Worker Wages, Unions, Management, Owners

[Texsox]

One thing I have noticed the past decade or two is workers now basically want all other workers to earn less and receive lower benefits. Whenever a group goes on strike or there are other compensation issue it seems the popular opinion is suck it up, others have it worst. That seems dangerous to me and furthers to dissolution of the middle class. From auto workers to teachers we don't seem to mind seeing other people's real wages fall. I understand more the public sector jobs because those relate to our taxes.

 

It seems that we are cheering more profits for owners and less money for our neighbors. I'm concerned about what that does to our economy. We already demand that the wealthiest Americans pay less in taxes so they can create more jobs, now we want them to pay those people less. That shifts both the tax burden and every other economic stress to the working class. We just went through a period of record profits for many sectors in the economy just wages remained stagnant and unemployment did not drop as fast. Are we really better off as a nation if wealth is concentrated and held at the top and not "trickling down"? I see this in Mexico all the time. People are either extremely wealthy or barely hanging on. The middle class there is razor thin.

[cabiness42]

If you're talking about teachers or other public employees, I don't like strikes. At least not in the middle of the school year when you are inconveniencing thousands of parents who aren't to blame for your plight.

 

As for employees of a private company, I say do what you think is best. Just don't whine when there are layoffs or your company moves.

[Texsox]

If you're talking about teachers or other public employees, I don't like strikes. At least not in the middle of the school year when you are inconveniencing thousands of parents who aren't to blame for your plight.

 

As for employees of a private company, I say do what you think is best. Just don't whine when there are layoffs or your company moves.

 

And that is the problem with teacher's salaries in most places. We sign contracts without knowing the salaries. Basically in the next few weeks I will sign a contract agreeing to work during the next school year. In the middle of August the school board will authorize the new salaries for the coming school year. When would you like teachers to strike? After they have worked under that contract? Immediately as soon as they see the new wages and without trying to negotiate? That will delay the start of school. During the school year?

 

 

[cabiness42]

And that is the problem with teacher's salaries in most places. We sign contracts without knowing the salaries. Basically in the next few weeks I will sign a contract agreeing to work during the next school year. In the middle of August the school board will authorize the new salaries for the coming school year. When would you like teachers to strike? After they have worked under that contract? Immediately as soon as they see the new wages and without trying to negotiate? That will delay the start of school. During the school year?

 

First day after Christmas Break then. Announce it in advance to give parents time to plan for the closure.

[Texsox]

First day after Christmas Break then. Announce it in advance to give parents time to plan for the closure.

 

I think that too many teachers forget we are child care services as well. Perhaps hey could start with the high schools and gradually work back to the younger kids.

[greg775]

One thing I have noticed the past decade or two is workers now basically want all other workers to earn less and receive lower benefits. Whenever a group goes on strike or there are other compensation issue it seems the popular opinion is suck it up, others have it worst. That seems dangerous to me and furthers to dissolution of the middle class. From auto workers to teachers we don't seem to mind seeing other people's real wages fall. I understand more the public sector jobs because those relate to our taxes.

 

It seems that we are cheering more profits for owners and less money for our neighbors. I'm concerned about what that does to our economy. We already demand that the wealthiest Americans pay less in taxes so they can create more jobs, now we want them to pay those people less. That shifts both the tax burden and every other economic stress to the working class. We just went through a period of record profits for many sectors in the economy just wages remained stagnant and unemployment did not drop as fast. Are we really better off as a nation if wealth is concentrated and held at the top and not "trickling down"? I see this in Mexico all the time. People are either extremely wealthy or barely hanging on. The middle class there is razor thin.

Excellent post. You are right. We're in trouble as a nation.

The thing that really confuses me is tying sports into all this. Tons of companies have downsized and gotten rid of so many workers who used to make a good wage ... once these people leave the work force they find it difficult to get back in at a liveable wage especially if they are over 35 or 40 ... so many people have not had a raise in years, told they are "lucky to have a job," and so many people have worse benefits and have to pay way more for health care, etc.

Yet with this decrease in money out there ... sports teams have no problem filling their stadiums, people have no problem paying 30 bucks for parking for a baseball game and spending 50 bucks for four beers and 50 more for hot dogs and snacks at games. Where are they getting this money? Is everybody maxing out 10 credit cards???

