I crossed a picket line today

In My Humble Opinion
101

Out of respect for the OP, I’ll bite.

This transit strike totally affects me personally, even more so than the grocery strike did. (My local market is a Food 4 Less, not being struck.) I have taken public transportation all my adult life – no car or driver’s license. It was a shock, I just woke up this morning and there was the strike, with no advance warning. I cancelled a meeting with one of my professors today, and I still have to get to two more classes this week. Plus, next week I start teaching again, and the principal really gets ornery if he thinks you’ve been absent too much. :eek:

I will probably end up supporting this strike, because I supported the last one three years ago. At that time, I got really pissed with the County Board of Supervisors (which runs MTA) for seeming to drag their feet about returning to negotiations, especially when one of them (anonymously) told the LA Weekly, “This is a non-issue, it only affects a minority of the county.” When I read that, I called every single Supervisor and reminded them that this minority votes!

I agree with Councilman Villaraigosa, who said that MTA has always maintained an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with its workers. When the drivers struck last time, it was over the filling of more positions with part-timers, which is a virtual declaration of war with any unionized workforce. This time, it’s the mechanics. I’ll have to read up on their issues, but I believe it’s about benefits. I certainly don’t blame the drivers for not crossing the mechanics’ picket line – I would not want to drive an unsafe bus without regular maintenance either! Seen enougha that.

So, against my short-term material well-being and my short-term economic self-interest, I’ll probably come down on the mechanics’ side on this one. A just strike is like a just war: bad but sometimes necessary. Not to say that I don’t feel extremely pissed toward both sides in this conflict (the mechanics and their MTA bosses), but my personal feelings have to take second place to what I think is right in the long term. They better support me if the teachers’ union ever goes out on strike, though.

So, will I cross the picket line, in terms of utilizing public transportation whenever and wherever I can get it? Totally. I have to get places, so I’ll get on a bus even if it’s driven by a supervisor or scab driver. (I just hope it’s a safe bus, without any mechanics!) That’s what I’ve done in the last few strikes, but I still supported those strikes.

One of the most important bus lines I use is a “contracted-out” line, run by an independent company which is paid by MTA to operate the line and which hires its own employees. Technically that line is not affected by the strike, but there is the possibility that it could get picketed and shut down as well. (That’s what happened to all but 5 contracted-out lines in the last strike.) Naturally I hope the union doesn’t picket and shut these lines down, but I’ll understand if they do, because contracting-out is a very serious issue to unionized folk.

So, I’ll just cross my fingers and hope for the best. And also walk long distances, use other bus companies like Foothill and DASH, try to get rides from friends, family and colleagues, and use taxis when absolutely necessary.

Just out of interest, Rico, are there any examples of modern strikes that you would support? I’m asking this because it’s hard for me to think of a lot of unionized industries in Southern California where a strike wouldn’t affect the poor more than the rich. (And for that reason, the poor will always be forced to cross picket lines out of economic necessity, no matter how they feel about the strike.) It’s very unfortunate, but it is not a good enough reason to not strike when necessary. A job is not a charity.

I wouldn’t teach if I weren’t adequately compensated either, and a teachers’ strike would also affect the poor more than the rich. Funny thing is, the poor have generally always supported our strikes (1970 and 1989). By the way, teachers on strike usually encourage students to keep going to school, “crossing the picket line,” as it were. Let the scab teachers deal with the problems! :slight_smile:

The phenomenon of consumers crossing a picket line has never been considered as serious as fellow workers crossing a picket line. The consumers are the ones whose support we want. We mostly view contact with consumers as an educational opportunity, and give them a flyer.

Rico, you’re a champ for trying to get this thread back on track. Even though you had to cross a picket line, and I may have to cross it too. :slight_smile:

But if bri comes back with more generalized anti-union invective, I may have to rise to the challenge.

102

[/Richard Dawson on Family Feud mode]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the top 7 answers are on the board…here is the question…Why is this Grocery Workers strike completely without merit?

BUZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes, Shayna…your answer…

Shoooooow meeee…these fucked up priorities

DING, DING, DING

Number one answer!

[/Richard Dawson on Family Feud mode]

But I’ve got an even better one for your Shayna.

Tire producing union plant in the midwest (I’m an ex-employee of said tire company).

