Mike Pence Is A Worthless Piece Of Crap...

Letting managers and shareholders decide who makes what money in a company is what leads to strikes in the first place. 

Who makes those decisions?  The workers?  [deleted]

No, that is not socialism, it is workplace democracy.   Workplace democracy is not socialism but it is very compatible with an economic system of Marxist socialism.

Easy now TiG, you are using buzzwords correctly, which means you are about to be attacked by people who don’t n ke what those words mean.

Letting managers and shareholders decide who makes what money in a company is what leads to strikes in the first place. 

Riiiight.

Nobody who owns the company should have any say at all.

Let us be clear, if corporations are legally people then they are people whose only reason to exist are to enrich their owners. Like slaves, that is their defining trait and legal reason for being. Deal with it or change the rules. Corporations do not exist to do good or provide us with jobs. They exist to make more money by legally protecting shareholder's rights. Thus are the laws of this land...

corporations are legally people but if so then they are people whose only reason to exist is to enrich their owners

Owners, the shareholders, like pension funds.

Will "shareholders" vote for better salaries for the workers? That would most likely lessen their gain on their stocks. 

So would they?

The idea that shareholders should decide how much workers make is, objectively, absurd, because it is a conflict of interest. 

That is capitalism. 

That is capitalism. 

The government has smart people who could create a formula to determine what ‘fair’ looks like.

That is socialism.

Well, it would be better to have an economic framework that meets in the middle. Today, if they have good profits in a year these corporations buy back their stock and increase the ceo's and managerial compensation. What do the workers get out of that strategy? Nothing. 

I am for capitalism but it has to be heavily regulated to be fair to everyone. 

"I am for capitalism but it has to be heavily regulated to be fair to everyone." 

And who gets to decide what is "fair" ?

I'm sure there are people out there who think it is "fair" for them to knock you down and steal your money .  Who are you to say they are not right?  After all, life is not fair. 

And who gets to decide what is "fair" ?

Problem is, you far leftists believe the government should decide what is "fair"

THAT is socialism.

Do you really advocate for socialism?

Why should workers salaries be decided by shareholders? 

I think we can do better than that. 

Of course it should not be solely determined by the union. Look, right now we have a "system" in these large companies where the ceo's and managers pay is tied to "performance" which is another word for rising stock prices. So when the company is profitable, the managers will get the approval to "buy back" stock with those profits. This makes the stock price rise and increases the managers salaries. What do the workers get out of this trickery? Nothing. 

I kind of expect Joe Biden to start reminiscing about when he worked a union job, dedicating years of his life on an assembly line, and some great stories about how he stood up to management!

You just made me LoL.

I thought the workers got paid according to their contracts.

They are striking for a better contract. 

What do the workers get out of that strategy?

so John, if the corporation has a bad year are the workers giving back money? 

And who gets to decide what is "fair" ?

the market. 

Will "shareholders" vote for better salaries for the workers?

Shareholders don't vote on worker salaries.  They vote on upper management and expect them to work out pay scales.

That would most likely lessen their gain on their stocks. 

Not at all, provided they're getting what they pay for.  For example, Goldman Sachs employees are famously among the highest compensated at any investment firm.  GS wants the competitive advantage that top people provide, so they pay for it.

The idea that shareholders should decide how much workers make is, objectively, absurd, because it is a conflict of interest. 

That is capitalism. 

Have you ever owned anything?  You talk like somebody who has never owned anything.  Have you ever been a shareholder of a company?  Ever read an annual report?  Attended a shareholders meeting?  Anything?

Stagnant worker salaries thus aren’t a bug in the current economy: they’re a feature. Holding worker salaries as low as possible is a key to securing short-term quarterly profits, executive bonuses and rising share prices. Seemingly unnoticed by the world’s leading economists, shareholder value is not only the gospel of the global economy. It’s also the root cause of stagnant worker salaries. forbes

The Advent Of The World’s Dumbest Idea

The fact is that in the 1980s and beyond, public companies began embracing a very different idea as to the purpose of a firm:  the idea that the sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Then, as executives were compensated massively with stock options to sharpen their focus on increasing shareholder value at the expense of everything else, and activist hedge funds began reinforcing the focus with corporate raids on firms that didn’t buy into the doctrine, public companies began to focus totally on maximizing shareholder as reflected in current the stock price.

