Komrade & Health Ins

An attempt to kombine my 2 comments...

Maybe if top level management weren't paid so handsomely, there would be money to pay health insurance for workers. Maybe if the 1% that have 40% were taxed at a reasonable rate the gov't could subs. insurance.
Something needs to be done on both topics. We are moving more and more to a Few Hav'alot and Alot have Little. You only have to look to Mexico to see how well such a system looks. It will only be a matter of time when the smart among us learn French and invade Canada. Wet backs across the St. Law!!!

bladderq's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SouthernBelle's picture
Submitted by SouthernBelle on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 2:00pm.

Agree with you, but what about people like me? We are blue collar, in a tough situation where my husband got hurt at work and we ALL know how Workman's Comp is oh so helpful. My child has insurance, my husband has insurance, but for ME, only ME to be on my husband's insurance, it would cost him an additional FOUR HUNDRED, yes 400 every TWO WEEKS from his pay, and we were barely scraping by with him at full pay. We can't even get a refi on our current house payment to lower the payments (we originally got a 15 year, now we regret it) because of the workman's comp...I got a little off topic, sorry, but what I'm trying to get out, is that what if I needed my appendix removed? I'd have to be one of those "drains on society" that can't pay the medical bills because I have no insurance. I can't afford health insurance because I'd rather my family has food. I would hope the government would WANT to help me get decent medical care. Wouldn't you if you were in my shoes?

SouthernBelle, GRACE is a VIRTUE

Submitted by swmbo on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 11:55pm.

At the risk of offending you, your description is exactly the type of situation in which ultra conservative people learn the truth of what they espouse. I'm not saying you deserve to have a hard time and, goodness knows, I wouldn't wish your situation on anyone. But, just like those who were so happy to hear that it got more difficult to file for bankruptcy, they didn't realize that corporations could still file for bankruptcy just as easily and dump their pension plans and their health care for retirees. Meanwhile, those retirees who did everything right -- they lived fiscally responsible lives, saved for a rainy day, educated their children -- couldn't discharge their medical debts when they got shafted.

The plain fact is that, unless you are a Corporate CEO with a platinum parachute or you can "cook the corporate books", most Americans -- even the responsible ones -- live one heart attack, one stroke, one cancer diagnosis, one catastrophic car accident with an uninsured motorist or one corporate downsizing away from having to hope someone whose job it is to say "no" will find it in their heart to say "yes" and help. When you vote for the current Republican Party, you tacitly condone that.

If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 01/26/2007 - 8:14am.

Many people don't want the government in their lives:

Keep out of a "woman's choice" concerning abortion.
Don't eavesdrop on terrorists.
Don't track terrorist money.
No religion in the public sector.

So, why do they want government deciding what people can get paid? I think many executives get paid far too much, but you knbow what, the free market dictates it. Supply and demand. Rather than worry about how much someone else makes, focus on improving your own income!

Why don't they complain about the OBSCENE money paid to sports stars? How come they are not demanding the government control thier wages?

After government provided health insurance, what other need will you want the government to provide, affordable housing, affordable day care, regulated car insurance, hey what about cutting mortgage rates too?

I guess personal responsibility is dying.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sun, 01/28/2007 - 2:01pm.

If Americans' thought of their automobile insurance like they do their "right" to health insurance, then they would demand. . .

$5 co-pays for oil changes and tune-ups.
Free windshield wipers and tire rotations.

Fill ups would become like prescriptions. We would have to get a slip to determine how often we could get our tanks filled.

We couldn't use the corner gas station, instead, we would have to drive across town to fill 'er up.

If we were safe drivers and didn't get any tickets, our premiums would be the same as the drunk driver who doesn't care for himself or his automobile.

The problem is that Americans have come to expect their Healthcare to be free or very close to it. Why? Socialism.

Health Insurance is a new invention. Its been around only in the last 50 years. No one had it until after WW2 and companies were giving it to their employees free of charge when Governmental regulations prevented wage increases. So the Evil Corporations who were making huge profits following the war, decided to give benefits such as health care, how dare they.

