Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In essence they are adding a democratic element to an authoritarian run organization. Generally, I’m fine with businesses being run by the owners however they see fit. Billion dollar corporations are more similar to small countries than small businesses so adding some democratic elements seems like a fair idea to explore.Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.
Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?
And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?
They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.
This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.
The crux of the bill is to change the fiduciary responsibility of the board from the shareholders to an amorphous term called "stakeholders" which basically means anyone that interacts with the company.
As a regulator, government is ALWAYS a stakeholder, and as the big old bully on the block, their power would be increased exponentially.
She also notes the "Environment" as a stakeholder, thus opening up the floodgates for the environmentalists to get their feet in the door.
As for the 40% thing, what is the reason to make any company over a certain value a partially employee owned company?
The purpose is to dilute shareholder power.
The government already has business licensing regulations and standards that corporations need to meet etc etc etc. that doesn’t mean the government is running the company but they are setting standards of how they need to operate to provide a safe, accountable, transparent, and responsible work environment.gray area - sure. but when the gov can tell people who must be on the board w/o regard of that persons qualifications, what would be a better word?Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.Oh for sure. If it’s a matter of keeping a company afloat then thats not a scenario I’m talking about. We are talking about billion dollars a year companies here.
Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?
And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?
They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.
This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.
In essence they are adding a democratic element to an authoritarian run organization. Generally, I’m fine with businesses being run by the owners however they see fit. Billion dollar corporations are more similar to small countries than small businesses so adding some democratic elements seems like a fair idea to explore.Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?
And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?
They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.
This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.
The crux of the bill is to change the fiduciary responsibility of the board from the shareholders to an amorphous term called "stakeholders" which basically means anyone that interacts with the company.
As a regulator, government is ALWAYS a stakeholder, and as the big old bully on the block, their power would be increased exponentially.
She also notes the "Environment" as a stakeholder, thus opening up the floodgates for the environmentalists to get their feet in the door.
As for the 40% thing, what is the reason to make any company over a certain value a partially employee owned company?
The purpose is to dilute shareholder power.
what would some examples of gov standards applied today that would be the same as telling a company who must be on their board of directors? i honestly don't know and want to compare what we are doing with what she is proposing to see if on the same mindset or terms.The government already has business licensing regulations and standards that corporations need to meet etc etc etc. that doesn’t mean the government is running the company but they are setting standards of how they need to operate to provide a safe, accountable, transparent, and responsible work environment.gray area - sure. but when the gov can tell people who must be on the board w/o regard of that persons qualifications, what would be a better word?Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.Why should they get singled out for "special" treatment? And again, if you give employees 40% of the board, AND make the entire board beholden to every person even remotely connected to the company, what do you think will happen to the shareholders?
And as the stock becomes less attractive, what happens when the company's value drops below a billion? Do they then go back to the old way?
They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.
This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.
Leave it up to Trump lovers to totally ignore what is said and make shit up..What a dumb bitch ... They are losing on RTW, they lost with citizens united so now they are trying to find another way in.
Elizabeth Warren's New Bill Aims to Reinvent U.S. Capitalism
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a plan to rewrite the rules for large U.S. businesses--and it's a provocative one.
The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts is introducing a new bill on Wednesday that would require corporate executives "to consider the interests of all major stakeholders in company decisions--not only shareholders," Warren wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. The Accountable Capitalism Act would require companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue--including Facebook, Google, and Amazon--to comply with a federal charter that looks out for workers' interests. Currently, U.S. businesses secure corporation charters from states, not on the federal level.
One of the biggest changes that the bill proposes is for employees to elect at least 40 percent of board directors. The bill also seeks to impose limits on when executives can sell company shares. Directors and officers would have to hold shares for five years before
selling them, or in the case of a company stock buyback, three years. Warren's bill also takes aim at political contributions by requiring approval for all political expenditures from at least 75 percent of shareholders.
.
You’re not having a very good day are you?What’s your definition of commie, genius??Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversationIt's a stupid plan.
That's what I expect from Warren.
Commie tries to control private property.
She can fuck off.
It's as simple as that.
Any a-hole who thinks "stakeholders" should get a say in a corporations workings.
So to summarize. Todd here thinks the definition of a communist is “any a-hole who thinks stakeholders should get a say in a corporations workings.
Go sleep it off buddy
The 75% agreement to donate to a politician or political party is to me, an end around to stop companies making donations to the GOP and it is pretty blatant attempt. Should the government also make the same law on unions? They claim to be for the worker, so 75% for all union employees would make sure the vested interest is carried out?
The other issue is billion dollar companies to, 100 million next, 10 million next then 5 million and a continuous drop. Also if employees are to get a say, do they share in the risk? Seems fair.
The 75% agreement to donate to a politician or political party is to me, an end around to stop companies making donations to the GOP and it is pretty blatant attempt.
Exactly.
Should the government also make the same law on unions?
No, the government should make that law for government.
No new law, tax or regulation unless you get a 75% vote in both the House and Senate.
Also if employees are to get a say, do they share in the risk? Seems fair.
Exactly. Give employees half their salary as stock and make them hold it for 5 years.
Employees already share the risk. If bad decisions are made and the company fails, they lose their jobs.
The Democratic Senator from Massachusetts is introducing a new bill on Wednesday that would require corporate executives "to consider the interests of all major stakeholders in company decisions--not only shareholders,"
You want some say in company decisions, buy some shares.
Otherwise, fuck-off comrade.
see, problem with republican fanboys is : their bullshit is convincing at first glance.
i know first hand how hard it is to break through the glass ceiling of the wealthy.
let alone getting enough money to then, what, have a single influential vote in things like how much workers get paid? that kinda shit erodes the entire middle class into true poverty. and you fanboys don't recognize the evil and danger of that.
Does Warren know what an employee is? Employees don't own the company, shareholders do. Warren should move to communist China and live in her dream world.
Employees are the people who make money for the shareholders. Without employees, the owners have no products, no sales, no profits, no dividends, no customers.
Does Warren know what an employee is? Employees don't own the company, shareholders do. Warren should move to communist China and live in her dream world.
Employees are the people who make money for the shareholders. Without employees, the owners have no products, no sales, no profits, no dividends, no customers.
so.. we can agree, a decent minimum wage is a good idea?
[
Once again you can not legistrate morality..
you can, and you should.
Employees are a dime a dozen, especially those that think like you..
ah, the arrogance of the more vocal (supporters of the) rich, properly revealed, for all to see.
thanks.
What's your idea of decent ? Once again $15 bucks an hour in Seattle is like $1.75 in Alabama ..
.
Anything that allows a single mother to raise at least 2 kids by herself in comfort, working only 40 hours a week.
back to basics, rich greedy fuckers.
Does Warren know what an employee is? Employees don't own the company, shareholders do. Warren should move to communist China and live in her dream world.
Employees are the people who make money for the shareholders. Without employees, the owners have no products, no sales, no profits, no dividends, no customers.
And for all their hard work, they receive a paycheck. Sounds like a fair trade.
What if we made a minimum Wage law for the big corporations like the ones targeted in the OPs bill. They are making over a billion a year, they can afford it. This way the small businesses aren’t negatively impacted. Fair compromise?Works in Germany and they had a record surplus last year while the Trumpets are over the moon at borrowing 1 trillion...
Germany didn't have a minimum wage law til 2015 and your point being?
.
The small business would be negatively impacted, unless the small businesses paid the same wage as the billion dollar companies they won’t get the same quality workers. Fair compromise would keep keeping the status quo. This would bill would favor the Democratic Party by stipulating that big corps can’t donate unless stakeholders approve at 75%. Why doesn’t she purpose forcing unions to do the same? Because she know there would be no money going to the Democratic Party. The employee doesn’t share the same risk as the employer. Then over the years we will watch the amount drop all the way down to companies grossing over 250,000.
It is a dangerous idea that would give government more control of a business.
It does nothing of the kind. There is no government involvement in the Boards. The employees pick their board members. The government is not involved. The government’s only role here is in establishing the rules.
I wouldnt restrict it to billion dollars companies either. I would require it of all public companies. Management of publicly traded companies is too important to be left in the hands of business school graduates.
Bingo! Because it wouldn’t happen unless the government makes the rule. There are companies that are employee controlled, that is their choice.im good with that.