Previously, firms had sought to balance the needs of all the stakeholders—customers, employees, shareholders and the community. Workers were valued both as contributors to the gains that had already been made and as the creators of future growth. But once shareholder value thinking took over, workers came to be seen as expendable commodities, whose training for the future and career development were simply not their problem. No responsibility was felt to those employees who had helped create the wealth of the company. Instead, corporate raiders, who had played no role in creating that wealth, extracted much of the gains, which they then used to conduct more raids.

"Fifty years ago,” writer Lynn Stout, the late distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School, in her book,   The Shareholder Value Myth , wrote, “if you had asked the directors or CEO of a large public company what the company's purpose was, you might have been told the corporation had many purposes: to provide equity investors with solid returns, but also to build great products, to provide decent livelihoods for employees, and to contribute to the community and nation. The concept was to focus on long-term performance, not maximizing short-term profits." "All this changed in the 1980s. Economists began arguing, confidently, if incorrectly, that shareholders 'own' corporations and that stock price always captures a firm's true economic value. Thus shareholders should have more power over corporate boards, and executive pay should be tied to shareholder returns. These academic arguments were embraced by activist investors seeking to buy shares, pump up price, and sell for a quick profit. They also appealed to CEOs hoping to enrich themselves by boosting share price by any means possible (including, at Enron, outright fraud). The result is today's world, where 'shareholder value' is king."

My comments stand. If you dont like them too bad. 

If the corporation has a bad year do the executives give back their salary?  

Line workers don't get fired for the company having a bad year.

Collective bargaining often creates provisions for layoffs which offer some protection for workers with seniority.   But if a company is facing hard times and issues layoffs, union workers get laid off too.   

The risk for executives / owners is higher than for the lower tier workers, but it is incorrect to claim that lower tier workers do not have risk.

Corporations have always existed to make money. The more money they make, the more valuable they tend to be.

Economists began arguing, confidently, if incorrectly, that shareholders 'own' corporations 

They do own them.  That's just a fact.  There is nothing incorrect about that.  I'm not sure how that's in question.

and that stock price always captures a firm's true economic value.

Stock price always captures current value.  The current value of anything is whatever the buyer and seller agree upon.  That's true for everything, from real estate to baseball cards to gasoline to groceries to shares in companies.

I'm not sure how she defines "true economic value". 

All this changed in the 1980s.

What changed in the 1980s was the explosion of packaged investment products (mutual funds).  They had been around since 1929, but as tens of millions of Baby Boomers started making a little money, they wanted places to invest it where it could be managed by trained professionals. 

Those professionals were expected to grow their clients' money, and if they failed to produce, clients moved their money.  So quarterly results became more important than they had before.

BTW, those clients are average, everyday, working Americans... investing through their 401(k)s, 403(b)s, IRAs, 529 Plans, or other types of accounts where they are saving for retirement or college for the kids or whatever.  61% of American families are investors (Gallup). 

If the corporation has a bad year do the executives give back their salary?  

If the corporation has a bad year the executives get paid less.

What is even more important, you are now on double secret probation.

Since I never claimed anything like that,

Oh bullshit.   You stated:

Texan @2.1.23 ☞ Line workers don't get fired for the company having a bad year.

As an argument that only executives and not line workers are at risk when times are tough.

My comment acknowledged that executive risk is higher but noted that lower tier workers do indeed have risk:

TiG@2.1.24 ☞ Collective bargaining often creates provisions for layoffs which offer some protection for workers with seniority.   But if a company is facing hard times and issues layoffs, union workers get laid off too.    The risk for executives / owners is higher than for the lower tier workers, but it is incorrect to claim that lower tier workers do not have risk.

Do you recognize that line workers get fired / laid off when companies experience hard times?

[Do you recognize that line workers get fired / laid off when companies experience hard times?] Yes, yes, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now look at what you wrote @2.1.23:

JR @2.1.22 ☞  If the corporation has a bad year do the executives give back their salary?  