This Insurance benefit then was used as if it were free, and people would go to doctors all of the time without any concerns over the costs. Doctors started to enjoy this gravy train. They realized, hey, I don't have to worry about getting paid, so yeah, lets do this X-ray, or that therapy or this treatment. They knew they could charge whatever price and it would get paid, because the MARKET influences of a knowledgable buyer and a free market had been destroyed.

So with the advent of Health Insurance, our Free Market system of checks and balances was destroyed. Socialized medicine will be the death of our Health system.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 9:50am.

In Dick Hobb's world, a child's health is equivillant to the operating condition of a car. In Dick Hobb's world, "people would go to doctors all the time without any concerns over the costs."
So let's evaluate this: How many of us posters run to the doctor at every opportunity without regard to cost? How many of us sit in the Dr.'s office out of love for the experience?
Dick, if that were the case I'm sure you would have had that gastric bypass by now. Your arguments are a pathetic slap in the face to the Georgia Bar (and I don't mean Hangar 74).
You didn't even address my question: Why is taxpayer-funded healthcare acceptable for the most hightly compensated public servants. Hmmmm? The people taking most of our tax $ as salary also have FREE health care ala Us?
Dick, please go back to baseless attacks on President Carter. You do a better job of that. And add in some baseless accusations of Barack Obama's time in Muslim extremist school. And please, go get that Corvette and Viagra prescription; it will give you something creative to focus on.
Kevin "Hack" King

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 01/27/2007 - 2:08pm.

Must we keep meeting in opposie sides of the ring? I truly think you prevent yourself from seeing the other side of the debate, knowing that some facets of conservatism will be nearly impossible to defend.
Let's jump right in here. What does personal responsibility have to do with oversight and preventing Executives and Boards of Directors from looting their companies? We get soo upset over Katrina "looters" stealing hundreds, but we empathize with the Ken Lays of the world(com) and Enron ilk who steal millions and destroy lives of employees along the way. We live in a country where execs are making 400 x what the average employee makes. Is Ford Mo Co.s' CEO 400 X more important than the men and women putting motors together? Will he be docked for poor performance, or given the standard golden parachute? As Delta was sliding into financial insolvency, our top 30 + execs were enjoying BONUSES and STOCK OPTIONS! Is this a result of their "hard work" and "personal responsibility?" No, this was a disgraceful act that is replicated over and over at soo many companies; publicly owned companies by the way. That is why it is somewhat of a fleecing of the public. We are slowly becoming two class society, and we must soon think of factors to correct this trend.

Kevin "Hack" King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 10:43am.

Hack, I start off with my favorite Churchill quote: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." It's time you acted your age.

Now, according to you, a general is no more important than the soldier/airman, but they get much more money. ($1,178/mo vs $14,196/mo) Are you quibbling over percentages. What makes the goverment, never known for running anything as efficiently as the free market, expert in when to limit wages? Is 100x Ok but 101x not? What kind of free society puts limits on what people can earn. Next you might suggest that if people make too much from their investments that is not right.

I notice you had no comments about how much sports stars make.

Back to industry, any person found "stealing" goes to jail, like
Enron, etc. Maybe if a certain company's union hadn't ensured they were the highest paid for so long, they would be making money like Southwest? What about all the post 9/11 FEDERAL GRANTS from the tax payers?

Maybe if Ford did not have to pay so much to it's union workers, including the cost in each car to cover retirees healthcare, they could turn a profit like Foreign owned US car manufacturers.

We disagree on one major point. I am for less governement control and interfernce in my life, while you want the government controling healthcare and salaries.

As far as two classes, John Edwards, in his multi-million dollar home can beat the class warfare drum all he wants, but just look at the MILLIONS of peopel flocking to this country and beating the pants of many entitlement class citizens! This is still a country with limitless opportunities that rewards hard work, yet still passes along "Earned Income Tax Credits".

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 11:01pm.

