p i n k o
From the perspective of the employee, job layoff is the paramount threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From the modern executive class POV, it’s hardly anything more than tossing out the trash while laughing all the way to the bank.
I advocate adding balance to this inequity by any means necessary.
That’s right. You heard me.
Free market incentives to retain workforce? Sure. And if that doesn’t work, I’m sure Santa will bring us all new jobs.
I believe regulatory means are necessary. Big, nasty regulatory means. Mandated pay equity. Huge, unfriendly public audits of profit-taking activities. Established and enforced maximum executive/labor compensation ratios – and I’m not talking 500:1 here either. More like 5:1 max.
Other regulations I’d like to see developed:
Layoff tax. Corporate entities would owe a definable value to some government body representative of the residential tax base of the laid off employees. Some restitution to the State government whose tax base is crippled by unemployment with an assignable cause on a per employee basis. Additional restitution to incorporated municipalities, if the terminated employee resides in one. By basing the restitution values on number of dollars in compensation reduction, a cousin of this tax could be applied to any pay reduction activity, including salary cuts and reductions in work hours. This would serve to make that executive trip to the bank not quite as funny, while providing economic incentive to corporate entities to inject more responsibility into layoff activities.
Reimbursement of tax incentives. Any tax incentives a company receives for initiating business activities in a given area should be required to be accounted for and reimbursed to the government entity who granted it for any reduction in employment for the constituents of that government by that corporate entity. Governments grant tax incentives to foster the creation of employment for the governed. Deviations from that goal should be looked at as failure to live up to the terms of a contract. Penalties and interest should apply.
Additional changes to the legal climate. The foundation on which I build my entire position is the thesis statement of this essay – that job layoff is the paramount threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the typical American. As these are God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights for citizens of the U.S., there should be some framework for civil litigation as a means of allowing ordinary citizens to protect themselves from civil rights violations like loss of a living wage. Whatever economic damage is suffered by an individual as a result of a corporate layoff should be reimbursed to that individual, along with appropriate legal fees, penalties and interest.
Taking this further, if necessary. RIF layoffs destroy individuals, shatter families, injure communities, damage governments and cripple economies. Applying the term “will and pleasure” to workforce reductions, as corporate entities tend to do, is very revealing of the relative consideration given these actions and their consequences by the executive class. The United States of America is a nation born from the idea that, as a last resort, oppression and rights violation can and should be met with physical, military revolution in the name of freedom. The freedoms to earn a living wage and raise a family are just as important as the freedoms we’ve stood up for throughout history. When wealthy corporate executives inflict damage on us, our communities and our way of life, sometimes it might become necessary to retaliate. History has demonstrated that people will only put up with so much.
From the perspective of the employee, job layoff is the paramount threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From the modern executive class POV, it’s hardly anything more than tossing out the trash while laughing all the way to the bank.
I advocate adding balance to this inequity by any means necessary.
That’s right. You heard me.
Free market incentives to retain workforce? Sure. And if that doesn’t work, I’m sure Santa will bring us all new jobs.
I believe regulatory means are necessary. Big, nasty regulatory means. Mandated pay equity. Huge, unfriendly public audits of profit-taking activities. Established and enforced maximum executive/labor compensation ratios – and I’m not talking 500:1 here either. More like 5:1 max.
Other regulations I’d like to see developed:
Layoff tax. Corporate entities would owe a definable value to some government body representative of the residential tax base of the laid off employees. Some restitution to the State government whose tax base is crippled by unemployment with an assignable cause on a per employee basis. Additional restitution to incorporated municipalities, if the terminated employee resides in one. By basing the restitution values on number of dollars in compensation reduction, a cousin of this tax could be applied to any pay reduction activity, including salary cuts and reductions in work hours. This would serve to make that executive trip to the bank not quite as funny, while providing economic incentive to corporate entities to inject more responsibility into layoff activities.
Reimbursement of tax incentives. Any tax incentives a company receives for initiating business activities in a given area should be required to be accounted for and reimbursed to the government entity who granted it for any reduction in employment for the constituents of that government by that corporate entity. Governments grant tax incentives to foster the creation of employment for the governed. Deviations from that goal should be looked at as failure to live up to the terms of a contract. Penalties and interest should apply.
Additional changes to the legal climate. The foundation on which I build my entire position is the thesis statement of this essay – that job layoff is the paramount threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the typical American. As these are God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights for citizens of the U.S., there should be some framework for civil litigation as a means of allowing ordinary citizens to protect themselves from civil rights violations like loss of a living wage. Whatever economic damage is suffered by an individual as a result of a corporate layoff should be reimbursed to that individual, along with appropriate legal fees, penalties and interest.
Taking this further, if necessary. RIF layoffs destroy individuals, shatter families, injure communities, damage governments and cripple economies. Applying the term “will and pleasure” to workforce reductions, as corporate entities tend to do, is very revealing of the relative consideration given these actions and their consequences by the executive class. The United States of America is a nation born from the idea that, as a last resort, oppression and rights violation can and should be met with physical, military revolution in the name of freedom. The freedoms to earn a living wage and raise a family are just as important as the freedoms we’ve stood up for throughout history. When wealthy corporate executives inflict damage on us, our communities and our way of life, sometimes it might become necessary to retaliate. History has demonstrated that people will only put up with so much.
