Obama Overtures to Business Fall Flat

[Lonestar_logic]

So basically you want none of the risk of the business, yet you want an equal say to those that do take the risk. Do you not see something wrong with that attitude?

Basically, you want workers to have absolutely no say about their futures in said business? They don't take a risk? They're more involved in said company than stockholders... They are actually making the money for the company. Why do you see something wrong with this attitude?

When accepting a job you have already discussed and agreed to the terms of employment. It is up to you to make sure you are getting the best deal you can and if you don't think you're getting a fair deal, you do not have to accept the job.


Somehow I get the feeling you've never held a job.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1. Decline coverage.
2. Pay for your own personal coverage.
3. Take what they give you.

Like I said, I have no choice BUT to buy through my work. I cannot decline coverage, as it would ruin me. I cannot afford my own coverage AND I have to take what they offer. I HAVE NO CHOICE IN THIS MATTER.

Like I said, you don't know my personal history.

You do have a choice you idiot, you do not HAVE to BUY it period!

 

[saveliberty]

Poor mouse, he'll probably get told which Happy Meal to order at dinner.

 

[Moon]

so 70x is ok, but 400x is not? where do you draw the line?
i think if someone wants to run their company in a manner in which the ceo only makes 10x what the janitor makes, that's up to them.
i don't think anyone else should have a say in it.

Then to be fair, all the people that work for that company should have a say, don't you think? It's only fair. And yes, 400x is way out of whack considering they made just 42x that in 1980. That's only 20 years ago.

Why should every employee of a company have a say in what the CEO makes? If they are owners of the company, that's one thing, but if they aren't, I don't see how you can justify it.

 

[Moon]

IS a mailroomn clerk qualified to decide what a creative directors value is to an ad agency?

Is a random stockholder that doesn't even work there? I see philosophy was not your strong suit...

Yes, because a random stockholder is in fact one of the owners of the company, and has a financial stake in the success or failure of the company.

 

[DiamondDave]

1. Decline coverage.
2. Pay for your own personal coverage.
3. Take what they give you.

Like I said, I have no choice BUT to buy through my work. I cannot decline coverage, as it would ruin me. I cannot afford my own coverage AND I have to take what they offer. I HAVE NO CHOICE IN THIS MATTER.

Like I said, you don't know my personal history.

No.. you CAN decline coverage.. you just do not want to..

You far lefties have a huge problem with the definition of the word want

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Great summation of the Obama presidency:

Fouad Ajami: The Obsolescence of Barack Obama - WSJ.com

 

[Mr. Peepers]

So you are not pleased with Cigna yet you took a job that did not pay you enough to buy your own insurance.

What? When did I EVER say I am not pleased with Cigna. I said that they are my only choice - and they are. Jeez Louise. Do you even read what you post about?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

No.. you CAN decline coverage.. you just do not want to..

If I did, it would ruin me financially. Why would I ever do that?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Yes, because a random stockholder is in fact one of the owners of the company, and has a financial stake in the success or failure of the company.

So the workers have no financial stake in the success or failure of the company? That is their livelihoods, their career, part their very identity. Remember when companies valued their workers and workers would make a 50 year career at the same company? This is less valuable and than a rich stockholder that has never set foot in the company, and should have NO say???? Are you grasping my logic at all?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, because a random stockholder is in fact one of the owners of the company, and has a financial stake in the success or failure of the company.

So the workers have no financial stake in the success or failure of the company? That is their livelihoods, their career, part their very identity. Remember when companies valued their workers and workers would make a 50 year career at the same company? This is less valuable and than a rich stockholder that has never set foot in the company, and should have NO say???? Are you grasping my logic at all?

No.. you are indeed mistaking financial stake and employment compensation... 2 entirely different things

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. you CAN decline coverage.. you just do not want to..

If I did, it would ruin me financially. Why would I ever do that?

You have that choice though... you are not without that choice

Your reasoning behind your decisions are irrelevant to the fact that you indeed have a choice

nice try to interject personal feeling into something... typical leftist ploy

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, because a random stockholder is in fact one of the owners of the company, and has a financial stake in the success or failure of the company.

So the workers have no financial stake in the success or failure of the company? That is their livelihoods, their career, part their very identity. Remember when companies valued their workers and workers would make a 50 year career at the same company? This is less valuable and than a rich stockholder that has never set foot in the company, and should have NO say???? Are you grasping my logic at all?

Does the worker own part of the company? If that is their goal, they need to be a stockholder. Your company doesn't have that option? Start your own, if your so invalueable. Find a company that will have you as a partner or stockholder.

 

[Claudette]

Yes, because a random stockholder is in fact one of the owners of the company, and has a financial stake in the success or failure of the company.

So the workers have no financial stake in the success or failure of the company? That is their livelihoods, their career, part their very identity. Remember when companies valued their workers and workers would make a 50 year career at the same company? This is less valuable and than a rich stockholder that has never set foot in the company, and should have NO say???? Are you grasping my logic at all?

Jesus are you one thick person. Your logic is backward.

Unless the workers are shareholders or investors in any company they have no say in how its run. They work there, period.

If they don't like the way its run or anything else about it or they get a better offer from someone else they can leave anytime. No one will force them to stay.

You sound like a beliver in the communist way of life. Someone who believes in total equality for all. You know where the slacker, deadbeat and just plain lazy gets the same benefits as the person who is a go getter, innovative, a risk taker and great worker. Go figure.

Seems to me Russia tried that and it kinda sorta didn't work to well.

BTW in the 8 years Bush was the Prez he never vetoed anything.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Unless the workers are shareholders or investors in any company they have no say in how its run. They work there. period.

And therein lies the problem. They will never get just compensation, but will have their wages pushed lower and lower until they are working for nothing. Lovely trend we've embarked on, huh. Now do you see why unions are necessary?

If they don't like the way its run or anything else about it or they get a better offer from someone else they can leave anytime. No one will force them to stay.

RIGHT... they can just quit and immediately find another job. For most Americans, it is work or starve and live on the streets. Corporations have workers over a barrel and you know it. Millions of jobs are gone for good and there are so many workers vying for each available job, that the corporations are just giddy with delight that they can now pay everyone $10 an hour. Yes, you can kiss the middle class good-bye. Hello, 3rd world.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

BTW in the 8 years Bush was the Prez he never vetoed anything.

Really? Dumbass.

Presidential Vetos - Bills Vetoed by President George W. Bush (2001-2008)

Psst. Notice he set a presidential record when the dems took office.

 

[Jarhead]

Unless the workers are shareholders or investors in any company they have no say in how its run. They work there. period.

And therein lies the problem. They will never get just compensation, but will have their wages pushed lower and lower until they are working for nothing. Lovely trend we've embarked on, huh. Now do you see why unions are necessary?

If they don't like the way its run or anything else about it or they get a better offer from someone else they can leave anytime. No one will force them to stay.

RIGHT... they can just quit and immediately find another job. For most Americans, it is work or starve and live on the streets. Corporations have workers over a barrel and you know it. Millions of jobs are gone for good and there are so many workers vying for each available job, that the corporations are just giddy with delight that they can now pay everyone $10 an hour. Yes, you can kiss the middle class good-bye. Hello, 3rd world.

Wages are not pushed lower and lower.

The value of an employee drops lower and lower.

Look at you as an example. Yesterday you were on this board at 4PM eastern and at 5PM eastern you bolted out the door to catch your tain home.

And this was while you were on company time. You were getting paid to sit on this board and then sure enough, 5 on the nose, out the door after a long hard day.

And you have the audacity to claim that the CEO of corporations get paid too much to sit around and do nothing?

And I ask you...do you really think they sit around and do nothing?

You are a left wing puppet and a fool. You are clueless about business and how wages are set.

You whine about how hard you work for no return, yet you obviopusly do not know what hard work is.

You are one that believes in entitlements, yet one that is not willing to give 120% to acheive success on your own.

 

[Jarhead]

And peepers disappears.
Guess peepers realized "maybe if I work and not play while I am at work, I will get a promotion and a raise"

 

[DiamondDave]

Unless the workers are shareholders or investors in any company they have no say in how its run. They work there. period.

And therein lies the problem. They will never get just compensation, but will have their wages pushed lower and lower until they are working for nothing. Lovely trend we've embarked on, huh. Now do you see why unions are necessary?

If they don't like the way its run or anything else about it or they get a better offer from someone else they can leave anytime. No one will force them to stay.

RIGHT... they can just quit and immediately find another job. For most Americans, it is work or starve and live on the streets. Corporations have workers over a barrel and you know it. Millions of jobs are gone for good and there are so many workers vying for each available job, that the corporations are just giddy with delight that they can now pay everyone $10 an hour. Yes, you can kiss the middle class good-bye. Hello, 3rd world.

And if your wages go lower you have the motherfucking freedom to hoist anchor and go to any other employer you wish in an attempt to get what you believe to be your just compensation.... but also remember that in a free society, you do not just get something because you want it....

Unions are not necessary at all

You are not owed your sustenance, a job, a place to live etc... those are YOUR personal responsibilities.. whether you have to build it with your own 2 hands or purchase it with your earnings

You also see.. the magic of the freedom based system is that if a company severely under compensates, workers will indeed go elsewhere... and if that company does not raise it wages to a level that is the balance point of employee want and company cost, they will go by the wayside... for you are not forced to accept any job.. you are free to work at place X or place Y... you are free not to work and starve while living in a Maytag box... you are free to ***** and moan about how everyone else owes you for your existence... and you are free to continue bitching about "the man" keeping you down

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Wages are not pushed lower and lower.

The value of an employee drops lower and lower.

Same effing thing. Why do a roomful of rich guys that are poised to gain from the profits of a corporation get to determine the value of the employees? Because that is how the wealthy have set it up. Self-preservation.

And yes, wages HAVE been on a stagnant (and now downward) trajectory since the 70's.

Next shoe to drop for U.S. job seekers: lower wages | Reuters