Circuit City to cut more than 3,500 jobs

TroyD

Super, Ron.

You STILL have yet to connect the dots between unionization and making a company profitable.

As far as Franklin Roosevelt goes, well, what would you expect from a guy who introduced us to deficit spending. Not to mention he said that over 50 years ago. Conditions are a wee bit different now.

BDT

rskarvan

Troy, you have yet to explain to me how an executive "EARNS" a multi-million dollar bonus while a company is dragged into bankruptcy and the janitor loses his job?

I will, though, explain how unionization can, in fact, make a company profitable. People need a stable income to be able to freely spend their money on products that are produced by companies. If they can be fired "at will", it is difficult for most people to have the confidence in their income stream to make the commitment to purchase a new car (with a loan). The hard-working people would like to help the companies out by purchasing their product, but they can only do so if they have confidence in their income stream. By and large, union workers are extremely loyal customers (example: Nascar). Therefore, a clever company will eagerly embrace the unionization of their work-force knowing that doing right by their people is a necessary step to getting a loyal customer. What company doesn't want loyal customers?

shack

rskarvan wrote:

"If I went to work in a factory the first thing I'd do is join a union."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Not at all suprising since FDR was a for all extent and purposes a socialist.

mrbigbluelight

TroyD wrote:

As far as Franklin Roosevelt goes, well, what would you expect from a guy who introduced us to deficit spending. Not to mention he said that over 50 years ago. Conditions are a wee bit different now.

BDT

Troy, you can thank FDR for preventing this country from going communist.
That he had to introduce a little socialism to do so ...... well .... there's always compromises in life. :rolleyes:

And if FDR introduced us to deficit spending, than some other folks in government, both Dem and Repub, have since gone to town with that concept.

scottnbnj

TroyD wrote:

...Actually, you don't need to take a poll. Look at the Mom and Pop operations in this country. The population has taken that poll with thier wallets and the winner was clearly WalMart.

The fact is, the general population will, if given the choice, always opt for the lower price.

BDT

...all else being equal. i just don't see all else being equal most of the time.

troy, i think we're mostly on the same page here, but people pay more for lots of reasons all the time. people commonly and willingly paying more than they need to for tips is obviously just one reason.

for down the road, the more i think about it the less crazy it sounds that other service industries might do well to use some form of tips to help not only ease the burden of spiraling employee costs, but also to motivate employees to take a greater share of the ownership in and responsibility for each sale.

for wal-mart and mom and pop... it's not all about price savings based on employee pay alone, cause, mom and pop didn't make all that much or have great benefit packages either. many consumers just prefer wal-mart's combination of many factors in the buy decision.

things have always changed as they are changing today, and they will continue to. wal-mart isn't the end of the road. today, i see exponentially more cars parked in lots within eye-shot of the wal-mart lot and that drive right on by that might never enter the wal-mart lot. tomorrow, there will be other retailers that put together more attractive combinations of the factors that make people want to buy than wal-mart. the often discussed disdain for wal-mart's treatment of employees could easily be an important factor in that, just another reason that tips might not, someday, be as crazy as it sounds to everyone here and now.

)

scottnbnj

scottnbnj wrote:

outside of political animals, most people that rail against big evil business are sincere in their beliefs and they believe in their position very strongly. i doubt anyone is going to disagree with that.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Yes, but unfortunately those same people can not typically logically defend their position. Emotionally it makes sense for everyone to have a garaunteed job making $200K a year, however reality walks in and **** slaps the emotional argument right out the door.

i'd like to think their silence on this is an indication that people can be convinced that it might not be so crazy down the road and that they would step up and do the right thing if it didn't look like just another big business scam.

)

jdhdiggs

venomclan wrote:

I beleive in unions only for state & government workers. Those we will truly be screwed without like law enforcement, teachers, etc...

Those are jobs that are controlled by taxes, not profit margins.
V

Oh yes, because the teachers union is a wonderful thin... :rolleyes:

School Choice? Pay for performance? Be able to fire bad employees? Hell no! After all, we are the teachers union! We can't be expected to actually be held accountable for teaching your children anything....

