0
justinb138

"Pay to play" politics?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

why dont you or one of your co-workers try and get promoted to make the changes you want? or go to a new company you agree with in the same role? or try to get a management position at another company if you're concerned about politics in trying to get promoted in your current company?

Not being a smart ass, honest questions. there are more options than just being mad at management and blaming em right?



Where did I say I was unhappy in my job? Clearly you misinterpret my position, which is that the only people with any responsibility for managing a company are its managers. Unions have a responsibility to represent their members in dealing with management, but they do not have a responsibility to manage the company.



Clearly you didn't see his reply was to rookie - your name just happened to be in the changed subject line.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Unions can't CAUSE company management to do anything. Management can AGREE to accept union requests, or management can reject.



John, how many times have you sat in the management chair in contract negotiations? The biggest problem faced is legacy contracts from a different era, negotiated at a time when economic conditions were quite different, by management teams who thought profits would roll on forever. Yes it may have been short sighted for them to grant those concessions, but don't think for a moment that they are not still in contract language today. And it is about impossible to get them out, unless one is willing to risk the entire enterprise to a strike.

I have been on both sides of this one, union and management, public and private, and the reality is a lot more complicated than you suggest.
Tom B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

John, just admit the fact that your blanket statement about 'managing the workforce' doesn't apply well to union shops and give it up. You look more and more silly the more you pursue it.

Simple really, if you've worked outside of academe.

"

What part of "management" is it that really gives you such a hard on time.



Probably the part where the "management" tells the striking union workers to get back to work and they laugh in his face.



If the manager was worth his or her "compensation package" that wouldn't happen. Don't blame unions for incompetent execs.

Unions didn't force GM to make cars no-one wanted. Unions didn't force AIG to make absurd financial decisions. Unions didn't force Moodys to give AAA ratings to junk. Management did that all by itself, and the rest of us are paying the price.



unions did cause workers to get compensation for hours they didn't work and benifits that were way to much causing the labor end to greatly increase the cost of operating the business over what is being paid overseas.



Unions can't CAUSE company management to do anything. Management can AGREE to accept union requests, or management can reject.



so unions don't strike? don't threaten? don't have work slowdowns? don't make management weigh the costs of not agreeing to union demands with the actions of the union codting the business money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



so unions don't strike? don't threaten? don't have work slowdowns? don't make management weigh the costs of not agreeing to union demands with the actions of the union codting the business money?



Of course they can, and MANAGEMENT'S job is to make the best decision for the company, because THAT is what MANAGEMENT is paid to do. The union is NOT responsible for managing the company, that is the exclusive job of management.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I have been on both sides of this one, union and management, public and private, and the reality is a lot more complicated than you suggest.



No, it isn't. The articles of incorporation clearly give the fiducial responsibility of managing any corporation to its board of directors, not to it unions.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You are very naive if you believe this.

He's quite literally correct. They can not force the company to do anything. They can, however, change the costs of their decisions. Example - "we're all going on strike unless you increase our pay." The company still doesn't have to increase their pay, but the cost of not increasing their pay goes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Of course they can, and MANAGEMENT'S job is to make the best decision for the company, because THAT is what MANAGEMENT is paid to do.



Yeah, exactly. What happens when managemnt is paid the same or less than the worker? Further, you don't seem to be able to handle the decisions management needs to make in order to keep a company profitable, especially right now. Workers tend to hide behind 'management is greedy and incompetent' while demanding to be paid MORE for the same or less work in the worst economy we've seen in decades. How is that justified?

example:

"Employers now pay the full cost for covering single employees, and workers can cover all their dependents by paying $10 a month."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/23/BUN81A9CEI.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/06/BUG81AFSLD.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/11/BU911AI303.DTL



How is it justified if management has gone through layoffs, salary freezes, and pays upwards of $200 a month for healthcare all while the state is in double digit unemployment? FYI, the salary gap is non-existent between 50% of laborers and management...

edit: who is greediest, management or laborer?
So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You are very naive if you believe this.

He's quite literally correct. They can not force the company to do anything. They can, however, change the costs of their decisions. Example - "we're all going on strike unless you increase our pay." The company still doesn't have to increase their pay, but the cost of not increasing their pay goes up.



I guess we have different interpretations of what is meant by unions causing management to do something.

On the flip side, if the company does not want to give the union the increase in pay, the union threatens to strike, and the management folds and gives them the pay increase, I think the union has caused the management to do something.

Please don't try to respond with "well the management didn't have to give in". That argument doesn't work and is very weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>You are very naive if you believe this.

He's quite literally correct. They can not force the company to do anything. They can, however, change the costs of their decisions. Example - "we're all going on strike unless you increase our pay." The company still doesn't have to increase their pay, but the cost of not increasing their pay goes up.



I guess we have different interpretations of what is meant by unions causing management to do something.

On the flip side, if the company does not want to give the union the increase in pay, the union threatens to strike, and the management folds and gives them the pay increase, I think the union has caused the management to do something.
.



