Baraka_Guru

Starbucks, Costco and Whole Foods team up on labor bill | U.S. | Reuters

Basically what we have here is a proposed change to how unions are formed. Currently, employees have to get a majority vote. The new bill wants to see a majority of employees signing authorization cards instead. This ostensibly avoids a vote -- elections can often be affected by managerial bullying or coercion.

So we have three major corporations teaming up to present a "third way," which includes more union access to employees and a guarantee for secret ballots. But a concern of theirs was that unions would increase costs. So is this "third way" merely more union-busting?

• What do you think of the bill?
• How deserving of unions are the employees of Starbucks, Whole Foods, Costco, and even Wal-mart?
• If these corporations get their "third way," does this benefit employees or is this yet another weak position for unions?

The bill would seem necessary if unions indeed have seen declining memberships as a direct result of managerial meddling. I don't know the history in the U.S., so I can't really say much about that.

If there are problems of poor management, employee mistreatment, etc., then a union would seem a last resort. From what I've heard of Wal-mart's labour practices, they should damn well have a union by now.

I'm not pro-union by default. But I am pro-union in certain cases. I believe that a labour force forming a union is a direct result of poor management. Why else would a union be formed? It's not like it's an easy thing to do.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Fotzlid

The bold section is the crux of the matter. Why is there declining membership? Could it be that all those high paying union manufacturing jobs have gone over seas?
All we seem to have left in this country is a service industry. How much is stuff going to cost if the big box stores are unionized?

dippin

It is far from being only that, as one of the pretty big reasons why union membership is on the decline is that over the past 3 decades the same people who are in favor of deregulating industry were in favor of applying the anti-trust laws against unions.

Fotzlid

It could also be said that American manufacturers can't compete in a global market due to the extra costs that are associated with unionized shops.
Where are the steel and textile mills and other heavy industry manufacturing jobs? They all went over seas because the operating costs are way too high in the States.
Most of this country's power and wealth was our ability to build things. Now it is centered on manufacturing wealth.

Unions are not the sole reason, but they are a major culprit.

dippin

Data - Swivel


Most of the economically competitive nations, as well as most of the nations with the highest percentage of manufacturing jobs, have stronger unions than the US. And while the Chinese unions basically rubberstamp whatever the state does, the unions in Sweden, Honk Kong and so on are not only bigger, but more powerful than the American versions.

In fact, go ahead and compare the numbers above with the table below:
IMF Staff Papers - Table 2 for article: Global Rebalancing with Gravity: Measuring the Burden of Adjustment

the first column is manufacturing as a share of GDP. You will see that most nations where the manufacturing sector is larger actually have more unions.

In the US the proportion of workers who are unionized in manufacturing is smaller than the proportion of workers who are unionized in other sectors of the economy. To think that they are the "major culprit" in jobs going overseas is to believe in unfounded myths.

dogzilla

I don't think the card check legislation is needed. As I understand it, the outcome of this legislation is that union organizers personally solicit you for your signature on a card. That has just as much opportunity for abuse as whatever tactics corporations use today. Just enforce the laws against union and corporate misbehavior we have today and keep the secret ballot.

Fotzlid

I have no clue what that second table is supposed to show.

If unions are not a major culprit, then what is?

percy

If unions are initiated by workers because of poor work conditions, then I support them. If unions are wanted so that check out clerks can make $30 dollars an hour, have 5 weeks paid holidays , 100% paid benefits and free education for their families, get an indexed pension while not paying into it,...well then no I do not support that. If you are unhappy making $6 an hour, get training and find a higher paying job.

I believe if unions are going to survive they have to get in step with the reason their existence came about in the first place,..to protect the worker from harassment, mistreatment and discrimination. If they continue to be a driving force in the collective bargaining unit pushing for exorbitant salaries and benefits for menial tasks (ie an auto worker getting $35 an hour to hang doors on a car in which the process is 95% automated) they are writing their own death certificate.

