LTV

[Joseph Doggett <joseph.doggett@worldnet.att.net>]

Vic,

        I read with interest your recent submissions on LTV.  Upon thinking 
about 
the subject, I considered the issue along theoretical and practical 
implications for labor lines.  Allow me to state both considerations.

Theoretical

        Along theoretical lines, the question at hand seems, to me, to be: To 
whom 
is the company beholden?

Economically speaking, the failure of a business is a constantly, lurking 
possibility.  Exit from the economy is just as natural as entry.  Firms 
enter, sell their product/s, there is a life cycle for a product--and 
possibly the company--firms exit.
        The impact of exit from the economy can be measured in multiple ways.  
In 
an overall business producer/consumer sense, there are other 
firms--supposedly--who provide a needed good.  There are other companies 
from which consumers can purchase the good.  In other words, the business 
worlds always has another company ready to meet the needs of the 
consumers.  I would label this perspective the business/economic model.
        Another lens through which one can view the demise of a company is via 
the 
impact to the people who labored at the company.  There seems to be a 
missing viewpoint on this perspective.  In a business sense, these workers 
go and labor for other firms.  All is well and dandy.  However, closer 
review, I think, would show that people who labored at a particular firm 
made an investment.  The investment is in time, money, and commitment.  The 
workers are often specialized people who can only labor on a particular 
component within the firm.  There is a loss of pension.  These issues are 
not easily re-dressed when one moves from one firm to another.
        Given that there does seem to be an investment by both laborers and 
capitalist, the question I posed earlier seems to be answered as follows: 
the firm is beholden to the capitalist who bought shares in the 
firm.  Given that workers' interests are not being considered in any model, 
at least none of the current, dominant models I presented, it seems 
reasonable to assume that workers are not considered when firms fail.
        Because workers are not considered when firms fail, then one should ask 
a 
preceding question to failure: Are workers considered in business decisions 
about how the firm should structure itself?  This question is a little more 
difficult.  I do not have a ready answer.  I assume that workers, given the 
dominant models of which I am familiar, are considered as inputs.  One 
needs land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship for a firm to succeed.  In 
the absence of those four components, then failure occurs and the business 
never gets off the ground.  If labor is considered as an input, then labor 
interests will never be considered beyond ensuring that there is a 
sufficient supply of labor for firms.

Practical implications for labor

        The preceding theoretical discussion concluded that labor interests are 
never considered during business decisions beyond ensuring that there is a 
sufficient supply of labor for firms.  That conclusion, in my opinion, has 
a variety of implications for labor to consider when making decisions about 
how firms should be structured.  The dominant, theoretical models take 
labor as inputs.  Perhaps, labor should strive to be labeled and considered 
differently.
        If labor, in my opinion, is to secure a place in the business model 
other 
than an input, then it should strive to be a capitalist.  Given that the 
theoretical models of the day are simply not going to disappear at the wave 
of a hand, then the only viable method seems to be to work within the 
existing model to secure one's ends.  In other words, capitalism is here to 
stay--DEAL WITH IT.
        Dealing with it, for me, means that labor should strive to be a member 
of 
the share-holding class.  By becoming a member of the class to which firms 
are beholden, then labor can utilize that position from which to influence 
firm operations.
        There are several assumptions that I make when I state that labor can 
utilize its position as a share holder in firms to influence the operations 
of the firm.  Allow me to state my tenets.

        1.  Labor wants firms to exist.  Because labor, by its very word, needs 
a 
firm in which to "labor," then labor needs firms to exist.  In the absence 
of firms, then labor ceases to exist.
        2.  Labor wants firms to succeed.  Failing firms defeat labor's intent.
        3.  Labor wants firms to be profitable.  Only profitable firms are able 
to 
pay workers.  If firms are not viable, then they exit the economy.  If 
firms are marginally viable, then labor must exist at the margins.  If 
firms are viable and are profitable, then firms are able to pay labor 
acceptable wages.
        
        There are probably other tenets upon which I am resting, but I think 
that 
these three capture the essence.

        The question that must be answered now is: At which point should labor 
strive to achieve its position as a share-holder in firms?  The answer is 
not that far fetched: When the firm is most vulnerable.  A failing firm 
needs support.  If the failing firm requests assistance from labor--I 
believe that these are often called concessions--then the assistance should 
come with caveats; one of which should be ownership.

        There is an additional caveat that must be stated.  Ownership in a firm 
would include two components.  One.  The first component would simply be 
ownership.  For example, a firm issues 100 shares.  Labor holds 50% of the 
firm.  Labor, therefore, holds fifty shares of the firm.  This is pretty 
straight forward.  The second component, and the essence of the additional 
caveat, is that the shares must maintain influencing rights.  The shares 
should not simply be shares held in the name of labor with some trustee 
having full-voting rights by which to "represent" labor.  If labor is to 
have influence on the affairs of the firm, then the very means must 
exist.  Those means, in my opinion, come through holding ownership with 
influence.

LTV

        Now that you know the position from which I state my input on LTV, then 
I 
think that the situation at LTV and labor's involvement should be 
clear.  If the firm, which happens to be called LTV in this case but could 
be any company, wants the assistance of labor, then labor should attach 
"strings" to its involvement.  Labor should garner shares in the firm, and 
those shares should entitle labor to have input and influence into the 
affairs of the firm.
        Labor is NOT asking for some ridiculous rights.  Labor is NOT asking 
for 
"exorbitant" wages.  Labor is not asking for a hand out.  Labor is asking 
that they be compensated for their investment.  That compensation should be 
influence.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,
Joseph Doggett