Min. Wage is worthless. Unions are worhless. Time for real change.

[ItNerd4life]

Yes, you read the title correctly. The minimum wage law and unions are bandaid solutions to the real problem. The progressive income tax is also a bandaid solution to the wage warefare problem. It's time for a real solution.

The 401k laws force companies to create a 'retirement' building program that isn't just for the high income earners in a company. The 401k plan must be fair enough so that employees will use it as well. If not enough employees use the program, then the fat-cat executives can't use it either.
Simple, fair, and works well.

Now is the time to create an 'income' building program along the same lines. The 'FAIR INCOME LAW' would make it that no person or owner of a company can earn more than 100 times the lowest paid worker. This includes total compensation (bonuses, stock options, etc) not just income. If a fat cat executive wants to make $1 million dollars, the lowest paid worker has to make $10,000.
This would apply to all companies doing business in the U.S.

If an executive wants a $10 million dollar bonus, they better give all the workers a $100,000 bonus.

This would force companies to be socially responsible income wise, not just retirement wise. This law would use greed against the extremely greedy. If someone wants to be greedy, they better think about everyone, not just themselves.

What do you think? Time for a 'FAIR INCOME LAW'?

[Virginia Dare]

1. Good luck getting it to pass...n/t

[eagler]

2. Now that's a plan worth considering.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

3. Because everyone works for a major corporation?

Because $10,000 is a livable wage?

Because millions of workers wouldn't find their jobs changed to independent contractor status with no health, vacation or other benefits?

Because unions only negotiate wages and have no other impact on the health, safety and welfare of their members?

Because there are no small businesses?

I'll pass.

[ItNerd4life]

4. Why so negative? Why not include these in the plan?

Why not make it so anybody doing any work for a company is included? Why not include benefits of all workers must match the benefits of the executives?

Why not make it that the 'average' wage of all workers is can't be less than a 50 to 1 ratio?

[conspirator]

5. Instead of more money I would prefer less working hours.

http://whywork.org/

[dave_p]

7. But...

... but... you'll end up like... like France!!!

[conspirator]

10. I like France. And I think the french will riot if Sarkozy increases the working hours nt

[geardaddy]

27. I just added that to my Favorites

I've been trying to find a way to get more leisure time. Thanks!

[On the Road]

6. There are Always Ways Around These Laws

In countries with very high tax brackets for the rich, more of an executive's compensation may be in non-monetary perks like limousines and club memberships. It's hard to disentangle those things.

Another issue is size. For an extremely large company, 100 times is a fairly tight cap at current rates -- $15k per year for the lowest paid worker (at $7/hr) would mean a cap of $1.5M for the CEO. But it would allow a small business owner to make half a million a year and pay employees $2/hour.

Under no conditions would I expect a salary cap to result in large numbers of ordinary workers getting a pay raise. The accountants will just get more creative.

The healthy minimum wage and more progressive income tax measures you're not excited about are much more effective at economic leveling, and used to do a decent job in this country until Reagan cut taxes and prevented minimum wage increases.

[w4rma]

8. This will *always* be a war between the wealthy and the lower classes. That's why unions are most

important of all reforms. Unions *must* be protected because unions are required to fight for laws like the one you say you want.

[Exiled in America]

9. I stopped caring about anything you have to say at: "Unions are worthless."

That kind of hyperbole makes you irrelevant.

[Marnieworld]

11. exactly

Spoken by someone either not or never in a union? A business owner who fears unions? A professional that doesn't know what it's like to be so powerless in a position that you need to team up with others like you in order to have enough power to get the basic needs for survival met.

I think that corporate exec salaries and bonuses are out of control but I'm not sure that this (OP) is the solution. If I'm a CEO of a large or small company my efforts and results are more connected to the bottom line than my cleaning person or other minimum skilled worker. To have a universal equation deduce value in all companies completely misses the nuance of the value of individual skill sets and contribution to a company. I'd rather a solution that makes it impossible to have offshore tax havens. I can imagine that the new tax burden may come from these ridiculous bonuses and salaries of the CEOs. But for small companies? Impractical. For the low wage earner, who would protect them and ensure enforcement? You'd need a group of people, an interested party like a union.

