Why do we need "UNION BOSSES" on boards of bailed out banks?

[louis c]

Ya, the asshole conservative right wing McCain allies are touting this provision as a non-starter and a special interest give away.

Now, you can hear the other side of the story. First off, the Wall Street crash will dramatically affect the huge union pension funds for public employees and the 401K funds for many private sector workers. We have a stake in this, that's for sure.

Let's define Union bosses. I'm the president of a small local (200 members). I make a stipend to serve as a President ($8,400 a year). I still have to work, just like everybody else in my union, every day. However, because of my position, I work closely with real union leaders. We have to win an election of the rank and file every two or three years. Some of these leaders make $150K a year. That may seem like a lot of money, but when you consider they have unions with 12,000 members, budgets of 10 million dollars, and the responsibility of keeping all these men and women working, that's at least fair compensation. Opposite us, there are CEO's and COO's who make more, much more. Millions of dollars a year, in some cases. In others, multi-millions of dollars.

So, to the point. If you put union heads on boards to approve the just compensation for CEO's and COO's of the bailed out companies, you have a perfect check and balance.

After all, the folks who invented golden parachutes and huge bonuses are the snakes. And if you want to control the snakes (CEO's) the best way to do it is to hire a mongoose (that's the union leaders).

[senseandsensibility]

1. um, to represent working people?

The people who are paying the tab? Just a guess.

[louis c]

2. That's the answer.

[alittlelark]

10. That sounds like the right answer.

curious question.

[senseandsensibility]

19. Yes, a very curious question

The mindset of repugs is continually amazing to me. They actually enjoy being disrespected, abused, and robbed by their "betters." The only people they have contempt for are the poor and the powerless.

[Bozita]

3. Tipping my mug to all of the mongooses out there.

Salut!

[JDPriestly]

4. Varying degrees of worker participation in corporate management is common in much of Europe

Works councils have informative and advisory rights regarding aspects of a company's internal policies and organization. Specifically, they can negotiate rules pertaining to organizational and social issues, and must be consulted regarding certain personnel decisions.

The employer and works council can negotiate rules on matters such as:

* Working hours
* Vacation schedules
* Grievances
* Safety issues
* Welfare
* Social facilities
* Company wage structures

In personnel issues, the works council must have the chance to voice its opinion prior to every dismissal in order for the dismissal to become effective. However, approval of the works council is not required.

In companies with more than 20 employees, however, works council approval is required for:

* Hiring
* Pay scale grouping
* Transfers within the company

The works council can only refuse approval within one week of a decision and for certain legal reasons only. If the employer and works council are unable to reach an agreement, a decision is made by an arbitration board.
http://www.invest-in-germany.com/homepage/investment-guide-to-germany/employees-and-social-security/co-determination-through-worker-participation/


The representation of workers in the highest organs of a company is a common feature not
only in many of the former EU-15 countries but also in the majority of the new member
states. The right to nominate representatives to the board of directors or to the supervisory board currently exists – to differing degrees – in 18 of the 25 EU member states and in Norway. Of the ten countries which joined the EU in 2004, worker board-level representation is known in seven countries. In the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia these rights are widespread in the sense that they exist in both private and stateowned companies, whereas in Malta and Poland the experience of board-level representation is limited to state-owned or privatised companies.

Via their representatives on the company’s board, workers gain timely access to information and influence at the place where company decisions of strategic importance are taken or endorsed. This representation at board level may thereby be one additional means of ensuring that the interests of the workforce are respected, for example during restructuring processes.
. . . .

http://www.seeurope-network.org/homepages/seeurope/file_uploads/presens_reports_blr_in_nms.pdf

McDonalds has tried to avoid the worker representation requirement:

This paper presents the findings from a larger study of labor relations in the European fast-food industry. Its focus is the labor relations practices of the McDonald's Corporation in seven European Union countries: Germany, Austria, Denmark, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy. Each of these countries has well-established national statutory mechanisms for employee representation, usually through some form of statutory works council and/or employee or union representative. The findings suggest that despite the fairly stringent nature of most of these national systems, the McDonald's Corporation has, to varying extents, been able to find loopholes in national law and avoid or undermine most of these national systems. This has created a considerable number of long-term and continuing conflicts with trade unions and in many cases, has denied employees' their legal rights to independent representation. These practices have also had negative consequences for employees' pay and conditions of employment. In broader terms, the findings also suggest that the existing national European systems mostly established in the 1950s are not adequate for the task of dealing with the more "modern" form of employment found in this sector.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=365360

[Bozita]

6. Yahhh, but we're #1. USA, USA, USA!

*sarcasm off*

Thank you for that, JDP.

[bluesmail]

5. It comes down to class warfare.

[anigbrowl]

7. To what extent are financial firms unionized?

Being European myself, I'm somewhat more in favor of the European model, although not totally. I'm personally ambivalent about unions, as some union activities and politics have their own faults. That's not meant as a dig at you, just pointing out that I've got mixed views rather than being an automatic union supporter in all contexts.

[louis c]

9. It doesn't matter. It's our money in there.

They don't have to be unionized to have an AFL-CIO official on the board of overseers working on the board as a government appointee.

I sit on boards by appointment, with my union credentials well known, for construction in my home town.

Union board members ensure that work is done by skilled laborers and salaries are "prevailing wage". This doesn't mean the companies are unionized or that the workers are union members. It just means the work is done right and the workers are fairly compensated.

For instance. If Bear Stearns was going to be bailed out with taxpayers' money and the stock to BS had substantial union pension money in it (as most banks do), then our interest would be protected by making sure that the fat-cats didn't suck up all the government money on inflated salaries and bonuses. It would be in the interest of those we represent to have the strongest possible value to secure the highest price for those stocks. Not some huge salary package for a scumbag that wants to take the money and run.

Again, remember that a huge percentage of pension funds that feed the stock market come from union workers, like teachers, fire fighters and police officers. We have a stake in this success, over and above the fact that it's our tax money, too, that's financing this bailout. No one is saying that we should be the only voice in the room. Certainly, if there is a panel of 11 members, one voice should be ours.

[alittlelark]

11. It DOES matter. The Financial sector has offshored

most Unionized Jobs.

[louis c]

12. That's why we want in

Get it.

We have too much at stake. It's not just the jobs in the banking industry itself, but the many workers that have their investments in these banks. If they are to be saved, our voices need to be heard. the California Teachers retirement fund, alone, has as much money invested as the GNP of more than 2/3 of every nation on earth.

We want a seat at that table.

[anigbrowl]

14. I think you already have a seat at that particular table

I refer to the fact of CALPERS' board having several employee association and union members, including the positions of President and Vice president. Which is not to disagree with any of the points you made above, but to point out that the interests of workers are at the heart of that particular fund.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/organization/board/members/home.xml

[anigbrowl]

13. OK, but that wasn't the question I asked you.

Without looking to contradict you, it seems to me that by your reasoning it would be more appropriate for AFL-CIO people to be sitting on the boards of those pension fund managers such as CALPERS and so on, and also that to the extent banks or whoever are getting bailed out by the treasury, the treasury will have its own representatives on those board.

Now, you seem to be talking about a oversight board for the whole thing, where your argument makes sense to me. Originally (and this may have been a misunderstanding), I had the impression that you were talking about the boards of individual companies on Wall Street.

I would still like to know to what degree (if any) the financial sector is unionized.

[louis c]

15. clearing up that misunderstanding

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd proposed that the oversight board have a "member of labor". That usually is an AFL-CIO delegate, since that is the umbrella organization for many unions, especially public sector employees who have a great deal of pension money in the system.

I think we agree on that. Their board position would be to ensure no excessive CEO compensation. Hence, the snake and mongoose metaphor.

[anigbrowl]

16. OK, now I get what you meant - thanks.

[louis c]

18. I probably should have been more clear in my OP

My original post was ambiguous. I can see where you would think I meant the board of directors of the particular bank (although that's not a bad idea, either. we have yet to reach that degree of Socialism).

however, the oversight board is what Frank and Dodd were talking about, and that's what I was referring to.

[barbtries]

8. yep

put them in there. the fucking administration and their republican water bearers make me so sick i could :puke:

[BlooInBloo]

17. Stupid unions. What have THEY done for anybody?

:rofl:

[Dr.Phool]

20. Those damned union bastards!

I had to retire on a decent pension at 49! Forced into exile in Florida!

If they were going to make it so that I could retire 20 years early, the least they could have done, was give me golf lessons!