If you think taxes should be raised...

[Taomon]

And this is a perfect example of WHY your not regarded with any seriousness on this board.

Why? Because I am implying that the IRS has a bias in those figures? And you are definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[jreeves]

The shareholders are not the little guys slaving away for the company. The lowly sanitation man who empties the trashcan at night – he should have a vote.

Plus there is already legislation requiring an annual vote among shareholders regarding what the CEO's salary should be.

 

[Paulie]

LOL...So your telling me that the trash man should be able to tell a private corporation what they should pay their CEO and how the CEO should conduct themselves. Shareholders are private citizens it could be very much that the trashman does have a vote, if he owns shares in the corporation. Plus when did your trashmen start running at night?

There's nothing odd about sanitation people coming in at night to do their work.

But in big companies, it's more likely that much of the sanitation work is contracted out to a specific sanitation campany instead of hiring people in-house to do the work.

 

[Taomon]

Plus there is already legislation requiring an annual vote among shareholders regarding what the CEO's salary should be.

And that can go either way. It could limit CEO earnings or expand it beyond today's obscene amounts.

Shareholders are mostly the banks and venture capitalist firms who have a very different idea of what is fair than the average worker.

 

[jreeves]

There's nothing odd about sanitation people coming in at night to do their work.

But in big companies, it's more likely that much of the sanitation work is contracted out to a specific sanitation campany instead of hiring people in-house to do the work.

Never thought I would be debating why trashpeople shouldn't control corporations...LOL

 

[jreeves]

And that can go either way. It could limit CEO earnings or expand it beyond today's obscene amounts.

Shareholders are mostly the banks and venture capitalist firms who have a very different idea of what is fair than the average worker.

My point exactly, it's the shareholder's business not government's business. If the shareholders who want to pay their CEO 2 trillion dollars it's their business not governments.

 

[Taomon]

My point exactly, it's the shareholder's business not government's business. If the shareholders who want to pay their CEO 2 trillion dollars it's their business not governments.

My point was that shareholder power is too strong and in direct violation of worker rights and in many ways, our Constitution. Those powers should be regulated or nulled.

 

[mattskramer]

LOL...So your telling me that the trash man should be able to tell a private corporation what they should pay their CEO and how the CEO should conduct themselves. Shareholders are private citizens it could be very much that the trashman does have a vote, if he owns shares in the corporation. Plus when did your trashmen start running at night?

I like the principle of the cooperative where power is shred equally. I am saying that all of the employees, even including the trash man, should vote on leaders and (directly or indirectly) vote on policy – including salary. I don’t know what you mean by the question, “When did my trashmen start running at night?”

 

[mattskramer]

Never thought I would be debating why trashpeople shouldn't control corporations...LOL

It just doesn’t seem right when CEOs are more concerned with providing a profit for the shareholders than they do about providing a meager salary for their laborers.

 

[jreeves]

My point was that shareholder power is too strong and in direct violation of worker rights and in many ways, our Constitution. Those powers should be regulated or nulled.

Hmm....have you ever heard of the SEC?

 

[jreeves]

I like the principle of the cooperative where power is shred equally. I am saying that all of the employees, even including the trash man, should vote on leaders and (directly or indirectly) vote on policy – including salary. I don’t know what you mean by the question, “When did my trashmen start running at night?”

It is shared equally, depending on stock, if you own more stock you have more of a say. Because you have more at stake. It seems pretty fair to me. Although I do realize that there are unprincipled CEOs. But they come very few and far in between, the vast majority are principled CEOs who make a lot of money but have a lot of responsibility.

 

[Paulie]

Never thought I would be debating why trashpeople shouldn't control corporations...LOL

You're not. Your discussing whether or not they would potentially have some kind of say in their respective companies' operations.

 

[Paulie]

My point was that shareholder power is too strong and in direct violation of worker rights and in many ways, our Constitution. Those powers should be regulated or nulled.

I have to disagree somewhat. Where in our constitution does is state anything about how a private company can run their affairs, or what ways our government can regulate them?

 

[Paulie]

It just doesn’t seem right when CEOs are more concerned with providing a profit for the shareholders than they do about providing a meager salary for their laborers.

It definitely isn't right. The main reason is because, #1, the actions of shareholders directly affect the prosperity of the company, and #2, the lower the wages to employees, the higher the profits for the company, which translates into more shareholder buying action, and higher stock prices.

