NationStates Jolt Archive

This morning, I heard that a U.S. bankruptcy court had thrown out a contract between US Airways and their machinists, allowing US Airways to pretty much do what they wanted in terms of reducing wages and firing machinists. On the other hand, another bankruptcy court tossed out a contract between United and its pilots that would have allowed a wage cut for the pilots. This will prevent United from making any immediate changes in its labor costs.

A company owes its employees a fair wage for honest work. The company doesn't owe any one employee a job, however. If the company is headed toward bankruptcy, it should be able to do whatever is required to remain solvent. If that means reducing salaries or staffing, that's the way it is. A contract is only good so long as the parties involved still exist.

This will probably be a pretty short-lived thread, because I can't see how anyone can disagree with this premise :)

A friend of mine works for US airways. His union took a pay cut to try to keep the company afloat. The mechanics were holding out. The mechanic's union irrationally beleived that an ailing company in it's second bankruptcy and facing more competition than ever as other carriers expand into their market could afford to pay them as much as before. I'm all for worker's rights and unions, but the mechanics were asking too much. They would have insured that the company failed and everyone would be out of a job.

I always think about how proud the Eastern pilots were when that company folded. What in the world were they thinking?

It's important to remember that owners are people too. It all comes down to everyone trying to be fair to one another, rather than one interest or another becoming too greedy. My great hope is that I get hired after my second interview for a new job on next Thursday.

My last job only lasted three days. I was a telemarketer. I just couldn't do it. At least I learned a job that I can't do...

It's important to remember that owners are people too. It all comes down to everyone trying to be fair to one another, rather than one interest or another becoming too greedy. My great hope is that I get hired after my second interview for a new job on next Thursday.

My last job only lasted three days. I was a telemarketer. I just couldn't do it. At least I learned a job that I can't do...
Telemarketing sucks. I did it for a month and a half on behalf of a "charity" that pocketed as much of the donations as legally possible. It's boring and repetative. It's also high stress because you are paid according to how many people you get to buy.

I agree with the original poster about this. Remeber that somebody working for a company is basically just a trade, an exchange - they're trading work for money. Intervening to stop a company altering the wage of its employees or firing them is like telling you you're not allowed to trade money for groceries. Or telling you that you have to pay more for them, even if the shopkeeper wants to sell them cheaper to you.

Not letting a company fire its employees is like telling you that you have to keep buying groceries, even if your fridge is already full. The company is forced to "buy" the labour of the employees when they're not allowed to fire them. In my eyes that's immoral.

A company owes its employees what they agree to before the employee in their contract.

It's important to remember that owners are people too. It all comes down to everyone trying to be fair to one another, rather than one interest or another becoming too greedy.

Optimistic much?

I've worked for companies that fit this model, small outfits where the owners/operaters were people I knew before I worked for the company continue to hang out with after I've moved on.

However, I believe as the scale of the company increases, so to does the distance between owner and employee (in every sense of the word distance: the pay-scale shifts more dramatically, and physical location, lifestyle, and outlook all change). I think with this distance, it becomes easier to focus on the bottom line than on an attempt at fairness.

The way a McDonald's manager behaves towards his direct subordinates is very different from how the folks in the boardroom look at the company, you know?

Companies owe their employees everything and have no right to any wealth created. The entire economy should be taken under the democratic control of the working class.

And yeah, telemarketing sucks. I lasted two weeks. It was the only "take this job and shove it" moment in my life. (Which has also included the noble occupations of dishwashing and auto detailing, mentioned strictly for purposes of comparison.)

Companies owe their employees everything and have no right to any wealth created. The entire economy should be taken under the democratic control of the working class.

Bullshit. Companies owe employees exactly what employees owe companies. Both sides owe eachother what they agree to beforehand in whatever contract they create.

That depends on whether it is a privately or publically held company. If private, the owner should have complete control though subject to duely contracted obligations.

Publically held companies should have the option of federal regulation or 2/3rds majority shareholder vote.