I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of people correcting your bibliography, but exactly when did I say "a general is no more important than a soldier/airman?" Here's a hint: Didn't never say nan such thang. What I did imply is that a system where those who set policy at public companies do so in a way that insulates them from their own bad decisions, and guarantees their financial future regardless of their performance and irrespective of the rank and file employee at said company is a FLAWED SYSTEM. I'm sure you see no problem with Tyco's CEO having a million dollar Grecian birthday party on the company's dime. I'm sure you have no problem with Lorenzo dismantling Eastern Airlines and throwing the employees under the financial bus along with their pensions. I'm sure you support Bush 41 for stopping the bi-partisan, blue ribbon inquiry into the legality of Lorenzo's practices. I'm sure you feel CEO's should be paid incredible salaries to come and exorbatant amounts to leave when they screw up. But I must ask, why have an SEC? Why does this Commission exist if it is all free market rule? Why not allow insider trading? Free market right? Let's get rid of the FDIC and PBGC and let pensionless senior citizens forrage for sustanance? I don't wish to see the all powerful government control all. But how smart is it to give unbridaled, unchecked fiscal power to the executive branch of anything? country, company, etc?
And to the "sports stars" angle: What does that have in common with executives and their relationships with boards of directors? Players aren't the owners, are they? Does A Rod make decisions that effect the pensions of all NL players? Does Mike Vic sign checks for the Falcons? I personally don't go to pro games (unless comped) because I think everything from the parking space to the beer is overpriced. That does not, however, relate to the CEO/corporation relationship does it? Just a few thoughts.

Cheers, and I look forward to more meaningful banter with you!

Kevin "Hack" King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 8:34am.

I certainly DO see a problem with corporate mismangement! The Tyco exec got what was coming to him for his foolish waste.

Lorenzo didn't ruin the airline by himself, check Wikipedia: Labor relations: strikes and cancelled service
Under Lorenzo's tenure, Eastern was crippled by severe labor unrest. Asked to accept deep cuts in benefits, Eastern's mechanics and ramp service employees, represented by the IAM (International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers), went on strike March 4, 1989. A sympathy strike called by the pilots represented by ALPA (Air Line Pilots Assn.) and flight attendants represented by TWU (Transport Workers Union) effectively shut down the airline's domestic operations. Non-contract employees, including airport gate and ticket counter agents and reservation sales agents, did not honor the strike. Due to the strike, flights were cancelled, resulting in lost revenue for the airline.

You state in your argument the controls that already exist! The SEC, ask Martha if insider trading is enforced, except for maybe Hillary Cattle futures and Terry McCauliffe's Global crossing deal! The FDIC and PBGC are good things, I support them, so don't put words in my mouth.

If you bothered reading my first post, I stated that I think many CEOS are oeverpaid, but what right granted by the citizens in that document you are sworn to uphold and protect "THE CONSTITUTION" gives power over limiting salaries? Land of opportunity and such. No one highlights the many CEO's Truit Cathy, etc that make charitable donations and help people. You focus on one or two bad apples. Read Neil Cavuto's book "More Than Money". It could give you the other side of corporate America that you are blind to. And you accuse me of not seeing the other side of an issue!

The sports analogy goes to the very core of who has the right to decide what other people get paid. Start with CEOs and the slippery slope picks up momentum. Now let's talk about capping pay for airline pilots.

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 02/19/2007 - 9:10pm.

Herr Major, when I saw this short video on airline pilot pay, I thought of you.

So You Want to be a Regional Airline Pilot?
Jiminy "Basmati" Cricket
Official Temporary Conscience for ArmyMajPinnochioRetired

Submitted by skyspy on Tue, 02/20/2007 - 8:06am.

That is part of jet blues problems and why they ran out of pilots this past week. No one wants these low paying jobs anymore. The kids fresh out of college have figured out they can make more money waiting on tables at Applebees.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 12:42pm.

