I finally got around to checking Citizen Stanislaw's source and it's the article I linked aboved. Yes, it's the Moonie paper. But they actually name a specific Teamster Treasurer, who, according to the TDU article I linked above, actually did make $400 and whatever thousand.
Citizen Stanislaw's post, for whatever reason, snipped names, and looked, at least to me, like it was claiming that it was normal for Teamster local officers to make that much money. But the article doesn't claim that.
My apologies, ghost of Reverend Moon.
I was also curious about the National Production Workers Union, whom I had never heard of after 20 years paying attention to/being in the labor movement.
It turns out they appear to be the front group of a Chicago mob family who got ousted from the Teamsters years ago as part of some Windy City gangland shiznit.
> this <What the hell is a non-linear derivative? That sounds like wizard's speak.I still don't get it.
I think I got it now.
|
One thing to keep in mind, is that while CEO pay in the USA is very high, it is also typically laden with incentives and is stock rich. Meaning that if the company performs well, the CEO is well paid. If it doesn't, while he's not broke by any means, he may very well not make nearly as much money as he had hoped.
Yip, I spelled it wrong. Whoops! Everything I say till the day I die is ridiculus and clearly all arguments I make are ridiculosus.
No; just wondering why so many political conservatives misspell that particular word in exactly that particular way; it strains the bounds of coincidence and implies some intermediate causation. Is there some writer you all admire who misspells it like that, so you're used to seeing it in print that way? Or some radio personality who pronounces the word "REEEEEE-diculous"? In either of those cases, the mystery would be clarified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else think it is ironic that those most opposed to centralization of unchecked power are the ones least bothered by the consolidation of wealth, which is basically centralization of unchecked power...
The view seems to be that it's somehow OK for a corporation or robber baron or religion to have unchecked power; it's just not OK for "the gubbermint."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else think it is ironic that those most opposed to centralization of unchecked power are the ones least bothered by the consolidation of wealth, which is basically centralization of unchecked power...The view seems to be that it's somehow OK for a corporation or robber baron or religion to have unchecked power; it's just not OK for "the gubbermint."
Ironically the only institution that, in theory at least, has a primary mission statement of improving life on earth for those who are a part of it.
The solution to your quandry is that MANY, perhaps even most political conservatives, are southern born. The word is pronounced RE-di-clas in the vernacular and creeps into spelling.
That might be... I hadn't thought of looking for a regional dialectic explanation. Thanks!
I'm not actually a political conservative, I'm a radical centrist
Errr, my aunt in NM wants to kill all immigrants, wipe the Spanish language from the face of America, imprison all African-Americans, euthanize the homeless, dismantle the government, and live on a feudal estate. She is very outspoken in referring to herself as a "moderate."
Just remember the root of the word is 'ridicule', and you should never misspell it again.
I'm left of her.
Pinko!
No, seriously, Attila the Hun is left of her.
Pol Pot?
Yip, I spelled it wrong. Whoops! Everything I say till the day I die is ridiculus and clearly all arguments I make are ridiculosus.
You didn't make an argument, you built a straw man.
And that... by comparison, I think ALL salaries over what I'm making are rediculous. My tax returns should be checked every year and everyone's salary set to my level or less.
...a position taken by no one in this thread.
But it gets tiresome to point this sort of thing out again and again. So I took the lazy way out and made fun of a spelling error.
One thing to keep in mind, is that while CEO pay in the USA is very high, it is also typically laden with incentives and is stock rich. Meaning that if the company performs well, the CEO is well paid. If it doesn't, while he's not broke by any means, he may very well not make nearly as much money as he had hoped.
That stock's value is guarded against loss in ways that are difficult to grasp by people who aren't professional stock brokers and accountants. CEO's leave companies all the time that are in dire straights, yet somehow manage to drag huge earnings along with them.
Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts. We're just suggesting that CEO's probably aren't actually doing 350 times as much work as their normal employees.
Here's a good video that helps describe how wealth is distributed in the US.
No you're not!! Don't ever say that!!
<panic>
Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts.
Um, hello? I mean, I'm only listed as the number one contributor to this thread...
I am in the wrong line of work!
Lisa
LOL. Or you pay your lackeys too well.
We're just suggesting that CEO's probably aren't actually doing 350 times as much work as their normal employees.
Though that isn't, and shouldn't be how it works.
If it just came down to how much 'work' someone did, then cleaners would get paid more than IT workers.
Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts.Um, hello?
Assuming the CEO performs work that is of value to the company, would you be opposed to giving them whatever the approximate pay would be if they were in your union?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am in the wrong line of work!
Lisa
You just need better counsel to represent you, as CEO, against you (and Vic), as managing members of Paizo, in salary negotiations. You clearly have a conflict of interest which is limiting your ability to be appropriately compensated.
If it just came down to how much 'work' someone did, then cleaners would get paid more than IT workers.
Seconded.
All those in favor?
Assuming the CEO performs work that is of value to the company, would you be opposed to giving them whatever the approximate pay would be if they were in your union?Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts.Um, hello?
Before or after the Glorious People's Revolution?
I dropped some hilarious stuff in my posts and no one picked up on it.
Not true. I always enjoy some Moonies.
Nicely worded, citoyen. Even I can agree with that.
Before or after the Glorious People's Revolution?Assuming the CEO performs work that is of value to the company, would you be opposed to giving them whatever the approximate pay would be if they were in your union?Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts.Um, hello?
Every people's revolution so far has still left people in charge of organizations. Do those people not deserve compensation for their time and effort, just as the other workers do?
|
|
One thing to keep in mind, is that while CEO pay in the USA is very high, it is also typically laden with incentives and is stock rich. Meaning that if the company performs well, the CEO is well paid. If it doesn't, while he's not broke by any means, he may very well not make nearly as much money as he had hoped.That stock's value is guarded against loss in ways that are difficult to grasp by people who aren't professional stock brokers and accountants. CEO's leave companies all the time that are in dire straights, yet somehow manage to drag huge earnings along with them.
Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts. We're just suggesting that CEO's probably aren't actually doing 350 times as much work as their normal employees.
Here's a good video that helps describe how wealth is distributed in the US.
The Golden Parachute is there for the protection of stockholders, at least in theory.
CEOs in American companies have enormous power over their boards, which are usually exceptionally tame - the Chairman usually is the CEO after all, and he appoints all of them. This is a large part of why they make so much money - they control who is on the compensation committees. Steve Jobs was famously working for a salary of $1 a year after he returned to Apple... but he controlled the board and was loading himself up with backdated stock options.
When the time for a change is apparent to a board and the shareholders, a CEO can fight being fired. He can make that struggle ruinous to shareholders which it has happened before. On the other hand, if you give him a golden parachute, he's more likely to leave without a fight. Stan O'Neil, the disastrous second-to-last CEO of Merrill Lynch was a good example of this: they gave him an enormous amount of money to leave, and he did so without too much argument.
Every people's revolution so far has still left people in charge of organizations. Do those people not deserve compensation for their time and effort, just as the other workers do?Before or after the Glorious People's Revolution?Assuming the CEO performs work that is of value to the company, would you be opposed to giving them whatever the approximate pay would be if they were in your union?Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts.Um, hello?
Bah! I was serious for the first two days of this thread. Tonight I am stoned!
Up against the wall, motherf~~~ers!
(Present company excluded, Ms. Stevens)
You sir, win the cookie. You checked for sources and formed your own opinion.
Nom nom nom. I like cookies.
Btw, if we ever get around to that Russian Civil War game, I call dibbs on Trotsky. Either as himself or as played by Tom Courtenay.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
CEOs in American companies have enormous power over their boards, which are usually exceptionally tame - the Chairman usually is the CEO after all, and he appoints all of them. This is a large part of why they make so much money - they control who is on the compensation committees. Steve Jobs was famously working for a salary of $1 a year after he returned to Apple... but he controlled the board and was loading himself up with backdated stock options.
There are justifications, reasons, and other explanations for CEO pay, but the above is an almost entirely incorrect description of corporate law and governance.
1. The stockholders appoint the board. The board can usually fill vacancies, but the chair doesn't have any particular power to do so. Companies can adopt some anti-takeover provisions to keep stockholders from ousting the entire board (e.g., only a portion of directors are elected each year), and some have those provisions, but the shareholders ultimately have the authority to appoint and remove board members. Public companies hold annual meetings in which the directors are re-elected. To the extent Steve Jobs controlled the board of Apple (I have no idea if that is true), it was likely though his stock ownership position as a founder, not as a result of his service as the chairman of the board.