Texan @2.1.23 ☞ No, but they do tend to get fired.   Line workers don't get fired for the company having a bad year.

Which is it?   Do line workers get fired or do they NOT get fired?

Your last answer @2.1.35 was correct.   Your prior answer @2.1.23 was not.

Union workers MAY get layed off if a company has a very bad year.

Correct.   Glad you (now) understand that lower tier workers do indeed have risk (albeit not as much as executives/owners).

I have always understood that [ line workers do indeed have risk of being laid off / fired when companies have hard times ]

Except when you posted @2.1.23 :

Texan  @2.1.23  ☞ No, but they do tend to get fired.    Line workers don't get fired  for the company having a bad year.

You stated @2.1.23 that line workers don't get fired.

That is incorrect.

You then @2.1.35 admitted they can be fired.

Pretending that I am twisting your words is a feeble smokescreen.

claiming I stated something I never did.

The only thing that I claimed that you actually wrote was what you actually wrote:

Texan @2.1.23 ☞ No, but they do tend to get fired.   Line workers don't get fired  for the company having a bad year.

The above claim "Line workers don't get fired" is incorrect.

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Corporations do not exist to do good or provide us with jobs. They exist to make more money by legally protecting shareholder's rights. 

Exactly!

Mike Pence is politically irrelevant and so is anything he says.

There's a saying that those who hold the gold, rule. Unhappy auto workers who can't make ends meet on $30 an hour need to go where their efforts are appreciated.

I heard an interview  from one woman union woman who claimed that fast food workers make more money that auto maker workers.

I highly suggest she go and work for one of those fast food workers if she thinks she can make more money.

And stop bitching about the 30+ dollars she is making now.

Newer workers dont make 30 dollars an hour, and the difference in pay for two workers doing the same job is one of the issues. 

The companies are free to layoff more senior workers and then hire new employees that will cost less to the company. 

Exactly, they only want a 40% pay increase over 4 years, that’s ‘fair’.

In addition to the 40%, they want a 32 hour week with 40 hours of pay.

The companies are free to layoff more senior workers and then hire new employees that will cost less to the company. 

So...capitalism...

In addition to the 40%, they want a 32 hour week with 40 hours of pay.

That will never happen. If it does, it will be the beginning of the downfall of the big 3.

We already have seen how lazy public union workers, especially fed workers, are

UAW workers will be inspired to be just like them knowing they are going to get paid 40 hours for minimalism.

Let us be clear, if corporations are legally people then they are people whose only reason to exist are to enrich their owners. Like slaves, that is their defining trait and legal reason for being. Deal with it or change the rules. Corporations do not exist to do good or provide us with jobs. They exist to make more money by legally protecting shareholder's rights. Thus are the laws of this land...

Yes.  Exactly.

We have an adversarial system.   Under capitalism, a relatively tiny minority determines wages for the vast majority.   However, they do not have exclusive say.   We do have a wage market so if one company wants to underpay its workers, the workers do have an option to seek employment elsewhere.   Trouble is, that is easier said than done.   People in factory towns, for example, generally cannot pick up and move to a more lucrative employer.   When things get really bad (as they did in the 80s with auto manufacturers) people do indeed pack up and move to places like Texas where good paying jobs were available.

The other factor that affects wages is unionization.  With a union's collective bargaining power, employees are able to influence the compensation and environmental conditions of their workplace.   They do not necessarily need to displace their lives and move to a better employer.

In short, wages are determined by a relatively tiny minority, but the wage market and collective bargaining influence the decisions of the minority and lead to a more fair arrangement via an adversarial system.

Shareholders, by the way, are interested in shareholder value.   Typically, they do not care how that is achieved.   Ironically, employees at one company (and even their own company) are often shareholders through their pension / retirement fund's investments.

There’s another lesser acknowledged factor that corporate America has become increasingly engaged with: employment rooted in non-compete agreements.  There are factories that hire workers on the condition that they cannot leave and take a similar job elsewhere.  The FTC has sanctioned some factories for enforcing this ridiculous punitive backlash behavior and has recommended action by Congress to outlaw non-compete agreements across the board, but good luck getting our elected representatives to do anything functional for their electorate on a working time scale.

