Re: Now if only WV's government would acknowledge same

by Aaron Mon May 05, 2008 3:44 pm

Stephanie wrote:
SamCogar wrote:
Cato wrote: However, I have spent a lifetime watching unions and management work together and have found that unions only ever get what managmenet is willing to give them.

Well now, I will agree with Aaron on that.

Management NEVER willing gives into the demands of the Unions as many concessions as they unwillingly are forced into conceeding to the Union's demands.

I remember the story about the Attwater-Kent Radio Corp. which employed several thousand people .......... and the Union called a "strike" demanding more pay, etc.

The old fellow that owned the company said "screw you", ......... locked the doors and went home.

And that was "the end" of Attwater-Kent radio manufacturing.

cheers.

Ah, way back when I was barely old enough to vote, a similar situation happened at Brown & Sharpe in RI. The union went on strike, Brown & Sharpe refused to capitulate, eventually they just closed their doors for good. It was really a tragedy. Brown & Sharpe was one of the regions larger employers and the negative impact on the machinist industry in that region is still felt to this day. Of course at the time economically it was a disaster.

Brown & Sharpe was the kind of place where an apprentice could learn the trade from soup to nuts. There is no such place any more. Now machinists are very hard to come by there.

And that is what unions do. Sooner or later, one way or another, they put businesses out of business. And according to you guys, only because management 'allows' them to.

Rolling Eyes

by **Stephanie** Mon May 05, 2008 6:26 pm

B&S had choices to make. They made their choices, the same way the union did. All I'm saying is the entire state, really the region suffered. Many of those employees never did return to that industry, the jobs simply weren't there.

by ziggy Mon May 05, 2008 9:24 pm

Worhers and management both know they when a business is started, or when one takes a job, that there are risks.

For the workers there is the risk that the job will not be worth the hassle, the costs of getting to work and back home, the money that could have been made by working elsewhere, and that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

For management there is the risk that the profit on the gross profit will not allow payment of the bills, much less a net profit, that labor will organize and demand increased wages, and / or that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

All take a risk. All need to weigh the risks. Sometimes companies bust unions. Sometimes unions bust the companies.

If either side takes the attitude that "I'll see the company go bust before I'll work for a dime less", or "I'll see this company go bust before I'll pay a dime more", then the stakes have become so high that the demands leave both the company and the workers vulnerable to economic blackmail from the other. The problem is not unions, nor is it management. The problem is failure to look at all the angles by one side or the other, or by both sides at once. Often it is but simple arrogance- by one or both sides.

by Aaron Mon May 05, 2008 9:46 pm

Stephanie wrote:B&S had choices to make. They made their choices, the same way the union did. All I'm saying is the entire state, really the region suffered. Many of those employees never did return to that industry, the jobs simply weren't there.

How bad was the other choice if they chose to close the doors?

by Aaron Mon May 05, 2008 9:52 pm

ziggy wrote:Worhers and management both know they when a business is started, or when one takes a job, that there are risks.

For the workers there is the risk that the job will not be worth the hassle, the costs of getting to work and back home, the money that could have been made by working elsewhere, and that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

For management there is the risk that the profit on the gross profit will not allow payment of the bills, much less a net profit, that labor will organize and demand increased wages, and / or that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

All take a risk. All need to weigh the risks. Sometimes companies bust unions. Sometimes unions bust the companies.

If either side takes the attitude that "I'll see the company go bust before I'll work for a dime less", or "I'll see this company go bust before I'll pay a dime more", then the stakes have become so high that the demands leave both the company and the workers vulnerable to economic blackmail from the other. The problem is not unions, nor is it management. The problem is failure to look at all the angles by one side or the other, or by both sides at once. Often it is but simple arrogance- by one or both sides.

I've been in a union that protects lazy, worthless employees, puts them above the good of the company and makes outrageous demands. When that company lost the contract, I wasn't the least suprised.

As I've maintained all along, back when the union stood for the WORKING man and not just whatever warm body would pay dues and actually had a vested interest in seeing a company profit, they had their time and were useful.

Now the vast majority of unions have become parasites; they suck the host dry until there is nothing left and then they move on. And according to you guys, it's allowed by management.

So how many union contract negotiations have you guys been involved in again?

by **Stephanie** Mon May 05, 2008 10:36 pm

I'd have to research what the owners of that company did. I don't know if they took their ball, and whatever money they had, and went home, or if they opened up shop somewhere else. I think the former. The facility in Centerdale, a neighbor to my hometown, remained vacant and unsold last I heard.

by SamCogar Tue May 06, 2008 5:05 am

ziggy wrote:And every employer has that option. No employer has to submit to the union.

Except the School Boards.

The Teacher's Unions go to the Legislature to get what they want ........ and the School Boards have to comply (submit).

.

by SamCogar Tue May 06, 2008 5:43 am

Stephanie wrote:I'd have to research what the owners of that company did. I don't know if they took their ball, and whatever money they had, and went home, or if they opened up shop somewhere else. I think the former. The facility in Centerdale, a neighbor to my hometown, remained vacant and unsold last I heard.

Not hardly.

The Brown and Sharpe name is an icon in the machine tool industry. I've been familiar with their name ever since I started working in engineering and manufacturing. Thus, I looked it up, to wit:

Brown & Sharpe is today a division of Hexagon Metrology, Inc., a multinational corporation focused mainly on metrological tools and technology. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Brown & Sharpe was one of the most well-known and influential firms in the machine tool industry. Its influence throughout mechanical engineering was such that its name is often synonymous with certain industrial standards that it established, including: .......

"[The company that would become Brown & Sharpe] was founded in 1833 [in Providence, Rhode Island] by David Brown and his son Joseph R. Brown. For nearly twenty years its business comprised the making and repairing of clocks, watches and mathematical instruments, in ........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_&_Sharpe

If they closed their doors in RI after 150 years ...... I imagine it was devastating to the economy.

Currently, they operate two large facilities in Ohio, to wit:

http://www.auto-met.com/aboutus.htm

Very Happy

by TerryRC Tue May 06, 2008 5:48 am

We used to use a Brown and Sharpe dividing head when I worked in my dad's tool & die shop.

by SamCogar Tue May 06, 2008 6:00 am

ziggy wrote:Worhers and management both know they when a business is started, or when one takes a job, that there are risks.

For the workers there is the risk that the job will not be worth the hassle, the costs of getting to work and back home, the money that could have been made by working elsewhere, and that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

For management there is the risk that the profit on the gross profit will not allow payment of the bills, much less a net profit, that labor will organize and demand increased wages, and / or that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

Ziggy, you should print out a copy of your above, ..... and next week when Hillary and Obama come to town electioneering "for votes", ..... whichever one you want to win ..... just slip them that printed copy and tell them ...... "Here is some good stuff that will get yu lots of votes here in the hills."

.

by ziggy Wed May 07, 2008 6:08 pm

SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote:Worhers and management both know they when a business is started, or when one takes a job, that there are risks.

For the workers there is the risk that the job will not be worth the hassle, the costs of getting to work and back home, the money that could have been made by working elsewhere, and that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

For management there is the risk that the profit on the gross profit will not allow payment of the bills, much less a net profit, that labor will organize and demand increased wages, and / or that a strike could be fatally crippling to the company.

Ziggy, you should print out a copy of your above, ..... and next week when Hillary and Obama come to town electioneering "for votes", ..... whichever one you want to win ..... just slip them that printed copy and tell them ...... "Here is some good stuff that will get yu lots of votes here in the hills."

.

Why should I be worried about who is getting "lots of votes" in the WV Democratic Party's presidential primary election?

by Cato Thu May 08, 2008 7:04 pm

SamCogar wrote: [Management NEVER willing gives into the demands of the Unions as many concessions as they unwillingly are forced into conceeding to the Union's demands.

Bull Cookies!!!!!!!!

by Cato Thu May 08, 2008 7:13 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Cato and I don't agree on very much, usually. But this time Cato is "right on".

Now Aaron can say that I'm dumb as a box of rocks, too. But, as Cato says, that certainly doesn't make it so. So, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

So you agree with Cato that the only thing the union ever got was what management wanted them to have. If that's the case, why was there ever a union?

As usual you speak without much understanding. What managemant wants to give and is willing to give is on and two different things. For example managment want to give a benefit package without healthcare, but during the bargaining process with unions is willing to give healthcare. However, in the process management may want concessions also. There in is the issue. Management is only going to conceede what it can afford. If it goes beyond that point, which the auto industry did, then they are going to have difficulties.

by Aaron Thu May 08, 2008 9:26 pm

I think the problem Cato is that you base all unions on your wifes membership in whichever teachers union she belongs to and that is what is clouding your judgement.

I think maybe you should do a little reading and research and you might get a clear understanding of the Labor movement,. Start here to get some idea of different types of labor strikes and the try looking for some other sites. If you can't find any let me know and I'll see if I can find them for you.

by Cato Fri May 09, 2008 9:00 pm

Aaron wrote:I think the problem Cato is that you base all unions on your wifes membership in whichever teachers union she belongs to and that is what is clouding your judgement.

I think maybe you should do a little reading and research and you might get a clear understanding of the Labor movement,. Start here to get some idea of different types of labor strikes and the try looking for some other sites. If you can't find any let me know and I'll see if I can find them for you.

Nope, My father was a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. My wife is WVEA. I was a supervisor in a plant that was represented by the Carpenters and Jointers Union. I know well about and about lockouts. The union has the option of striking and management has the option of the lockout or closure. It still comes down to unions get what management is willing to concede. The fact is that just as unions can use a job actions to get what they want, management can use the lockout or plant closure to get what they want. If management is stupid enough to concede more thant hey can afford, then they close and someone else replaces them. Maybe not in the same location or with the same people, but they are ultimately replaced. We see that happening int he automotive industry.

As I said, as a stockholder in a company, which management conceded more than it could afford, I won't look at the union, I'd terminate the management. Afterall, they are my representative and are responsible for looking after my financial wellbeing. If they concede more than they can affard, they are failures and need to be removed. I'm beginning to think you are one of those types of managers that thinks they are infalible and goes about blaming their mistakes on everyone instead of going to the root of the problem, themselves.

by Aaron Fri May 09, 2008 9:17 pm

Unions only get what mangement is willing to give them. That has always been the case and always will be the case.

I don't care how familar you are with unions today. My point is, unions today are merely a shade of what they were 50 years ago, when unions actually represented the working man and what was best for them. I suggested you read up on the history of unions merely so you could understand where and how you are wrong. I'm not suprised from your response.

Rolling Eyes

So what's the turnover rate in your company?

by ziggy Fri May 09, 2008 9:17 pm

Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote:I think the problem Cato is that you base all unions on your wifes membership in whichever teachers union she belongs to and that is what is clouding your judgement.

I think maybe you should do a little reading and research and you might get a clear understanding of the Labor movement,. Start here to get some idea of different types of labor strikes and the try looking for some other sites. If you can't find any let me know and I'll see if I can find them for you.

Nope, My father was a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. My wife is WVEA. I was a supervisor in a plant that was represented by the Carpenters and Jointers Union. I know well about and about lockouts. The union has the option of striking and management has the option of the lockout or closure. It still comes down to unions get what management is willing to concede. The fact is that just as unions can use a job actions to get what they want, management can use the lockout or plant closure to get what they want. If management is stupid enough to concede more thant hey can afford, then they close and someone else replaces them. Maybe not in the same location or with the same people, but they are ultimately replaced. We see that happening int he automotive industry.

As I said, as a stockholder in a company, which management conceded more than it could afford, I won't look at the union, I'd terminate the management. Afterall, they are my representative and are responsible for looking after my financial wellbeing. If they concede more than they can affard, they are failures and need to be removed. I'm beginning to think you are one of those types of managers that thinks they are infalible and goes about blaming their mistakes on everyone instead of going to the root of the problem, themselves.

by Aaron Fri May 09, 2008 9:25 pm

by SamCogar Sat May 10, 2008 4:08 am

Cato wrote:
SamCogar wrote: [Management NEVER willing gives into the demands of the Unions as many concessions as they unwillingly are forced into conceeding to the Union's demands.

Bull Cookies!!!!!!!!

Willy, we were not including public employee unions in this discussion. Razz

GEEEEZE, everyone knows that Legislative Management willing gives whatever the public employee unions demand ......... iffen it doesn't PO the other voters too much.

DUH, that's their "vote buying money" and is what creates all those "unfunded liabilities" at the State and City level. Very Happy

.

by SamCogar Sat May 10, 2008 4:27 am

Cato wrote: As usual you speak without much understanding. What managemant wants to give and is willing to give is on and two different things. For example managment want to give a benefit package without healthcare, but during the bargaining process .........

Willy, didn't you just pose a "falsehood" in order to prove your "point"? Twisted Evil

Willy, tell me, just why would management "want to give" Union employees a benefit package.

"No way, ....... Jose".

Maybe "willing to give" in return for ............... preventing a strike.

.

by Cato Sat May 10, 2008 11:39 am

I love it when the idiots posts. Sam and Arron are like maybe 90% of the public, they don't want to accept that ultimately everyone bears personnal responsibility for their actions. Nope instead they whine and complain about how everything that happens is somebodyelses fault, not theirs. Consider the posts these two have made toward education. Its the teacher's Unions fault that education is a mess. It's the classroom teacher's fault that education is a mess. Did either one fo them say anything about parents who use the school system as a babysitter? Nope. Did either of them ever say the first word about parent and student responsibility in education? Nope!! Did either of them say the first word about communities that place far more emphisis on athletics than they do on academics? Nope. Did they say anything about the mandates that the politcians have pushed into the education community? You know things like taking discipline out of the classroom. Nope. Did they ever question why the politicians cave to the teachers unions? Nope. Instead they just sit and whine?

Then we have Aaron, supposedly a manager, telling us that he has no control over the place he manages. No sir, its the unions fault or the Fed's fault, but it certainly isn't Aaron's fault. Of course, Sammy comes running behind, like a little puppy. One has to wonder if he can ever really do anything other than play with colors, icons, fontsand make completely pointless comments.