IMO

True, a contract is a contract. If any of those employees signed a contract, then they have a legal right to whatever's in the contract. It's the company's fault (in a legal sense) for not putting in emergency clauses. That doesn't make it right, just legal.

Optimistic much?

I've worked for companies that fit this model, small outfits where the owners/operaters were people I knew before I worked for the company continue to hang out with after I've moved on.

However, I believe as the scale of the company increases, so to does the distance between owner and employee (in every sense of the word distance: the pay-scale shifts more dramatically, and physical location, lifestyle, and outlook all change). I think with this distance, it becomes easier to focus on the bottom line than on an attempt at fairness.

The way a McDonald's manager behaves towards his direct subordinates is very different from how the folks in the boardroom look at the company, you know?

The Macdonald's manager should treat his workers as he would like to be treated.

If I get a job at Mickey Dee's, then I hope my manager remembers that I am a human being and not just some number in the zillions of employees in that corporation.

The Macdonald's manager should treat his workers as he would like to be treated.

If I get a job at Mickey Dee's, then I hope my manager remembers that I am a human being and not just some number in the zillions of employees in that corporation.
I think that's what he was trying to say. The manager may see you as an individual, but to the district manager in charge of several locations you are a burger making machine that costs $x/hour to operate.

The Macdonald's manager should treat his workers as he would like to be treated.

If I get a job at Mickey Dee's, then I hope my manager remembers that I am a human being and not just some number in the zillions of employees in that corporation.

I agree. What I meant to say was that I think the McD's manager is more likely to treat his employees like human beings, while the guys who are further up the ladder--the guys who write the company policies that dictate the manager's behavior and the guys who conduct the large scale negotiations (like those regarding airline bankruptcy settlements)--are less likely to think about the individual than the bottom line.

I think that's what he was trying to say. The manager may see you as an individual, but to the district manager in charge of several locations you are a burger making machine that costs $x/hour to operate.

Well, that is all well and good for the accountants and the like. The district manager, and every stockholder must remember that people are people. We are not just assets. Sure, I may cost $X/hour to operate. I will do my best to make my manager happy with what he or she gets for their dollar. Also, however, I am going to do my best for the customer. I will make sure that burger is cooked and that it is as delicious as I can make it with the quality of meat and the quality of the stove, etc.

A company owes its employees what they agree to before the employee in their contract.
What happens when the company can't hold up its end of the bargain? Should it just fold and leave the workforce hanging? Do we really need courts to decide how a company should stay in business?

Since I'm asking questions, where is Baker hall? I thought that Baker was the computer science building. I got my BS from Ohio State a few years ago.

Well, that is all well and good for the accountants and the like. The district manager, and every stockholder must remember that people are people. We are not just assets. Sure, I may cost $X/hour to operate. I will do my best to make my manager happy with what he or she gets for their dollar. Also, however, I am going to do my best for the customer. I will make sure that burger is cooked and that it is as delicious as I can make it with the quality of meat and the quality of the stove, etc.
Serving the customer would be your part of the bargain. McD would hold up their end with the $7/hour or whatever. My contention is that if the store needed to reduce their operating cost, for whatever reason, you are fair game to be laid off. After all, they can probably save $20/hour by doing that. The district manager, or even the store manager really doesn't care if you are a person or a robot that can make change, or fries, or burgers. Why should he?

If you were represented, wouldn't it make sense for the union to agree to a lower wage scale in order to help the company stay in business? Sure the company needs to prove that it's needed and all those other caveats.

Well most people understand hard times and will accept loss wages.

However, most have a hard time accepting the management continuoulsy increasing it's income even when their decessions wiped a company out.

Remember the goverment bailout of GM years ago! We need money to keep jobs blah blah blah!

Two billion dollars went to mangement bonuses.

In a previous company I had a job that kept me near the executives. They rewarded themselves when times were good, made bad decessions which caused major losses and caused layoffs etc.

They gave themselves major bonuses for "saving the company."

The one facet of American executives they annoys me to no end is the "Golden Parachute" You can have a complete moron get hired who annialates a company. He "leaves" for other opportunties and will have a few million dollars in his pocket.