Edited April 10, 2016 by greg775

[Chisoxfn]

One thing I have noticed the past decade or two is workers now basically want all other workers to earn less and receive lower benefits. Whenever a group goes on strike or there are other compensation issue it seems the popular opinion is suck it up, others have it worst. That seems dangerous to me and furthers to dissolution of the middle class. From auto workers to teachers we don't seem to mind seeing other people's real wages fall. I understand more the public sector jobs because those relate to our taxes.

 

It seems that we are cheering more profits for owners and less money for our neighbors. I'm concerned about what that does to our economy. We already demand that the wealthiest Americans pay less in taxes so they can create more jobs, now we want them to pay those people less. That shifts both the tax burden and every other economic stress to the working class. We just went through a period of record profits for many sectors in the economy just wages remained stagnant and unemployment did not drop as fast. Are we really better off as a nation if wealth is concentrated and held at the top and not "trickling down"? I see this in Mexico all the time. People are either extremely wealthy or barely hanging on. The middle class there is razor thin.

Biggest problem in this country is the gap between executive pay and most people who work at a business. These failed CEO's make 100 million while the rest of a companies payroll can be less than that. Maybe not the biggest, but it is a legit issue, imo. And I'm all far capitalism, but some of what happens is just pure greed.

 

Note: My exception to this rule is if you are a founder or led some huge massively profitable undertaking during your realm. In most cases, if you are taking on an existing big time corporation, yes, you are fully entitled to be paid and paid handsomely, but I draw the line somewhere. Some of the public company CEO payouts are just massive.

[Chisoxfn]

Excellent post. You are right. We're in trouble as a nation.

The thing that really confuses me is tying sports into all this. Tons of companies have downsized and gotten rid of so many workers who used to make a good wage ... once these people leave the work force they find it difficult to get back in at a liveable wage especially if they are over 35 or 40 ... so many people have not had a raise in years, told they are "lucky to have a job," and so many people have worse benefits and have to pay way more for health care, etc.

Yet with this decrease in money out there ... sports teams have no problem filling their stadiums, people have no problem paying 30 bucks for parking for a baseball game and spending 50 bucks for four beers and 50 more for hot dogs and snacks at games. Where are they getting this money? Is everybody maxing out 10 credit cards???

Greg - I'd like to think I make pretty good money, but when I go to a game and see people order a few beers each, plenty of food, etc, I just look and go, damn how can you spend that much. Than I remind myself I'm a total cheapo but I can't justify it. Or say I take the kids to an amusement park, we bring snacks, etc, maybe splurge on something, but than I'll see the family who has boughten everyone souvenir this and churro that (each of them, no sharing, etc) and I think, good lord, you just spent 100 bucks on churros and drinks.

 

To answer part of your question, sure, some people just make more money or this is their one "splurge", but I hypotheticize (and maybe this is purely just to justify my being cheap and pragmatic) that in many cases it is just people living beyond there means (pay check to pay check) when they shouldn't. Please note, I fully grasp there are situations where you can't avoid living paycheck to paycheck and when you are doing that purely to meet your housing costs and food costs, great, but things like spending money on this are way outside of that path, imo. And it is a problem that effects people poor and rich as it isn't like the rich are ever satisified so it might be more likely they overstretch them self (keeping up with the Jones) than the person living day by day.

[cabiness42]

Biggest problem in this country is the gap between executive pay and most people who work at a business. These failed CEO's make 100 million while the rest of a companies payroll can be less than that. Maybe not the biggest, but it is a legit issue, imo. And I'm all far capitalism, but some of what happens is just pure greed.

 

Note: My exception to this rule is if you are a founder or led some huge massively profitable undertaking during your realm. In most cases, if you are taking on an existing big time corporation, yes, you are fully entitled to be paid and paid handsomely, but I draw the line somewhere. Some of the public company CEO payouts are just massive.

 

Wal-Mart's CEO makes $26M or so. The company has 1.2 million US employees. If the CEO cuts his pay to $2M, that gives every employee in the company an extra $20 per year. It might seem like a nice gesture and might make the news, but the extra $20 per year isn't going to make a difference for employees.

 

Now, that's just one example and there very well could be companies where the CEO salary could be cut enough to make a significant difference in the lives of employees, but you need to remember the context of the number of employees.

[Chisoxfn]

Wal-Mart's CEO makes $26M or so. The company has 1.2 million US employees. If the CEO cuts his pay to $2M, that gives every employee in the company an extra $20 per year. It might seem like a nice gesture and might make the news, but the extra $20 per year isn't going to make a difference for employees.

