Liberals admit why they hate unions

Then either become a controlling shareholder, sell your stock or organize the other minority shareholders.

It sounds like you want to control a company that you don't own and also want to deny the rights of the owners to control their own property.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Read what you wrote then read what I repsonded.

It' pretty straight forward.

If you don't lilke what other people who own a controlling share of a company are paying the CEO then either become a controlling shareholder or organize the minority shareholders so that you can change it, or sell your stock in the company.

 

It is simplified, granted, but it is true. Every stock-holder has a vote. It may not be a vote for a CEO, but it is a vote to buy stock into a company.

I understand people hating bonuses. However, it was not the private sector that pushed this, it was government mandates. In order to compete and get a competent business leader, companies have to all but guarantee bonuses to their CEO's. A sure way of getting rid of this practice is getting rid of the regulations on the pay structure. It is then that you will probably only have bonuses in accordance to real performance.

 

You need to read what I was responding to. I still do not know what you are talking about.

 

What I am saying is that is totally false. The government does not keep them from being paid. There is no need of those lavish bonus at the expense of the share holder.

 

I"m not a liberal and I hate unions and believe the OWC groups are ignorant loiterers.

 

Yes they do. This is from the New York Times concerning the initial pay restrictions imposed under the Clinton Administration:

In fact, I will say that the results are that the regulations actually increased executive pay packages rather than decreased them.

Obama put forth regulations on those who received financial assistance/bail outs in 2009. He limited executive pay to $500,000.00. Again, what we have learned is that this actually made the companies more ingenious in how they paid their executives, but it didn't limit their pay. I suspect we will see ways around this pay cap that further entrenches an executive monopoly.

What should we do? We should take all restrictions from pay to executives. In the long term, this will actually make pay more in alignment than it currently is and allow for more mobility into the executive office.

 

No you are wrong. You are using things that do not pertain. Are you saying there are no CEO's making more the one million?

 

Of course there are.

But for the most part the pay is in the form of stock options, bonuses, etc.

That is the heart of Ruiz's argument.

The IRS regulations limit the deductability of a certain form of compensation so companies get around it by making payment in a different form that is not limited.

Also this is not an matter of absolutes.

Ruiz is not required to provide you now with the data on the pay of every CEO in order to be correct.

It is up to you to show where he is wrong in his analysis.

 

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the bonus structure has been designed to get around laws regulating executive pay. The involvement of government has actually made things worse, not better.

 

The contexts of those passages is the worker doing wrong to the master. Now, yes, many unions might be doing that, but that does not make just being in a union itself unChristian. (For one thing, the passages are speaking towards individual workers, not an organization of workers. We are only responsible for our own reactions). Plus, these passages are probably referring more to indentured servanthood, not contractual "employment" as we know it. It's a different kind of relationship.

 

No you are wrong. You are using things that do not pertain. Are you saying there are no CEO's making more the one million?

 

No one has said that there are not.

What is your point?

 

Where's the LIKE button on here??

 

Are you saying there are no CEO's making more the one million?

 

No, I am not saying that there are no CEO's making more than one million.

What is your point?

 

Boggles my mind that any red blooded Republican Baptist would be insisting that good Christians should be good slaves to their masters.

 

That is the point, there is.

 

So what?....