Well most people understand hard times and will accept loss wages.

However, most have a hard time accepting the management continuoulsy increasing it's income even when their decessions wiped a company out.

Remember the goverment bailout of GM years ago! We need money to keep jobs blah blah blah!

Two billion dollars went to mangement bonuses.

In a previous company I had a job that kept me near the executives. They rewarded themselves when times were good, made bad decessions which caused major losses and caused layoffs etc.

They gave themselves major bonuses for "saving the company."

The one facet of American executives they annoys me to no end is the "Golden Parachute" You can have a complete moron get hired who annialates a company. He "leaves" for other opportunties and will have a few million dollars in his pocket.
excellent point. A CEO's salary is not tied in any way to his performance. His contract is agreed upon before he ever takes the job, and in many cases the board tells their negotiators to get this particular guy regardless of the cost. CEOs, while bargaining from this position of strength, refuse any contracts that tie earnings to performance.

... CEOs, while bargaining from this position of strength, refuse any contracts that tie earnings to performance.
must be American CEOs.

Asian CEO are perfomance rewarded. and most European too.

excellent point. A CEO's salary is not tied in any way to his performance. His contract is agreed upon before he ever takes the job, and in many cases the board tells their negotiators to get this particular guy regardless of the cost. CEOs, while bargaining from this position of strength, refuse any contracts that tie earnings to performance.
Maybe if all of their income came only from salary, but it dosen't. Usually, a large portion of a CEO's income comes from the massive amounts of stock holdings that come from being in that position, which is directly tied to performance.

us air is in bankruptcy now. this is why they can break their contracts.

they have responsibility to their investors as well as their employees. but if they dont treat their employees right they wont have an airline to save. you cant screw your workers and prosper in an industry based on customer service.

this is why millions of bags were "lost" over christmas. the employees used the busy holidays as a chance to show management how bad things could get if they werent treated with fairness and respect.

must be American CEOs.

Asian CEO are perfomance rewarded. and most European too.
Yeah, American CEOs

Maybe if all of their income came only from salary, but it dosen't. Usually, a large portion of a CEO's income comes from the massive amounts of stock holdings that come from being in that position, which is directly tied to performance.
Of course this is an incentive for the kind of creative accounting that doomed Enron.

Of course this is an incentive for the kind of creative accounting that doomed Enron.
Any sort of performance-based incentive is going to spur creative accounting from some corrupt CEOs when they're not meeting those standards.

I imagine the corporate appologists see themselves in the boardroom some day and thus find it easy to be dismissive about the work force that builds thier company.

Thing is, without that work force your company is so much paper.

They built it, they maintain it, they make it work. They are your biggest most important asset. Treat them as disposable or like shit and they will treat your precious 'business' the same way. Watch it circle the drain.

For all those advocating cutting the workers to cut costs, when the CEOs take the big hit first, maybe...

Those stock prices that float some aren't neccisarily tied to performance, thier tied to preception which can be altered by 'creative' accounting and pissing on the little guy, so that doesn't float either.

Those stock prices that float some aren't neccisarily tied to performance, thier tied to preception which can be altered by 'creative' accounting and pissing on the little guy, so that doesn't float either.
That assumes that a CEO is doing a good job when he dosen't "piss on the little guy", though. In terms of the balance sheet, sometimes thats whats required to make the company run, and sometimes its a good decision business wise. If part of the workforce can be replaced by machines, it would increase efficiency, most likely, and you won't have to pay employees anymore to do things that can be run by a machine or computer. The worker gets screwed, but the CEO is doing his best to mkae the company better.

Any sort of performance-based incentive is going to spur creative accounting from some corrupt CEOs when they're not meeting those standards.

Corruption is only a small part of the CEO base. Many seem to view they deserve the big perks because they hold the title.

There is a big problem for this country when the average CEO makes 302 times more then then the average worker.

In the 60s, it was only 10 times......

