ADVERTISEMENT

You know who I would much rather have in office during a crisis like this?

astonmartin708 said:
Oh I know. She was trying to get that implemented nationally. But I think this specific set of proposals would be specific to big business (banks, airlines, etc...)
Click to expand...
This is public money that increases the national debt. The debt falls on everyone, so placing conditions on its use makes sense. If the goal is to fund corporations to benefit the public at large, making sure it is used that way is exactly appropriate.

If a company doesn't want to do it, it shouldn't stick its snout in the public welfare trough.

Corporations and Republicans claimed the overseas tax reduction wouldn't result in stock buybacks, but about 2/3's of it did. Let's learn our lesson.
 
Last edited:
Clong83a said:
Actually 7 is the only one I don't see... What's wrong with 7? I can understand objections to 1,2, and 5. But if you are getting money from the government and benefiting from it, it would seem to make sense that you can't pump that money back to any party or politician. That is otherwise known as a kickback, or at least the appearance of one.
Click to expand...

Just to fully explain the objection to 1,2, and 5.

1 and 2 involve completely ignoring the economic reality (like 80% of Warren ideas) these companies will face even with bailout money. 5 is purely symbolic (like most of the rest of Warren’s ideas) and would have no effect on a corporation’s decision making. And the representative elected by the workers would, like all of us, have no idea wtf they’re doing and what is a good decision for the company.
 
URedskin54 said:
Just to fully explain the objection to 1,2, and 5.

1 and 2 involve completely ignoring the economic reality (like 80% of Warren ideas) these companies will face even with bailout money. 5 is purely symbolic (like most of the rest of Warren’s ideas) and would have no effect on a corporation’s decision making. And the representative elected by the workers would, like all of us, have no idea wtf they’re doing and what is a good decision for the company.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you don't want to hear from me. But, I'd like to point out that the attitude that those outside the oligarchy wouldn't have any idea how to run the large enterprise is the same one that our founding fathers were fighting against during the revolution. (Yes, I know some of them were the gentry but they weren't nobles)

Workers should be able to elect competent representatives to boards of large companies. Just because the person represents the workers, doesn't mean they won't have any idea about what's good for business on a macroscopic level. In some cases I think an elected representative might have more sense than some of executives that boards pick now.
 
astonmartin708 said:
I'd like to point out that the attitude that those outside the oligarchy wouldn't have any idea how to run the large enterprise
Click to expand...

Things I didn't say. My point is very straightforward: if you don't have experience doing something then you probably won't be very good at it. This has nothing to do with being a member of "the oligarchy", whatever that means, and everything to do with the fact that the vast majority of us have no experience running an organization or the gradations of experience that are acquired as a person moves up. You'd like to think you'd make good decisions, but you probably wouldn't and neither would I.
 
Last edited:
URedskin54 said:
Things I didn't say. My point is very straightforward: if you don't have experience doing something then you probably won't be very good at it. This has nothing to do with being a member of "the oligarchy", whatever that means, and everything to do with the fact that the vast majority of us have no experience running an organization or the gradations of experience that are acquired as a person moves up. You'd like to think you'd make good decisions, but you probably wouldn't and neither would I.
Click to expand...
I never said that the workers were going to elect Joe - the - Janitor as their representative. There are certainly people in upper management that could be tasked with representing the will of the workers over the will of the board. A senior level accountant / engineer / business manager would be appropriate.
 
astonmartin708 said:
I never said that the workers were going to elect Joe - the - Janitor as their representative. There are certainly people in upper management that could be tasked with representing the will of the workers over the will of the board. A senior level accountant / engineer / business manager would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

Can tell you from experience that lots of union shops would riot if you made someone from management their representative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverickfp
URedskin54 said:
Can tell you from experience that lots of union shops would riot if you made someone from management their representative.
Click to expand...
It doesn't get rid of their union representation. It just gives the workers at that specific company a seat at the table. Unions exist outside of companies.
 
astonmartin708 said:
It doesn't get rid of their union representation. It just gives the workers at that specific company a seat at the table. Unions exist outside of companies.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it gets rid of union representation or that they don't exist outside the company.

Try arguing with what I actually said: plenty of union members would flip out if their place on the board were filled by someone in management.
 
URedskin54 said:
Didn't say it gets rid of union representation or that they don't exist outside the company.

Try arguing with what I actually said: plenty of union members would flip out if their place on the board were filled by someone in management.
Click to expand...
Well, then that's an argument that they should have. I still think that, on average, you'll end up seeing someone competent elected for the job (or jobs in the case of multiple board seats being required) Similarly, on average, we see competent people elected to the presidency.

One vote on a board, representing the opinions of the employees, isn't going to tank a company. I assure you.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
Well, then that's an argument that they should have. I still think that, on average, you'll end up seeing someone competent elected for the job (or jobs in the case of multiple board seats being required) Similarly, on average, we see competent people elected to the presidency.

One vote on a board, representing the opinions of the employees, isn't going to tank a company. I assure you.
Click to expand...

Assume you bar that person from the board meetings where union contracts / negotiations are discussed?
 
Just to illustrate the problem I think we're seeing, here is the makeup of the current board of directors for Boeing:

1: CEO of a Pharma Company
2: CEO of a Medical Equipment Company
3. Navy Vice Joint Chief - Main Experience in Submarine Command
4. Utility Company CEO.
5. NIKKI HALEY - Former ambassador to the UN. Bachelor of Science in Accounting. Former Governor of SC.
6. Former CEO of Continental Airline.
7. Former ambassador to Japan. Member of the Kennedy Family.
8. Former CEO of some Finance / Insurance companies.
9. Former Chief of Naval Operations. Main Experience in Submarine Warfare and Nuclear Propulsion.
10. Professor of Trade / Former Trade Ambassador.
11. Former CEO of a Health Insurance Company
12. Former CEO of various telecom companies (Nortel, Motarola)
13. (Current Boeing CEO) Former Vice Chairman of GE

Now, some of these people are probably excellent choices to have on a board like Boeing, and give them flexibility, connections, and experience in tangentially related industries to make decisions for their airplane business. BUT, you notice that NONE of these people have any experience in the AIRPLANE BUILDING industry, and only ONE has experience with an airline. Do we really think that it would be so awful to have one person on the board of directors for a company that builds airplanes, that knows anything about building airplanes????

Moreover, for a lot of these folks, these aren't the only boards they're serving on, so their attention is being divided between completely different industries.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
Possibly. Do you bar the board from determining their own raises though?
Click to expand...
I don't see the equivalency. The company and the union regularly negotiates contracts between the two. I don't see how you could possibly negotiate contracts if one side knows exactly your position. Guess we could have a corporate board member at every union meeting and just call it good.
 
Its amazing that all the cnn, msnbc , and late night program hosts are all experts in Caronavirus and.a d disaster relief.
 
lawpoke87 said:
I don't see the equivalency. The company and the union regularly negotiates contracts between the two. I don't see how you could possibly negotiate contracts if one side knows exactly your position. Guess we could have a corporate board member at every union meeting and just call it good.
Click to expand...
I just don't think it's appropriate for the board to determine their own pay without a negotiation or having to offer any proof that they deserve such a raise and then expecting a group of the workers to have to lose their seat when their own pay is being discussed. I suppose it would be fair to have situations where both parties have access to the other. HOWEVER, like I said before, unions exist outside of companies. So a representative of the employees wouldn't in most cases be representing a union. They might represent workers spanning multiple unions. Unions that have employees in other companies.

I think it would actually be beneficial to say that the employee board member would have to leave any union they might have been in prior to becoming a board member, just because it wouldn't be fair for non-union employees to be represented by the guy from the janitor's union.
 
astonmartin708 said:
I just don't think it's appropriate for the board to determine their own pay without a negotiation or having to offer any proof that they deserve such a raise and then expecting a group of the workers to have to lose their seat when their own pay is being discussed. I suppose it would be fair to have situations where both parties have access to the other. HOWEVER, like I said before, unions exist outside of companies. So a representative of the employees wouldn't in most cases be representing a union. They might represent workers spanning multiple unions. Unions that have employees in other companies.

I think it would actually be beneficial to say that the employee board member would have to leave any union they might have been in prior to becoming a board member, just because it wouldn't be fair for non-union employees to be represented by the guy from the janitor's union.
Click to expand...
Congress?
 
astonmartin708 said:
One vote on a board, representing the opinions of the employees, isn't going to tank a company. I assure you.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it would tank a company. Most likely that person would have little to no power, and like I said, would just be there symbolically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
URedskin54 said:
Didn't say it would tank a company. Most likely that person would have little to no power, and like I said, would just be there symbolically.
Click to expand...
A voice at the table is still better than what workers have now which is essentially nothing.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Possibly. Do you bar the board from determining their own raises though?
Click to expand...

i wouldn't have an issue with that. Let's be honest, those board members who are making 6 figures from serving in that position don't need the money. For every one of those board members, there are 100 boards members who are paid a couple of grand a year to provide oversight. I'm familiar with the boards of most banks here in Tulsa, almost all those members fall into the couple of thousand a year category compensation from their board service.
 
Government instituting policies that run a company out of business (yes many of these are necessary), and then using that situation to dictate how that company is run doesn't quite sit right with me now that I think about it. It's not as if these are just poorly run companies asking for a bailout.
 
lawpoke87 said:
i wouldn't have an issue with that. Let's be honest, those board members who are making 6 figures from serving in that position don't need the money. For every one of those board members, there are 100 boards members who are paid a couple of grand a year to provide oversight. I'm familiar with the boards of most banks here in Tulsa, almost all those members fall into the couple of thousand a year category compensation from their board service.
Click to expand...
I concur. I'm not against boards of people running institutions / public companies. I'm just against the boards not including some people who know have a keen understanding of how the business actually operates. (I could actually say something similar about TU's board of trustees lol)
 
So the government who is at least partially responsible for this crisis then uses said crisis to dictate how private companies and individuals operate? Sounds like a banana republic when you say it out loud
 
  • Like
Reactions: URedskin54
astonmartin708 said:
Hillary Clinton. People seemed to forget in 2016 that presidents don't just deal with tax cuts and geopolitics. I think she would have been much stronger in response to this crisis. (and wouldn't have been telling her base that it was just another version of the flu)

She might be unlikable (and maybe even corrupt), but she knows how to keep the machine running. Donnie doesn't know how to deal when things start failing on him, besides running up debt and using bankruptcy law to his advantage.
Click to expand...


I have to admit.. if Hillary were in office, the virus would have hung itself under suspicious circumstances before it could hurt her reelection chances...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU Pilot, maverickfp, lawpoke87 and 2 others
URedskin54 said:
Hillary would have called in a drone strike on Wuhan back in January. It's one of the few things about her I find endearing
Click to expand...

Oh... i dont know... in a way i admire her ability to sacrifice all sense of dignity to keep herself hitched to Bill and maintain her lust for power and control...

You have to appreciate the devious ones.. in a machiavellian sense..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back