Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 342

Thread: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

  1. #331
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    The point is your wages as joe shmo worker represent in relative terms what you make the company based on the value of your work output. The value of a CEO's is worth a hell of a lot more. They make or break companies. Joe shmo. Not so much.
    What the market decides isn't particularly valid. It's just what the market decides.

    By your logic McDonald's makes the best burger since it greatly outsells its competitors. Beanie Babies and baseball cards were once heavily valued. I'm hoping that the CEO compensation bubble goes the same way soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    The AFL CIO president RICHARD TRUMKA makes $298,542, The VP makes $368,652. The average wage of an AFL CIO union staff is $77,000. The average member of that union makes $17 an hour. That's $34,000 a year. It seems to me maybe the union members ought work for the union. They make more than them.

    I take it you believe everyone should be paid equally regardless of output?
    Using your ratio, that's a 10:1 ratio as opposed to a 350:1 ratio as CEOs are earning. Neither are desirable but clearly one is far, far more extreme than the other.

    I don't believe everyone should be earning the same income, but I am very much against the current disparity we're currently experiencing. The worst part is that it's those of us in the 99% fighting with each other rather than addressing where the money actually is and who controls it.

  2. #332
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    While there was never parity between workers and corporate, the graphics I've included in this thread show that the disparity is growing. Significantly.

    If people want lower costs, cut CEO pay. It's up ~700% over the last few decades according to the graphic I included while worker pay is only up 5%.
    For one, CEOs are not necessarily paid that much. Two, the ones that are are not that significant in number. Three, equity compensation doesn't affect operating costs the same way wages and benefits do. Four, the people who would decide to cut CEO pay are the owners, and they would only do so if the success of the business depended on it (meaning consumers would have to demand goods and services based upon that).

    You're attacking unions for doing the same thing as every other business in America.
    Not every business in America does what unions do, in fact I would contend there are few that do. Businesses compete with one another. Those that rig the system by installing politicians that will cater to their corrupt tactics are indefensible.

  3. #333
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding here. Union management is paid for by the members of the unions. That cost is not directly paid for by the company. It costs those of us with stocks nothing. As stockholders, CEO pay costs us infinitely more than union leader pay.
    Missed nothing, know that, union members pay for those huge union salaries and all union wages are an increase in cost to the company. What exactly do the union employees get from that union management for their dues and any increased costs to business are deducted from the dividends paid to your parents. CEO salaries are authorized by shareholders so tell your parents to stop authorizing higher pay.

  4. #334
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    What the market decides isn't particularly valid. It's just what the market decides.

    By your logic McDonald's makes the best burger since it greatly outsells its competitors. Beanie Babies and baseball cards were once heavily valued. I'm hoping that the CEO compensation bubble goes the same way soon.
    If executive compensation was so out of hand that it was bad for the company, the ones that compensated their executives that outrageously would suffer. Let them. If it's a bad business strategy, let them reap what they sow.

    I don't believe everyone should be earning the same income, but I am very much against the current disparity we're currently experiencing. The worst part is that it's those of us in the 99% fighting with each other rather than addressing where the money actually is and who controls it.
    It would be one thing if you were focusing in on financial markets and investment banks and their dealings with the federal government. But to generalize your opinion onto all companies and their leaders is careless and lazy. If you are not a shareholder in a corporation, do not work for it, and do not spend a particular amount of your money purchasing its products/services, then your opinion about what the company decides to buy or sell from whom and at what price holds no influence.

    Unless you can clearly cite illegal behavior or the failure of government to enforce laws against fraud and related crimes, then businesses that choose a successful business strategy will succeed and those that choose a flawed business strategy will not. If its personnel policies are bad, people won't work there. If their products are bad, people won't buy them. If they engage in activities consumers despise, they won't or shouldn't buy from the company.

  5. #335
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    For one, CEOs are not necessarily paid that much.
    The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Two, the ones that are are not that significant in number.
    They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Three, equity compensation doesn't affect operating costs the same way wages and benefits do.
    Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Four, the people who would decide to cut CEO pay are the owners, and they would only do so if the success of the business depended on it (meaning consumers would have to demand goods and services based upon that).
    Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Not every business in America does what unions do, in fact I would contend there are few that do. Businesses compete with one another. Those that rig the system by installing politicians that will cater to their corrupt tactics are indefensible.
    Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Missed nothing, know that, union members pay for those huge union salaries and all union wages are an increase in cost to the company. What exactly do the union employees get from that union management for their dues and any increased costs to business are deducted from the dividends paid to your parents. CEO salaries are authorized by shareholders so tell your parents to stop authorizing higher pay.
    I'm going to ask you to reread your post again, this time with a higher grasp of irony.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    If executive compensation was so out of hand that it was bad for the company, the ones that compensated their executives that outrageously would suffer. Let them. If it's a bad business strategy, let them reap what they sow.
    It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It would be one thing if you were focusing in on financial markets and investment banks and their dealings with the federal government. But to generalize your opinion onto all companies and their leaders is careless and lazy. If you are not a shareholder in a corporation, do not work for it, and do not spend a particular amount of your money purchasing its products/services, then your opinion about what the company decides to buy or sell from whom and at what price holds no influence.

    Unless you can clearly cite illegal behavior or the failure of government to enforce laws against fraud and related crimes, then businesses that choose a successful business strategy will succeed and those that choose a flawed business strategy will not. If its personnel policies are bad, people won't work there. If their products are bad, people won't buy them. If they engage in activities consumers despise, they won't or shouldn't buy from the company.
    The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.

    Those all affect all of us. It's unrealistic to suggest that a nation isn't impacted by the actions of major actors within it. We're interconnected, and we rise or sink depending on how we've addressed things as a society. No one is isolated.