That assumes that a CEO is doing a good job when he dosen't "piss on the little guy", though. In terms of the balance sheet, sometimes thats whats required to make the company run, and sometimes its a good decision business wise. If part of the workforce can be replaced by machines, it would increase efficiency, most likely, and you won't have to pay employees anymore to do things that can be run by a machine or computer. The worker gets screwed, but the CEO is doing his best to mkae the company better.

There is no arugment about automation. It's a fact of life.

However many execs belive they deserve increases no matter what they do. If an exec scews up an hurts the company, he can leave with a huge pay out.

I screw up, I can quit if I am wise enough to know I will get fired with 2 weeks.

Another intresting thing. If a company goes belly up, the first ones paid out(asset selloff,etc.) are the executives. What's left goes to the shareholders, most of the time nothing for the workforce.

One thing that needs to be outlawed is the ability for an executive to "borrow" money from a corporation to purchase his shares.

I agree that it is a bad policy for companies to allow executives to leave with huge compensations even if they drive the company to the ground.

I remember during the Regan downsizing era. There was one consultant I respected who went into companies and corrected them.

He had one rule before he would take a job. What he said was followed!

He said his favorite job was firing executives. These guys were the decesion makers, many times he saw the abused the perk system and didn't contribute anything significant to the company. In fact many hurt the company long term.

He loved to obliterate the management of all the garbage.

He said after duing that, the unions and the workforce were not so hard about job losses as they saw it was fairly being done.

He hated tossing workers as there were some that did the job as expected and were punished because of the incompitence of the guys upstairs.

He was very good.

I remember one guy a company hired and the first batch he layed off where the security guards(this was an aerodefense firm), the managment couldn't figure out why employee theft skyrocketed. ;)

A company owes its employees a fair wage for honest work. The company doesn't owe any one employee a job, however. If the company is headed toward bankruptcy, it should be able to do whatever is required to remain solvent. If that means reducing salaries or staffing, that's the way it is. A contract is only good so long as the parties involved still exist.


I agree.


This will probably be a pretty short-lived thread, because I can't see how anyone can disagree with this premise :)

I haven't read any of the responses above yet, but if there isn't anyone telling you about how corporations are evil slavemasters and employees the downtrodden, exploited victims of capitalism just wait. ;)

Another intresting thing. If a company goes belly up, the first ones paid out(asset selloff,etc.) are the executives. What's left goes to the shareholders, most of the time nothing for the workforce.



You are misinformed about bankcruptcy law in the US.

1st) the govt gets paid(taxes fines ect.)
2nd) then any outstanding liabilities such as bondholders and other creditors and salaries(workers and executives). not sure but i believe salaries are paid before creditors.
3rd) shareholders get whatever is left.

This gets more complicated when you factor in the bancruptcy lawyers, compensation for employees working while the company is under bancruptcy protection ect ect, but you probably get the general gist of things that shareholders are paid LAST and almost always NOTHING.

Of course this is an incentive for the kind of creative accounting that doomed Enron.
Don't you think the million dollar salary cap that Congress put on execs helped push Enron in that direction? I mean, a million bucks sounds like a lot of money, but when you are trying to hire a Jack Welch or Lee Iococa type, I think you need to be able to offer the salary straight out. Not hide the compensation in stock options.

I imagine the corporate appologists see themselves in the boardroom some day and thus find it easy to be dismissive about the work force that builds thier company.

Thing is, without that work force your company is so much paper.

They built it, they maintain it, they make it work. They are your biggest most important asset. Treat them as disposable or like shit and they will treat your precious 'business' the same way. Watch it circle the drain.

For all those advocating cutting the workers to cut costs, when the CEOs take the big hit first, maybe...

Those stock prices that float some aren't neccisarily tied to performance, thier tied to preception which can be altered by 'creative' accounting and pissing on the little guy, so that doesn't float either.
Again, why does a company owe anything more than a fair wage to a worker? Maybe workers will _like_ the company more if the management is friendly, sure. That can certainly pay off when there is some hard work ahead. More productive workers will always be bigger assets to a company than the lazy ones. But what fairness really comes down to is wages. All the good will in the world won't put a chicken in the pot. Right?