Um, in the industrialized world, where does our public education rank? Next to last? Dead last? I keep forgetting.

Scott:

Were you saying that I'm being quiet or the emotionally charged folks? Cause I was just queit because of a Canuck going looney tunes in another thread. Well, that and spending time with the wife.

scottnbnj

heh heh, no worries. i might have just had my random response generator set to use too many words in each sentence or run on from posts too far up the thread or something. but, yeah, the emotionally charged folks.

and, i noticed y'all doing a fine job canning shitbirds in the other thread too. ^5.

)

TroyD

It's simple, Ron. Supply and Demand. A concept that unions have yet to grasp. A CEO is hired, willingly, by a board of directors. He can also be fired just as easily. The janitor? It takes almost an act of congress to get rid of him. So, if someone OFFERS and RECRUITS you offering X number of dollars, is that YOUR fault? Also, let's take a large union shop like say, GM. I'll bet that if you did the math, the CEO salary is a VERY small percentage of overall payroll. So, sure, you can make yourself feel better by cutting the CEO salary but in reality, you've done very little to cure the actual issue which is that union wages have ZERO basis in reality.

I don't have a problem with earning a living wage. I DO have a problem with companies being held up by what is nothing more than legalized blackmail. Also, along with that whole living wage thing. If you aspire to push a broom or clean toilets in a factory in Detroit (or whereever) than you are an idiot. That breeds complacency. When you remove the incentive, you lose the spirit of what built our country. Look what happened to the Soviet Union. Workers figure, eff it, I get paid the same regardless , so where is the motivation to excel?

What really irks me is this whole notion that people are entitled to a house, two new cars etc etc....If you want it, the opportunity is there and LOTS of people do succeed. What I resent is that there are people out there breaking thier asses to succeed and maybe own thier own business and that there are other folks out there who think that the people who are working thier asses off and making money/getting ahead should somehow be penalized for that and should pay the freight for some zero whose aspirations are to make a comfortable living in an entry level job. That's a crock of ****.

FDR? Yeah, the New Deal. The New Deal did NOT, contrary to popular opinion, end the Depression. WWII ended the Depression.

FDR also didn't stop us from being Communist. In fact, FDR and Truman, IMHO, are largely responsible for the proliferation of Communism in eastern Europ after WWII precisely because they allowed it to happen.

BDT

rskarvan wrote:

Troy, you have yet to explain to me how an executive "EARNS" a multi-million dollar bonus while a company is dragged into bankruptcy and the janitor loses his job?

I will, though, explain how unionization can, in fact, make a company profitable. People need a stable income to be able to freely spend their money on products that are produced by companies. If they can be fired "at will", it is difficult for most people to have the confidence in their income stream to make the commitment to purchase a new car (with a loan). The hard-working people would like to help the companies out by purchasing their product, but they can only do so if they have confidence in their income stream. By and large, union workers are extremely loyal customers (example: Nascar). Therefore, a clever company will eagerly embrace the unionization of their work-force knowing that doing right by their people is a necessary step to getting a loyal customer. What company doesn't want loyal customers?

rskarvan

Troy,

So, basically you are saying that you would like to see the National Labor Relations Act repealed and unions made illegal? Correct? Unfortunately, the only way you are going to get that task accomplished is if you and every Republican you know take control of Congress. Thankfully, the people have spoken on this issue and they threw the Republicans out of control of congress in the last election. In fact, the democratic congress is taking steps to make unionization of the workforce much more fair by dis-allowing companies intimidation their workers. In the future, a simple card submitted to the union expressing an interest to join will be all it takes to pledge one's support.

Remember, union wages are agreed to by the company. So, if they have no basis in reality, the only person to blame is the CEO.

Unions are a democratic entity. They are voted in. They are voted out. The leaders of the unions win by popular vote of the membership. Unions are about as far removed communism as they possibly can be.

If someone can't afford a new car... well, perhaps thats because they are working their **** off and not earning enough money. Maybe if they organized and put their CEO to the task of providing better income potential for the employees, everyone would win. When management complains about the union, its time to remove management for not living up to the expectations of the workforce. I think CEO's should be embarrassed (and fired) if they can't live up to the promises made in labor contracts. A company going bankrupt is almost never the fault of the janitor. But, the buck stops with the CEO who signed the labor contract that was negotiated in good faith by the workers.

venomclan

jdhdiggs wrote:

Oh yes, because the teachers union is a wonderful thin... :rolleyes:

School Choice? Pay for performance? Be able to fire bad employees? Hell no! After all, we are the teachers union! We can't be expected to actually be held accountable for teaching your children anything....

Um, in the industrialized world, where does our public education rank? Next to last? Dead last? I keep forgetting.

I beleive you are giving or assume that a teachers union has a lot more power than it does. They have no power compared to the UAW. And yes teachers can be fired, transfered, demoted etc... and do not get paid to sit in Jobs Banks with 95% of thier salary. Schools are divided by counties and states, no 2 are the same. Why would you cast a broad shadow over a profession that can be totally different based upon county, state and federal funding?

Perhaps if the parents gave half a crap about raising their kids today instead of Mtv and Paris Hilton, we would not be dead last. V

TroyD

Ron,

We can agree to disagree. I NEVER said that I would outlaw unions. However, I think that organzied labor, at this point and time, is out of touch with reality. That's my opinion and based on the rampant corruption and so forth, I stand by that statement.

Unions are voted in? Sure the membership votes for thier leaders and so forth but let's just see what happens if, say, GM tried to bust a union. That would be a hoot. Now, the auto industry has screwed itself to be sure but the unions are not lifting a FINGER to help return the auto industry to profitability.

People can't afford a new car....have you PRICED one lately? 25-30K for a new set of wheels? Hello? It's ridiculous. As far as people earning enough...whatever. I contend that if you aspire to jockey a cash register or push a broom for the rest of your life as a career...well, we have different views.

BDT

rskarvan

Troy, FYI... I am a degreed engineer and I actively tried a year ago to bring a salaried engineering union into Brand X Motor company at my location. There are 61 engineers in my facility and the final vote was 31 to 30 against the union. We lost. During the organization campaign, the company was found guilty of violating 12 labor laws against the engineers.

It takes a majority vote to bring a union in and it takes a majority vote to get one out. The company can't decertify a union. But, the membership sure as heck can.

At my location, the union has taken drastic steps to return the company to profitability. The average hourly pay rate at my UAW represented facility has dropped from $29/hr to $14/hr. 70% of the old guys have taken voluntary separation packages and the new UAW members make a straight wage with practically no benefits what-so-ever. Also, the number of classifications have been reduced and dramatic competitive operating agreements have been put into practice. In short, the UAW is responding to the crisis.

The price of a new car is determined by the market. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan also cost $25K to 30K and all of those factories are 100% non-union.

shack

TroyD wrote:

FDR? Yeah, the New Deal. The New Deal did NOT, contrary to popular opinion, end the Depression. WWII ended the Depression.

Bingo. It was the wartime economy that got businesses back on track and ended the depression. Not FDR's New Deal.

TroyD wrote:

FDR also didn't stop us from being Communist. In fact, FDR and Truman, IMHO, are largely responsible for the proliferation of Communism in eastern Europ after WWII precisely because they allowed it to happen.

When the depression was at it's peak, FDR was given free reign to pass any legislation he wanted. When the Supreme Court didn't allow a couple of his bills to stand on constitutional grounds he tried to figure out a way to get rid of all of them. When that didn't work he wanted to increase the court to 15 so he would have 6 appointees and load up the court. That was not constitutional as well. Unfortunately he was in office for so long that he was ultimately able to appoint 6 anyway and loaded what became the most liberal Supreme Court in history. We are still paying for those appointees today.

Fortunately the Congress stopped granting FDR carte blache and kept him from implementing a lot of his socialist ideas. Even his own party took issue with his policies. Alfred Smith, the Democratic Mayor of New York (and Presidential candidate) stated that if you took the Democratic platform and the American Socialist Party Platform covered up the names and compared FDR's record, he would clearly fall on the side so the ASP.