If all management decisions were trivially easy the execs wouldn't deserve their multi $million compensation packages. Management has the responsibility to deal with the company workforce, including difficult negotiations with unions. In the end, the decision on how to proceed is management's to make.

Find me a single corporation whose articles of incorporation give managerial and fiducial responsibility to unions. Find me a single corporation where the unions rather than the board of directors are legally responsible to the shareholders.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>On the flip side, if the company does not want to give the union
>the increase in pay, the union threatens to strike, and the management
>folds and gives them the pay increase, I think the union has caused the
>management to do something.

Yes, they were a cause. They did not force anything to happen.

In exactly the same situation, another company may call their bluff, allow them to strike, fire them all and replace them with new employees. That's because it's a choice they can make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


He's quite literally correct. They can not force the company to do anything. They can, however, change the costs of their decisions. Example - "we're all going on strike unless you increase our pay." The company still doesn't have to increase their pay, but the cost of not increasing their pay goes up.



John is generally quite literally correct. The problem is that the world is not nearly so literal as he projects. Contract and labor law is not a physics lab.

We all realize that American management got crazy, especially post WWII, and let things into contracts that they should not have. But once there, they are all but concrete. What can a company like GM readily do, short of declaring bankruptcy and starting fresh?

If a company acted 1/10th the way John suggests they can, one of two things would occur. They would force a strike that would cripple the company, or more likely recieve an injunction via the fair labor acts and follow on laws essentially telling them to shut up and move on. The easy path? Settle, or outsource the work. Just look around and you will see both.

I agree with John's main point that company management has been weak, and got us into this mess, but the assertion that they can just be firm and fix it is wrong.
Tom B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>On the flip side, if the company does not want to give the union
>the increase in pay, the union threatens to strike, and the management
>folds and gives them the pay increase, I think the union has caused the
>management to do something.

Yes, they were a cause. They did not force anything to happen.



Here, let me refresh your memory since it was you that answered for Kallend when I responded to him. Here is what I responded to:

Kallend Said
"Unions can't CAUSE company management to do
anything."

To which I replied;

"You must be naive to believe this"

So you are agreeing with me and not Kallend. Thanks.

Now you may want to re-read your reply's to see how we got here.

(bolding mine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


He's quite literally correct. They can not force the company to do anything. They can, however, change the costs of their decisions. Example - "we're all going on strike unless you increase our pay." The company still doesn't have to increase their pay, but the cost of not increasing their pay goes up.



John is generally quite literally correct. The problem is that the world is not nearly so literal as he projects. Contract and labor law is not a physics lab.

We all realize that American management got crazy, especially post WWII, and let things into contracts that they should not have.



Who is to blame? MANAGEMENT.

Quote



But once there, they are all but concrete. What can a company like GM readily do, short of declaring bankruptcy and starting fresh?

.



I believe GM did exactly that. United Airlines did the same, screwed over their employees, and then the execs took big bonuses. That's because, as management, they manage the corp.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>What can a company like GM readily do, short of declaring
>bankruptcy and starting fresh?

Let's see -

Support efforts like the one that resulted in the Beck ruling, which reduces union's power over its members.

Close facilities that utilize exclusively union labor and re-open them elsewhere where unions are not a factor. (Unfortunately that "elsewhere" is, nowadays, almost always outside the US.)

>I agree with John's main point that company management has been
>weak, and got us into this mess, but the assertion that they can just be
>firm and fix it is wrong.

They can't fix it quickly. It will take as long to fix the problem as it took to create the problem to begin with. But that does not equal "it's unfixable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Who is to blame? MANAGEMENT.



Oh really? And who does MANAGEMENT work for? That would be stockholders, of which you are probably one. About everyone with an IRA or retirement fund is one. That is right John, you and I personally killed GM. .

Being serious for a moment John, I agree with you that management should have tried harder to stop much of this especially just after WWII. But even then it was much more complicated than you suggest. For example, unions can legally collude and plan an industry strategy, while companies can not. How long should management of one of the big three automakers solely absorb the costs of a strike, while the other two keep making cars.When the US was the only manufacturing base in the world post WWII, how long would stockholders keep management that wanted to hold a firm line on something that MIGHT happen in 25 or 30 years, and endure a long strike to do so? About five minutes.

Take a look at this.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/boulwarism-ideas-have-consequences/#

It is about GE Vice President Boulware, who tried to run labor management as you suggest. While successful for two decades with his approach (during which GE consistently offered great benefits BTW) ultimately the National Labor Relations Board found that companies could no longer broadly inform the bargaining unit members of the status of the negotiations, and further that they could not tell the public. Since then, many laws, case findings, and regulations really tie the hands of business. Too often the leaders who represent employees seem to have an agenda far beyond and separate from that, and by law, companies can't say a single thing.
Quote


Tom B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

He's quite literally correct. They can not force the company to do anything.


