Who has more leverage to setting its own salary ?

[CultureCitizen]

... and why do you think this is so ?

 

[midcan5]

Executives pad their pockets, when you are at the top you think you deserve top salary. And boards and other execs think they too deserve the cake so they reward themselves because they deserve to be rewarded. Should I repeat that. lol

 

[Auld Phart]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

 

[imawhosure]

No doubt about it, a union worker, period. I am not suggesting they make MORE than a CEO, but they have more leverage. Why? Because when a CEO applies for a job, there is a negotiation. Usually, the compensation is between what is asked, and what is offered.

But, a union worker does not work for less than his contract ever. You want to hire a plumber in a union town, you pay the union wage. And, if you work in a plant that is unionized, or work for the federal government, it is next to impossible to fire you.

How do I know? I worked in a union plant for 30 years before retiring. CEOs came and went. Plant managers came and got fired. The workforce? Well, lets just say without exaggeration, that in 30 years service, I can promise you that less than 500 people were fired after they had 90 days and in the union, without getting returned to work with back pay. That is pretty impressive when you consider the plant had around 3000 employees when I hired in, and all of those 3000 retired or quit before it was my turn to retire.

There is little doubt that within my 30 years, 10 to 20,000 different people were employed in the union at that plant because of turnover. Which is, exactly why they changed the rules as of late, as far as cause that you could get terminated for.

 

[Auld Phart]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

I wouldn't consider 65 young.

and if that is your criteria, your OP is misleading.

 

[Darkwind]

An executive officer has acquired the knowledge, skills, and wisdom to mange the course and future of either a specific department in a corporation, or to direct the corporation itself; at the consent of the Board of Directors.

Significant skills and education back an executive. Often, they have attended specific schools and courses for the proper management of large organizations. These skills are rare in a majority of the population, and the acquisition of these skills is expensive as well as difficult.

Because of their extensive education and skills they bring to the job, they are in a very good position to negotiate the salary they wish to have and often already posses jobs that pay well enough for them to turn down an executive appointment to the company they currently work for, or to another company.

The other two choice....a common worker and an union worker.....are one and the same. There is nothing special about a union worker.

 

[Darkwind]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

Out of context reply.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Significant skills and education back an executive. Often, they have attended specific schools and courses for the proper management of large organizations. These skills are rare in a majority of the population, and the acquisition of these skills is expensive as well as difficult.

I will admit that many CEOs are talented people, which make their companies thrive, but this is not allways the case
Unlike his father, the record of George W Bush as a CEO was rather poor.

Washingtonpost.com Bush Name Helps Fuel Oil Dealings

 

[CultureCitizen]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

I wouldn't consider 65 young.

and if that is your criteria, your OP is misleading.

Well , I find it obvious that any worker ( white or blue collar) has had a chance to hire someone else to perform some task ( add a room to a house, fix a car , get some lessons , take care of a child) . It is a misconception that "only" CEOs or big companies are "job creators". Large companies are important because they have the resources to create "capital goods", but that doesn't mean they are the only ones creating jobs.
Now , regarding the post. The people I've "employed" are mostly self-employed. Their salary is determined by the laws of supply and demand, as with regular workers. Union workers have more leverage, and EO's have even more leverage. In many cases their income is not proportional to their performance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

I wouldn't consider 65 young.

and if that is your criteria, your OP is misleading.

Well , I find it obvious that any worker ( white or blue collar) has had a chance to hire someone else to perform some task ( add a room to a house, fix a car , get some lessons , take care of a child) . It is a misconception that "only" CEOs or big companies are "job creators". Large companies are important because they have the resources to create "capital goods", but that doesn't mean they are the only ones creating jobs.
Now , regarding the post. The people I've "employed" are mostly self-employed. Their salary is determined by the laws of supply and demand, as with regular workers. Union workers have more leverage, and EO's have even more leverage. In many cases their income is not proportional to their performance.

why on earth does the culture creep care the tiniest bit about who has the greatest flexibility? The issue is liberalism v conservatism.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

I wouldn't consider 65 young.

and if that is your criteria, your OP is misleading.

Well , I find it obvious that any worker ( white or blue collar) has had a chance to hire someone else to perform some task ( add a room to a house, fix a car , get some lessons , take care of a child) . It is a misconception that "only" CEOs or big companies are "job creators". Large companies are important because they have the resources to create "capital goods", but that doesn't mean they are the only ones creating jobs.
Now , regarding the post. The people I've "employed" are mostly self-employed. Their salary is determined by the laws of supply and demand, as with regular workers. Union workers have more leverage, and EO's have even more leverage. In many cases their income is not proportional to their performance.

why on earth does the culture creep care the tiniest bit about who has the greatest flexibility? The issue is liberalism v conservatism.

Imbalances created by rent-seeking policies and attitudes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have yet to see a common worker or a union worker hire or pay anyone.

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

I wouldn't consider 65 young.

and if that is your criteria, your OP is misleading.

Well , I find it obvious that any worker ( white or blue collar) has had a chance to hire someone else to perform some task ( add a room to a house, fix a car , get some lessons , take care of a child) . It is a misconception that "only" CEOs or big companies are "job creators". Large companies are important because they have the resources to create "capital goods", but that doesn't mean they are the only ones creating jobs.
Now , regarding the post. The people I've "employed" are mostly self-employed. Their salary is determined by the laws of supply and demand, as with regular workers. Union workers have more leverage, and EO's have even more leverage. In many cases their income is not proportional to their performance.

why on earth does the culture creep care the tiniest bit about who has the greatest flexibility? The issue is liberalism v conservatism.

Imbalances created by rent-seeking policies and attitudes.

dear liberal culturecreep, you failed to provide your best example of rent seeking and attitudes as it relates to this thread. Or, how liberal violence toward CEO's would help those who lost their jobs after liberals shipped their jobs to China.

 

[CultureCitizen]

My bet is you are rather young ... or are a cuban immigrant. As a common worker I have hired :
1) A plumber
2) A construction worker
3) A personal trainner
4) A literature teacher
5) A music teacher
The list goes on but I guess it is enough to serve as an example.

I wouldn't consider 65 young.

and if that is your criteria, your OP is misleading.

Well , I find it obvious that any worker ( white or blue collar) has had a chance to hire someone else to perform some task ( add a room to a house, fix a car , get some lessons , take care of a child) . It is a misconception that "only" CEOs or big companies are "job creators". Large companies are important because they have the resources to create "capital goods", but that doesn't mean they are the only ones creating jobs.
Now , regarding the post. The people I've "employed" are mostly self-employed. Their salary is determined by the laws of supply and demand, as with regular workers. Union workers have more leverage, and EO's have even more leverage. In many cases their income is not proportional to their performance.

why on earth does the culture creep care the tiniest bit about who has the greatest flexibility? The issue is liberalism v conservatism.

Imbalances created by rent-seeking policies and attitudes.

dear liberal culturecreep, you failed to provide your best example of rent seeking and attitudes as it relates to this thread. Or, how liberal violence toward CEO's would help those who lost their jobs after liberals shipped their jobs to China.

Well Dubya's example was clear enough, but , admitedly that is a worst-case-scenario which I don't think applies to most of the executive officers.

As a hypothetical example imagine the following scenario :
a) the executive officers set a rather handsome payment increase and bonus for themselves.
b) as a result the average workers get a meager payment increase.
c) another possible result is that some jobs get offshored to compensate.

Now, I don't know if this scenario is frequent or not ( maybe it just applies for worst case scenario CEOs like G.W.Bush ), but it would sure explain (in part) how the lowest 10% got poorer while the top 1% got richer.

