Help Our UAL Friends

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the
company. If
your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you
will
get rid of the company.

It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can
only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by
retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the
dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees
from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they
increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people
they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of
applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but
can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of
the employment market have been broken.

-Robert

You are 100% right. This is especially true with highly skilled labor. The
company has to keep the duds because of seniority this lets the cream of the
crop go to other company's. The more skilled one is the less he needs the
union. I have always thought the union protects the lazy and stupid.
Now I am not saying their are a lot of smart hard working union members and
some companies use the union to their advantage. Their are also a lot of bad
run companies with or without the union.

("sfb" wrote)
Didn't Checchi get the money from the stock market and not from NWA?
Wasn't the point of the post you snipped that the market value collapsed
after Checchi left? The politicians in the People's Republic of Minnesota
would have been screaming bloody murder if had raided the corporate
coffers.


Where did Checchi get the stock? NWA.
How did he finance his takeover? NWA operating money.
How did he get paid before he bailed with his stock? Staggering management
fees payed by NWA monies - No, I didn't say profits.

Checchi raided the coffers of the State too. Loans, bailouts, building
projects, etc.

Billion dollars would have bought a few extra planes.


Montblack

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:122Ye.8139$LV5.1123@trndny02...
Matt Barrow wrote:

They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought
up
in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water
on
running a competitive enterprise.

I think you've hit the main reason. As they grow, companies develop a
"corporate culture" caused by the fact that existing managers tend to
promote people who do things the same way they do. As time goes on, this
"culture" may get out of touch with reality. About the only thing that
will change it is a hostile takeover.


That's a large factor, but they also get n trouble earlier when they move
out of the enrapreneurial phase and past the growth phase and start hiring
"professional managers" instead of promoting from within. The professionals
are often the ones raised on regulation and bureaucracy. They often do worse
than those who learned the business from the ground up.

A manager who came up with the company is more interested in seeing it
thrive; a "professional" (IME) is mainly concerned with making monthly
numbers, is risk averse and focusing on his bonus.

Look at any of the Fortune level firms that have been around for a hundred
years or more (P&G, for example) and you'll find very few high level people
brought in from outside the company.
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jon A" wrote in message
.. .

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?

Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , Jon A
wrote:

Unions are there to protect the working class

true.

What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?

Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
commonality within the human race - - - greed!

Jon A wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jon A" wrote in message
. ..

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?


Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.

Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.

"Jon A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , Jon A

wrote:

Unions are there to protect the working class

true.

What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?

Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
commonality within the human race - - - greed!

Millions and millions of jobs have left this country due to union
mis-management and greed. For some reason the unions don't mention that
fact.

"Aluckyguess" wrote

You are 100% right. This is especially true with highly skilled labor.
The company has to keep the duds because of seniority(.) this lets the
cream of the crop go to other company's.(companies) The more skilled one
is(,) the less he needs the union. I have always thought the union
protects the lazy and stupid. Now I am not saying their(there) are a lot
of smart(,) hard working union members and some companies use the union to
their advantage. Their(There) are also a lot of bad(badly) run companies
with or without the union.

Aren't you ignoring that part of history where the Federal and many
states enacted labor laws? The unions aren't the only protection the
employee has. Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.

"Jon A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jon A" wrote in message
. ..

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?

Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.

"Jon A" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jon A" wrote in message
. ..

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?

Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.


While this may have been true in the past the Dept of Labor both of the
federal and state do a pretty damn good job of not allowing this to happen
today.

To say that we need unions to stop this today is like saying we need an
ongoing civil war to make sure we don't have slavery.