Corporate ends

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boyk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Brad:
Your statements here indicate you want see capital and labor as completely separate. A company’s existence is due to it’s employees. Those companies that recognize this the best usually perform the best. I have done studies on this. Our group proposed that “customer-first” may not be the best strategy but rather “employee-first.” Happy employees make happy customers.

Southwest is one such example. They do well because they treat their employees well and, they, in turn, treat the customers well.

Separating the workers from the company and putting them on opposite sides is bad for the company, bad for the employees, and bad for the customers. It creates opposing interests. Unions, to me, should be a last resort - for the cases when management is tyrannical - but, even then, I say a better alternative for the employee is to find a different job - this is allowed in a free-market economy - a little get up and go can take you a long way.

Please consider these comments thoughtfully before you label them as “bunk.” Thank you.
These are very thoughtful and considered comments.
 
40.png
Brad:
If I owned a business in which employees wanted to unionize, I’d have no problem, as long as they did not demand pay raises for all employees, regardless of perfromance. Most unions today do demand such pay raises. A company cannot survive if employees are making more money than their performance brings in - it’s simple accounting.
No Union has ever opposed pay raises based on performance.
 
40.png
Brad:
Southwest is one such example. They do well because they treat their employees well and, they, in turn, treat the customers well.
Southwest is a unionized airline. Thank you for proving my point.
 
40.png
katherine2:
No Union has ever opposed pay raises based on performance.
In all the unions I have worked with it has always been pay based on job function only, the only exception being the occasional premium for seniority. My experience is that unions strictly oppose performance based pay.
 
40.png
JamesD:
In all the unions I have worked with it has always been pay based on job function only, the only exception being the occasional premium for seniority. My experience is that unions strictly oppose performance based pay.
Union don’t. The issue is having some standards for definintion of performance rather than the boss gets to unilaterially decide who gets raises and who doesn’t.
 
Unions do not support performance reviews. They support protecting the lowest denominator.

If unions supported performance reviews they would cease to have any membership and the ones who were fired for non-performance would then be subject to merit.
 
40.png
buffalo:
If unions supported performance reviews they would cease to have any membership and the ones who were fired for non-performance would then be subject to merit.
That is a low blow. There is no reason to issue a blanket insult to hard-working union members over a few bad apples. Those situations frustrate them, too.

Unions exist because employee-employer relations were a power struggle that few individual workers had the leverage to win. Unions can be misused and can even be violent, but they provide a non-violent avenue for workers to insist on just treatment, if workers elect to use them that way.
 
83 steps and over $500,000 to remove a teacher from the classroom. That should frustrate the good ones. They should move to change the union rather than accept the status quo.
 
buffalo said:
83 steps and over $500,000 to remove a teacher from the classroom. That should frustrate the good ones. They should move to change the union rather than accept the status quo.

You’re right about that: unions aren’t going to be any better than the membership makes them.
 
BENTONVILLE, AR—Wal-Mart, the world’s largest discount retailer, announced its biggest-ever rollback Monday, with employee pay cuts of up to 35 percent.

“Just in time for the holiday shopping season, we’re rolling back the hourly wages of workers in every department—housewares, automotive, health and beauty, and so many more!” Wal-Mart president and CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. announced at a press conference. “From Baton Rouge to Boise, we’re continuing our tradition of low, low prices and using our muscle to create unbelievable savings!”

“For us!” Scott added.

Scott then turned to a large projection screen on which the company’s trademark yellow happy face whizzed through the aisles of a Wal-Mart, enthusiastically “slashing” the hourly wages of employees all over the store.

“Paying $7.75 an hour for a Class-2 cashier with fewer than two years’ experience?” a cheery narrator asked in amused disbelief. “How about $6.50? And $8.45 an hour for a dockworker to unload boxes of bath towels all day? We think $6.75 sounds more like it!”

In addition to wage rollbacks, Scott said Wal-Mart will discontinue a number of shelf-stocking, warehousing, and sales-floor jobs that have been occupying valuable space on the payroll.

“Why, some of those old stockers have been collecting dust in our aisles and ledgers for five years,” the narrator said as the smiley-face ushered reluctant ex-employees and their bloated wages to the parking lot. “It’s time for a store-wide clearance! Out with the old and in with the new!”

The beaming smiley-face then placed a sign reading “Help Wanted—$5.15/Hour” in a window and welcomed in a long line of smiling job applicants bearing brand-new high-school diplomas, military discharge papers, and green cards.

