official shareholders’
assembly today. Again De Telegraaf:
There
was an unusual event, during the Ahold’s shareholders’ assembly of today. Soufian,
a 19-year old merchandiser working at Albert Heijn, straightforwardly asked Dick
Boer– the CEO of Ahold – for a bigger paycheck.
The
merchandiser represented 50,000 signers of a petition, coming from the labour platform
Young & United. Labour unions and socialist youth organizations demand that
staff, aged 18 or older, will receive a paycheck with a normal minimal wage
amount, instead of the minimal youth wage.
On
behalf of the younger employees, Soufian asked for ‘mature wages’. Soufian: “Mr.
Boer, in 2013 you earned around €3.7 million. That is about €1600 per hour. I
earn €5.96 per hour, which is 60% of the minimal wage for adults. In comparison,
Mr. Boer, in order to match your remuneration for 1 year, I have to work 299
years, fulltime. Yes, that is 299 years!”.
Ahold
CEO Boer remained untouched from Soufian’s plea and referred his question to
the negotiating table for the collective labour agreements.”I understand your
question and I sympathize with all the employees working at Albert Heijn, but the shareholders’ assembly is not the
place and time to ask for this”.
Dick Boer, on his behalf, is right that the
shareholders’ assembly is NOT the right place for such an action, but of course
Soufian is right that he could not have picked a better place and time for his
action. I give him a tip of the hat for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment