Rick 67
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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.
Reasons are irrelevant.
Name me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
Swing and a miss.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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.
Reasons are irrelevant.
Name me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
Swing and a miss.
Two more and you're out.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
d16842 0
QuoteName me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
John, how about the ones where the union sits on the board of directors? I don't know about today, but in the past they included UAL, Chrysler, and several others. That seems to have worked out really well, now didn't it?
But what is your point, other than repeatedly saying that management has the responsibility to manage? Ya think?
So the stockholders charge the officers and board with leading the company. That does NOT mean they have the control or power you suggest. Not even close. Often their choice is limited to enduring a protracted strike that might bankrupt the company, cave in to union demands which also might bankrupt the company, or close the plant and outsource the work, which makes the company money, at least in the short term. Money talks in those cases.
Bill strongly stated above that unions can't make companies do anything. I don't agree with him, but if that is true, so is the converse. Companies can't make unions do anything either. And either side can utterly destroy a viable business simply by getting one or two bad leaders in a row.
Tom B
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteName me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
John, how about the ones where the union sits on the board of directors? I don't know about today, but in the past they included UAL, Chrysler, and several others. That seems to have worked out really well, now didn't it?
When the union BECOMES management it IS management.
My position is unchanged.
Management has responsibility in law and in fact for managing the company, and that includes dealing with unions that may have been given too much power by previous generations of inept management.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
d16842 0
QuoteQuote
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.
Again? John, have you considered setting up a server, that could scour the world for any labor problems, so that whenever anything goes wrong it can immediately flood the wires, screaming out" POOR MANAGEMENT".
John, do you have ANY real and constructive suggestions on how the big old line companies with legacy union contracts, like GM, can turn things around?
QuoteQuote
But once there (terms in the labor contract), 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.
Take another look John. GM took a very wimpy bankruptcy, one that didn't come close to starting fresh. They had one opportunity, and one only, to make the big step that would have given them a path to fiscal redemption. Fresh would have been tossing out ALL of their contracts at that point, and trusting a federal judge to sort things out later. Starting fresh would have been a blank sheet of paper replacing the master labor contract. It could have allowed them to open future plants without an automatic union workforce. It could have let them use lower cost work rules like the foreign manufacturers' plants in the US, which are still great jobs.. They had a path to future long term redemption and instead walked away, taking a very short term bag of cash from Obama.
Quote
United Airlines did the same, screwed over their employees,
You can't have it both ways John. First you beat the crap out of companies saying in effect that they should never have accepted old contract terms. Then you push that management MUST act decisively to fix things now, that the officers and board are solely responsible to the stockholders to keep the company alive. And now in an example of them doing exactly what you suggest, you claim that they screwed the employees over.
Tom B
kallend 2,027
Irrelevant stuff (all of it) snipped.
Name me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Name me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
d16842 0
QuoteIrrelevant stuff (all of it) snipped.
That is odd. For you found all three points important enough to post yourself, just two posts up the page. Only when someone debunks them do they become irrelevant to the thread? I fear you have been in that Ivory tower classroom too long John.
And John, despite your repeated claim you have made only one point in this thread, that unions don't run companies, you have made at least nine other points, few of which seem to match reality.
Quote
Name me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Uh... John.... I have not, and I don't believe anyone else has argued that fiducial responsibility is given to unions. The only exception I can think of is when unions themselves own significant interest in the firm. That becomes an odd circle come negotiation time, with their feet in both campes, but it is an exception to normal practice, and not significant on a national scale.
Tom B
d16842 0
QuoteWhen the union BECOMES management it IS management.
It is not quite that clear cut, for it exists on both sides of the negotiation table, at the same time. Owner, and bargining unit. But again, the few companies like that are exceptions. Few unions actually have seats on corporate boards.
Quote
My position is unchanged.
I am sure it is unchanged John. The problem is that the rest of us can't understand through the smoke and mirrors just what your position actually is. Let's take a look.
Here are the first three of your "one" claim in this thread. Six more to follow later.
But unions still do not manage the company, which is ALL I have claimed in this thread. Really John? Actually you have made 9 separate claims, beyond stating that unions don't manage companies. And the hilarious part is that I can't find where anyone disagrees with you on that point.You seem to be debating that one with yourself. Let's take a look at your other claims.
When told "Management tells the striking union workers to get back to work and they laugh in his face", John replied: If the manager was worth his or her compensation package that wouldn't happen. Don't blame unions for incompetent execs. Now there is one hell of an unexplained belief. Make that an unexplainable belief. Yes John, it may be more likely to happen to bad management to be sure, but striking workers laughing at management most certainly is not limited to the incompetent ones. It is strike mentality, kind of like jocks in the locker room. Rarely is it more. And it is not all that rare either. If you believe that competent management makes all such problems go away, then you must live on planet Utopia.
You followed that up with: It makes absolutely no difference what the worker's reasons (for a strike) may be. MANAGEMENT'S JOB is to manage the corporation including its workforce. Yes that is their job, but the reasons for the strike will most certainly impact your ability to do your manager job, and perhaps even to keep the company alive. The reason for the strike is kind of important to know after all. Do you just make this stuff up?
Tom B
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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.
Reasons are irrelevant.
Name me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
Name me one company that can afford to have the entire workforce survice a strike if they don't give something to bring them back to work?
BDashe 0
QuoteIrrelevant stuff (all of it) snipped.
Name me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Tom-
At this point he is trolling. Your rebuttal must have made too much sense.
-Brett
So there I was...
Making friends and playing nice since 1983
Making friends and playing nice since 1983
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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.
Reasons are irrelevant.
Name me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
Swing and a miss.
Two more and you're out.
Kallend, your three strikes were up quite a while ago in this thread.
I say that there are many reasons for a union to strike besides what you have stated and you reply with this. Pathetic but very irrelevant.
QuoteName me one US corporation whose incorporation documents give managerial responsibility to the unions and not to the board of directors.
kallend 2,027
Name me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Since NONE of you are able to do this, it's clear that you actually can't rebut my initial assertion at the beginning of this thread (post #8, #10, #20) that management, not unions, is responsible for managing companies. That is how it is IN LAW and IN FACT.
All that the rest of you have posted is hot air trying to dispute posts #8, 10 and 20, but nothing you have posted actually rebuts my original assertion.
Since NONE of you are able to do this, it's clear that you actually can't rebut my initial assertion at the beginning of this thread (post #8, #10, #20) that management, not unions, is responsible for managing companies. That is how it is IN LAW and IN FACT.
All that the rest of you have posted is hot air trying to dispute posts #8, 10 and 20, but nothing you have posted actually rebuts my original assertion.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteName me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Since NONE of you are able to do this, it's clear that you actually can't rebut my initial assertion at the beginning of this thread (post #8, #10, #20) that management, not unions, is responsible for managing companies. That is how it is IN LAW and IN FACT.
All that the rest of you have posted is hot air trying to dispute posts #8, 10 and 20, but nothing you have posted actually rebuts my original assertion.
GM, post-porkulus.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteName me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Since NONE of you are able to do this, it's clear that you actually can't rebut my initial assertion at the beginning of this thread (post #8, #10, #20) that management, not unions, is responsible for managing companies. That is how it is IN LAW and IN FACT.
All that the rest of you have posted is hot air trying to dispute posts #8, 10 and 20, but nothing you have posted actually rebuts my original assertion.
GM, post-porkulus.
Incorrect.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteName me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Since NONE of you are able to do this, it's clear that you actually can't rebut my initial assertion at the beginning of this thread (post #8, #10, #20) that management, not unions, is responsible for managing companies. That is how it is IN LAW and IN FACT.
All that the rest of you have posted is hot air trying to dispute posts #8, 10 and 20, but nothing you have posted actually rebuts my original assertion.
GM, post-porkulus.
Incorrect.
Here in the reality-based community, UAW was given partial ownership...not sure what happened in YOUR world.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
BDashe 0
Troll:
As previously stated more than once, none of us are arguing that management exists to manage the company, or than unions do not manage the company directly. Thanks for the obvious and irrelevant fact though. Also, w/r/t GM, when a union member sits on a board, magically his values change and he is going to drop his entire agenda? Of course not. That is a rare instance anyway, so not that relevant.
What can be universally agreed on is unions are manipulative and can try to strong arm management into decisions often leaving few realistic options as Tom previously stated. Not sure why you felt the need to "snip" his entire segment exemplifying that fact. That happens all the time, and is happening in SFO right now as I showed with the 3 articles i posted earlier.
Tell me- how is it justified for a person that brings in 35K minimum (not including overtime/double pay scenarios) that makes 8-10 beds a day, with full benefits for their entire family for $10 to strike for more pay and benefits when 12.5% of the state's population is unemployed?
It isnt, management wont stand for it. The unions are going to try their butts off in smear campaigns and childish behavior to influence management's decision. As Tom said, you cant have it both ways- right now the employees should be happy, but since it is a contract year, for that reason alone, they feel they deserve more for doing absolutely nothing extra. In the middle of one of the worst recessions in history, management can not budge or the company will fail and everyone is out of a job. Yet in your mind 'the employees get screwed over.'
As previously stated more than once, none of us are arguing that management exists to manage the company, or than unions do not manage the company directly. Thanks for the obvious and irrelevant fact though. Also, w/r/t GM, when a union member sits on a board, magically his values change and he is going to drop his entire agenda? Of course not. That is a rare instance anyway, so not that relevant.
What can be universally agreed on is unions are manipulative and can try to strong arm management into decisions often leaving few realistic options as Tom previously stated. Not sure why you felt the need to "snip" his entire segment exemplifying that fact. That happens all the time, and is happening in SFO right now as I showed with the 3 articles i posted earlier.
Tell me- how is it justified for a person that brings in 35K minimum (not including overtime/double pay scenarios) that makes 8-10 beds a day, with full benefits for their entire family for $10 to strike for more pay and benefits when 12.5% of the state's population is unemployed?
It isnt, management wont stand for it. The unions are going to try their butts off in smear campaigns and childish behavior to influence management's decision. As Tom said, you cant have it both ways- right now the employees should be happy, but since it is a contract year, for that reason alone, they feel they deserve more for doing absolutely nothing extra. In the middle of one of the worst recessions in history, management can not budge or the company will fail and everyone is out of a job. Yet in your mind 'the employees get screwed over.'
So there I was...
Making friends and playing nice since 1983
Making friends and playing nice since 1983
QuoteName me one corporation whose articles of incorporation give fiducial responsibility to unions rather than a board of directors.
Since NONE of you are able to do this, it's clear that you actually can't rebut my initial assertion at the beginning of this thread (post #8, #10, #20) that management, not unions, is responsible for managing companies. That is how it is IN LAW and IN FACT.
All that the rest of you have posted is hot air trying to dispute posts #8, 10 and 20, but nothing you have posted actually rebuts my original assertion.
Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with why unions strike as I have stated several times.
I have not argued that unions are perfect or blameless. Unions do some pretty damn stupid stuff.
Regardless, the union is NOT responsible for managing the company, that is the exclusive job of management, given to management by the stockholders.
If the execs agree to bad contracts with the union, shame on management.
I understand what you are saying. Yes it is managements job to manage the company. It is the unions job to get what they can for the workers.
The reality is a bunch of greedy people all trying to stick their fingers into the pot and get as much as possible for themselves. Whether union or management. When the pot gets smaller noone wants to be the one to take less. So in the end they all end up with no pot to stick their fingers into.