Circuit City to cut more than 3,500 jobs

rskarvan

Hearingimpared: Everyone within a union should get the same pay because everyone fulfills the same contractual duties for the company. Pretty simple.

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote:

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.

One time in my life I dealt with any of the harsh scenarios you've written above. I learned how to check out corporations and prospective employers BEFORE agreeing to work for them. I took responsibility for choosing whom I worked for, how much I would do the work for and where.

If you don't like your job or your boss or the way he runs his business or the money you are making, get another job that gives you what you want. . . life is that simple.

Unions make it that you have to rely on them. I found that out early in my life and decided that I didn't need them and that I could do it better and I did and so can most people if they are motivated enough.

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote:

Hearingimpared: Everyone within a union should get the same pay because everyone fulfills the same contractual duties for the company. Pretty simple.

So I only have to show up each day do the same thing that the guy next to me is doing (or less) and then do it again and again and again until I get old and have a meager existance to retire on.

No thanks Bro, that is too simple for me.

rskarvan

Prime example of a SOB story:

Chainsaw Al
He anointed himself America's best CEO. But Al Dunlap drove Sunbeam into the ground.

Of course, thats not going to happen to me. I'll always have competant bosses that reward a good education and hardwork. Pfff.

shack

rskarvan wrote:

Hearingimpared: Everyone within a union should get the same pay because everyone fulfills the same contractual duties for the company. Pretty simple.

Bingo! We have a winner! You have just described why there is NO INCENTIVE to excell or to be better than the next guy if you are under a union contract. It is simple...simply bad.

jdhdiggs

See, there are way too many what-ifs in your example. I know I make more money than him, but if not, bully for him. I know that I'll make fare more then 99.99% of the people who follow his life plan. So what if he has better benifits? If I want super health insurance, I'll buy it myself. My retirement? I'm doing that myself as well.

I did quit my first job because of a narcissitic boss and ended up making 40% more within 2 years, so yeah, quitting's not a half bad option. As long as you have marketable skills and are willing to work hard, the system rewards you. Golden Handcuffs? Those people choose to be miserable fin return for the pay they get. No one is holding a gun to their head. 30,000 people with 4 degrees with golden handcuffs, sounds like horrid management suffering from too much BOHICA from their union masters

The reason wealth redistribution within a corporation is bad is that it doesn't reward the ones who had the initiative and suffered the risk. The company is owned by the owners, the jobs are owned by the owners, not the union or the employees.

As I said, who should get the bigger piece of the pie:
The guy who leveraged his life savings to build a company working 80 hrs a week

or

the guy who agreed to do a job for a price and that's all he has done.

I would argue the second guy deserves nothing beyond what he can negotiate with an employer as he assumes virtually no risk other than being let go.

In the end:

Why should I focus on what a company can give me when I can focus on what I can earn.

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote:

Prime example of a SOB story:

Chainsaw Al
He anointed himself America's best CEO. But Al Dunlap drove Sunbeam into the ground.

Of course, thats not going to happen to me. I'll always have competant bosses that reward a good education and hardwork. Pfff.

This is good, so when the union is also fired, who has a better shot of being hired again. The unskilled laborer doing the union minimum or the hardworking person with the expanded resume and education.

Both union and non-union employees are at risk in the scenario you described.

rskarvan

Shack,

You are right... under a union contract there is absolutely no reason to do better than your co-worker. Therefore, the ONLY way you are going to succeed is if you succeed as a TEAM! And, if you succeed as a TEAM, everybody will share equally in the success of the win.

Unions mean working for something bigger than yourself. Unions encourage hard work. The hard work is encouraged by the team for the team. This way, the rewards are aligned properly. You can't get ahead by stepping on your team-mates. You must get ahead by positioning everyone to use their skillset in a manner that is most beneficial for the team.

jdhdiggs

Screw that, sounds like communism. Hard work is encouraged? WTH? What union shop have you EVER seen that play out? From our industry standards, union shops average 70-80% (industry dependent) of the productivity of non-union shops on a per headcount level.

