Stuart Carlson by Stuart Carlson

Stuart Carlson

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Right, let the unions allow their workers to sell their souls to earn a few extra bucks so that their dues will go straight towards funding democrat campain funds.

  2. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    For my purposes this toon is accurate in the disparity between
    CEO’s and almost anyone else in a company. To my knowledge unions have suffered downsizing type unemployment but rarely wage decreases. Obviously there are a few exceptions. Unstated is the stagnation of wage growth (not applicable to unions) in the working classes in general in the last 30 years. The private sector unions are currently 7% and declining and the municipal unions are under pressure because there are so many states and cities that are almost bankrupt trying to fund benefits and pensions. FDR, as big a supporter of unions as he was, said he thought unionization of the public sector was a bad idea.

    We have embraced cheaper products from 3rd world countries and it has pretty well denigrated the manufacturing sector of our economy (now 9% and shrinking). The wage disparity alone has made it almost impossible for American manufacturers to compete. We don’t even have the infrastructure any longer to significantly increase manufacturing capacity. I also think this has a lot to do with the wage pressure on the middle class.

    IMO trying to legislate these changes (CEO’s salaries) is a huge mistake. If you don’t like a companies compensation policies, quit buying their products.Boycotts work wonders on Board of Directors management compensation decisions. Obviously we have lots of complex problems facing the country, I just hope Washington can put our interests ahead of their politics.

  3. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 4 years ago


    Well put. One can easily find abuses both by management/ownership and by union members/management. And they both have their value, as well. But abuses always come back to money and power, familiar themes that end similarly eventually.

  4. Bill Ewing

    Bill Ewing GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Having unions, or any entity, demanding membership before one can get a job is evil.

    It should be up to the individual job seeker and his desire to pay ‘dues’ which are going to fund things that the worker doesn’t believe in, be it politics or the looting union heirarchy.

    Most responsible companies pay a wage that is cominsurate with the job to be done from the burger flipper to the corporate officers.

    Henry Ford was just that sort of responsible manager/owner in that he paid high wages to keep crooked unions out of his plants, wages that were much above so called union shops.

    His son, Edsel Ford, the first Ford failure, was too weak to stand up to the unions as his father had. He was intimidated, through in plant thuggery, into accepting unions in tha late 1930s. Because of this, Ford workers’ take home wages went down because of the union ‘dues’ they were forced to pay.

    Corporate entities don’t have clean skirts by any means. But Union intimidation is beyond the pale especially when their thuggery doesn’t fatten the wallets of the workers, just those of the union bosses’.

  5. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago


    Another well stated comment Mickey!
    I’ve nothing to add, except to Bill Ewing’s comment about forcing union membership being evil. While I agree with his statement about Edsel Ford and his relationship with unions of his day, modern unions need resources in order to maintain the gains in safety, pay, quality, and retirement that has taken over a century to acquire.

  6. meetinthemiddle

    meetinthemiddle said, almost 4 years ago


    I agree with a lot of what you say, except for the “boycotts work wonders on Board of Directors”… BOD are among the most in-bred, back-scratching, incentive perverting systems in existence. They further unhook the correlation between executive compensation and performance, letting executive pay skyrocket in all circumstances while letting the society around it implode.

    Corporations like HSBC, BP, etc pay fines amounting to a few percent of their criminal activities but none of the executives responsible even have any of their bonuses clawed back, much less go to jail. Corporations aren’t people because they can’t go to jail, but they shouldn’t be able to shield the real people in them from doing so.

    Conservatives tend to think, rather tautologically, that if someone’s a wealthy CEO that they must be virtuous for having gotten there – that wealth makes virtue (except for a Kennedy). Anyone who worked in a .com in the .com era knows that, at best, it’s uncorrelated.

  7. thegreatack

    thegreatack said, almost 4 years ago

    Keep in mind that unions DO keep people OFF the welfare rolls by providing decent wages and medical benefits. 8% of the American workforce are working poor. That will rise in the RtW states and the state tax burdens will GROW in those states.

  8. Justice22

    Justice22 said, almost 4 years ago

    Look at the salaries of CEOs compared to working people’s over the past many years. Actually EOs. In the past 15 years, the executive “Pay” increased by 400% to 600% compared to no increase for the workers. This "right to work "can only broaden the gap.

  9. Justice22

    Justice22 said, almost 4 years ago

    How about the millions given to the Hostess execs after Hostess’s decision to close?

  10. J Ellis

    J Ellis said, almost 4 years ago


    And lets not forget that many of the benefits we all enjoy, like the 5 day work week came form unionism. If a worker does not choose to join the union, should that worker get any of the union beneifts of salary and reasonable job protection. If we are in a race to the bottom, Michigan is leading the way!

  11. JudeTheObtuse

    JudeTheObtuse GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @Bill Ewing

    Nice fantasy, but lacking in truth. Unions can’t use dues money to finance PAC’s. That money comes from separate funds that are donated willfully by workers who understand that they have to be politically active to get a fair share. The fact is that big corporate CEO’s don’t care about their workers at all, they don’t see their business as a partnership with labor in which both sides should profit. No one says the entrepreneurs can’t take a larger share than the workers, just that it should be a FAIR share. Ford realized that his workers were the people that would buy his product and thus recognized the partnership dynamic and honored it. Today’s robber barons won’t give up fair wages unless they are forced to do so and unions are the way workers stick together to increase their bargaining power at the table. This isn’t thuggery, it’s playing smart. You’re either a paid troll of the corporate plutocracy, or a fool that’s been drinking the cool aid for too long.

  12. JudeTheObtuse

    JudeTheObtuse GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    They’re working for less because if you look at the states that have so called “right to work” legislation, the workers make less and have poorer benefits. Workers in states with true union representation make more than enough extra to make up for the cost of membership.

  13. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 4 years ago

    Hostess executives tanked the company, robbed the pension fund, and gave themselves exorbitant bonuses. Totally all under the pressure of the unions.

  14. josefw

    josefw said, almost 4 years ago

    Krauthammer: Right-To-Work “An Adjustment To Reality”

  15. josefw

    josefw said, almost 4 years ago

    Do your research before spitting LIB BS.

    "The “Bain-style” firm involved here would be Ripplewood Holdings, a New York-based private equity shop run by Tim Collins (who happens to be a prominent Democrat). Ripplewood bought Hostess out of bankruptcy in 2009, investing around $130 million of equity. It would later pump even more equity into the company and also buy some debt, in an (ultimately failed) effort to prevent liquidation.

    While still in charge of Hostess, Fortune has learned that Ripplewood never took a dividend. You know, the sort of thing that Bain was (justly) criticized for doing with some of its failed companies. Ripplewood did receive some fee income early on, but nothing that would even come close to offsetting the expected losses. If you want to argue that Collins and company made some lousy decisions — including on management comp — I’m not going to quarrel with you. But to assert that Ripplewood or its executives made themselves rich on Hostess is absurd. The reality is that Ripplewood is expected to lose almost its entire investment in Hostess (i.e., over $100 million). If that’s getting rich, count me out."

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).