Those unions watching out for their workers...

[mathetes123]

My argument is that it is not the unions and unionized labor that undermines a nation's economic competitiveness - which contradicts the position of the OP of this thread.

Anything that drives labor cost up is necessarily going to impact our competitiveness unless that added labor cost is more than offset by efficiency improvements.

 

[kermit]

Anything that drives labor cost up is necessarily going to impact our competitiveness unless that added labor cost is more than offset by efficiency improvements.

The very idea that US labor should compete with foreign labor without barriers is flawed.

 

[mathetes123]

The very idea that US labor should compete with foreign labor without barriers is flawed.

Thus the shifting of jobs overseas.

 

[rturner76]

The USA has higher cost labor and makes the highest quality products in the world. If you want the best you have to pay the best to do it. If you don't mind a shoddy product, take it overseas.

Union Yes

 

[MachZer0]

Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link was to a hostess baker who was a primary source as it happened to him. ergo, it is not hearsay. That the pensions will be funded by other companies is not the issue. The issue is the "borrowing" of employee contributions that will not be paid back.

The link was to DailyKos which was retelling an alleged story from someone else. THAT is hearsay

 

[Assyrian]

Straw men can certainly be characterized as evasions, yes.

Do you really have nothing better than that?

 

[MachZer0]

Do you really have nothing better than that?

Better than a straw man? The straw man wasn't mine

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Anything that drives labor cost up is necessarily going to impact our competitiveness unless that added labor cost is more than offset by efficiency improvements.

And if one focuses solely on "labor costs" then one is missing the bigger picture.

Yes, a $20 million annual salary+perqs for a CEO isn't much for a multi-billion dollar corporation. But a few execs with multimillion dollar stock options and pay outs sooner or later amounts to "real money"!

But the worst part is: if you tell the working class that they can expect stagnant wages for the next 20 years (that's about how long middle class wages have currently stagnated) with almost no perceptible growth while the corporate profit is going through the roof and execs get double-digit pay increases during the worst economic downturn in the last 70 years, then the corporation will ultimately suffer.

Their products will suffer, their brand will suffer. Soon enough the only way for them to compete is solely on "price" and since the top can't imagine a world where they don't all "earn" multimillion dollar annual salaries the only thing to do is put the screws to the working class.

That's the drive to the bottom. Disenfranchise your workers to the point that they simply don't care much. Why? Because the only thing the TOP appears to care about is lining their own pockets.

I wonder how that couldn't work out to everyone's benefit!

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Hearsay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link was to a hostess baker who was a primary source as it happened to him. ergo, it is not hearsay. That the pensions will be funded by other companies is not the issue. The issue is the "borrowing" of employee contributions that will not be paid back.

I seem to recall a few years back reading about companies that take over pension plans after a parent company goes bust. Some of these companies that do the payouts don't necessarily have to honor the full amount of the benefit payouts.

I wonder if this is a possibility for the schmucks who wound up with pensions from Hostess. Will they get the full amount of their retirement payouts?

Why should they? The top already got theirs. And we all know they are the "important" ones....you can tell because they were the ones with the huge pay packages.

We have got to take care of the "good" people (ie the people who make the most money.)

 

[Belk]

The link was to DailyKos which was retelling an alleged story from someone else. THAT is hearsay

I must of missed were it said that. It appears to have been posted by a DailyKos member who is telling it first person. Were did you find the info that it was being reposted as a story they heard from someone else?

 

[dies-l]

Namely?

The most obvious I think would Little Debbie, but I believe there are various regional bakeries that make similar products.

 

[mathetes123]

And if one focuses solely on "labor costs" then one is missing the bigger picture.

Yes, a $20 million annual salary+perqs for a CEO isn't much for a multi-billion dollar corporation. But a few execs with multimillion dollar stock options and pay outs sooner or later amounts to "real money"!

But the worst part is: if you tell the working class that they can expect stagnant wages for the next 20 years (that's about how long middle class wages have currently stagnated) with almost no perceptible growth while the corporate profit is going through the roof and execs get double-digit pay increases during the worst economic downturn in the last 70 years, then the corporation will ultimately suffer.

Their products will suffer, their brand will suffer. Soon enough the only way for them to compete is solely on "price" and since the top can't imagine a world where they don't all "earn" multimillion dollar annual salaries the only thing to do is put the screws to the working class.

That's the drive to the bottom. Disenfranchise your workers to the point that they simply don't care much. Why? Because the only thing the TOP appears to care about is lining their own pockets.

I wonder how that couldn't work out to everyone's benefit!

Again, how do you propose correcting this perceived imbalance? Define "fair"wage.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Again, how do you propose correcting this perceived imbalance? Define "fair"wage.

I think I've answered this now a couple times.

Do you want me to put a "value" on a fair wage for a CEO? Is that it?

How about we start with what is a GROSSLY UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE WAGE?

I can tell you how we wound up with human beings making 300 times the average worker salary: greed and cronyism in the BOD's and Compensation Committees.

How about I repeat one of the earlier suggestions: give BINDING SAY by the shareholders.

That would be a start.

I honestly can't believe anyone could "justify" CEO salaries as they stand now. It's ridiculous and puts the "defender" in an unenviable position of defending the irrational and ANTI-MARKET position of this sort of excess.

 

[mathetes123]

I think I've answered this now a couple times.

Do you want me to put a "value" on a fair wage for a CEO? Is that it?

How about we start with what is a GROSSLY UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE WAGE?

I can tell you how we wound up with human beings making 300 times the average worker salary: greed and cronyism in the BOD's and Compensation Committees.

How about I repeat one of the earlier suggestions: give BINDING SAY by the shareholders.

That would be a start.

I honestly can't believe anyone could "justify" CEO salaries as they stand now. It's ridiculous and puts the "defender" in an unenviable position of defending the irrational and ANTI-MARKET position of this sort of excess.

I agree the shareholders should have a say.

 

[TLK Valentine]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have yet to see any of the anti capitalist persuasion provide a definition for a fair wage, or offer a solution to correct this perceived disparity in wages.

You have yet to answer my question about whether the deal I gave you in the desert was "fair".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You gotta love Mach's logic here. CEOs get paid exorbitant amounts of money because they bring so much skill and experience (even though Mach can't specify what any of those skills actually are), yet, at the same time, he posits that the CEOs are helpless to do anything if their existing product line becomes unpopular.

Of course, several options have been put forth by us non-CEOs (examine and updating the product line is the obvious choice - the "snack" and "pastry" markets are still (and will likely always) be in demand. Just because excessively unhealthy snacks are becoming less popular doesn't mean that snack companies everywhere are going out of business. It just means that companies need to alter their strategy and product lines to accommodate the market preferences.

Even more absurd, that in all of this, to those on the right, the failure for the company to evolve lays at the feet of the workers, because the only "evolution" that right wingers are promoting is lowering worker pay.

QFT.

If the company succeeds, it was obviously because of the CEO, who therefore deserves exorbitant pay. If the company fails, it was obviously because of the workers and the union, and the poor CEO deserves yet more exorbitant pay for dealing with those leeches. The CEO is typecast as the hero in Mach's world.

 

[rturner76]

QFT.
The CEO is typecast as the hero in Mach's world.

I pray I never have to live in that world

 

[MachZer0]

The most obvious I think would Little Debbie, but I believe there are various regional bakeries that make similar products.

Interesting that you picked Little Debbie, a family bakery that employs nonunion workers

 

[mandelduke]

Are those unions watching out for their workers? I have worked in unions for the last three decades. One thing I know for sure is the unions are not looking out for the workers. They are looking out for themselves, the more money the workers make the more the union gangsters make.