|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay."
Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement?
|
Do not mistake my call for an even keel as a defense of flagrantly stupid union policies, rather that Jonny's "unions generally weaken the labor force, mmkay" belongs in whatever shitty textbook or Economist article he learned it from. Cursory appraisals of widespread phenomena like that are part of why the facade of bipartisan explanation is oftentimes a standin for an agenda
|
On November 07 2013 03:57 farvacola wrote:
Do not mistake my call for an even keel as a defense of flagrantly stupid union policies, rather that Jonny's "unions generally weaken the labor force, mmkay" belongs in whatever shitty textbook or Economist article he learned it from. Cursory appraisals of widespread phenomena like that are part of why the facade of bipartisan explanation is oftentimes a standin for an agenda
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/HPW%20Unions%20%28640x343%29.jpg)
Unions typically fall into the "union no employee involvement" category. source
|
On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement?
In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?
Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though.
|
You should probably read the paper instead of just looking at the pretty graph, Jonny. From page 8,
Empirically, the evidence on the impact of unions on productivity is mixed.
|
On November 07 2013 04:21 farvacola wrote:You should probably read the paper instead of just looking at the pretty graph, Jonny. From page 8,
IDK farv, a graph that shows union shops as either the most or least productive seems to demonstrate "mixed" pretty well, at least to me.
|
On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though.
You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do.
And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former.
|
On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former.
key word "should"
but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already.
|
On November 07 2013 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:21 farvacola wrote:You should probably read the paper instead of just looking at the pretty graph, Jonny. From page 8, Empirically, the evidence on the impact of unions on productivity is mixed. IDK farv, a graph that shows union shops as either the most or least productive seems to demonstrate "mixed" pretty well, at least to me.
Then why are your posts describing unions and their impact on productivity/the labor force entirely bereft of anything even remotely resembling "mixed"? I'll just post the rest of that paragraph.
On the other hand, unions can lower productivity if they constrain the choice set of management and pursue restrictive practice. Empirically, the evidence on the impact of unions on productivity is mixed. Most empirical work has looked at industry level productivity and union density data or industry specific studies. The range of estimates on the impact of unions on labor productivity runs from minus 3 per cent in Clark (1984) to plus 22 percent in Brown and Medoff (1978) to no effect in Freeman and Medoff (1984). We try to reconcile these disparate findings by interacting the union status of an establishment with other workplace practices. In this way we try to distinguish between different types of labor management relations "S" traditional and new "S" and their impact on labor productivity. The only other paper that has tried to do something similar is by Cooke (1994) where he examines the interaction of union status, profit sharing and employee involvement on productivity in a sample of manufacturing establishments in Michigan in 1989.
So, right from the background discussion start, the authors of this paper make it clear that alternative studies on the matter exist, some of which show that unions actually improve workplace productivity by a substantial percentage. In fact, the authors of this paper even make it clear that their methodology is relatively new and untested as a means of research on the subject of unions and workplace productivity.
Your posts on the topic, presumably with the underpinning of the above study, are missing all of the nuance given evidence above, and it is in this way that you are being disingenuous with your presentation of information. You don't use the words maybe, one study shows, or some evidence points to, and yet, your source material is full of them. This is, for lack of better words, bad.
|
On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already.
What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company.
|
On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company.
That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails.
|
On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit? Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though.
Laying off workers when a firm is turning a profit isn't necessarily wrong. Ex. B of A laying off mortgage processors when mortgage processing is down is perfectly reasonable, even if B of A is turning a nice profit as a whole.
CEO / corporate excess is an issue that gets lots of attention. It's something that the right does not typically want to deal with publicly, because they see the private sector as already working on it. It's also worth noting that previous attempts at reigning in CEO pay with government regs may have backfired and lead to greater CEO pay. (source, see comments on section 162)
|
On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails.
What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
|
keep in mind that "ownership" is a hegemonic formation in a joint stock company. people who own shares through multiple layers of mediation (say, though mutual funds, ETF, or a pension fund, etc) don't actually engage in the responsibilities of ownership in the way in which the classical liberals would have understood it. They are absentee owners, something which liberalism should be committed to opposing, if it were to be employed consistently
this leads to problem like "pump-and-dump" tactics, etc, where the executive is able to extract value at the expense of ownership. these are different factions of capital and they don't share the same interests.
|
On November 07 2013 04:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 03:57 farvacola wrote:
Do not mistake my call for an even keel as a defense of flagrantly stupid union policies, rather that Jonny's "unions generally weaken the labor force, mmkay" belongs in whatever shitty textbook or Economist article he learned it from. Cursory appraisals of widespread phenomena like that are part of why the facade of bipartisan explanation is oftentimes a standin for an agenda Unions typically fall into the "union no employee involvement" category. source
farvacola is doing the work, but just saying arguments against Unions belong to the beginning of the 20th century.
On November 07 2013 04:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit? Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. Laying off workers when a firm is turning a profit isn't necessarily wrong. Ex. B of A laying off mortgage processors when mortgage processing is down is perfectly reasonable, even if B of A is turning a nice profit as a whole. CEO / corporate excess is an issue that gets lots of attention. It's something that the right does not typically want to deal with publicly, because they see the private sector as already working on it. It's also worth noting that previous attempts at reigning in CEO pay with government regs may have backfired and lead to greater CEO pay. ( source, see comments on section 162)
Microeconomics and macroeconomics have completly different point of view on laying off workers. We're in a society that is way too dominated by microeconomics (the discussion around competitivity is a good exemple of that, where seeking competitivity from the perspective of the firm is just nonsensical for anyone who study the competitivity of nations).
|
On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will.
|
On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will.
Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable).
You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer.
|
On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 03:25 farvacola wrote:
It is incredibly non-useful to discuss unions in an ahistoric vacuum; "unions usually" circa 1965 means something entirely different than, "unions usually" circa 2008.
My point is that unions are definitely complicit in a lot of troubling wage distortions and budget deficits, but to lay these problems at the feet of unions alone is to ignore what globalization is and what it does. Unions need to change, but they are not fundamentally flawed enough to say, "unions are bad, mmkay." Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/
|
On November 07 2013 05:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 05:04 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:53 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:39 Roe wrote:On November 07 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On November 07 2013 04:16 Adila wrote:On November 07 2013 03:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Take globalization out of the equation for a moment. In what universe is it reasonable to demand to be paid 6-figure pensions for the rest of your life upon retirement? In what universe is it reasonable for CEOs to get golden parachutes while the company underperforms? In what universe do CEOs get huge bonuses while laying off thousands of workers even with the company making a large profit?Are some union demands completely out of line? of course. They need to be reined in a bit when they do. However, a lot of the same people who want to rein in unions don't seem to have the same appetite when it comes to CEO/corporate excess though. You answered your own question. If the CEO runs the company well and helps the company make a ton of money, then he should be compensated accordingly. Despite popular liberal opinion, corporations don't exist to employ people. They exist to make money. A good executive is worth his weight in gold, which is why executives are paid so much. It's not a job that everyone can do. And comparing the corporate excess of executive compensation to union demands is pointless. It's apples and oranges on just about every level imaginable. For one, the compensation of the CEO is usually tied to the well-being and profitability of the company (stock options). This is not the case with compensation given to a typical employee, regardless of whether the employee is in a union. Second, executive compensation, even if it looks outrageous, is small potatoes on the corporate ledger compared to employee benefits. The latter makes companies go bankrupt. Not the former. key word "should" but how are you going to make sure this happens? (it won't in a free market) they'll keep paying themselves masses even if the company goes under because of their leadership. Discard your faith in the free market already. What are you talking about? Executives don't determine their own salary. The ownership does. If the ownership and the executives are the same people, that's their own fucking business and they can do whatever they want with their company. That's ultimately what it comes down to: they can do whatever they want with the company. You give me no assurances that they will fail when the company fails. What more failure do you need than the destruction and utter loss of a valuable asset? If I own a company that generates $2 million per year and is valued at around $10 million, I have pretty damned good incentive to keep the thing afloat rather than run it into the ground. My personal loss in destroying the company would be far greater than that of any employee of mine. Executives and owners aren't looking to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. But what exactly is the incentive to keep it afloat? And is your claim really empirically proven? There's no lack of cases where CEOs have tanked the company and made millions in severance/golden parachutes. Clearly if you can run away and make millions then people will. Keeping a job? Getting a new job? Maximizing the value of their compensation (they aren't going to make as much money tanking the company as opposed to keeping/making the company profitable). You're acting as if executives are intentionally destroying companies to make a quick buck, which is ridiculous. Bad management happens. Executives don't always do a good job or get a good result for their company. That doesn't mean they are intentionally destroying their employer. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/ayn_rand_killed_sears_partner/
So the guy was a bad manager?
|
On November 07 2013 04:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2013 04:21 farvacola wrote:You should probably read the paper instead of just looking at the pretty graph, Jonny. From page 8, Empirically, the evidence on the impact of unions on productivity is mixed. IDK farv, a graph that shows union shops as either the most or least productive seems to demonstrate "mixed" pretty well, at least to me. Then why are your posts describing unions and their impact on productivity/the labor force entirely bereft of anything even remotely resembling "mixed"? I'll just post the rest of that paragraph. Show nested quote +On the other hand, unions can lower productivity if they constrain the choice set of management and pursue restrictive practice. Empirically, the evidence on the impact of unions on productivity is mixed. Most empirical work has looked at industry level productivity and union density data or industry specific studies. The range of estimates on the impact of unions on labor productivity runs from minus 3 per cent in Clark (1984) to plus 22 percent in Brown and Medoff (1978) to no effect in Freeman and Medoff (1984). We try to reconcile these disparate findings by interacting the union status of an establishment with other workplace practices. In this way we try to distinguish between different types of labor management relations "S" traditional and new "S" and their impact on labor productivity. The only other paper that has tried to do something similar is by Cooke (1994) where he examines the interaction of union status, profit sharing and employee involvement on productivity in a sample of manufacturing establishments in Michigan in 1989. So, right from the background discussion start, the authors of this paper make it clear that alternative studies on the matter exist, some of which show that unions actually improve workplace productivity by a substantial percentage. In fact, the authors of this paper even make it clear that their methodology is relatively new and untested as a means of research on the subject of unions and workplace productivity. Your posts on the topic, presumably with the underpinning of the above study, are missing all of the nuance given evidence above, and it is in this way that you are being disingenuous with your presentation of information. You don't use the words maybe, one study shows, or some evidence points to, and yet, your source material is full of them. This is, for lack of better words, bad.
I've made more nuanced posts on the topic in the past. The only agenda I have on the topic is that the old school union form is crap and needs to die. The 'typical' (or at least stereotypical) union dynamic of us vs them, labor vs management is unproductive and unhealthy for the organization and greater economy as a whole.
I don't disagree that unions can be useful and have a place. There's a lot of potential there. But I do think they need a lot of improvements and before that happens I'm not going to view them, as a whole, very favorably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
