Circuit City to cut more than 3,500 jobs

LessisNevermore

sucks2beme wrote:

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.

Post of the year.

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote:

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?

You realize that hiring a 6 YO is illegal in this country right? How is this proof of "how good unions are" Talk about a non-sequiter.

Examples of Unions not being a good influence.: Cost American jobs, increase consumer prices, pushing America further and further into the trade gap. Those would be the easiest ones to point out.

S2BM: Engineering and innovation/invention are also true sources of wealth that you excluded. Fortunately the US is still somewhat good at these things.

PolkThug

Its easy to blame unions. There couldn't possibly be bad decisions being made at the top, right? /sarcasm

jdhdiggs

Yeah, it's a bad decision/managments fault when your US competitors are paying $10/hr, overseas costs $3/hr and your union is demanding $27/hr to start. You might make the argument that it was managements fault for giving in to the union in the first place. :rolleyes:

shack

LessisNevermore wrote:

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:

My retirement benefits are good. 100% match of 401K up to 6%. If I buy company stock outside the 401K, I get 2X that number of stock options at that price. I have a defined benefit pension plan from a former employeer.

As a matter of fact....defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical benefits are one of the biggest albatrosses around the neck of many of the American industries. They were funded based on known actuarial information at the time. Retirees are living longer and medical costs are skyrocketing. If you have a "pension" don't count on it because they are bankrupting many of the parent corps. The govt. can bail out some of these at a much reduced amount...but if a couple of big ones (automakers) go under, the govt. will not be able to fund them at all. 401Ks, ESOPS and IRAs are a much better option than pension plans.

rskarvan

jdhdiggs, you do realize, of course, that unions are who introduced child-labor laws in the USA?

Thanks for making my point even more clear.

xsmi

jdhdiggs wrote:

Yeah, it's a bad decision/managments fault when your US competitors are paying $10/hr, overseas costs $3/hr and your union is demanding $27/hr to start. You might make the argument that it was managements fault for giving in to the union in the first place. :rolleyes:

Nope,

Its managements fault for paying the CEO's of said companies $1000's x's more than their average worker. I have worked for unions and non unions. The perks of unions are very very good and we do need them as a model for what working conditions should be.

What agrivates the Hell out of me is why do we have this mentalitgy that the CEO is worth so much more than the employees in the store. When you go into a Circuit City, your experience is based on the the salesman you work with; not the CEO. Our problem in this country is we have it backwards. Yes the CEO goes to school and works hard to get a degree (perhaps)., makes tough decisions I would not want to have to make. But at the end of the day, it is the workmanship of the laborers, and the point of contact with the customer that makes the biggest difference in what we really think of a company. Just my .02.

mrbigbluelight

jdhdiggs wrote:

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.

jdhdiggs wrote:

You forgot the oldest profession: prostitution.
Movement in California to unionize the workers to improve working conditions, establish labor laws dealing with working conditions in third-party owned and managed prostitution businesses, and other issues.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Unions were great to raise the living conditions where they worked. Now with OSHA, they're only role is to take money.

OSHA has no authority at my first job site.
And where it does have authority, it is weakened by being underfunded and understaffed.

jdhdiggs wrote:

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.

That's the same stuff that management puts out at my first job site.
And some folks fall for it (we have an open shop, so membership isn't manadantory).
Problem is, the company isn't paying your union dues, the worker is.

jdhdiggs wrote:

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.

Well, and we wonder why manufacturing jobs are going overseas ?

The first service you provide is replacing union workers through mechanization (could be argued the social/economic benefits of doing that) or outsourcing (ship the jobs to 3d World or the South).
Makes a pretty easy work day for some folks; could almost phone that work in. Versus employing the concept of "value added", where "value" isn't merely the "bottom line".

jdhdiggs wrote:

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.

One problem I forsee is what will your firm do when the entire United States workforce is employed in the "service" industry ? I suppose it could diversify and offer services as "Maximizing burger output on a 36 x 24 grill: Is that teen really cooking as fast as he can ?".

jdhdiggs wrote:

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".

Got a point there; a guy named JC did say that "the poor will always be with you". So, somebody has to go without medical benefits, or a minimum wage.
Can't argue with the Big Guy upstairs.

jdhdiggs wrote:

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....

Sure. Always willing to converse with someone interested in thinking outside the box.

jdhdiggs wrote:

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.

Perhaps in name, in reality it's a modified aristocracy.

jdhdiggs

Hershey just fired another 650 union workers and is moving more production to Mexico. Congrats Union for helping your workers yet again!

Ron: Answer the questions or can't you? That's right, you can't. As I've said before (since you seem to have reading comprehension problems in regards to this issue): UNIONS HAD A PLACE IN THE PAST TO MAKE THE WORK ENVIRONMENT SAFE. THEY HAVE DONE THAT AND EXCEEDED THEIR USEFULLNESS. The whole notion that unions are the sole cause of weekends and child labor laws is just propaganda. Pensions? Medical? Heaven forbid workers think and provide for themselves....

As for CEO salaries, that BS. Some are grossly overpaid, but if a guy is making $5MM/ year but through his vision and decision making makes the company $30MM/year, how can you even start to claim it's "unfair".

MMBL: Are you off your meds? Nothing you said makes any sense in reality. Aristocracy? Why? Because of the Bush's, Clinton's, and Kennedy's? Thanks for the laugh. Money isn't split three ways and then you say that workers pay the union... Thanks for proving my point. If you were a quality worker, that money should be in your pocket, not the unions. What will my firm do if all industries leave the US? Shoot, I already do work all over the world. Why would that stop? YOu talk of "Value added" by bringing in a union to do THE EXACT SAME JOB? Really? Wow! I mean really, what value can you really add when your entire job is to but on three bolts or put a plate into a machine and push a botton. Enlighten me to this magical value added that a company should pay up to 3X more to get rather than highering a non-union US workforce. Medical Bennies and minimum wage, and then you invoke JC? Wow, have your forgoitten the lesson of the talents? Pity and charity should be taken to those who can not work through various handicaps, but not those who have wasted their life through their own decisions. If you dropped out of high school, committed crimes, and generally made a mess of your life, why should everyone else suffer to make your life better?

Again, it's pretty said when the US can't even come close to hiring it's needs in the engineering and medical fields but complain constantly about low skill job loss. How about we fix the education system and get the Union guy that was making $54K/year to make $90K/yr as an engineer.

I'm out of this until any of you crakpots can explain to me again, using things that actually happen in reality, why anyone should be forced to pay a guy $27/hr for a job when another guy down the road is willing to do the same job for $10/hr. Or better yet, what happens to the short term and long term supply and demand curves for labor when a union enters into the arrangement.

rskarvan

Child Labor History:
1. 1835 Children under 16 made up about one-third of the New England labor force.
2. 1842 Connecticut and Massachusetts pass laws prohibiting children from working over ten hours per day.
3. 1848 Child labor law in Pennsylvania makes twelve the minimum age for workers in commercial occupations.
4. 1903 The Department of Commerce and Labor is formed.
Mother Jones (Mary Harris Jones) leads the "March of the Mill Children" to President Roosevelt's home in New York. Many of the children were victims of industrial accidents.
5. 1914 Clayton Act passed which limits the use of injunctions in labor disputes.
Ludlow Massacre in Colorado: Wives and children of striking miners are set aflame when National Guardsmen attack their tent colony during a strike against the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.
6. 1916 8 hour day for railroad workers is created with the passage of the Adamson Act. This averts a nationwide strike. A Federal child labor law is enacted but is later declared unconstitutional.
7. 1924 An amendment to the Constitution is proposed restricting child labor but not enough states passed the measure.
8. 1936 The Public Contracts Act (Walsh-Healey Act) established labor standards, including minimum wages, overtime pay, child and convict labor provisions, and safety standards on all federal contracts.
9. 1949 An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 directly prohibited child labor for the first time.

---

Personal Experience:
2002: Delphi Battery Operations opens a joint-venture facility in Shanghai China (Shanghai Delco Industrial Battery Company). I personally witnessed young Shanghai girls (age 12 or so) wearing ordinary hospital masks while sweeping lead dust (2.0 micron particle size) with a dry dust-mop. Medical Note: Exposure to lead in females often leads to severe birth defects as lead has a permanent destructive effect on the ovaries. SDIBC begins shipping automotive batteries to the USA to offset the closure of a recently unionized (IUE) Delphi battery plant in Anaheim California. Many of the women who had worked in the Anaheim plant had been required to supply doctors letters proving their infertility before they were hired to work at the Aneheim plant. A good porition of these California women had their tubes-tied specifically so they could get a high paying automotive job at Delphi.

---

Wal-Mart Fined for Child Labor Violations:
February 15 2005 - The U.S. Department of Labor has fined Wal-Mart $135,540 in civil money penalties for violating the youth employment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for allowing teenage workers to operate hazardous equipment.

The Department of Labor conducted an investigation of 25 of the company's stores from October 1998 through April 2002. 21 stores were in Connecticut, three were in Arkansas, and one was in New Hampshire. The investigations showed that Wal-Mart employed 85 minors aged 16 and 17 who were performing prohibited activities.

The FLSA prohibits the employment of minors under age 18 in any occupation deemed to be hazardous by the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has issued 17 specific hazardous occupation orders identifying prohibited occupations.

---

So, who needs unions? History has proven that our children do.

tommyboy

jdhdiggs wrote:

As for CEO salaries, that BS. Some are grossly overpaid, but if a guy is making $5MM/ year but through his vision and decision making makes the company $30MM/year, how can you even start to claim it's "unfair".

diggs,

I agree with some of your points. But yes, its unfair. I heard that about 50 years ago, the CEOs made about 30 times its average employers. Now its over 400! I know there is inflation but that number is still ridiculous. You don't mind CEOs getting rid of the middle class?

jdhdiggs

The middle class is still alive and well. CEO pay isn't going to change that. The problem with CEO's is that there aren't enough good ones to go around som the competition for the good ones is very fierce and a good ones almost always make the company far more than they cost them. That's the point. If I pay $10MM for something and make $30MM then it was a good investement. Should you cap how much everyone can make? That's lunacy!

What I'm not getting here is why it's perfectly Ok, and expected, for a business to pay $54K + $10K in benifits for $40K worth of VA revenue, but it's unfair to pay a guy $5MM for $30MM worth of VA revenue.

To the union guy, still haven't answered my questions, also look at the countries and dates in your speech. Also, wow, laws were passed 50 years ago, do you have any proof that they were caused solely by unions... Of course not. Wow, citing requiring women to become infertile to go to work as a pro union example. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't yeah?

shack

rskarvan wrote:

So, who needs unions? History has proven that our children do.

So very typical...Lets play the "kids" card. Want to raise taxes...it's for the kids/school. Want to raise money for charity...toss a pic of a kid on the screen. Kids should be the responsibility of the parents...not unions.

MY OPINION is unions are redundant and as a general rule promote mediocrity and the greatest benefit of their negotiations is not for the worker, the company, the economy or the nation....they benefit the union.

I too am out of this thread.

rskarvan

So, most everyone seems to be in agreement that it is ok to take jobs outside the USA so that the company can benefit from lower wages. Of course, these lower wages can come from the fact that these foreign manufacturing plants don't have to worry about silly things like: EPA, OSHA, Fair Labor Standards Act, FMLA, Social Security, 40-hour work week, child labor laws, etc.

Instead, lets just let supply and demand rule the market freely. Afterall, the out-sourcing isn't going to affect my job. Yeah right.

engtaz

well put rskarvan.

engtaz

TroyD

Child labor?

Ron, check your dates there, broham. Not to mention that the average life expectancy was less than 40. So, at that time 16 was middle age.

Also, what, exactly, did unions do for the children? It would seem to me gov't regulation was the remedy, not union membership.

The rest is a bunch of horseshit. For the most part (not all but MOST) unions have outlived thier usefulness. The main objective of labor unions these days is wealth redistribution. They could care less that American industry becomes less and less competitive every day and that's a fact, jack. Two examples. Autos and steel. In terms of the American market one is in dire straits and the other is DOA. I don't see the unions doing much to revive either one. So, to the folks who think that the unions are a great deal, don't whine to me when your jobs are exported to a third world country for some guy who will work for 5 dollars a day with no piss break.

It's almost a moot point as less and less American workers choose not to become union members. Exclude the gov't unions and I've read that the numbers are around 15 percent.

BDT

TroyD

rskarvan wrote:

So, most everyone seems to be in agreement that it is ok to take jobs outside the USA so that the company can benefit from lower wages. Of course, these lower wages can come from the fact that these foreign manufacturing plants don't have to worry about silly things like: EPA, OSHA, Fair Labor Standards Act, FMLA, Social Security, 40-hour work week, child labor laws, etc.

Instead, lets just let supply and demand rule the market freely. Afterall, the out-sourcing isn't going to affect my job. Yeah right.