And when you do need to cut costs, if you've been fair with the workforce, won't they recognize that? If I had to reduce operating costs, the first thing I'd think of would be layoffs. Not in a fond way, but as a practical method, nothing cuts costs faster. By the way, I've been laid off before and it does suck. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone. But, if I had to...

I agree that it is a bad policy for companies to allow executives to leave with huge compensations even if they drive the company to the ground.
How do we do that? The big companies are competing with each other for real hot-shots. Hire the right CEO and your stock goes through the roof. Hire a guy from the second tier and the stock will just sink.

Congress has tried a salary cap. Accountants and lawyers can figure out how to subvert anything, if there's a big enough bonus for them.

Don't you think the million dollar salary cap that Congress put on execs helped push Enron in that direction? I mean, a million bucks sounds like a lot of money, but when you are trying to hire a Jack Welch or Lee Iococa type, I think you need to be able to offer the salary straight out. Not hide the compensation in stock options.


I think Ben and Jerries tried the salary cap idea. They decided that the highest salary would be no more than 30(or some other random number) times that of the lowest salary. I think they scrapped the idea in less than a year when they realized that the only people who were willing to take the ceo job(along with the stress and hours) for that level of pay were complete monkeys.

So, perhaps ceo pay is in fact actually fair. Perhaps it is a result of market forces, and the salaries are what they are because that is what it takes to get people who are competant, experienced and willing.

Or perhaps some of the more socialistic people here believe that everyone above the level of production manager is simply a moron who happened to win the lotto of life and get rewarded with an executive job through no effort or skill of their own.

How do we do that? The big companies are competing with each other for real hot-shots. Hire the right CEO and your stock goes through the roof. Hire a guy from the second tier and the stock will just sink.

Congress has tried a salary cap. Accountants and lawyers can figure out how to subvert anything, if there's a big enough bonus for them.
Actually its nothing the public (meaning government) should be doing, but rather the board of directors. Thats why I said its a bad policy for companies to structure contracts like that. I'm not on the BoD of any company, I don't know if you are but I'd guess not, so there's nothing really we can do.

Actually its nothing the public (meaning government) should be doing, but rather the board of directors. Thats why I said its a bad policy for companies to structure contracts like that. I'm not on the BoD of any company, I don't know if you are but I'd guess not, so there's nothing really we can do.
Heh. Far from it. We are small, so I see the guys on Mahogany Row every day. We, the engineers, even get along with the VP of engineering pretty well. I don't think that would influence his decisions about who to keep when the times are tough, though.

But when you think about it, what can a single BoD do? Like I said, the big companies, which we are not, are competing for big names. I think a good analogy could be made with baseball. You know how much the Yankees are willing to pay to get a superstar. The corporate world is probably a lot like that, only more anonymous.

Heh. Far from it. We are small, so I see the guys on Mahogany Row every day. We, the engineers, even get along with the VP of engineering pretty well. I don't think that would influence his decisions about who to keep when the times are tough, though.

But when you think about it, what can a single BoD do? Like I said, the big companies, which we are not, are competing for big names. I think a good analogy could be made with baseball. You know how much the Yankees are willing to pay to get a superstar. The corporate world is probably a lot like that, only more anonymous.
A single BoD could do a lot for a single company. In theory its the most powerful organization, however thats often not the case...

You are misinformed about bankcruptcy law in the US.

1st) the govt gets paid(taxes fines ect.)
2nd) then any outstanding liabilities such as bondholders and other creditors and salaries(workers and executives). not sure but i believe salaries are paid before creditors.
3rd) shareholders get whatever is left.

This gets more complicated when you factor in the bancruptcy lawyers, compensation for employees working while the company is under bancruptcy protection ect ect, but you probably get the general gist of things that shareholders are paid LAST and almost always NOTHING.

I will give you that one. I did leave of the creditors and the goverment. But I have read where the execs get payouts ahead of the others. And there have been times where shareholders do get a few pennies but not always the same story.

But to me I have this crazy idea that the execs should get zero since they failed. I can only dream......

