It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I am a little bit testy.

Warrens party has all but destroyed business already.

We don't need more of the SAME OLD FAILED IDEOLOGY destroying whats left.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ill use a military analogy. Heirarchal control is vastly more expeditious. If all 3 squads in a platoon took a vote on what to do next, particularly in combat, no cohesive movement forward can occur as efficiently as a top down structure allows.

I know all about the appeal of hierarchical control in the military. They explained it to me thoroughly when I was in the Army. However, the business world isn't the military and business decisions, for the most part, aren't a matter of life and death. So to me, that is an apples to oranges comparison.

Also, as a veteran I can tell you that hierarchical structured organizations still promote incompetent people to higher positions, and what sucks about them is that your ability as a line worker to petition your grievances are limited. My battery had to literally plead with our battalion Lt Col to kick our First Sgt out of the battery because he was treating us all like trash shortly before we deployed to Iraq
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: neo96

Its all a bunch of emotional responses in favor of this ridicilous notion, Id wager by a bunch of people who have never held an executive or military leadership role to know any better.


I agree.



Commies to the rescue!



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


I am a little bit testy.


Kudos for honesty



Warrens party has all but destroyed business already.


Lol, what party? The Bernie and Warren party? Sounds lame, the punch wouldn't be spiked and all they would have to eat would be butter scotch candy and some weird flavor of pudding or JELLO.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

But if a corporation asks it's QA department for advice on hiring (or promoting) to fill a QA director position, wouldn't the employees be educated in who would be a good fit?


What's that snip?

It's a hypothetical situation to try to get you to see how this idea could be applied intelligently.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here's a thought.

If you WANT to be a boss.

Start your own business.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
every single thread is an auto default to the left or right position how do we get into discussions where we don't automatically default to the same exact responses in every single thread?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Unless they are shareholders their opinion really isn't a priority... I mean most companies want to know what their employees think, but they aren't owners.

Well yes. That is how it works currently. This bill would change that. I'm trying to identify why the changes are necessarily a bad thing.


If the employees care so much, they should ban together and buy some shares. Then they can vote as a shareholder and hold the board accountable. They also can have some skin in the game as an owner if bad decisions are made.


Did you know that companies used to give out stock options as a corporate benefit JUST for working at the company?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Thanks for the thought, but I never said I was looking to be a boss. I asked a specific question which I still haven't heard an answer for about how this particular policy idea of employees having a say in the company's decision making process is idiotic as you said. So far, the only reason I can identify as to why it would be idiotic is because you reflexively don't like the idea and haven't actually thought it through any.
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Liz likes her control and secret agendas

Elizabeth Warren’s Secrets and Lies




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

because it is not THEIR company, they want to have a say in a company they should start one.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Thanks for the thought, but I never said I was looking to be a boss.


Sure did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's what a boss does.

Telling OTHERS what they should be doing.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You are so rude. You sound like a little child having a hissy fit. Calm down, here's a pacifier.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you say so.

Care to add anything of substance regarding the topic.

Instead of making childish insults?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because running a GD business is not a popularity contest.


I don't see how that policy proposal makes it a popularity contest. What's wrong with the line workers or lower management of a corporation getting part of a say in how the corporation develops?


Unless they are shareholders their opinion really isn't a priority... I mean most companies want to know what their
think, but they aren't owners.

If the employees care so much, they should ban together and buy some shares. Then they can vote as a shareholder and hold the board accountable. They also can have some skin in the game as an owner if bad decisions are made.




*This, exactly. Unless you have skin in the game, why should your opinion be just as important. No one really understands what it's like to run a business with employees until you've done it. Employees don't go home at night worrying about a failed business, losing all that money, paying the bills. All they have to do is find another job.


This smacks of that whole "You didn't build it" bs that was popular with the last administration.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


So corporate America can look like Amtrak?





Warren is a communist bitch who hates America.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: torok67

Ok so it should be established that these companies are corporations and are owned by stockholders. Not private individuals.

Plus, if you read the request it just gives more control to employees to appoint directors. Then additionally directors and shareholders have to agree by 75% before political contributions are made. Why is any of this a bad thing? Why won't anyone seriously answer this question and everyone keeps giving me platitudes and talking points?
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Thanks for the thought, but I never said I was looking to be a boss.


Sure did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's what a boss does.

Telling OTHERS what they should be doing.

Nope. I really don't see anywhere in that post where I typed the words "I want to be a boss". And I'm not telling others what they should do. I'm asking questions and trying to politely have a conversation with you, but you are making that exceedingly frustrating.
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




So corporate America can look like Amtrak?


Corporate America will look like Union America.

With people still searching for Hoffa's body.

But their version is 'better'!



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Alright so without looking at the legislation, there's a few things that most of the articles seem to touch on. First off, it would apply to companies with revenue over $1 billion.

- 40% of directors would be elected by employees. Clearly the idea here is to give employees some boardroom representation.

On that alone, this has zero chance. But I do think some of these ideas have merit. Not that giving employees a little representation in the boardroom is an idea without merit but this is impractical. Maybe if they created a separate class of corporation and incentivized it somehow. As it stands, forget about it.

These sound better:

- Political expenditures over $10,000 would require approval of 75% of shareholders and 75% of the board.

- Require executives to hold shares of stock received as compensation for 5 years before selling and 3 years after a share buyback.

At first blush, my thoughts are this isn't "nationalization" at all but it is a proposal for a radical changes to corporate governance. As it stands, it's dead on arrival but the goal might just be an Overton window shift. In other words, a deliberate introduction of concepts into the public discourse that are too radical to be acceptable by the mainstream in order to shift or expand the window of what's allowable.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join