Can you imagine having lost your job in the manufacturing sector, have lost your savings and are now at risk of losing your home, and your hard earned tax dollars taken from you are to protect overpaid unionized autoworkers pensions,...pensions they don't even pay into themselves?

roachboy

the misinformation about the history and functions of unions that's become retro-dogma in the states since the reagan period is really astonishing. for example, that unions would be blamed for the transformation of production and/or distribution of commodities since the 80s is entirely symptomatic of this reactionary disinformation passed off as common sense.

you'll notice in the article a real distinction between scumbag outfits like walmart and places like whole foods or starbucks, which at least make the pretense of including unions as stakeholders...

no time at the moment. maybe more later.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

I have worked for companies that would fire employees for even talking about a union. While illegal it was then on the employee to prove that was the reason and as most states have gone to "right to work" the employer could say they fired the employee for any other reason and get away with it.

We need to do something to bring back workers' rights. In the past 20 some years we have taken workers rights away and it shows. States have given the employers far too many rights and thus allowed greed to take over.

Petty lawsuits, greed of upper management that didn't care about the workers and did nothing to promote product loyalty, a work force that has low moral and wages that did nothing to truly better their life, loss of benefits, a healthcare system too expensive to maintain, should I go on?

Unions haven't truly been an issue since Reagan busted the Air Traffic Controllers. (Except baseball).

Government made it easier for companies to move overseas and save tons of money but in the process destroyed the workers and allowed companies to threaten to leave, thereby scaring workers into submission to save their jobs. States becoming right to work states, thus allowing companies to take workers rights away and allow those companies the right to fire an employee for any reason, allowing companies to outsource to temp agencies that do not have to pay or give any benefits including overtime. Should I continue?

It's not the unions fault. 30 years ago when unions were too strong an argument may have been made, but not today, the pendulum swung the other way.

The biggest problem in America besides an unregulated healthcare system is that you can have both husband and wife working as professionals and not making enough to live the American dream of owning a home, being able to pay bills and have enough for a small vacation or the kids college savings or to live on.

Example, I'm an addictions counselor with a college degree. My wife is a bank manager. Together we barely made a pre taxed income of $50,000 combined last year. You take the house payment, a car payment, student loans, child support, increasing electric and gas bills, car care, food and there was very little left.

We don't have cable/satellite, we don't go out and buy foolishly and we are a paycheck or 2 away from financial ruin. We are also very lucky that other than my son from a distant relationship, we have no kids to support.

So, instead of being able to take trips and support communities that need tourist dollars we may go out to a movie and dinner once a month.

I'm sorry when 2 people work full time jobs they should not have to live like that. The NeoCons want to say, "be thriftier and watch every penny, I'm sure you can cut back and save."

That is fucking bullshit because that is how many families are living and those with kids are having a harder time than us.

What happens? People can't spend because they don't make enough, so credit cards and banks and buy here pay here scam artists (I mean car dealers), give credit that as we are now seeing the people can't pay. Then credit tightens causing these people to not be able to afford to have anything but the bare necessities, thus hurting the service markets like cinemas, zoos, tourist areas, restaurants, and so on, this causes companies to cut back. Then the workers can buy less, so they don't get that brand new car they buy used, they can't afford that brand new house so they rent or buy a cheaper one..... thus the car industry and housing market start to crumble.... so then those workers are hurting.... creditors start getting stiffed because people are using the money to eat and pay the utilities and basic needs... so the creditors are hurt and they cut credit even more to cut their losses.... which then hurts companies needing the credit to survive, families that were doing ok because they were doing a little better than most because they were white collar professionals, but now they don't have the credit to survive, so they start downsizing their lifestyle again hurting the manufacturing sector even more..... and so on.

The point is this has been going on for 20 years but is just now getting to where it is hitting the lower upper classes. And it all starts by putting profit over the workers' ability to make a living and have a little extra breathing room to enjoy life a little.

It's not the unions fault but those in the top 5% who make money whether people can live enjoying life or live in foreclosure. Letting the worker live and paying more increases profit a little because of disposable income... but hurts that top 5%'s personal wealth because it is spread out more because they have to pay the workers more and thus they have to make less.... BUT in markets where people are being foreclosed on, credit is squeezed and people can barely make it... that top 5% can see exponential growth because they can buy the houses at auction for pennies on the dollar and rent them out or hold onto them waiting for a rebound and sell for big profit, they can take advantage of bargains, watch competitors go under because those fools tried to give the workers more, watch mom and pop stores go under because the credit isn't there and so on.