As to Troy's point...Not only did he allow it to happen, FDR was a proponent of many of the movements that ultimately led to Communist and Socialist Governments in Europe.

jdhdiggs

The union laws that congress is trying to pass is anything BUT democratic. They basically remove the vote from the employees to form a union. Basically allowing union bosses and the liketo coerce the employee to sign the petition (As they do now) but remove the anonymous vote. Yeah, they're really looking out for the little guy.

Also, I'd bet you'd believe that monopolies in business are bad, but aren't you essentially talking about forming a monopoly to extort higher wages from employers? Since when is a competitive market a bad thing? Union wages aren't agreed to by the employer, they are extorted.

You talk of the non-union cars charging that much... Uh, notice which automakers make money. Yes, they could charge much less but they charge higher prices because US automakers can not put downward pressure on them. If you can't make a widget for under $20 and I can make one for $17, why would I price mine at $18 when I can price it at $20. I'd still get a majority of the business and make money.

Teachers unions? Yes the have too much power. A kid in NE had to sit in the floor and get pelted with paper at the direction of the teacher because he wore an Elway jersey to school. Another teacher actively compared George Bush to Hitler and said that he should be assisinated. All still employed because of the unions.

You complain that parents should do better. Unfortunately the school unions do not allow for that possibility. Don't you think that the parents of the children should be able to use the money that they pay in taxes to send their children to a school that will not fail them? How is this a bad thing?

As has been said before by some prominant authors/media personel. The US teachers union is the largest long term threat to the United States, but of course it's not that powerful, it just has the ability to brainwash the next several generations of children, but what power is there in that?

LessisNevermore

TroyD wrote:

It's simple, Ron. Supply and Demand. A concept that unions have yet to grasp. A CEO is hired, willingly, by a board of directors. He can also be fired just as easily. The janitor? It takes almost an act of congress to get rid of him. So, if someone OFFERS and RECRUITS you offering X number of dollars, is that YOUR fault? Also, let's take a large union shop like say, GM. I'll bet that if you did the math, the CEO salary is a VERY small percentage of overall payroll. So, sure, you can make yourself feel better by cutting the CEO salary but in reality, you've done very little to cure the actual issue which is that union wages have ZERO basis in reality.

I don't have a problem with earning a living wage. I DO have a problem with companies being held up by what is nothing more than legalized blackmail. Also, along with that whole living wage thing. If you aspire to push a broom or clean toilets in a factory in Detroit (or whereever) than you are an idiot. That breeds complacency. When you remove the incentive, you lose the spirit of what built our country. Look what happened to the Soviet Union. Workers figure, eff it, I get paid the same regardless , so where is the motivation to excel?

What really irks me is this whole notion that people are entitled to a house, two new cars etc etc....If you want it, the opportunity is there and LOTS of people do succeed. What I resent is that there are people out there breaking thier asses to succeed and maybe own thier own business and that there are other folks out there who think that the people who are working thier asses off and making money/getting ahead should somehow be penalized for that and should pay the freight for some zero whose aspirations are to make a comfortable living in an entry level job. That's a crock of ****.

BDT

There is a lot of anti-union sentiment here. Not all unions operate as the UAW does. In the construction industry, our jobs are not guaranteed. We can be fired without notice, or good reason. The contractors that hire us, do so because of the intense training and certification we are required to have, and maintain. Another reason is our impeccable safety record.

I would like you to define a "living wage" with a dollar amount. I'm very curious to know. I find it amazing, the number of people who begrudge a union janitor who makes $27/hr, yet justify a CEO's salary and benefits package, simply because he has a college degree. Most of the anti-union talk here smacks of sour grapes, and disinformation. Everyone I work with makes the same money, it's not a secret, and everyone is glad to be there. 95% of them, on any given day is in a great mood, and enjoy their work, which leads to pride of craftsmanship.

A lot of large construction projects are built with union labor. This is because we have the largest organized labor pool, private contractors don't have the manpower to fill jobs on this scale.

Here's another tidbit. The non-union workers might make around 35-40% less, with little to no benefits, yet the contractors bid is just barely under a union contractor. (very competitive) Hmm....where do you suppose the extra money goes? In the contractor's pocket.

I also work in the nuclear power generation industry. The training, security clearances, procedure compliance, that we must adhere to keeps energy coming to your house safely and cheaply. Some areas that a non-union contractor cuts costs on, are tools and other equipment to do a job. The stator on a nuclear generator weighs 348,000 pounds. Do you want to lift that with sub-standard rigging (cheap) or that is damaged? The consequences would be catastrophic, because it will fall through the floors below rupturing critical piping and components, (not to mention killing anyone working in those areas) and all just to save a few dollars. We get paid extremely well to do this work, but we also are held responsible for any mistakes.

In the future, don't lump all union trades in with the UAW. Some unions actually benefit you and your safety. Imagine what your electric bill would look like, if your local power plant had to raise your rates due to hikes in the power co.'s insurance rates, because of frequent accidents/injuries occurring to unskilled, unprotected non-union workers. On a union jobsite, anyone can stop the job due to an unsafe condition. Try that with an "at-will" job.

mrbigbluelight

FDR's socialistic programs were more of a compromise between the rich and the poor. The Great Depression stopped capitalism -- if capital stops flowing, then there cannot be a capitalism. Because the rich was not able to restart the flow of capital, the government (under the FDR) stepped in. Recovery was slow, and certainly not complete, when WWII broke out and pulled everybody's fat out of the fire.

But, if you look at the condition and mood of the country in the 30's, the communist parties were getting lots of new memberships from the lower classes who were out of a job and looking for a new form of government.


FDR was cynical that the same system that had allowed the depression to occur would fix it. He showed America could incorporate parts of a "socialist" agenda, successfully, and probably prevented a major civil disorder in the USA, or the election of extremists as happened in many other countries at the time.

That's how Hitler was "elected". Evil, to be sure, but when you're toting a wheelbarrow of worthless Deutchmarks to the store to buy a loaf of bread so your kids don't starve, and a guy named Hitler promises "solutions", the average joe is going to go with Hitler.

BTW, one of the first moves Hitler made was to outlaw unions.

If the $25 an hour janitor isn't responsible for bankrupting GM. The CEO of GM is responsible if he hires janitors for $25 an hour.
Which, by the way, is not the case.
That a janitor may average the equivalent of $25 an hour, based upon net yearly income divided by 40 hours/week work (the 40 hour work week being a product of union political pressure).
But to get that approximately $50,000 net yearly income, the $12.00 per hour janitor has to work 10 hours a day, 365 days a year, holidays included.

So he, in your enjoinder to "get a job", did so.
"Want more, work harder": ditto.
"Want more, work longer": ditto.
Keeps his kids' noses clean, too. Helps them to keep off of drugs, makes them respectable citizens.

Then, when GM, totally ignoring global situations and consumer trends, continues to push out unpopular models, loses market share, the CEO and the Board that hired him can look at each other and bemoan, "Well, you know that the janitor in B Building made $50,000 last year; it's HIS fault !".

When Henry Ford first started pumping out Model T's, he paid what were considered outrageous wages. But he knew, if people didn't have money to buy his product, his product wouldn't sell.

Unfortunately, the Big 3 no longer have "leaders" (such as Henry Ford) but mere "managers".

shack

Lessisnevermore - That is a lot of pro-union BS.

TroyD

Okay, here we go....

A CEO. He is hired and employed at the whimsy of the board. Usually, CEO's have a track record with other companies and so forth. They are recruited, they negotiate thier compensation package (without a union) and so forth. The board decides, ultimately, what they will or will not pay.

It's not 1 janitor making 27 bucks an hour (40hrs/wk x 52wks/yr = 56K+ per annum) that hurts, it's the 1000 or so janitors along with all the other redundant union jobs (we've all heard the stories of union rules mandating 4 guys for a job that could be done by one, anecdotal yes but you get the idea)....the auto industry and it's subsidiary companies employ in the hundreds of thousands of people...so, yeah, the CEO salary in that context is nothing. Now, I agree it's outrageous but it's not why a car is 30 grand, either.

