CEO's Colluding to hold down workers wages

[KissMy]

Facts are contrary to the group think of the self proclaimed economic experts, many of who should demand a refund on what they paid their education.

The faster & higher you raise the minimum wage, the slower the dollar loses it's value. Because most of the people on the government dole are working at a real job. Prices ALWAYS rise before wages because Government & Banks create money. Wages do not push or drive inflation & wage price spiral is a hoax. Higher minimum wages get workers off the government dole so government does not have to print more money causing inflation. Also higher minimum wages means Government does not have to guarantee bank home or business loans causing inflation because underpaid workers default at high rates.

Raising Wages CUTS Government Spending. Socialism is when employers make government tax payers pay for their workers so they can drive others out of business & pocket everyone else's wealth. If you don't like the minimum wage then pass a law banning employment of someone on the government dole. Because I already pay my workers & should not have to keep subsidizing yours, harming my business. Employment rises as wages & minimum wages rise.

Welfare & Entitlement Spending Way Up Under Bush & Down Since Obama Took Office Because Raising Minimum Wages CUTS Government Spending.

 

[Brain357]

another example
Detroit Nurses Win Wage Collusion Settlement to Boost Recruitment

 

[editec]

Of course they are, that's their job; to keep expenses down.

And with labor being just another expense (hence the term "Human Resources for the one tme "Personnel Department), the CEO must keep workers wages and compensation as low as possible by whatever means possible.

But we can comfort in knowing that it's nothing personal, just strictly business.

But we can take comfort knowing that's it illegal and our government is on the case!

No wait a minute...what was I thinking?

The government is going to protect workers?

I must be off my meds this AM.

 

[editec]

But how is this Anti-trust? Anti-trust regulations are there to protect CONSUMERS not employees. This could actually SAVE consumers money by holding down costs.

So they are colluding to hold wages down and you think that is good?

Good or bad is not the issue, how is it illegal?

Its a conspiracy in violation of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Acts.

They entered into a conspiracy to pervert market forces. (in this case the LABOR MARKET)

 

[martybegan]

I'm a capitalist. You seem to be some kind of crony capitalist. In your world capitalism is only great if it is benefitting the rich.

If it was not illegal then prove it. Common sense says they wouldn't settle if they had no case at all.

Actually a court is the place that has to prove something is illegal.

Common sense and the legal world often do not match up. What is done is a risk/cost analysis of the potential cost of losing the trial, vs. what it costs to pay people off. If the payoff becomes the better choice, it happens regardless of actual guilt or the facts of the case.

So they must have had a pretty good case to force them to settle.

Or they got a a judge who was a progressive stooge.

 

[martybegan]

So they are colluding to hold wages down and you think that is good?

Good or bad is not the issue, how is it illegal?

Its a conspiracy in violation of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Acts.

They entered into a conspiracy to pervert market forces. (in this case the LABOR MARKET)

But again, how were CONSUMERS affected negatively, which was the crux of the anti-trust acts? If they do not address employer-employee relations, then once again what we have is progressives stretching a law to suit their needs, and fuck anything else.

 

[Brain357]

Good or bad is not the issue, how is it illegal?

Its a conspiracy in violation of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Acts.

They entered into a conspiracy to pervert market forces. (in this case the LABOR MARKET)

But again, how were CONSUMERS affected negatively, which was the crux of the anti-trust acts? If they do not address employer-employee relations, then once again what we have is progressives stretching a law to suit their needs, and fuck anything else.

So you actually think companies should be able to collude and lower wages? That makes you very difficult to take seriously. Please explain the benefits of your position. I guess your trying to confirm what anti capitalists say?

 

[Brain357]

Actually a court is the place that has to prove something is illegal.

Common sense and the legal world often do not match up. What is done is a risk/cost analysis of the potential cost of losing the trial, vs. what it costs to pay people off. If the payoff becomes the better choice, it happens regardless of actual guilt or the facts of the case.

