Fine, as soon as the BOD of cororations are elected by one man one vote instead of by how many shares each member has, then Corporations would truly be Democratic as well. Recertification drives are pointless if the standards are lowered. We dont 'recertify" all our Democratic institutions, we only chose who gets to run them, even then the courts are slowly taking away those rights as well, such as in the Bush Vs Gore election decision where the supreme court said that citizens really dont have the right to vote for the President.
Teamster Organizer caught forging Authorization Cards
- Thread starter CIO
- Start date
Fine, as soon as the BOD of cororations are elected by one man one vote instead of by how many shares each member has, then Corporations would truly be Democratic as well. Recertification drives are pointless if the standards are lowered. We dont 'recertify" all our Democratic institutions, we only chose who gets to run them, even then the courts are slowly taking away those rights as well, such as in the Bush Vs Gore election decision where the supreme court said that citizens really dont have the right to vote for the President.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,939
- 9,366
Let me get this right....
First, you're advocating imposing the equivalent of letting the guy from WY or IA with one or two shares have as much say as the guy from NY with 2,000,000 shares.
Next, you're complaining about the electoral college, where your vote in NY counts far less than a vote from WY or IA...
Interesting.
If corporations were a representative republic, maybe you'd have a point. But they're not. The share of ownership is what determines how large a voice you have.
And those institutional investors?
When investors in the funds which ultimately invest in a particular stock actually voice an opinion on shareholder initiatives or BOD candidates, institutions will split their votes accordingly. You can do that with funds held by your 401(K) as well.
This was quite prevalent a few years ago -- after Roy Disney was forced off the board at Disney, there was a drive for individual shareholders of mutual funds investing in Disney to instruct the fund how they should vote on a shareholder initiative driven by Roy. That eventually forced Michael Eisner to resign.
So what you're proposing would actually disenfranchise the guys who invest in a mutual fund. I guess that's OK in your world, too?...
First, you're advocating imposing the equivalent of letting the guy from WY or IA with one or two shares have as much say as the guy from NY with 2,000,000 shares.
Next, you're complaining about the electoral college, where your vote in NY counts far less than a vote from WY or IA...
Interesting.
If corporations were a representative republic, maybe you'd have a point. But they're not. The share of ownership is what determines how large a voice you have.
And those institutional investors?
When investors in the funds which ultimately invest in a particular stock actually voice an opinion on shareholder initiatives or BOD candidates, institutions will split their votes accordingly. You can do that with funds held by your 401(K) as well.
This was quite prevalent a few years ago -- after Roy Disney was forced off the board at Disney, there was a drive for individual shareholders of mutual funds investing in Disney to instruct the fund how they should vote on a shareholder initiative driven by Roy. That eventually forced Michael Eisner to resign.
So what you're proposing would actually disenfranchise the guys who invest in a mutual fund. I guess that's OK in your world, too?...
We already are. Mutual funds are even less democratic than owning individual shares. We dont get to vote at all, we give our money to a company that uses our money to gain more leverage on how they want to vote.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,939
- 9,366
It's your choice to invest in funds where you can't have a say, or to stay with a fund that isn't providing you with a decent return.
I find it interesting that you feel robbed by your investment choices, your employer, your union, and apparently, your public officials.
Is there anything you're actually happy with in life, Bob?
Antagonizing you family guy!!
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Pull your head out and debate with facts and do not resort to typical BS childish responses. Or did winning the election and the upcoming oath of office temper your resolve to stand firm on your beliefs? Come on Bob, that is a weak response.
Kev3188
Veteran
Continuous re-certs might create a "little more accountability," but would definitely create a LOT more cash draining...
That said, I certainly agree about the danger(s) of complacency. My preferred option would be the elimination of the no-raid clause. IMO, if nothing else that forces organizations to be more in tune with what their membership wants, if for no other reason than to avoid a contest with another union...
Perhaps to you, but it was fitting for a petty personal attack. He knew I was right about the lack of democracy in corporate America despite his Fox News coined assertions. Saying that we have a choice to invest in one fund or another does not make those funds Democratic.
Thats the objective of anti-union types like EOleson. They could care less about choice and democracy for workers.
Kev3188
Veteran
It also begs the question; how effective can a union truly be if it's spending all of it's time/resources in perpetual campaign mode?
If a union was being effective and doing a good job for its members, it would not be in danger of being replaced and would not need to spend time and money on a campaign to bs its members.
For example:
The TWU is claiming to be having a card drive against AMFA at SWA.
AMFA is spending zero time and money to defend itself because they don't have to.
Kev3188
Veteran
Yeah, I know. I figured that could go w/o saying...
While you're point is valid w/r/t people not wanting to switch unions, you forgot that there are other parties in the mix, like the company, "union avoidance" firms, RTW organizations, etc.
No matter how good a union is (and remember we're talking ALL unions at ALL companies, not just WN, AA, or even aviation) it will still incur costs- both monetary & not- to fend off these other interests.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,939
- 9,366
Exactly my point. Those who prove value have nothing to fear.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
And a very good point indeed.
