GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,913 Posts
Go figure, the new math........ a 100% pay cut is better than a 15% cut for 2 months
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
I think you guys might be reading the details the wrong way. If the Company bankrupted this soon, it would have done the same some where down the road. That company was the victim of internal mismanagement!

I admit I am not a Union worker, but I know that because of the Unions more people in this country are able to buy homes, and raise families. A wage cut when inflation is rising, fuel expenses are at an all time high, and food issues. Be real, there are real problems out there and nobody is giving out help when the mortgage payments are late, so what do you expect? If you can't afford your employees, let them go and do the business yourself until you can, or let the Bankruptcy Court auction off your equiptment to another company more frugal than you were, it's your fault!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
When you take an "All or nothing" stand guess what you get if you don't get "all"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
I go by a PTS terminal often, very close by to Lansing Grand River. As mentioned, the "all or nothing" thing didn't work out as planned
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,352 Posts
I think you guys might be reading the details the wrong way. If the Company bankrupted this soon, it would have done the same some where down the road. That company was the victim of internal mismanagement!

I admit I am not a Union worker, but I know that because of the Unions more people in this country are able to buy homes, and raise families. A wage cut when inflation is rising, fuel expenses are at an all time high, and food issues. Be real, there are real problems out there and nobody is giving out help when the mortgage payments are late, so what do you expect? If you can't afford your employees, let them go and do the business yourself until you can, or let the Bankruptcy Court auction off your equiptment to another company more frugal than you were, it's your fault!
Agreed.

Why is everyone up in arms over this? A company that was (probably) managed poorly goes out of business. GREAT! That's the way that capitalism should work.
you know, whether management is great or lousy, you do not strike in a transport company that is already mortgaged with equipment debt, (or you think trucking companies pay cash for their trucks?) at a time of record diesel prices... not to mention rising maintanance of fleet costs...
Now, a single stream revenue company with tight margins will survive in a difficult energy enviroment especially when its not diversified, with cut throat competation and low barriers to entry? but do not think it will if you hit its revenue. Cash flow is king in distribution, tight margin industries... Its not management that is smoking pot, its union bosses high on 1930's soviet opium
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
I think you guys might be reading the details the wrong way. If the Company bankrupted this soon, it would have done the same some where down the road. That company was the victim of internal mismanagement!

I admit I am not a Union worker, but I know that because of the Unions more people in this country are able to buy homes, and raise families. A wage cut when inflation is rising, fuel expenses are at an all time high, and food issues. Be real, there are real problems out there and nobody is giving out help when the mortgage payments are late, so what do you expect? If you can't afford your employees, let them go and do the business yourself until you can, or let the Bankruptcy Court auction off your equiptment to another company more frugal than you were, it's your fault!
So what is the Union to do when they negotiate great benefits/wages in good times and then dont expect to give back in bad times?

Your right that rising material goods were impacting the business - guess they felt it was someone elses job to absorb it or go out of biz - The 'more frugal' company I bet wont offer wages 15% lower than current - I be its more like 50%.

Congrats - Pan Am the sequel.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,352 Posts
note, this is an auto hauling business... you bet every major automobile company can hardly keep up with orders.. its a perfect time to strike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
Your right that rising material goods were impacting the business - guess they felt it was someone elses job to absorb it or go out of biz - The 'more frugal' company I bet wont offer wages 15% lower than current - I be its more like 50%.

Congrats - Pan Am the sequel.
That's up to the worker, make an agreement to take 50
lower, it's his responsibility and agreement.

I have experience in the options and chances that companies take. Take my former; a great banking business, making record profits for many years, a good reputation, and many hard working loyal employees. The sub-prime crisis, we are not a major player in it, the directors chose to buy a major player that later is determined to be in danger of 40% defaults. Then another side of the business develops weakness and we invest in another major player in a business to find that profits are overstated and without our investment by now would have gone bankrupt. In just months a well running business faces the loss of billions and billions of dollars in loans.

Within the short space of 4 months the stock takes a 60% hit. Yes the company is still big, but now if something natural or unnatural happens the company faces extinction, because the directors were fast and loose with other peoples money. Big Companies run out of capital real fast.

