Execs Dumping Stock

[redogleader]

Same old song and dance....been there, seen it before.
Mgmt still ignores the fact that front line employees are the reason this airline works!

 

[UPNAWAY]

One has to wonder...if Southwest were in dire enough financial straits to require concessions from their labor groups, would the executives richly reward themselves for achieving these cost savings? My gut feeling says no, they wouldn't.

If SWA took over NWA or DAL and SWA execs had bonuses or options due fron their SWA days yes I bet they would have taken them.

 

[700UW]

But the employees did not and could not use the banktupcty laws to break the contracts of the executives. You can't say the same about the executives when they went to court to break all the union's CBA.

And I guess you also forgot the airbus outsourcing which cleary showed the company violated the IAM CBA.

 

[KCFlyer]

I honestly don't think SWA execs would have acted like the others. I think Doug Parker kinda "gets it"! He's just got a lot of folks around him that don't share his values.

I agree with that statement.

 

[Bear96]

Bob,

Isn't it interesting how original intent gets twisted around after 200 years or so?

For instance, the freedom the Constitution talks about has been twisted to mean business can do any old thing they please.

I think you are misunderstanding the Constitution. The Constitution exists to limit the reach and power of the government, not of private parties.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding, but what laws has Congress made that forbids union members to peaceably assemble?

Let's look at property rights. Say a parcel of land with a nice creek flowing thru it has been in a family for a while. They've swam and fished the creek, got married there, spread some ashes there.

Now, a hog farm goes into operation upstream. Pretty soon, the creek is unswimmable, and you wouldn't eat the fish. You can't bear to be outside for the stench.

It's clear there has been a taking of property.

The court cases to date do not uphold the family's rights. They DO uphold the hog operator.

...

This despite:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To the contrary, it is clear in your example that there has not been a constitutional taking. In constitutional law terms, a "taking of property" refers to the government taking property (without just compensation). In your hog farm example, it would appear that the upstream hog farmers are private landowners. So the issue of constitutional property rights and due process is irrelevant. Certainly if you were the private upstream landowner who wanted to farm your land, if that didn't violate any other land use laws, shouldn't you be able to farm to make a living for your family? Why should the taxpayers foot the bill (to pay "just compensation") for a dispute that is between two private landowners?

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

For the same reasons the taxpayers now have to foot the pension bills for corporations who decide to dump their pension obligations, or decide to bailout the savings and loan ... After all, who made up the bankruptcy laws???

For ths same reasons the gov gets involved in company bailouts and extends ATSB loans at the risks to the taxpayers a-gain! And states loud and clear that in order to qualify for such a loan, you need major concessions/cost savings from LABOR!

For the same reasons there are provisions for an Executive Order to force stike workers back to work!

Labor doesn't have protections even when contracts are in place. Corporations can go into BK a couple of times and run a company to the ground, only to get protected from their creditors, restructure, and emerge like it was the greatest thing since the space walk...and execs get huge rewards for screwing tax payers, creditors and shareholders.And then for some god-forsaken reason, you get these investors that can't wait to throw money at these kinds of companies and find them "credit-worthy"?

If an individual goes into BK to restructure their debt, they can't even qualify for a gas card! I guess getting rid of hundreds of millions or billions makes for a more credit-worthy status than an individual who restructures less than $100,000.

But, I'm sure you already know this.

 

[MarkMyWords]

It's not unique that you won't see MMW OR Eric-blow-fish post one more post on this thread. They will avoid it and just wait until it disappears.

So exactly what are you looking for me to say. Jim has provided much more in the area of facts. I still stand by my views that a contract is a contract. They have the stock options and they exercised them. There were options that expired in Oct, but they did exercise the majority of options that expired in the distant future. So it was a greedy money grab on thier part and it was immoral. It is not illegal and is contractually allowed.

What more are you looking for me to say??? I still don't think it was wrong, just piss poor timing.

 

[700UW]

There was only ONE's Executives stock options to expire in October.

They sold their stock as soon as it was optioned to them.

And My CBA had a lot more money, sick time, scope language, jobs and pensions too.

What about those contracts?

You still make excuses for the executives when they were found to be less then honest in their responses to their sales, yet the SEC filings show them to be untruthful.

We want to hear you say the executives lied.

