Wow. Quite an insight into the NYT mindset.
You have to read to comments on the article.
Caterpillar has some of the lowest paid senior execs for a fortune 500 Dow Jones Industrial companies. Much of their pay reported comes from options. Most Cat shares are owned by institutions that need the steady modest dividends and benefit millions of individuals. Cat has pursued a limited expansion plan to minimize ups and downs of employment, but there was a boom of demand for their products world wide for about a decade. But when things turn down..they turn down by an order of 50%..there is no choice but layoff’s,salary cuts, early retirment, performance related firings, etc. The NYT has targeted one of the most respected, conservative and honest companies in the world..one that is universally respected world wide.
Who is doing the dehumanizing here?
Is it the individual who stands by the right of thinking persons to make contracts and agreements amongst themselves, for their mutual benefit, and expects each person to abide by the agreements made?
Or is it the individual who catagorizes people as boss and worker, exploiter and exploitee, and seeks to interfere in the right of people to arrange their own affairs and make their own agreements?
Employment is an agreement between an employer and an employee. It is not "moral" for some third party to stand in the middle of that transaction and tell one side or the other that they have to do things that are not part of that agreement. That will create uncertainty on the part of the employer and keep him from hiring people in the first place, and it will convince the employee that he need not take responsibility for his own maintenance by setting aside a portion of his pay for a rainy day.
This kind of destructive behavior should never be permitted to don the mantle of "morality"...