Pro union/Anti Union ?

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> I was just trying to point out that she can probably not expect any help from the union </font>

<font color="black"> Based on their performance so far, I don't think my wife expects anything from the union in the way of any help for any reason. Then again, I doubt she would want any help from them.

Oh, and more importantly, she likes DOUBLE ONIONS on her burgers. And roasted garlic too! </font>

 

[Junkman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( <font color="red"> Oh, and more importantly, she likes DOUBLE ONIONS on her burgers. And roasted garlic too! </font> )</font>

Your wife has to have good taste....... otherwise, she wouldn't have picked you!!!!!!! ........ /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[wroughtn_harv]

I guess since we've ventured from the what to the why I should explain why I'm so pro union and actually a militant onion supporter.

I'm pro union because of the terrible condition of American management pure and simple. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There wouldn't be a labor problem if management could do what they're paid to do. They can't. But they can sure point fingers at everything but a mirror explaining their incompetence. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I just had a bowl or three of roasted Hatch peppers flavoring a pork hash. It's a gringo version of chile verde with a kick. Part of the wonderful flavor comes from sauteed onions and garlic that accompanied the pork in it's journey from raw meat to something sweet.

Red onions were designed by a higher power to be short and squatty bodied for a reason. It just took that higher power a long time to learn mankind the reason. It must have been management that was the hitch in the get up keeping us from finding hamburgers. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

A hamburger isn't a real hamburger without a quarter inch thick slice of red onion to keep bread in it's place.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="red"> I'm pro union because of the terrible condition of American management pure and simple.

There wouldn't be a labor problem if management could do what they're paid to do. They can't. But they can sure point fingers at everything but a mirror explaining their incompetence.
</font>

I'm president of a company that voted its own union out a decade or so ago. A couple years ago, I changed the benefits package of the company and gave 50% ownership of the company to the employees. Oh, and by the way, the value of the stock has increased every year. Where is that mirror you were talking about?

 

[daedong]

Bob,

I hope harv doesn't mind, but i think he is talking about the rule not the exception.

 

[daedong]

Bob,
<font color="blue"> I'm president of a company that voted its own union out a decade or so ago. A couple years ago, I changed the benefits package of the company and gave 50% ownership of the company to the employees. </font>
Please take this at face value, what was the motivation

 

[Bob_Skurka]

First, I don't think I, or my managment team is the exception. In fact, I think most American companies are responsible to their employees and their ownership. I regularly meet with other company presidents, we are all in the same industry (distribution) and none of the companies in the group I am involved with are union shops. 3 are either fully or partly employee owned. I do know of some in this industry that are union, but the vast majority are not. So that would make non-union the rule. I suppose it would also make responsible management the rule, not the exception.

As for the motivation to go to employee owernship, in the case of our company, the choice to go to part employee ownership was to create a situation where it would be difficult to be swollowed up in a hositile take over bid.

And if you are curious about the size of the company's that I meet with, the smallest is about $20,000,000.00 and the largest is about 500,000,000.00. Ours is comfortably in the middle of that range. So when I write this stuff, I am talking about companies with lots of employees, resources, etc. None of these are little businesses with a small labor force.

Again, I do not believe I, my management team, or our company, is the exception to anything, I think we are pretty darn mainstream, pretty normal, and I believe that people who wax eloquent about the mismanaged affairs of business are simply painting a broad stroke without knowing many of the specifics of the businesses they are even referring to.

And my hamburger tonight had a mixture of roasted onion and roasted red peppers.

 

[daedong]

Bob,

In Australia this situation of employees having some level of ownership is not wide spread at all i can only think of maybe 2 or 3 large business where this happens. You seem to be talking about a particular section of enterprise (distribution). Is this employee ownership wide spread through other sectors in the US, and if so what a great thing your country has.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

It is not widespread in any segement of any industry, not even mine. It just happens, by total coincidence, that I am involved with a group of company presidents that meet together and 3 of the firms in the group (out of 10 companies) happen to be all/part employee owned. That is an extremely high %. On average, it is probably under 2% in any industry.

But that is not why we are non-union.

It also does not explain why we have been growing our stock value since long before we became an employee owned company.