“Wal-Mart is the place to find the latest of everything!” the narrator said. “The benefits of having long-time employees around don’t add up to the benefits we have to pay them. It’s time for newer, fresher, cheaper faces!”

As a result of the announcement, Wal-Mart’s stock rose 20 points Monday.

“We’re very excited,” Wal-Mart stockholder James Seaton said. “After all, everyone loves a good value. And you can’t beat the combination of low cost and high quality you find in good old-fashioned American labor.”

According to Scott, employees at all 1,362 Wal-Marts, 1,671 Supercenters, and 550 Sam’s Clubs will be notified of the rollbacks this week by greeters stationed at the employee entrance of each store. Greeters will address employees by their first names, shake their hands, and inform them of the store’s special new wage plan. Those who remain on staff will find red “Wage Rollback!” stickers on their time cards in celebration of the occasion and in compliance with the scant federal regulations protecting minimum-wage earners.

“Wow! A 24 percent reduction!” said Harold Reis, who works in the garden department in a Marshfield, WI Wal-Mart. “I can’t believe it! Why, I never saw cuts like this when I used to work at the family-owned Seubert Greenhouse!”

“But that was a few years ago,” Reis added. “Nowadays, you can drive all over town looking for someplace to pay you more, but good luck. Wal-Mart is the single biggest employer in 21 states!”

In spite of the savings on labor, Wal-Mart director of human resources Lawrence Jackson said he isn’t worried about incurring losses.

“What we might lose in terms of shrinkage of our work force, we’ll make back almost immediately,” Jackson said. “That’s what’s so great about being a part of so many small communities across the country—once we get a location up and running, people find out they can’t afford not to work for us!”

In a related plan, Jackson said Wal-Mart plans to slash the prices it pays for manufactured goods in various Pacific Rim and South American countries by 20, 30, and even 40 percent.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Southwest is a unionized airline. Thank you for proving my point.
Katherine - not too many of your points would I approve except in your imagination.

I studied Southwest. They treated their employees well as a matter of policy - it had nothing to do with unions.
 
40.png
katherine2:
No Union has ever opposed pay raises based on performance.
That’s just plain wrong or purposefully misleading. A union(not a proper noun by the way) would never turn down pay raises for all employess but a great many large unions will not allow someone that has been working under the union rules for 5 years to make more than someone that has been working under the union rules for 15, regardless of performance.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Union don’t. The issue is having some standards for definintion of performance rather than the boss gets to unilaterially decide who gets raises and who doesn’t.
This is hysterical Katherine. You support extremely simple objective standards for job performance (which does not reward an employee for complex skills) but you support subjectively complex analysis for moral debauchery.
 
40.png
Brad:
This is hysterical Katherine. You support extremely simple objective standards for job performance (which does not reward an employee for complex skills) but you support subjectively complex analysis for moral debauchery.
:clapping: Ah, liberalism in one sentence.
 
40.png
Brad:
That’s just plain wrong or purposefully misleading. A union(not a proper noun by the way) would never turn down pay raises for all employess but a great many large unions will not allow someone that has been working under the union rules for 5 years to make more than someone that has been working under the union rules for 15, regardless of performance.
First of all, unions don’t have the ability to not allow anything. They can only bargain with management.

Secondly, you are full of horse hockey. I worked 20 years as a lady member of the Steelworkers Union (while raising my kids – successfully-- including one son a priest).

You also don’t know diddly about Southwest Airlines.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
the bishops here in south Texas (some of the nation’s poorest counties) peg it at $7.00 and hour, and no parish workers are supposed to be paid less.
Does anyone know of a Walmart anywhere that pays less than $7.00?
 
40.png
katherine2:
Union don’t. The issue is having some standards for definintion of performance rather than the boss gets to unilaterially decide who gets raises and who doesn’t.
One of the objectives of a union is to protect the jobs of their members. This means protecting both the competent and incompetent. Merit pay points out the incompetent and makes it much more difficult to get raises for their incompetent performance. Unions want absolutely no differentiation between employees based on performance.
 
40.png
katherine2:
First of all, unions don’t have the ability to not allow anything. They can only bargain with management.

Secondly, you are full of horse hockey. I worked 20 years as a lady member of the Steelworkers Union (while raising my kids – successfully-- including one son a priest).

You also don’t know diddly about Southwest Airlines.
Did journeymen steelworkers have merit pay? How did it work?

When there was more work than the union could handle, did they open their doors to new members, or did they call in travellers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top