The markets fall that top 5% buys like crazy, if the markets don't rebound who cares they still own everything if the markets increase who cares their investments just grew exponentially again.

And that is the American economy today.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dippin

The first column in the second table is manufacturing as share of GDP. So manufacturing is 13% of the American economy, and 12% of its workers are unionized.

In Hong Kong, the destination of so many companies that are leaving, manufacturing is responsible for 38% of their economy, and 22% of their work force is unionized.
In Taiwan, another favorite destination of American Business, has 38% of their work force unionized. And nothing compares to the Nordic countries. 20% of Finland's GDP is in manufacturing, and 75% of its work force is unionized.

The reasons why manufacturing employment is going down in the US is related to 2 things:

- Productivity and hours worked
- healthcare costs
- ease

It is simply easy to relocate abroad, and no amount of union busting is going to make American salaries competitive with salaries in India, Taiwan and so on. Similarly, while other nation's governments foot the healthcare bill, American business pay for healthcare here that not only is the most inefficient of all developed nations, but also the most expensive.

And finally, while elsewhere improved productivity has led to a reduction in hours worked, here, partly because the employees are so powerless, hours worked have actually increased. If you have people working more hours and being more productive, you will need fewer people than before to produce the same stuff. On a per hour basis, even Norway and France, highly unionized countries, are more productive than the US.

aceventura3

Polling data shows that most people not belonging to a Union do not want to belong to a union. Unions must realize this, and they must realize that their only hope for growth is to employ a strategy to intimidate people into joining a union.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

pan6467

But the people have also had 30 years of people trashing the unions rightfully in some cases and with flat out propagandized lies in others. So in 30 years you have almost and entire work force that has been brainwashed to believe unions bad.

Also, as I stated above in many work places the mere mention of union will get your ass fired and the right to work laws will always back the employer.... TODAY. So people are brainwashed and scared about unions.

That can change real fast as the workers who are struggling as I described above start seeing how the top executives and so on are getting HUGE ass bonuses while we bail them out, while they lay off huge parts of their work force and as they tell the workers that they will have to try to cut wages/benefits/etc.

It's all a pendulum Ace, has been since the beginning of this country. The pendulum is now swinging towards the workers.

It'll hit middle and then keep swinging the other way. But then it will continue too far the other way and this cycle will repeat.

So while TODAY you maybe able to show how no one wants to join a union, but with the right media push and laws protecting the worker so that they can freely discuss it and not fear for their job that opinion can change extremely fast to the point where the majority of workers will be demanding unionship.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

FuglyStick

My father was a coal miner when he was in an accident that left him paralyzed. The union went to bat for him to make sure that my mother and father would be financially secure.

Argue all you want. I have first hand knowledge that unions are a worker's best ally against the corporate machinery that would grind them under heel.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

pan6467

Both my grandfathers (Westinghouse, Ohio Bell) and my great grandfather (Railroad) risked their lives and futures to unionize their places of employment. Because they did, they saw their kids and grand kids have better lives. They saw an increase in standard of living. I firmly believe in the good of unions, always have. Your example is a prime reason we need unions. Without one, your father would not have gotten anything.

For the past 30 years, even though the unions are on the decrease and a dying breed, we are still being told EVERYTHING is their fault. Meanwhile, the executives get millions in bonuses, fly private jets, have houses on Caribbean Islands and get paid more when they run the company into the ground and cost the workers their jobs.

The pendulum is swinging, in short order people will start telling all kinds of great stories about how their union has truly helped them.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dippin

There are also number of polls supporting EFCA.

inBOIL

I don't see the need for 50% of workers to approve a union. If 3 workers out of 1000 want to form a union, let them. The company is free to negotiate with them or not as it sees fit. The other workers are free to join or not as they see fit. Enforcing laws against intimidation and harrassment (from both sides) will lead to an environment where workers can negotiate agreements with management that are fair to both sides.

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

FoolThemAll

Admittedly, this is one of the issues on which I am most extreme, but...

