Those unions watching out for their workers...

[FreeSpirit74]

This is why unions have outlived their usefulness. Union members are just sheep who have not grasped that union leaders have made their money and the sheep will be left without a job....stupid, stupid, stupid.

Companies are not going to continue doing business if there is no profit in it...duh.

Absolutely. OSHA, DOL and EEOC take over now in those areas where the unions were the most useful in the past.

OSHA ain't no joke either... there have been two incidents at the company where I work (steel center) which were the fault of the WORKER involved in each instance, NOT of management telling them to do things they shouldn't. Both of them happened on Friday, PM shift (after the office closed), and one of them resulted in injury and in the other, a death. Both times, we weren't in the office Monday morning 15 minutes before OSHA was calling in, asking to speak to the plant manager, the safety manager, and the owner of the company.

 

[whatbogsends]

This is why unions have outlived their usefulness. Union members are just sheep who have not grasped that union leaders have made their money and the sheep will be left without a job....stupid, stupid, stupid.

Companies are not going to continue doing business if there is no profit in it...duh.

Right, because those lousy unions should have accepted the status quo of management getting 30-80+% increases while being asked to take an 8% decrease, as that is capitalism at work.

Workers demanding to be compensated appropriately? That, to those who shout the praises of capitalism from the rooftops, is somehow wrong.

 

[jpcedotal]

Right, because those lousy unions should have accepted the status quo of management getting 30-80+% increases while being asked to take an 8% decrease, as that is capitalism at work.

Workers demanding to be compensated appropriately? That, to those who shout the praises of capitalism from the rooftops, is somehow wrong.

to what point...til the company has to shut down? That's not being fair that is being vindictive.

 

[rcorlew]

Here's is my take on the matter and bear with me while I spell out this logic for a minute.

1) Outlaw unions (you will see why in a second)

2) (Many) People will begin to be exploited and make a decision about whether or not they wish to work for company willing to exploit them.

3) People will begin leaving companies that exploit their workers

4) Companies will have to change policies to keep and hire workers or shut down operations and go out of business.

5) Workers win when their company is not their enemy

6) Companies win when their workers are part of the team the fuels their success.

7) The consumer wins when they are not faced with many of the drawbacks that are fostered in a hostile workplace which lowers morale, customer service as well as product quality.

So now I am ready for the abuse I will not doubt suffer for this scenario I have laid out.

 

[jpcedotal]

Company has to start somewhere...usually an individual who forks out all the money and takes all the risk. As the company grows he hires workers.

what if...at the point a company has paid for itself initially, the owner must give up 50% of the company to the workers...no more payroll.

Now all the expenses and taxes loan notes for expansions are paid equally by both worker and owner. after that, what is left is divided 50-50.

Which side would scream unfairness...owners or workers?

 

[rambot]

Here's is my take on the matter and bear with me while I spell out this logic for a minute.

1) Outlaw unions (you will see why in a second)

2) (Many) People will begin to be exploited and make a decision about whether or not they wish to work for company willing to exploit them.

3) People will begin leaving companies that exploit their workers

4) Companies will have to change policies to keep and hire workers or shut down operations and go out of business.

5) Workers win when their company is not their enemy

6) Companies win when their workers are part of the team the fuels their success.

7) The consumer wins when they are not faced with many of the drawbacks that are fostered in a hostile workplace which lowers morale, customer service as well as product quality.

So now I am ready for the abuse I will not doubt suffer for this scenario I have laid out.

My guess?
INSERT
3a) Company decides they can go to a country with lower work standards.


Has anyone asked or answered the question why there are so few smaller companies or mom and pop operations that operate in a FULLY functional business environment and remain competetive without a need for unions in place? Why do those employees not feel a need to unionize?

 

[whatbogsends]

to what point...til the company has to shut down? That's not being fair that is being vindictive.

If management isn't willing to pay what labor is worth, then yes, to the point of being shut down. When only one side has leverage in bargaining, it's not bargaining, it's coercion.

 

[jpcedotal]

If management isn't willing to pay what labor is worth, then yes, to the point of being shut down. When only one side has leverage in bargaining, it's not bargaining, it's coercion.

so the company leaves the area or country....rebuilds and hires non-union

and u are left with out a job...point made I guess...

pass the potatoes

 

[jpcedotal]

The problem has went beyond paying the worker what he is worth. When paying wages makes the company unprofitable or non-competitive then unions have went too far.

 

[pgp_protector]

Time to stock up on Twinkies & freeze them.
Wait about a year when people start missing them & put em on E-Bay

 

[kermit]

Here's is my take on the matter and bear with me while I spell out this logic for a minute.