 

[MarkMyWords]

Here's the wood....here's the nails.....go ahead.....nail me to the cross. Good God.

 

[Bear96]

Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure what you were responding to. It seems to be a little side comment I made as opposed to the meat of my post. But I'll take a stab . . .

Bear,

For the same reasons the taxpayers now have to foot the pension bills for corporations who decide to dump their pension obligations,

Taxpayers are not footing the bill. Premiums paid to be PBGC, and the PBGC's investments, are footing that bill.

or decide to bailout the savings and loan ...

So would it have been better public policy NOT to bail out the S&Ls, and have everyone lose their savings? This is a good difference: there was (at least arguably) a good public policy decision behind the S&L bailout, but there is no good public policy decision for funding the outcome of a private dispute between only two private landowners.

After all, who made up the bankruptcy laws???

Congress. Your point?

For ths same reasons the gov gets involved in company bailouts and extends ATSB loans at the risks to the taxpayers a-gain!

Again . . . public policy decision . . . to benefit a large number of people. Compare to two private landowners.

And even with the large scale bailouts you mentioned, people complained government should not be getting involved. You are saying get government involved even more, into smaller and smaller scale disputes, which would require more taxpayer money to fund? Or am I not following you.

For the same reasons there are provisions for an Executive Order to force stike workers back to work!

Labor doesn't have protections even when contracts are in place. Corporations can go into BK a couple of times and run a company to the ground, only to get protected from their creditors, restructure, and emerge like it was the greatest thing since the space walk...and execs get huge rewards for screwing tax payers, creditors and shareholders.And then for some god-forsaken reason, you get these investors that can't wait to throw money at these kinds of companies and find them "credit-worthy"?

If an individual goes into BK to restructure their debt, they can't even qualify for a gas card! I guess getting rid of hundreds of millions or billions makes for a more credit-worthy status than an individual who restructures less than $100,000.

But, I'm sure you already know this.

Now I'm not even sure what you are rattling on about.

The point of my post was simple, so let's review. One private landowner interfering with the use of private property owned by another is not a constitutional taking.

(Or are you disputing that?)

Therefore, what you or I think about the policy of government paying for certain things is irrelevant. Because the situation being referred to is not a constitutional taking, there is no legal justification (as in, required by current law or the Constitution) for providing just compensation to the deprived landowner.

Feel free to change the laws if you would like to work on that, including specifying a source of funding for whatever it is you are proposing exactly. You seem to have a lot of energy and anger still looking for a constructive outlet.

 

[KCFlyer]

Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure what you were responding to. It seems to be a little side comment I made as opposed to the meat of my post. But I'll take a stab . . .
Taxpayers are not footing the bill. Premiums paid to be PBGC, and the PBGC's investments, are footing that bill.
So would it have been better public policy NOT to bail out the S&Ls, and have everyone lose their savings?

I always thought the FDIC and FSLIC were in place to insure against failed banks and savings and loans, and were not in place as a dumping ground for unwanted liabilities. During the S&L "bailout", how many of those S&L's remained in business? The way I see the PBGC is the same way...it's an insurance fund for protecting the pensions of employees of failed companies. It is being used to unload the "burden" of pensions by financially troubled companies as part of a reorganization plan. The result - more claims equals higher premiums for remaining companies. So technically it's not the taxpayers burden (yet), but it is the burden for folks like American Airlines, Ford, and General Motors, in the form of higher premiums to be paid. And when those guys (especially the automakers) see the convenience of dumping off their burdensome pensions, the PBGC will become insolvent. And at that time, it most certainly WILL be the taxpayers who are footing that bill.

 

[PITbull]

So exactly what are you looking for me to say. Jim has provided much more in the area of facts. I still stand by my views that a contract is a contract. They have the stock options and they exercised them. There were options that expired in Oct, but they did exercise the majority of options that expired in the distant future. So it was a greedy money grab on thier part and it was immoral. It is not illegal and is contractually allowed.

What more are you looking for me to say??? I still don't think it was wrong, just piss poor timing.

Mark,

You said that this does not come out of company koffers, when in fact, payment of the income tax on all these execs payday does.

No opinion?

Here's the wood....here's the nails.....go ahead.....nail me to the cross. Good God.