So they must have had a pretty good case to force them to settle.

Or they got a a judge who was a progressive stooge.

Progressive? These laws are promoting good capitalism. I thought that was something the right wanted? Or do they just want the parts of capitalism that benefit the rich?

 

[martybegan]

So they must have had a pretty good case to force them to settle.

Or they got a a judge who was a progressive stooge.

Progressive? These laws are promoting good capitalism. I thought that was something the right wanted? Or do they just want the parts of capitalism that benefit the rich?

These employees ARE the rich, or at least the almost rich.

The question is still if these laws actually apply to employer-employee relations, or is this just another progressive stretching of an existing law to suit their own purposes.

 

[martybegan]

Its a conspiracy in violation of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Acts.

They entered into a conspiracy to pervert market forces. (in this case the LABOR MARKET)

But again, how were CONSUMERS affected negatively, which was the crux of the anti-trust acts? If they do not address employer-employee relations, then once again what we have is progressives stretching a law to suit their needs, and fuck anything else.

So you actually think companies should be able to collude and lower wages? That makes you very difficult to take seriously. Please explain the benefits of your position. I guess your trying to confirm what anti capitalists say?

First of all, I am not an anti-capitalist, and you are certainly not an actual caplitalist.

2nd, I am questioning the applicability of anti-trust laws designed to protect consumers being used to protect employees, two different groups.

 

[Brain357]

But again, how were CONSUMERS affected negatively, which was the crux of the anti-trust acts? If they do not address employer-employee relations, then once again what we have is progressives stretching a law to suit their needs, and fuck anything else.

So you actually think companies should be able to collude and lower wages? That makes you very difficult to take seriously. Please explain the benefits of your position. I guess your trying to confirm what anti capitalists say?

First of all, I am not an anti-capitalist, and you are certainly not an actual caplitalist.

2nd, I am questioning the applicability of anti-trust laws designed to protect consumers being used to protect employees, two different groups.

Sorry but if you think colluding to hold wages down is good capitalism, you know little about capitalism. This sort of stuff is food for anti capitalists.

Explain why laws promoting good capitalism are progressive.

 

[martybegan]

So you actually think companies should be able to collude and lower wages? That makes you very difficult to take seriously. Please explain the benefits of your position. I guess your trying to confirm what anti capitalists say?

First of all, I am not an anti-capitalist, and you are certainly not an actual caplitalist.

2nd, I am questioning the applicability of anti-trust laws designed to protect consumers being used to protect employees, two different groups.

Sorry but if you think colluding to hold wages down is good capitalism, you know little about capitalism. This sort of stuff is food for anti capitalists.

Explain why laws promoting good capitalism are progressive.

You haven't answered the question. Does anti-trust law cover wage collusion as opposed to covering only actions detrimental to consumers?

 

[Brain357]

First of all, I am not an anti-capitalist, and you are certainly not an actual caplitalist.

2nd, I am questioning the applicability of anti-trust laws designed to protect consumers being used to protect employees, two different groups.

Sorry but if you think colluding to hold wages down is good capitalism, you know little about capitalism. This sort of stuff is food for anti capitalists.

Explain why laws promoting good capitalism are progressive.

You haven't answered the question. Does anti-trust law cover wage collusion as opposed to covering only actions detrimental to consumers?

That's seems pretty obvious, yes. An I've answered that several times. Now answer my questions.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry but if you think colluding to hold wages down is good capitalism, you know little about capitalism. This sort of stuff is food for anti capitalists.

Explain why laws promoting good capitalism are progressive.

You haven't answered the question. Does anti-trust law cover wage collusion as opposed to covering only actions detrimental to consumers?

That's seems pretty obvious, yes. An I've answered that several times. Now answer my questions.

Why? What is the particular part of the law that is being applied?

These are not laws promoting good capitalism, these are laws being used as gotcha's to forward a progressive agenda, nothing more.

