writers strike is getting me really po'd

rskarvan

If I'm not happy with my job... I'll join with my fellow co-workers and work diligently to fix the real problem at its source. There is absolutely no reason to let management disrupt my income stream. If management is incapable of generating the required revenue (increased sales, marketing, product innovation, etc) to sustain the business with a positive growth model for all, its better to let the business fail as a whole (executives included) than for my personal income to suffer the negative effects of falling behind the rising cost-of-living while poorly performing executives get ever increasing compensation packages with golden parachutes. Pfff.

rskarvan

Demiurge wrote: »

It's my job to look at the big picture. It's you who is stuck in your little corner of the universe thinking you're owed something for nothing.

Ok then, let me re-phrase.... you need to look at the REALLY BIG PICTURE. I'm not talking about the 40" rear projection, circa 1980 box television... I'm talking about the 80" 1080p Plasma with a BluRay.

Demiurge

rskarvan wrote: »

If I'm not happy with my job... I'll join with my fellow co-workers and work diligently to fix the real problem at its source. There is absolutely no reason to let management disrupt my income stream. If management is incapable of generating the required revenue (increased sales, marketing, product innovation, etc) to sustain the business with a positive growth model for all, its better to let the business fail as a whole (executives included) than for my personal income to suffer the negative effects of falling behind the rising cost-of-living while poorly performing executives get ever increasing compensation packages with golden parachutes. Pfff.

It's not your job, it's the company's job (i.e. the owner(s)). A point you seem to be completely oblivious to. You're hired to perform a task not to manage the company, unless of course you're hired to manage something.

The little secret is, if you knew dick about management you'd be managing something. It's not too hard to figure out. Executives are more valuble to the company than you are, which is why they get paid more. They've got chips in and they lose or gain with success or failure. You lose a job and some benefits, nothing more. They can lose a great deal of their personal wealth in the form of assets that they took the risks to amass. You did nothing other than fill out an application.

You're entitled to nothing. If your personal income is not at it's desired level at company A you leave and go work for company B. That's how it works in the real world.

As I said before, if it's so easy -- do it. Otherwise, shut your yap.

Demiurge

rskarvan wrote: »

Ok then, let me re-phrase.... you need to look at the REALLY BIG PICTURE. I'm not talking about the 40" rear projection, circa 1980 box television... I'm talking about the 80" 1080p Plasma with a BluRay.

Here's an idea -- have a point! It makes things so much more interesting for the reader.

rskarvan

I think what you like least about Unions is that the Federal Labor Act puts workers and management on the same level as equals. Management can destroy the quality of life for the workers. Workers can destroy the company. Its sort of like being a member country in the Nuclear club.

I think lots of management type people have an Elitist mentality. The truth is that the brick-layer has as much at stake in the building of the Catherdral as the architect. Both have put their reputation and pride on the line in their work. Both are EQUAL and both need the other to accomplish something great.

bobman1235

Bricklayer and architect are both workers.

The guy who owns the building company and put up the CAPITAL, his own money and reputation (both of which the bricklayer and architect are insulated from), to build the cathedral has MORE at stake.

rskarvan

Don't most OWNERS actually just interact with banks to finance the Capital? Never met a banker yet that actually did physical work. And, as evidenced by Citibank, the bankers actually are OWNED by the Kuwait, Saudi Princes, and Singapore.

Now, do you think the guy laying the bricks has any sympathy what-so-ever for the Saudi Prince that, in truth, financed the deal and put his Arab butt on the line?

Now... we are beginning to get to the BIG PICTURE.

jdhdiggs

They aren't equals.

Ron: I think you would agree that any monopoly is bad for the consumer right? Why then when the monopoly is the workforce and the consumer is the business it's ok all of a sudden? Is this your entitlement mentality trying to "stick it to the rich man"? The workers and the owners are definately not equal. Please don't even pretend that the person who put up all the financial risk and generated the orginal concept and began executing it is just as important as the guy on the floor. If the former guy never existed, there would be no jobs at all. If the latter hadn't existed someone else would have taken that job.

rskarvan

jdhdiggs...

If a Monopoly was bad for the consumer then why did the US government approve the merger of Boeing and McDonald Douglas? And, why is there no competition in Saudi Arabia (government approved Monopolies)? BTW, did you know that SLAVERY was legal in Saudi Arabia 50 years ago? Thats important when you consider the fact that Saudi Royalty finances Citigroup. It demonstrates that HISTORICALLY the Saudi Kingdom has a very low regard for worker-bees. Even today, all the Saudi worker-bees are imported from India and the Manilla (Phillapines). Thats where you can find REALLY CHEAP LABOR - ALMOST SLAVERY.

When the workers unite, the only work that will be done at all (for the OWNERS) is done by the people who have the largest Democratic VOTE in the USA. That is why we have the right to unionize... because Americans have proven in government that they want this right (and are willing to fight very hard to keep it).

Don't be so quick to forget how difficult the right to Unionize was to obtain. Lets appreciate the hard-work of our elders who gave this to us - their children.

Lots of banks can supply working capital. There is nothing special there. Everyone is replaceable. But, united a group can hold their own.

jdhdiggs

WTH are you talking about? Boeing isn't a monopoly. Ever hear of a little bitty company called Lockheed Martin? No competition in Saudi? Again, WTF does that have to do with US businesses or are you talking aaramco? If you think they are a monopoly, I've been giving you too much credit.

Ron, please, go run your own company and get educated. You know nothing about economics or running a business and now your showing your ignorance in international politics. Do you get your all of your information from pamphlets or does this depth of brainwashing only come by attending training seminars?

rskarvan

Yep... I've heard of Lockheed Martin. They currently produce military aircraft including: C130, F16, F/A 22, U2, etc...

Boeing commerical has competition only with Airbus. Lockheed Martin doesn't produce aircraft for that segment anymore.

Evidently, the good folks at Citigroup know nothing about running a business either. That is why they are now OWNED by foreign investments (like Saudi royalty). That can't be good for the long-term interest of American citizens.

Early B.

Some of the writers have already been fired. All of the writers should be replaced. This change would probably be good for the industry. Most of what they write sucks anyway.

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

I said you don't have a right to work for anyone, and you don't.

If you sucked at your job the employer should be the one firing you as it's his/her money that you're costing them. With a union, they hijack the control a private business owner has, which is wrong.

I'll say the same thing I say to everyone else who claims to know how buiness works or thinks they're just out to screw you -- go run one. Seriously, why don't you? After all, it's so easy making money from the sweat of the sheep morons of the world. :rolleyes:

Your comments here are totally ignorant. I have been on both ends of it, and never in my life have I supported such Communist horseshit.

I did say the employer has the right to fire you,and yes,I have also been on both sides of the fence,with my own money involved.Maybe it's the industry your in,mine is totally different.None have a right to a job,and they shouldn't.
What control does a union hijack in your end of the world? In mine,they can still hire and fire at will,bid on any kind of work they want,stay open or close whenever they want.Buy their materials from whoever they want,like I said,all unions are not created equal,AND NOONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO A JOB.
But once you the employer,give me that job,I want to be compensated fairly,and my union does that for me,nothing more,nothing less.And you see this as a bad thing??Old saying in the corporate world,everything can be negotiated.You as an owner negotiate everything,materials from suppliers,contracts,equipment,etc.......Unions above all fight for this sole thing,not for a job.Think about yourself,as an owner,if you lost the power to negotiate,how would that effect you and your buisness?Seems to me a loss of being able to negotiate is more communistic than anything.That is the crux of the matter.Unions are an easy target when the bottom line starts to shrink,god knows that bottom line has nothing to do with the money you throw at executives or suck out on the side.Don't get me wrong,I am a firm believer in hard work for a good day's pay,and do not advocate an entitlement to any job.Don't like the job,quit and move on,any employer should have the right to fire you for piss poor work.Maybe your industry just sucks at negotiating.:)Maybe your industry should turn their attention to the lawmakers who make it impossible to be a small buisness owner these days.Everytime you turn around,there is another tax being thrown at you.

Demiurge

He wants equality. :rolleyes:

Running a business doesn't make you better than someone else, which seems to be how you view the issue. I've done the **** monotonous work. I didn't like it, which is why I moved on to better things (in my opinion). Nobody is holding you in your position other than yourself.

Lets clarify -- the person who owns the business is far more important within that company than the guy boxing stuff up in shipping. The guy boxing stuff up in shipping is far easier to replace than the person making decisions for the company because that person is the reason the company exists. Their decisions, in great part, dictate success or failure. However, there is far more to a business that can be completely out of the control of the CEO/President, management, and the rest of the employees. Down sales can't always be fixed by dumping more money you don't have into marketing and advertising. A lot of things are directly related to the economy as a whole and the economy of your particular industry (I can't believe this even needs to be explained).

By and large, cutbacks don't happen because they want to screw you over. If they are made to screw you over, they should have that right -- just as you have the right to quit whenever you want. Any business owner with a brain realizes that his/her employees are their most important asset and will do what's necessary to make them happy.

The part you don't see is how much more you cost the company beyond just the dollar amount on your paycheck. A $50,000 salary is never just $50,000 to the company. You're entitled to nothing other than what's offered. Anything beyond a base salary or wage is a fringe benefit. All businesses need to compete for employees. If one company offers the same salary with health & dental while the other just offers the salary with health insurance the former may be the most viable option. In the end, you have a choice to make. If it's not working for you you're free to leave. You should not be free to destroy someone's business because you want to strong arm them into paying more money, especially when the money isn't there.

As far as the notion that Boeing is a monopoly, I have to laugh just like James did.

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, American Airlines, Northrup Grumman, Honeywell (Aerospace), Gulfstream, and Rolls Royce (Aerospace) are all customers of mine, just to name a few big ones.

Once again, you really don't know what you're talking about.

tonyb

hmmm....now there is something we can agree on,management and lower workers are not equals.

rskarvan

Unions want to negotiate the best possible pay for their employees. How is bankrupting the company in their best interest? Yes, a union can strike. And, yes, a company can hire replacement workers. I don't really see how a union can "strong arm" anything. They simply play the hand that they are dealt - just like management.

rskarvan

tonyb wrote: »

hmmm....now there is something we can agree on,management and lower workers are not equals.

If you divide workers into classes (upper, middle, and lower) within a union, you destroy solidarity. Therefore, for a union to work well, all workers should be equal. And, collectively, they are EQUAL to management.

tonyb

rskarvan wrote: »

If you divide workers into classes (upper, middle, and lower) within a union, you destroy solidarity. Therefore, for a union to work well, all workers should be equal. And, collectively, they are EQUAL to management.

Not like that Ron,executives are in a different class than a guy who drives a truck and should not be on the same level.However,that executive has the right to negotiate his contract,I want that same right.

rskarvan

I've often wondered... when a company is losing money... maybe, its time to fire the entire "executive team" and bring in a new, better performing (perhaps less-compensated) "executive team". It is rare when the guy loading the truck is the fault of the company losing money. Yet, he is often the first one asked to suffer.

Maybe if the IVY League guys had to compete with the India Executives, they would learn to get "lean".

tonyb

rskarvan wrote: »

Unions want to negotiate the best possible pay for their employees. How is bankrupting the company in their best interest? Yes, a union can strike. And, yes, a company can hire replacement workers. I don't really see how a union can "strong arm" anything. They simply play the hand that they are dealt - just like management.

This is true to some extent........look at concessions the unions made in the auto and airline industry as of late.Nobody wins if the company's go belly up.

Problem the unions have is asking members to take pay and benefit cuts while still paying top teir exec's millions.So much for the marketplace dictating pay scale eh? Airlines are all close to being bankrupt yet still pay their top exec's this kind of money.What did they do to deserve this pay?
Turn the buisness around? Nope. Expand the cutomer base? Nope.So by all means and purpose,if job performance and the market dictating pay,they should be fired or pay drastically reduced.But no,the pilots and stewardesses get it up the ****.Unions are makeing concessions to keep them afloat,but don't see anyone giveing alittle in management.

Wait now....we forgot about the whole corporate welfare gig.Won't be long before we the taxpayer,are asked to bail out these companies.

Demiurge

rskarvan wrote: »

I've often wondered... when a company is losing money... maybe, its time to fire the entire "executive team" and bring in a new, better performing (perhaps less-compensated) "executive team". It is rare when the guy loading the truck is the fault of the company losing money. Yet, he is often the first one asked to suffer.

Maybe if the IVY League guys had to compete with the India Executives, they would learn to get "lean".

YOU DON'T OWN THE COMPANY -- THEY DO.

Do you own a vehicle? What's the consequence of you not maintaining it? If you own that vehicle it's your right to drive it into the ground or keep it in good running condition.

If you give your friend a ride to work in that car everyday does he have a right to take the car from you because you didn't maintain it? No.

You can apply that to anything. If you own something you can do whatever you want to it. My property is not your property -- so no you don't get to "replace management" (owners) as you see fit. Are we living in the USSR here? :rolleyes:

bobman1235

Great idea, Komrade! Everyone equal! A brotherhood of man!

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

YOU DON'T OWN THE COMPANY -- THEY DO.

Do you own a vehicle? What's the consequence of you not maintaining it? If you own that vehicle it's your right to drive it into the ground or keep it in good running condition.

If you give your friend a ride to work in that car everyday does he have a right to take the car from you because you didn't maintain it? No.

You can apply that to anything. If you own something you can do whatever you want to it. My property is not your property -- so no you don't get to "replace management" (owners) as you see fit. Are we living in the USSR here? :rolleyes:

This is also true,you as an owner have the right to drive your company into the ground if you wish to.

Jstas

rskarvan wrote: »

Yep... I've heard of Lockheed Martin. They currently produce military aircraft including: C130, F16, F/A 22, U2, etc...

Lockheed Martin does way more than that.

Not only is L-Mart the world's largest supplier of discount defense goods, it also dabbles in a bunch of different civilian and commercial markets too. In fact, there is not a day that goes by where your life is not touched by a Lockheed Martin product or technology. The U.S. Mail sorting system was updated and put in place by LM. The TV that you watch, the cellphone that you use, the GPS satellites that you use were likely built by LM and if not, you can bet your sweet pituti that those satellites were put in orbit by an LM launch vehicle. The Census is handled now by a system that LM put in place. If you use an E-Z Pass system or something similar for toll collections on your way to anywhere, LM put the infrastructure in place for that. If you drive a Ford, GM, Dodge, Mazda, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover or Aston Martin, your car or truck likely has a component in it that was built by LM from teh ABS brain to the airbag actuators. If it has to work every time, without fail, you don't go to the Japanese for your parts. You go to companies like LM or TI or Raytheon. The list goes on and on.

LM doesn't just build planes either. LM builds the AEGIS weapons system which is not only on U.S. cruisers and destroyers but several other countries have the system on their ships too. LM is also at the forefront of ballistic missile defense. They do land based radar that is both mobile and stationary too.

LM also put a radar system in place in the mid-west that took the time it takes to predict a tornado from about 11 minutes to over 28 minutes. LM also provided the logistics support for the fleet of C-130's there were used to air lift supplies into Louisiana after Katrina rolled through.

Lockheed Martin isn't just guns and missiles. Boeing may be the largest company but take away their commercial airplane business and they drop down to like number 7 in size. Even with their commercial airplane business, they still aren't that much bigger.

A few years ago, LM tried to merge with Northrup Grumman. They have been partners on quite a few projects for many, many years, decades in some cases. The gubment blocked the merger because they felt that an LM/NG merger would create a defense contractor too big and create a monopoly.

shack

Since I don't watch network TV this strike has not affected me in any way...so I don't care in this particular situation....but...

Have I mentioned that UNIONS SUCK?

rskarvan

Executives aren't the dominant owners of a corporation. The stock-holders are the owners. Yes, executives own stock. But, nobody owns >50% of the stock of major US companies.

So, the executive teams should be modular and replaceable. University of India is just as capable of crank-ing out good management teams as any Ivy League school. And, those teams would be happy to out-perform the US teams at a fraction of the cost. Lets stop treating MBA's as "special". The fact is that skill-set is as replaceable as any other.

tonyb

All in all,kind a like this discussion,obviously,the manufactureing segment of our nation needs some work.
Ron,even though we both maybe pro union,workers and owners are not on the same level playing field pal.An owner,who puts up the money,takes all the risk of losing that money,has some inherit rights.You as an employee,also have some rights,fair pay for the job given,not the job itself mind you.As Demi pointed out,alot goes into running a buisness beyond pay scales and management that effect your bottom line.Good discussion though,and I see things are pretty different all over.

treitz3

Damn Ron, you are like the Energizer Bunny. Blah, blah, blah........

Screw the unions. Bring the shows back. End of story.

tonyb

rskarvan wrote: »

Executives aren't the dominant owners of a corporation. The stock-holders are the owners. Yes, executives own stock. But, nobody owns >50% of the stock of major US companies.

So, the executive teams should be modular and replaceable. University of India is just as capable of crank-ing out good management teams as any Ivy League school. And, those teams would be happy to out-perform the US teams at a fraction of the cost. Lets stop treating MBA's as "special". The fact is that skill-set is as replaceable as any other.

In that kind of corporate world,the exec's are replaceable,but by the board of directors,not you the employee.

On the flip side,look who sits on the boards,people with no experience in that buisness for the most part.

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote: »

Executives aren't the dominant owners of a corporation. The stock-holders are the owners. Yes, executives own stock. But, nobody owns >50% of the stock of major US companies.

So, the executive teams should be modular and replaceable. University of India is just as capable of crank-ing out good management teams as any Ivy League school. And, those teams would be happy to out-perform the US teams at a fraction of the cost. Lets stop treating MBA's as "special". The fact is that skill-set is as replaceable as any other.

OMG! Ron, there is a reason one of the largest companies in India is paying me and 2 other employees over $2,500/day EACH to turn their company around. It's because they can't produce the intellectual property domestically. But they can answer phones with the best of them!

Oh, and don't you follow the news? CEO's are pretty expendable from what I see, and they are pretty damn good at negotiating their own salaries...