March 31, 2007
vague pondering...
Thinking about the sermon for tomorrow. I have Hauerwas open before me. And some stuff about the lectionary and political action. Oh, and then there is the essay that follows in the extended link. Grenfield is peeved. What is one to do?
I am interested in telling the story.
That's me.
Yep.
Where's my coffee?
Thinking Theologically
About the Common Good
Reflections on theology, scripture, and public life
from the Rev. Larry Greenfield.
"Need"
Glenn Tilton makes me feel like a chump.
Two years ago I thought the CEO of financially troubled United Airlines was one of us - "us" here referring to those heads organizations, institutions, and companies who, for the good of the enterprises we lead, refuse a pay raise or insist on taking a cut in our compensation.
Back then (December of 2004) Mr. Tilton led the way at UAL by taking an eleven percent reduction in annual compensation to only $605,625. Trying to work the company's way out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection by saving $725 million in salaries and benefits, seven other executives who reported to Tilton took the same percentage hit, while other officers accepted an eight percent reduction and managers took a six percent cut. Non-union salaried employees experienced only a four percent decrease.
The pain was, to be sure, shared with employees who were members of unions. Pilots, for example, had to agree to an 11.8 % reduction, which produced a savings of $180 million; flight attendants took a 9.5 % cut in order to shave off another $131 million; and mechanics took a 9.8 % hit, but only after losing a court fight on the matter.
It all worked. United freed itself from bankruptcy last year.
What UAL workers and the public didn't know until last Monday is that just weeks after leaving bankruptcy behind, Mr. Tilton received a package worth $38 million in restricted shares and options. And then there was the $839,028 bonus that he was paid at that time, which works out to 122% of his salary.
And the pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics what was their reward for participating in the resurrection of UAL?
You guessed it: not a dime.
The company told the union members that their compensation packages were locked in until at least 2009.
Jean Medina, a UAL spokesperson, put it all in the best possible sound bite for the company: "We regularly work with our unions to address issues important to them. We worked cooperatively with our unions to reach these consensual agreements, and we look forward to doing so again at their amendable dates." (Chicago Tribune, 3/28/07)
The unions, in turn, have formed a five-member coalition to push for some shared reaping of United's recent successes. It's a simple matter of justice, they contend.
But airline executives try to justify their exclusive bonanza by arguing that they aren't being paid anywhere near what their equivalents in other industries receive. So these airline leaders have their own read on justice.
An industry analyst, Darryl Jenkins, comments: "It's a very contentious issue, and CEOs need to be very, very cautious about approving themselves bonuses when their workers have conceded so much. These [issues] have the potential to come back and really hurt your company, kill you at a later time.
* * * * *
It seems we've got the same problem on a much larger scale in this nation and the world community.
Professor Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley states:
If the economy is growing but only a few are enjoying the benefits, it goes to our sense of fairness. It can have important political consequences.
He was reacting to a recently released data from the Internal Revenue Service, which he and Professor Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics have analyzed.
This is how The New York Times reported their findings (3/29/07, C1), under the headline of "Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows."
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
It was noted that, for a number of reasons, the gap may actually be larger than what appears upon a first reading.
* * * * *
Surely, some will justify these outcomes of tax and economic policies with some principle of justice or other, just as others will positively and negatively weigh the political and social consequences of the widening gap in income and wealth.
But the practical results cannot be overlooked -- such as what happens to the souls of those who accumulate so much while others are diminished in their possessions; such as what happens to people here in the United States, and even more in other parts of the world, when they have to struggle to survive on less and less?
* * * * *
On his way to Jerusalem, CEO Jesus instructs two of his senior executives to proceed ahead to make transportation arrangements:
Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, "Why are you untying it?" just say this, "The Lord needs it."
No limo. No carriage. No chariot. Just a colt.
The VPs carry out the instructions and, sure enough, just as they are untying the colt, the colt owner sees them and asks why they are untying the animal. According to script, the disciples tell the owner that the Lord needs it.
That's it. No other questions asked or objections raised.
Why take the colt? Because someone - the Lord it turns out - needs it.
The distribution of resources is based not on rank, or title, or position, or wealth, or anything else.
Just need.
And he needs the colt, as it turns out, not so he can serve himself but in order to meet the needs of others; not to accumulate more for himself and his senior staff but to give away himself so that everyone else, together, will have more.
Jesus rides that colt into Jerusalem to usher in God's new social domain of justice based on mutual love. It is a beloved community that he invites us to live in, a community in which interpersonal, racial, social, economic, and political justice becomes the mutual sharing of God's abundant wealth based on what each and everyone needs in order to flourish.
For that new social reality, with a radically different understanding of justice based on mutual love, he gives up all that he has.
What a loser.
What a chump.
Posted by tripp at March 31, 2007 06:48 AM