1) Outlaw unions (you will see why in a second)

2) (Many) People will begin to be exploited and make a decision about whether or not they wish to work for company willing to exploit them.

3) People will begin leaving companies that exploit their workers

4) Companies will have to change policies to keep and hire workers or shut down operations and go out of business.

5) Workers win when their company is not their enemy

6) Companies win when their workers are part of the team the fuels their success.

7) The consumer wins when they are not faced with many of the drawbacks that are fostered in a hostile workplace which lowers morale, customer service as well as product quality.

So now I am ready for the abuse I will not doubt suffer for this scenario I have laid out.

History and current 3rd world examples show that #4 doesn't happen. Without collective bargaining the company remedy is to divide and conquer labor.

 

[Metal Minister]

Time to stock up on Twinkies & freeze them.
Wait about a year when people start missing them & put em on E-Bay

*runs to find truck keys* Hmmm, is 200 cases too many?

 

[rcorlew]

My guess?
INSERT
3a) Company decides they can go to a country with lower work standards.


Has anyone asked or answered the question why there are so few smaller companies or mom and pop operations that operate in a FULLY functional business environment and remain competetive without a need for unions in place? Why do those employees not feel a need to unionize?

Those companies tend to be what is termed a "closely held company" meaning that the management team is comprised of the owners who actually fill day to day roles within the physical company itself among other things that define this type of company. This tends to lead to a spirit of teamsmanship where every person within the company is seen as a member of a team whose goal is the success of the team as a whole. This situation tends to be ideal as their aren't really any sides in an argument, in other words, management and workers don't tend to take opposite sides on matters. In fact, most closely held companies have perks for their employees like holiday dinners at nice restaurants and things of that nature. Ironically, these types of businesses tend to be an "S" Corp or LLC which pay taxes at the individual rates.

 

[jpcedotal]

I haven't even seen one Zombie

 

[trunks2k]

History and current 3rd world examples show that #4 doesn't happen. Without collective bargaining the company remedy is to divide and conquer labor.

Heck, historically even #3 doesn't tend to happen.

 

[whatbogsends]

The problem has went beyond paying the worker what he is worth. When paying wages makes the company unprofitable or non-competitive then unions have went too far.

Which is why the company gave executives 30-80% raises while cutting worker salaries, because the company was struggling so they all - wait, the one's running it got massive raises before the closing? That can't be right, can it? You again, lay the blame at the feet of the workers wanting their salaries to not be cut, but cast no blame on management greatly increasing their pay while the company was in turmoil.

Wait, perhaps the salaries of the executives, rather than the workers, is what is causing the company to be "not profitable".

That's right, those exorbitant salaries for top management are necessary to attract the best and brightest...who all miraculously come to the conclusion that workers wages, not their own, are too high. I wonder how much it would cost to hire CEOs that possess the capacity for introspection?

 

[mathetes123]

How does unionization affect product offering decisions and marketing strategies? How does it affect distribution deals? etc...

If your cost of production is such that you cannot compete, no amount of marketing is going to help.

 

[mathetes123]

The major flaw, contained right in the title, is thinking of the workers as one thing and the union as another thing. The workers ARE the union. The workers voted, and rejected the contract. This isn't the union doing something to the workers, this was the workers saying "Our labor costs more than that, if that's what you're offering, then we aren't selling our labor." That's capitalism in action. This company wasn't able - whether due to market forces or bad management or whatever - to survive in the market and so they failed. Capitalism isn't a one way street where owners are the only ones who get negotiating power, and the sales side isn't the only place competition occurs.

True capitalism would not have forced the owners, those who own the jobs, to hire union labor only.

 

[Thekla]

This is, iirc, Hostess' 2nd Chapter 11 in less than a decade.

They were initially "saved" by a buyout launched through at least one PE firm (30%), hedge fund/s (30%), and a handful of other investors.

The company was loaded with more debt (already indebted at the first bankruptcy), ostensibly for upgrades that did not occur.

The Union/s agreed to layoffs, job cuts, reduced wages and benefits. Which did not result in the hoped-for turnaround.

Commodity price spikes for sugar, corn, and wheat have presented a struggle for all snack food companies including Hostess.

From the looks of it, even with the Union agreeing to further paycuts, there was no guarantee that Hostess would survive -- especially with raises at the top, any call-in demands for loans, their failing "infrastructure", and stiff competition from healthier competitors.

This was a long story, a shaggy dog story, and we're only catching the headlined last moments of the saga. Imo, the blame cannot be laid solely w/ the Union - especially given their previous deep concessions.

 

[TerranceL]

You are attempting to take the culmination of a series of misteps, over many years, by the company and place it all at the feet of the Bakers Union.

The Bakers Union are the ones who pulled the trigger so yeah... it gets laid at their feet.