Agreed. When Canary first drew the line in the sand dividing employees and shareholders I asked "Why not be both? They aren't mutually exclusive."
He said I was wrong and then attempted to move the line to somewhere between preferred and common stock as though preferred shares were only available to certain employees. Even if that were true (it is not), ARCB does not offer preferred stocks which makes his point fruitless.
My point is that if you feel ARC Best is making decisions with concerns only to their shareholders, at the detriment of their employees, buy stock.
My apologies......My only venture into the Stock market was with Ryder stock,.......And reading about YRC employee stock that,....by corporate decree,....was de-valued by half several years ago. I am,...as I've stated,...a neophyte, as far as the stock market goes.....
The point I was trying to make is that shareholders,...especially those at the corporate level,.....have a different set of priorities,...than an employee , whether he be a shareholder or not.
I would think that the vast majority of people out there have the same "layman's" experience with stocks as I do....I have an abhorrent fear of ...gambling...
ArcBest may not offer Preferred stock,....but there are many companies who do.
As a shareholder,.......employee or not,......would you say that cutting wages and de-Unionizing ABF would..."fatten" your bottom line? Would sub-contracting a large portion of ABF/ArcBest's business into cheaper carriers benefit the...shareholder,...or the employee?
Would an "employee/shareholder" have kind of a....conflict of interest in contract negotiations?
Your point about whether I feel that if ArcBest is making decisions with concerns only to their shareholders,..."at the detriment of their employees".....that I should buy stock.........is spoken like a true cynic. Essentially, you're saying that I should...."bet"....against my fellow employees...(..and myself..)....if I wished to increase my personal wealth.
I know that you're going to argue that the economic survival of the company should be paramount to ALL employees. But I would postulate that economic "survival" shouldn't come at the expense of the employees. I would think quite a bit of shareholders might...."argue"....with that postulation. There is a very fine line between company survival,.......and what an employee would call..."excessive"..corporate profits. Especially when it comes at his families' expense,......( and goes to another family...).
Once again,....The perennial question :....."What's more important? People,....or Business?"
When a business impacts detrimentially on people,...specifically it's own employees,.........should that business remain ...in business? Would the "Good" it performs for the public,....be outweighed by the harm it does to it's employees?
If corporations have to resort to propaganda, rumors, and lies during contract negotiations,....would you say that they've violated the "Negotiating in Good Faith" provision,............and therefore have lost the moral standing to honestly conduct business?
Or would you say that,....despite using questionable tactics during negotiations,....the shareholders were greatly enriched,.....and therefore,..."the Ends Justify the Means"?