Under capitalism, a relatively tiny minority determines wages for the vast majority.   

That's just not the case.  As you proceed to explain in your following statements.

How can you possibly disagree with the fact that corporate executives ultimately determine the wages that will be paid?

My following statements illustrate that they do not have absolute control but they most definitely make the final decisions / approvals.

The UAW is currently on strike.   With whom are they negotiating?    Answer:  the aforementioned relative minority.

How can you possibly disagree with the fact that corporate executives ultimately determine the wages that will be paid?

Because employees ultimately determine where they work, in part based on the wages they deem acceptable.  

but they most definitely make the final decisions / approvals.

The final decision/approval happens when the worker says "I'll take the job".  

Because employees ultimately determine where they work, in part based on the wages they deem acceptable.  

An employee ultimately determines where they will work.   But the executives of the company ultimately determine what they will pay.   And the latter was my point.

The final decision/approval happens when the worker says "I'll take the job".  

The final decision that I referred to (and you know this) was the decision on wages for the company.  

A fair wage is what can be negotiated in contract negotiations. 

The last three major union contracts UPS/Teamsters ended with a 48% increase over 5 years. The Allied Pilots Assoc received a 46% increase over four years and the ILWU received 32% over six years with a $70 million dollar bonus included in the final settlement.

politico

At the heart of the tension between management and union members is executive pay that’s tied to a company’s stock price and becomes more valuable as market returns increase.

“Rank and file employees don’t have such an immediate linkage, which leads to these compensation-related conflicts,” said the University at Buffalo’s Michael Dambra, who worked on the pay disclosure study.

“The argument that firms would make is that the job of a CEO has gotten exponentially more difficult in terms of responsibilities, litigation risks and outside pressure,” Dambra added. “Stock-based compensation allows for an alignment of interests between shareholders and managers. These are market (i.e. competitive) prices, and CEOs that are underpaid relative to their peers would leave.”

But Dambra said employee advocates would counter that “this explosion in CEO pay is extortion, and CEOs have captured boards, and they are earning more compensation than economically fair.”

President Joe Biden said Friday that auto companies have profited in recent years thanks to the “extraordinary skill and sacrifices” of UAW workers and that profits “have not been shared fairly, in my view, with those workers.”

This year’s regional bank failures rekindled concern in Congress about executive risk-taking. It spurred Brown and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to craft a bill that would enable regulators to claw back pay from the CEOs of failed lenders and also make it easier to remove executives.

Despite resistance from industry — which argues that the bill would make it harder to recruit top talent — the proposal attracted broad bipartisan support at the Senate Banking Committee and is awaiting Senate passage.

Other unions are trying to elevate the CEO pay issue in negotiations. The Writers Guild of America West, which represents striking Hollywood writers, waged a successful campaign to convince Netflix’s shareholders to reject the company’s executive pay package in a non-binding vote.

“Everybody understands the fundamental unfairness of people who contribute to profits of a company getting such a small fraction of what the handful of individuals at the top are making,” said Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies .   “I think we’re seeing a much brighter spotlight on this issue, and that strengthens the hand of these unions going into negotiations.”

“Rank and file employees don’t have such an immediate linkage,

Rank and file employees don't have any risk, either.

Rank and file employees don't have any risk, either.

They have a different kind of risk.   Business owners have the greater risk and their risk is loss of credibility (résumé / reputation) and potential bankruptcy (or near it).    Employees have the risk of being fired / laid off and the loss of compensation and benefits that go with that.

Around 64% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a May 2022 LendingClub survey.

money.usnews

Rank and file employees don't have any risk, either.

I would think that they do...

Employees have the risk of being fired / laid off and the loss of compensation and benefits that go with that.

And perhaps homelessness...

They have a different kind of risk. 

In the context of this discussion, where CEO pay is linked to company performance, rank-and-file employees have zero risk.  They get their full pay whether the company makes or loses money.

 Business owners have the greater risk and their risk is loss of credibility (résumé / reputation) and potential bankruptcy (or near it).    Employees have the risk of being fired / laid off and the loss of compensation and benefits that go with that.

