• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Liberals admit why they hate unions

T

targus

New Member
freeatlast said:
Well that is a little simplified. If you own any stocks then you should know that you have never had an opportunity to nominate anyone on your own. Those who have the controlling shares along with the existing board do the nominating and you just get to say yes to someone who they picked. When you say no they still get in because you do not have the controlling shares.
That is why heads of companies surround themselves with people who are in support them. They give them big bonuses to keep them loyal. It is all about greed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
F

freeatlast

New Member
targus said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
T

targus

New Member
freeatlast said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

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.
 
R

Ruiz

New Member
freeatlast said:
Well that is a little simplified. If you own any stocks then you should know that you have never had an opportunity to nominate anyone on your own. Those who have the controlling shares along with the existing board do the nominating and you just get to say yes to someone who they picked. When you say no they still get in because you do not have the controlling shares.
That is why heads of companies surround themselves with people who are in support them. They give them big bonuses to keep them loyal. It is all about greed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
F

freeatlast

New Member
targus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

freeatlast

New Member
Ruiz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
webdog

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Salty said:
One of the co-hosts of the liberal Stephanie Miller show stated today that the Occupy Wall Street groups do not hate most business- what they despise is greed.

That could mean some of the Wall St "1%", but that without a doubt must include many of the greedy union leadership.

Salty
Click to expand...
I"m not a liberal and I hate unions and believe the OWC groups are ignorant loiterers.
 
R

Ruiz

New Member
freeatlast said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Treasury’s bailout pay guidelines remind me of President Clinton’s $1 million limit on the tax-deductibility of executive pay. One of Mr. Clinton’s main campaign goals in 1992 was to rein in “excessive” executive compensation. After the election, Mr. Clinton pushed through legislation disallowing a corporation’s tax deduction for “non-performance” executive pay (such as salary) in excess of $1 million.

However, Congress explicitly exempted options from this deductibility cap, signaling that options were an acceptable form of compensation, even in large amounts. The rest is history: while boards curtailed CEO salaries to $1 million, they began doling out huge option grants, dramatically increasing total executive compensation during the 1990s. By the end of the decade, it was clear that Clinton’s attempt to limit executive pay had boomeranged.
Click to expand...

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.
 
F

freeatlast

New Member
Ruiz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
T

targus

New Member
freeatlast said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
R

Ruiz

New Member
freeatlast said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
E

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
freeatlast said:
I doubt many would call me a liberal. However I do not support unions as a Christian. It is impossible ot be part of a union and be obediant to scripture.
Colossians 3:22-24, told believers to work for their master as if they were working for the Lord.
1 Peter 2:18-24, counseled Christians to suffer indignity at the hands of masters rather than retaliate.
Click to expand...
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.
 
F

freeatlast

New Member
targus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
B

billwald

New Member
Boggles my mind that any red blooded Republican Baptist would be insisting that good Christians should be good slaves to their masters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top