You are about as much of a capitalist as truthmatters is a theoretical physicist.

 

[Brain357]

You haven't answered the question. Does anti-trust law cover wage collusion as opposed to covering only actions detrimental to consumers?

That's seems pretty obvious, yes. An I've answered that several times. Now answer my questions.

Why? What is the particular part of the law that is being applied?

These are not laws promoting good capitalism, these are laws being used as gotcha's to forward a progressive agenda, nothing more.

You are about as much of a capitalist as truthmatters is a theoretical physicist.

And you are scared to answer questions.

Explain how CEOs colluding to hold down wages is good capitalism.

 

[martybegan]

That's seems pretty obvious, yes. An I've answered that several times. Now answer my questions.

Why? What is the particular part of the law that is being applied?

These are not laws promoting good capitalism, these are laws being used as gotcha's to forward a progressive agenda, nothing more.

You are about as much of a capitalist as truthmatters is a theoretical physicist.

And you are scared to answer questions.

Explain how CEOs colluding to hold down wages is good capitalism.

Explain how it is illegal. How is an agreement between different orgs that does not impact the consumer, except for maybe keeping costs down, bad capitalism?

 

[Brain357]

Why? What is the particular part of the law that is being applied?

These are not laws promoting good capitalism, these are laws being used as gotcha's to forward a progressive agenda, nothing more.

You are about as much of a capitalist as truthmatters is a theoretical physicist.

And you are scared to answer questions.

Explain how CEOs colluding to hold down wages is good capitalism.

Explain how it is illegal. How is an agreement between different orgs that does not impact the consumer, except for maybe keeping costs down, bad capitalism?

Way to not answer AGAIN.

You're not a good capitalist, you are a crony capitalist.

We have a labor market which allows good workers to get their market value in wages. These cronies ruined this market by colluding. This is crony capitalism. You support capitalism only to benefit the very rich. These clowns are why so many are anti capitalist.

I guess progressives are the capitalists now.

 

[martybegan]

And you are scared to answer questions.

Explain how CEOs colluding to hold down wages is good capitalism.

Explain how it is illegal. How is an agreement between different orgs that does not impact the consumer, except for maybe keeping costs down, bad capitalism?

Way to not answer AGAIN.

You're not a good capitalist, you are a crony capitalist.

We have a labor market which allows good workers to get their market value in wages. These cronies ruined this market by colluding. This is crony capitalism. You support capitalism only to benefit the very rich. These clowns are why so many are anti capitalist.

I guess progressives are the capitalists now.

then make a law making it illegal. Don't use a modified law to get what you want.

 

[Brain357]

Explain how it is illegal. How is an agreement between different orgs that does not impact the consumer, except for maybe keeping costs down, bad capitalism?

Way to not answer AGAIN.

You're not a good capitalist, you are a crony capitalist.

We have a labor market which allows good workers to get their market value in wages. These cronies ruined this market by colluding. This is crony capitalism. You support capitalism only to benefit the very rich. These clowns are why so many are anti capitalist.

I guess progressives are the capitalists now.

then make a law making it illegal. Don't use a modified law to get what you want.

Everyone should want laws promoting good capitalism. You have shown that you know nothing about good capitalism.

 

[Care4all]

Why? What is the particular part of the law that is being applied?

These are not laws promoting good capitalism, these are laws being used as gotcha's to forward a progressive agenda, nothing more.

You are about as much of a capitalist as truthmatters is a theoretical physicist.

And you are scared to answer questions.

Explain how CEOs colluding to hold down wages is good capitalism.

Explain how it is illegal. How is an agreement between different orgs that does not impact the consumer, except for maybe keeping costs down, bad capitalism?

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3]

Marty, dear Marty...what has happened to you and these type of stances of yours as of late?

Collusion is illegal, period. As it should be.

If these corporations were open about their policy and also gave these employees a non compete contract, where the employee was aware of the policy and compensated for the contract, then it would be fine...but that is NOT what happened here.