Everyone should see this....

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

msnbc.com Video Player

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34985508#34985508

Beth

[John T 744]

Hey the bottom line is the Supreme Court Justices have made there decision and its fair to say that they are most likely smarter then us and they rendered there decision. What I don't understand is How Obama can be so disrespectful like the way he was during the SOTU Address and admonish there decision so publicly like the way he did. The problem I see here is that during Obama's watch unemployment has went up to over 10% when it was at 7-8% when he took over. His national Health care plan he wasted a whole year on has went up in flames when he didn't go out and support that Lady who ran for Sen Ted Kennedy;s seat and she lost. That was another blunder on Obama's part and he has even said so. Half the guys he picked on his staff especially Geutner are an embarrassment. Guetner is the one who gave out those stimulus packages to the AIG's so there leaders can take humongous bonuses. Basically Obama's first year was a bust. I'm hoping he has a much better year this year or his term is toast. He is heading towards a one term presidency and for all the hatred that some have for George W. Bush to be be a one term president is an embarrassment.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I'll turn an earlier question back on you Rod. You asked something to the effect of: "If corporations are making enough money to spend it on politics why aren't they spending it on their employees instead" (something like that) Rod, if Unions, who's supposed purpose is to PROTECT the worker, have so much money why aren't they helping these workers who have LOST THEIR JOBS with it instead of spending it on politics?

The 60.7 million spent on Obama by the SEIU alone could have paid the mortgage of more than 4000 laid off workers for a year while they retrained for new jobs. What a waste of UNION DUES.

Thank you and to put it in proper perspective: Exactly!

Unions in the beginning were formed with one of the basic premises being; providing monetary protection from layoffs and economic downturns for those who were members. You are exactly right. That money could have been a HUGE help.

Remember a now defunct practice called "A Severance Package"?

Corporations used to provide for their long term employee(s) a monetary compensation to help provide a cushion during a transition period standard of 3-6 months. This helped to pay the regular bills and provide an education payment in a different field.

This is specific example of how corporations are no longer supporting their base. There is no longer any form of job security for those who worked hard and were loyal. They are now being kicked to the curb on a moments notice with only a final paycheck.

The corporation is maintained but the "employee(s)" are expendable. Only those in the executive level secure any type of monetary compensation upon separation because now most are in position because of a signed contract which outlines and details these measures.

Of course there is unemployment that can be applied for but only paid at minimum wage and only available for 3-6 months depending upon the specific states regulations. Now they are forced to take advantage of government spending which I hear most adamantly from conservatives that they don't want.

Does anyone see the quagmire developing here?

Rod!~

Edited January 30, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Hey the bottom line is the Supreme Court Justices have made there decision and its fair to say that they are most likely smarter then us and they rendered there decision.

John, I hate to disagree with ya cause you are a cool guy, but just because someone holds a supreme court justice position, doesn't mean they are infallible.

Not every decision the supreme court has made has been a good one. The following I am sure you are aware of but for the sake of clarification I preface it to you; Alito is not a business man but a lawyer who interprets the law and applies a judgment.

Now, that judgment can be flawed and/or biased. We have all heard of Judges who are tough or lenient based upon the issues they find necessary.

You in your profession I am sure have heard of this phenomenon and felt confident that the judge would convict based upon the conditions of the crime. True?

Rod!~

Edited January 30, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[offduty 25]

Rod, you seem to think that it is a good thing for corporations to provide benefits and severance/retirements to employees. As a shareholder, I would want what is most profitable for the company, and me. There is no profit in severance packages. There is potential profit in letting a company, which has the same rights as an individual(check out an IRS W9), spend money on a political party that will be helpful in laws that are passed benefiting th e company. The checks and balances are the holders that will pull out if they don't agree with how the money is spent. I get so tired of this health insurance is a right/medicare/welfare society. If you can't make it on your own, tough. Let me or someone else have your job. Natural selection will take care of the weak and unfit.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

You know, the reality is that companies will have to be competitive with one another to attract and keep good employees. It boils down to economics. If a company is in need of a person or persons with a particular skill, and there are not many of them out there, then the salary and benefits package will be greater. If the labor pool in general is not heavily saturated, the pay and benefits will be greater, because you have to attract folks, maybe even lure them away from other employers. If however there is a labor surplus, you can pick up very good labor for less. BUT...there is always a but...once the market corrects itself, if you do not respond along with other companies who begin to offer higher wages and better benefits, you will begin to lose workers. Good help is a commodity. Payroll and benefits are an investment. If you have the correct pricing for your product or service you will meet your goals for what the company needs to make and your employees will also prosper - HAPPILY - and will want to stay with you. This is business. Yes it is about the company, but it is at the very same time about the employees and the ability to find and retain the best of them that you can, in line with the going market rates.

Off my soapbox. No more coffee for me.

Beth

[John T 744]

I guess this arguement is how you interpet it. Unions served there purposes and they still do. They also have gotten a bit greedy over the years so because of that the pendulum has swung to favor them and there members. If you take out the Unions then Coporate can pretty much can anyone for just about anything except for discrimination. The problem here is if you get rid of the unions all together then Corporate can get rid of you because you make to much and higher someone else to take your spot because there much younger and much cheaper. This is a tough road for this country to figure out.

To put it this way I am happy as hell with my Police Union and its been a major homerun for me to be a member of them...but as for my business I would never want the Union in and why...because I want the power to pay my employee's what I want to pay them and I also want the power to get rid of them if I want to...This is the same position that most company owners would want also. Walmart is doing great and they operate without and Unions getting in...But I'd be willing to bet there shareholders are loving this and eventually there workers will get screwed somehow...

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Responding in blue:

Rod, you seem to think that it is a good thing for corporations to provide benefits and severance/retirements to employees. Yes, I do. Providing for a stable workforce is far better for promoting loyalty and longevity than otherwise. There is no incentive for an employee other than to invest and when that persons wages are not on par with the market, it is a severely risky move. You outta know that. As a shareholder, I would want what is most profitable for the company, and me. There is no profit in severance packages. No there isn't (aside from the interest accrued in the bank as that fund grows larger with each and every employee they set aside for. Nah, not worth it) and thinking that way is short sighted in relative of long term gains with a stable and loyal workforce. Wait, I get it, instant gratification is what the shareholders want and there is no such thing as long term investment anymore in the corporate market is there? There is potential (potential?) profit in letting a company, which has the same rights as an individual(check out an IRS W9), spend money on a political party that will be helpful in laws that are passed benefiting th e company. Which laws? The ones that allow them to be unregulated? Unchecked for consumer safety? Allow for pollution to be added to our air/land/waterways without being treated? No thanks! We just went through economic hell and are still digging out of it and you are in favor of letting this trend continue? Either; you must be rich or haven't felt any impact from the latest economic recession. The checks and balances are the holders that will pull out if they don't agree with how the money is spent. Ok, lets cut off that slice of fat. It is not a check and balance perse but more of an "if it doesn't work, I'll pull out" maneuver. The corporations are great at selling and shareholders are the target audience. I get so tired of this health insurance is a right/medicare/welfare society. If corporations have the right to conduct themselves as citizens, then they become responsible to it's citizens in my opinion. Insurance is not a right but since it has been forced upon us for over 20 years now in the form of auto, business and mortgage insurance and those rate keep shooting through the roof while the coverage is reduced and the disclaimers longer and restrictions tighter, won't be long before only the rich will be insured and the 95% will not. Who will the insurance companies gouge then? The are shooting themselves in the face to spite their nose. Insurance is supposed to help those it insures, not take their money and then drop them. It happens for to much. If you can't make it on your own, tough. Let me or someone else have your job. Natural selection will take care of the weak and unfit.

No argument there...except for the arbitrary 'unfit' remark.

How is 'unfit' defined there? Handicapped, Physically/mentally Disabled?

