[quote=CA renter][quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.
[/quote]
You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.[/quote]
[quote=CA renter]
The share of votes is not distributed the same way in your example.
In a corporation, the BOD and executives tend to own very large shares of the company, and therefore, have much more power than individual shareholders.[/quote]
OK, now you’re just making things up. In the average S&P 500 corporation, management and directors own less than 3% of the outstanding shares! To use specific banking examples, management and directors of BofA and Citigroup own less than 1/2 of 1% of the company. It’s miniscule. The largest single institutional owner (re: voters) typically owns many multiples of what the insiders own. So, you’re simply wrong here.
[quote=CA renter]
Also, in the case of a corporation, the ones paying for the high compensation packages (customers and employees) tend to have almost no vote at all.[/quote]
Please. They’d have a vote if they bought some shares… they choose not to. Which is fine, but… that’s their choice.
[quote=CA renter]
In the case of public employment, the taxpayers’ votes have the same weight as the union members’ votes. IMHO, that makes a big difference vs. what goes on in corporations.[/quote]
It’s crony-ism. Not materially different from publicly-traded corporations. You just won’t admit it because it conflicts with your worldview. At least shareholders can sell their shares. In California, you’d have to move… but you’d likely be moving to another state with the same issues.