PhantomOG

Wow... I think you might like living in China.

jdhdiggs

Yup, sounds like the Mao Tse Tung playbook at this point.

rskarvan

jdhdiggs.... you are flat-out wrong regarding unionized productivity:

Unions Are Good for Business, Productivity and the Economy

According to Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley,[1] unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.

Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:

* Productivity
* Competitiveness
* Product or service delivery and quality
* Training
* Turnover
* Solvency of the firm
* Workplace health and safety
* Economic development

Productivity

According to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on unions and productivity: “The available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between unions and productivity in the U.S. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[2]

Some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between unions and productivity. According to Brown and Medoff, “unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[3]

---

FOOTNOTES

---

[1] Harley Shaiken, The High Road to a Competitive Economy: A Labor Law Strategy, Center for American Progress, June 25, 2004, pp. 7-8. http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/unionpaper.pdf

[2] Christos Doucouliagos and Patrice Laroche, “The Impact of U.S. Unions on Producivity: A Bootstrap Meta-analysis,” Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, 2004. See also, by the same authors, “What Do Unions Do to Productivity: A Meta-analysis,” Industrial Relations, Volume 42 Issue 4 October 2003:

[3] Charles Brown and James L. Medoff, “Trade Unions in the Production Process.” Journal of Political

Economy, vol. 86, no. 3 (June 1978): 355–378.

PhantomOG

I'm sure there's no shortage of literature and other people in the world who believe in communism as well. No thanks, I'll stick with capitalism and depend on myself.

jdhdiggs

Hmm, this FUD in economics disagrees as does pretty much the entire consulting industry.

I've reviewed similar works are they all have, IMHO, some significant flaws. The industries the compare are handpicked, as are the companies. So the criteria such as solvency and competitiveness are bogus. Training? Yup, training is higher as should be expected. unfortunately it's not neccessary. And of course turnover is lower, you pay me twice as much, I'm not likeley to leave.

Safer? This one's an odd one. Union shops are definately safer, but the reason isn't clear at first pass: Non-union employees take the inititative to do things they are not trained to do and are therefore not safe in doing it. Example: If a conveyor line or machine goes down, a non union guy will typically try to fix said issue while a union guy will stare at the machine doing nothing waiting for the certified guy to come fix it. This one you can argue either way. Me, I'd rather have initiative.

Workplace health? Again, this has more to do with the initiative of the non-union guy then the union rules (other than the healthcare plan the union extorted)

Can you imagine a Cal-Berkley studing being pro labor! My God, I'm shocked!

rskarvan

Consulting is such a scam....

Talk about not having any equity in the recommendations that you make.

rskarvan

I am officially retiring from this thread. Thanks for the entertainment. And, long live Donald Trump!

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote:

Consulting is such a scam....

Talk about not having any equity in the recommendations that you make.

You do when you offer full refunds if you're wrong and have the ability to get sued for incorrect reccomendations you bet your **** we have equity. Our company has far more liability than any worker working for the company in question as do most reputable consulting companies. Especially when you're only marketing mechanism is word of mouth. It would be pretty hard to say: "Hey, we just consulted to Delphi and they went under, hire us and we can do the same for you!" You want to talk about no equity? Look at unions! If all the employees get fired, no problem, the union just finds it's next victim...

Yup, consulting is a scam and unions aren't. :rolleyes:

shack

rskarvan wrote:

Shack,

You are right... under a union contract there is absolutely no reason to do better than your co-worker. Therefore, the ONLY way you are going to succeed is if you succeed as a TEAM! And, if you succeed as a TEAM, everybody will share equally in the success of the win.

Unions mean working for something bigger than yourself. Unions encourage hard work. The hard work is encouraged by the team for the team. This way, the rewards are aligned properly. You can't get ahead by stepping on your team-mates. You must get ahead by positioning everyone to use their skillset in a manner that is most beneficial for the team.

Your signatue says you are from Indianapolis IN. I assumed it was planet Earth you were referring to. I must have been mistaken. :rolleyes:

opus

rskarvan wrote: »

Shack,

You are right... under a union contract there is absolutely no reason to do better than your co-worker. Therefore, the ONLY way you are going to succeed is if you succeed as a TEAM! And, if you succeed as a TEAM, everybody will share equally in the success of the win.

Unions mean working for something bigger than yourself. Unions encourage hard work. The hard work is encouraged by the team for the team. This way, the rewards are aligned properly. You can't get ahead by stepping on your team-mates. You must get ahead by positioning everyone to use their skillset in a manner that is most beneficial for the team.

Now thats funny:D Put down the kool-aid and step away from the keyboard

Mike682

I love lamp

VR3

Before I start my rant - let me say that this has really nothing at all to do with this thread.

But it does have to do what has been said in this thread - particularly about teams.

I have now worked on a sales floor, with musicians for a year now. Let me tell you something about team efforts, that does not exist.

I have worked with 80% mediocrity since April of last year. If everyone at that store was paid the same - I would be on the same level of workmanship as they are. My department would not have doubled in size about a month ago, I wouldnt of set a record for sales in July - I wouldnt sale more than everyone in full time while working part time.

I go to work and I bust my rear day in and day out. My pay check reflects that as well. And just because you paid everyone 20 dollars an hour to do something, does not mean they will improve because you are paying them more. All you are doing is paying them more to suck.

You get what you deserve and nothing more.

At the end of the day, its all about business. You are either there to earn the bottom dollar or you are there to get fired or quit or move on to the next lame job that you think your current one is.

Working as a team and equal pay is a joke. Get along with your coworkers, help them out - but at the end of the day, everyone is there to earn money, the question is whether or not you are going to work that extra bit to earn that extra amount.

markmarc

We all need to accept the fact that the USA is a post-industrial country, mass manufacturing labor just isn't a part of our economy for the forseeable future. Small manufacturing shops that offer flexible custom services will continue to thrive as long as quality and time are critical.

The key is finding ways for these companies to survive and prosper without gov't subsidies. One such component is getting health care costs contained. Second, is a simplified tax structure. Third, a workforce that not only has basic education skills, but more importantly has critical thinking skills. One such way is bring back shop classes, i.e. drafting, woodworking, metal, auto, and electrical. America has spent the last 20 years replacing shop teachers with japanese language teachers. 30% of our high school graduates still end up in honorable vocational careers. Less than 3% require a second language.

Too many of the disruptive students in classrooms are kids who need to be moving, building, repairing something. Shop class was their reason for hanging in and dealing with the boredom they felt in literature. Shop classes teach critical thinking skills, a key component to lifelong success.

mrbigbluelight

jdhdiggs wrote: »

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

Well, I guess we could look at the facts: I assume you aren't aware that the US has a bizarre and antiquated sugar subsidy, which inflates the price of sugar to two or three times the price on the world market. By shifting production to Mexico, Hershey can buy sugar at the world price, which in turn can make its product pricing more competitive with its international competitors, Cadbury-Schweppes of Great Britain and Nestle of Switzerland.

The US sugar policy is borderline criminal.
A handful of well-connected sugar farmers make out like bandits, while every consumer in US pays overpays for sugar (billions in the aggregate).
I guess it would now be more correct to say "banditos".
Not too much "Free Market" going on there.

That sugar subsidy is kind of like .... well ..... welfare, wouldn't you say ?
Or, rather, shouldn't you say ?

Not too loudly, though; if "they" find out you know that Hershey isn't moving to Mexico because of unions, than ..... well...... just pretend like you don't know the facts.

jdhdiggs wrote:

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.

Perhaps if I spoke more s-l-o-w-l-y ? :rolleyes:

Well.....one more thought, I guess.

Shame on Hershey for seeking to lower their labor cost but not the salries of the CEO and executives, and shame on the shareholders for unreasonably expecting their stock price or dividends to increase every quarter instead of taking the more rational long-term view.

