|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/4/2013 6:45:11 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
In a private Union, you have the Union negotiating with management. Management is the company that will use it's money to pay for the wages and benefits in the Union contract.
That's true in a mom-and=pop shop but not necessarily in a corporation, where shareholders seldom run the joint. I'd be wary of the assumption that managers necessarily have the firm's best interest at heart. It's not unknown, for instance, for execs to focus on short-term numbers (and the resulting bonuses accruing to said execs) at the expense of the company's long-term health.
Isn't that their right to determine? Shareholders do have a say in how things are run, to some extent. But, management isn't really using shareholder money. Shareholders invested in the company, taking the risk that their money could be lost. A poorly run company should suffer market consequences, else what's the incentive to change? Treat your employees poorly and you'll either have shitty employees, or you won't be able to attract employees.
quote:
ETA: Skimping on salaries isn't always in a firm's best interest. One of Henry Ford's shrewdest moves, after all, was hiking wages, with the result that his workers could afford to buy Model Ts.
Absolute truth. Non-Union facilities don't always have lower wages, either.
quote:
quote:
People are more free-spending with other people's money than they are with their own.
That hasn't been my experience, honestly. In both professional and volunteer settings, I've known plenty of folks who were far more scrupulous with funds entrusted to them than with their own money.
I think our government, at any level, will result in evidence that government will, generally, always be much less carefree with taxpayer money. There are businesses that are quite shrewd, too. I would hope that charities would be among the shrewdest (that is, I'm hoping they get the biggest impact per dollar).
quote:
quote:
A private company can't simply increase it's income to pay for whatever package negotiation reaches. Government, however, can do that to some extent. Government can also run deficits to pay for that shit while a private company can't do that all the time.
Companies can raise prices and cut other costs. If the price of, say, steel rises, countless manufacturers figure out how to deal with it.
Yes, governments can raise taxes and run deficits, but politicians who consistently do so soon face job-security issues of their own.
But, there is a limit as to how much a company can raise prices, isn't there? If a company ends up cutting people because they simply can't just raise prices and there aren't savings enough to keep the doors open anywhere else, then what? They get blamed for being anti-worker. Government doesn't have that limit, either. Eventually, it's going to get its money.
Companies that treat their employees well are going to be able to attract people to work for them, and will be able to attract the talent they want. Smart companies know that, and actively work for that.
|
|
|
|
