Upon questioning, David Siegel not only confirmed his action, but added, "It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls." Is this guy not the coolest guy ever? The woman in his lap must be at least half his age, and he owns the most expensive single-family house in America.
I got one of those from my company's CEO. It was less forward than that, but it was a thing about "getting out to vote" and it gave us voting facts. Basically it was:
FACTS! Romney
Tax Cuts Promoting Business Growth.
Educational credits to bring new clients.
Unicorns.
Would this not violate 42 USC § 1973i most notably
"(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a (a), 1973d, [1] 1973f, 1973g, [1] 1973h, or 1973j (e) of this title."
I got one of those from my company's CEO. It was less forward than that, but it was a thing about "getting out to vote" and it gave us voting facts. Basically it was:
FACTS! Romney
Tax Cuts Promoting Business Growth.
Educational credits to bring new clients.
Unicorns.
Obama
You will lose your job.
If Romney could really get me a Unicorn, I would vote for him.
This guy is scum. Seriously, your in the timeshare business, probably the most pointless thing in existence, and your going to half-way threaten to your employee's jobs.
Would this not violate 42 USC § 1973i most notably
"(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a (a), 1973d, [1] 1973f, 1973g, [1] 1973h, or 1973j (e) of this title."
If Romney could really get me a Unicorn, I would vote for him.
Which has, historically, only applied to entities and officers acting under the governments of the states or the federal level. Private citizens have been allowed much more leeway in what they can and cannot say regarding politics (as we saw with the NBPP fiasco).
Also, he wrote that if "new taxes" are levied like Obama plans to, he would reduce the company's size. He didn't say, "Vote for Obama and I will remove you." And there's absolutely no way he could prove who did or did not vote Obama, so no challenge would stand up in court.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
wow... just wow... i'm sorry, but your boss needs to seriously pull his head out of his ass. threatening to lay off his workers if obama wins is more than scummy, it's downright bull****... He needs to be taken down a peg, and sued for as much as possible.. Class Action Style, downsizing based on our president is morally wrong. Granted Obama's administration isn't the best, Romney's wont be any better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ravarshi Kashaku, Ancient Dragon of the Darkened Realms;
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
downsizing based on our president is morally wrong.
Officially, it's not due to a specific, partisan reason. The actual reason given just seems to be "higher taxes = layoffs." Granted, the implied partisan nature of the guy's actions is pretty obvious even to the lay observer, but the fact that it's implicit rather than explicit means the company probably won't see any legal repercussions for this.
One of the biggest problems here is that short-term profitability is often so high on people's lists of priorities that they forget everything else, and you wind up with behaviour like this.
Upon questioning, David Siegel not only confirmed his action, but added, "It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls." Is this guy not the coolest guy ever? The woman in his lap must be at least half his age, and he owns the most expensive single-family house in America.
I dunno. Unless he's 90 or something. The skin of her face looks stretched tighter than a drum.
As for the topic, I have to see the actual letter. Likely, he was going "Obama will raise taxes, I will have to reduce workers to compensate for the loss" which is not _quite_ the same as "if you vote for Obama, I will fire you."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Because ballots are secret. So unless 1) he really believes that his employees are the determining factor of Obama winning 2) he has some way of knowing how his employees vote, the only indicator is that Obama wins.
And I never said anything about the worker s not feeling pressured. They likely are. I was commenting more on the sensationalist headline, not defending the guy.
Its like the difference between "if you can't pay your bills, your car will be repossessed", then seeing a headline "company starves children (by taking father's car)"
I dunno. Unless he's 90 or something. The skin of her face looks stretched tighter than a drum.
As for the topic, I have to see the actual letter. Likely, he was going "Obama will raise taxes, I will have to reduce workers to compensate for the loss" which is not _quite_ the same as "if you vote for Obama, I will fire you."
This is not un-normal. When companies face higher costs companies have 2 things to do.
1. Raise their price to their customers.
2. Cut back hours, cut back pay or cut employee's.
the market will only bear so much on raising the cost of goods or services.
so they will go with step 2. he will cut hours, cut pay or cut employee's.
it is the natural cost of business.
Time for people to face the reality of what businesses are facing.
Companies are facing huge increases in cost. they are responding in kind of what they can do.