During the Depression, Milton Hershey kept his workers employed with, if need be, make-do work to keep them employed.
He was what I would call a "leader".
Gotta think outside the box for that.

Sami

That's why the sodas in US are made with corn syrup instead of the better tasting sugar versions the rest of the world gets.

jdhdiggs

mbbl: edit: Someone told me to be a little nicer.

My co-worker worked with the management of Hershey and has told me that if the union accepted a $3/hr larger paycut than no jobs would be outsourced, the union refused. It's that simple. (And forgive me if I actually believe people actually involved in the decision making)

Also, to set the facts straight: the labor was/is the highest cost % of Hershey's cost structure. Suger is about 3% of the cost and labor ~40%.

BTW, Why is Cadberry Schwepps outsourcing as well if they have such cheap sugar?

shack

jdhdiggs wrote: »

My co-worker worked with the management of Hershey and has told me that if the union accepted a $3/hr larger paycut than no jobs would be outsourced, the union refused. It's that simple. (And forgive me if I actually believe people actually involved in the decision making)

This is a pattern that has repeated time and again that I have seen first hand. A company that we had a loan to told their union...(We told the union)...that unless they could cut labor costs via RIF or lower wages the company was done...it would have to go into bankruptcy and liquidate. There was a good chance it could work and the union had never given any concessions. The union said FU and 120 workers lost their jobs. The owners of the company (not multimillionares) lost everything as well. Great teamwork by organized labor. :rolleyes:

PhantomOG

Unless everyone wants the US government to throw up walls around the entire country and remove itself from the global economy, jobs will continue to go overseas. Period.

US resident and high school drop out Joe Schmoe wants (no, is ENTITLED) to make $20 an hour for a factory job that requires the intelligence of your average 10 year old. Meanwhile, on the global scale, there are millions (if not billions) of starving people out there that will do the exact same job just as well if not better than Joe for pennies on the dollar. What do you expect the government and big business to do about it?

You want to talk about redistribution of wealth? Well, its happening and happening fast. The problem is, we're the wealthy ones on the global scale and we are getting our butts kicked by a work force that is 10 times more motivated than we are. You're bitching about health care, break times, and cable TV... the people you are competing against are STARVING TO DEATH.

The only way for lazy workers in the US to continue to enjoy the VASTLY better lifestyle they have compared to those in other countries is to get educated, create/innovate new markets and not expect someone else to take care of you. Government subsidies (like all the sugar talk) only 'F up the situation worse than it already is. The US is full of industrious and entrepreneurial people who will end up doing just fine despite this redistribution. Don't expect lazy **** Joe Schmoe to do well though...

rskarvan

"Unless everyone wants the US government to throw up walls around the entire country and remove itself from the global economy, jobs will continue to go overseas. Period."

-- Unfortunately, it is a bit late to implement this perfectly good idea. We don't want to wall-off the flow of fine electronics from the far east. I suggest that everyone in the Polk forum personally commit to buying audio equipment from ONLY American companies. Oops. Probably a bad idea since Polk is not a "MADE IN THE USA" company (anymore). Dang-it.

jdhdiggs

Man, unforunately your utopia no longer exists. You would have loved living in China from the 1950's to 1990's.

Total "team" atmosphere, no incentives beyond the good of the collective. Extreme isolationism... Absolutely prefect!

madmax

If polk products were still made in USA we wouldn't see R300's going for $49.99 each. You could buy the grille cover for that much maybe. I wonder how much they would have to sell them for to make a profit if made in the USA?

My real question is what do we do with all the people who are cut out to do this type labor? Let them work at CC? No, given the threads original title. Maybe they could do construction or maybe just dig ditches? No, the illegals are eating up those jobs. Maybe they could become more educated and move up a notch to a technician of some type? No, downsizing is throwing some of the higher level position people down to those jobs. Seems to me like we have a big issue with what to do with the majority of the population...
madmax