The law would be bad policy as you already said, you would apply it to all publicly traded companies, you are already on the slippery slope. Then what is the next step? There is always a next step, the current policies are not hurting the people or the economy. You are also using the employees as a way to restrict campaign money flowing to one political party by creating more than even the Congress’ two thirds, and Warren did this by design.
Would this law disband unions because if employees have a voting share there is no need for a union and they should be disbanded and if not should they not follow the 75% rule since they are also owned by the employees?
There are so many Constitutional hurdles that the law would be shut down inside a year.
[
Once again you can not legistrate morality..
you can, and you should.
Employees are a dime a dozen, especially those that think like you..
ah, the arrogance of the more vocal (supporters of the) rich, properly revealed, for all to see.
thanks.
What's your idea of decent ? Once again $15 bucks an hour in Seattle is like $1.75 in Alabama ..
.
Anything that allows a single mother to raise at least 2 kids by herself in comfort, working only 40 hours a week.
back to basics, rich greedy fuckers.
Does Warren know what an employee is? Employees don't own the company, shareholders do. Warren should move to communist China and live in her dream world.
Employees are the people who make money for the shareholders. Without employees, the owners have no products, no sales, no profits, no dividends, no customers.
OMG you liberals are dumb. Tell me, if you sell your house are you going to give the guys who built it a share of the profits? Here I'll answer for you, but but but...but...(crickets)
Good question. I’m on the go for the rest of the day but will respond when I get home laterwhat would some examples of gov standards applied today that would be the same as telling a company who must be on their board of directors? i honestly don't know and want to compare what we are doing with what she is proposing to see if on the same mindset or terms.The government already has business licensing regulations and standards that corporations need to meet etc etc etc. that doesn’t mean the government is running the company but they are setting standards of how they need to operate to provide a safe, accountable, transparent, and responsible work environment.gray area - sure. but when the gov can tell people who must be on the board w/o regard of that persons qualifications, what would be a better word?Sorry if you answered this before... but how exactly is the government controlling the company? Like do you think they are part of the 40% or are you just talking about the regulation?The bill is supposed to be applied to companies with over a Billion a year in annual revenue, not companies valued at a Billion. You asked what happens to shareholders when employees have representation on the board? Well they have to be more transparent and listen to the perspective of that group.
They are employees, and companies are free to form as employee owned or run if they so choose to.
This law is nothing more than a government attempt at more control over companies.
Yes, that is obvious. So is dumbing down a thread for you I guessYou’re not having a very good day are you?What’s your definition of commie, genius??Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversation
Commie tries to control private property.
She can fuck off.
It's as simple as that.
Any a-hole who thinks "stakeholders" should get a say in a corporations workings.
So to summarize. Todd here thinks the definition of a communist is “any a-hole who thinks stakeholders should get a say in a corporations workings.
Go sleep it off buddy
Mocking Warren's moronic ideas isn't a good day or a bad day, it's just a day.
Why should they have the right to vote? They work there, if they don't like working there they can quit or they can try to organize a union but they are on the decline because employees don't see a need to have one., otherwise they would vote to have one.Does Warren know what an employee is? Employees don't own the company, shareholders do. Warren should move to communist China and live in her dream world.
Employees are the people who make money for the shareholders. Without employees, the owners have no products, no sales, no profits, no dividends, no customers.
OMG you liberals are dumb. Tell me, if you sell your house are you going to give the guys who built it a share of the profits? Here I'll answer for you, but but but...but...(crickets)
Where do you idiots come up with your false equivalencies? A private individual selling their personal residence has no equivalency to a corporation with thousands of employees depending on their decisions for their livelihood. It’s not even apples to oranges. It’s apples to donkeys.
The decisions that you make about your house sale have no impact on the people who built your house. But the Decisions made by the executives and directors of large corporations have a tremendous impact on their workers. Those workers should have s voice and a vote.
No one is dumbing down this thread but you. We aren't stupid. It's clear what this is, and it's clear you are for it, and were trying to understate the impact of legislation that essentially is a government take over of private industry.We had a good thread going for a few pages and then here you come trying to dumb it all down. Do everybody a favor and go play in the rubber room.You Lefties love that back door take over of private companies, don't you?
Like when Obama and his Marxist Murderers took over 1\6th of the economy with his pen and phone.
