Help Our UAL Friends

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!

"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.

"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.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions
not
related to pension costs

I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against
the discouts, the reason makes no difference.

The reason makes all the difference: in short, their level and quality of
service was not all that far removed from the discount carriers.

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.

Recall, too, that several discount carriers didn't survive either (People
Express, etc).


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

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.

I saw this in action at my former place of employ. The company started out
developing projects on a "cost-plus" basis, with money being fronted in advance.
They were put up for sale about 15 years ago and were supposed to develop
competitive practices, but they're still struggling with that. The old "who's
going to fund this" attitude continued to work with their new owner for long
enough that they never got out of it.

They have another new owner now. The CEO just got handed his walking papers.
There's still a little hope.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"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

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"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

Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or less
taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
when they let him go.
Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
....and on and on and on.

JK

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


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

Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or less
taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
when they let him go.
Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
...and on and on and on.

Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?


--
Matt

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

Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?

Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors)
decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are
execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company
are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a
high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the
company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the
owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
**NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
some communist countries out there for you to choose from.

-Robert

In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?

Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors)
decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are
execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company
are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a
high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the
company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the
owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
**NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
some communist countries out there for you to choose from.

-Robert

I'm not so sure that execs are that rare -- so many of them screw up so
many times and, then go off to other companies and ruin them, too.

The boards of directors appear to have an incestuous relationship with
each other and with other companies, allowing the above phenomenon.

Case in point: TWA cancelled the NY-Frankfort run because "the load
factor showed no increase." Fact is, the load factor was 100% and could
not increase!

What company needs 17 levels of vice president, including "vice
president of wines and cheeses?"