Anyone posting on this thread, please read Atlas Shrugged if you have not. Many good points have been made here, and I think a lot of you could benefit from reading it. That book taught me exactly "what a company owes it's employees."

Well most people understand hard times and will accept loss wages.

However, most have a hard time accepting the management continuoulsy increasing it's income even when their decessions wiped a company out.

Remember the goverment bailout of GM years ago! We need money to keep jobs blah blah blah!

Two billion dollars went to mangement bonuses.

In a previous company I had a job that kept me near the executives. They rewarded themselves when times were good, made bad decessions which caused major losses and caused layoffs etc.

They gave themselves major bonuses for "saving the company."

The one facet of American executives they annoys me to no end is the "Golden Parachute" You can have a complete moron get hired who annialates a company. He "leaves" for other opportunties and will have a few million dollars in his pocket.

I was going to read through the thread before mentioning the elephant in the room. You beat me to it.

Maybe if all of their income came only from salary, but it dosen't. Usually, a large portion of a CEO's income comes from the massive amounts of stock holdings that come from being in that position, which is directly tied to performance.
Do you really still hold that opinion in the face of the WorldCom, Enron, etc. examples where the stock was manipulated until the execs got theirs then let their employees see their 401k holdings were worthless?

Upper management (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.) are generally not the majority "owners" of a company. Much of a company's stock is held by small investors and retirement plans who rarely hold a block sufficient to land a seat on the board.

us air is in bankruptcy now. this is why they can break their contracts.

they have responsibility to their investors as well as their employees. but if they dont treat their employees right they wont have an airline to save. you cant screw your workers and prosper in an industry based on customer service.

this is why millions of bags were "lost" over christmas. the employees used the busy holidays as a chance to show management how bad things could get if they werent treated with fairness and respect.
I heartily approve of their tactic. Sometimes it takes direct attacks on the pocketbook to get attention and respect.

That assumes that a CEO is doing a good job when he dosen't "piss on the little guy", though. In terms of the balance sheet, sometimes thats whats required to make the company run, and sometimes its a good decision business wise. If part of the workforce can be replaced by machines, it would increase efficiency, most likely, and you won't have to pay employees anymore to do things that can be run by a machine or computer. The worker gets screwed, but the CEO is doing his best to mkae the company better.
Effeciencies are a different matter. We are going on about poorly managed companies that are going under. The bottom line is start cutting at the top. They get the cream when times are good. They should be the first to go without when times are rough. Then they can ask the workers to make sacrifices. If you create an environment where all are equally in the same boat then you have a situation where you show the grunts you really mean it. Otherwise it smacks of just another management tactic to line their pockets at the expense of the working stiff.

Do you really still hold that opinion in the face of the WorldCom, Enron, etc. examples where the stock was manipulated until the execs got theirs then let their employees see their 401k holdings were worthless?

Upper management (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.) are generally not the majority "owners" of a company. Much of a company's stock is held by small investors and retirement plans who rarely hold a block sufficient to land a seat on the board.
Thats true. However, even 15% of a company's stock can be worth tens of millions of dollars.

And yes, I still hold that opinion. The scandals are the exception rather than the rule - and the corrupt leadership should be prosecuted, to discourage the behavior.

Anyone posting on this thread, please read Atlas Shrugged if you have not. Many good points have been made here, and I think a lot of you could benefit from reading it. That book taught me exactly "what a company owes it's employees."
Ayn Rand **shrug**
One of the points she made that was significant was the self congratulatory, self aggrandizing mediocrities IN MANAGEMENT are what did the most damage. It set a tone that wore down the ethic of excellence.

Now give an average worker respect and set a high tone you'll get it back a hundred times over. Screw a worker and you get that back for years to come.

Thats true. However, even 15% of a company's stock can be worth tens of millions of dollars.

And yes, I still hold that opinion. The scandals are the exception rather than the rule - and the corrupt leadership should be prosecuted, to discourage the behavior.
K - it's not the dollar amount that gives you a say. It's the percentage of ownership. Certainly they should be prosecuted but the game is rigged. You cannot convict for dubious ethics. The laws in the US are such that a CEO who has raped a corporation of billions in assets will do less & softer time than a hood rat who robs a quick mart for $200.00.