Company X comes in and says…look people, we don’t want to close this plant…we don’t want to put you people on the streets, but it’s a lot cheaper for us to make these tires in Asia (over 30%), with better quality and ship them to the US than what we currently do here…and since we are a public company, we feel it’s our responsibility to our shareholders to move the tire production to Asia to improve out profits…can we (Company X and local union) work out a deal to where you guys can give us gradual wage concessions (1-2% over the next 5 years…which BTW isn’t even close to what we would save by moving this plant) to minimize the wage savings and then get you guys to try to improve the product quality through joint implementation of some quality production plans? After all…you guys are making over 20% higher wages currently than the wage standard in this metro area for the type of work that you do.

Union’s response…no fucking way, you are greedy bastards…we don’t believe you.

Company X says…ok…here’s our books…have them audited yourself if you don’t believe you.

Union says…ok…we will get these audited (and charge it to the company BTW).

Fast forward 5 months…Union has the books audited by 3 different firms…all say the same thing…Company X is telling the truth…unless wage concessions are given…you can’t cut enough costs to offset the savings by moving the production to Asia.

Union says…well we don’t give a shit…we will not agree to any wage concessions…we will strike…and they do.

Fast forward 9 months…Company X has hired 1 replacement worker for every 10 union employees at 50-60% of the wages as the Union workers…product quality is WAY up…much of production has been moved to Asia.

Local union and national has run out of money. Company X workers stop getting strike benefits and start finding jobs elsewhere (at much, much lower wages even with Company X proposed minor wage concessions). Company X comes back to local Union and again says please come back to work with our already stated wage concessions…it’s more than you are getting elsewhere and we will move production from Asia back to here so everyone will get re-hired.

Local union starts to say…we ought to think about going back. Hmmmm…I’d like to make more money that I’m bring home now. You start to read newspaper quotes that hint that the local union is going to go back to work…everything looks like this might work out for all parties.

BUT WAIT!!!

National Union visits local. Pulls out all the stops…Mom, apple pie, Unions, American flag, don’t give in…those corporate pigs are screwing you…signs go up around the community…Company X is screwing our Union brotherhood (not sure where these signs were a year ago…)…International Union President visits the community…gives lots of speeches…in on the news every night…tell the local union…“we will support you”…don’t stop the good fight…and all that bullshit…

Local union says…no, wait…screw you Company X…we don’t need no stinkin high paying jobs…the union will support us.

Fast forward one month…not one Union worker got another dime of strike benefits. Zero, zippo, nada. Support? Gone.

Fast forward 3 years…State government goes to Company X…says we would like to buy the plant and land from you for development would you sell it to us…Company X says…only if you find work for our non-Union workforce…State government agrees…Company X leaves…all production moved to Asia.

Union workforce? Fucked.

True story. Unfortunately.

103

Mr. Obvious, what’s the name of that tire company? Just in case anybody wants to check out the story for themselves. Since you’re an ex-employee, it should be safe now to reveal the name.

I do believe in opening the books and making economically realistic compromises.

104

LordVor, the stores aren’t “trying to take $5/week away from the employees” for no good reason or to line their own pockets with additional profit. That $5/week would be the employee’s share of medical insurance, which is significantly below the national average that employees who are required to cover a percentage of the costs are contributing to their own coverage. For a cite, see the table here, which is a compilation of the results of a National Compensation Survey done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As of March 2003, 78% of all employees were required to make contributions to their own health insurance coverage. The average contribution is $60.24/month, 3 TIMES the amount the grocery workers are being asked to contribute. And a full 98% of employees have to contribute to their family’s health care coverage, to the tune of an additional $228.98/month – again, FAR above what the grocery workers are being asked to contribute.

You could go back to the first page of this thread and click the link I provided to the Labor Research Association site to see the results of their research that shows the cost of providing benefits to employees has risen 5.1% and 4.7% in the past two consecutive years and is expected to rise another 6% this year.
Health insurance premiums rose 10.2% in 2002 and are forecast to rise again this year by 12 to 17%. (I’ll provide the link again here, to save the poor little hamster feet: http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/292 )

When employers absorb those increases, that effectively gives the employees a “raise,” by increasing the value of their entire compensation package, and depletes the company’s profit margin. Therefore, under these conditions, the stores cannot continue to “make a reasonable profit while keeping employee benifits at their current level,” unless they significanly raise their prices, driving them well above market and eventually putting them out of business.

I’m not sure why you think the stockholders and consumers should take the hit to their pocketbooks for the increase in medical coverage for store employees. Especially when pretty much everyone else in the working world is expected to make contributions to their medical coverage (I’m certain that a significant portion of the 22% who are not currently contributing, per that survey, are union employees that inflate that catagory!).

