Well, since her actual plan
is behind a
paywall, and I don't think the Wall Street Journal is in that desperate a need for my money, I'll have to go off the
editorial from The Hill
. Now, why Sen.
Lie-a-watha would publish her wonderful new plan where people couldn't actually read it is beyond me, but I'll just go with what I have available.
From The Hill
The act will require corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to procure a federal corporate charter, which mandates that
directors consider “all major corporate stakeholders” in decisionmaking
OK, which directors do NOT consider major stockholders' best interests? That's who puts them in power... oh, wait, she said "stakeholders," not
"stockholders." This next piece might make a little sense then...
Corporations would also be required to have at least 40 percent of their directors elected by employees and at least 75 percent of directors and
stakeholders would have to approve any “political expenditures.”
In other words, screw the investors... we have to run this business for the employees!
Yeah, I know, that sounds great to most people, because most people are employees. But here's the rub: As an employee of various companies, I have
talked to other employees quite a few times, and I have heard far too often ideas that would literally bankrupt the company overnight. One example
comes to mind easily... a great fellow who I am still friends with, but who made the following statement (we worked for a trucking company):
"If I ran this place, every driver would get a new truck.
Nice. I would have loved a new truck. But the simple fact is that that one move would have bankrupted the company literally overnight
. My truck
was something like 5 years old, if I remember correctly, and his was three. The company kept them in good repair and serviced them regularly, so there
were very few breakdowns. Now, under Fauxcahonta's plan, would that company have been required to buy all new trucks?
The simple fact is that an adversarial relationship exists between employer and employee by definition
. That's the very reason there are
unions... the power the employees have is the power to not work and hurt the company financially. That power is increased exponentially by employee
coordination - one person striking makes little difference, but 90% of them striking simultaneously will cause the company to grind to a stop.
Of course, the company grinding to a stop causes the workers to lose the jobs they were refusing to do in the first place, but they really don't have
a lot invested in the company anyway. They can get another job. The owners of the company, the people who have their capital tied up in the future of
that company can't just go get more money to invest in the next company. They lose money overnight; the employees deal with a temporary loss of
I get the concept that it is the employees that make the money for the company... but too many don't seem to get the concept that it is the company
that allows them to do so. Without a company to work for, their labor is worthless. the relationship must be symbiotic, benefiting both employer and
employee. What the Indian Princess is suggesting places far more power in the hands of those who often don't look beyond their next payday. No
business can survive like that.
I will say this: back during the era of "you didn't build that" I would not have even considered starting a business in the USA, for any reason. I am
not going to waste a ton of money that I would have to borrow to start up a venture when I wasn't even going to get credit for doing so and would
likely not have been able to clear the financial hurdles to success put in place by an anti-business government. Wasn't gonna happen, and nobody could
force me to do it. Recently, I had begun toying with the idea again... but if ideas like this gather any
traction whatsoever, I'm back to "no
how, no way" status. And I believe my feelings are reminiscent of others who have the ability to create new businesses.
And that doesn't even take into account that the requirement for a "Federal charter" can be twisted to mean that the Federal government can step in at
any time and make business decisions for a business they have no earthly idea how to run. Sorry... if I start a business, it's MINE
dammit, and no one, period, will tell me how to run it. I'll close the doors in a New York heartbeat if anyone tries. I've been poor before.
That applies to me working as an employee. It ain't my company, and I got no say-so in how it runs. If I think I can do better, maybe I should quit
and start my own company. As long as I get my paycheck and I am not expected to do anything unreasonable, I should be good with what I do. I even
carry that belief to my position on ATS... I do not make the rules. I only enforce them. Not my business. Not my prerogative.
So yeah, great idea... IF the goal is to place the entire US economy into the hands of an oligarchy. This will kill any new startups.
But, then again, what else would I suspect form someone who has already openly insulted my heritage by claiming to be someone she is not without any