Posted on 01/03/2007 6:20:39 PM PST by traumer
Mo mo mo mo money for the lawyers who rep the victims!
Different perspectives. Americans sometmes forget that it was a Polish union that was instrumental in starting the demise of the Soviet Empire. Poles sometimes forget that American unions have an unworkable "business model."
...and both show what's wrong with American unions.
Yep. I bet the lawyers got multi-million dollar checks while their clients received pennies on the dollar. And the clients are just too stupid to realize that they're being hosed.
...I would say that it was Catholicism that was a bit more instrumental in defeating Sovietism than the unions in Gdansk, although they did fire the first shot.
The union provided an organizational structure for the shipyard guys and the "activists" were mostly drawn from the union ranks.
Understood. The unions in Poland back then served a similar purpose as the unions did here at the turn of the 19th Century. Irrelevant now...
Irrelevant now...
In their current form, they're absolutely irrelevant. But that doesn't mean they can't be relevant again. Somebody in the near or far future is going to earn a PhD by studying why the unions didn't change their business model to adapt to a changing world.
And reading A. Pole's posts reminds us where that mindset comes from, eh?
The first thing they need to do is add value for both the company and the workers.
Because the present model is probably more profitable for the union bosses than would be any model that worked to the mutual benefit of companies and workers.
Because the present model is probably more profitable for the union bosses than would be any model that worked to the mutual benefit of companies and workers.
See, that's just the thing, apparently it isn't -- because the unions are shrinking/failing. Any organization should be able to adapt with the times. Somehow unions have missed the boat.
Aye...there's the rub. How do you help two opposing sides at the same time? Muy difficile, no?
Aye...there's the rub. How do you help two opposing sides at the same time? Muy difficile, no?
You assume they are opposing sides. I say they aren't necessarily opposing sides. They certainly aren't in Japan.
What if unions took over the healthcare responsibility? Certainly a national union would have more clout with insurance companies than a single firm. This isn't unheard of here in the states -- both the Screen Actors Guild and Actors Equity offer excellent health plans as well as retirement homes for aging thespians.
I'm out for a bit...more later.
I heard something very much like that from a CEO, "we're in the software business, not the welfare business". This very same CEO ran the business into the ground, and escaped with a golden parachute that included lifetime medical benefits for two sons. It is also reminiscent of HP CEO Fiorina's statement about Americans right to jobs. Perhaps there is a connection between the attitude and performance.
As for the "feelings" of any particular employee, one might just as legitimately ask how employees "feel" when they lose their jobs because the union demanded wages and benefits the company couldn't afford to pay over the long term.
There is plenty of abuse on all sides.
These days unions are a small player; according to the census bureau, 14% of the workforce belong to unions.
Unions served a purpose when conditions were awful, eg, child labor, unsafe conditions (Triangle fire), etc. They have outlived their usefullness, IMO, and should just go away. Unions are now run by thugs and their hangers on (remember Jackie Presser and Jimmy Hoffa?) and have brought about the demise of American industry along with their own jobs.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that the money that union bosses have milked from the current system exceeds the present cash value of the likely proceeds from a union that benefited companies and workers.
A piano-roll maker may adapt itself very well to new technologies (QRS, a long-time manufacturer, is on the web) but I don't think there's any way to get as much money out of the piano roll market today as one could in the 1920's.
Perhaps wiser policies would have allowed union bosses to milk more money from companies before dragging them under, but had they milked less aggressively it's possible the companies would have dwindled anyway, even if more slowly, leaving less money for the union bosses to capture.
Hey, persecuting smokers or making car insurance mandatory is not less totalitarian. I would rather have unions and freedom of smoking. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.