Those are the facts and the numbers that back up the position that the stores feel employee contribution to healthcare is necessary to stay competitive in today’s market.

105

No it doesn’t. And no this place is NOT lax on cites. Formatting is not required, but being able to put up the goods are.

You quoted numbers:

and cited Michael Moore’s book. Since Michael Moore cited those figures from other places, he is not the Original Source, so his book is no longer a valid cite for those figures. Especially when you consider that the book is an OPINION book, NOT a book of “Fact.” He may use facts, that’s true, but only insomuch as they bolster his OPINION. You said he cited the New York Times and Business Week. We want to know where.

See here’s the thing. You have, effectively, proven that Michael Moore said this. And that is valid. If the argument was “did Michael Moore say this” then you win. but it’s NOT, the pudding we are looking for here is “Are those figures correct.”

You said he cited NYT and BW. Fine. All you have to do is open your book (I don’t have a copy or I would) and tell us which issues, sections and pages of the NYT and BW contain these cites. Then WE can look them up and verify them. You have the book, yes? The cites are in the book, yes? If you do not provide them this leads us to believe that either you, or Michael Moore made it up.

I want to read the ORIGINAL cited articles myself. but I cannot, not without going and buying Michael Moore’s book. Which I will not do at this time (not for the purposes of this discussion at least) I am at a loss to read the articles and make sure they were valid. See, right now all we have is you, quoting michael moore, quoting two journalistic sources, who, conceivably, were quoting a study. That means that at best we’re 4 degrees separated from the original source. Which, as anyone knows, signal to noise gets worse with each successive transmission of information.

The fact that you are so unwilling to asist those of us who want to follow up on your cite, the fact that you seem to not understand what makes a cite valid, is what’s causing so much turmoil over these silly numbers. This ain’t church. You can’t say “Hey, my pastor said the bible said this SOMEWHERE (but don’t ask me where), and I belive it and have a good feeling about it, so that’s my cite.” That’s called faith, and it’s fine for some people in religious settings. It’s not fine for a discussion like this.

This isn’t GQ so the scientific rigor is not as strict here, but there IS some requirement to at least HELP us by removing one of the degrees that separates us from the original data. Right now, all we have is “NYT and Business Week, look it up.” That doesn’t cut it, and I do not trust Michael Moore (he’s not my pastor, for the record) to deliver information without bias. NOR do I trust you, or Business Week or the New York Times…but by being able to trace the information backwards to its original source, I CAN come to trust the information. Until you are willing to help those of us who TRULY want to know the validity or invalidity of your statement, your cite does NOT stand. It is little more than posturing and smoke and mirrors.

All due respect, for sure…but you’re making statements on cite validity that simply DO NOT pass muster in a place like this.

Steve

106

I don’t have a dog in this fight, I don’t know any of the parties involved, and both sides have said things I agree with and disagree with. I have to disagree with you here. As I saw things, Shayna came into this thread posting angrily, and that has only increased with every post. That isn’t to say that tclouie isn’t guilty of his or her own transgressions, namely an imposing POV, but I fail to see where she/he has been as angry/accusitory as Shayna.

Of course, I say this having only read through page 3. If things have changed on page 4, then I retract my comments here.

107

[ul][li]The MTA contributes to a fund for health insurance benefits for their employees that is administered by the union.[/li]
[li]Until about a year ago, the union spent $1.4 million/month on members’ healthcare costs and administration fees.[/li]
[li]The union now says those costs have risen to $1.9 million/month and the fund is insolvent.[/li]
[li]Currently, union members pay no more than $6 a month for their health insurance, but they’ve offered to increase the members’ payments to about $80 a month.[/li]
[li]The MTA has offered to infuse the fund with over $1 million dollars to make it solvent and increase their contribution to the fund by $74/month per mechanic, provided they take temporary control of the fund.[/li]
[li]The MTA audited the fund and found, though there was no wrongdoing, it was “inefficiently managed.”[/ul] [/li][quote]
Auditors said the Amalgamated Transit Union keeps its records manually instead of by computer, does not prepare financial statements in a timely way, and has the same person reconciling bank accounts and issuing checks.

Auditors said the health fund’s insurance broker has an “inherent conflict of interest” because most of the union’s insurance carriers pay him commissions based on monthly premiums. “We believe that ATU’s insurance broker has little or no incentive to objectively negotiate lower premiums for ATU members,” the audit states. The audit was performed by a Torrance accounting firm picked by the MTA. The union disagrees with the audit, characterizing it as “garbage.”
[/quote]
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta13oct13,1,1815336.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-me-mta14oct14004419,0,6668363.story?coll=la-newsaol-headlines

In this case, both sides seem to be willing to make concessions for each to kick in more for healthcare costs. The deadlock seems to be over the issue of who controls how those monies are spent. The union wants to maintain 100% control and management wants to take over temporarily in an effort to streamline and minimize costs and conflicts of interest.

If it were my company and I was paying nearly $2 million a month in healthcare costs, I’d want some degree of control on how that much of my money was spent, too.

I feel bad for the workers in this case, because they are at least willing to absorb some of the increases themselves (go them!), and they probably don’t give a rat’s ass who administers the healthcare plan so long as they maintain the same level of coverage. It’s the union bosses who are being dickwads in this one.

108

What ** Big-Ole-Steve** said.

tclouie, I don’t mean to be harsh, but I honestly wonder if you know what a “cite” is.

I mean I assumed that since you’re a teacher that you did plenty of papers in college, etc. A cite is a very simple concept. And you haven’t given one:

a) You haven’t even given what I believe is a quote, only a reference to what you believe was said. (correct me if I’m wrong)
b) You haven’t said where they said it, only the book you believe it was in. I’m sorry, but it’s unreasonable to expect someone to read an entire book just to find one sentence you claim is in it.
c) You haven’t given a quote from the party that actually said it (NYT?), only who (Moore) said that someone else said it.
d) The person you’re referencing (not quoting) is an entertainer by trade.

You (should?) know damn well that making a “cite” like that in one of your well-graded college papers would’ve been knocked.

You can call me on that if I’m guilty, i.e. if you come up with a site and I discard it without diligent research. But don’t assume I’ll do that when I have no history of it, and have not done it in this thread. You haven’t come up with a cite yet. You said you had one; let’s see it.

No I don’t. But I haven’t claimed to have. You have. Where’s the beef?

Look: If you don’t have one, it’s plenty honorable to say “Bill, I thought I had a cite, but all I really have is a recollection from a comedy book written by a comedian where he claims to have read in a newspaper about X.” And that’s fine. But don’t say you have a “cite” when you don’t.

109

tclouie, I’ve taken the high road and done some research to give you a cite you asked for (below). I hope you can do the same.

Funny you should ask; I’ve just gone on the internet and I have something for you. My research consisted of entering “unions microeconomics” into Google, and digging into the first site returned. (Well, really the second site; the first one was a list of homework assignments that wasn’t really relevant).

This site is a textbook on microeconomics published by Prentice Hall. My guess is this is a college textbook, likely for an introductory micro-economics class.
Here you can find Chapter 19 - Economics of Labor - Markets, Labor Unions. The whole chapter is an interesting read, and I invite you to check it out. But the Labor Unions section begins on page 465 (page 15 of the PDF at the link I gave above). In particular, I invite you to read the subsection Economic Effects of Labor Unions beginning on page 467 (page 17 of the PDF). One of the ultimate conclusions of this section is:

Here are some relevant quotes (all bolding is my own):

110

I went to my local Vons today to see what was going on. Of course, this was a different market in a different city than the ones that Shayna visited but I wanted to see if the picketers were threatening. I didn’t feel threatened but I can very easily see how someone could have been. There were four or five strikers congregating around each door. They did not at all get in the way of people trying to get in but they did try to stare me down. One of the strikers very politely asked me if I would support them and shop elsewhere. I said that I was sorry and didn’t support this cause.

The parking lot was nearly empty near the market. Lots of cars drove by and honked their horns in support. I saw a couple of managers walk in and out and there was a bit of good natured kidding back and forth. I saw one replacement worker/scab go in and they gave her a bit of shit but didn’t try to block her.

It was interesting.

Haj

111

For the record, no I wasn’t implying there is or should be a law about crossing picket lines. I simply opined that it’s the wrong thing to do, regardless of one’s income or union affiliation.

I’d really love to hear from some of our UK workers about this issue, it’s my understanding that being a member of a trade union is much more common there. If that’s indeed the case, it seems to have happened without everyone demanding outrageous hourly rates and crashing the entire economy, eh Bri?

112

So let me get this straight…you don’t want the name of the Union who absolutely fucked their members to make a point to Company X…you want the name of the company?

Nice.

I’ll tell you what…if you (or anyone else) want the name of this company…send me an email to drewsdad2002@burntmail.com

Providing you give me your word that you will not come back on the board and post it…you will use it for your own personal research…I will give it to you.

But if you think for a second about large American-based Midwest tire manufacturers who have production facilities in Asia…you should be be able to connect the dots.

113

…or the stones, perhaps?
Speaking of stones, or the absence thereof, this thread is high comedy… funny how all the folks that should be going to the ramparts to defend “working families” are strangely silent, leaving the field to tclouie. Good to have the support of all those open-minded, progressive fighters for truth, justice, and homogenization, eh louie?

In the immortal words of Harlan Ellison, “It’s all bullshit, kiddies”.

Could it be that some of the people that are ducking this fight think that unions are fine, worthwhile champions of the fight for social justice until they are inconvenienced in the swift completion of their appointed rounds? Also, let’s not forget that strikes against publically held companies may affect the good ol’ 401K, eh? That can’t be a good thing, can it?

I have respect for what unions have accomplished. They have taken trades and made professions of them, allowing folks without the desire or ability to kiss-ass their way up the corporate ladder to earn an honest living and raise a family. They need to understand that they are being sold out on a number of levels, and the future is not promising.

The unfortunate truth is that the relentless drive for profit to satisfy the thirst for ever-increasing stock prices (ooh, there’s those 401Ks again) is leading America down the toilet. No profit is ever enough, and the ability to improve margin with cheap overseas labor cannot be resisted. If a company resists, the shareholders don’t get their return, and next thing you know there’s another management team in place. And you damn well know that they’re moving jobs overseas, or else they’ll be out the door too.

Don’t forget the mass marketeers, locked in a death struggle to undersell each other. Every dime they can beat out of their vendors is like gold. Where do you think the vendor goes to get that dime that you saved?

Where does it end? China? Bangladesh? Who’s the low bidder today? Entire countries are cutting each other’s throats to woo jobs away from each other.

Societies that we look upon as wealthy and free were often enabled by slave labor. We don’t have that option, but the drive to zero never ends.

-Rav

114

Huh. I almost never get to exercise my cobweb-encrusted lefty impulses on this board. I suppoose this is as good a time as any to air them out…

Which is absolutely irrelevant. So the supermarket workers should join the trend so they are paying health benefits more in lime with the rest of the U.S. workers? Nonsense. Things should be rolling backwards - where the supermarket employees are now is where everyone should be ( or better ). Going in the direction you propose is a slippery slope down towards greater and greater economic weakness for the American worker.

Well, now - if everyone is forced to raise their prices then we won’t have the issue of nobody shopping there. No one will have a choice ;).

Because that’s what they deserve to get. If we as society needs to take an economic hit to finance it, so be it. If medical costs get so outrageous that the cost of maintaining 100% paid medical benfits for all workers becomes too onerous for society, with any luck that will cause people to get pissed enough to force the government to junk our current for-profit health system and institute universal socialized healthcare as every civilized society should :).

  • Tamerlane
115

As you said, nonsense. It’s entirely relevant in a market society, which is what we have, like it or not.

Indeed. There’s certainly nothing special about them and what they do that should entitle them to greater benefits than what the market is willing to pay.

It’s not the direction I propose, it’s the direction it’s going – I’ve got nothing to do with it.

Who said anything about “everyone”? These particular stores in these particular markets, where they have competition that isn’t striking, that isn’t making unreasonable demands and who don’t have to raise their prices to cover blackmail payouts.

<snort!> That’s actually funny. What’s so special about grocery clerks that they “deserve” to get 100% healthcare coverage when nearly 80% of the rest of working Americans don’t get it?

Speak for yourself. I don’t agree that as a society we “need” to take an economic hit to finance grocery baggers getting full medical benefits.

Change that to read, “If medical costs get so outrageous that the cost of maintaining reasonable paid medical benfits for all workers becomes too onerous for society, with any luck that will cause people to get pissed enough to force the government to junk our current for-profit health system and institute universal socialized healthcare as every civilized society should,” and I’ll agree with you 100%. I am, afterall, a registered “lefty” (one who’s actually used government paid healthcare when I was uncovered by my employer for health insurance). :wink:

116

Ah, well, that can change :). Not that I’m not in favor of some sort of market-system, but I prefer a hybrid where the jack-booted foot of the government rests lightly but firmly on it’s neck, keeping it docile ;). In terms of healthcare I absolutely do not support a free-market system.

