Posted 9 months ago on March 6, 2013, 2:34 p.m. EST by Kavatz
from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Often people criticize the 99% Conglomerate for rejecting the idea of forcing Subsidiaries to pay all employees equal wages.
It simply can't happen in Phase 1, but during Phase 1 we draft the "P2 Constitution of the Conglomerate". During Phase 2 we draft the P3 Constitution. In Phase 3 we draft the Constitution for post-Phase 3.
The members of the Conglomerate will indeed be considering how workers should be paid, with different rules for P1, P2 and P3 type Subsidiaries. If you're involved, your influence level will be equal to everyone else, so the Constitutions will be drafted most democratically.
But does it make any sense to pay top managers the lowest wage?
Consider Mondragon Corporation. It's amazingly successful and the workers know it.
"One of the co-operatively and democratically adopted rules governing the MC limits top-paid worker/members to earning 6.5 times the lowest-paid workers. Nothing more dramatically demonstrates the differences distinguishing this from the capitalist alternative organization of enterprises. (In US corporations, CEOs can expect to be paid 400 times an average worker's salary – a rate that has increased 20-fold since 1965.)" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon
Before I knew about Mondragon (before much development on the Conglomerate idea) I was thinking top should be no more than 30% more than the bottom wage, but I've come to the conclusion that 500% (5 times) more is actually quite fair and workable for a competitive business.
I also want to remind that 400% more is not the same as 400 times more, as some people tend to think. 400% of a wage = the wage x 4. No offense, it's a common mistake.