If a worker takes $100 in materials and builds a $1000 chair, they created $900 in value. If you pay the worker $20, then the employee was "underpaid" $880. That $880 is what is used to pay the CEO, stock buybacks, dividends, etc.
(I'm not suggesting the employee necessarily deserves all of that $880 of course, but it is the value from which the worker's pay comes from)
If workers are paid according to the value they create, then profits would be $0. (Revenue - COGS - Compensation). So, there wouldn't be money left to pay for dividends or stock buybacks.
Therefore, necessarily, employee compensation must be suppressed to afford stock buybacks and dividends.
My point is that everything comes from the same pot. Stock buybacks and dividends "could" have been employee compensation.
It does require the underlying premise that workers should be paid according to the value they create. I suspect you'll disagree on this, but I hope I've explained enough to share my point of view.
> This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers
You can google, plenty of sources, but the best evidence is how hard every company fights to prevent companies from forming one. How much has Amazon spent on union busting?
> Unlike the union leader, the CEO isn't working for you, so that private jet isn't coming out of your pocket, unlike the previously mentioned luxury car
We'll probably disagree on this, but all profit comes from the difference between the value created by workers and the portion of that value returned to workers. There is no value without workers.
So, when a company does a $60 billion stock buyback. That $60 billion comes from the amount workers were underpaid relative to the value they created.
Classic "all unions are corrupt" propaganda despite the evidence that they are extremely beneficial to workers.
> While your union leader does nothing while driving a luxury car
"While the CEO owns a couple private jets and the company initiates another billion dollar stock buyback"
I'd take my chances on getting an occasionally corrupt union (that I actually have a say in) vs 100% of companies that couldn't care less about my interests.
> implementations can guarantee additional monotonicity via the concepts covered in this section