Where is the corporate fiduciary responsibility, forgotten by greed the desire to get something without working for it. If and when the company is in trouble the directors have fat severance packages, the workers who trusted, and worked diligently go away, with little of nothing to show for it. This is why I don't blame the Union, the company knew about it's agreement before it go so indebted, they gambled on the employees taking it, then they lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
That's up to the worker, make an agreement to take 50
lower, it's his responsibility and agreement.

I have experience in the options and chances that companies take. Take my former; a great banking business, making record profits for many years, a good reputation, and many hard working loyal employees. The sub-prime crisis, we are not a major player in it, the directors chose to buy a major player that later is determined to be in danger of 40% defaults. Then another side of the business develops weakness and we invest in another major player in a business to find that profits are overstated and without our investment by now would have gone bankrupt. In just months a well running business faces the loss of billions and billions of dollars in loans.

Within the short space of 4 months the stock takes a 60% hit. Yes the company is still big, but now if something natural or unnatural happens the company faces extinction, because the directors were fast and loose with other peoples money. Big Companies run out of capital real fast.

Where is the corporate fiduciary responsibility, forgotten by greed the desire to get something without working for it. If and when the company is in trouble the directors have fat severance packages, the workers who trusted, and worked diligently go away, with little of nothing to show for it. This is why I don't blame the Union, the company knew about it's agreement before it go so indebted, they gambled on the employees taking it, then they lost.

And the Union Leadership gambled that the company would still be around if the workers didn't take the new deal, then they lost. It isn't really the Union Leadership that will take the hit from this mis-step any more then the Company Managment will, it is the workers who will take the hit and the Union deserves every bit as much of the blame as the management does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
you know, whether management is great or lousy, you do not strike in a transport company that is already mortgaged with equipment debt, (or you think trucking companies pay cash for their trucks?) at a time of record diesel prices... not to mention rising maintanance of fleet costs...
Now, a single stream revenue company with tight margins will survive in a difficult energy enviroment especially when its not diversified, with cut throat competation and low barriers to entry? but do not think it will if you hit its revenue. Cash flow is king in distribution, tight margin industries... Its not management that is smoking pot, its union bosses high on 1930's soviet opium
You overshot the mark. I wasn't thinking of the financial obligations of the company, just that companies do not go into bankruptcy over their employees. The management didn't keep the company away from harm and eventually it came into the mercy of socialists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,171 Posts
And the Union Leadership gambled that the company would still be around if the workers didn't take the new deal, then they lost. It isn't really the Union Leadership that will take the hit from this mis-step any more then the Company Managment will, it is the workers who will take the hit and the Union deserves every bit as much of the blame as the management does.
Agree with you now the Company gone and the union lost it all not very smart of the union.:yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
And the Union Leadership gambled that the company would still be around if the workers didn't take the new deal, then they lost. It isn't really the Union Leadership that will take the hit from this mis-step any more then the Company Managment will, it is the workers who will take the hit and the Union deserves every bit as much of the blame as the management does.
I will condescend for only a moment here. We are discussing business, in the free enterprise system. It is based almost entirely on legal agreements: made between the employer and employee or that employees representative the union. I admit that when difficulties occur people should make it public and may voice their opinions, but remember each party is being held to contract they AGREED TO. Each month you agree to pay a certain amount of rent, or mortgage. if for whatever reason, you fail to perform, you have forfeited that agreement and if that Landlord or Mortgage holder wishes; they may sue you for damages and costs. While a Judge may listen to your reasons, if you cannot correct the forfeiture, you will be found liable, you have failed to honor your contract..

The union has agreed to so much wages for the employee, as that employee has agreed to pay rent or his mortgage. My belief from many years of banking experience is that even a temporary 15% reduction in income is enough for 90% of american workers to default in some payment obligation. The result of such action is injurious to that persons credit, and then his well-being. At no time can the company promise truthfully that even if the worker concedes to work for less, that he will continue to have a job, or be paid. Again the fact that the company went Bankrupt so soon, indicates they were already at the brink. Releasing the employee is the right thing to do, as that employee can get rehired and continue on with his obligations, fairly and legally.

A TEST: Next month attempt to pay 15% less to your Landlord, or bank on your mortgage, see if they take it! I'll wager they will throw it back in your face and demand the rest of it....or else! :yup: The union knows this, and they probably already knew how bad off the company was, so they didn't make a concession. By honoring their contract with their workers, the union isn't financially liable for anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
I will condescend for only a moment here. We are discussing business, in the free enterprise system. It is based almost entirely on legal agreements: made between the employer and employee or that employees representative the union. I admit that when difficulties occur people should make it public and may voice their opinions, but remember each party is being held to contract they AGREED TO. Each month you agree to pay a certain amount of rent, or mortgage. if for whatever reason, you fail to perform, you have forfeited that agreement and if that Landlord or Mortgage holder wishes; they may sue you for damages and costs. While a Judge may listen to your reasons, if you cannot correct the forfeiture, you will be found liable, you have failed to honor your contract..

The union has agreed to so much wages for the employee, as that employee has agreed to pay rent or his mortgage. My belief from many years of banking experience is that even a temporary 15% reduction in income is enough for 90% of american workers to default in some payment obligation. The result of such action is injurious to that persons credit, and then his well-being. At no time can the company promise truthfully that even if the worker concedes to work for less, that he will continue to have a job, or be paid. Again the fact that the company went Bankrupt so soon, indicates they were already at the brink. Releasing the employee is the right thing to do, as that employee can get rehired and continue on with his obligations, fairly and legally.

A TEST: Next month attempt to pay 15% less to your Landlord, or bank on your mortgage, see if they take it! I'll wager they will throw it back in your face and demand the rest of it....or else! :yup: The union knows this, and they probably already knew how bad off the company was, so they didn't make a concession. By honoring their contract with their workers, the union isn't financially liable for anything.
I'll bet there are plenty of banks right now that are taking less then the agreed upon amount due to changes in financial situations accross the board.
Banks will take less then the agreed upon amount rather then reposess your house. You know why, they don't want to have to try and sell it right now. At another time in history, say a housing shortage, they would gladly snap up houses as fast a the law would allow them because in that type of market they would be able to re-sell them quickly and recoupe losses.
The banks undertstand that some is better then none.
There are a lot of Unions that understand that some is better then none.
There are a few very loud Unions that still believe in "All or nothing" and if you only give the company two choices you better be ready for either of those two things.

That is the key difference when trying to compare Unionized Labor to any and all other comodities. Unionized Labor frequantly tries to sell itself with only minimal regard to the ecconomic factors that surround it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
I'll bet there are plenty of banks right now that are taking less then the agreed upon amount due to changes in financial situations accross the board.
Banks will take less then the agreed upon amount rather then reposess your house. You know why, they don't want to have to try and sell it right now. At another time in history, say a housing shortage, they would gladly snap up houses as fast a the law would allow them because in that type of market they would be able to re-sell them quickly and recoupe losses.
The banks undertstand that some is better then none.
There are a lot of Unions that understand that some is better then none.
There are a few very loud Unions that still believe in "All or nothing" and if you only give the company two choices you better be ready for either of those two things.

That is the key difference when trying to compare Unionized Labor to any and all other comodities. Unionized Labor frequantly tries to sell itself with only minimal regard to the ecconomic factors that surround it.
Again I have to step in to say something that I don't want to say, but it's the truth: A lot of the payments that banks collect don't belong to the bank per se but by a private investor. The bank makes money by servicing the loan.

You have got to understand that financial entities don't see property as the buyers see it. If people are making payments on time, it's an assist, and profit making, if payments are not being made in a timely manner the loan is discribed as non-performing, and a liability. Liabilities, are written off and liquidated. Making arrangements increases the servicing costs, meaning more people have to be hired to accomplish it, and it just results in more losses.

Banks outside of the ones owned by the FDIC, would rather wholesale the house to an auctioneer than negotiate with you. People having problems with payment don't negotiate successfully unless there is a sudden influx of cash. These are the realities of life. I understand that the concepts are difficult to accept, that's why only a few people are Bankers and Accountants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
The union and company hardheads did the same deal several years back
with Anchor motor freight! Remember them?

There was a big terminal in northern NY in Alexandria Bay and Wellesley
Island NY. Neither the company nor union would budge so they closed
their doors and everbody lost their jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smart huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,883 Posts
The union and company hardheads did the same deal several years back
with Anchor motor freight! Remember them?

There was a big terminal in northern NY in Alexandria Bay and Wellesley
Island NY. Neither the company nor union would budge so they closed
their doors and everbody lost their jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smart huh?
A question: Did you also read that all the employees commited suicide? Or did they do what other dissatisfied workers do, look for another job? I again state I am not a union person, but I understand signed agreements. You can honor them or breach them, either way there is something to decide.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top