Agreed. Nothing special about them at all. All workers, regardless of position or duties should get 100% paid healthcare. It’s a moral issue IMO.

True. But that slide should not be tolerated or pandered too. Afterall increasing healthcosts do impact workers by decreasing discretionary income, which weakens the economy ( not to mention potentially increasing human misery and unrest by lowering the “working middle-class” to the level of the “working-poor” - an extreme example, but where does the slippery slope end? ).

I’m speaking more philosophically, rather than specifically.

They’re human.

They should get it too.

I always try too.

Most don’t. Just adding MHO to this appropriately named forum. Like I said, I so rarely get to fly my freak-flag elsewhere :D. Discourses on Greco-Judaean historical contacts just don’t seem to lend themselves to that sort of thing.

What’s reasonable? $60.24 a month? $228.98 a month? 2% of monthly income? 20% of monthly income?

I say zero is pretty darn reasonable, myself :).

  • Tamerlane
117

The problem with that idea, Tamerlane, is that it is never zero. If it doesn’t come out of the workers’ pockets in direct payments toward their own healthcare, it will come out of their pockets in taxes to cover indirect payments for their healthcare.

And while you’re apparently not concerned about these particular stores raising prices, the workers you’re defending might be, since they have to shop somewhere, and they just might not be quite as willing to take the hit in the pocketbook that you seem to be. Not to mention the fact that if prices go up in all these stores, the raise they get by an increase in their benefits will be a moot point. Not exactly gaining anything, are they?

118

No, not necessarily, you’re quite right. Depends on the situation and in this particular case it may null case. Maybe.

I have nothing against a pragmatic approach. Heck, I’m nothing if not pragmatic :slight_smile: - Several months ago I came up against this exact same situation and voted to accept a contract that raised my medical visit co-payments ( from zero to $5 a visit ) and prescription co-payments ( from $1 to $5 ). Why not? Less hassle for me than going out on strike over what was, let’s face it, a pretty minimal economic rollback. Shayna is quite correct that this is the wave of the future - we were among the last folks in the area with such a sweet healthplan, a fact that surely undercut our negotiating strength, especially in the public arena ( look at all of the folks who are disparaging these strikers as being essentially overpriviledged crybabies ).

However…philosophically, as I said, I fully believe that this society should accept the economic burden of providing free, universal healthcare. And I do see a persistent slippery slope of benefit erosion at least in my area - is that being offset by lowered cost of living coming from the economic savings gained from passing on healthcare costs to employees? Hmmm…perhaps, but I’m not seeing it. Of course such things are difficult to quantify, really. But I don’t approve of this trend which appears ( in my entirely subjective view, of course ) to be doing nothing to ameliorate a slow slide towards a lower quality of life.

So I have nothing but respect for folks that try to hold the line and not surrender their benefits, no matter in how small a way, if they feel there is no quantifiable proof that it will in any way improve their lives to do so. I respect them and I will certainly support them by taking the small step of not crossing a picket line.

  • Tamerlane
119

Well, that is certainly a reasonable request. Thank you for making your request so specific, unlike Bill. :slight_smile:

It’s on pages 235-236 of Dude, Where’s My Country?, first paragraph of the endnotes for Chapter 7, “Horatio Alger Must Die”:

“The statistics for corporate compensation come from: ‘Executive Pay,’ John A. Byrne et al., Business Week, May 6, 2002; ‘Executive Pay: A Special Report,’ Alan Cowell, The New York Times April 1, 2001. The Business Week report also noted: ‘In the past decade, as rank-and-file wages increased 36 percent, CEO pay climbed 340 percent, to $11 million.’”

If anybody tracks down these articles and they don’t say what Mr. Moore claims they say, please let us know in this thread so that we may form a new opinion as to Mr. Moore’s reliability.

:slight_smile:

120

I’m really confused about this response. I guess one could assume, based upon previous entries in this thread, the poster in question had a bias, but that’s all it really is: an assumption.
tclouie just asked for the name of the company. That doesn’t state or imply any opinions for or against this company. He just asked for a name.

If I had to make an assumption here, I would assume it to be easier to determine the name of the union after being given the name of the company rather than vice versa. So by asking for one, you really get the information necessary to research both. But that’s just an assumption.

Your story is interesting, but that’s really all it is: a story. An anecdote. While I personally don’t really care about researching it further, I can understand how some might. Your response to this is effectively “why don’t you just take my word for it?”
The answer is " 'cause we don’t."