Anyway, my point is, he's a goddam janitor. He sweeps floors and cleans toilets. IMHO, if THAT is your pinnacle of achievement, if that's what you are content doing, so be it. However, I will never be convinced that even if the Virgin Mary would be proud to crap on one of his toilets that he's work 50 large a year. It's a menial, entry level gig and as such commands an appropriate low wage.

I agree that happy workers are productive workers. There are a lot of non-union employers that pay well and give good benefits. I'm also not saying all unions are bad either. I'm just saying that in this day and age, the majority of the labor unions are political organizations that exist largely to serve themselves. Your example about Henry Ford is spot on. Those workers were also not UAW workers, either.

FDR was a hypocrite. He was the poster child of the aristocracy that he sought to destroy. You think GWB tried to usurp individuals rights? Pfffffft. He has NOTHING on FDR.

Again, we disagree. Nothing more.

BDT

hearingimpared

There is one thing here that I haven't read about. That is a union's willingness to keep their workers, out of work just so they can control the situation and not give in to the company. For example, they would rather keep their rank and file out of work, watch the company go down in flames because their demands are not met. It has happened over and over again. The company folds and the workers are out of work still paying union dues.

One other thing, where do the unions get the idea that because there is, let's say, a roofers union in a geographical area, that all roofs in their area is THEIR WORK??? I have seen independent roofers doing roofing jobs on a private home owner's home and watched for days a union truck full of union roofers knock down the ladders and destroy the equipement and shingles shouting that the independent roofers are stealing their work??? There are many many many other examples of this practice.

Those are just two examples of why unions are evil, corrupt, entities.

It didn't start out that way but it has surely turned into that.

mrbigbluelight

I've also heard the stories of the 4-union guys to do the work of 1.
Although I've never personally experienced/seen it, I'm sure it does exist.

But what I have seen is this:
"Management" in my organization decided, as a means of saving money, that they would have our custodians "do some minor additional" duties. Sounds good so far. "You know, like changing light bulbs". Well ..... okay. "And change ballasts". <groan>.

So......our union (translates to "Me") fought that proposal. Our "management" moaned and groaned, but if THAT was their best idea for saving money, than too bad. Nobody gets killed on my watch. Period.

We (myself and the union) have proposed many ideas to save money and, just as importantly, to "add value" to our services.
"Management" has nixed them because it isn't "the way we've always done things".

I work in the power plant/maintenance field. I know my stuff (hard to believe, but I REALLY know my stuff). I have to work with management that is locked into outdated modes of operation and are incompetent.

Corruption ? Yes, at the highest levels. Board member transfers $600,000 to a not-for-profit company that he founded, and refuses to say where, and how it was spent. His brothers and best friend (and past political manager) are the other members of that corporation.
This occurred many months ago, and this slob still sits on the board. How ? Well, maybe he has some "stuff" on other members of the Board ?

Oh, I could go on and on. For every housekeeper that is sub-standard around here, there are 2 at the supervisor or manager level that are thieves or incompetent. Or sexual predators. Or worse.

But, I will admit: sometimes, if a housekeeper has his/her schedule up to par, he/she will go into their housekeeping closet and read a newspaper !!

rskarvan

Most companies belong to a "Chamber of Commerce". That is just about the equivalent of a management-union with a very political agenda.

The CEO negotiates a contract for himself because he can. That is the same thing as the Janitor negotiating a contract for his efforts.

Personally, I think that the anti-union crowd is really just blind with jealousy and pride. It takes a certain amount of maturity to realize that you are powerless as an individual and need to work together with your co-workers on matters of compensation.

Don't forget about the most powerful union in the world.... the United States of America. Afterall, we are a UNION of separate states that operate together as one with the world.

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote:

Personally, I think that the anti-union crowd is really just blind with jealousy and pride.

How does my anti-union stance make me "blind with jealousy and pride?" All I ever cared about was doing the best job I could do everyday and get as much in compansation to make my family live a better life. Jealousy and pride??? Where?

I owned my own business for a few years. It was my business. I ran it the way I wanted. I consulted business experts to advise me on what I was doing right and wrong. Why should my employees have any power over anything I do? I pay them, they do their jobs, they don't, they get a warning, they still don't they get fired. All I asked was that they do an honest days work and if they went above and beyond got recognized and compensated for it.

Most people I've known over the years, outside of the construction industry, who were forced to join a union in order to work at a certain type of job or company because the union was so dug in that they couldn't be hired by the company as a separate entity never advanced their careers. They were stuck in that job with little advancement.

Another issue I have with the way union work is done. If you have a guy that works his butt off and does a really great days work, he gets the same pay as the guy who just does the minimum requirement. There is no incentive to work hard and excel in a job if you take merit increases out of the mix. I've turned down jobs because you had to join a union to be employed there as a matter of fact if I knew a corporation was infested with unions I wouldn't even consider them a prospective employer. All of the corporations that I worked for, and I was in executive management for the last 15 years, had a straight foward semi-annual or annual employee review process that set levels of merit which when that level was met had set financial merit increases applied to it. Plus it was up to the manager as to whether or not that employee could get more of an increase in addition to the merit increase because he felt 1. the employee really went above and beyond during the review period or 2. pay that excellent employee more money as an incentive to produce even better and lead his peers into doing so.

It's funny how union folks will pick and choose a corrupt executive manager from past scandals and point out just those issues to justify overpaying a janitor. Every company I worked for, everyone in executive management, middle management, lower management, and supervisory personel worked together to make the company the best we could, why, because when the company thrived so did we as a team and individuals and that trickled down to the employees.

I have no personal axe to grind with unions, I just worked for 35 years in the IT industry and have experience where a guy my age that worked in a union shop was making considerably less money than me. Why because I was paid according to my merit, he was paid union wages and had to live by the union's level of climbing the ladder which in my experience there was little upwards advancement. But it was damned hard for that fellow to get fired for cause so I guess he felt and still feels secure. My choice over my lifetime was to work for companies who compensate for merit not a set pay rate for everyone at every level, I always felt that was too much like communism. You union folks don't get your shorts all bunched up, I'm not saying unions are communists. I am saying that there is too much of a socialististic attitude involved with unions and I stayed away from that, my choice, just my opinion. I felt responsible for my career. I never felt I had to rely on a union or someone else for my career advancement.

shack

I am certainly not jealous of any union member. I would be willing to bet that there are very few union members that make as much as I do. And you know what? No one else "negotiated" my income or employment for me. I did that all on my own. I have value to my company because I make them a lot of money and can quantify every bit of it. I worked very hard (and still do) to get where I am and and earn every cent I make. I choose to work long hours if need be with no "overtime" or "comp pay" to get the job done. If I have a problem with my job, I go to my boss, not some intermediary, and work it out. I don't need someone else telling me what they perceive to be in my best interest....I know what that is. If I don't produce or break the rules of my employment I can be fired in a heartbeat. I wouldn't have it any other way.

jdhdiggs

Well lets see, out of the twenty or so highest paid professions, only 2 are unionized labor. Sports and airline pilots. All the rest are un-unionized. Personally I like being rewarded for doing good work and going the extra mile.

Unions were great to raise the living conditions where they worked. Now with OSHA, they're only role is to take money. There is only so much revenue to share between workers and management. Now you introduce the union and the other two's share's of the revenue go down.

Also, I here constant complaining of manufacturing jobs going oversea's. Have you ever looked at the percentage of those businesses that were union based? Greater than 90%.

Almost every company I consult with the first question is whether or not the workforce is unionized. If it is unionized, we immediately look on how to replace as many of the workers as possible through mechanization or outsourcing. If it isn't unionized, those choices are generally off the table since the workers aren't being overpayed so the cost of machines or transportation offset the salary dump. Yup, the unions great at negotiating the American worker out of a job. Let's all here it for the unions...

By the way, the whole idea of "liveable wage" is BS. As soon as everyone makes that much, costs immediately get raised and it's no longer "liveable".

Anyway, I have not seen any argument that justifies unions in a modern, freemarket economy that makes any sense. If you'd care to try, I'll listen and try not to laugh too much.... I mean by saying that forcing management to overpay employees for the work they do is in the long term interest of the employees and company health. Yeah right....

You us the united states as an example of a union? Wow, you bought the union propaganda handbook hook, line, and sinker. Let me guess, you actually think that the US is a democracy as well right? Well, its not. It's not governed by mob rule or the rule of man. But rather it is a democratic rebulic governed by the rule of law.

rskarvan

Union's don't demand a wage. Instead, unions negotiate for a wage. Management signs on to the contract in agreement voluntarily. If the contract proposal is too expensive, management can decline to sign and hire replacement workers. It really is as simple as that. What is not allowed is for management to use divide and conquer techniques to rule over labor. Instead, labor has to be recognized collectively. Labor chose to be recognized as a collective unit by a >50% vote. What is wrong with that?

jdhdiggs

Don't demand? So I suppose all those strike things are just negotiation and not demands? You are delusional. All unions do is extort short term gains for the employees. Then the management DO find replacements for the workers. In the short term this can not work.

You don't think Harley is not currently looking to outsource even more of its production to Mexico all because of its union? Keep deluding yourself. As supply chains become more efficient, unions will be costing American workers their livelihood. It's already happening. Why do you think the US has lost most of its heavy industry to overseas? One answer: Unions.

The 50% thing also urks me as there is multiple attempts to coerce the employees to vote pro-union under threat. ("If this passes and we know you didn't vote for it, your out on your ****" or worse) Now there's legislation that if you sign a petition calling for a union vote, you'll be declared to have already voted for the union.

Let me reverse the issue, what if all the businesses in the country voted and then colluded to set prices to a given level as long as 50% of the companies wanted it? What's wrong with that? Haven't you heard the screams of people bitching about gas prices even though there is no collusion in that industry. Now imagine if corporations moved from a competitive to cooperative environment?

All us consumers would be getting the shaft the same way the unions give it to companies.

How about the next time you respond, try giving responses to the charges against why unions are bad instead of quoting the next paragraph of "Unions are your friend" pamphlet.

rskarvan

Six year old harvesting spinach in Texas, USA (May, 1998).
Photo: © L. Diane Mull

I'm sorry, but a picture tells a thousand words.
This one says to me.... THANK GOD AMERICA HAS UNIONS!!!
So, why again do you think unions are bad?

sucks2beme

Union or not, the jobs are leaving the country. We all here have enjoyed
the pay and perks that unions brought to the American worker.
I have never been in a union. Most places I've been that have unions that are
strong are a pain to work around. But we all will suffer when they are gone.

Everyone is trying to get back to the big money gains, insane stock pricing
of the early 90's. This is driving outsourcing/offshoring. This in turn throws
people out of work, weakening the economy. The service economy is a
stupid myth cooked up in the 80's. Wealth is created by agriculture, mining,
and manufacturing. Service and sales just moves the money around.

What are we going to do when these other countries present the bill?
Pay for it with a big IOU? Welcome to the new 3rd world country.
Good thing I'm an old guy. Maybe I'll be dead before the **** hits the fan.

LessisNevermore

shack wrote:

Lessisnevermore - That is a lot of pro-union BS.

No, they are all facts, in the industry I work in. I have no doubt there is corruption in every facet of our society. The BS seems to be the mis-information passed off as facts. (my trade has no job bank, you want pay, you work) We also work under many different contracts, some even have, gasp NO-STRIKE CLAUSES! If you don't walk in someone's shoes, don't pretend to know all there is to know about what they do.

Maybe you would prefer your local nuclear power plant bring in minimum wage migrant workers to refuel and maintain it.(might as well, they "maintain" the plains you fly in) It's not exactly work that any shmoe off the street can perform.


shack, good for you, if you have a great paying job, how's the retirement benefits? 401k, or an actual pension? The contractors we work for agreed to pay insurance and contribute to our pension. Our total package is way more than our hourly rate, vs. up to $.50 on the dollar-up to 4% in a 401k. 401k's are literally the least an employer can do for you. You can work towards your own retirement, or take what scraps the company owner throws you. I suppose pensions are evil too.:rolleyes: