The Case of the Catalyst that Wasn't

[Rapier]

The government assisted the American worker in his quest for fair wages and good working conditions. When the American worker reached both the government turned on the worker and enabled business to dismantle much of what had been won.

All is fair in love and work you say? But did you notice that government workers have retained everything that the workers struggled for and more?

[heyhey]

The government assisted the American worker in his quest for fair wages and good working conditions. When the American worker reached both the government turned on the worker and enabled business to dismantle much of what had been won.

All is fair in love and work you say? But did you notice that government workers have retained everything that the workers struggled for and more?

Government worker's don't have CEO's making tens of millions a year. ...:)

Who started that dismantlement of the (private sector) workers advantage? Give you a hint... He made a movie with a monkey and loved jelly beans...:)

[alex n]

Government worker's don't have CEO's making tens of millions a year. ...:)

Who started that dismantlement of the (private sector) workers advantage? Give you a hint... He made a movie with a monkey and loved jelly beans...:)

They also don't produce profit.

[mbossman2]

Government worker's don't have CEO's making tens of millions a year. ...:)

They (government workers) also don't:

Produce a product
Create jobs
Provide the opportunity/ability to create wealth


While I agree that CEOs, in some cases, may be overpaid, this is a compensation issue within a private, non-government entity. The CEO, in exchange for his or her expertise, is being paid X. If that amount is excessive, then the compensation committee will have to answer to the Board of Directors and, ultimately, the shareholders of the company.

Having the government intervene in such a granular way (compensation) and impose upon a private entity the government's will and is extremely dangerous in that:


It sets a referenceable precendent for the government for government to further and more deeper intrustion into a businesses day to day operations.
It limits the ability of a company to attract the best candidate to a position. If your competition, or another company, has no such restriction you will lose out in many cases and that will hurt the overall business which can have a ripple effect of far greater monetary impact than the extra couple of million in CEO compensation.


As a shareholder I am none to thrilled when a company's value tanks because of a CEO and then they get canned with multimillions but cost the company/shareholders significantly more but in no way would I want the government to interject its collective big nose in this issue.

Agian, these are private companies - not government entities. Government, other than for health and safety issues, should stay the fuck out

[heyhey]

They (government workers) also don't:

Produce a product
Create jobs
Provide the opportunity/ability to create wealth


While I agree that CEOs, in some cases, may be overpaid, this is a compensation issue within a private, non-government entity. The CEO, in exchange for his or her expertise, is being paid X. If that amount is excessive, then the compensation committee will have to answer to the Board of Directors and, ultimately, the shareholders of the company.

Having the government intervene in such a granular way (compensation) and impose upon a private entity the government's will and is extremely dangerous in that:


It sets a referenceable precendent for the government for government to further and more deeper intrustion into a businesses day to day operations.
It limits the ability of a company to attract the best candidate to a position. If your competition, or another company, has no such restriction you will lose out in many cases and that will hurt the overall business which can have a ripple effect of far greater monetary impact than the extra couple of million in CEO compensation.


As a shareholder I am none to thrilled when a company's value tanks because of a CEO and then they get canned with multimillions but cost the company/shareholders significantly more but in no way would I want the government to interject its collective big nose in this issue.

Agian, these are private companies - not government entities. Government, other than for health and safety issues, should stay the fuck out

hmm RR didn't stay the fuck out when he intervened on behlaf of the executives and gave the shaft to labor... he intervened in a catastophic way.

Tell me since these workers (non-executive) are contributing so much to these companies to:


Produce a product
Create jobs
Provide the opportunity/ability to create wealth


why doesn't the corporations give them at least equal compensation in terms of things like healthcare, retirement etc.

I'm not talking about government intervening about it just companies today ever-narrowing appreciation of the blood sweat and tears of thier success...

these companies obiously are making profits... government is not... wouldn't it be logical that an employee of a profitable organization be better compensated then a non-profitable one?
it's called ethics in business...

[alex n]

these companies obiously are making profits... government is not... wouldn't it be logical that an employee of a profitable organization be better compensated then a non-profitable one?
it's called ethics in business...

Actually that is completely illogical. The government can continue to operate even when it spends more than it takes in. It follows that any company that could operate under those circumstances could pretty much afford to compensate its employees at a rate higher than even a profitable company could.

Hypothetical:

Two companies both take in 100k a year.

Company one:

This one spends 75k to operate: Leaving a residual profit of 25k. Then it gets hit with a 42 percent corporate tax taking that profit to about 14k. It then takes those dividends and distributes them to stockholders, which in turn must pay dividend tax (I believe under Bush they were lowered to 15 percent). This leaves a profit of 10.5k for the owners.

Company two:

This one spends 125k, pays no taxes, continues to operate with 25k deficit indefinitely.

Now which company can afford to pay its employes more? Company two, because they have an extra 50k to spend. Even if company two broke even it could still compensate its employees more. Let's not forget that company two needs company one to continue to operate with deficit.

[Rapier]

Government worker's don't have CEO's making tens of millions a year. ...:)

Who started that dismantlement of the (private sector) workers advantage? Give you a hint... He made a movie with a monkey and loved jelly beans...:)

What does matter who started it? It was the government.

The dust settles and the haves are big business, investors and government and the have less is the American work force?

[Rapier]

Government worker's don't have CEO's making tens of millions a year. ...:)

Who started that dismantlement of the (private sector) workers advantage? Give you a hint... He made a movie with a monkey and loved jelly beans...:)

What does matter who started it? It was the government.

BTW it was during the Truman administration IT was started.


The dust settles and the haves are big business, investors and government and the have less is the American work force?

[heyhey]

What does matter who started it? It was the government.

BTW it was during the Truman administration IT was started.


The dust settles and the haves are big business, investors and government and the have less is the American work force?

ok agreed Truman set in place mechanisms to be expanded by a future president in a much more egregious way ....by the Reagan admnistration.

Taft-Hartley was created to offset some of the effect the New Deal and WW2 had on business, especially after a labor force who was asked to sacrifice during WW2 started striking to try and get compensated for some of their sacrifices..

Funny thing is I can understand the percieved need for Taft Hartley.. even though I amy not agree with it... and that is not what I dislike most about Harry... I'll leave that on Nagasaki.... As Hiroshima was the last shot fired in WW2... Nagasaki was the first shot fired in the cold war... (details appropriate for another thread) and IMO an act of mass murder.

It is interesting that current trends in viewing Truman's legacy have been positive... I wasn't alive then but my dad told me the only time he did not vote for a Democrat in a presidential election was in 1948. ... and I understand his vote...

Taft-Hartley may have weakened organized labor agreed... but for nearly 40 years unions still prospered and offered their members negoation for high paying jobs and good beneifts...The true catatlyst that set-back labor in this country was in 1982's airline deregulation by Ronald Reagan. That set into motion a domino effect that was catastophic for the American worker.

I am realistic though about the future and do not believe we will ever go back to the framework of big labor unions in this country... in this global economy the need for competition far exceeds the worker's voice..

I think labor advocates would be best served at this time in history, instead of remembering yester-year to work with our government, reasonable leaders in our government to instead through our trade agreements with foriegn nations level the playing field by signing places like China on to basic requirements such as child-labor laws, human rights improvement and basic workplace safety...in order for us to continue to do business with them.

Also we need to be innovative on where new jobs.. high paying jobs ...can be created for our workers... such as in the fields of science and technology... especially in alternative energy... and we have to promote math and science study in our schools.