Andrew Carnegie: Does The Business Or Do The Workers Own The Business
Andrew Carnegie was a very successful businessman. He was an idealist and one of the most important philanthropists of his time. He started Pittsburg’s Carnegie Steel Company, which he later joined with Elhert H. Gary’s federal steel company and several smaller companies to create U.S. Steel. The wealth from his success abled him to build foundations and institutions like Carnegie Hall. After his huge role in the steel business he spent most of the rest of his life as a philanthropist. In today’s world the ownership of a business is businessman. The person with the legal rights or the paper work owns the business. The workers are just that, workers. I’m not able to decide which side is right or which side is wrong. Does the businessman own the business or do the workers own the business. I can understand both sides of that situation. Either side is 100% neither right nor wrong. What can be classified as positive or negative about the situation depends on
…show more content…
which side you agree with.
As a business owner I would automatically say that the business is mine.
I’m the one that came up with the idea. So therefore I’m the rightful owner. If it wasn’t for me the workers wouldn’t be producing the product. Why should I split the business with the employee? As long as they were getting paid, I don’t see why they need to have any ownership of the business. 1The right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions. Carnegie saw his workers as just the muscle not the brains of the whole process. And as a businessman that’s exactly the only way to see it. It’s my business; the workers get paid to produce my product. Having legal ownership of a business, you are the one with legal documentation. Without these forms such as titles/deeds, anyone is able to claim ownership. There wouldn’t be any way to prove ownership of the business without legal documentation. There would only be word of mouth which isn’t completely
creditable. To a worker the ownership of a business can seem to be negative. Me as a worker of course I don’t think that’s fair. If I spend all my energy and time working at a company producing whatever product they have, I believe that I should have some type of ownership in the product. I understand that I’m getting paid for my work. I still feel that I should be able to have some sort of ownership. Especially if the product is popular amongst the consumers. My ideas are what can improve the product. If the product is selling that would mean that more has to me produced. Then that means that I have to work more. So I’m going to want more money and/or some sort of ownership of this product. To be putting ever thing I have into making sure that the product is efficient enough for the buyer, I believe that I earned some type of ownership over the product let alone the business itself. 2Workers believed that because they had worked in the mill, they had mixed their labor with the property in the mill. They believed that in some way the property had become theirs. I agree with the workers feeling this way. If you look at it further, not only the businessman and the workers can then try and claim ownership. Once the workers say ‘ok, we put the product together so we should have some ownership”, then the people that make the material that the workers are using to make the product can come and say the same thing. The Homestead Strike was the two beliefs systems. Where you have the worker’s saying, the business is doing better so we want better may” and the company saying “we’ll give you a A but not B”. 3 “When a recent increase in profits by 60%, the company refused to raise worker’s pay by more than 30%. But when the some worker’s demanded the full 60%, management locked the union out” As a worker I see it as if the product is bringing in more profit, then the company should be able to pay me more. Now when it comes to exactly how much more the worker should be paid I can’t say. Where the worker’s right when they demanded the whole 60%? Maybe not. I do feel that both sides could have come up with a compromise that they both would have been pleased with. When it comes down to who truly owns a business, I don’t think there is a direct answer. I just agree with both. I think that both sides can to a certain extinct have or hold ownership of a business. Maybe down the line there will be some sort of way that the ownership can be shared by the businessman and the workers to where they both are content. Regarding the Homestead Strike, Andrew Carnegie has said 4“Such a foolish step, contrary to my ideals, repugnant to every feeling of my nature. The false step was made in trying to run the Homestead Works with new men. It is expecting too much of a poor men to stand by and see their work taken by others” My opinion is that even though Andrew Carnegie felt that his workers were only the muscle, after the deaths from the Homestead Strike maybe he realized that even though he was the businessman if he would have seen the workers side this could have been prevented.
which side you agree with.
As a business owner I would automatically say that the business is mine.
I’m the one that came up with the idea. So therefore I’m the rightful owner. If it wasn’t for me the workers wouldn’t be producing the product. Why should I split the business with the employee? As long as they were getting paid, I don’t see why they need to have any ownership of the business. 1The right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions. Carnegie saw his workers as just the muscle not the brains of the whole process. And as a businessman that’s exactly the only way to see it. It’s my business; the workers get paid to produce my product. Having legal ownership of a business, you are the one with legal documentation. Without these forms such as titles/deeds, anyone is able to claim ownership. There wouldn’t be any way to prove ownership of the business without legal documentation. There would only be word of mouth which isn’t completely
creditable. To a worker the ownership of a business can seem to be negative. Me as a worker of course I don’t think that’s fair. If I spend all my energy and time working at a company producing whatever product they have, I believe that I should have some type of ownership in the product. I understand that I’m getting paid for my work. I still feel that I should be able to have some sort of ownership. Especially if the product is popular amongst the consumers. My ideas are what can improve the product. If the product is selling that would mean that more has to me produced. Then that means that I have to work more. So I’m going to want more money and/or some sort of ownership of this product. To be putting ever thing I have into making sure that the product is efficient enough for the buyer, I believe that I earned some type of ownership over the product let alone the business itself. 2Workers believed that because they had worked in the mill, they had mixed their labor with the property in the mill. They believed that in some way the property had become theirs. I agree with the workers feeling this way. If you look at it further, not only the businessman and the workers can then try and claim ownership. Once the workers say ‘ok, we put the product together so we should have some ownership”, then the people that make the material that the workers are using to make the product can come and say the same thing. The Homestead Strike was the two beliefs systems. Where you have the worker’s saying, the business is doing better so we want better may” and the company saying “we’ll give you a A but not B”. 3 “When a recent increase in profits by 60%, the company refused to raise worker’s pay by more than 30%. But when the some worker’s demanded the full 60%, management locked the union out” As a worker I see it as if the product is bringing in more profit, then the company should be able to pay me more. Now when it comes to exactly how much more the worker should be paid I can’t say. Where the worker’s right when they demanded the whole 60%? Maybe not. I do feel that both sides could have come up with a compromise that they both would have been pleased with. When it comes down to who truly owns a business, I don’t think there is a direct answer. I just agree with both. I think that both sides can to a certain extinct have or hold ownership of a business. Maybe down the line there will be some sort of way that the ownership can be shared by the businessman and the workers to where they both are content. Regarding the Homestead Strike, Andrew Carnegie has said 4“Such a foolish step, contrary to my ideals, repugnant to every feeling of my nature. The false step was made in trying to run the Homestead Works with new men. It is expecting too much of a poor men to stand by and see their work taken by others” My opinion is that even though Andrew Carnegie felt that his workers were only the muscle, after the deaths from the Homestead Strike maybe he realized that even though he was the businessman if he would have seen the workers side this could have been prevented.