 

[daedong]

Bob,
<font color="blue"> I do know of some in this industry that are union, but the vast majority are not. So that would make non-union the rule. I suppose it would also make responsible management the rule, not the exception.
</font>
<font color="blue">It is not widespread in any segement of any industry, not even mine. It just happens, by total coincidence, that I am involved with a group of company presidents that meet together and 3 of the firms in the group (out of 10 companies) happen to be all/part employee owned. That is an extremely high %. On average, it is probably under 2% in any industry.
</font> Bob you are losing me a little. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Ole_Hickory]

I do not work in a Union shop,never have,but I know the threat of a Union has kept me in good wages and benefits for years. The Union has helped me in that sense.

 

[daedong]

Ole_Hickory
Never a truer word spoken.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Where is that mirror you were talking about?)</font>

Present company excepted, of course! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The broad brush comes from intimate experience. The working class can't afford me is another general statement from the same brush. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

I've been a superintendant responsible the work of seventy craftsmen. I've also ran crews from two to sixteen successfully. It isn't unusual from me to be on a job and have the supervision of the other trades along with the person having the work done discuss labor issues with me.

I get to see labor problems from just about all the perspectives.

Let me give you an example of some typical situations.

Management can't handle working with a cross section of people. So they come up with cookie cutter solutions that work with some types of people and are total disasters with others.

So they come up with a neat system that's been tried and discarded many times before but they've never taken the time to look at the system's history.

Bonus and incentive programs is a typical example. Since they assume the employees are in it for the money management sets goals with rewards for meeting them. It sounds great.

Three problems with that scenario.

One, it only really works with a very small percentage of the population. I know. I'm one. I got to be superintencdant because I was making more bonus money than twelve of my compatriots combined. It worked for me because I understood that quality paid. Doing the job right the first time and giving the crew some leeway as long as the quality never varied worked.

Two, if the goal becomes the reward then the company's goals are sabotaged. That's when quality drops because immediate gratification becomes the priority.

Let me give you an example from the real world.

My wife works at a customer care center for Verizon. A customer has a problem with their telephone service. Ideally they call in and one person handles it. Instead of investing in training so the number of people with that capability is available they decide to have people who just answer the phone and they route the call for repair.

The next step was to reward those who handled the most number of calls in the shortest period of time. You see where this is going?

The end all is the employees are diverted from working for the company and start working for themselves. They rush the calls through not getting them properly handled. The reputation of the company is tarnished. But management has handling numbers where they want them.

Three, the people who thrive best on this system are thieves. They're the ones that will lie, hide, cheat, steal, and be gone just minutes before the roof collapses. Belo's Dallas Morning News is finding this out right now. They went on an incentive program for everyone involved on their circulation numbers. It looks like it'll cost them in the hundred plus millions of dollars for rebates to their advertisers. Not to mention the shock to the value of their stock which hurts everyone.

You can look at every situation where management takes the emphasis off of doing the business of the company to doing business for yourself and there's always a disaster.

Another thing that's in vogue right now is "making it so any idiot can do it" and then complaining to high heaven that all they get for employees are idiots.

They don't seem to understand that accomplishment and it's rewards only comes with adversity. If there's no adversity or challenge then there's no sense of accomplishment or success in a task. So when the challenge is removed the reason for doing it in the first place is gone.

So management makes it all about a paycheck and then complains that all their employees are only there for the money. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Junkman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( My wife works at a customer care center for Verizon. A customer has a problem with their telephone service. Ideally they call in and one person handles it. Instead of investing in training so the number of people with that capability is available they decide to have people who just answer the phone and they route the call for repair.

The next step was to reward those who handled the most number of calls in the shortest period of time. You see where this is going?

The end all is the employees are diverted from working for the company and start working for themselves. They rush the calls through not getting them properly handled. The reputation of the company is tarnished. But management has handling numbers where they want them. )</font>

I know this first hand. There was a problem we had with an 800 telephone number controlled through Verizone that took almost 2 years to resolve. It was only resolved because it happened to come across the desk one day of someone that was knowledgeable. Prior to that it was considered "unrepairable". We were getting calls for "My T Mobil" on our 800 number. Their toll free number was 866. We arranged to have a "account code" added to the number so any one calling had to enter this number to complete the call. It would work for calls from some states, but not all states. It was only my constant "harassment" of them in the end to resolve this problem that finally fixed the problem. Prior to that, I would complain to them when my employees complained to me. Many of them had just gotten used to the annoyance. Repair service would say that it had been fixed, but the calls continued, and then someone said that I would "just have to learn to live with it". That was the wrong answer. Then I called daily with my complaint until it was fixed. Even then, it took over 3 months before being resolved. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif