Union Concessions

http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/keniversen.htm

Read this, then discuss.

One time a union tried to get into this mans company. They had to be escorted out by management to keep the employees from harming them.

alfadriver wrote: So you had an easy job that you didn't like- one that everyone has to put up with the same crap. You didn't keep the job for what reason? They didn't pay you enough? You could have all day to dream about projects that you could do with the money they were paying you....

I already said I didn't leave for the pay. I've left two jobs for ones that paid less, on purpose. I left that job because while I was building engines it wasn't fulfilling at all. I don't like to have to go to work and shut my brain off for the rest of the day and in fact be chastised if I were to use it.

I'm not blaming this all on the unions here. I think the unions are blood sucking vampires but the management are a bunch of spineless wusses. They should have stood up to the unions like the newspaper industry in Europe did. Sure it's tough in the beginning but the rewards are great.

All that being said I'm 100% in agreement that the execs should take the biggest hit before anyone else does.

Xceler8x wrote: egal boundaries do not have a bearing on good vs. bad management. The government is not telling a union to defend a crap worker. The government is not telling a corporation to run itself poorly and take ill advised risks with shareholder investments.

My point in comparing those two elements is that union mismanagement has a far wider berth in obfuscation than corporate mismanagement by way of regulations on businesses that don't have an equivalent in unions.

Therefore, any attempt at a direct corelation of bad management doesn't hold up cuz the window of opportunity to operate poorly while undetected is mismatched staggeringly.

mismanaging a company is far more likely to run into law breaking than mismanaging a union.

Toyman01 wrote: http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/keniversen.htm Read this, then discuss. One time a union tried to get into this mans company. They had to be escorted out by management to keep the employees from harming them.

Sounds like that guy knew how to run a company. He also took care of his employees. Hats off to him!

madmallard wrote: My point in comparing those two elements is that union mismanagement has a far wider berth in obfuscation than corporate mismanagement by way of regulations on businesses that don't have an equivalent in unions. Therefore, any attempt at a direct corelation of bad management doesn't hold up cuz the window of opportunity to operate poorly while undetected is mismatched staggeringly. mismanaging a company is far more likely to run into law breaking than mismanaging a union.

I could be misunderstanding you or missing the point. I iz a fart smeller but not that smert.

I think what you're saying is a company can't be run poorly in the sense of financial misappropriation or in other ways. Is that right? Because reporting and other documentation would then indicate that the company was not operating in a legal manner.

Am I on the right track?