No problem, just stop by my house...I have a big yard... B)

Hmmm, I'm not exactly sure what you were responding to. It seems to be a little side comment I made as opposed to the meat of my post. But I'll take a stab . . .
Taxpayers are not footing the bill. Premiums paid to be PBGC, and the PBGC's investments, are footing that bill.
So would it have been better public policy NOT to bail out the S&Ls, and have everyone lose their savings? This is a good difference: there was (at least arguably) a good public policy decision behind the S&L bailout, but there is no good public policy decision for funding the outcome of a private dispute between only two private landowners.
Congress. Your point?
Again . . . public policy decision . . . to benefit a large number of people. Compare to two private landowners.

And even with the large scale bailouts you mentioned, people complained government should not be getting involved. You are saying get government involved even more, into smaller and smaller scale disputes, which would require more taxpayer money to fund? Or am I not following you.
Now I'm not even sure what you are rattling on about.

The point of my post was simple, so let's review. One private landowner interfering with the use of private property owned by another is not a constitutional taking.

(Or are you disputing that?)

Therefore, what you or I think about the policy of government paying for certain things is irrelevant. Because the situation being referred to is not a constitutional taking, there is no legal justification (as in, required by current law or the Constitution) for providing just compensation to the deprived landowner.

Feel free to change the laws if you would like to work on that, including specifying a source of funding for whatever it is you are proposing exactly. You seem to have a lot of energy and anger still looking for a constructive outlet.

What I'm rattling about?

The fund assets are protected by the PBGC, an arm of the government and the pension fund is insured like FDIC.
You didn't address ATSB and the government meddling in corporations survival by lending tax payer $$.

My point is that government does get involved using tax payer $$ in private businesses. If we are a true capitalistic society, government should allow corporations to survive or fail dictated by the demand and ability to compete in a free market.

Either the government gets fully involved on both sides of the equation OR stay the hell OUT.

 

[Bear96]

I always thought the FDIC and FSLIC were in place to insure against failed banks and savings and loans, and were not in place as a dumping ground for unwanted liabilities.

Dude, if you want someone to defend the S&L bailout, you'll have to find someone else. First, I never knew much about it; second, what little I did know at one point I have mostly long since forgotten, since it was what, 20+ years ago? (I don't even remember the dates! I think it was the 1980s but I am not even sure.)

My point was this: The decision to bail out the S&Ls, rightly or wrongly, was a public policy decision that had a large impact on the economy as a whole and on many people. I was only contrasting that to two bickering landowners. That is all.

You didn't address ATSB and the government meddling in corporations survival by lending tax payer $$.

You're right. Wanna know why? Because (AGAIN -- and let's FOCUS this time) my point was that a dispute among private landowners does not amount to a constituational taking under the Fifth Amendment. If you're itching to have a conversation about the ATSB and S&Ls, go right ahead. But that is not what I am responding to.

My point is that government does get involved using tax payer $$ in private businesses.

No sh!t. When did I ever say anything to the contrary?

If we are a true capitilistic society, government should allow corporations to survive or fail dictated by the demand and ability to compete in a free market.

That's fine with me. When did I ever say anything to the contrary?

Either the government gets fully involved on both sides of the equation OR stay the hell OUT.

I don't think it is either possible, or desirable, to have one pure extreme or the other. There should be some government regulation. The billion dollar question is, How much?

 

[KCFlyer]

Dude, if you want someone to defend the S&L bailout, you'll have to find someone else. First, I never knew much about it; second, what little I did know at one point I have mostly long since forgotten, since it was what, 20+ years ago? (I don't even remember the dates! I think it was the 1980s but I am not even sure.)

My point was this: The decision to bail out the S&Ls, rightly or wrongly, was a public policy decision that had a large impact on the economy as a whole and on many people. I was only contrasting that to two bickering landowners. That is all.

You missed my point...the PBGC is exactly like the FDIC and FSLIC...it's insurance for failed companies. But it has been turned into a dumping groud for unwanted assets. The S&L's failed, the depositors were protected to a point, and the FDIC and FSLIC moved in to sell off the assets of the failed banks and S&L's. The PBGC has moprhed into a dumping ground in the "reoganization" of bankrupt companies.

 

[PITbull]

KC,

Thanks. You present so much better than I can.