Mike Pence Is A Worthless Piece Of Crap...
...or maybe he's just a good Republican .
In an interview this morning, Pence was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper to comment on the auto worker strike. Tapper said the ceo's make 365 times more money than the striking workers do, and asked Pence if he thought that was fair. After the typical hemming and hawing by Pence for a minute , Tapper said he would like an answer to the question.
Pence's answer then ? It is up to the shareholders of the companies to decide. He (Pence) believes in free enterprise.
gee, I wonder how many shareholders will vote for higher wages for the line employees? Very few sounds about right. How many will vote for whatever salary for the ceo that guarantees a better stock price? Most, I am sure.
In ten seconds Pence proved that he is and would be a tool for the owners and managers and an enemy of workers.
He's never going to be elected president no matter what he says or does, but now we have further evidence that his candidacy is a waste of America's time, particularly American workers.
Tags
Who is online
152 visitors
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.
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...
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.
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.
Well, that is a goal devoutly to be wished, but that's more akin to socialism than capitalism.
Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be.
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.
Problem is, you far leftists believe the government should decide what is "fair"
THAT is socialism.
Do you really advocate for socialism?
Hell, we can't even get a Democrat to describe what "fair share" actually is, despite the many times they invoke those words ad nauseum.
Besides, with Bidenomics such a big hit, the auto workers are already doing fine!
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!
Why should workers salaries be decided by shareholders?
I think we can do better than that.
Why would they be decided by a union?
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.
You just made me LoL.
Oh, I thought the workers got paid according to their contracts.
I didn't know the workers didn't get anything.
They are striking for a better contract.
Oh, so the workers ARE getting something....
If there is a current contract, shouldn't the union honor it the same way they expect the employers to honor the contract?
The union is showing its greed.
so John, if the corporation has a bad year are the workers giving back money?
Well of course not--they have a contract!
I think the Big 3 should give stock shares to the employees as part of their compensation, making sure that the union members have a real stake in the financial health of the companies they work for.
Let's never see the likes of the videos from several years ago when they showed union members not doing squat and getting high at work.
Let's see how unions act when they have a dog in the hunt.
And who gets to decide what is "fair" ?
the market.
Shareholders don't vote on worker salaries. They vote on upper management and expect them to work out pay scales.
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.
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?
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.
My comments stand. If you dont like them too bad.
If the corporation has a bad year do the executives give back their salary?
No, but they do tend to get fired.
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.
Since I never claimed anything like that, that is an intellectually dishonest argument or a strawman.
Corporations have always existed to make money. The more money they make, the more valuable they tend to be.
They do own them. That's just a fact. There is nothing incorrect about that. I'm not sure how that's in question.
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".
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 the executives get paid less.
[deleted]
NOT a violation of impasse--it was all a mistake, as Perrie has stated to me that there are NO restrictions.
What is even more important, you are now on double secret probation.
Oh bullshit. You stated:
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:
I know damn well what I said and hope you will one day, too.
I made ZERO claims about any risks line workers are subject to, no matter how hard you intellectually dishonestly try to spin my words which you have managed to quote successfully all while still pretending I said something I never did.
The post is right there for all to see and come to their own accurate conclusions.
Do you recognize that line workers get fired / laid off when companies experience hard times?
Yes, yes, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you recognize your intellectually dishonest arguments?
Now look at what you wrote @2.1.23:
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.
You stated that it is incorrect to claim that lower tier workers do not have risk. I NEVER made that claim. That is an example of intellectual dishonesty---saying I said something I never did.
And with that being said, take the almighty last important words.
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.
If you don't get that, it just makes you look silly, not me.
Just be honest from now on and never again assign statements to me that I don't make.
Except when you posted @2.1.23 :
I truly wish you would be more honest and not attempt to twist words or pretend I have stated things I haven't.
And now you are merely trolling.
Not interested, sorry!
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.
You started this whole shebang off by claiming I stated something I never did.
It was intellectually dishonest.
And have been doubling down ever since.
You could avoid all of this by simply telling the truth.
The only thing that I claimed that you actually wrote was what you actually wrote:
The above claim "Line workers don't get fired" is incorrect.
[Deleted]
[deleted]
[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.
If that as even remotely true, the woman proved she is an idiot for giving the union money when she could have had a cushy job at McD's and made more--all without union dues!
No wonder she needs a union, because obviously she isn't smart enough to navigate life by herself.
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’.
No, that is greed, pure and simple.
In addition to the 40%, they want a 32 hour week with 40 hours of pay.
So...capitalism...
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.
Greedy AND stupid.
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.
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.
Because employees ultimately determine where they work, in part based on the wages they deem acceptable.
The final decision/approval happens when the worker says "I'll take the job".
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 that I referred to (and you know this) was the decision on wages for the company.
Perhaps short-sighted investors do that.
Savvy investors are always concerned about the health of a company because they want to see their investment grow.
To do anything else is rather stupid.
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.
Greedy unions will hurt the already-faltering Biden economy.
It is just the unions that are "greedy"?? Did you intentionally not mention the other critical piece of this: corporate greed?
Is that what you think you read in my post?
Another non-answer.
Do you understand and recognize the concept of corporate greed? That greed is not limited to unions?
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.
I would think that they do...
And perhaps homelessness...
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.
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.
Ford lost nearly $2b last year. Employees still got full pay.
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, employees risk losing their jobs. That is not zero risk.
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.
Yeah, CEOs don't have a union protecting them when they screw up, they just get fired.
What the union is asking for is ridiculous.
32 hours of work but demanding 40 hours of increased pay?
Shameful!
Greedy!
Most CEOs have a written employment contract with the corporation that spells out what is expected and what benefits the CEO will receive included in it is a ''golden parachute''...They are far from being ''just fired''.
if they are removed from their position, that is indeed, "getting fired" by any stretch of the imagination.
Far from not having a union to protect them, they have an ''employment contract'' which includes a ''golden parachute clause''.
So CEOs negotiate their own contracts.
Isn't that what the union does?
I really don't consider it any of the union's business what anyone else makes that are not union members.
Yes, some use an attorney as well.
Yes.
You may not consider it anyone's business what the CEO makes but in the yearly filing of their yearly proxy statement executive pay is listed and it's a public record.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion.
Kavika clearly pointed out that firing an executive is very different from firing a worker. A fired executive often has a golden parachute which provides (typically) millions of dollars in severance pay.
Yes he did.
An unpersuasive argument.
And yours is unpersuasive as well.
Sure it does, my first two parts of the response were in response to you and the third one was a fact vs your opinion.
Your arguments fall flat and are unpersuasive.
I'm sure they are to you, facts do get that response from some.
Well, I am glad you recognized precisely what I have been saying.
Thanks!
I recognize precisely what you are saying, you have no response that is fact simply your opinion which doesn't match up well with facts.
Cheers.
That's fantastic!
Isn't that just for publicly traded companies?
Yes.
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.
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”.