Posted on 05/27/2009 8:15:29 AM PDT by Lafayette
In order to bridge the current gulf between corporate management and corporate employees, I suggest the following:
1 The Corporation is a creature of the state, and the state has the authority to define the constraints under which corporations operate.
2 There is presently a gulf between the management of large corporations and the rank and file employees. Many corporate managers make decisions without regard to employees or the long term impact of those decisions on employees. While the near-term impact of those decisions on the bottom line might appear positive, the long-term impact might be highly negative.
3 Employees of large corporations are as (or more) likely to know if corporate managers are doing a good job than shareholders or others outside a corporation.
By virtue of the above it would be reasonable for the state to require of corporations with 1000 employees or more that the senior managers be subject to an annual secret vote of confidence by the employees of that corporation. Failure to obtain a 50% approval rating should require immediate dismissal.
So make it a popularity contest?
if you want to destroy any notion of private enterprise and property ownership. And go WELL BEYOND card check, and just say that all 1000+-employee corps are all of a sudden union shops. If that is all the case, then your suggestion is perfectly reasonable.
Nonsense. The owners of a corporation should decide who runs it. Employees who want a say can buy stock just like anyone else and then vote for directors who agree with their views on corporate governance.
I think the satire skills are somewhat lacking here . . .
Don’t quit your day job.
If you’re going to do a satire, at least make it more interesting than that.
The CEO works for the board. He doesn’t work for the employees. You would be placing the CEO in a no win situation. He would have to please the board and the employees, and would be an ineffectual bowl of jello by the end of three months.
A suggestion box? Why not... as long as the employees realized not every suggestion could be approved
A secret ballot to fire or not? Unworkable IMO
Save the utter idiocy of opinions like this for DU, not the “News/Activism” section of FR.
Well, that was what Employee Stock Ownership Plans were all about. They have never really gotten off the ground. I would contend that one reason they did not is that management did not want to have owners who knew what liars and cheats they really are/were.
Corporations are in business to make money. Period. They are not in business to satisfy employees. I think smart companies would listen to their workers, but they are not obliged to.
|
This premise, though often taught in colleges, and repeated ad nauseum in the press; is not one I have found to be true of corporate management.
To accuse management of it, without a shred of evidence, shows a lack of understanding of how businesses,employees, and economics, actually work.
My suggestion: go out and start your own company, hire a bunch of people, and work out your theories for yourself.
In 10 years, re-write your proposal, based on actual experience.
Did you lose your way to democraticunderground.com?
Stop it already.
This was supposed to be satire, the hint being “modest proposal”, the famous Jonathon Swift piece about eating children to end poverty.
(for those with limited literary knowledge )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
it’s just not very good satire - as it seems very few get it.
I think boards should be a little more independent and could ratchet down some of the worst excess of executive comp.
First, you have no understanding of capitalism, or for that matter basic business principles.
Second: A corporation has absolutely no duty to its employees other than to pay them promptly for their wages and to provide a safe workplace or if the job is inherently risky to provide employees with proper notification of risk.
Third: A corporation has no duty to the community other than to follow local customs and laws.
A corporation's sole duty is to its stockholders who have invested their hard earned money. It owes investors the maximum possible profit that can be earned while following the law. No bribery, no fraud, etc.
A corporation, or as that matter no successful business, is a democracy. You do what the boss wants you to do whether you agree with his policies or not. You might also try the idea that everyone else thinks the boss is smarter than you are, otherwise he would be working for you.
If you suspect that the boss is unethical, then you quit.
Generally you are hired by folks who respect you. Yes, that is true. And you are of course going to have people on the board who like you. You are also going to have some people on the board who don’t. I would suspect, it’s rarely an all or nothing sort of thing.
I agree that corporations are in business to make money. But over what timeframe? This quarter? Next quarter? Long term? And make money for whom? Day traders, or people in it for the long haul?
I don’t know how much your kidding w/ your original post, but I think a lot of corporate execs have a very short-sighted business model for their companies: cut spending, pump the stock price over the short term, earn huge bonus/option payout, move on to next gig, repeat.
Boards appear to be not all that independent with too many executive serving on each other’s boards. I would support a law prohibiting people from serving both as a corporate officer AND a director of a publically traded corporation.
Also, if you compare corporate executive comp to average employee comp from the seventies to now, the differences are huge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.