Ben Stein, for those not in the know, is a fairly conservative guy who loves capitalism. But, I like Stein–up to a point–because there’s a consistency in his beliefs: he advocates for capitalism but he also is disgusted by the greed and abuses that I think he believes should have no place in his beloved economic system.

Back in December, I highlighted a column Stein wrote where he savaged the greed of Delphi’s CEO Steve Miller, who had plunged his company into bankruptcy–but made sure that he and a few top executives would become rich even as the company struggled to survive.

Today, in The New York Times’ Sunday business section, Stein takes off on the greed of another company’s executives: United Airlines. As we discussed here recently, the airline has forced its workers to give up $4 billion in concessions–yet its executives and top managers are carving out a sweet deal reportedly worth about $480 million in stock.

Stein finds this example, “…a perfect text for the ethical morass in which American business often finds itself.” He traces the lead-up to the rip-off to the 1990s, when United’s workers became part owners of the airline in exchange for giving to salaries and stock:

The employees found management demanding pay cuts, big (and, for passengers, inconvenient) changes and cuts in scheduling and services, and even silly changes in their once-great flight attendant uniforms. Then came the blows of 9/11 and a recession, and then rising fuel costs. There were demands for more cuts in pay and benefits and more layoffs. That was not enough. About three years ago, UAL was “forced” to enter bankruptcy to stay alive.

This step meant that UAL could drastically cut workers’ pay — and it did. Pensions were simply jettisoned and made the burden of the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which meant cuts of close to two-thirds in some pilots’ pension payments. And, of course, the bankruptcy simply eliminated all of that equity in UAL that the employees had bought with their hard-earned savings.

Thus, in a series of evil events, management of UAL basically ruined the lives of the employee-owners, if that is not putting too fine a point on it, by taking away their savings, incomes and pensions.

Indeed, this is a tactic used by many a company these days–without even a whimper from the so-called defender of American workers, the Demoratic Party.

And, despite the precarious situation for the airline, Stein writes:

Here comes the good part: management has asked the bankruptcy court to let it have — free — roughly 15 percent of the stock in the new company, or about $900 million. Mr. Tilton, the chief executive, who plays the Orson Welles character in this drama, would get about $90 million personally for his hard work shepherding UAL through bankruptcy (for which he was already paid multiple millions of dollars).

The bankruptcy court, instead of ordering Mr. Tilton’s arrest, instead cut the management share to about 8 percent, so he will get more than $40 million, more or less. That is more than Lee R. Raymond, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, one of the most successful companies of all time, was paid in 2004 (not counting Mr. Raymond’s 28 million shares of restricted stock).

To even Stein, an avowed capitalist, something smells with this deal and he considers it looting:

Wait, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Bankruptcy Judge. The employees were the owners of UAL. They were the trustors, and Mr. Tilton and his pals were trustees for them. How were the trustors wiped out while the trustees, the fiduciaries, became fantastically rich? Is this the way capitalism is supposed to work? Trustors save up, and their agents just take their savings away from them?

If the company is worth so much that management has hundreds of millions coming to them, shouldn’t the employee-owners get a taste? Does capitalism mean anything if the owners of the capital can be wiped out while their agents grow wealthy? Is this a way to encourage savings and the ownership society? Or is this a matter of to him who hath shall be given?

Indeed. But this is the world we live in. And the silence on the part of the politicians as this robbery and looting continues is stunning. I suppose the cynics would say, “well, of course, this is the way things are.” But, I think that it’s not a good political strategy to be cynical. We have to refuse to be silent. People are angry about what’s happening–and not just in the typical political circles.

If the people who hold positions of power in the so-called opposition won’t stand up and stop this behavior, we need to push them aside and put people in power who will stop the looting (a word used by a conservative, no less).