If the article means that higher profits lead to higher wages, ExonMobil must have the highet paid employes on the planet.
No, I think they mean that allowing companies to give year end bonuses to employees will subtract from their tax liability.
In other words, pay the government or pay the employees.
But these kinds of proposals upset the established order set by democrats for decades and barely touched by Republicans.
Democrats would argue the minimum wage can accomplish the same thing but that would be a specious argument. Minimum wage usually spikes wage increases across the board. But corporations still face the same tax load.
So it boils to this:
They can
1. squeeze payroll or
2. squeeze corporations or
3. squeeze government.
This article is about the last option. Of course they can tweak a little on some or all of the three above.
Of course the largest union in the USA will stop option 3 above.
ExxonMobil, over the last 20 years, has been a very normal company in terms of profits vs. money invested.
You don't remember 1.00 gas in 1999 do you ?
Yes, in the last 2 years, exxon has made out like bandits, but that has only been for 2 years.
Further, big oil is somewhat unique in that their major expense is not for labor, but for govt leases and royalties for drilling. Hence taxes on big oil has relatively little effect on its employees.