Obviously airline salaries have neatly taken care of their own "market corrections." I would encourage you to sift around for a very insightful post about SouthWest Airlines, one of the most unionized and most profitable companies in the passenger haulin business. But if you like, you may bash unions at will. They do have pesky ways of promoting work site safety (coal mines, duty day limits for truckers and pilots), child labor laws, maternity and paternity issues and other family issues, as well as equal pay for equal work. I'm very proud of those efforts, and no union basher will change that. Take care bro, and see you next topic,

Kevin "Hack" King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 1:29pm.

Maybe those Southwest Unions have learned from Eastern's Unions not to bite the hand that feeds them.

Since we now have federal laws protecting workers, "Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, FMLA, Workers Comp, etc. couldn't a point be made that unions have outlived their purpose. case in point foreign non-unionized car manufacturers in the US. They can make cars without the burden of retiree healthcare cost and inflated wages.

Submitted by Eric Hanly on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 3:08pm.

There's an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today on just that subject. It seems right-to-work states have added auto manufacturing jobs over the last 20 years while non-right-to-work states have lost them. Who would have guessed? I wonder why union membership keeps dropping?
WSJ.com - Commentary: Iowa Emigration Act*

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 11:27am.

Hack, I start off with my favorite Churchill quote: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Major, Churchill never said that.

Click here for details from the Winston Churchill Centre

Always putting words in other peoples' mouths, you are.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sun, 01/28/2007 - 1:42pm.

I'm tired of hearing all of these ignorant comments about the evil corporations and how much money the CEO's "steal" because of their wages, golden parachutes, etc.. (I'm not referring to those that actually commit crimes, i.e. Enron.)

The fact is Corporations are part of our capitalistic way of life. Corporations were created to do that which the individual could not do. With the advent of the industrial revolution and the need for major transportation and utility needs, e.g. trains and power plants, corporations were created. No single individual was wealthy enough to build railroads, that spurred our country's growth, or produce the energy necessary to help create the jobs Americans needed and wanted.

A legal corporation has the AMERICAN RIGHT to over pay their CEO's all they want, and we have no legal right to complain, UNLESS you are a shareholder. If my stocks are in companies that have such CEO contracts, and I disapprove I can either a.) vote them out with my shares, or b.) sell my stock.

There are abuses in every profession, even with trial lawyers and I suppose fighter jocks. But the OWNERS of the Corporations should be the ones complaining. If they don't care how their company is run, then so be it. In our capitalistic society, another company will spring up to fill the gap if these CEO's don't produce the dividends that their shareholder's demand.

Liberals always want to stop capitalistic companies from using their money as they see fit, by restricting what they can pay their own exectives, but you never hear them trying to stop their Hollywood pals from making millions of dollars for making lousy movies? or to prevent basketball stars and weed smoking Quarterbacks from making big bucks. Its always the corporations that are evil.

Socialism or perhaps Fascism has been tried and has failed. Why do you liberals still keep trying to bring us into such a system?

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 10:00am.

It seems your argument is: It is not illegal to overpay execs 400% so it is therefore what? Moral? Just? Something to be proud of? Oh, and save your "liberal" labeling. This topic has been brought up by very conservative people, like Vietnam vet and former GOPer Jim Webb. A man with more bravery in a single hair folicle than I imagine you have in your entire amorphous body. (I hope you don't get the impression that I don't care for you?) Mr. Lawyer, there is a difference between what is legal and what is just. I welcome efforts to keep our society a just society, where we care about the lives of children of all walks, and where the elderly are treated as if they have more value than a car in terms of health care. And by the way Mr. "weed smoking quarterback", that statement would get you disbarred in court would it not? What was Mike Vic charged with? What was found in his bottle? So what do you know that noone else does? What is your opinion of weed using politicians? Or coke snorting lawyers? If I wasn't so nice, I would call you a pathetic shrew, but I'm a nice guy, Dick, and as such would never call you such a nasty name.

"Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by Eric Hanly on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 1:40pm.