The issue is that the federal government is granted absolutely no power to regulate that.

If people like you, or me, or the MILLIONS of other Americans have a problem with it, WE are the one's who can affect the changes in that system.

A massive boycot of the respective companies would result in almost IMMEDIATE changes.

Our problem as a society, which is one of our MAIN problems as a society, is that we just don't care enough to do those kinds of things anymore. We'd rather sit back and be lazy about it and hope the government does it FOR us.

As a society, we've just about completely given this country away.

We're pretty much content with it though, as long as we are continually provided with our entertainment "necessities" to keep us pacified.

 

[jreeves]

It definitely isn't right. The main reason is because, #1, the actions of shareholders directly affect the prosperity of the company, and #2, the lower the wages to employees, the higher the profits for the company, which translates into more shareholder buying action, and higher stock prices.

The issue is that the federal government is granted absolutely no power to regulate that.

If people like you, or me, or the MILLIONS of other Americans have a problem with it, WE are the one's who can affect the changes in that system.

A massive boycot of the respective companies would result in almost IMMEDIATE changes.

Our problem as a society, which is one of our MAIN problems as a society, is that we just don't care enough to do those kinds of things anymore. We'd rather sit back and be lazy about it and hope the government does it FOR us.

As a society, we've just about completely given this country away.

We're pretty much content with it though, as long as we are continually provided with our entertainment "necessities" to keep us pacified.

Corporations as well as private companies, have to pay their workers a fair wage, if not the workers will simply leave and work for another company. It's called the cost of labor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not to aid and abet the claims of Government power BUT, technically, the Federal Government has sole power to "regulate" interstate Commerce. They could use that blanket statement to justify controlling pay and compensation for any " Interstate" entity. As long as the laws are uniform.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

 

[Taomon]

Hmm....have you ever heard of the SEC?

Yes, I worked in securities during the 1990s. The SEC laws were written as protectionist contracts for shareholders. That may sound great on paper, but the reality is that the majority of the population owns less than half of the stock (way less). The top ten percentile (banks, wealthy investors, venture capitalist groups) own the majority of stock.

So if you are earning a living and a venture capitalist group becomes interested in your company, they can buy controlling shares (like what happened to EquiServe with DST Systems in 2000), or they can buy enough shares to become an activist shareholder (like what happened to my company last year).

Activist shareholders will demand that a company entertain offers to sell or simply buy the company, gut the management and unnecessary jobs like IT Support, Training, HR and so on and then sell it for a profit.

The laws are set up in such a way that the workers and CEOs of the companies do not have a choice, they have to entertain the offers to purchase and/or take them if the shareholders will benefit.

And a company that sells stock to it's employees is not safe from that. I almost lost my job over the actions of a greedy venture capitalist.

The SEC makes sure that the shareholders benefit over the workers.

 

[pegwinn]

Not to aid and abet the claims of Government power BUT, technically, the Federal Government has sole power to "regulate" interstate Commerce. They could use that blanket statement to justify controlling pay and compensation for any " Interstate" entity. As long as the laws are uniform.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

They already have, do the detriment of the nation. Note the latest round of hearings where they are essentially telling the CEO's that they don't deserve the pay they get.

They also use the "general welfare" and the "necessary and proper" statements wrongly as well.

 

[Taomon]

It is shared equally, depending on stock, if you own more stock you have more of a say. Because you have more at stake. It seems pretty fair to me. Although I do realize that there are unprincipled CEOs. But they come very few and far in between, the vast majority are principled CEOs who make a lot of money but have a lot of responsibility.

Shouldn't our elections also be the same way? I say, do away with the electoral college.

 

[Paulie]

Corporations as well as private companies, have to pay their workers a fair wage, if not the workers will simply leave and work for another company. It's called the cost of labor.

Corporations are private companies, first of all.

Second, you are correct about fair wages. There really is no law though, except the minimum wage. A company can pay you minimum wage, and risk losing the labor, but that's their choice.

You can't really make that argument though, and then be pissed that there are people working there for "unfair" wages, when they choose to stay there and accept them.

Like I said in my post that you quoted, if we as a society REALLY cared enough about those unfair wages, we'd boycott those companies and DEMAND that they raise their wages, and spread some of the boardroom wealth around to their employees.

The companies would respond to massive sales decreases MUCH quicker than they'd respond to losing a few disgruntled employees. MOST employees will stay because they have nothing else to fall back on, and the companies KNOW that.