Let's work through some basic, obvious points:
1. The capital behind the company is owned by...shareholders. Not true is the socialist myth that the workers share in the ownership. When was the last time a company went bankrupt and the workers liquidated their personal assets and paid the debt off? The board of directors directs the company's strategic operations via appointing a CEO who in turns appoints management. People make decisions. Follow the money trail and the shareholders 'own' Caterpillar. These three words put together might really bug and annoy many, but it's true. Shareholders own Caterpillar.
2. Stewarding that which you own is good, not evil. Who works hard for a car and destroys it on purpose, for no purpose? Who spends Saturday mornings messing up their house? Did you ever go to a guests house and say, "Thanks for inviting me over, but I think you are really evil because you did a really, really, really good job cleaning your house...it's too clean."? We are typically honoured when someone cleans a house in lieu of our arrival. Stewarding that which you own is good.
3. The group/person that owns resources has authority to decide how to steward the resources. (Pending you do not break any laws.) If you buy a hockey card, you can choose to rip it up or you can choose to protect it and cherish it. This is the beauty of ownership; it's your choice. You cannot however, put sharp knives on the end of the card and throw it like a ninja star into the eyes of your nemesis (that would be assault and breaking the law).
4. Okay, here's the big jump...
Caterpillar stewarding that which it owns is good (not evil) and it's their choice as to how they steward their resources.
If 1. 2. and 3. are true, then it only makes sense to say the following:
Shareholders who own Caterpillar vote on directing the company resources and they choose how to best fulfil how they define 'good steardship'. Pending they do not break any laws, it's their choice, not ours as to how they decide to allocate resources. Just like it's your choice to rip your hockey card or keep it protected.
5. To the Ontario Minister, they did make a fair and balanced offer. Remember, $12-$14 is what they can get. So they have to 'tip the balence' by offering the same...which it appears they did. Is the Minister's definition of balance some kind of anti-free market entitlement offer? If so, he better wake up to reality. $12-$14 is what they can get.
6. The logic of 'they are making huge profits therefore they should give more money to the workers' is as stupid and silly as me saying to my dinner host, "You should really mess up your house a bit because it's too clean and it makes me feel like the cleanliness of my house is insufficient...let's balance this out a bit". Their drive to excellence should not be my escape into justifying bitterness, envy and entitlement. My host can choose to steward her property how she chooses without fear of being judged for how she defines excellence. It's her property. It's Caterpillar's resources. Where is all the 'judge not' lingo now?
Final Comments:
Let's say you own a home and hire a lady to clean for $30/hour @ 8 hours per day.
5 years later, another lady offers to work for $20/hour and says she can do the job in 4 hours.
Who do you hire?
What if some groups protest, cry, whine and demand the owner of the house keep the first lady at $30/hour x 8 hours per day? Would you keep the more expensive person? Regardless of your choice, the bottom line is that it's your choice. I respect your choice. Please respect mine. Please respect Caterpillar's.
What if the same groups say, "you are making lots of money, therefore you should keep existing employees for much more then what other employees are willing to work for."