  6. #336
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.

    They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.
    It isn't taking money out of anyone's pockets. They take it out of their own pockets and hand it over when they purchase something.

    Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.
    I don't know what there is to expand upon. Do you know there is a difference between cash compensation and equity compensation?

    Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?
    The company buys labor and it decides what it is willing to pay for a certain type of labor. The person selling the labor can sell at that price or not.

    Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.
    Is that preventing competition, or is it preventing fraud? In some cases one, in some cases it's another.

    It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.
    I'm not doing anything to "artificially support" whatever bubble you're talking about. But if it's bad for business, let those businesses fail. New ones will rise up in their place and have opportunities to do things better. Why are you so worried about saving businesses from their own bad decisions? Let them make their own decisions. They'll live or die by them.

    The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.

    Those all affect all of us. It's unrealistic to suggest that a nation isn't impacted by the actions of major actors within it. We're interconnected, and we rise or sink depending on how we've addressed things as a society. No one is isolated.
    Ah yes. Everything affects everything, therefore I get to control you. That isn't a trump card. It doesn't work that way. Other people don't get to tell you what you must purchase and at what price, and you don't get to tell them what they must purchase and at what price. We can all be "interconnected" without believing we have a right to make other people's decisions for them.

  7. #337
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It isn't taking money out of anyone's pockets. They take it out of their own pockets and hand it over when they purchase something.
    Then why complain about union wages taking money out of people's pockets?

    Are you really not seeing how these are the flip side of the same coin?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I don't know what there is to expand upon. Do you know there is a difference between cash compensation and equity compensation?
    I understand the distinction, but both involve compensation. They both cost money, even if the money isn't cash, but equity, seeing as how equity is part of how cash is distributed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    The company buys labor and it decides what it is willing to pay for a certain type of labor. The person selling the labor can sell at that price or not.
    So why are union contracts bad? It's the same principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Is that preventing competition, or is it preventing fraud? In some cases one, in some cases it's another.
    The allegation of fraud is anti-competitive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I'm not doing anything to "artificially support" whatever bubble you're talking about. But if it's bad for business, let those businesses fail. New ones will rise up in their place and have opportunities to do things better. Why are you so worried about saving businesses from their own bad decisions? Let them make their own decisions. They'll live or die by them.
    Again, you're not seeing this big picture. Why is okay to let an overpaid CEO sink a business but it's wrong to let an "overpaid union" sink a business?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Ah yes. Everything affects everything, therefore I get to control you. That isn't a trump card. It doesn't work that way. Other people don't get to tell you what you must purchase and at what price, and you don't get to tell them what they must purchase and at what price. We can all be "interconnected" without believing we have a right to make other people's decisions for them.
    We are interconnected and all contribute to the sum, but some contribute more than others based on their access to power.

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    Then why complain about union wages taking money out of people's pockets?
    I didn't complain about that. I complain about their anti-competitive agenda and that they function as a cartel. Cartels are not good things for our economy.

    I understand the distinction, but both involve compensation. They both cost money, even if the money isn't cash, but equity, seeing as how equity is part of how cash is distributed.
    Equity compensation is taking money from the owners if anyone, not the workers. Equity compensation dilutes share value, so the owners are the ones paying for that compensation. Owners being those who have invested their disposable income into that company with the expectation that it will grow and its stock price will appreciate. That's why between the owners and the executives so much of the focus is on stock price. The executive's compensation not only increases when the stock price does, but the owners that are agreeing to devalue their shares to pay for that leadership expect great stock performance to more than offset the cost to them of their share dilution when they pay with equity.

    So why are union contracts bad? It's the same principle.
    Thanks to pro-union laws, employers cannot so easily walk away from a crap deal at the negotiating table. They are forced to spend a "reasonable amount of time" trying to bargain with these parasitic cartels, then if they don't agree they're dragged through mediation, then if they still don't agree they are dragged through arbitration. No other transaction in our markets is forced to go through such a burdensome pain-in-the-*** process. Imagine if you wanted to buy a new car for $9,000 and the car maker had to sit down with you for such a long period of time and then go to mediation and arbitration all because you think you deserve a price the seller doesn't want to accept.

    The allegation of fraud is anti-competitive.
    Fraud and other criminal behavior is not the type of "competition" economists advocate for robust economies.

    Again, you're not seeing this big picture. Why is okay to let an overpaid CEO sink a business but it's wrong to let an "overpaid union" sink a business?
    This question makes no sense. Businesses should be free to make their own business decisions and come up with their own strategies. Unions disagree, and have influenced politics to get pro-union laws passed that allow them to impose their anticompetitive cartel tactics on businesses. Despite all that, the measure has failed in the private sector, as private sector union membership has plummeted. And public sector unions should not even exist, as the public sector is not for profit and the taxpayers and ratepayers that have to fund that excess labor cost are too far removed from the negotiating process to have a fair say.

  9. #339
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    09-14-16 @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,415

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Union defenders are always good for a display of histrionics.

    The 90% of working Americans that are not in a union are not slaves.
    There wages, no vacation, no sick leave, no pension, no nothing say otherwise.
    Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why,
    Ian Fletcher

    https://www.numbersusa.org/

  10. #340
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Union Demands send Firm and jobs packing from California

    Quote Originally Posted by 274ina View Post
    There wages, no vacation, no sick leave, no pension, no nothing say otherwise.
    Nonunion workers get those things.

    Well, with the exception of defined-benefit pensions, which younger/newer union workers by and large do not get either, but that's because defined benefit pensions are utter financial failures.

Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •