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.
She has never spoke the truth. She plays off emotions and you lemmings fall for it.You can always count on looney Liz to come up with something ignorantWhat 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.
.
I have yet to see a single unemotional or well-considered response to this proposal from the right. Warren is neither “bat-shit crazy”, nor a “bitch”. She’s not a “commie” either.
Warren is a well respected legislator. One of the best. Her consumer protection legislation resulted in Wells Fargo Bank being forced to return millions of dollars to customers who were cheated by that Bank.
She’s always stood up for everyday Americans against abuses by corporate interests. Calling corporations to account is in everyone’s best interests.
Of course the right hates her. She speaks truth to power and she’s a woman.
Left wingers here are the ones calmly and rationally discussing the proposals. You snowflakes are ranting about socialism, commies, insulting Ms Warren and acting like she proposed forming collectives and confiscating property.
Her proposals simply require that workers have a voice and a say in the management of large corporations, so that their needs arentbifnored. She’s not suggesting giving them control, a percentage of income or anything other than a voice and a vote.
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.
.
Now Warren wants redistribution of all profits from corporations...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.
.
Here is a bigger clue. If you hire employees who are educated, they are not only capable of doing the work needed to be done but also understand you don't pay above the value that the job brings to the company. Your little diatribe is a good indication that you do not understand business at all.This will simply serve to move companies out of the USA. No company can survive if it does not look out for its own interest ahead of all other interests.
Here’s a clue dipshit. Looking out for your employees best interests, is in the companies’ best interest. A former roommate of mine called it “enlightened self-interest”.
If you treat your employees well, pay them well, and make them feel valued and respected, they will be happier, more productive, and less likely to leave.
I worked for such a company. It was an amazing place to work. We had top salaries and benefits, premium supplemental health (paying everything OHIP doesn’t), 3 weeks paid vacation to start, health club membership, flex hours, profit sharing bonuses (the Spring Bonus) and Christmas bonuses, and matching contributions on employees personal retirement plans.
Our firm had the reputation as the “hardest working firm on Bay Street”. We had the highest average billable hours, while billing clients the lowest fees of any of the top firms. It was a pleasure and a joy to work there. In our department (100 people), two people quit in 5 years and one came back after three months.
Increased production and billings directly impact the bottom line. Low turnover means lower training costs, higher employee skill levels, which further increases client satisfaction levels and firm profits.
Doing well while doing good should be every company’s motto.
Treating employees well has nothing to do with giving them a near-controlling interest over the specific needs of the business. It is very often -- almost a certainty -- that the employees haven't a clue as to what the business is going through and the intelligence required to navigate the competitive waters of the world. Everywhere you go, you will always find people who think their job is the most important job in the company and will have a thousand reasons why that is. The truth is, every employee is but a single process along the way to a final product that is for sale to a customer and if it is in the best interest of the company to consolidate processes to become more competitive, the employee who has a say will always speak against doing the right thing. Sometimes, the right thing is not saving your job.
No one and nothing can serve a hundred masters. That is why corporations are set up to answer to a select group of people for accountability, but essentially, any business answers to one master. The CEO. That is why he gets the paycheck he does. Because if it goes to shit, he is the one that pays the price.
Wow. Thanks for agreeing with Me.Here is a bigger clue. If you hire employees who are educated, they are not only capable of doing the work needed to be done but also understand you don't pay above the value that the job brings to the company. Your little diatribe is a good indication that you do not understand business at all.This will simply serve to move companies out of the USA. No company can survive if it does not look out for its own interest ahead of all other interests.
Here’s a clue dipshit. Looking out for your employees best interests, is in the companies’ best interest. A former roommate of mine called it “enlightened self-interest”.
If you treat your employees well, pay them well, and make them feel valued and respected, they will be happier, more productive, and less likely to leave.
I worked for such a company. It was an amazing place to work. We had top salaries and benefits, premium supplemental health (paying everything OHIP doesn’t), 3 weeks paid vacation to start, health club membership, flex hours, profit sharing bonuses (the Spring Bonus) and Christmas bonuses, and matching contributions on employees personal retirement plans.
Our firm had the reputation as the “hardest working firm on Bay Street”. We had the highest average billable hours, while billing clients the lowest fees of any of the top firms. It was a pleasure and a joy to work there. In our department (100 people), two people quit in 5 years and one came back after three months.
Increased production and billings directly impact the bottom line. Low turnover means lower training costs, higher employee skill levels, which further increases client satisfaction levels and firm profits.
Doing well while doing good should be every company’s motto.
Treating employees well has nothing to do with giving them a near-controlling interest over the specific needs of the business. It is very often -- almost a certainty -- that the employees haven't a clue as to what the business is going through and the intelligence required to navigate the competitive waters of the world. Everywhere you go, you will always find people who think their job is the most important job in the company and will have a thousand reasons why that is. The truth is, every employee is but a single process along the way to a final product that is for sale to a customer and if it is in the best interest of the company to consolidate processes to become more competitive, the employee who has a say will always speak against doing the right thing. Sometimes, the right thing is not saving your job.
No one and nothing can serve a hundred masters. That is why corporations are set up to answer to a select group of people for accountability, but essentially, any business answers to one master. The CEO. That is why he gets the paycheck he does. Because if it goes to shit, he is the one that pays the price.
How many boards have you ever say on? My best guess is none since you haven’t a clue as to how a board of directors functions or the ins and outs of corporate governance, let me educate you.
Forty years of corporate law and governance gives me WAY more than “a clue” on how corporate governance works.
Shareholders elect directors, and directors elect officers and approve their compensation packages. Beyond that, their role is very limited, especially in large multi national corporations. The position is largely ceremonial.
Under law, there are certain types of transactions which require board approval. These include any irregular purchases or divestments of assets outside of the normal course of business. If a manufacturing company wants to build a new factory, that would require board approval since the corporation’s primary business is not real estate. Banks and mortgage companies require board approval for major loans.
The Board must also approve any changes to the company’s articles of incorporation, its bylaws, or its share structure, any change of controlling ownership and the winding up of the corporation. Decisions on the day to day operations and strategies, are left to the officers.
You can see from the boards duties and responsibilities how useful it would be to have employee’ input on these matters and to have a voice in these decisions.
She has never spoke the truth. She plays off emotions and you lemmings fall for it.You can always count on looney Liz to come up with something ignorantWhat 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.
.
I have yet to see a single unemotional or well-considered response to this proposal from the right. Warren is neither “bat-shit crazy”, nor a “bitch”. She’s not a “commie” either.
Warren is a well respected legislator. One of the best. Her consumer protection legislation resulted in Wells Fargo Bank being forced to return millions of dollars to customers who were cheated by that Bank.
She’s always stood up for everyday Americans against abuses by corporate interests. Calling corporations to account is in everyone’s best interests.
Of course the right hates her. She speaks truth to power and she’s a woman.
Left wingers here are the ones calmly and rationally discussing the proposals. You snowflakes are ranting about socialism, commies, insulting Ms Warren and acting like she proposed forming collectives and confiscating property.
Her proposals simply require that workers have a voice and a say in the management of large corporations, so that their needs arentbifnored. She’s not suggesting giving them control, a percentage of income or anything other than a voice and a vote.
are you on drugs? They are hardly composedShe has never spoke the truth. She plays off emotions and you lemmings fall for it.You can always count on looney Liz to come up with something ignorantWhat 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.
.
I have yet to see a single unemotional or well-considered response to this proposal from the right. Warren is neither “bat-shit crazy”, nor a “bitch”. She’s not a “commie” either.
Warren is a well respected legislator. One of the best. Her consumer protection legislation resulted in Wells Fargo Bank being forced to return millions of dollars to customers who were cheated by that Bank.
She’s always stood up for everyday Americans against abuses by corporate interests. Calling corporations to account is in everyone’s best interests.
Of course the right hates her. She speaks truth to power and she’s a woman.
Left wingers here are the ones calmly and rationally discussing the proposals. You snowflakes are ranting about socialism, commies, insulting Ms Warren and acting like she proposed forming collectives and confiscating property.
Her proposals simply require that workers have a voice and a say in the management of large corporations, so that their needs aren’t ignored. She’s not suggesting giving them control, a percentage of income or anything other than a voice and a vote.
Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversationYou aren’t proving to be much different? Why are all your posts about Warren and not about the substance of the bill?You are all kinds of confused. HahaWay to throw in the towel on a civil argument. You lose. DragonLady wins after one round. Thanks for playing
Warren isn't a Commie?
Is she an Indian again.
Hard to keep track of her BS.
You're welcome.
Warren is an assclown, no confusion on that.
It's a stupid plan.
That's what I expect from Warren.
Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.Cross that bridge when we get there. Right now this bill is for the big dogs and has nothing to do with smaller companies. Why don’t you just talk about that?You realize this bill only applies the companies that make over $1 billion in annual revenue right?It would force companies to take into account "stakeholders" which is basically everyone. The government as a regulator is a stakeholder, and if some stakeholder decided it was being ignored they could sue.
It would basically make companies unmanageable.
Employees are free to form employee run companies if they want to, forcing everyone to do so is stupid.
And they never take a stupid law and expand it to cover more companies. Right?
The slippery slope arguments get real old
Cross that bridge when we get there.
The bridge is here. The answer is, no.
If the stakeholders want a say, they can buy some shares and vote them.
Ummm . How is any of that “taking over companies”?
It's an end run. by making them take into account stakeholders, you basically say they have to listen to anyone or face lawsuits.
She means “employees” ok!! Is that so hard to understand ?
Of course you evil cons don’t give a crap about the working man that’s the backbone of the company . “Hey, let’s close this plant and put 1000 people out of work ! The shareholder will get a 10% dividend bump!”
when the gov can run their own business without dividing a country, they can talk. until then, the gov has zero businessing telling corps how they must run.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.
I agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.Cross that bridge when we get there. Right now this bill is for the big dogs and has nothing to do with smaller companies. Why don’t you just talk about that?You realize this bill only applies the companies that make over $1 billion in annual revenue right?
And they never take a stupid law and expand it to cover more companies. Right?
The slippery slope arguments get real old
Cross that bridge when we get there.
The bridge is here. The answer is, no.
If the stakeholders want a say, they can buy some shares and vote them.
And that responsibility is to their shareholders. They should be subordinate to the government as regulators, but not responsible to it.
And asking them to be legally bound to all "stakeholders" would leave them unable to react to anything without risk of lawsuits.
I agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.Cross that bridge when we get there. Right now this bill is for the big dogs and has nothing to do with smaller companies. Why don’t you just talk about that?And they never take a stupid law and expand it to cover more companies. Right?
The slippery slope arguments get real old
Cross that bridge when we get there.
The bridge is here. The answer is, no.
If the stakeholders want a say, they can buy some shares and vote them.
And that responsibility is to their shareholders. They should be subordinate to the government as regulators, but not responsible to it.
And asking them to be legally bound to all "stakeholders" would leave them unable to react to anything without risk of lawsuits.
Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMOI agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.Cross that bridge when we get there. Right now this bill is for the big dogs and has nothing to do with smaller companies. Why don’t you just talk about that?
The slippery slope arguments get real old
Cross that bridge when we get there.
The bridge is here. The answer is, no.
If the stakeholders want a say, they can buy some shares and vote them.
And that responsibility is to their shareholders. They should be subordinate to the government as regulators, but not responsible to it.
And asking them to be legally bound to all "stakeholders" would leave them unable to react to anything without risk of lawsuits.
Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.
Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.
Generally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMOI agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.Cross that bridge when we get there.
The bridge is here. The answer is, no.
If the stakeholders want a say, they can buy some shares and vote them.
And that responsibility is to their shareholders. They should be subordinate to the government as regulators, but not responsible to it.
And asking them to be legally bound to all "stakeholders" would leave them unable to react to anything without risk of lawsuits.
Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.
Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.
Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversationYou aren’t proving to be much different? Why are all your posts about Warren and not about the substance of the bill?You are all kinds of confused. HahaWarren isn't a Commie?
Is she an Indian again.
Hard to keep track of her BS.
You're welcome.
Warren is an assclown, no confusion on that.
It's a stupid plan.
That's what I expect from Warren.
I agree, but billion dollar companies play a different game than all the others. They deserve more oversightGenerally speaking I agree. When a company is making over a billion a year they take in a greater responsibilities than the smaller fish, IMOI agree. I don’t think anything that encourages or enables unnecessary lawsuits is a good thing but I like accountability and things that stand up for workers rights, especially with the large corporations.Companies making over a Billion in revenue a year carry tremendous power. And as spidey says... with great power comes great responsibility.
And that responsibility is to their shareholders. They should be subordinate to the government as regulators, but not responsible to it.
And asking them to be legally bound to all "stakeholders" would leave them unable to react to anything without risk of lawsuits.
Workers already have plenty of rights. All this would do would make the workers and stockholders even more at odds.
Stockholders are the owners of the company, they are the ones who take the risks, and the company has a fiduciary responsibility to return on their investment.
Not government's job to get that involved in how they run their company.
What’s your definition of commie, genius??Great analysis. Thanks for the invigorating conversationYou aren’t proving to be much different? Why are all your posts about Warren and not about the substance of the bill?You are all kinds of confused. Haha
Warren is an assclown, no confusion on that.
It'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.
