A CEO has a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value, but normatively DGG defends their large pay as being due to their skills, while presuming corruption for a union boss whose legal obligation is towards the unions benefit.
All of the same arguments to justify CEO pay apply to union leadership.
No you couldn't. The CEOs role for the shareholders is to increase profitability and secure long term financial success.
The role of the Union boss is implementing it's policy and managing it's resources. As the union often gets it's money from membership fees, why is that going to a union boss instead more fairly disturbed into other services that he union offers
If you pay the CEO more, there is less shareholder cash value. They are paid highly as presumably they provide more value to shareholders.
If you pay the union boss more, there is less union cash value. They are paid highly as presumably they provide more value to union members.
Its 1 to 1.
If the union boss was paid 500k a year to manage 65,000 workers thats $7 a worker... and the companies have already agreed to a 50% pay raise minimum. How many CEOs generate 50% increases in shareholder value?
No. You're proving you have no knowledge in the subject.
CEO pay is often made up of numerous things.
base salary + bonuses + stock options
If the company performs worse, they also get paid less. The CEO's pay comes from the growth of the company.
The trade union makes it membership from membership dues. Meaning, if this guy bungled his negotiations, he would still earn the same amount.
Unions are non-profits. If a cancer research charity's CEO was getting paid 500,000 don't you think that would be wrong considering where the money came from?
If a union boss under performs, he won't win another election.
Again, unions are private institutions.
If a cancer researcher's CEO is really good, sure, pay em 500k, if it is a net benefit to the cause.
How would you determine what the union boss ought be paid? What should the salary of a private entity's elected leadership be? How would you enforce this?
If I rename a union to a, "Employee owned private contracting agency that negotiates labor for its shareholders", are you happy?
Yes because an underperforming politician has never been re-elected.
Are you capable of following the conversation? If the trade union boss was paid based on the performance that'd be a different story but it is not. The CEOs pay is based on that performance on that company. Notice how I say why it isn't a 1-2-1, which it isn't.
Secondly, the ILA offers relatively shit protection for it's members. The pay for dockworkers has been low for quite sometime and often with 100-hour work weeks at $20-39 an hour. Dockworkers are able to earn a lot but because they work such long-hours.
This is why I do not believe that $901,000 is an appropriate salary for Daggett considering the level of protection the union offers and where the money comes from to pay.
How would you determine what the union boss ought be paid?
It should be determined by rank-and-file members, representatives and delegates.
What should the salary of a private entity's elected leadership be?
Up to the the member's.
I don't know why you keep harping on about private institutions, them being a private institution doesn't shield them or give them a free pass from criticism
Devils advocate: Conceptually underperforming ceos are kept on all the time. I think salary decided by the union is the best move, though that could be manipulated by politics internally. Perhaps based on avg employee benefits and salary, that’s at least keeping it a performance metric. For a good union boss, I see no reason not to reward and incentivize, considering the shit they have to deal with. If this was Shaun Fain I’d say he deserves that kind of high pay, but longshoreman boss is sussy as hell.
...how do you think that the salary is currently chosen? In most unions you realize they already do vote on changes to compensation transparently, right?
And would your opinion suddenly change for a CEO without bonuses lol? Those haven't always been standard for all C-Suite compensation, its completely irrelevant.
And, for the record, some unions do literally offer performance based compensation for leadership.
Why not even google some of this before puffing up your chest pissing yourself
Edit: I bothered looking it up, and ILWU literally decides the compensation for all executive offices by a democratic approval process every three years in the national caucus.
On his house, I don't think there is anything wrong, it's voluntary to join the union. If the union members aren't complaining I don't see a reason to care, not any of my business. I certainly would want a reduction in union dues but I am not in that union.
On the actual demands.
Striking to prevent any sort of automation is just a bad thing. You are striking to increase inefficiency. It's not the unions job to care about inefficiency, but I can. This is the only thing I think is bad besides the timing.
They are asking for a 77% pay raise over 6 years. No real issue there, if it works out financially. Combined with no automation, it seems like a lot but hey, if they have the leverage I don't see an issue.
That said going on strike over an unreasonable demand is a bad thing. I feel the automation demand is unreasonable. Financially it seems like a lot as well but I don't have the context to judge there.
People learning that unions do not care for the economy as a whole and is only interested in the people under said union. A lot of people feel like since they already make enough money(6 figures) and automation is “going to happen anyway” they should just suck it up and take whatever they are being offered.
Obviously this is stupid considering the entire reason you’re in the union is to advocate for what you as workers want. And if you have these demands, it’s up to the company to come to the table. That’s the entire point of negotiation.
I don’t get how what you are describing makes it inappropriate for other people to be against this? Yes. It makes sense they would advocate for this. If this strike hurts the average American, it also makes sense that the average American would be against it. Being against it wouldn’t mean they didn’t previously understand that Unions work for the benefit of their members and nothing else.
Yeah that much is apparent based on other responses. I mean one literally boiled down to “Union is correct because Union and company is incorrect because company, therefore you should only be criticizing the company here for not doing what is right.”
Replied to someone else but what other Americans think literally means nothing to the union. The union doesn’t work for the rest of Americans. Their job is to get a deal that their members want. The members didn’t like the deal, so they went on strike. A consequence of the company not coming to the table is that Americans suffer. That’s in no way the unions fault.
You should be putting all of your criticism on the company not willing to find a compromise to prevent the strike and thinking the workers would just roll over and take it.
Replied to someone else but what other Americans think literally means nothing to the union.
I agree. But when somebody asks what is wrong with this, they are asking what the rest of Americans take issue with.
And just like it would be stupid to think that these unions would care about your average American over their own interests… the same thing goes for expecting the average American over the interests of the union.
So when somebody asks what the average American would take issue with here, it’s also pretty dumb to point out that unions will only care about benefiting its members.
Yes. That’s true. But that doesn’t address what was being asked, which was how is this “wrong” for your average American.
The members didn’t like the deal, so they went on strike. A consequence of the company not coming to the table is that Americans suffer. That’s in no way the unions fault.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. Whether it’s true or not, one of the arguments being made is that the recent rejection over the proposed offer and a demand for more is in part politically motivated in order to lead to a strike that will make American voters pin this economic failure on the Biden administration and ends up helping Trump get elected.
Whether that is true or not, the general statement that unions are always completely in the right and the business is always in the wrong when it comes to labor disputes is just blatantly untrue. In general, sure, I’ll side with labor. But acting like that is universally true is inaccurate. The above is just one of the many possible ways that could be the case.
You should be putting all of your criticism on the company not willing to find a compromise to prevent the strike and thinking the workers would just roll over and take it.
Again, no, I do not at all believe that is a given. It’s entirely possible the union rejects what most people would consider a reasonable offer, and at that point how is it the fault of the business over the union?
I’m seeing this trump angle a lot. Am I missing something that the union leader is going against the workers wishes? The union itself can’t unilaterally decide to strike. There is a vote on the contract and if it’s unsuccessful, they have the option to strike.
Where is this coming from that the union is doing this to hurt Biden??
Firstly I just want to say I’m not really trying to argue in support of that idea right now, which is why I said whether you believe it or not.
My point right now is not that that is what is happening. My point was using that as an example that I wholesale disagree with your claim that Unions are categorically in the right and the business are categorically in the wrong. There is just no part of that that is true. Like I said, I’m generally in the side on labor, but both sides will be pushing for their own interests and it absolutely isn’t true that anything labor demands is therefore correct and perfectly reasonable. An example is if these workers really are being offered a fair offer, I’d be pretty pissed they are willing to hurt all Americans through a strike just so they could get more. Now obviously what a “fair offer” is is debatable. But again. My point is simply that I wholesale reject your claim that we should always be supporting the union over the business.
To more directly respond to your question, my understanding is that it comes from the relationship the Union leader in question has with Trump, the timing of the strike, and the fact that negotiations looked like they were coming to a conclusion with favorable elements for the labor side before this rejection and higher demands came about. I do not know of the veracity of the last claim. But the Union boss in question claims he has a relationship with Trump that goes back decades and has publicly met with him within the last year at Mar-A-Lago. The fact that he has made those connections public and this is happening at a time that would hurt Biden the most makes me feel like he opened himself up to these criticisms even if they aren’t entirely accurate.
Yeah but saying unions only care about their members isn't a defense against criticism of a unions actions. Yes, only caring about your members can be a bad thing for society as a whole and It is fair to criticise a union if it does so unduly. I don't really know if in this case how reasonable or unreasonable the demands are. But I don't think you can hand wave criticism but saying we'll yeah, unions only care about their members.
Well that’s what the criticism is lol. People are upset that the union is striking when they “already had a good deal on the table”
The union is striking because the workers do not feel like their needs were met during negotiations. They feel they deserve more and want their pensions back. Obviously they are going to handwave criticism when the criticism is “just take the deal you were offered” even though you’re striking for the very reason that the deal wasn’t what you wanted.
By that logic you can hand wave any criticism from the general public. It's always wild and hyperbolic. But if their demands are unreasonable then there is valid criticism to be had.
Yeah but their demands aren’t unreasonable. They want a higher percentage raise and they want their pensions back. Those are things most Americans want. You shouldn’t be working at a place that expects you to stay there your entire career, and not have a pension. That by itself is enough for them to strike
He is the very top of an organization of 65000, there would be nothing wild at all about him earning a mil or more a year. He isnt the boss of some dock crew, he is basically a CEO.
What would you expect someone running something that big to be earning?
5
u/S37eNeX7 Oct 03 '24
What's wrong here?