Jim Webb is no conservative, he's just another leftist hack who thinks the federal government should run our lives even more than they already do. He would like to take everyone's money and redistibute the way he sees fit, which would be to buy as many votes as he could from the cheap, ignorant masses. The result in a few years would be the same percentage distribution as today, but everyone would be poorer.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 11:14pm.

It is interesting how quickly conservatives divorce themselves from other conservative people that disagree with them. you must really be fumed at Chuck Hagel about now, I imagine. This is a snipit from the National Review. Would you call it a "liberal" or "conservative" Paper? Bruce Bartlett writes about conservative republicans who pushed for a windfall profits tax back in '05. he also acurately predicted a net GOP loss in '06. Here are his words and the link:

"When Democrats controlled Congress, such kangaroo courts were a common occurrence every time the world price of oil spiked. Congressmen and senators ranted and raved for the cameras while oil company executives were forced to sit silently and take it, with little if any opportunity to respond.

What is different now is that Republicans are doing exactly the same thing. Their purpose seems to be to prove to the American people once and for all that it makes absolutely no difference which party controls Congress; that the same utterly stupid policies are pursued under both Republican and Democratic control. And Republicans wonder why their party’s base is evaporating, with many political analysts now predicting heavy losses for the GOP in next year’s congressional elections.

The ultimate in Republican idiocy is growing support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Mental diminishment is even affecting those previously considered to be “conservative” — a term increasingly devoid of meaning in a Congress that spends money even faster that liberal Democrats used to do."


Now, Eric, if you would kindly get over the "leftist hack" crap and actually address the issue we are raising, I will promise to not eat crackers in bed. I know you don't like it when I eat crackers in bed. Deal?

Kevin "Hack" King

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 10:19am.

A very wise man once said:"It is interesting how quickly conservatives divorce themselves from other conservative people that disagree with them." I guess the democrats don't want to be called on how they turned on their former Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman. For a party that supports divesity it looks awfully INTOLERANT to me.

I can't wait until the "Most Ethical Congress" yet starts looking into Senator Reid's latest sweetheart land deal! Oh not to worry, the MSN will never hold him to the standards for Republicans.

FYI: Yahoo news reports: The Nevada lawmaker has been implicated in yet another land scheme that this time could net him a tidy $50,000 to $290,000. Los Angeles Times investigative reporters Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger, this week revealed that Reid paid $166 an acre for valuable northern Arizona land whose market value, according to the county assessor, four years ago was worth $2,144 an acre.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 11:40pm.

Short and sweet. I'm running low on Lieutenant provided brewskie.

Joe Lieberman lost the democratic primary to a very astute Lamont, who actually listened to what his constituents felt. Joe Lieberman is respected none the less, although his views on the war differ from the MAJORITY of Americans.

Let's take the VP's retort to heart felt opposition to the President's surge/augmentation: I am the Vice President and they are not. Is this grade school? Did he just say that? Are Congress and the will of the American people purely inconsequential? Has our democracy turned into an autocracy? Honestly, this is Hack talking here. does no one pay attention to the many, many republicans who are concerned with the lack of checks and balances with respect to checks and balances?
And please spare me the democratic scandals. Between Delay, Libby (not looking good right now), Fleischer (testimony not jiving with Libby's recollection), Abramoff, Cunnigham, Ney (Abramoff ties), Cheney + Halliburton, Conrad Burns(Abramoff ties), Don Sherwood (paying mistress $500K), etc., etc. I just can't take those cast stones seriously. The Reid land deal sounds alot like Sonny Perdue's, and he seems to be a free man, does he not? Anywho, I always welcome this debate. Todo de que nos hablamos son importantes y interesantes a la vec. Yo estoy esperando por la proxima subjecto en esse guerra. Que Legal! Mi amigo de la armada!!

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by Eric Hanly on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 10:06am.

Wherever you got the article I don’t disagree with a single word. They aren’t conservatives. They’re leftist hacks. What’s your point? Oops, I just realized why the term “leftist hack” offends you. No pun intended, I promise. I’ll change it from now on to “those who don’t believe in freedom, personal responsibility, and increased opportunity for all, and think that bigger government is the answer to all of our problems instead of a problem in itself”… or maybe I’ll just stick with leftist hack.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 12:34pm.

I'm sure that you are aware our government has never cost more, employed more people, and wielded more power than it does right now, under the last 6 years of Conservative leadership. kind of takes the air out of your rehtorical tires. So, let me understand this: The republicans referred to in the National Review are "leftist hacks" now? As well as Senator specter and Chuck Hagel? Makes your argument easier to defend I guess.
Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by Eric Hanly on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 12:42pm.


Yes I am aware of the size of our federal govt. I don't recall ever defending Bush when he wanted to make it bigger. Specter has never been a conservative as far as I know, and Hagel...Okay you got me, they're all leftist hacks. My point is it hasn't been "6 years of conservative leadership."

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 1:10pm.

Something about that rings. Hack..just a small point to throw in and to ponder. If the Conservatives in the Republican party are in charge then why are Conservatives like myself abandoning the party in droves? Our party got hijacked and the people that are wearing the Reagan Conservative label today are not authentic and are not what Conservatism is all about. Let's be clear about one thing please. George Bush is not a Conservative. Neither is the GOP leadership and neither is the GOP Congress and Senate members.

I know Conservatives...and pal..these clowns aren't Conservatives. Sounds catchy huh? Smiling

Question for you sir. Do you believe that the government has the right to dictate the salaries I take and pay out in my business?

Later...out of town and tied up with a busy agenda. Take care and give Hobbs a break. Eye-wink Poor guy really knows how step into it sometimes.


You don't need to defend a Lion. You just need to let him out of his cage.

C.S. Lewis

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 7:58pm.

If anyone could woo me over to the "dark side" (pun on many levels) it would be you. I am actually a bonified moderate. I do not feel private companies should have their practices dictated to them by the Fed. I do think PUBLICLY held companies fall into closer scrutiny, because they are owned by the public but managed by small groups of humans, who we all know are imperfect. We all have greed. We all are a bit self serving. We all fall short of His glory. That is why we have laws to begin with. Our ethical compasses don't always work so good.
As for a private company, you pay for the quality of labor you need. If you can pay people dirt and get a good product, go for it. If you need more skill and customer service, you will most likely have to pay for it. But if you hire cheap, illegal labor and pay them little to nothing, and you don't pay into FICA and FITW, I have big problems with your business plan. Okay, I've gotta get off of the psychiatrist's couch. Gettin a little too touchy feely.

Cheers Git,

Kevin "Hack" King

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 11:20pm.

To clarify..... I don't classify you as a Lib. We've had several goes at it together and in the end "Moderate" is how I would definitely describe you. But then again that is how I describe Bush.Eye-wink Ok buddy....don't lob anything at my house as you do a fly by. Please.....I just remodeled.

I'll not disagree with much of what you've just said. Without getting into details I have nothing to be ashamed about in regards to what I pay and how I've treated employees over the years. As a testimony I can boast of an organization that experiences very little turnover. Rest assure I get what I pay for.

In regards to the arguments of the unions I will have to differ with you to a certain degree. I agree that history has proved that unions have contributed to the betterment of working conditions and wage structures of American workers throughout the 50's, 60's & W's. Laws, benefits and standards have been implemented that provide an overall workplace environment that has indeed made us the envy of most of the world.

However, with many organizations as they get larger and more powerful greed, corruption and complacency takes over. Many of these unions and their leaders got fat off of squeezing many US corporations causing them to have to eliminate jobs, close plants, and often times move offshore in order to compete and/or survive. What evolved was another class of crooks that are of the same ilk of some corporate leaders. These people also obtained power and wealth off the backs of the working class while pretending to ultimately act in their best interests.

What happened is that wages, benefits, retirements, and other perks increased for the employees while often times many businesses suffered from increased costs and decreased production that eventually placed them in a situation where they could not compete. Couple that along with the fact that most Americans these days refuse to work in manufacturing and we've got a problem. We now have a work force that for the most part feels entitled not to have to work with their hands any more. Everyone wants the desk job behind the computer or the management position. Honestly speaking I hear business owners express this concern consistently. The bottom line is many folks today want premium positions, pay, and benefits but very few want to produce what is needed to cover the costs and to help the company survive.

So I have to argue that there are severe abuses on both sides of the CEO / union issue. But what makes them any different than the Republicans and the Democrats? So as I ramble and babble on I hope that we all could agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around on all sides of this issue.

Hey Hack.... If only you knew how close I can relate to your new avatar. Along with the hot air and blowing off of excess gas you picked one that represents a huge part of my former life.


You don't need to defend a Lion. You just need to let him out of his cage.

C.S. Lewis

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sun, 01/28/2007 - 3:03pm.

This article took less than 1 min. to find.

Oftentimes, the "Shareholders" aren't informed of the Golden parachutes until after the deal is done.

Published on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 by Arianna Huffington
Pensions For Execs, Shaft For Workers
by Arianna Huffington

"Take American Airlines. While preparing to make a rough landing in bankruptcy court, executives at the dead broke carrier extracted from workers $1.62 billion in wage and benefit concessions the bosses claimed were needed to keep American aloft. At the same time, the execs secretly safeguarded themselves with a glittering array of golden parachutes, including massive cash bonuses and a $41-million trust fund to guarantee their pensions should the airline crash and burn."

Stealth Compensation via Retirement Benefits

Boalt Working Papers in Public Law
(University of California, Berkeley)

"Institutional investors may view such arrangements as a strong signal that the executives or directors are relatively insensitive to shareholder interests."

"Transparency and Improved Compensation Arrangements. The measures above would provide shareholders with a more accurate picture of total executive compensation."

The plane truth of the matter is that the "retirement" packages is intentionally hidden from the common "shareholder" by design.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Fri, 01/26/2007 - 9:24am.


And Major Sir.....we're not on the side that gets to select.


You don't need to defend a Lion. You just need to let him out of his cage.

C.S. Lewis

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Fri, 01/26/2007 - 7:09am.

What we need to do is dump these high paid execs. There are plenty of potential upper and middle managers in Riverdale with talent wasting away. Just think...Go to McDonalds and pay these guys the new minimum wage, a new 401K plan, expense account, a secretary and the health care crisis is solved. Now we can lower persons health care cost by what? A dollar?

I'd put that dollar in my Roth but the gubment won't let me.


You don't need to defend a Lion. You just need to let him out of his cage.

C.S. Lewis

Submitted by Thomas Finnegan on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 11:44am.

For all the defenders of the "American Right" for corporations to pay their execs whatever they want I suggest you read a book by the guy who ran the Vanguard Fund for 40 + years - it's called "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism". In it he describes how a certain few at the top have taken over our corporations and are lining their pockets - all at the expense of not JUST the shareholders, but at the expense of our country and capitalist system. IF, as Mr. Garlock so recently wrote about in the Citizen, you think all is well in the boardrooms, how about this:

- Is there a fiduciary conflict of interest when the Chairman of the Board (they hire management) and the CEO (the head of management) are the same person? Should the SEC say NO to that?

- How about making shareholder (the owners) resoultions binding on the the board of directors and managment? As it stands, the shareholders can unamimously agree on direction for the board, and in most cases the board can ignore them (the owners of the corporation) Neat setup, 'huh?

I'm all for letting the so-called "invisible hand" work in our economy, as long as it's not firmly clinched around my neck. We need strong government regulation and monitoring of what the corporate "leaders" are cooking up and handing out.

P.S. - To all y'all who say it's those nasty Unions that have ruined the airlines - you're full of it. How is it that Southwest now has the highest paid pilots and the lowest paid executive suite? And they're making money... quarter after quarter... It's about piss-poor management using labor costs as a crutch, not to mention bankrupcy law. But hate and envy are strong motivators...

Thomas Finnegan

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.