[ItNerd4life]

12. Look at the big picture.

Unions don't stop the executives from making $400 million dollar bonuses. We need to make the owners and executives of businesses play by the same rules as employees.

Why can't people think outside the box? How about you come up with an overall encompassing solution instead of band-aid approaches or trying to insult people for being liberal? (definition of liberal is being open to new ideas)

Oh, and unions don't exist in other countries. I care about all workers!

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Unions don't exist in other countries??? Source please. n/t

[Kerrytravelers]

18. Unions don't exist in other countries?

Please, do tell where you got this little "fact."

[ItNerd4life]

19. LOL. Not everyone in this country is a union member.

Many factories within China, Mexico, etc aren't unionized. Some countries like the Maquiladora's have mandated minimum requirements, not unions.

[Kerrytravelers]

23. Again, I'll repeat "Unions don't exist in other countries?"

I didn't say every American worker was a union member. I also didn't say that unions exist in every country where every worker is a union member.

Good try at avoidance, though.

[davsand]

29. Do you have any idea what the working conditions ARE in those places?

http://www.waronwant.org/thumbnail.php?id=4179&max=1000

Bangladesh.

They make about $16 per month.

Here ya go, here's a video talking about the human price of cut flowers from Kenya and Columbia:

http://www.waronwant.org/Video+-+The+Human+Cost+of+Flowers++14222.twl

Oh wait--here's a really nice one about Coke and how "sweet" the deal is they offer workers and the communities they locate their plants. I especially like the section where they talk about Coke and unions...

http://www.waronwant.org/downloads/cocacola.pdf




Sorry, I ain't buying the anti union rhetoric.



Laura

[Touchdown]

30. Whos ass did you pull that out of?

Who do you think raises the most hackles when a CEO gets overcompensated by destroying a company and laying off workers? Nader? Only once every 4 years. The unions do it on a daily basis. Unions work hard, damn hard to change the laws in this counrty to make it easier on working people, and have NEVER come out in support of outrageous exec compensation. To the contrary, unions are dead set against outrageous CEO salaries, especially when they lay people off to get them.

As to your last under the rock comment...well, I guess that's why you're so uninformed about your first one.:eyes:

I am open to new ideas all the time. Throwing out 3 good things is just plain stupid though. Enjoy your weekend. Those "Bandaid" unions made sure you get them.

[davsand]

14. I was Union before I was a Dem.

I will stay that way too. Labor has been there for me when the Dem party wasn't, and I'll trust my right to collective bargaining a whole lot more than any politician and any "fair income law"--no matter the party in the Whitehouse, no matter the party controlling Congress.

You claim unions "don't work" but I'd like to know--have YOU ever been represented by a union? Do you know much about unions beyond the talking points provided by the GOP and Rushbot people who think we are all lazy bums protected by a union contract?

Have you EVER learned enough about the process of collective bargaining and the history of workers in the US to even make the statement that Unions don't work?



Let me give you a crash course in one short paragraph:

If you can go to work and not get maimed by the equipment you work with, you better thank a labor union. If you enjoy a forty hour work week and weekends you might consider thanking the Labor movement. Ditto for your health insurance, your vacations and any of the freaking retirement plans out there. If you enjoy the right to not be forced to live in company owned housing and if you like the ability to get up and go to the bathroom in your workplace those are also union inventions. Union members DIED to get this stuff just so guys like you can sit and talk about how worthless we are. Union members are still getting hammered by our administration--claiming that union membership is a threat to national security--so don't EVEN tell me that the struggle isn't going on to this day.



WHY am I seeing this kind of crap on a progressive website? WHEN did the Dem party drift so far from its roots that this is even remotely acceptable?



Laura

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. "WHY am I seeing this kind of crap on a progressive website?"

Because of the 25+ year anti-union campaign that got a foothold with Reagan and the air traffic controllers.

[ItNerd4life]

21. What about the non-union workers?

You don't say anything about how they are treated? Unions still allow jobs to be moved off-shore, they don't protect jobs.

[bperci108]

25. Unions benefit not just their members...

...but ALL workers by raising the bar.

When this country had a strong Labor movement, everyone benefited.

And that's precisely why the Reagan Right and their Corporate masters had to declare war on the Labor movement.

Unions can't "protect jobs" when they are 5% or less of workers. Solidarity means just that; and most have forgotten what it means.

You really need to learn the history of Labor in this country better; you sound like a paid shill for the union-busters, or at least someone who has been taken in by their lies and propaganda.

Better yet-join the movement yourself and learn first hand from the original radical Labor movement: www.iww.org

[spoony]

26. Great post!

That's why it's so damn scary for all these Repubs to be conjuring Reagan's legacy tonight. :nuke:

[davsand]

31. I don't recall Labor EVER pushing for NAFTA.

In fact, as I recall it was politicians who were out there beating the drum for free trade--including Clinton and Gore. It is kinda tough to :protect" much of anything when your elected officials sell you down the river and your voter base is too ill educated to make informed decisions.




Laura

[Touchdown]

32. Unions don't allow anything of the kind.

If it wasn't for organized labor, there would be less jobs here than there is.

The AFL-CIO has a group you'd be interested in. It's specifically set up for people who don't belong to unions. I hope you visit it.

http://www.workingamerica.org/

[The2ndWheel]

15. Wouldn't this law be a band-aid solution?

What would you say is the real problem by the way? All I read was that everyone isn't getting enough money.

[ItNerd4life]

20. It doesn't have to be a band-aid solution.

You can include benefits along with wages. Everybody within a company must play by the same rules.

You don't get $400 million dollars bonuses, without everybody else getting some type of bonus. You factor in the total compensation.

It covers every employee, not just union workers.
You can set a minimum wage, but it would become irrelevant just like it is for most workers. Only a small percentage of U.S. workers make minimum wage, the supply & demand of the workforce helps drive up wages.

Also, it could be worked to include other countries. Imagine a company not being able to move jobs off shore just to cut wages and eliminate jobs.

My idea doesn't have every detail mapped out, but it would be a single solution to solve most wage, compensation, health care benefits, etc. issues people are facing today.

[The2ndWheel]

24. So now it's global?

Production and consumption are done at, and for, the lowest possible price. You can regulate that all you want, and the game will never stop. You'll have to regulate the regulations, then when the corporations find a way out from those regulations, regulate those regulations. Corporations have only one thing to do, while the collective power of government has its mind on every possible aspect of life, diminishing that collective power. Like WWI and WWII, this law will not be the law to end all laws.

What we need to do is get rid of corporations, get rid of mass production, get rid of large scale economies. What we can't do is play the game of wealth accummulation, but that's all we seem to do. That's because of the way we grow our food, and that's not going to change, so the best we can do is just keep dancing. Labor vs. Capital, Corporations vs. Governments, Humans vs. Humans, Humans vs. Planet.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. That's weird.

Somehow this got post in the entirely wrong thread.

:rofl:

[gravity]

22. This law isn't going to help out the workers at all

If anything, it will just help out the stock holders, since less of the profits will go to the CEOs.

If you want to improve worker conditions, then just have universal health care, minimum wage, and labor unions.

[porphyrian]

28. Every law has at least one loophole, and yours wouldn't be an exception.

By the time it passed, it would be no more like what you've written than the average original movie script is like what goes on screen, and those with the power (money) would have the easiest time using the loophole(s). Besides, laws are only enforceable if you catch someone breaking them.

Personally, I think what we need is closer to a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for all citizens, whatever that would be. What part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (formerly "life, liberty and property") does homelessness, lack of adequate health care and poverty emulate anyway?

[baldguy]

33. You can thank a union for the fact that you have a minimum wage to complain about.

Otherwise you'd have real slave wages.

Thank a union for the fact that you have a 401Ks that you think are so inadequate. Otherwise, you'd have no retirement plan available to you.

Thank a union for ending child labor. Thank a union for your safe workplace. Thank a union for creating middle-class jobs for the majority of people in the world, a middle-class that demanded quality primary and secondary educational system, that demanded comfortable homes with electricity & running water, that demanded a safe environment for their children.

And if you're concerned that wages aren't high enough for the average person, that retirement plans are inadequate, that the work place isn't as safe as it could be, and that the middle-class is disappearing - maybe it's because unions aren't strong enough. The corporate oligarchy, their propagandizing media & their conservative political minions have spent 60 years trying to eliminate the very same unions you despise.

[BluePatriot]

34. Enter a second set of fake books

The problem is just outright corruption and greed. In theory, however, that law is a decent solution.