Since corporations are people, they have the same qualities. No person can be trusted if no one is keeping an eye on them. I know what you're getting at, but the comment was geared toward the bashing of unions and the blame they receive. Contracts are a two way street. The way folks talk here, it's all the union's fault for getting the best deal they can absolving the company of any blame. After all, who can stand up the the juggernauts that are the unions? Even though their numbers are dropping rapidly, they are an invincible force that no company can hope to survive their grasp. Where's the demand for corporate responsibility for their actions in which they choose to do? Claiming that a union bears sole responsibility for companies in trouble is not true and reeks of ulterior motives.
You don't think that without the bailouts there would have been heavy turnover at the higher levels of those companies, too? Even with them, it's not like all those guys got off scot free. The shareholders got screwed the most, however. Unions actually came out ahead.
I negotiate my wages and benefits myself. I find it funny groups of people must find someone to do it for them.
Sure, but all the talk is about the the unions are to blame for it all. I am not arguing that paying $45-$50/hr to put a lugnut on an automobile is sane or rational. I'm saying the companies have the right of not entering into a contract that does so. That makes them as responsible as anyone involved. I, you, or anyone else are going to get the best deal possible in regards to our jobs. If another medical group offered you twice the money doing the same job, you'd jump at it, as would I. So, there's plenty of blame to go around. It doesn't rest with a single entity. As to the shareholders. I'm sure my my retirement accounts have stock in the auto industry. But, investing is a risk. The investors know that going in. There's no guarantee to make money. As a result, I feel no great sympathy for the shareholders. The rules are in their favor as it is. You don't think they would take a hit if they filed for bankruptcy with no assurances they would emerge in better shape? Of course they would. There's no magic bullet here. To pretend that it's all the union's fault is ridiculous and loaded with bias. Did the unions make the decision on what kind of cars to make? Did they choose the designs? Did they choose to use inferior inputs in the cars? If they had that much power, I would consider your claims. Those were poor business decisions made by the companies of which you are trying to absolve from any culpability. The assertion that there would be nothing but sunshine and rainbows in America if only those pesky unions could be crushed is a fallacy. When anything is given carte blanche, individuals suffer. My view is that we would return to the Gilded Age Light if business is given that carte blanche. That's the reality of what history tells us when corporations had such power. A corporation can trample individuals rights as much as any government; and the have. Read up on George Pullman and Pullman Towns. It can and has happened. There's absolutely nothing wrong with workers looking out for themselves. That may or may not include a union, but you and I do it every day. Workers should have the freedom to be a part of a union to do that, imo.
I find it funny that folks bash other folks for choosing how to negotiate in the way they choose. Not everyone is capable of doing what you are doing.
Promises don't have to be broken. Contracts have to be renegotiated to maintain viability. Unions aren't exactly known for being open to that sort of thing.
Yep. Totally irrational folks those unions are: Delphi Uaw Members Ok Wage-cut Pact http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/business/uaw-approves-four-year-contract-with-gm.html Ironworkers union agrees to compensation cut - New York Daily News United, union agree on cuts / Machinists' wages to be slashed 13% - SFGate http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110615/REAL_ESTATE/110619934&template=smartphone Those unbending bastards are ruining America.......
I guess the Union's agreeing to take less in order to keep a job makes sense. I believe where most people have a problem with the unions is these deals that some get where they keep basically their entire salary at 100%, plus insurance after retirement.
Never said I was against bankruptcy for anyone, but now that you mention it, I would say that I tend to dislike bankruptcy for anyone that allows them to wipe the slate clean. I am not against allowing more time to meet agreed upon obligations or renegotiating previous agreements that result in a mutual agreement.
Sounds like you are describing "golden parachute" packages for CEOs/management moreso that workers. We can't criticize management. They are above reproach unless they are former UT coaches/ADs that get sweetheart buyouts some of which are above and beyond contract obligations.