it is amazing. . .that no one needs civil rights anymore and the environment no longer needs protection because business is now DOING THE RIGHT THING and would do so without governmental intervention .. . huh It amazes me That people expect business to continue doing things that it now HAS TO BE FORCED To do. . . . . Rocket River
See, according to the "free market" theory, businesses would gladly volunteer to pay millions of dollars a year to ensure that their products are safe and environmentally clean as possible. Oh, wait.
This sounds like my International Business lecture from last night, which I agree with 100% completely. Good class, BTW.
I don't agree with the environmentalism, civil rights, or feminism (although to be accurate you should really say 'environmentalismS, civil rightS, or feminismS') stance that someone is taking. However, there are other mechanisms that are more efficient in keeping corporations in check on the labor front. As I said to begin with, unions served an absolutely vital function in our society. However, saying that they got us the weekend, stopped child labor, got compensation for injured workers, improved working conditions etc IN THE PAST is in no way indicative of what they do for us NOW. Of course, I am a recruiter, and feel I serve the same function that unions used to serve, without forcing corporations to pay high wages and benefits to lazy or ineffective workers, as unions do. Combine the emergence of my industry, with the increased information the average employee has, with the increased mobility the average employee has, and few industries need unions. At the same time you might say, there are industries, like manufacturing, that NEED unions. But those industries really don't belong in our economy now anyway. It is simply infeasible to assume we can continue to pay exorbatant amounts of money to someone to build something that could be build for a tenth the price somewhere else. Trying to hold on to that is only slowing the transformation of our economy. If you need the protection of a union for your wages, you are in the wrong position skills and job wise.
Yeah, and it's all about the profits. At least you're honest, and I honestly appreciate that. How many of you work 40-hour weeks? I sure don't. Can't remember when I had a 40-hour week. The job simply requires more than that, and I'll lose the job if I don't do it. How many of you work on part of a weekend? Oh, I know. "But I love my job." I do too. But what if you spent your entire weekend with your family and friends? Is that so crazy? So, let's go ahead and toss unions out (they're already incredibly weak these days), but be aware of the following: just because the guards aren't firing shots doesn't mean they don't need to be there. In our union shop, things are peachy, and we've helped our company (a university) quite a bit over the years. Better conditions have meant better employees (present writer excluded) and steadily better research funding and student satisfaction. If a union's brass doesn't become bloated and greedy, they can do great things. B-Bob AFT, AFL-CIO
I live in the Beaumont area. This is a heavy industrial area-a place to make a living. I have worked construction all my life and my experience with unions is in building trades. New construction and maintenance in the Beaumont area refineries was done exclusively union until 1985. In a 2 to 3 year period the area went from 100% union to 10% union. By 1988, many of the building trades craftsmen move from the Beaumont area. Like anyone -they followed the money- free market and all that. It took a few years, but by the early '90' construction boom in the area - we experienced a shortage of skilled workers. There are few apprenticeship programs now, so we train workers in house now. This has had mixed results. We can train young people to operate heavy equipment, but the really good ones of course follow the money ( I would too) -so we experience a shortage during booming times. I was raised in construction, My dad, brother , and I worked together for many years. I am grateful to have had that opportunity. A great experience - seeing all sides of running a business. We struggled at times. We worked hard for not much money at times. My dad retired in 1982 and we continued to run the business. Over the years a few individuals could give you a bad experience on occasion - and some would blame the union. Overall - objectively the unions did provide us with higher -better skilled workers more consistently than we can supply a job now. We tend to keep the good operators long term. One operator has been with us since 1984. We have paid his benefits in all along. He will have a better retirement than some others who are not union members. I cannot speak on a global level, but on an individual level the unions are not bad. I am an owner and stockholder in the construction industry- you must have skilled people to put these jobs in. Union or non union - you need skilled workers- safety, and profitable work to survive...
Worldcon, Enron and other corporationshave committed horrible wrong. I guess I could be similarly simplistic and say corporations have done some good things, but have outlived their usefulness. In the real world of the work place. Corporations represent the interest of the major stock holders, or at least the major executives. We need unions to represent the interests of ordinary workers who aren't major execs or stockholders. Higly paid employees like doctors and even lawyers are joining unions when they are treated like powerless employees. It of of course important politically for unions who represent the interests of millions of employees to oppose the narrow interests of the corporate elite.
What Hayes said. My experience in a union was at UPS. When I was in management, there was 1 guy who would load 2 packages a minute - he was trying to stretch a 4 hour job into an 8 hour job - he admitted to me that he was purposely going slow for this reason. I couldn't help him load so I had to get another person to help him do a 1/2 man's job (he was already on the slowest line). Because of the union, there was no way I could let him go. Sly - if your out there - I still remember you...
How do you square this ridiculous theory with the fact that in almost all large corporations, employees hold stock in the company? Enron was a prime example of this. Part of the angst experienced by the employees was not being able to sell their ENE stock as the crash occurred. Would unions have changed this? Nope. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling held millions of shares in Enron, and the employees did as well. Incentives were aligned. Your argument is proven to be wrong. Unions are a horrible distortion to the free market principles that should govern the labor market. They drive up prices for consumers and drive down profits for shareholders. They have done their best to inflict major damage on such vital industries as airlines, coal mining, and a multitude of manufacturing and services firms. Spawned out of the need to artificially inflate salaries of employees who, based on their own credentials, deserve less, unions are an obstacle to economic growth. By removing key elements of competition from the labor market, unions restrict productivity and impede change. They are often pernicious in their behavior, purposefully attempting to inflict damage on the very company who signs their checks. Unions cripple the flexibility of entrepreneurial managers, punishing them for taking risks. High qualified, motivated employees will always be in high demand. They need no unions to offer them competitive wages and job security -- they earn it.
Even though I don't have much sympathy for Enron employees, because they fell victim to the same greed that brought down the company, Ken Lay encouraged his employees to keep their 401K' invested in Enron stock and did not let them adjust their allocations when the company was in trouble. We are talking about people's retirement accounts, not some extra stock incentives.
Get the facts straight. Ken lay did not force them to not adjust their allocations. The retirement plan administrator had a temporary window where changes to the account were frozen. Get it right if you are going to make accusations that serious. If you want to continue to throw the word Enron around for political gain, then at least have the decency to know what you are talking about.
correct me if i'm wrong TJ...but wasn't he telling them to keep their investments in Enron in place...while he was pulling his out en masse?
TJ...you cannot possibly be defending Ken Lay. If he's your poster child, I'll be joining Glynch's team.
Ken Lay encouraged the employees to stay with the stock as late as September of 01 calling it an incredible bargain after he had sold $21 million worth of shares in before that in that year alone. And I wrote encourage, not forced. I have nothing to gain politcally.
You also wrote that he "did not let them adjust their allocations", which is a bold faced lie. You purposefully attempted to mislead. Ken Lay is not my poster child, but when liberals attempt to lie about Enron and use it as a weapon, they should at least get the facts straight. Yes Lay encouraged people to stay in the stock -- what else is he supposed to do? He was the CEO of the company -- any other behavior would have led to all investors getting pummeled even faster than they already were.