 

Now, that's just one example and there very well could be companies where the CEO salary could be cut enough to make a significant difference in the lives of employees, but you need to remember the context of the number of employees.

I'll give you a random person and you tell me. So Regeneron CEO made $42M in a company with 3000 employees. That would equate to roughly 14K per employee. I'm not saying it should all be split and I'm sure the company has plenty of employees who are entirely fairly compensated and that is fair in the grand scheme. But average gap between CEO and non CEO pay has continued to widen significantly and that means from a wealth distribution perspective, you get more wealth accumulated in the few vs. the man.

 

I'm not a socialist but any decent economist would tell you that there is a tipping point between when good healthy capitalist impulses and something the gaps we have today at the top levels. And this is coming from someone who is a lower level executive who one day has aspirations to have a C (for Chief) in front of my title

[StrangeSox]

Wal-Mart's CEO makes $26M or so. The company has 1.2 million US employees. If the CEO cuts his pay to $2M, that gives every employee in the company an extra $20 per year. It might seem like a nice gesture and might make the news, but the extra $20 per year isn't going to make a difference for employees.

 

Now, that's just one example and there very well could be companies where the CEO salary could be cut enough to make a significant difference in the lives of employees, but you need to remember the context of the number of employees.

On the other hand, the Walton family is collectively worth something like $150B.

[cabiness42]

I'll give you a random person and you tell me. So Regeneron CEO made $42M in a company with 3000 employees. That would equate to roughly 14K per employee. I'm not saying it should all be split and I'm sure the company has plenty of employees who are entirely fairly compensated and that is fair in the grand scheme. But average gap between CEO and non CEO pay has continued to widen significantly and that means from a wealth distribution perspective, you get more wealth accumulated in the few vs. the man.

 

I'm not a socialist but any decent economist would tell you that there is a tipping point between when good healthy capitalist impulses and something the gaps we have today at the top levels. And this is coming from someone who is a lower level executive who one day has aspirations to have a C (for Chief) in front of my title

 

Without knowing what Regeneron is or what they do, it seems weird that their CEO makes more than Wal-Mart's with not even 1% as many employees. Or maybe CEO pay just isn't supposed to make sense.

[southsider2k5]

Biggest problem in this country is the gap between executive pay and most people who work at a business. These failed CEO's make 100 million while the rest of a companies payroll can be less than that. Maybe not the biggest, but it is a legit issue, imo. And I'm all far capitalism, but some of what happens is just pure greed.

 

Note: My exception to this rule is if you are a founder or led some huge massively profitable undertaking during your realm. In most cases, if you are taking on an existing big time corporation, yes, you are fully entitled to be paid and paid handsomely, but I draw the line somewhere. Some of the public company CEO payouts are just massive.

 

There is a pretty straight forward answer to this. The CEO doesn't work for the employees, he works for the shareholders. Secondly, this issue really exploded after SOX when CEO disclosure was going to solve this problem, except all that did was publicly give other CEO's an easy list of landmarks and demands to give to their next company.

[StrangeSox]

There is a pretty straight forward answer to this. The CEO doesn't work for the employees, he works for the shareholders. Secondly, this issue really exploded after SOX when CEO disclosure was going to solve this problem, except all that did was publicly give other CEO's an easy list of landmarks and demands to give to their next company.

More specifically, the board, right?

[southsider2k5]

Wal-Mart's CEO makes $26M or so. The company has 1.2 million US employees. If the CEO cuts his pay to $2M, that gives every employee in the company an extra $20 per year. It might seem like a nice gesture and might make the news, but the extra $20 per year isn't going to make a difference for employees.

 

Now, that's just one example and there very well could be companies where the CEO salary could be cut enough to make a significant difference in the lives of employees, but you need to remember the context of the number of employees.

 

Those numbers are misleading. So much of the compensation package is directly tied to stock performance. In the example of WMT, he only made $4 million in cash last year. If a CEO has a nice stock package, and gets a big bump in stock prices, their numbers look ridiculous.

[southsider2k5]

More specifically, the board, right?

 

Not really. The board is elected by the stockholders to represent them.

[Chisoxfn]

Not really. The board is elected by the stockholders to represent them.

And it is the board who makes decisions on the CEO. Technically strange is right, either way, board approves compensation as well (not just CEO's). Yeah, they don't look at chisoxfn's individual, but select committees approval total raises throughout organization, etc.