I would not be surprised if this guy just doesn't shut down the company and move away and end it. more so if it becomes too much of a headache.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yet more evidence that basing your economic system on catering to these people is dangerous.
it is called reality. these people drive the economy forward.
As this government seeks to put more contraints and make it harder for them to operate they are going to respond.
a business is there to make money not hire people. if i am a business owner i am not going to sacrifice my business for employee's. while i would like to keep them hired if i can't afford it i can't afford it.
if it becomes to much of a strain i will just shut down entirely and go out of business take what i have and do something else.
that is exactly what this guy is doing. He built his business from nothing. put years and years and tons of money into it. Now it is becoming more of a hassle to keep open and operate.
The message of his letter is clear as day.
so you are saying he should lie to his employee's? then start laying people off?
he is being upfront and honest. as are many other business people.
No, the people who do the actual work drive the economy. This guy merely has legal privileges of ownership. He doesn't do the work of the thousands of employees. He does the work of a single person. He is very much replaceable.
Simply not correct. had he not started the business and invest HIS money and put in 70+ hours a week and grew his company then well they wouldn't have jobs.
For some reason this is something that you refuse to acknowledge.
He did all the work to get the business going. No one else did.
That is precisely the problem, yes. Welcome to basic critique of capitalism
Tell me what business is there to hire people? who opens a business simply to give someone a job? none there aren't any.
A person opens a business to make money. The after effect of making more money is that you need to expand or you can't do all the work yourself so you have to hire more people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Tell me what business is there to hire people? who opens a business simply to give someone a job? none there aren't any.
A person opens a business to make money. The after effect of making more money is that you need to expand or you can't do all the work yourself so you have to hire more people.
In other words: The Star Trek Utopia is not economically possible.
I think the ultimate question we should be asking these CEOs is, "Do you love money more than you love your country, or your fellow Americans?"
Frankly, anyone who answers, "Yes," to this question should be shot for treason.
This Westgate guy gets zero sympathy from me. Don't like the higher taxes? Pay yourself a little less, if the money's really not that important. Do whatever works under the system to lower your taxes without firing workers and contributing to the worsening of America.
Despite the heavily veiled nature of the threat, it is a threat and should be treated as such.
What if I walked around midtown Manhattan with a sign reading, "If Romney wins, I'm going to start mugging people," the cops would be all on me like white on rice.
The truth is, we have a different set of laws for people of privilege that allow them to get away with this nonsense, and too many sycophants who believe that this economically tiered legal system is justifiable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Without other people to do work, he would've stayed with whatever he could do by himself. If he wasn't allowed the legal privileges of using others to do his work for him, he wouldn't have been distinguishable from anyone else.
If those people don't like it, they could quit. The workers choose to empower the rich. There's no legal privileges to speak of. He has money; he gives money for service; he uses service to make more money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
They can't simply quit. They need money to purchase shelter, healthcare, clothing and food. You die without these things. Since they can't get around these needs, they are at a distinct disadvantage against a company. They have little choice but to work for someone else to stay alive. That's the very definition of exploitation.
This is BS. How did the guy own the company in the first place? He started with the same basic needs. They have the same opportunity as he did.
Employment is not exploitation. It is an exchange of service that is mutually beneficial.
"No legal privileges", hah. That one can actually own a company and have people work for you is only possible because the law permits it. Private ownership of property certainly is a legal privilege. Far from everyone will work hard enough to enjoy it.
Fixed that for you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
That is the obvious implication, though. What he is saying has no purpose other than to put pressure on the people considering their votes.
He actually has the gall to tell his employees that he'll fire them if taxes are raised when he built himself a house for millions upon millions of dollars. I hope his wife leaves him and takes half of everything he owns.
The guy is old. She's going to stick around and take it all.
They can't simply quit. They need money to purchase shelter, healthcare, clothing and food. You die without these things. Since they can't get around these needs, they are at a distinct disadvantage against a company. They have little choice but to work for someone else to stay alive. That's the very definition of exploitation.
The only reason they are at any disadvantage against the company is because someone else will replace them.
Corporations get blamed for exploiting the poor, but the poor are the ones who agree to work for so little. The fact is that they add very little value which is why they don't get paid much. Collectively they add a ton of value which is why he's so rich.
I don't blame corporations, I blame our education system for teaching people they should be slaves to the system.
If you want the government to fix something, you should get them to actually teach free enterprise and how it works.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
The Star Trek Utopia is not economically possible.
pretty much.
"Do you love money more than you love your country, or your fellow Americans?"
Frankly, anyone who answers, "Yes," to this question should be shot for treason.
wow really? because most business people i know love all three. They love their country their fellow americans and they like to make money. that is why they opened a business. The benefit to society is that they will hire other people.
Pay yourself a little less, if the money's really not that important. Do whatever works under the system to lower your taxes without firing workers and contributing to the worsening of America.
why should they make less off of something that they worked to build?
Without other people to do work, he would've stayed with whatever he could do by himself. If he wasn't allowed the legal privileges of using others to do his work for him, he wouldn't have been distinguishable from anyone else.
I guess you don't understand how the sytsem works. This is basic business managment.
I need to hire people. I have to look at my budget and figure out what i can afford to pay them.
someone comes in and i need an IT guy. I say i will pay him 40K a year to maintain my webpage, network, computers, etc...
I need someone to do sales. i tell them they will make 30K a year plus a net commision if they exceed their sales goal.
these are what we call contracts. no one forces the person to accept this contract. they have the right to not accept the terms of employment.
no one forces them to accept the pay.
A capitalist system only encourages profitable things to be done. That is the problem.
without a profit i can't afford to hire people. what do you expect me to pay them with?
Private ownership of property certainly is a legal privilege. Far from everyone can enjoy it.
actually it is a right not a privilege.
you have the right to own buy and sell your own property.
They can't simply quit.
Sure they can. nothing is stoping them from quiting. if you don't like the situation then you do something to change it.
Plenty of people including myself have done this as well.
Fallacy of composition. Don't confuse "anyone can do it" with "everyone can do it."
There's no confusion. I said that everyone will not work hard enough to enjoy the right of working for themselves, but it certainly still a possibility.
Thinking like this is backwards. When someone is exploited, it is because they lack the power to stop it. Why would you blame the victim of a crime instead of the perpetrator? The whole deal with being exploited is that you can't really just say no because of the economic circumstances you are in. There is a surplus of labour so it isn't like you're personally necessary to the company. They can freeze you out to no risk to themselves.
Again, this is a line of BS. No one employed is being exploited. They have the choice to seek better employment or start their own business and work for themselves. This is a story that happens over and over again in a capitalist society.
I'm an engineer. Twice in my short career have I felt underpaid. Twice now I have quit jobs for a better opportunity, even in this current economy. I've had to work hard, but I'm reaping the fruits of my labor.
A coworker of mine likewise though he was underpaid, and decided to start his own business salvaging computers and doing other information disposal. It was a lot of hard work to get set up, but now he's doing quite well for himself.
Capitalism guarantees opportunity. It doesn't guarantee that it'll be easy.
This is in addition to all the union busting that has been going on since forever.
Unions and corporations have to strike a balance; it's as simple as that. Our country has seen what happens when corporations become greedy and corrupt and literally abuse their workers. The unions arose to protect workers from these conditions, and were certainly a necessity. On the other side of the coin, I live in a town that has been devastated by unions. The collective became too greedy, and our town's steel mills just shut down because it was too expensive to continue operation. All those in the union put themselves out of work.
wow really? because most business people i know love all three. They love their country their fellow americans and they like to make money.
Don't dodge the question. I'm sure they love all three; I want to know which one is MORE important. If it's money and wealth, then... goodbye.
why should they make less off of something that they worked to build?
So they don't contribute to the downturn of their country, perhaps? Besides, no one builds a business on their own, but I know you don't believe that... No business could survive without the infrastructure provided by our forefathers, from the signing of the Constitution to the construction of the sewers that shuttle their waste away.
Every single American owes a great debt to this country and those who came before us. Too many people are content to spit in their faces in the name of capitalism.
I guess "American exceptionalism" now only denotes the exceptional greed we display. Sad times for our union.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
I don't expect you to pay anyone to work for you. I'd rather expect the people doing the work being the ones owning the means and results of their work. Asking how capitalism is going to work without capitalism is missing the point something fierce.
Here is the thing they don't own anything. Did they buy the parts? did they buy the tools? did they buy the machinery needed? did they buy anything that would give them a claim.
no they don't.
They entered into a contract to trade their skill and labour for a price. if they don't like that price they are free to shop around until they find a price they like.
if you want to own the work that you do start a business. then you will own the work that you do.
the other way that employee's can own part of the company is to invest in that company if the owner is willing.
hence why some companies issue stock or allow employee's to invest in company stock.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Upon questioning, David Siegel not only confirmed his action, but added, "It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls." Is this guy not the coolest guy ever? The woman in his lap must be at least half his age, and he owns the most expensive single-family house in America.
FACTS!
Romney
Tax Cuts Promoting Business Growth.
Educational credits to bring new clients.
Unicorns.
Obama
You will lose your job.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
"(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a (a), 1973d, [1] 1973f, 1973g, [1] 1973h, or 1973j (e) of this title."
If Romney could really get me a Unicorn, I would vote for him.
Which has, historically, only applied to entities and officers acting under the governments of the states or the federal level. Private citizens have been allowed much more leeway in what they can and cannot say regarding politics (as we saw with the NBPP fiasco).
Also, he wrote that if "new taxes" are levied like Obama plans to, he would reduce the company's size. He didn't say, "Vote for Obama and I will remove you." And there's absolutely no way he could prove who did or did not vote Obama, so no challenge would stand up in court.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Tibalt & His Devils vs. Avacyn's Inquisitors
My EDH decklists
Officially, it's not due to a specific, partisan reason. The actual reason given just seems to be "higher taxes = layoffs." Granted, the implied partisan nature of the guy's actions is pretty obvious even to the lay observer, but the fact that it's implicit rather than explicit means the company probably won't see any legal repercussions for this.
One of the biggest problems here is that short-term profitability is often so high on people's lists of priorities that they forget everything else, and you wind up with behaviour like this.
hehehe. It is probably just one of many things he would fail to deliver.
I dunno. Unless he's 90 or something. The skin of her face looks stretched tighter than a drum.
As for the topic, I have to see the actual letter. Likely, he was going "Obama will raise taxes, I will have to reduce workers to compensate for the loss" which is not _quite_ the same as "if you vote for Obama, I will fire you."
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
And I never said anything about the worker s not feeling pressured. They likely are. I was commenting more on the sensationalist headline, not defending the guy.
Its like the difference between "if you can't pay your bills, your car will be repossessed", then seeing a headline "company starves children (by taking father's car)"
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
At least. They seem 40 and 70. She's at least 35.
1. Raise their price to their customers.
2. Cut back hours, cut back pay or cut employee's.
the market will only bear so much on raising the cost of goods or services.
so they will go with step 2. he will cut hours, cut pay or cut employee's.
it is the natural cost of business.
Time for people to face the reality of what businesses are facing.
Companies are facing huge increases in cost. they are responding in kind of what they can do.
I would not be surprised if this guy just doesn't shut down the company and move away and end it. more so if it becomes too much of a headache.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
it is called reality. these people drive the economy forward.
As this government seeks to put more contraints and make it harder for them to operate they are going to respond.
a business is there to make money not hire people. if i am a business owner i am not going to sacrifice my business for employee's. while i would like to keep them hired if i can't afford it i can't afford it.
if it becomes to much of a strain i will just shut down entirely and go out of business take what i have and do something else.
that is exactly what this guy is doing. He built his business from nothing. put years and years and tons of money into it. Now it is becoming more of a hassle to keep open and operate.
so you are saying he should lie to his employee's? then start laying people off?
he is being upfront and honest. as are many other business people.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Simply not correct. had he not started the business and invest HIS money and put in 70+ hours a week and grew his company then well they wouldn't have jobs.
For some reason this is something that you refuse to acknowledge.
He did all the work to get the business going. No one else did.
Tell me what business is there to hire people? who opens a business simply to give someone a job? none there aren't any.
A person opens a business to make money. The after effect of making more money is that you need to expand or you can't do all the work yourself so you have to hire more people.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
In other words: The Star Trek Utopia is not economically possible.
Frankly, anyone who answers, "Yes," to this question should be shot for treason.
This Westgate guy gets zero sympathy from me. Don't like the higher taxes? Pay yourself a little less, if the money's really not that important. Do whatever works under the system to lower your taxes without firing workers and contributing to the worsening of America.
Despite the heavily veiled nature of the threat, it is a threat and should be treated as such.
What if I walked around midtown Manhattan with a sign reading, "If Romney wins, I'm going to start mugging people," the cops would be all on me like white on rice.
The truth is, we have a different set of laws for people of privilege that allow them to get away with this nonsense, and too many sycophants who believe that this economically tiered legal system is justifiable.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
If those people don't like it, they could quit. The workers choose to empower the rich. There's no legal privileges to speak of. He has money; he gives money for service; he uses service to make more money.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
This is BS. How did the guy own the company in the first place? He started with the same basic needs. They have the same opportunity as he did.
Employment is not exploitation. It is an exchange of service that is mutually beneficial.
Fixed that for you.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
The guy is old. She's going to stick around and take it all.
The only reason they are at any disadvantage against the company is because someone else will replace them.
Corporations get blamed for exploiting the poor, but the poor are the ones who agree to work for so little. The fact is that they add very little value which is why they don't get paid much. Collectively they add a ton of value which is why he's so rich.
I don't blame corporations, I blame our education system for teaching people they should be slaves to the system.
If you want the government to fix something, you should get them to actually teach free enterprise and how it works.
pretty much.
wow really? because most business people i know love all three. They love their country their fellow americans and they like to make money. that is why they opened a business. The benefit to society is that they will hire other people.
why should they make less off of something that they worked to build?
I guess you don't understand how the sytsem works. This is basic business managment.
I need to hire people. I have to look at my budget and figure out what i can afford to pay them.
someone comes in and i need an IT guy. I say i will pay him 40K a year to maintain my webpage, network, computers, etc...
I need someone to do sales. i tell them they will make 30K a year plus a net commision if they exceed their sales goal.
these are what we call contracts. no one forces the person to accept this contract. they have the right to not accept the terms of employment.
no one forces them to accept the pay.
without a profit i can't afford to hire people. what do you expect me to pay them with?
actually it is a right not a privilege.
you have the right to own buy and sell your own property.
Sure they can. nothing is stoping them from quiting. if you don't like the situation then you do something to change it.
Plenty of people including myself have done this as well.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There's no confusion. I said that everyone will not work hard enough to enjoy the right of working for themselves, but it certainly still a possibility.
Again, this is a line of BS. No one employed is being exploited. They have the choice to seek better employment or start their own business and work for themselves. This is a story that happens over and over again in a capitalist society.
I'm an engineer. Twice in my short career have I felt underpaid. Twice now I have quit jobs for a better opportunity, even in this current economy. I've had to work hard, but I'm reaping the fruits of my labor.
A coworker of mine likewise though he was underpaid, and decided to start his own business salvaging computers and doing other information disposal. It was a lot of hard work to get set up, but now he's doing quite well for himself.
Capitalism guarantees opportunity. It doesn't guarantee that it'll be easy.
Unions and corporations have to strike a balance; it's as simple as that. Our country has seen what happens when corporations become greedy and corrupt and literally abuse their workers. The unions arose to protect workers from these conditions, and were certainly a necessity. On the other side of the coin, I live in a town that has been devastated by unions. The collective became too greedy, and our town's steel mills just shut down because it was too expensive to continue operation. All those in the union put themselves out of work.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
So they don't contribute to the downturn of their country, perhaps? Besides, no one builds a business on their own, but I know you don't believe that... No business could survive without the infrastructure provided by our forefathers, from the signing of the Constitution to the construction of the sewers that shuttle their waste away.
Every single American owes a great debt to this country and those who came before us. Too many people are content to spit in their faces in the name of capitalism.
I guess "American exceptionalism" now only denotes the exceptional greed we display. Sad times for our union.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Here is the thing they don't own anything. Did they buy the parts? did they buy the tools? did they buy the machinery needed? did they buy anything that would give them a claim.
no they don't.
They entered into a contract to trade their skill and labour for a price. if they don't like that price they are free to shop around until they find a price they like.
if you want to own the work that you do start a business. then you will own the work that you do.
the other way that employee's can own part of the company is to invest in that company if the owner is willing.
hence why some companies issue stock or allow employee's to invest in company stock.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum