What your spouting is corporate propaganda, designed to make you value your labor less. As is the “not making more than the others”-lie which oppressors have used to control their populations for ages.
But there are different perspectives to the situation, so for academical purposes, let’s explore a few:
Labour market model;
If you’re doing work that requires skills, knowledge and/or combinations thereof that are harder to acquire, your rarity and thus value increases - you should be paid more in cash and/or benefits.
This includes institutional knowledge, how things are done at the specific workplace, including who to talk with and how.
Economics/value capture;
If you’re doing work that brings the employer more profits, such as organising, costing, budgeting or taking over tasks to let the employer scale up - you should be paid a part of those increased profits.
The case for cooperatives; If you truly would be equal, and comfortable, in a workplace there’s much to be said that wage differences disturb that harmony, and you could see it as playing different parts in a commune.
This does however assume that you are all equally invested in the goal, it is profitable enough to compensate all of you fairly and equally, and enough that you are not wanting, or at least equally lacking. This is the case for situations like homesteads, communist society, and anarchist societies like Star Trek or The Culture.
Hmm…
From my perspective, the only reasonable way to get a promotion without increased pay is if you’re working less (which 4-day week studies show isn’t connected to weekly hours), and getting benefits to compensate.
I don’t think you actually understand union/communist philosophy if you think “rigid promotion structure where the managerial class always has more money and power than the laborer is super worker friendly
You need to join a union.
What your spouting is corporate propaganda, designed to make you value your labor less. As is the “not making more than the others”-lie which oppressors have used to control their populations for ages.
But there are different perspectives to the situation, so for academical purposes, let’s explore a few:
Labour market model; If you’re doing work that requires skills, knowledge and/or combinations thereof that are harder to acquire, your rarity and thus value increases - you should be paid more in cash and/or benefits.
This includes institutional knowledge, how things are done at the specific workplace, including who to talk with and how.
Economics/value capture; If you’re doing work that brings the employer more profits, such as organising, costing, budgeting or taking over tasks to let the employer scale up - you should be paid a part of those increased profits.
The case for cooperatives; If you truly would be equal, and comfortable, in a workplace there’s much to be said that wage differences disturb that harmony, and you could see it as playing different parts in a commune.
This does however assume that you are all equally invested in the goal, it is profitable enough to compensate all of you fairly and equally, and enough that you are not wanting, or at least equally lacking. This is the case for situations like homesteads, communist society, and anarchist societies like Star Trek or The Culture.
Hmm…
From my perspective, the only reasonable way to get a promotion without increased pay is if you’re working less (which 4-day week studies show isn’t connected to weekly hours), and getting benefits to compensate.
I don’t think you actually understand union/communist philosophy if you think “rigid promotion structure where the managerial class always has more money and power than the laborer is super worker friendly