I suppose that the unions accelerated the move to getting our products from overseas.
The Whistler - 09:06am on 06/27/2007
Sure the unions were successful in getting some extra money and benefits for 780 workers, but they also cost 155 workers their jobs.
If it isn’t “market forces” that caused them to fire 150 people, who is doing the work that they would do? If it is simply to cut costs, they must have the same amount of work at the plant, so that means the remaining workers have to work harder to cover for the fired employees. They must deserve any raise they get, I mean to cover for all the fired employees.
Graeme - 11:06am on 06/27/2007
I would say either they 1) raised prices and cut demand or 2) moved part of the production where it was cost effective.
Since from what I understand Bobcat’s are selling well nowdays I’d suspect it was #2.
I’m sure the workers in China and Mexico appreciate the opportunity to better themselves.
The Whistler - 11:06am on 06/27/2007
Graeme,
As usual, you’ve only got half the equation, and that part you do have is in the wrong order.
While the union increased the labor cost of the plant by forcing the company to pay higher wages, the union did nothing to increase either sales or the per unit gross margin.
The union workers who weren’t fired had to make up the work of those who were let go precisely because the union’s actions had increased the plant’s expenses with no corresponding increase in revenue to offset the increased cost. Those union workers didn’t earn their increased paycheck. Their increased wages earned them the extra work to make up for it.
Bat One - 11:06am on 06/27/2007
If it isn’t “market forces” that caused them to fire 150 people, who is doing the work that they would do? If it is simply to cut costs, they must have the same amount of work at the plant, so that means the remaining workers have to work harder to cover for the fired employees.
If unions allowed employers to fire workers, we would all be fine. What this did is allow the firing of 20% of the workforce in order to provide higher wages and job security for the remaining 80%.
If every union contract allowed firing 20% of employees to offset the corresponding wage increases for the remaining employees, I am in favor of that. Also, if every union contract allowed for the firing of even more workers if costs can be cut, I am all for that too.
So what percentage of the workforce should be allowed to be fired during contract negotiations to cut costs?
Justin B. - 11:06am on 06/27/2007
We lost two big companies here oer union tactics. First, the union squeezed a manufacturing company so tightly that the company finally had to shut the plant downa dn ship the employees off to other states. The second company was sused by the unon over pay they claim they were entitled to. The company tried to negotiate a settlement warning the union that, if the company lost the full judgement, they would be forced to close. The union persisted and won and the company declared bankruptcy nd closed down. The union never got any money out of them, and all the people lost their jobs.
Well done!
Steve L. - 01:06pm on 06/27/2007
How about the Nimrod mechanics at Northwest airlines striking for higher pay while Northwest was in bankruptcy.
Anyone think that the mechanics found a $60,000 a year job to replace the ones they used to have?
The Whistler - 01:06pm on 06/27/2007
Whistler,
For those of us old enough to recall, both the machinists union and the pilots did a similar number on the late Eastern airlines. And though the fight with Wimpsinger’s machinists began before the airline actually went into bankruptcy, it was clear at the time that the unions’ greed was matched only by their stupidity.
Bat One - 01:06pm on 06/27/2007
I remember the Eastern debacle. The unions hated Eastern’s CEO so much they were willing to run the company out of business.
That was the same thing with Northwest, the mechanics at the end weren’t interested in themselves only in “getting even” with the Northwest management.
Not that they had anything to be upset about as they were getting a fine wage for the qualifications they had.
The Whistler - 02:06pm on 06/27/2007
Whistler,
I believe what you are referring to is the second go-round between the unions and Eastern management. The original fight began under the inept management of then-chairman and CEO Frank Borman.
Still, it doesn’t say much for the intelligence of union leaders or their members that they would willfully run their employer out of business. And then be surprised at the result.
Helluva a victory to contemplate on your way to file for unemployment.
I suppose that the unions accelerated the move to getting our products from overseas.
If it isn’t “market forces” that caused them to fire 150 people, who is doing the work that they would do? If it is simply to cut costs, they must have the same amount of work at the plant, so that means the remaining workers have to work harder to cover for the fired employees. They must deserve any raise they get, I mean to cover for all the fired employees.
I would say either they 1) raised prices and cut demand or 2) moved part of the production where it was cost effective.
Since from what I understand Bobcat’s are selling well nowdays I’d suspect it was #2.
I’m sure the workers in China and Mexico appreciate the opportunity to better themselves.
Graeme,
As usual, you’ve only got half the equation, and that part you do have is in the wrong order.
While the union increased the labor cost of the plant by forcing the company to pay higher wages, the union did nothing to increase either sales or the per unit gross margin.
The union workers who weren’t fired had to make up the work of those who were let go precisely because the union’s actions had increased the plant’s expenses with no corresponding increase in revenue to offset the increased cost. Those union workers didn’t earn their increased paycheck. Their increased wages earned them the extra work to make up for it.
If unions allowed employers to fire workers, we would all be fine. What this did is allow the firing of 20% of the workforce in order to provide higher wages and job security for the remaining 80%.
If every union contract allowed firing 20% of employees to offset the corresponding wage increases for the remaining employees, I am in favor of that. Also, if every union contract allowed for the firing of even more workers if costs can be cut, I am all for that too.
So what percentage of the workforce should be allowed to be fired during contract negotiations to cut costs?
We lost two big companies here oer union tactics. First, the union squeezed a manufacturing company so tightly that the company finally had to shut the plant downa dn ship the employees off to other states. The second company was sused by the unon over pay they claim they were entitled to. The company tried to negotiate a settlement warning the union that, if the company lost the full judgement, they would be forced to close. The union persisted and won and the company declared bankruptcy nd closed down. The union never got any money out of them, and all the people lost their jobs.
Well done!
How about the Nimrod mechanics at Northwest airlines striking for higher pay while Northwest was in bankruptcy.
Anyone think that the mechanics found a $60,000 a year job to replace the ones they used to have?
Whistler,
For those of us old enough to recall, both the machinists union and the pilots did a similar number on the late Eastern airlines. And though the fight with Wimpsinger’s machinists began before the airline actually went into bankruptcy, it was clear at the time that the unions’ greed was matched only by their stupidity.
I remember the Eastern debacle. The unions hated Eastern’s CEO so much they were willing to run the company out of business.
That was the same thing with Northwest, the mechanics at the end weren’t interested in themselves only in “getting even” with the Northwest management.
Not that they had anything to be upset about as they were getting a fine wage for the qualifications they had.
Whistler,
I believe what you are referring to is the second go-round between the unions and Eastern management. The original fight began under the inept management of then-chairman and CEO Frank Borman.
Still, it doesn’t say much for the intelligence of union leaders or their members that they would willfully run their employer out of business. And then be surprised at the result.
Helluva a victory to contemplate on your way to file for unemployment.