Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Personally, I don't want to have to look up stuff on the Mexico City Stock Exchange to see how Home Depot is trading.
WorkFollow
On the other hand, that would be strangely fitting, if comedians are to be believed.
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Walt, the janitor isn't really much of a contributor to the company's success.
I would say that depends, if a private hospital's janitors weren't doing their jobs right and everyone who went there started getting flesh eating disease... one could probably depend on people shying away from it and stocks going down.
Or if he worked in a meat plant and people start getting listeria and dying from eating the product that can actually have a direct impact on the bottom line of the company.
If janitors are not important, why do companies hire them at all? A good janitor helps keep sickness from spreading in the company, making it more productive. They also help the image of the company - when you go into a resaurant or a department store and the bathrooms are filthy, for example - what does that do to your perception of the brand?
Just cause work is lowly doesn't mean it isn't important - and it also doesn't mean that the people doing it don't deserve to be able to put food on the table, pay the rent, and perhaps put a little money aside so that their kids can go to college and do something better.
Of course, my mom was a janitor, so I am a bit biased on this front.
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Either way, there are two more big pitfalls:
Firstly, getting this type of regulation past the SCOTUS would be near impossible, but might work in Canada or Europe.
Secondly, this could push larger companies to incorporate in some other, less regulated country. Personally, I don't want to have to look up stuff on the Mexico City Stock Exchange to see how Home Depot is trading.
I don't know what the first thing (SCOTUS) is, so I will bow to your knowledge on that issue for sure.
Concern number two is also valid, but I think that there would be ways of going around it. I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't necessarily be able to guess how that could be crafted in the legislation, and I imagine a lot of companies would find ways around it regardless.
I do believe that the best way for change like this to happen is if a corporation decided to do it willingly - got lots of free advertising for it - got to look shiny and have a family friendly advantage etc. If the boards of other publically traded companies saw a policy like that actually improve the competitiveness of a rival, I think it would probably be a lot more successful of a policy.
Supreme Court of the United States. A legislature could try and get salary limits passed and claim it was constitutional in the US under the 'general welfare/commerce' clause, but I don't think it would survive a court challenge.
Another thing that might work would be some sort of SEC regulation that would disclose FULLY a CEOs benefit package, including bonuses and severance deals to all stockholders, and make the information easily accessible.
Edited, Mar 5th 2011 1:37pm by Lubriderm
Edited, Mar 5th 2011 1:37pm by Lubriderm
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Another thing that might work would be some sort of SEC regulation that would disclose FULLY a CEOs benefit package, including bonuses and severance deals to all stockholders, and make the information easily accessible.
Edited, Mar 5th 2011 1:37pm by Lubriderm
Edited, Mar 5th 2011 1:37pm by Lubriderm
For sure - that might at least help stockholders decide if they are really getting fair value for their investment.
Recent Visitors: 14
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (14)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC