551–560 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unions absolutely do not need the government to exist. That's absolutely correct. But in America, the unions use the government to tilt the balance heavily in their favor.
What makes you say that? The Taft Hartley act I linked to significantly weakened union power in this country. In other countries like Germany unions have much more power and representation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why did the CEO's salary increase more than the workers? To keep the equation in check, surely they need to increase at the same rate
> But why did the CEO's salary increase more than the workers? Has it? Sources indicate that the CEO of Ford's salary has remained quite steady at $1.7 million. Perhaps you are confusing salary with total compensation?
The CEO gets paid millions of dollars.
Just to point out a demonstrated, viable, successful reality achieved under different values and assumptions, the Mondragon Corporation/cooperative produces car parts, among many other things, and has pre-agreed ratios for wages for executives relative to the lowest wages paid to workers, and this tops out at 9:1. Studies have found that worker-owned coops have a greater survival rate than conventional businesses, an…
The paradox of worker-coops is that workers capable of successfully running businesses together are also capable of running businesses independently, so why create more failure points?
40% over 4 years isn't as crazy (especially when you consider that they had some concessions back in '08). typical clickbait when you consider this is a high value for negotiation and they're likely looking for anywhere between 20-30% over 4 years when it's all said and done. barely above inflation YoY.
40% is table stakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always see people show this equation and it never made sense to me. No one is saying the CEO is taking money the employees would have otherwise earned. When you divide it out like that of course its a pittance per employee. The statement is about the relative scale of the CEO pay to one employee. I don't care about the difference applied to all employees. An absurd parody I always imagine: John is 7ft tall. His gro…
It frequently doesn't matter how much the CEO makes. It's not why the other employees aren't making more money. It's just a distraction. It boils down to "it's not fair". If what is important is the ratio between CEO pay and employee pay, then the board can cut CEO pay, and call it a day. That doesn't improve employee pay. If the employees really only care about that ratio, then they should accept that outcome from t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But why did the CEO's salary increase more than the workers? Has it? Sources indicate that the CEO of Ford's salary has remained quite steady at $1.7 million. Perhaps you are confusing salary with total compensation?
I'm not interested in arguing semantics. The CEO gets paid millions of dollars.
Now, total compensation is quite variable as it is largely dependent on stock price. While a good CEO theoretically can compel the price of stock higher by building a better business, realistically it is outside of control of the company.
This is great. Add this to SAG-AFTRA, Waffle House workers and Starbucks walkouts and we have real movement toward a general strike If both Wal-Mart and Amazon drivers strike we might actually have a shot a taking a bite out of capital finally.
serious question: say everyone you described gets a 20% raise what do you think will happen to the cost of goods? what companies do you think are operating with enough margin that they can just afford a 20% rise in their payroll costs?
Sounds acceptable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To paint the above in starker terms: Worker pay is set by the leadership, leadership pay is set by the leadership.
Leadership is set by shareholders. There is still accountability. Public unions seem more undesirable. There we have the gov negotiating with itself with no external accountability, unlike your example.
This is completely untrue. The board of directors sets leadership pay, and often the BoD is appointed by leadership anyway so it's essentially leadership setting their own pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes - but not every other company - so they have not prevented you from working at another company...
This seems like a bad faith reading of the english sentence here. The phrase "every other company" was not used. Obviously they can depress the value of worker's wages as a whole if they can prevent you from working at the competition - because a worker with a specific skill set will be best utilized at companies which are in the same field, and so generally in competition with one another.
40% over 4 years isn't as crazy (especially when you consider that they had some concessions back in '08). typical clickbait when you consider this is a high value for negotiation and they're likely looking for anywhere between 20-30% over 4 years when it's all said and done. barely above inflation YoY.