John is indeed quite literal, a good thing for an engineer/physicist, but a bit too much for this case. Making the argument that unions can't force management is like saying divorcing parents could not use their kids as a lever against each other, and blackmail would never be effective.

In John's freshman's physics class, I bet he argues that friction is independent of the contact area at the point of touch. If so, why do dragsters have such huge tires?

I know the answer John, just pointing out that simply models don't always well fit reality, especially on a topic where federal labor agents are involved.

God knows I am too often guilty of it, but one can be too literally John.


Tom B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Using that logic, divorcing parents could not use their kids as a lever
>against each other, and criminals could freely use blackmail.

Divorcing parents can try to use their kids as a lever against each other, and criminal can try to use blackmail. Such things often don't work (fortunately.)

>Neither can MAKE the person do things, right?

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Neither can MAKE the person (management) do things, right?
Correct.


Bill we can parse word definitions all day, but my point remains. Whatever word you use in place of MAKE, the impact is the same.

But check out the definition of the verb make. It includes to cause to happen, and to bring about

These kinds of actions most certainly fit what has happened at negotiation tables over the years. Not only can people "make" others do things, but we even have many career paths where the primary job role is exactly that; "making" people do things they otherwise would not.

Start with police detectives who interview suspected criminals. The plain fact is that a highly skilled interrogator can "make" many confess to terrible crimes. In several recent high profile cases it has become clear that they succeeded even in causing innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit, including capital murder. That definitely seems to be a case of making someone do something.

Jump to military recruiters... well we all know that story. How about timeshare units, where you get a free weekend if you just sit for their "three hour tour". Make is real there. Ever been to a CA auto dealership? I would not go back to one without a gun.

All of these professions are filled with people who make others do things. Unions hire professionals to do exactly that. Just as companies do in senior management.
Tom B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[reply

Yes, they were a cause. They did not force anything to happen.



So a company my brother worked for in Detroit. The workers voted to leave the union. So the union started picketing the costumers of said comapny saying they were anti-union. this does not go over to well in Detroit. It effectively caused the company to go out of business as all the customers were finding other vendors to stop being picketed(is that a word??).

I would say the union forced the company to do something. It forced them out of business. When it was thier own members that voted to leave the union.
You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



so unions don't strike? don't threaten? don't have work slowdowns? don't make management weigh the costs of not agreeing to union demands with the actions of the union codting the business money?



Of course they can, and MANAGEMENT'S job is to make the best decision for the company, because THAT is what MANAGEMENT is paid to do. The union is NOT responsible for managing the company, that is the exclusive job of management.



It is very hard to run a company when the employees are at the front gate picketing instead of working. I don't think management in those cases have much of a choice but to concede some of their demands or go broke waiting for the employees to change their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



so unions don't strike? don't threaten? don't have work slowdowns? don't make management weigh the costs of not agreeing to union demands with the actions of the union codting the business money?



Of course they can, and MANAGEMENT'S job is to make the best decision for the company, because THAT is what MANAGEMENT is paid to do. The union is NOT responsible for managing the company, that is the exclusive job of management.



It is very hard to run a company when the employees are at the front gate picketing instead of working. I don't think management in those cases have much of a choice but to concede some of their demands or go broke waiting for the employees to change their minds.



If MANAGEMENT has done such a piss-poor job of managing that the workforce decides to walk off the job, that is management's fault.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



so unions don't strike? don't threaten? don't have work slowdowns? don't make management weigh the costs of not agreeing to union demands with the actions of the union codting the business money?



Of course they can, and MANAGEMENT'S job is to make the best decision for the company, because THAT is what MANAGEMENT is paid to do. The union is NOT responsible for managing the company, that is the exclusive job of management.



It is very hard to run a company when the employees are at the front gate picketing instead of working. I don't think management in those cases have much of a choice but to concede some of their demands or go broke waiting for the employees to change their minds.



If MANAGEMENT has done such a piss-poor job of managing that the workforce decides to walk off the job, that is management's fault.




When management has taken cuts and reduced overhead trying to keep a company afloat and the union refuses to make any concessions what can the management do?

See my post 2 above yours. Even the workers at the company new the union was being unreasonable, and the company could not survive without consessions so they voted to quit the union. The union still went after the company and effectively put them out of business.
You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



so unions don't strike? don't threaten? don't have work slowdowns? don't make management weigh the costs of not agreeing to union demands with the actions of the union codting the business money?



Of course they can, and MANAGEMENT'S job is to make the best decision for the company, because THAT is what MANAGEMENT is paid to do. The union is NOT responsible for managing the company, that is the exclusive job of management.



It is very hard to run a company when the employees are at the front gate picketing instead of working. I don't think management in those cases have much of a choice but to concede some of their demands or go broke waiting for the employees to change their minds.



If MANAGEMENT has done such a piss-poor job of managing that the workforce decides to walk off the job, that is management's fault.



You are very shortsighted if you believe this is the only reason unions strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0