You are correct For you owning no Buffalo. But That doesn’t say anything about all employees. The thing is, stock compensation is work related, in contrast to keeping buffalos. Stock compensation is not uncommon.
It's not uncommon at tech companies for rank and file.
It's pretty uncommon in legacy US auto companies.
See my earlier link which mentions UAW tends to want, and negotiate for, higher base pay rather than stock options.
But there's no policy saying they can't GET options as Artful Dodger claimed was true (but is not). They simply don't think they're as valuable to ask for as cash money.
(and I think, for example, UAW workers who got higher pay but no stock options at GM and Chrysler, leading into the bankruptcy of both, would say the UAW was correct to pick cash over stock)
I agree with most of what Curt wrote, but there are bad companies that put pressure on employees not to form a union, where they could use one. The ideal he mentions is not the standard for companies without a union.
and should be much stronger in the US. In eEurope it is hard to fire someone AND a financial safety net in case of unemployment. In the US it Is the opposite. I think that one should suffice. Universal basic income (as advocated by Musk), would go a long way solving that.
Agreed.
While there's been plenty of bad from unions in more recent times (and UAW has been especially bad here), historically they've
vastly improved safety, compensation, and overall working conditions in the US.
As you seem to, I'd also rather see broad worker protections in law that apply to everyone- rather than carve outs only in places where EITHER there's a still-strong union to negotiate them, or there's a decent enough management that willingly provides them. Because there's still plenty of workplaces that have neither.
The government created laws that allow workers to unionize without company interference. But the idea of requiring workers to unionize in order for their company's customers to receive full tax benefits seems bizarre.
Any lawyer's here? How might the courts react to such a requirement?
They would likely review it under the lowest standard of judicial scrutiny (rational basis), so it'd be pretty easy for the government to get over that very low bar.
To pass the rational basis test, the statute or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals.
That's it. So they explain to the court there's a legitimate state interest in supporting collective bargaining, and there's obviously a connection between the credit and those companies. Done. The courts tend to be VERY deferential to the government on this kind of stuff, especially regarding taxation.
Again there's a TON of stuff in tax law that treats folks differently in support of various public policy agendas (legitimate state interest)
Married and single people are taxed differently.
Homeowners and renters are taxed differently.
Parents and the childless are taxed differently.
Hell people who buy EVs vs ICE are taxed differently.
There's slews of tax cut-outs and special rates for companies that do one thing versus a company that does another.
Nothing different here.
As I mention to Kanweg I think there's better ways to achieve what this seems to be trying to do- but I don't think it'd have much issue surviving a legal challenge.
De Factoly...
UAW workers are not getting stock options.
What's the purpose of making it a policy?
No idea, but AD claims it is one.
It's not, but they keep disageeing and insisting it is.
I'm not in a union, I just prefer folks not make up imaginary rules they claim are true and then can't support the claim when someone points out it's not true and indeed the organization itself has stated is not true.
