Quote: from jakelong at 11:38 pm on July 1, 2008
or they are free to screw the consumers and the workers.
If they can get away with it, then why shouldn't they? After all, isn't making profit their only interest? The more money, the better?
As soon as the company screws the consumers and workers over enough, it is their job to unite and strike / boycott the company. Through this, it costs the company far more to screw them over than it would be to cater more towards their interests, which is the entire point of strikes / unions (as well as boycotts, which are pretty rare).
we were not speaking about unions. But yeah its weird that went away.
The way I see unions is that it's an attempt to unite the common worker so they can gain some power over the company. If every worker is not united and acting only on their own accord, then individually they have no power. Thus the company can exploit them much more easily. Once they unite, though, then the company suddenly starts having problems. This is when the company has to begin catering more toward the interests of its workers, because if they don't, then they lose all profit. With unions, it's in the company's interest to keep their employees happy (meaning, companies won't be screwing their workers over).
First I never got why they made it a requirement THAT was stupid. Second there's plenty of places where unions made things better for workers.
You mean making it a requirement for joining a union? If you don't make it a requirement, then the union would be nothing more than a few workers united with everybody else acting on their own accord. Again, brings you back to the problem you'd have with no unions.
My main point was that if you look at the 50s and 60s, you'll see the average income of the lower classes of Americans rising in real dollars. From about the 70s to present, it's remained stagnant. And I'm telling you, the percentage of unionized jobs also dropping is no coincidence. Less unions means less power to the common worker, which means companies can exploit their employees far more easily.
but we dont even always need unions. If the CEOs dont just screw workers and ship jobs to foreign countries then they CAN make things good for EVERYONE in the US. more work for americans means more consumers means a better economy for the US.
But who's to make sure that the CEOs play fairly? You can't rely on their good nature or government legislation. This is where you need a labor union, Jake. Labor unions would have more interest than anybody else to make sure that the CEOs aren't screwing their employees over.
Moreover, outsourcing of jobs is mainly due to other factors (though labor unions encourages jobs to move overseas). For one, if it's cheaper to produce something overseas in some place like China than it would be to produce it in America, then why wouldn't you produce it in China? If your competitor begins to, then you better also or your business will probably go down under. I believe about 90% of everything Walmart sells is imported from China. As a result, places like Fred Meyer, Target, etc. all have to compete by importing their products from overseas, too. You could make it a law to force these companies to not buy products from overseas, but that would also kill a lot of foreign trade and may not be all that desireable (remember, the Great Depression was the result of the drop in global trade). It would also increase the price of many goods in the US considerably, too, meaning consumers will not spend their money as much.
Personally, if you really want to stop outsourcing, you'd pay great attention to China and its yuan. The yuan is extremely undervalued (you'll notice that the US always complains to China about how their Yuan is undervalued - it's about 60% undervalued, I think. If you want to stop outsourcing, you'd advocate making the Chinese Yuan becoming much more valued (thereby increasing the value of its exports), as the US has been doing for quite some time now).
I dont get why we rewards CEOs who make our economy tank and expand the economy of china
If the CEO is making a greater profit for the company, then what else is their concern? Think about this for a second, Jake. Their only concern is to make profit. Anything else is more of a side effect. The CEOs are being rewarded through the fact that they're actually bringing in profit. Had they refused to outsource, the company would be losing profit and, while they might have helped the American worker a little longer, they wouldn't be rewarded - they'd be failures.
THAT RIGHT! so you see that if you DONT screw workers and treat them good THEN the company fucking does better.
However, if your employees have too much stock, they can get the upperhand of you. Thus they'll start demanding for more benefits. In a sense, this is when the workers become too powerful, and the company starts to fail because of this. There needs to be a very delicate balance between the company and the worker.
Now I ask you why more companies dont do that. because a lot of CEOs are stupid greedy pigs thats why. not all of them but too many are.
Hardly. It's because they want as much power in the hands of the company as possible, and as little power in the hands of the workers as possible. Remember, if the worker gets too much power, they'll begin to demand for too much, and the company will go down under. It is the CEO's job to not let that happen, thus it is in their interest to crush unions and anything else that might give the workers a chance to get the upperhand of the company. However, at the same time, it is the workers' jobs to make sure that the CEO isn't successful and that they do unite and demand for greater benefits. I see it primarily as a power struggle between the company and worker, although no one is "good" and no one is "evil." They just have different interests and wish to use their power to make sure that they get their interests served, thus finding a compromise so long as the delicate balance of power is there.
then dont piss them off.
That means giving the employees larger wages, greater benefits, etc.
Remember, Jake, people always want more. The company can only give so much before it starts to find itself getting screwed over by the workers. A balance of power here is imperative. Stocks help, but if you give too large a portion of your stocks over to employees, they can use that against you in the long run.
it goes both ways. happy employees are gonna make your company profit like crazy. unhappy employees are gonna just say fuck you and quit.
If turnover rates are high, then the employees that say fuck you and quit won't make a bit of a difference. In fact, they'd be screwed over by the employees that actually decided to stay and try to form a union. This is why people who say "if you don't like your job, go find a new one" are totally full of shit - because you can do much more damage and improve your situation much more through unionizing.
And also, remember that happier employees doesn't always mean better profits. For skilled jobs like the tech industry, it would, but for jobs at places like McDonald's? Not at all.
you know a lot of examples of that in the tech industry or elsewhere?
I haven't heard of too many companies besides tech companies giving stocks to their employees. Like I've described, it's a risky move. It does make the employees happy, but it doesn't guarantee their happiness in the long term.
usually if the company tanks its because the ideas or the decisions made by the ceos were not right anyway.
Exactly. Outsourcing is a part of this. Their competitors outsourced manufacturing to China and thus import many products from China. The CEO that refuses to do the same will tank their company. You shouldn't blame the CEOs when you see jobs outsourcing. They're doing what they can to keep their company from tanking, which is what their job is.
not because a bunch of employees go on stock selling frenzy.
I don't think that's ever happened yet (primarily because companies know it would be foolish to give out that many stocks to employees). But if a company was dumb enough to do that, then it could become a possibility.
if they see something wrong selling stocks and shooting themselves in the foot is not gonna be the first thing they do. they first thing they do if they got a stake in the company is say ok this is a problem let's fix it.
Quite true, which is why the idea of giving employees stocks will work to favor the company overall, so long as it's not too much.
I'm just saying, there needs to be a balance. Going more one way or another means that the balance is gone and something is going to fuck up.
the techies at google and microsoft and stuff are not on union you know.
They don't really need to be. They're paid pretty well and get rather good benefits. Skilled jobs don't usually need labor unions to get these. It's primarily the unskilled jobs that do.
the way they do that is give more stock to the CEOS and execs anyway. i mean it dont take a genius to figure that one out.
Exactly. Thus it's in the CEO's own interest to make profit.
However, the CEO is actually in a position which influences greatly as to whether the company makes a profit or not (hence their great pay, benefits, stocks, etc.). The common worker does not have nearly as much influence over whether the company makes a profit. They have a tiny bit of influence, and far more if they unionize, but individually very little, which is why you don't see these guys getting stocks.
you weird man. most founders of the companies get at least 50% of stocks anyway. but giving more stocks to employees and good benefit and retirement plans makes them happy and want to produce.
However, Jake, it's risky. You can only trust the workers as much as you can trust the CEOs, and since founders / CEOs are in a position to really influence whether or not a company makes a profit, it makes sense that they have lots of stocks - because their job is to make profit for the company through their decisions, which would reflect positively on stocks.
If you give that many stocks to employees, you could see the fortune of your company crumble if they decide that they aren't happy enough and want more, thus hurting profits. This is why employees generally do not get stocks.
it works. read all about in the way they worked out google employee stuff.
I'd say tech industry jobs like Google are quite a bit different from manufacturing jobs, fastfood jobs, etc. As they are skilled laborers and their productivity reflects on the company far more than the productivity of a manufacturing / fastfood worker, it makes sense to give them more stock.
who do you think is gonna be more worried about making sure your company dont tank? the guys cramming late hours in your garage to make sure the company flies even if they only have stocks and some free sandwiches? or the ones who live 10,000 miles away and are hired by some thrid level agency to do some job for $5 an hour?
Personally, I don't think their productivity makes a bit of a difference on the whole (as in individually, united they would, but individually, no) as to whether the company makes a profit or not. The bigger question is generally which would be cheaper? And the cheaper and less chance of labor unions, the better.
nope. but even skilled workers can be screwed by their company. and when they do the company might survive but it never really takes off.
Of course, which is why it's in the company's interests to make their skilled workers happy. As the unskilled worker has, individually, very little impact on whether the company makes a profit or not, they won't care about making them happy very much.
besides theres way to make sure even unskilled workers are happy. even the idiots at mcdonalds contribute to making a profit to the place.
