You are the one who wants government control over (read: against) collective bargaining rights. As for the corporate sector, you leave the goal posts unattended since, as I noted earlier, dubiously arrived at gargantuan executive compensation does affect shareholder pocket books in the aggregate. It is widespread, as most Americans have an interest in one form or another, either directly or otherwise. The much lauded invisible hand is either idle or rifling through shareholders' pockets for spare change. You are applying your principles selectively, looking through the microscope here, while turning a blind eye there.
Perhaps I am mistaken. Does that mean you are against the bill which is the subject of this thread? And how about Scott Walker's position in Wisconsin?
No they don't and shouldn't. But could congress grant more power to the shareholders concerning CEO pay, of course. Then it wouldn't be the government governing pay but they could force public corporations to put to a vote pay for executives above a certain amount or percentage. Then the shareholders would be in control. The shareholders are not in control in any way of the companies they own a part of.
Its been shown execs fill boards with their mutual back scratchers. Thats how the ratings agencies falsified all that paper with ratings they didn't warrant. The private sector proves time and again hey can't be trusted. Lobbies find ways to circumvent the intention of regulations or just buy of inspectors, they pollute at will both the environment and politicians. Its even gotten to the point where they sit in and help design regulations ...finall they've even gotten to the Supreme Court. And all that money, including entitlements eventually get spent ...in the private sector. Follow the money and the recently set record profits.
Not particularly, just because I support labors right to organize doesn't mean I support labor raping their employers. If the union wasn't demanding resources the state does not have would Walker be taking the same actions? I don't know for certain but I doubt it. The union is throwing a temper tantrum over money the state simply does not have. If they get smacked down because of it I tend to blame the unions greed more than the employers reaction. To me support for a concept, in this case labors right to organize, doesn't automatically mean I'll defend all things union all the time even it they're wrong.
Here is what they did in the Netherlands when bankers wanted to give themselves big bonuses. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/...onus-clawback-tax-passed-retroactive-to-2008- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-bonus-after-criticism-from-lawmakers-2-.html The interesting thing is that the Twitter campaign of depositors to withdraw their money was discarded in the Bloomberg story. Instead, they basically said the bank's handlers took control. So it depends on where you get "news" from, which then can shape your own opinion about what can/should be done about such things.
I agree. But what you often find here is that people tend to be one-sided at the expense of being reasonable. When the Wisconsin union agreed to pay cuts and other concessions, Walker went on to essentially take away their bargaining rights. Here is a man on a mission who can't take yes for an answer. And what, exactly, is a union without collective bargaining rights? As I see it, to agree with Walker is to no longer support a concept.
Good story. "The finance minister last week said he plans to propose legislation banning banks that need state aid in the future from paying bonuses, as soon as possible. âLast time, the deal was no profit, no bonus,â he said on Dutch television on March 20. âI now plan to introduce legislation with much stricter rules. As long as a bank is on the government drip, it cannot pay bonuses to its executives.â Netherlands gini = 30, not bad.