2. Backdated stock options were a huge problem about 10 years ago, but the IRS adopted some pretty nasty regulations to tamp them down (which, unfortunately, apply to private companies where the illiquidity of the stock means that back-dated options weren't really a problem...). A CEO receiving a back-dated option these days would be subject to some nasty excise taxes.
When the time for a change is apparent to a board and the shareholders, a CEO can fight being fired. He can make that struggle ruinous to shareholders which it has happened before. On the other hand, if you give him a golden parachute, he's more likely to leave without a fight. Stan O'Neil, the disastrous second-to-last CEO of Merrill Lynch was a good example of this: they gave him an enormous amount of money to leave, and he did so without too much argument.
This is much closer to the mark. A CEO's employment agreement is going to have specific provisions of what constitutes for cause termination that are difficult to prove absent some really bad acts (e.g., embezzlement.). The fact that the company loses money might not be a result of the CEO's mismanagement - it might be because of general economic conditions, it might be because of other officers, etc. Because it's so hard to prove that the CEO did something wrong, they typically get a severance package to sign a release and walk away.
|
|
Shareholders in theory have this power, but in practice, it's often quite different.
You can buy shares in the Washington Post company publicly, but the the publicly traded shares, which represent the bulk of the equity only have 5% of the voting rights as the privately held shares, for instance.
CEOs in practice have enormous control over who is on their boards and who isn't - and they are often the Chairmen as well. Moreover, they spend all of their time working on one company, the flown in board members have careers and lives away from the business, and are part-timing it for a nice cheque.
Most boardmembers take their responsibilities quite seriously... others not so much, but regardless, they are in an inferior position to management concerning the state of the business and the industry it operates in.
If it just came down to how much 'work' someone did, then cleaners would get paid more than IT workers.Seconded.
All those in favor?
As an IT worker, I cannot support this.
Also, why the hell did I bother with this thread?
You appear to be a very nice man, Citizen TOZ, but given the choice between Companera Consuela y sus hermanas and all you IT yuppies...well, it's really no choice at all.
For an office cleaner and goblin government!
Down with CEOs and IT workers!
Vive le Galt!
One thing to keep in mind, is that while CEO pay in the USA is very high, it is also typically laden with incentives and is stock rich. Meaning that if the company performs well, the CEO is well paid. If it doesn't, while he's not broke by any means, he may very well not make nearly as much money as he had hoped.That stock's value is guarded against loss in ways that are difficult to grasp by people who aren't professional stock brokers and accountants. CEO's leave companies all the time that are in dire straights, yet somehow manage to drag huge earnings along with them.
Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts. We're just suggesting that CEO's probably aren't actually doing 350 times as much work as their normal employees.
Here's a good video that helps describe how wealth is distributed in the US.
I groaned when he appealed to authority within the first six seconds.
A Harvard business professor and economist...Did you know, 65 Fortune 500 company CEOs got their degree at Harvard?
That guy must have skipped a class or something.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/ articles/2012/05/14/where-the-fortune-500-ceos-went-to-school
It wasn't an appeal to authority, it was a citing of a source. An appeal to authority would be "because a Harvard business and economics professor said the following, you know it's true".
What he did was cite his source.
Every people's revolution so far has still left people in charge of organizations. Do those people not deserve compensation for their time and effort, just as the other workers do?Before or after the Glorious People's Revolution?Assuming the CEO performs work that is of value to the company, would you be opposed to giving them whatever the approximate pay would be if they were in your union?Also, no one is suggesting that CEO's shouldn't be paid for their time and efforts.Um, hello?Bah! I was serious for the first two days of this thread. Tonight I am stoned!
Up against the wall, m@@*$$*~#&@$s!
(Present company excluded, Ms. Stevens)
Oh, I agree with most of the current crop, up against the wall.
But beyond that, if anyone filling the CEO post were compensated like a standard worker, would you find that concept itself problematic, if it was found that that company functioned best with a hierarchy and a CEO at the top?