I note that one of the charities kicking around the Australian trade union movement, APHEDA, had a flat salary structure where people all got basically the same wage regardless of position.
They are the charity/philanthropic/humanitarian arm of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and their mandate is actually quite good.
www.apheda.org.au
Not sure 'flat' is the ideal either.
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.
Considering that Merrill Lynch essentially went under as it was, I'm not sure what a golden parachute protected the company from. Merrill Lynch had already declined in value per share from $98 to $21 by the time BoA bought them (which they bought at the price of $28), though a couple months later, well after O'Neal had left, it further fell to $7.
If anything, O'Neal (not O'Neil) should have faced a civil suit, though I don't think criminal charges would have been appropriate. There are a couple of other individuals who were at Merrill Lynch I think should be targeted for criminal charges, but I can't find my notes with their names at the moment.
[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?
Now that the THC has worn off (for now):
I am pretty certain that we've been in enough threads together that you should know by now that my issue isn't with CEOs--either any particular individual or as a group. My issue is with capitalism, private property, and class society.
My issue is with capitalism, private property, and class society.
Oh, is that all?
For starters.
For starters.
I posed this question to you recently in another thread (in fairness I think you missed it), but:
If we did have a revolution, exactly what makes you think we'd end up with something better than what we have now?
I'm also a firm believer in capitalism as a resource allocation mechanism...what do you propose as a practical alternative? Do you believe central planning is viable?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Shareholders in theory have this power, but in practice, it's often quite different.
Please, tell me about your experience with shareholders and board members in practice. I attend 3-5 board meetings per month, advise boards on various items such as their fiduciary duties to shareholders and assist them when they terminate or hire a CEO, so I'd love to compare notes with you on how corporations are actually run.
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.
Whether or not the shares are publicly traded is irrelevant to the fact that it is the holders of the shares who elect the board. It is the case that there is a great deal of overlap between the individuals who control the shares and who are on the board, but make no mistake, it is the shareholders who have ultimate control over the board, not the CEO.
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.
Again, would love to hear more about your experience with the control CEO's have over their boards, as well as the powers you think come from being the chairman of the board (hint: it's typically more of a ceremonial position than an official position with authority). I can confirm that there is a great deal of overlap in board membership, but unless the CEO has some other power (e.g., a founder, such as the case in a company like Google, or a rockstar, such as Jack Welsh at GE), they don't have any control over the board and they certainly aren't granted any such authority by virtue of their title as CEO. The CEO reports to the board, not the other way around. Yes, they have a great deal of latitude to run the company, and yes, the Board generally approves their decisions, but to characterize the CEO as having the ability to control or appoint the board is about as accurate as claiming that most cases are resolved by break-down confessions of witnesses on the stand. In other words, what you see on tv and in movies regarding boards and CEOs is, uh, fictional.
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.
Usually, at least a handful of board members are recruited becasue they are experts in the business and industry in question. The board doesn't directly manage the company, but their role isn't to do so. The board is supposed to make decisions on certain key items, appoint the officers, etc.
The CEO is to a company what the quarterback is to a football team. He's the most valuable player, he certainly controls the game while on the field, but he takes advice from the coach (board) and is ultimately beholden to the owner (shareholders). This isn't always true (e.g., sometime the CEO is also a significant shareholder), but it's true the vast majority of the time, and the minority of the time is just that. You might as well believe that all union leaders make over a quarter million dollars if you also believe your description of corporate governance and the realities of CEO's is the typical situation.
I am pretty certain that we've been in enough threads together that you should know by now that my issue isn't with CEOs--either any particular individual or as a group. My issue is with capitalism, private property, and class society.
The problem isn't private property vs public property, its the degree.
We are NOT sharing underwear for example. Thats going to stay private property.
|
Considering that Merrill...
Ultimately, yes, Merrill Lynch did fail.
But they made a serious effort to right the ship before it collapsed - a large part of that effort was canning Stan O'Neal (sorry about the misspelling), and getting him out the door with what was an enormous exit package (one that shrank tremendously in value as the stock price collapsed).
But it got him out the door and allowed them to hire someone who might have been able to fix their problems, John Thain, the CEO of the NYSE-EURONEXT. Thain was unsuccessful, of course, as the company was pummeled in the sub-prime crisis and sold to BoA, but O'Neal had to go and throwing $161M at him got him out.
Again, would love to hear more about your experience with the control CEO's have over their boards, as well as the powers you think come from being the chairman of the board (hint: it's typically more of a ceremonial position than an official position with authority).
I think it gives you soul powers.
The problem isn't private property vs public property, its the degree.
We are NOT sharing underwear for example. Thats going to stay private property.
As I drove off to my comrade's house this morning to plan our intervention into the Occupy New England confab this weekend, I knew I should have been more precise here.
Anytime a Marxist says "private property" he (or she) means "private ownership of the means of the production."
I think it gives you soul powers.
For a loud and frequent advocate of revolution, you seem curiously unwilling to talk about what you'd actually do once you overthrew the stooges of the plutocracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For starters.I posed this question to you recently in another thread (in fairness I think you missed it), but:
If we did have a revolution, exactly what makes you think we'd end up with something better than what we have now?
I'm also a firm believer in capitalism as a resource allocation mechanism...what do you propose as a practical alternative? Do you believe central planning is viable?
Any ol' revolution? No.
International proletarian socialist revolution? Yes, I think it would be awesome.
I was just watching a television commercial about the 1.6 million homeless children in this country alone. Meanwhile, a newly-wedded couple that I know told me about this awesome house they looked at, but, alas, since the market crash of 2008, the owner (I think he said Fannie Mae, can't remember now) just let it sit there and rot and that, what would have taken $10k to maintain now would take $150k to fix (his words, not mine). He then told me that the realtor told him that this was only all too common.
I am not a firm believer in capitalism as a resource allocation mechanism and, frankly, am bewildered that anyone could think so.
I am not a big fan of central planning, although, sometimes, when I gaze at Cuba's health care system, I get all misty eyed.
I do believe, however, that democratic planning based on a collectivized economy is the only road out of the barbarism and manifest inequality of a world system that leaves millions to die of AIDS when retroviral drugs are readily available, but can get every last aging plutocrat his Viagra.
But that's just me.
For a loud and frequent advocate of revolution, you seem curiously unwilling to talk about what you'd actually do once you overthrew the stooges of the plutocracy.
Patience, dear grasshopper. It's easier to link soul tunes then answer your questions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pateince, dear grasshopper. It's easier to link soul tunes then answer your questions.For a loud and frequent advocate of revolution, you seem curiously unwilling to talk about what you'd actually do once you overthrew the stooges of the plutocracy.
BUT I WANT IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:P
As I drove off to my comrade's house this morning to plan our intervention into the Occupy New England confab this weekend, I knew I should have been more precise here.The problem isn't private property vs public property, its the degree.
We are NOT sharing underwear for example. Thats going to stay private property.
Well you never know how far out on the skippy hippie spectrum someone is on the internet...
...and more importantly the imagery was too funny to pass up.
Anytime a Marxist says "private property" he (or she) means "private ownership of the means of the production."
Is this like government ownership, a small group of people ownership? How's this work?
I was just watching a television commercial about the 1.6 million homeless children in this country alone. Meanwhile, a newly-wedded couple that I know told me about this awesome house they looked at, but, alas, since the market crash of 2008, the owner (I think he said Fannie Mae, can't remember now) just let it sit there and rot and that, what would have taken $10k to maintain now would take $150k to fix (his words, not mine). He then told me that the realtor told him that this was only all too common.
I am not a firm believer in capitalism as a resource allocation mechanism and, frankly, am bewildered that anyone could think so.
You seem to be confusing my support for capitalism with support for our current structure. We have all kinds of problems, usually centering around a lack of transparency. Of course, it's a fair point given that I the one harping on practicality. However, I would argue that that the house in your example may not exist in the first place without capitalism.
I have trouble picturing how " democratic planning based on a collectivized economy" would work. Do you have any practical examples, especially large-scale ones?
Is this like government ownership, a small group of people ownership? How's this work?
It would be like state ownership, with the caveat that first we would smash the present, capitalist state, and replace it with a workers state.
Also, "democratic planning" sounds pretty terrible to me.
To be clear: I think capitalism is a good way to allocated the tools of production (capital). I am not saying it is an ideal mechanism for distributing the resulting wealth.
You seem to be confusing my support for capitalism with support for our current structure. We have all kinds of problems, usually centering around a lack of transparency. Of course, it's a fair point given that I the one harping on practicality. However, I would argue that that the house in your example may not exist in the first place without capitalism.
I have trouble picturing how " democratic planning based on a collectivized economy" would work. Do you have any practical examples, especially large-scale ones?
Since democratic planning based on a collectivized economy has never existed, no, I don't have examples from history.
However, I think we would agree (I've read some of your posts in the past, but we've never really interacted), that, for example, worker productivity is not really much of a problem here in the United States. In fact, probably the opposite is true: those who are fortunate enough to have jobs are overworked, while millions of others have no employment at all or are underemployed or whatever. If the profit motive was taken out of production, we could share all of the necessary work among the population and produce enough to satisfy the material needs of the entire planet.
Now, let's say that we decide that we want to tackle issues of environmental degradation and transportation. We come up with plans to retrofit the automobile industry to produce more environmentally sound cars (sorry if I'm a bit vague--I'm not a science dude), we come up with plans to expand public transportation, we come up with plans to replace over-the-road shipping with rail lines (what would my Teamster brethren say?!?), etc., etc. Different communities have different needs, and those communities could come up with their own proposals as to how to deal with the situation and how it effects them locally. Since the profit motive of the auto barons and airline asshats has been removed, and since, say, the entire state of Michigan would be put back to work (and not doing 50-60 hours work weeks) there would be no limit to what we could accomplish.
I am afraid I am rather tired and perhaps not as coherent as I could be, but how do those examples sound?
we come up with plans to expand public transportation, we come up with plans to replace over-the-road shipping with rail lines (what would my Teamster brethren say?!?), etc., etc. Since the profit motive of the auto barons and airline asshats has been removed, and since, say, the entire state of Michigan would be put back to work (and not doing 50-60 hours work weeks) there would be no limit to what we could accomplish. I am afraid I am rather tired and perhaps not as coherent as I could be, but how do those examples sound?
I wish I could hand over the western half of Pennsylvania to you -- along with everything in it -- for a trial run at that. Pretty much all of the roads in Western PA are windy 1-lane strips of rubble that lead nowhere in particular, and they often lack streetlights and/or even signs. There is only one way in or out of Pittsburgh at each end -- a tiny chokepoint tunnel, usually closed for road work or due to an accident -- and no way to go around the city without going 100 miles out of your way. There is no public rail system, and no subways. There are rivers everywhere, but no public water-based transport system. The bus service has been cut in half. And the city and Penn DOT and Port Authority all claim to be bankrupt and unable to do anything about any of this.
To be honest, I should be looking up stats and planning the second session of my Galtan gulag campaign (this week the party will be facing Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Gray Gardeners and the Squirrel Master!), but here's some more campaign lit to look over:
(When I met Comrade Sawant last weekend--the weekend before?--I tried to interest her in adding Paizo to the list of corporations to nationalize, but she just looked at me like I had three heads.)
Voting is still for ninnies, but it is also possible that I am an ultra-left.
|
|
we come up with plans to expand public transportation, we come up with plans to replace over-the-road shipping with rail lines (what would my Teamster brethren say?!?), etc., etc. Since the profit motive of the auto barons and airline asshats has been removed, and since, say, the entire state of Michigan would be put back to work (and not doing 50-60 hours work weeks) there would be no limit to what we could accomplish. I am afraid I am rather tired and perhaps not as coherent as I could be, but how do those examples sound?I wish I could hand over the western half of Pennsylvania to you -- along with everything in it -- for a trial run at that. Pretty much all of the roads in Western PA are windy 1-lane strips of rubble that lead nowhere in particular, and they often lack streetlights and/or even signs. There is only one way in or out of Pittsburgh at each end -- a tiny chokepoint tunnel, usually closed for road work or due to an accident -- and no way to go around the city without going 100 miles out of your way. There is no public rail system, and no subways. There are rivers everywhere, but no public water-based transport system. The bus service has been cut in half. And the city and Penn DOT and Port Authority all claim to be bankrupt and unable to do anything about any of this.
Pittsburgh does have a public rail system and a subway.
The little roads throughout most of western PA are because nobody lives out here. No reason to build nice roads when no one drives on them. The lack of road signs does stink - got me lost a few days ago near the border with WV, but there are little SR XXXX signs on many (not all) of the roads out here.
Pittsburgh does have a public rail system and a subway.
Where?! Do they actually go anywhere? A 0.25-mile stretch through the shopping district (which is pretty much what Houston had) is a tourist attraction and/or kiddie ride, not an actual means of public transportation.
EDIT: Looked it up. The subway/light rail is combined and runs basically downtown-only, and then down into Bethel Park of all places, where pretty much no one would ever need to go to/from. The eastern suburbs and townships are still totally isolated, and the airport (west of the city), likewise.
Hey Anklebiter:
I'm at work, and probably won't be able to properly read your post until tonight, but one bit caught my eye:
"If the profit motive was taken out of production."
That's probably where we disagree. I think the profit motive is important to driving efficiency, BUT
(1) It should be the only concern, nor should it serve as a moral "get-out-of-jail-free" card as it presently seems to.
(2) The resulting distribution of said profits does not need to be nearly as skewed as it is in order to drive efficiency.
I'm a left-of-center guy who hates many real-world outcomes...I'm just not sure I really see a better system in practice. I think we'd be better off fine-tuning the system we have than blowing it up. YMMV.
|
|
Pittsburgh does have a public rail system and a subway.Where?! Do they actually go anywhere? A 0.25-mile stretch through the shopping district (which is pretty much what Houston had) is a tourist attraction and/or kiddie ride, not an actual means of public transportation.
EDIT: Looked it up. The subway/light rail is combined and runs basically downtown-only, and then down into Bethel Park of all places, where pretty much no one would ever need to go to/from. The eastern suburbs and townships are still totally isolated, and the airport (west of the city), likewise.
not being a civil engineer working on transit problems in Pittsburgh, but there are those rivers and those hills. it makes building train systems a challenge.
not being a civil engineer working on transit problems in Pittsburgh, but there are those rivers and those hills. it makes building train systems a challenge.
I'd think you'd do what every other civilized city does, and use elevated freeways/railways. It's amazing what they can do with concrete and bridge pilings these days. My understanding is that any number of such plans have been assessed, and the result was that they were technically feasible, but "teh moneyz!" always keeps them from being implemented.
|
|
not being a civil engineer working on transit problems in Pittsburgh, but there are those rivers and those hills. it makes building train systems a challenge.I'd think you'd do what every other civilized city does, and use elevated freeways/railways. It's amazing what they can do with concrete and bridge pilings these days. My understanding is that any number of such plans have been assessed, and the result was that they were technically feasible, but "teh moneyz!" always keeps them from being implemented.
THE MONEYZ is a big, important thing.
And Pittsburgh's best days are past it, unfortunately. Who is going to pay for these things?
Considering that Merrill...Ultimately, yes, Merrill Lynch did fail.
But they made a serious effort to right the ship before it collapsed - a large part of that effort was canning Stan O'Neal (sorry about the misspelling), and getting him out the door with what was an enormous exit package (one that shrank tremendously in value as the stock price collapsed).
But it got him out the door and allowed them to hire someone who might have been able to fix their problems, John Thain, the CEO of the NYSE-EURONEXT. Thain was unsuccessful, of course, as the company was pummeled in the sub-prime crisis and sold to BoA, but O'Neal had to go and throwing $161M at him got him out.
If someone presides over a $50 billion loss, you shouldn't need to entice him to leave the company quietly. Again, it's acquiescing too much control to the top tier of management and rewarding them regardless of success or failure. Merrill Lynch nose-dived into the pavement. If Stan O'Neal had been "difficult" (which he was actually), it's not like the company would have done worse.
At best, the parachute should be tied to future performance after the CEO leaves.
Again, I'm not opposed to paying CEO's. I'm not even opposed to paying them well. I just think the ratio should be lower. Stan O'Neal didn't improve the value of his company, he didn't provide them with a valuable service. He didn't earn that money, he basically extorted it.
This has been an interesting thread to read. I'll just say that the CEO of the company I work for should be paid many x's more than I. Also, if the workers ever unionized here, I would quit. How did I ever wander into otd anyhow?