A friend of mine works for US airways. His union took a pay cut to try to keep the company afloat. The mechanics were holding out. The mechanic's union irrationally beleived that an ailing company in it's second bankruptcy and facing more competition than ever as other carriers expand into their market could afford to pay them as much as before. I'm all for worker's rights and unions, but the mechanics were asking too much. They would have insured that the company failed and everyone would be out of a job.

Take pay cut, get laid off......hmmmm.......Not a hard decision. Take the pay cut and cut your losses.

Anyone posting on this thread, please read Atlas Shrugged if you have not. Many good points have been made here, and I think a lot of you could benefit from reading it. That book taught me exactly "what a company owes it's employees."

Ann rand is amazing. I especially loved fountainhead. My european friends hate it. Such different views of the individual vs the group between Americans(well im Indian American) and Europeans

Do you really still hold that opinion in the face of the WorldCom, Enron, etc. examples where the stock was manipulated until the execs got theirs then let their employees see their 401k holdings were worthless?

Upper management (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.) are generally not the majority "owners" of a company. Much of a company's stock is held by small investors and retirement plans who rarely hold a block sufficient to land a seat on the board.

Worldcom and Enron are examples of the system working. The frauds were discovered and there are attempts being made to punish the perpetrators of the crimes. Fraud happenes, its bad, it doesnt mean we condemn a whole system because it is not perfect. There are thousands of other companies where stock options and performance based compensation are used to properly.

K - it's not the dollar amount that gives you a say. It's the percentage of ownership. Certainly they should be prosecuted but the game is rigged. You cannot convict for dubious ethics. The laws in the US are such that a CEO who has raped a corporation of billions in assets will do less & softer time than a hood rat who robs a quick mart for $200.00.


It is the US's SOCIETY that made those choices. We have determined that one type of crime is worse than another. Whether we agree or not, we have agreed to live by these terms.

Personally, I think a person who cant control his temper and kills someone out of "passion" is much more of a threat to society than someone who coldly plans the death of their wife/husband/friend/enemy/partner ect. Society does not agree with my views though.

Anyone posting on this thread, please read Atlas Shrugged if you have not. Many good points have been made here, and I think a lot of you could benefit from reading it. That book taught me exactly "what a company owes it's employees."
No, No, No, No. Don't read it!. Don't read "The Fountainhead" either. Those books will leave you so depressed if you have value the free market and economic freedom. Stay away!

Ayn Rand **shrug**
One of the points she made that was significant was the self congratulatory, self aggrandizing mediocrities IN MANAGEMENT are what did the most damage. It set a tone that wore down the ethic of excellence.

Now give an average worker respect and set a high tone you'll get it back a hundred times over. Screw a worker and you get that back for years to come.
What does respect for the average worker equate to in practical terms? Clean restrooms? Free coffee? A bonus at the end of the fiscal year?

And what is "screwed" in practice? No raises? Cubicals that only shield you when you're sitting?

Why isn't a fair wage enough respect? I hate to give in a little, but the company, i.e. management, owes the workers integrity, as well. That should eliminate any future Worldcom or Enron episodes.

As a practical note, don't take your retirement benefits in company stock!

My opinion is that an employer owes an employee only a "reasonably" safe working environment and a "fair" wage and that an employee owes the employer an honest day's work.

After that, what either gives or gets is simply a matter of personal preference, politics, or power.

A company owes its' employees what it agreed to with them in their contract.

A company owes its' employees what it agreed to with them in their contract.

That fits into the preference, politics, and power portion of my response.

A company owes its' employees what it agreed to with them in their contract.
We don't have contracts for most employees. In a "right to work" state, that's not unusual. My boss can walk in one morning and fire the whole staff, if that's what he wants to do.

The point was what responsibilities are implied? I think we've pretty much beat it to death, though. I expected far more anti-managment sentiment in the beginning. I guess that horse is getting beat in the anti-capitalist threads.