I don't understand why this shouldn't be legal. Why shouldn't a business owner be able to decide that he doesn't want a union involved with his business? Why shouldn't he be able to prefer those employees ambivalent or hostile to union representation?

It'll probably come down to fundamental value disagreements on how to prioritize property rights and employment rights - the latter of which I don't hold existent - so this might be a pointless discussion right from the start... but as common and accepted as it is, it's just completely foreign to me that we should bar a business owner from this level of self-autonomy.

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

Well, that doesn't sound so bad to me. So long as there's no legal requirement to interact with the union in any way.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

dippin

Here's my view: I wouldn't have a problem if people decided to be completely laissez faire with regards to unions and business. The problem is that in American history, we have had the state cracking down on unions even as it deregulated industries.

That is the thing: the same people who deregulated industries and stopped enforcing much of the Sherman anti-trust act on business were the same who were quick to use the Sherman anti-trust act to bust unions.

In other words, if you think that the state should butt out and not interfere when employers fire people for being in unions and do their best to undermine them, then you should also think that in the instances where unions are strong enough to hold their own the state shouldn't come in busting unions, dissolving contracts, and o on either.

FoolThemAll

Count me opposed to that.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pan6467

Because it is illegal to fire people who talk about unionizing. The reason being employers would fire workers for talking about unions. I don't see why that law needs to change or not be enforced.

Very simply put, if an employer is respecting their workers and treating them well, the workers probably wouldn't need a union and thus talk would dissipate fast.

If the company treats workers like shit, upper management is raping the company, then the workers should have the right to protect themselves from that.

Workers have just as much if not more interest in how a larger company performs than most owners and board directors have. The workers should have the right to have some say in how the company is run, since it is their livelihood at stake.

Don't want a union, treat the workers better.

It is a fundamental issue and a value/moral issue. I owned my own business once and managed a few, I know that I never would have succeeded in my job or my company if I did not show my workers that they were as valuable if not moreso in some cases as the customers. Yes, I could have found cheaper labor and been a prick to make bonuses or more profit in my company, but why? It almost always was a headache trying to find good workers and having to train and build trust between them and me. It was far easier to do what I could to keep them happy and wanting to stay.

If I made bonus or profit increased, I made sure the staff was rewarded as well. Thus, they had a stake in how well the company did. They had car payments, rent, bills to pay just as I did. If I did my best to make sure they were able to pay those bills and have a little disposable income, their attitudes were better, they worked harder and my customers saw happier staff that were willing to help them. This brought about a very loyal customer base, which would increase profits and allow more growth.

Most companies don't work that way, they'll work their employees to death, show minimal at best, care for their staffs and the quality shows that. And when a worker is in need of more to pay bills or whatever, the company fires them and hires cheaper labor. No loyalty to the worker = no loyalty from the worker = poor customer service and poor quality of goods.

So to say owners should have sole rights as to whether a union is needed or how a business should be run, is IMHO very wrong. If ownership does the right thing, the union laws won't matter, if they don't do the right things then the laws should protect the workers who have just as much if not more at stake.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Fotzlid

Thank you. Something for me to look into more.

I've been a union member at a few different facilities for over a decade now. Can't get a job in my field without joining one. Never thought they were worth the money they take from me each week. Every place I've worked has had a strong dislike/distrust between the staff and management. I've seen too many bad employees either protected by the union or have procedures in place that make firing an incompetent/lazy employee almost impossible. I've been denied positions based solely on seniority and not on ability/skill to do the job. I've heard too many union reps do nothing but trash talk management at the drop of a hat. Heard too many contract negotiations break down over wage increases and very rarely over any other issues. I've filed many reports over staffing issues and equiptment issues and nothing has ever become of it.
I was one of the first new hires at a place after a protracted strike. The temps wouldn't talk to me because I was a regular and the regulars wouldn't talk to me because they thought I was a temp. That facility was still dealing with the after effects of the strike 3 years later. They lost a good number of long term and experienced staff because they took temporary jobs during the strike and ended up staying at the new places. The facility had a very difficult time finding new employees and most of the ones they hired had little to no experience.
I haven't had many positive experiences with unions.

FoolThemAll

But they do have that right. Since the end of the civil war, for the most part.