 

[Two Thumbs]

... and why do you think this is so ?

the union worker never has any say, he gets what the union says he will get

for the rest it depends on the economy.
In a crap economy, like now, the employer can basically offer a take it or leave it deal since they have stake of applications.
Under RR economy, fringe bennies that only execs got offered were presented to anyone since workers could turn down any deal since they had multiple offers
there are, of course, certain jobs only certain people can do and they can ask for more or expect more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As a hypothetical example imagine the following scenario :
a) the executive officers set a rather handsome payment increase and bonus for themselves.
b) as a result the average workers get a meager payment increase.
c) another possible result is that some jobs get offshored to compensate.

Now, I don't know if this scenario is frequent or not ( maybe it just applies for worst case scenario CEOs like G.W.Bush ), but it would sure explain (in part) how the lowest 10% got poorer while the top 1% got richer.

100% stupid and liberal as always. Cuklture creep never misses a beat

1) management gets paid by owners out of owners pockets so there is every incentive to pay them as little as possible

2) if paid too much competition can under sell them and drive them into bankruptcy

3) our managers make more now because they earn more in globalized world with 7 billion customers

4) workers got poorer because 1) corporations have legal fiduciary duty to go to countries where taxes are lower and profits are higher. 2) liberal unions off shored 30 million jobs 4) liberal deficits off shored 10 million jobs, and then to get votes and screw our workers even more liberals invited in 20 million illegals to compete for the remaining jobs and bid down the wages.

do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[CultureCitizen]

2) if paid too much competition can under sell them and drive them into bankruptcy

That's exactly what happened to those unlucky firms who had to suffer Dubya as a CEO, Enron is another notable case.
Granted that is not the norm of American corporations, but rather a new and disquieting development.

Unions : cut the crap Ed, the number of unionized workers has almost dropped to zero ...
ah , well , not zero , but close to 14%. They hardly play any role in the unemployment rate since 2000.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's exactly what happened to those unlucky firms who had to suffer Dubya as a CEO, Enron is another notable case.
Granted that is not the norm of American corporations, but rather a new and disquieting development.

New??????????how stupid can one liberal be there are 10,000 bankruptcies each month thanks to capitalist free market regulation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unions : cut the crap Ed, the number of unionized workers has almost dropped to zero ...

dear, unions are like cancer that always threatens to grow back. When companies come here they go down south to build cars, for example, despite the old factories and skilled auto workers etc up north because of the cancerous unions. As it is they tried to unionize VW! down south. Liberal lack the IQ to learn? Next they will drive the foreign corps out with their far lower but still good wages.

Do you understand??

 

[DGS49]

The number of corporate executives (publicly traded companies) who have the power to set their own salaries is microscopic. And even if they do have a great deal of influence over the board, they have to make the argument that by some measures they are worth what they are asking for.

But let's move to the Average Joe. And let's suppose that Joe's "worth" to a potential employer has some value, depending on (a) what Joe knows, (b) how well he does what he does, and (c) the economic value of what he does.

In theory (and in fact) he can go to any one of a million different businesses, present his credentials, and try to convince the company to pay him some amount of money. If the business perceives that he is "worth" as much or more than he is asking, he might get hired. If the business perceives that he is not worth what he is asking, they might either counter-offer or just tell him to go away.

Joe might be the best bicycle mechanic in the world, or the best janitor, or the best house painter, and if he is, there is a finite limit on what he can earn. He can change jobs or cajole his employer to pay him as much as possible because he is The Best, but The Best is only worth so much.

A Union worker has only indirect and tenuous ability to impact his own compensation. He cannot claim to be the best at what he does, because it makes no difference - everyone makes the same. He can demand that his union ask for the Sun, Moon, and Stars in negotiations, but what they actually get is based on factors almost totally out of Joe's control.

The only people who can set their own compensation are people who are paid based entirely on their productivity: a straight-commission sales person, or someone who is getting paid by the units produced. But even so, the commission rate and the piece rate are usually not negotiable.

People who own their own business? Depends on what that business is, doesn't it?