ext_95106 ([identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] politicartoons2012-03-23 10:16 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

Silly woman.



Doesn't she know she's not as important as her bosses? She should be lucky they deign to pay her at all!
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only
ext_46651: (Default)

[identity profile] mikepictor.livejournal.com 2012-03-23 08:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Semantics. It's docking her compensation.

Benefits are part of what a person will use to decide to work for one place or another. People don't just look at the dollar figure, but the entire compensation that is gained from a given workspace. Losing some of that compensation is a loss of some of the aspects of that job (possibly hard fought and bargained) that drove them to choose that workplace.

A company turning around and tossing a benefit out the window is the same as tossing some of the cash portion of the compensation out the window. Same job, less compensation.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2012-03-23 08:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Semantics. It's docking her compensation.

It's changing her compensation, absolutely. No disagreement. You want to call it semantics, but there's a significant difference between wages and benefits that people want to ignore.
ext_46651: (Default)

[identity profile] mikepictor.livejournal.com 2012-03-23 08:13 pm (UTC)(link)
no...there isn't really, not in this situation. It's a lost of some of the conditions under which she agreed to work for this company.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2012-03-23 08:15 pm (UTC)(link)
And where is it implied that she agreed to work for a static form of health benefits?

[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com 2012-03-24 03:49 am (UTC)(link)
the same place its implied that her wages are static....
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only