They do bring a profit for them, but they are also easily replacable, hence why nobody's concerned with making these guys happy. High turnover makes a position much less valuable.
if you go to some place where the guys taking your orders are retards and assholes are you gonna come back to that place? fuck no.
Which is why you write up / fire the crap employees and hire new ones. Remember, they're easily replacable, which is why they aren't paid very much money.
it dont matter if they offer free fries with that or have the latest hulk toys. unless you a total desperate loser. even at mcdonalds you gonna go to where ppl are are ok with you and treat you ok as a customers. so if the employees suck then you losing money.
To an extent at least. But if the turnover rates are high, then the main thing for these employees is just making whatever wage they can, because they know if they don't do their job adequately (as in, being an asshole to the customer), they'll be fired. Paying these guys much more money isn't necessary when you look into the overall profit of the company. If it actually helped these company's profits, then you'd see fastfood workers being paid more than minimum wage. And since you don't see that, there's no reason to think that it would actually improve a company's profits, mainly from what I have mentioned.
sure. but it dont have to be crummy for the unskilled guys either. i mean not THAT crummy.
So what are the unskilled workers going to do about it? If they want to improve their situation, it's their job to unite, walk out, and go on strike, thereby using their power to hurt the company's profits and make it more profitable for the company to keep them happy. It's not the CEO's job or anyone else's to look after them, for they have no interest here so long as they make as much of a profit as possible.
yeah and no. a comany still has a duty to not cheat and lie about what it sells.
Lol, false advertisement is clearly against the law and has been for 100 years or so. But the only interest of the company is to make a profit. You shouldn't count on them catering towards you (as a consumer or as a worker) any more than what's in their interests of making a profit. However, you can certainly use what power you do have to hurt the company's profits - just don't overestimate your power. Individually, you have very little power unless you're a skilled worker or own a shitload of a company's stocks. Unionizing is what it takes to make sure that a company does not cheat its workers.
no but it should FOR ITS OWN advantage is what im saying.
They do look after their employees only as far as they need to. If they look after their employees any more (as in, giving unskilled workers benefits or greater wages), they'll lose profit. Thus, like I've been saying, unskilled workers need to unite and demand for these things. If they can use their collective power, they can put a real dent in a company's profit.
yeah i agree. but making unions a requirement sucks too.
If they are not a requirement for a job, then the workers are not united when a few decide not to join the union (yet reap the benefits of the union) and thus the whole union breaks down since suddenly the unions no longer have any real power.
the thing is I dont think they react as logically as you. i think a lot of the time all some of the execs do is NOT what best for the company
They don't want what's best for the company? Why wouldn't they? If they have stocks in the company, you can be sure that they want the company to succeed. It is in their interest to see the company make a profit and expand.
or what best for the country
That's not directly in their interests, unlike the company itself. So you shouldn't expect them to try to do things which benefit the American economy when it wouldn't benefit their company.
but how they can suck the system dry and pocket all the money and go live in the caribbeans in a yacht and store the tax money off shore
That's all a part of making profit for the company. Do your job as an executive or CEO well and make your company rich, and you will be rich.
However, even CEOs and some executives who do rather shitty jobs are still rather well off. That's just all a part of the pay they're given. The idea is that they'll make even more money if they do their jobs well and make the company succeed, so they'll have that much more reason to. And that's what's important.
its funny how ppl bitch all the time about ppl on welfare sucking up the system but no one says anything about those assholes taking tax money offshore and cheating the country and screwing american workers by exporting jobs.
They get plenty of shit spoken about them. Just go to any forum and you'll see liberals and socialists talking shit about CEOs. While they might not necessarily deserve all that money, it's certainly within the company's interests to pay these guys as handsomely as possible (especially if they make more profit for the company).
Any side effect like job outsourcing isn't so much the fault of the CEO as it is the fault of the global economy. CEOs, their decisions, and their job's worth is dictated entirely by the free market - as it should be.
The only real interest for the workers' well beings comes from the workers themselves. Thus it is their responsibility to use what power they can to demand what they want - however, this often increases the likelihood of outsourcing. Thus it's also within their interest to play wisely and not go overboard. It's all a delicate balance of power, which in today's society, you see more of it on the company's side than the worker's side (as it was, to an extent, 30 - 40 years ago or so).
424 users online 
223225 members 
You have 1 new message.