They have the right to leave.

I don't see how an initial contract/arrangement to provide labor to a business suddenly grants the laborer to many more privileges never laid out in contract form. The idea of a strike, strikes me as a perfectly moral form of bargaining. The idea of legal action against an employer for terms never promised, on the other hand, strikes me as nothing more than dishonest on the part of the employee. If you wanted a legal guarantee of wages or benefits increasing down the line, you should have made that clear at the onset and let the employer decide if that additional cost was worth your value as a laborer.

I don't think the laborer has the right to enforce his idea of "the right thing" upon the owner. It isn't his property and the employer should be allowed to make whatever sort of offer for his property that he wishes.

Don't like it, don't take it. Stop liking it, bargain (without legal coercion) or bail.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

robot_parade

Not instead. Card check is proposed as an additional procedure for bringing in unions.

Well, union representation is better for the labor force, but worse for the corporate bottom line. The only problem I see with unions is the potential that unions would use their power in a way that actually hurts the viability and overall productivity of the company in favor of short-term gains for the workers. That's short-sighted, and probably does happen, but I suspect that it happens very rarely. OTOH, I don't got no proof of that.

pan6467

Right, and where exactly are they going to go? If you haven't noticed the work environment is tight and most people can barely afford to live let alone quit a job and hope they find a new one or move to where they may be lucky to find a job.



Right, let's fuck the auto worker so AIG executives can make more bonuses. The auto worker is too demanding and wants too much. The AIG executive, well he can donate to hmmmm Obama and Dodd, #'s 1 and 2 on the AIG campaign donation list last year. Hell, let's get rid of the minimum wage too, no sense in handcuffing those poor executives in what they pay their employees to clean the toilets.


You cannot make ANYTHING or accomplish ANYTHING without the worker, thus the worker has just as much if not more at stake because the executives have their golden parachutes. In the last 20 years how many executives made millions upon millions while the company they ran went broke? I suppose that was the workers fault?..... as long as the economy is in the shitter and people are just happy to have a job and barely make it because there are no fucking jobs paying anything.... Hell, let's just have child labor and sweatshops. Fuck the worker who wants to work 40 hours and have a little disposable income to enjoy life or save for retirement.

Great fucking attitude in this economy and job market. Spoken like a true greedy executive who has his parachute all ready, while the workers who lose their jobs lose everything. So much for the American dream.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

This should go without saying. Unions aren't meant to improve the bottom line; they're meant to improve the conditions (both working and earning) of workers. A well-managed, properly treated, adequately compensated workforce costs more than a poorly managed, treated, and compensated one.

Yeah, I'd like to see the differences. I wonder if unions play much on the productivity of workers. I imagine in some cases unions actually improve productivity, whereas in other areas they decrease it. Ideally, though, unions aren't meant to bolster productivity. Instead, they're meant to give workers some clout when it comes to working conditions, pay, and enforcing rights and laws. I understand a company's rights when it comes to private property and capital, but it's the labour of its workers and the conditions surrounding it that it doesn't own. It buys that from the workers. The workers deserve to have it treated fairly.

* * * *

@ Pan:
I see this particular situation less about the jobs that have already been lost in manufacturing and other sectors (think resource sectors as well) and more about the current status of workers in the U.S., especially those that aren't unionized. Retail is still a very large problem when it comes to compensation and certain rights (think Wal-mart). It is assumed by far too many that retail jobs are "transition" jobs instead of careers. Flex hours to keep people technically part time so as not to pay benefits when they are virtually full time is just one issue.

Do you not see problems within retailing? I wonder what percentage of retail jobs are unionized vs. manufacturing. I worked in retail for a while, and I cannot imagine doing it throughout my working life.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

there's a more basic disconnect in the arguments against unions above. it has been routine for firms to concentrate entirely on quarterly shareholder profits in that shangri-la that was neoliberalism. unions operate on the assumption that a firm is a social form, that it is part of a community or communities, that it is a political site, that workers can and should share in the benefits of their labor, and more basically that it is labor--and not the movement of capital taken in isolation---that generates profit/wealth---and that therefore wealth is SOCIAL, not private (at least not exclusively)...so there's no reason that the politics which shape how that wealth is distributed cannot be changed to the advantage of working people.