Who is going to pay for these things?
As it stands, nobody, so the city just gets more and more isolated and more and more into decline. Even the $$$ gas companies have just set up offices outside the city -- the side where the airport and WV gas fields are -- and don't bother to acknowledge that the city exists.
But this all got started as wishful thinking about trying Comrade Anklebiter's Central Planning and Workers for the State scheme and seeing if it would actually work.
|
This has been an interesting thread to read. I'll just say that the CEO of the company I work for should be paid many x's more than I. Also, if the workers ever unionized here, I would quit. How did I ever wander into otd anyhow?
No idea, but while you are here...
How many more x's do you think? What are you basing that on? What kind of work do the two of you do?
Why do you not want unions at your job? If those problems were addressed would unions become acceptable?
This has been an interesting thread to read. I'll just say that the CEO of the company I work for should be paid many x's more than I. Also, if the workers ever unionized here, I would quit. How did I ever wander into otd anyhow?No idea, but while you are here...
How many more x's do you think? What are you basing that on? What kind of work do the two of you do?
Why do you not want unions at your job? If those problems were addressed would unions become acceptable?
Whatever x the market bears. If he makes for instance 3x and a company offers him 4x, he could leave. If both offered 4x or whatever x, he stays. I just believe in the price system to set wages. That is why I wouldn't join or work for a unionized company. I individually get my wage based on output and value added. I wouldn't wish to be bucketed into a wage with other workers based on collective output (or bargining). My employer does have an incentive plan that gives bonuses for all employees based on annual company performance, but that is based on a percentage of wage.
Excellent news, Brother Kretzer!
UPS and the Teamsters have reached a tenative agreement. We aren't paying shiznit for insurance, we're getting $5 increases in our pension contributions, and we're getting $4 in 5. (Not that will mean anything to you if you haven't gone through progression yet. :( )
I don't know, there might be more to it than that, but that sounds pretty awesome to me (short of international proletarian socialist revolution).
That plus my local president's other actions this past week have inspired in me the idea to propose at our next general membership meeting that his pay be increased to $200,000.
Vive le Galt!
You don't get your wage based on output and value added. You get your wage based on supply and demand. If they can hire someone cheaper, they will. Output and value added sets a cap, that's all.
That's part of it, and I'm ok with that. I'm thinking that if I add more value, i'll get a raise. I agree that entry level for a set position will be market set, but performance after the fact will have an impact on my wage. Granted that the new pointy-haired boss position would be market set, but getting there was a result of output.
In my experience, in a year in which a large company does well, X amount of money above the goal is awarded by management to themselves in the form of large bonuses, and whatever is left over, if any, is divvied up among the rest of the company as "raises" which may or may not meet inflation (and which may or may not even occur, depending on how little is left). In a year in which the company does poorly, management contents themselves with smaller bonuses, I would assume, but certainly the rest of the company receives no salary adjustments at all.
The idea is that everyone will want to work extra-hard to make sure the company exceeds its goals, and therefore there will be more money for raises. But because there are thousands of employees and because the actual salary adjustments are so constrained, there's very little chance for better performance to equate to an actual raise. The only real way for an employee to increase his/her salary is to go to work for a competitor. My wife's company, seeing that, then started requiring employees to sign non-compete clauses for X number of years after leaving the company, and vigorously pursues lawsuits against those perceived as breaking those clauses.
That may all be different with smaller companies, or with exceptional larger ones.
Whatever x the market bears. If he makes for instance 3x and a company offers him 4x, he could leave. If both offered 4x or whatever x, he stays. I just believe in the price system to set wages. That is why I wouldn't join or work for a unionized company. I individually get my wage based on output and value added. I wouldn't wish to be bucketed into a wage with other workers based on collective output (or bargining). My employer does have an incentive plan that gives bonuses for all employees based on annual company performance, but that is based on a percentage of wage.This has been an interesting thread to read. I'll just say that the CEO of the company I work for should be paid many x's more than I. Also, if the workers ever unionized here, I would quit. How did I ever wander into otd anyhow?No idea, but while you are here...
How many more x's do you think? What are you basing that on? What kind of work do the two of you do?
Why do you not want unions at your job? If those problems were addressed would unions become acceptable?
I'm curious what your exact reason for not wanting collective bargaining is.
Do you think that if a union bargained for a higher wage that would be unfair to the company?
Do you think collective bargaining would result in lower wages and benefits?
On average, union workers receive higher pay and more benefits than their non-union equivalent (even after deducting union membership fees).
Unions:
Median weekly income $917 in 2010
93% have access to medical coverage
93% have access to retirement benefits
Non-unions:
Median weekly income $717
69% have access to medical coverage
64% have access to retirement benefits
[Do you think that if a union bargained for a higher wage that would be unfair to the company?
Do you think collective bargaining would result in lower wages and benefits?
If I understand his argument, he thinks he's way better than his co-workers, and that this will be recognized and rewarded by a benevolent management -- whereas if there were collective bargaining, all the other people who aren't as awesome as he is would just be dragging him down.
Of course, almost everyone thinks that they're better than their co-workers, so how well that will work in reality is questionable.
Or they give out year end bonuses to employees instead of raises.
I've never worked anywhere where they tried that one; a lot of companies just don't care enough to even dissemble. They just send a mass email: "To all employees: Due to our performance with respect to Fiduciary Plan Q, we regret to inform you that there will be no salary adjustments this year. In addition, the 401(k) plan now consists of one or two options from the worst-managed mutual funds in existence, and company matching remains suspended indefinitely. Oh, and by the way, we're switching to a much crappier health insurance plan, and it will cost you twice as much. Have a nice day, and thank you for your efforts." Generally, only management gets bonuses.
Huffington Post article on McDonals CEO pay vs Costco
Apparently, McDonalds is removing Costco from its list of companies to compare its executive pay against. The reason isn't given, but Costco pays significantly less to upper management.
Or they give out year end bonuses to employees instead of raises.I've never worked anywhere where they tried that one; a lot of companies just don't care enough to even dissemble. They just send a mass email: "To all employees: Due to our performance with respect to Fiduciary Plan Q, we regret to inform you that there will be no salary adjustments this year. In addition, the 401(k) plan now consists of one or two options from the worst-managed mutual funds in existence, and company matching remains suspended indefinitely. Oh, and by the way, we're switching to a much crappier health insurance plan, and it will cost you twice as much. Have a nice day, and thank you for your efforts." Generally, only management gets bonuses.
This is what I have seen as well.
|
|
Who is going to pay for these things?As it stands, nobody, so the city just gets more and more isolated and more and more into decline. Even the $$$ gas companies have just set up offices outside the city -- the side where the airport and WV gas fields are -- and don't bother to acknowledge that the city exists.
As someone in the gas industry, I believe a large part of that is b/c Pittsburgh's airport is on the west side of the city and far from the downtown. I don't make those real estate decisions, but if I were Shell or Baker Hughes and needed to get people into offices from the airport or wherever, I would be taking the commute from the airport into account.
As someone in the gas industry, I believe a large part of that is b/c Pittsburgh's airport is on the west side of the city and far from the downtown. I don't make those real estate decisions, but if I were Shell or Baker Hughes and needed to get people into offices from the airport or wherever, I would be taking the commute from the airport into account.
Exactly -- why would anyone in their right mind set up offices in the city, if that would mean the airport was inaccessible to them? That's Pittsburgh's stupidity -- they lose out on having gas company offices in the city itself, because they're too cheap to build actual roads and/or trains into the city from the west (airport -- people flying in/out on business) or east (for people who might want to actually stay in the area and live in the suburbs).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think that if a union bargained for a higher wage that would be unfair to the company?
Do you think collective bargaining would result in lower wages and benefits?
On average, union workers receive higher pay and more benefits than their non-union equivalent (even after deducting union membership fees).
If I understand his argument, he thinks he's way better than his co-workers, and that this will be recognized and rewarded by a benevolent management -- whereas if there were collective bargaining, all the other people who aren't as awesome as he is would just be dragging him down.
That's it in a nutshell. Actually I think I'm sort of a schmuck at work sometimes, but I'll rise and fall on my own merit. I do think it's unfair for the company, since I don't believe they can fire those who try and unionize. I think collective bargining would result in lower wages and benifits, as the profit companies are paying for higher wages and benifits are coming out of profits for the company.