How did that come to be? Job related? Genetic?

Are you really that cold and unsympathetic towards your fellow man?

That is not the America I was taught about and what made this country great.

This country is know for not leaving a fellow man/woman behind on the battle field because that person may have done something in their life that we now benefit from. Where is the compassion for our fellow man in your last statement?

I may not agree with you but I wouldn't leave you behind if we were fighting together. There is the difference. In corporate America, it is every man for himself.

I remember these words most as I address anyone here: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and Justice for ALL!

That is what America is about to me.

Rod!~

Edited January 31, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[offduty 25]

My reply is will be short as my time is short. Were you educated in gov't run schools or have you ever studied economics? How does a corporation become responsible to it's citizens? I don't know how to reply to most of your ramblings about letting companies pollute and other such tribble. It does not matter what the end result is, they have the right to free speech and to spend their money how they want to, no questions asked. It is not the gov'ts money to tell them how to spend or not spend. That would be the equivalant of a dentist not fixing a childs teeth because the child may grow up to be Hannibal Lector. Stupid analogy, but so was yours. Who cares how the "unfit" beome unfit, they are not the gov'ts problem. They are the challengfe of families and churches, read the Bible. Before you think I am some uncaring snob, my family donates more than some make to people and needs that we see fit and deserving. I have a family staying in a rental properties rent free because the husband is deployed and th emother stays at home with an autistic child. How would youlike the gov't to tell you you couldn't give your own money to Hati, hug a cop, or whatever your wanted to give to. How does that differ from taxpaying business? It does not. As far as loyalty, screw that if I am a shareholder. Fire the highest paid and replace them with lower paid employees. The bottom line in business is the dollar. If you are a corporation with shareholders and that is not your belief, then you are failing the shareholder.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

You yourself stated your time was short so I am going to proceed on the basis that you skimmed through my post(s).

I will relegate the task of answering your questions to you once you decide to read my post(s) more completely. I believe the answers are there.

Meanwhile, I understand your position from your responses and how set you are in it and will no longer choose to engage you as I find the willingness to debate others have demonstrated more interesting and far more productive. I choose to always examine the option that there are other ways and not stick to the status quo as the only way.

Next.

Rod!~

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

William,

I get your point, and I think you and Rod are having two different discussions. Corporations do have a fiscal responsibility to shareholders (especially when they are public) but they also have a responsibility to employees, and the community they serve, as well as to the country they are incorporated in.

With regards to the employees they have the responsibility to provide a safe work environment and to pay the agreed upon wages and benefits, and to give fair reviews and to provide opportunity free of discrimination.

With regards to the community they serve (and consumers) they have the responsibility to not harm the environment by operating withing the guidelines of federal and state laws, and to provide the best goods or services they can to the consumer, which is in the best interest not only of the consumer but of the shareholder too.

With regards to the country, well they have the responsibility to operate legally at county, city, state and federal levels at all times and to do business in accordance with the laws set forth.

One of you is on one talking point, and the other is on another talking point. Both are part of the whole, or at least that is my take on this....but then...I'm a girl what the heck do I know.... :lol:

Beth

[offduty 25]

Thanks Beth. I get hot under the collar sometimes when people don't see my point and I am sure Rod does also. Sorry for coming across as confrontational. Bottom line

Me-Supreme court ruling good

Rod-Supreme court ruling bad

Everything else is just guys smacking their gums about stuff we can't control:)

[tonyshelton 112]

How can corporations protect their employees from the government and it's incessant drive to bring now "big government" voters into the fold? Corporations don't have a chance unless they can spend the money to educate the public on what is really happening.

Imagine that the government decides that small businesses must provide healthcare (because it is deemed a right) and that the fed is stepping up the effort to help the jobless through taxation of small businesses and they add new fuel taxes to create 1950's style transportation construction jobs.

Lets say I have three employees each making $30k/yr.

Let's say I get a new $1,000 per employee "fee" (tax), now I'm down $3k right off the bat.

Say fuel goes from $2.00 to $3.00.(combination of market forces AND new taxation) Now I'm down another $12k/yr for a total of $15k.

Some of my tax breaks are eliminated (because everyone hates BIG business) and/or taxes go up resulting in another $10k per year in expenses.

Because I'm a heartless business owner I'm forced to provide healthcare for my three employees at $8k/ yr each.

I've just been handed an additional $49k in new exenses. That's enough in new expenses to eliminate my motivation for keeping the business open at all. But I think about the fact that my business provides income for three families and try to figure out how to make it work.

So, I tighten my own belt and take a $10k cut. (How much am I going to cut myself? After all, I'm the one who took all the risks to make this business and provide these jobs.) Next, I eliminate one of the routes and combine them into two and save $3k in fuel. I still have to come up with $36k. So I search out the employees and find the least productive of the three. (Say his name is Jimmy) He has to go. With him gone I save $30k in salary and $8k in healthcare leaving 2k in profit to save for the next time taxes are raised (which will be the next year)

So what has happened here? The government has forced me to fire Jimmy. But Jimmy will be ok because the government will pay him to stay at home and pay all his healthcare bills with my tax money for a couple of years or more.

All this has done is CREATED a crisis so that the government can come in and save the day. If it wasn't for the government interference Jimmy would still have his job.

There's only one way this scenario benefits the government. Jimmy will now be beholden to the geniuses who saved his a** when the evil "big business" fired him. Who saved Jimmy? The wonderful democrats working against the evil "big business" republicans. Who is Jimmy going to vote for next time? You got it.

Don't believe me? If you have the guts, go into one of the neighborhoods where all everyone does is sit around all day waiting for their government checks to come in and try to find ONE voter who voted for McCain. Impossible.

So this is how our government works. Welcome to America.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Tony,

Interesting perspective and surely a very possible scenario but I hope to clarify that my target is Big Corporations (ex; earnings of 10,000,000+) which are precisely the ones in the monetary position to sway elections.

I would be impacted by your scenario and I too do not feel the current health bill is a good fit. Agreed on all points and is a major factor that makes it difficult to even afford insurance for my employees currently.

Health reform is necessary if my business is to grow and compete.

I think we can move beyond that and focus on how the Supreme Courts ruling affects us at our corporations level, and not necessarily with health care which is not the topic.

Be clear that I am not wanting Big government, I want effective government. I don't believe it can be so, if it is controllable by those with the money to influence it. That no longer is government for the people.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[tonyshelton 112]

......my target is Big Corporations (ex; earnings of 10,000,000+) which are precisely the ones in the monetary position to sway elections..

Keep in mind, a big corporation is simply a multiplicity of small business owners (investors) who don't have the talent or experience to run the business, but provide the funds so that the talent can be paid to run the business.

My 69 yr old former golfing buddy is one. He is a part owner of a few BIG corporations (via investments). His wife took 15% of every penny he earned over a 30-40 yr period and invested it in "big" corporations. I'll call him this evening and ask him how that's going for him. Last I spoke to him his life savings had deteriorated from over $500k to less than $125k. That's all he has to live on for the rest of his life now. I'd invite you to think about him everytime you think about BIG CORPORATIONS. Here's his picture to help you put a face on those "big corporations"

Severence pay? He always had plenty of money in between jobs because he was frugal enough to SAVE. That used to be the way people got ahead in this country. It's time we, and the government learned that. (myself included)

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Here's a fun link I found today.... www.PresidentialRhetoric.com

Beth

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Responding in blue:

Last I spoke to him his life savings had deteriorated from over $500k to less than $125k.

We experienced the same. In many ways beyond that. Toxic assets and market deregulation, we all know the cause and the effects. A perfect example of how corporations didn't think of their investors before risking their (investors) money. Thank you for inadvertently substantiating a portion of my argument. We see the results, but I am gleaning we don't see eye to eye on how to remedy.

Severence pay? He always had plenty of money in between jobs because he was frugal enough to SAVE. That used to be the way people got ahead in this country. It's time we, and the government learned that. (myself included)

Agreed, he was fortunate and wise to do so. Not every one capable of that discipline is in the position to do that. With wages so low and the cost of living so high, it is a struggle for many to make ends meet.

Corporations would be wise to do just that. Save the money, have it go towards productive uses and not risky ventures that compromise the business as a whole while only benefiting those at the top.

-There is plenty of interest and benefit to severance and retirement packages to benefit the corporation which become a safeguard and provides a basis from which the corporation in a down economy can draw from with the cooperation of those it is intended for to help pull the corporation out of financial strife.

Inadvertently you helped to provide substantiation to another portion of my argument.

Corporations such as I have described are currently acting selfishly without concern to their impact on this nation and now are seeking to have more power to control it through this ruling.

Let's form a perspective. You and I will not agree here cause I don't hear solutions or ideas on the problems with large corporations, only defense of the status quo in favor of them with no acknowledgment or perhaps realization on your part that there is even a problem. I do not see any potential for a progressive debate with anyone in that position.

Rod!~

Edited February 2, 2010 by Beth n Rod

[tonyshelton 112]

Rod, I'm not defending the status quo, you are. I'm defending a new direction that overturned the failed status quo.

The problem of corporate greed at the top could easily be fixed within the marketplace by an organized boycott of goods or services if enough people gave a crap and were willing to spend 10 cents more on a roll of toilet paper to make a point to the cheaper corporation that we aren't going to support a company that pays CEO's 500 times what an employee gets paid.

But, we as a people are talkers and not doers. I, myself am guilty to some extent, but I will say I haven't stepped foot in a Target store in more than 3 years as a protest of how they treat our troops and the salvation army. There is a lot of power in the marketplace if we Americans weren't so self centered and lazy we could make drastic change.

What are you willing to do to?

Here's a starting point:

2009 Executive PayWatch

The method of whining to the government that this website promotes is not a viable plan. But if someone could rally the American people to protest with their wallets we could make some serious change.

[offduty 25]

Hey, I've been rallying against the *****/Union. Does that make me a doer?:)

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

In my book it makes you a cautious consumer. Everyone makes their own business decisions. But thankfully this is not a ***** thread.... ;)

Beth

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Rod, I'm not defending the status quo, you are. I'm defending a new direction that overturned the failed status quo.

As someone who opposed the previous administrations policies I don't see it that way but I am curious what that new direction is? Please don't say you approve of the obstructionist trend. I did not vote for people to go into office and sit on their behinds and say no to everything.

The problem of corporate greed at the top could easily be fixed within the marketplace by an organized boycott of goods or services if enough people gave a crap and were willing to spend 10 cents more on a roll of toilet paper to make a point to the cheaper corporation that we aren't going to support a company that pays CEO's 500 times what an employee gets paid.

And how would you apply that to corporations like AIG and wall street exec's? They are more intangible and the hardest to sequester in a boycott.

But, we as a people are talkers and not doers. I, myself am guilty to some extent, but I will say I haven't stepped foot in a Target store in more than 3 years as a protest of how they treat our troops and the salvation army. There is a lot of power in the marketplace if we Americans weren't so self centered and lazy we could make drastic change.

What are you willing to do to?

Here's a starting point:

2009 Executive PayWatch

Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.

The method of whining to the government that this website promotes is not a viable plan. But if someone could rally the American people to protest with their wallets we could make some serious change.

That is a significant challenge to the citizens, most of whom are willing to be sold the latest and greatest with all the bells and whistles.

Not impossible, but there has to be a detailed plan on how to accomplish this without corporations taking action to sidestep it.

Rod!~

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Hey, I've been rallying against the *****/Union. Does that make me a doer?:)

Yeah, you are a doer. Everyone has there little pet projects and it starts with something small and works into something bigger.

Rod!~