you'd think this would be common sense. just goes to show you the extent to which american economic language is a rightwing language.

if you want an explanation for firm's driving themselves into bankruptcy---think more about the way in which all that matters is quarterly shareholder returns. capital has done this to itself. it's not anything like a rational framework, particularly not in its neoliberal variant.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

This is very much a problem. As we lost the manufacturing sector and moved into "service" as being the biggest employer we became doomed. It became a double edged sword. We want things cheap so labor has to be cheap, but those are where the jobs are so wages and benefits have to be kept down to keep prices down. So those places have to hire part time so they don't have to give benefits. In return we have more workers without healthcare .... which we taxpayers end up paying for, we have an entire workforce having to work 2-3-4 of these jobs to make a living and they can't afford to buy things in the places they work. As those jobs become our workforce and manufacturing leaves totally.... we lose tax base also. This will force local, state, federal government to tax even more because the tax base is disappearing.

You pay these workers more give them benefits, prices go up and the worker still won't be able to afford the product and the worker outside will definitely be more hurt.

Catch 22....

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

aceventura3

I think the premise here is generally false. True, there is an emphasis by some on short-term results, however if we look at the companies in S&P 500 as an example we will find that the overwhelming majority of these companies have an interest and focus on long-term results as evidenced by new product development, R&D, capital expenditures, and even investments in inventory and exploration (for companies in the business of natural resources). S&P 500 companies building long lasting and sustainable profitability do not entirely focus on quarterly shareholder profits.

Then if we look at companies in the Russell Small Cap index as an example, small cap companies, in some cases by definition they are not focused on quarterly shareholder profits because for some of these companies there are no profits and there focus is on growth or market share, not profits.

Then if we look at privately held micro-cap companies, perhaps those with venture capital investors, we will find even less emphasis on quarterly shareholder profits. In some cases the focus is simply on packaging the company for an IPO, which may take years.

Then if we look at "mom and pop" type companies, many of these companies focus on cash flow and net worth (capital gains upon sale) more than they will focus on quarterly profitability.

The premise held by Roach is somewhat of a myth or an exaggeration of reality.

P.S. - Already been told that my view is (fill in the blank), so we can spare that and respond to the point of my post.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

interesting, ace.

this bypasses the question of union representation altogether.
but it's an interesting post.

btw---it's equally an exaggeration to argue the opposite of my point, yes? you aren't meaning to say that no companies focus on quarterly earnings because of the features you outline, do you?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

FoolThemAll

Unemployment can be a bleak situation. That doesn't, however, strike me as a compelling reason to force employers to alleviate that situation on the terms of the unemployed. You don't force charity - at least not outside of a nebulous force like welfare - and you don't force exchange (businesses can choose to restrict their size to a single person, the owner), so why force charitable exchanges? What's so moral about coercing the greedy?

[qoute]Right, let's fuck the auto worker[/quote]

Employers should not be able to rape their employees without legal consequence.

They're not really 'poor' - at least not usually - but otherwise I agree.

[quoteYou cannot make ANYTHING or accomplish ANYTHING without the worker[/quote]

The employer is capable of being a worker. He's often severely limited in his output without additional workers, but then, so is your average blue-or-white collar worker when lacking the additional capital and infrastructure of an employer.

I don't agree with this. Children should not be treated as though they have an ability to properly consent (to labor, in this case) equal to that of an adult.

Why should someone disinclined to offer him that, be forced?

And again, rape's a no-no.

Well, that's a neat trick on my part.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Sure. But capital owners can and should share in the benefits of the enhancement of that labor.

But often not nearly as much wealth without capital to back it up

I don't understand the 'social' conclusion here, at least not in any way that would lead to your conclusion. As you note, wealth can be entirely private. And when it isn't, I see no reason for a third party to modify freely-made agreements - to add coercion where there was previously none.

Common sense seems to me a vacuous term easily shaped by popular opinion. I wouldn't count your position as nonsensical, but I am glad to note that it isn't always common.

You really throw out the 'irrational' jab far too often. All too often, it seems like you really mean "I don't like your values" rather than "they don't make sense".

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.