The fact is, companies have little control over gov't regulation. They also can't control the prices of raw materials. The things that the CAN (or should control) is the management of thier production and labor costs. Well, unions are tying thier hands on the issues that a company SHOULD control. So, many are forced with either go overseas or go away completely.

If we can't compete, should we just chuck the free market system and prop it up with price controlls and so forth? We've TRIED that and in the long run, it doesn't work.

The fact is, we need to figure out a way to remain competitive. A fact that seems to be lost on labor unions.

BDT

madmax

TroyD wrote:

What really irks me is this whole notion that people are entitled to a house, two new cars etc etc....

People ARE entitled to those things. They have become a requirement to get along in todays society. They are no longer luxuries. Even things like cable and cell phones fall into that group. Take any one of them away and a persons chance of making it in todays USA go way down.
madmax

markmarc

I've never seen so much incredibly limited trivia of history used in such a way as to paint the "mass truth". Seems to me there is plenty of blame on all sides for those companies that have struggled.

Instead, why don't we name companies that have succeeded both financially and in ethical treatment with employees. My first choice is:

Anderson Windows- True profit sharing based on the success of the business (no funny accounting). The average worker on the line gets a profit bonus virtually equal to their salary. Evereyone from the receptionist to the president is focused on quality and success.

PhantomOG

madmax wrote:

People ARE entitled to those things. They have become a requirement to get along in todays society. They are no longer luxuries. Even things like cable and cell phones fall into that group. Take any one of them away and a persons chance of making it in todays USA go way down.
madmax

The problem with that thought is there is a LARGE percentage of people who are not willing to put forth enough effort to EARN any of that. If you build up a system where people cannot fail regardless of whether or not they try, people will not try. If everyone is ENTITLED all of that regardless of whether or not they work hard, NO ONE WILL WORK HARD.

You can't take away people's option for failure without also taking away their motivation to get ahead in life.

rskarvan

TroyD, Thank GOD the main objective of UNION's is wealth re-distribution.
See Below:

---

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

Now let's say the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

The 40 people getting 1/2 cent each might be a bit annoyed at the person getting $38.10. The 20 people getting 23 cents each would probably not be happy with the 4 people receiving $5.32 each. And so on...

This is how our economic system has distributed the wealth of our country. It's so far from any type of fairness as to be laughable, were it not a direct cause of certain segments of our society lacking adequate resources for food, clothing, shelter, medical care and other necessities, let alone any amenities of a beyond-subsistence life.

PhantomOG

So we give everyone a dollar... what happens next? Everyone sits around on their **** all day because no matter how hard they work, they'll only get the same as the next guy.

You cannot have a system that rewards hard work while NOT punishing laziness and incompetence. Rocket scientists do not exist in an economic system where everyone is ENTITLED to a house, two cars and cable TV for free.

rskarvan

In my experience, those who actually work the hardest often make the least. There are, of course, exceptions. But, the multitudes who give an honest days work for an allegedly fair day's pay are being cheated out of healthcare, retirement, & job security. Worse yet, we blame them for the companies problems and we give the executives very lucrative "golden parachutes" when the company fails to become profitable.

jdhdiggs

First: Income isn't distributed, it's earned. Next you'll be telling people that ownership of a job is the employees and not the employers

Secondly: it's not how hard you work now that determines your pay but a culmination of the effort and choices you made before today that determines your wage.

Healthcare, retirement, etc... Heaven forbid we actually ask people to take some responsibility for their position in life and to care for themselves.

Who's this we you keep talking about?

rskarvan

jdhdiggs... I hope that you are a very rich person. If you are rich, then your point of view is self-serving. If you are not incredibly wealthy, your point of view is self-defeating.

jdhdiggs

Which is more self defeating:

Believing that nothing you do can affect your lot in life. That whether your rich or poor is totally out of your own hands and is defined by luck. So much that you have to band together to "stick it to the man"

Or that hard work, education, and sacrifice will have it's rewards in the end. Accepting that only you can change your lot in life for the better by bettering yourself. That all actions have consequence.

Me, I like the latter:

That's why I paid attention in school, worked my **** off in college to get 2 BS degrees in three years with no student loans. It's why I continued to work my way through my Master's and PhD with no student loans (or help from my parents on any degree).

So you're saying that I should only be "distributed" the same amount as my HS buddy who graduated with a 2.0 GPA and got drunk every friday and saturday night with his buddies? Screw that! I EARNED everything I have and I plan on EARNING more. Nothing was given to me but my natural abilities, I went out and earned the rest.

You're saying some guy who put down a second or third mortgage down to start a business and worked 80+hrs every week to make it work should not be rewarded any more than a guy shortchanging Walmart on his punch card?

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote:

TroyD, Thank GOD the main objective of UNION's is wealth re-distribution.

If I were to read just that statement without the rest of your text, I would think you were pushing communism.

Is there something wrong with someone making a ton of money that he earned? Is there something wrong with someone making a lot of money because they know how? I still don't get this contempt for people who make a lot of money. You stated earlier that "jealousy and pride" were the earmark of anti-union people. . . I beg to differ.

rskarvan wrote:

See Below:

---

Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.

Now let's say the $100 winds up being divided as follows:

1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get .60 each
20 people get .23 each
40 people get 1/2 cent each

The 40 people getting 1/2 cent each might be a bit annoyed at the person getting $38.10. The 20 people getting 23 cents each would probably not be happy with the 4 people receiving $5.32 each. And so on...

This is how our economic system has distributed the wealth of our country. It's so far from any type of fairness as to be laughable, were it not a direct cause of certain segments of our society lacking adequate resources for food, clothing, shelter, medical care and other necessities, let alone any amenities of a beyond-subsistence life.

That is so skewed, the ones who worked the hardest get the most money, the ones who do average work get the average of the money and the lazy one get the 1 cents if they are lucky.

With unions everyone get the same pay. Why?

rskarvan

jdhdiggs,

I really do understand your point of view. I really, truly do.
You have a very entrepeneurial view of the world.

Now, what if you find out that the 4 degrees you earned didn't get you any more than the 2.0 GPA HS kid who is working as a machine operator and working all the OT that he can get his greedy little hands on?

What if you realized that he had better medical benefits than you? What if you realized that he had better job security than you? What if you realized that you have an a-hole as a boss and he doesn't really care who his boss is because he is working to a contract?

What if your a-hole boss chose to mis-use you as a worker? You would quit and find another job right? How many times are you going to quit and move on before you are willing to band-together and fight for self-respect in both your industry, your company, and your town?

What if you exhausted all normal courses of action to correct the situation within your company? What if you didn't want to move because your wife was 6 months pregnant and just simply didn't want to change doctors?

My point is simply that just because you are a super-star doesn't mean that you can't be mistreated as an employee. The GM Technical Center in Warren Michigan has 30,000 people with near identical qualifications to you. Guess what? A good portion of them are miserable because they are stuck with a **** boss in a **** corporate culture and they are locked into their very miserable jobs with "golden handcuffs".

It happens. It happens quite a lot. Unions can really prevent that sort of thing from happening to you.

Of course, you can quit and get another job. But, why should you have to?

Don't think for one minute that narcissistic psycho's can't be promoted to upper management. It happens too many times. I hope you don't have one for a boss. Because, if you do, there is not a dang thing you can do about it except: A) Quit or join a union. Don't think for one minute that crying to HR about the situation will help you one bit.

- Ron S.

rskarvan

One more thing.... in any closed system, there are winners and losers. The winners win. The losers lose. Now, when the losers both out-number the winners and are greater than 50% in numbers, they can band together and change things. They can demand that they no-longer lose. They can hold on to what is earned. Typically, they are so pissed-off because the winners cheated the system that they are willing to accept "equal" pay because they see no possibility for fair pay. This is how/why they have a mechanism to form a collective bargaining unit.

Its not socialism. Its freedom at its best. Its people who are fed-up and say enough is enough. Unions are people who are willing to fight their bosses (if need be) to get their fair share.

Of course management doesn't like unions. Unions typically demand that the wealth within a corporation be distributed to those who work at the corporation. What is wrong with that?

PhantomOG

That's a whole hell of alot of "what if's". Your implication is that our country is one in which getting a good education and working hard simply puts you at the mecy of **** bosses who just somehow got lucky and will do nothing but try to keep you down.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying that sob story. There have been way too many success stories of immigrants, orphans, abused, etc. etc. who have worked hard and put themselves into your "lucky" rich category.

Where else in this world would you rather work hard and roll your dice in? Give me an example of an economic society where hard work and perserverance pays off better than here.