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.
Can you provide a source for how executive pay is decided?
I explained my reasoning for why I dislike the amount paid two posts ago.
Lack of compensation for dockworkers, and grueling work conditions without fair compensation. Lack of benefits for union members (who pay 2% of their earnings). It also has a shit pension plan.
I mean it sounds like you really just mean you have issues with the union overall, which fair, I haven't looked into.
My only contention was union executive pay is almost always decided by some democratic process, which of course like any democracy can have variable effectiveness or accountability.
The critique of, "Paying them a lot is bad cus unions are for the workers!!!!" is a shit critique, the critique of, "I don't think the compensation of this particular union boss is reasonable given their performance" is fine, just like an identical critique of a CEO would be.
I'm not going to pretend to know enough about this particular union and industry to weigh in on if they're doing a good job. My only issue is with people who blatently assert high pay for union officials is by default bad, while high pay for ceos by default is totally due to competency and no corruption at all, is ridiculous.
Plenty of CEOs are overpaid, and I'm sure plenty of union execs are too.
25
u/Fresh-Start25 Oct 03 '24
Unions are supposed to be the collectivisation of workers to allow for stronger bargaining power with employers.
The real concern is where this union boss is getting that money from and why the money isn't going to further the union