Again, business owners (and in this case senior executives) risk losing their own actual money or their income being reduced if the company does poorly.  

I would think that they do...

Ford lost nearly $2b last year.  Employees still got full pay.

In the context of this discussion, where CEO pay is linked to company performance, rank-and-file employees have zero risk.  They get their full pay whether the company makes or loses money.

That does not counter my point:   Employees have the risk of being fired / laid off and the loss of compensation and benefits that go with that.

If the company loses money, employees often lose their jobs.   The risk is the lack of a guaranteed job.

Again, business owners (and in this case senior executives) risk losing their own actual money or their income being reduced if the company does poorly.  

Again, employees risk losing their jobs.   That is not zero risk.

Later Friday, Ford Motor Company announced temporary layoffs of around 600 employees at the Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne. According to a statement from Ford, employees in the body construction department and south sub-assembly area of integrated stamping were told not to report to work.

General Motors also announced that it would be idling its Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas, which will put 2,000 people out of work. GM said the targeted strike at Wentzville Assembly was the reason.

clickondetroit

It’s always amazing me that union members talk about CEO pay in comparison to their own, on one hand you have a person who has reached the pinnacle of success much like a major league player who is responsible for running a major multinational corporation with thousands of employees who very jobs depend on him doing his job correctly, and then we have unions who are equivalent to the towel boy who has to be constantly reminding that he can’t mix colors and whites. 

The team owners are the "ceo's" and the players are the "workers". 

Try again.

The workers are not the players. Players on major league teams can get cut when they can no longer perform to the value of their contract. They can also be traded (unless they have a no trade clause).

Try firing a Union worker for any reason. Once they are vested it is damn near impossible to get the fired; and they know it.

Once they are vested it is damn near impossible to get the fired; and they know it.

I like what Romney said about Pence, no one “more loyal, more willing to smile when he saw absurdities, more willing to ascribe God’s will to things that were ungodly than Mike Pence”.

dailykos

Needless to say, Casper the Friendly Milquetoast (aka Mike Pence) had a somewhat different take on the UAW strike. He insists he stands with the working men and women of this country, and you can tell he’s sincere because he’s standing in front of two barns and isn’t wearing a tie.

The former vice president and one-time Trump colon polyp appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper. When asked about the autoworkers’ strike, he launched into his prepared talking points about Biden’s economy.

Pence on CNN on the fairness of the CEO of GM making 362 times what her employee makes: "I'm someone who believes in free enterprise"   pic.twitter.com/9SXtEr75QH

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar)   September 17, 2023

TAPPER:   “On this issue of general fairness, in 1965, during this era of the great middle-class expansion in the United States, CEOs made about 20 times what their typical workers made, but as I noted to you, the CEO of GM makes 362 times what her typical employees make. I just want to make sure I get an answer from you. Is that okay? Do you think that’s fair?”

PENCE:   “Well, I think that ought to be left to the shareholders of that company. I’m somebody that believes in free enterprise. I think those are decisions that can be made by shareholders and creating pressure, and I’ll fully support how these publicly traded companies operate. I’m not interested in government mandates or government bullying when it comes to those kinds of issues. And I don’t think it's about the usual fault lines of the difference in salaries between white collar and blue collar. I think it’s that everyday Americans out there working hard are living in the midst of the failed policies of Bidenomics.”

TAPPER:   “Inflation’s been horrible, no question, but their wages haven't gone up since the auto bailout in 2008. Meanwhile, the CEOs, their wages have gone up 40% in the last five years. That’s what the union workers say as to why they’re striking. I guess, just a question here. Do you side with the CEOs or do you side with the union here?” 

PENCE:   “I side with American workers, I side with all American families, I side with the people of this country, Jake, that are living under the failed policies of the Biden administration.”

In other words, Pence wants a laissez-faire economic system that punishes American workers—the real wealth creators—decade after decade while continuing to create opportunities for hardworking CEOs and majority shareholders who, under Biden’s economy, struggle every day to locate private islands for sale. But hey, get a load of those two barns. And that open collar.   Mother   is so turned on right now she wants to join her husband in a three-way—which, for the Pences, simply means   eating lunch at Olive Garden with a woman they just met in the lobby .