All I can say is pathetic. As I said Aaron, you don't ever have to worry about managing a company for me. Excuses and whining doesn't cut it with me anymore.

Cato

by Aaron Sat May 10, 2008 1:02 pm

Cato, you need to focus. We were discussing unions and suddenly your off ranting like an idiot loon about education. If you want to discuss education, just say so. You don’t have to go off like the retarded kid in math class. I’m sure Stephanie and others would have something to contribute to that conversation.

As it is though, the subject is unions and the labor movement of the past as compared to unions of today. You claim that unions and their membership only get what management is willing to give them and that management has complete control of negotiations. While that may very well be true how the state caves to the NEA every time they whine a little or how the government caved to railroads over the years, and it very well may be true of the watered down version of the union you deal with as a floor foreman, it is certainly not reflective of the history of unions or the organized labor movement.

Now you can do a little research and reading (starting with the link I provided you) and actually learn something about the union movement and organized labor of the past and how it pertains to today’s government agencies, how some government agencies are willing to switch from a socialist (teachers) type of pay to a production based type of pay (that was the overall topic of conversation), or you can remain stupid. The choice is yours.

From your previous post, I’d lay even money that as you’ve went this far in life using the latter, that will be your continued choice. Why switch when it’s got you all the way up to a floor supervisor position, right man!!!

Very Happy

by Aaron Sat May 10, 2008 1:11 pm

Cato wrote:As I said Aaron, you don't ever have to worry about managing a company for me. Excuses and whining doesn't cut it with me anymore.
Cato

Wouldn't you have to make it past a floor supervisor and up about 9 levels in the chain of command to consider hiring a plant manager? As that's not likely to happen in the next 25 years, I'll stay with my current employer.

by SamCogar Sat May 10, 2008 1:57 pm

GEEEZE Willy, I guess you couldn't DISCREDIT anything I stated in my last two posts so you were forced to "rant n' rave" about everything else in lieu of admitting that I was correct about what I posted.

Cato wrote:I love it when the idiots posts. Sam and Arron are like maybe 90% of the public, they don't want to accept that ultimately everyone bears personnal responsibility for their actions. Nope instead they whine and complain about how everything that happens is somebodyelses fault, not theirs. Consider the posts these two have made toward education. Its the teacher's Unions fault that education is a mess. It's the classroom teacher's fault that education is a mess. Did either one fo them say anything about parents who use the school system as a babysitter? Nope. Did either of them ever say the first word about parent and student responsibility in education? Nope!! Did either of them say the first word about communities that place far more emphisis on athletics than they do on academics? Nope. Did they say anything about the mandates that the politcians have pushed into the education community? You know things like taking discipline out of the classroom. Nope. Did they ever question why the politicians cave to the teachers unions? Nope. Instead they just sit and whine?

Then we have Aaron, supposedly a manager, telling us that he has no control over the place he manages. No sir, its the unions fault or the Fed's fault, but it certainly isn't Aaron's fault. Of course, Sammy comes running behind, like a little puppy. One has to wonder if he can ever really do anything other than play with colors, icons, fontsand make completely pointless comments.

All I can say is pathetic. As I said Aaron, you don't ever have to worry about managing a company for me. Excuses and whining doesn't cut it with me anymore.

Cato

WOW Willy, that was sure a fine piece of “ranting n’ raving” you done did there above.

But you know what Willy, you spent all your time lecturing me about “bearing personal responsibility for my actions” ………. but you never said a damn word about “the teachers bearing personal responsibility for their actions”.

Why is that Willy boy, ……. why is that? geek

Willy, is it that you don't bear any responsibility whatsoever for the work that you do, ......... therefore you don't believe your wife and daughter should bear any responsibility whatsoever for the work they do as Teachers?

And Willy, why are you badmouthing Aaron about "his inability as a manager to administer control over the place he manages"?

Doesn't your wife and daughter have the same problem? Are they not managers within the schools where they work. Sure they are, all teachers are.

So Willy, why are you not badmouthing your wife, daughter and all the other teachers for their inability as managers to administer control over the places they manage.

Willy, give it your best shot, and ....... lol!

.

by Cato Sat May 10, 2008 8:56 pm

Aaron wrote:
Cato wrote:As I said Aaron, you don't ever have to worry about managing a company for me. Excuses and whining doesn't cut it with me anymore.
Cato

Wouldn't you have to make it past a floor supervisor and up about 9 levels in the chain of command to consider hiring a plant manager? As that's not likely to happen in the next 25 years, I'll stay with my current employer.

You have no idea who I am or what I have accomplished. The one thing I know about you and your shadow Sammy is that the both of you are expert at making excuses and blaming others. You must look really good on paper and talk a good line to have made it as far as you have.

The one major difference between you and I is that I don't make excuses, nor do I cast blame on others for responsibilities that are mine.

Tootles

by Sponsored content