it could be that simple under truer forms of socialism; but, the right claims to believe in capitalism. what objection can there be to actually solving for simple poverty by using socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, through the concept of employment at will and unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis. it would solve for and abolish the concept of "wage slavery" and simplify Government to lower our tax burden by reducing the need for mandated minimum wage laws upon the private sector.
Both statements are naive and fundamentally false. When contracts are negotiated the unions do place certain compensation "demands" in their proposal but all of those "demands" are reviewed by management and competent management would never consent to contract demands that would force the enterprise into bankruptcy. In fact unions are very receptive to management that puts forward financial arguments as to why certain conditions of the contract would be financially unfeasable for the enterprise and generally withdraw those demands so that a mutually beneficial contract can be reached. The union is always interested in the financial health of the enterprise because they want it to grow and prosper. To believe otherwise is simply stupid. GM and Chrysler were not forced into bankruptcy because of the union contracts. They were able to significantly reduce labor costs because they laid of workers due to a lack of work (based upon the contract). GM and Chrysler were forced into bankruptcy because of other expenditures such as facilities that needed to be shut down but couldn't because they couldn't be sold or where leases existed that they were forced to pay for. The labor costs were easily reduced by laying off workers by GM but the labor costs are only a relatively small percentage of the overall costs to the enterprise generally never exceeding 30% and more typically about 25% of a manufacturing companies expenditures. Wonder Bread was not forced into bankruptcy because of the union contract. It was forced into bankruptcy because of incompetent management.
GM, a company with 300,000 employees, is supporting the number of retirees appropriate for a company with a workforce of 800,000, almost triple the size http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2005/07/why_gm_is_so_op.html Also, the Tulsa plant union voted no to a new contract that caused the company to shut down thousands of jobs elsewhere. The other unions had voted yes except this one, which shut the whole company down. Admit it or not, unions are difficult obstacles in maintaining a company in many cases.
Bad management brought down Hostess. One union was willing to cut management some slack, and they still couldn't meet their goals. Why should both unions want to make any concessions, for bad management.
Part of that bad management was likely excessive labor contracts. Same with GM and Chrysler. Imo, the pension Ponzi model was/is unsustainable.
You need to cite some sources; only bad management gives themselves a raise while asking labor for austerity.
Refer to post #579. It shows how legacy costs affect a company. As with SS, the number of contributors shrink and collectors increase causing a company to fail. Happened to GM.
Just a shill? This is what i mean by citing sources that support your currently, unsubstantiated opinion: Hostess' Twinkie Defense Is a Management Failure
I'm not suggesting that unions alone take down companies, but labor and benefits are a huge aspect in business. Mistakes there are costly.
Yes, mismanagement is costly. Management agreed to compensation for labor during contract negotiations.
This is where the breakdown occurs. Unions insist this and refuse to budge, which ends with both sides slowly destroying a company. Might be why companies and workers are dropping unions.
Just blame Labor instead of the Right; i got it. Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding?
I don't blame management or labor. I blame the government for insinuating itself into the labor/management relationship, which should be (as long as it is peaceful) a private matter between individuals.
You may not; but some on the right have no problem denying and disparaging Labor in favor of management. Is it a donation issue?
Since management is getting the management bucks for Good management and not Bad management; why should labor be penalized for management's problems. Division of labor exists for a reason; if the value of Labor under that theory is not reduced, then Labor should suffer no capital consequences for bad management decisions. Management should have to lead by example in that Case, and forgo their bonuses.
Problem is that they do not know what will shut the company down. They usually think management is bloated(legitimate) and refuse to concede costs. GM was bankrupted by unrealistic labor contracts.
So when the union workers picket the business and prevent anyone (i.e. non-union workers) from entering the plant, you're OK with government staying out of that, right? But I'm guessing I'm not right. I'm guessing Longshot is all for the government getting in on that and busting up the picket line.
