Democrats trying to socially engineer the suburbs with "Infrastructure"

[blah3]

If you work for a Union company. Yes. If you live in a RTW state and you choose to work for a company that has a Union negotiated contract for labor ...you should pay Union dues and join the Union of you want that job. They did the work of negotiations...why do you get the benefits of that without paying like the Union members?

This doesn’t apply to every job in every state. Hell it doesn’t apply to every job in a RTW state.

I’d venture that in the average RTW state maybe 2% of the jobs are Union. So for those 2% of you want to work there ...yes ...you should pay dues and join.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So how is forcing someone to pay union dues who does not want to be part of a union not greed by your definition of it?

[jonboy79]

Again. I’m all for the top Brass should make more than the average Joe worker. I get that and respect the position. My issue is the number. 100 + times more is just astonishing to me. If I earn 100K a year I just can’t see the CEO earning 10 mil a year. That’s just too far off. He didn’t invent air or something. He’s basically a sales guy.

I mean if I opened Lax Plumbing and Heating ...I wouldn’t expect the make 100x more than my guys doing the work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a 4 person plumbing company should the owner CEO make 100x’s what one of his 2 other plumbers or even the new kid that carries around materials? No... but when your decisions effect the income and livelihood of thousands of employees and the profitability of a multi-million dollar per year company, yes, yes they certainly do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vlad the lad]

This is a big circle jerk and neither side will concede. Bottom line. If you don’t have the ability to express your worth to the person paying you, then a union is good for you
If you don’t have strong desire to succeed and drive to be great, than a union is for you. If you do t mind working twice as hard as the guy next to you, for the exact same pay, than a union is good for you

Yes, some unions have better than average benefits. But let’s be real. For lax to claim anyone that benefits from someone in the past negotiating, they should pay. That is just boneheaded.

With that logic, ever worker should be paying a fee for everything they get in life. We should be paying a fee for the guy that invested the tire. And the guy that decided we need home owners insurance. Or a fee to the guy that came up with the idea to wear rain jacket in the rain.

The main issues a majority of Americans have with unions is the shake down approach. You want protection from your store burning down, you will pay me each week to live here.
Look at all the school teachers that are forced to pay union dues. And I see it every year. Those union dues go right to marketing campaigns that mail phoney talking points about how evil republican politicians are. Why should every school teacher be forced to support one party rule in politics?

Unions were good 100 years ago. But today, they are no different than a street gang that Shakes down a store owner for the right to have his store in that neighborhood. You don’t want your building to burn, you better than a union workers. And when I say thank, I mean pay me

[Terpsfan82]

Does anyone know the name of the poster who knew about cryptocurrency? he seemed to have some really solid insight.

[Terpsfan82]

OK... I'm going to play the Devil's advocate and jump into this one.

Near as I can tell... at least half of the cadre of CEO's are incompetent boobs. (if you doubt this.. take a close look at how many of them are infesting their companies with woke and cancel culture nonsense.)

But let's assume that they're all amazing for the sake of argument... the real point of the discussion was compensation for those executives.

Now I would agree with your basic premise that it is a difficult job being a CEO. It takes a hyper-Alpha personality (typically Myers Briggs ENTJ's) and a willingness to give 16 hours a day to your job. For decades. High pressure. Filled schedule. It's not easy. And it deserves a significant differential in salary.

But is the job any harder, Or are the demands any greater than they were in 1978?

In 1978 the average CEO made approximately 30X what an average worker made.

That a pretty big difference. Adjusted for inflation in 1978 the average worker made $50K, and the average CEO made $1.5M

But since that time, wages have steadily grown.

For the average line worker, they have kept pace with inflation, and a little more.. 12% more to be exact.

In total... adjusted for inflation... the average worker's salary has grown by a TOTAL of 12%.

In that same time period (since 1978) the average CEO's salary has increased 930% relative to inflation.

So for companies.. ithe normalized (adjusted for inflation) cost of labor has increased 12% since 1978... whereas the cost of CEO's has increased 930% in inflation adjusted dollars.

Is it really 930% harder to run a company in 2020 than it was in 1978?

Or is it possible that corporate structure has created a means whereby elite individuals can sit on each others' Boards of Directors, and vote each other obscene pay raises, and insane compensation... whether they are spectacularly successful.. or whether they drive the company into the dirt? Still get their 10's of millions.

Don't take this rant as an advocacy for government intervention. It isn't.

It can be fixed. But by shareholders... who have had the power to fire the CEO and the Board at any time.

They have the power... but they don't exercise it.

A few shareholder revolts.. and this problem will clear itself right up.

Great post. But it will never happen, because citizens of this country think they have it as good as it gets.

[Laxdad24]

Does anyone know the name of the poster who knew about cryptocurrency? he seemed to have some really solid insight.

WrongBaldy? He posts about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laxdad24]

Because he built it, Comrade.

Or do you subscribe to the Obama theory of “ you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen”

Not at all. I even stated that guys like Beezos and Gates and Jobs kinda get a pass on this rant. But even those guys ...100X more than the average worker? I just think that’s a bit over the top.


But clearly ...I’m in the minority so ...fuck it. Carry on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vlad the lad]

Not at all. I even stated that guys like Beezos and Gates and Jobs kinda get a pass on this rant. But even those guys ...100X more than the average worker? I just think that’s a bit over the top.


But clearly ...I’m in the minority so ...fuck it. Carry on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that the proper union attitude? You might get your pay docked

[BuryRaven]

Not at all. I even stated that guys like Beezos and Gates and Jobs kinda get a pass on this rant. But even those guys ...100X more than the average worker? I just think that’s a bit over the top.


But clearly ...I’m in the minority so ...fuck it. Carry on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is something that is often not understood by many individuals, especially on the left. These people may see their net worth increase at ridiculous levels but that is by and large to their shares in their company.

[Terpsfan82]

WrongBaldy? He posts about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He wasn't who I had in mind but I do remember seeing something from him about Doge coin. Thanks!

[Greg]

Again. I’m all for the top Brass should make more than the average Joe worker. I get that and respect the position. My issue is the number. 100 + times more is just astonishing to me. If I earn 100K a year I just can’t see the CEO earning 10 mil a year. That’s just too far off. He didn’t invent air or something. He’s basically a sales guy.

I mean if I opened Lax Plumbing and Heating ...I wouldn’t expect the make 100x more than my guys doing the work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think you know anything about running a business.

It's up to the stock holders to determine what the CEO makes. If the board is stacked vote them out.

[Greg]

Dude. I know you’re a smart guy. You are being bullheaded and obtuse on purpose. And you’re not twisting my words...you’re making them up altogether!

I not a college boy like u you ... but the never said every job has to be Union. Never advocates for every worker to be Union. Never said All workers must /should pay Dues.

If you CHOOSE to work for a company that is Union and it’s in a RTW state ...yes I think you should have to join said Union and pay Dues. Not if you work next door. Not if you work down the street. If you accept a job with GM in Tenn you should have to pay dues just like everyone else that works for GM. It’s your choice. No one is forcing you to work there. You can work for the Toyota plant which is Non Union. Same type of job , not that far away. But I suspect people who live in RTW states that CHOOSE to work for a Unionized company ...do so because those companies have better benefits and higher pay. All of which was negotiated by a Union member. If you want this money / benefits you should have to join.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if 50.1% of the employees vote for a union 100% must join and every single person getting hired after that must also join.

How about I don't join the union and negotiate my own wages and benefits? Suppose I get 97% of what the union does but still come out ahead because the union leeches don't suckle at my paycheck?