| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sid9
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
 |
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:846f4a46-29b3-4297-b643-40cafbfe59eb@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 9:07 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ab061dfb-8b46-4455-bf9b-7c1ab61a514b@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote
in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@nospam.net
wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote
in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles
is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than
setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and
pay
off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated
to
the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud
GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist
that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders)
have
to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by
have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go.
The
money is better in the middle class
workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed
for
not
forcing management to make good
decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted
the
authority to be able to provide
direction
to
management in the first place by
giving
all
employees ownership stake in the
company...
iow, part of their compensation
packages
should include stock in the company...
at
least that way, your complaint may
have
some
merit.... and employees would become
more
motivated to tell management that
they're
making bad business decisions by
designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking market for
gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those
"lard
assed" union members give the boot to
some
of those greedy, short-sighted and
incompetent management boobs for a
change...
and it would also be nice to see that
the
people who are working hard to make a
product that succeeds in the
marketplace
reap some rewards for their efforts by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the
management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was
responding to the fool who blamed the
unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control
the
unions and consider the company's long
term
stability.
actually... it's management's job to
negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are with
ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent
benefits and some form of protection
from
exploitative and corrupt management...
unions
(should and) do consider the company's
long
term stability because it is in their
and
their members' best interests to have
employment in the first place...
management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in
dealing
with unions is by adopting militant and
anti-union policies and practices... and
many
companies have done this... like walmart
has
aggressively prevented unionization...
imo,
there should be some sort of government
intervention which disallows this sort
of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as
producing better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer
while
Toyota designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays
squarely on management's shoulders... no
one
else...
also... the part you missed in my post
is
that
employees who get some form of ownership
in
the company are more prone to not only
being
productive, but to also be more
proactive
in
addressing poor decisions by
management...
and
they also would be eligible to receive
perks
which are currently given to those who
sit
around board room tables or at screens
watching their stock performance while
being
completely disconnected from the
implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the
company's future, then they will be less
prone
to just simply doing what their told and
will
be more likely to contribute on levels
which
not only ensure the company's success,
but
to
work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some
time
now and if workers, who have inside
knowledge
of this fact are aware of such poor
performance, they would more likely
respond
sooner to do something to rectify the
situation before it gets out of hand...
I'm well aware of a company's
relationship
with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and thanks
for
letting me know that you responded in
error
to
my previous post... it's always nice to
know
when someone admits to their
misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people take
responsibility for their mistakes... kind
of
like what's been happening throughout this
multi-faceted economic nightmare... ;-)
I was chief negotiator in my company's
contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly
without
giving away the keys to the front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the
unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the
last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position
leaving
their messes for someone else to cover
up.
A long term view of company issues did
not
fit
their personal ambitions. This is a
sickness
in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven short-term
focus
is
what's at the heart of all of our economic
woes... long-term views have been long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick buck...
this
is
a sickness that permeates our society...
right
from the ground up throughout the top
levels
of
government and business... and the
suffering
we're seeing now will pale in comparison
to
the
suffering that's around the corner if we
don't
do something about the destruction we're
currently visiting on our environment...
and so... since you do have experience in
the
area of union negotiations and
representation
for workers... how about a comment on the
suggestion I made twice now, with respect
to
including an ownership stake in a company
at
the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat on
the
GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government) intervention to
prevent abuses and protect stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically traded
companies is nearly nil.
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's all
we
need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do?
Since Reagan we haven't had enough in the right
places....
Yes.
The Republican government should not have
intervened in the Schiavo case.
The government should not be involved in a
woman's
choice about her life
The government should not be locking up people
who
use Marijuana.
The government should not be involved in
marriage.
Among others.
The government should be involved in issues
that
affect the entire public such as banks,
securities
trading. environment, food and drug issues,
national security, energy policy, and host of
other things that "... promote the general
Welfare,..."
Go look at what the founding fathers had to say
about "the general
welfare". There's a lot out there, but here's
one quote to help you
get started: “Congress has not unlimited powers
to provide for the
general welfare, but only those specifically
enumerated.” Thomas
Jefferson.
|
History, precedence, congress, and the USSC
disagree.
This is the 21st century not the 18th century. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Geo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Nov 18, 8:30 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:846f4a46-29b3-4297-b643-40cafbfe59eb@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 9:07 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ab061dfb-8b46-4455-bf9b-7c1ab61a514b@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote
in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@nospam.net
wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote
in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles
is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than
setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and
pay
off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated
to
the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud
GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist
that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders)
have
to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by
have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go.
The
money is better in the middle class
workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed
for
not
forcing management to make good
decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted
the
authority to be able to provide
direction
to
management in the first place by
giving
all
employees ownership stake in the
company...
iow, part of their compensation
packages
should include stock in the company...
at
least that way, your complaint may
have
some
merit.... and employees would become
more
motivated to tell management that
they're
making bad business decisions by
designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking market for
gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those
"lard
assed" union members give the boot to
some
of those greedy, short-sighted and
incompetent management boobs for a
change...
and it would also be nice to see that
the
people who are working hard to make a
product that succeeds in the
marketplace
reap some rewards for their efforts by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the
management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was
responding to the fool who blamed the
unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control
the
unions and consider the company's long
term
stability.
actually... it's management's job to
negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are with
ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent
benefits and some form of protection
from
exploitative and corrupt management...
unions
(should and) do consider the company's
long
term stability because it is in their
and
their members' best interests to have
employment in the first place...
management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in
dealing
with unions is by adopting militant and
anti-union policies and practices... and
many
companies have done this... like walmart
has
aggressively prevented unionization...
imo,
there should be some sort of government
intervention which disallows this sort
of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as
producing better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer
while
Toyota designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays
squarely on management's shoulders... no
one
else...
also... the part you missed in my post
is
that
employees who get some form of ownership
in
the company are more prone to not only
being
productive, but to also be more
proactive
in
addressing poor decisions by
management...
and
they also would be eligible to receive
perks
which are currently given to those who
sit
around board room tables or at screens
watching their stock performance while
being
completely disconnected from the
implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the
company's future, then they will be less
prone
to just simply doing what their told and
will
be more likely to contribute on levels
which
not only ensure the company's success,
but
to
work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some
time
now and if workers, who have inside
knowledge
of this fact are aware of such poor
performance, they would more likely
respond
sooner to do something to rectify the
situation before it gets out of hand...
I'm well aware of a company's
relationship
with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and thanks
for
letting me know that you responded in
error
to
my previous post... it's always nice to
know
when someone admits to their
misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people take
responsibility for their mistakes... kind
of
like what's been happening throughout this
multi-faceted economic nightmare... ;-)
I was chief negotiator in my company's
contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly
without
giving away the keys to the front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the
unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the
last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position
leaving
their messes for someone else to cover
up.
A long term view of company issues did
not
fit
their personal ambitions. This is a
sickness
in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven short-term
focus
is
what's at the heart of all of our economic
woes... long-term views have been long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick buck...
this
is
a sickness that permeates our society...
right
from the ground up throughout the top
levels
of
government and business... and the
suffering
we're seeing now will pale in comparison
to
the
suffering that's around the corner if we
don't
do something about the destruction we're
currently visiting on our environment...
and so... since you do have experience in
the
area of union negotiations and
representation
for workers... how about a comment on the
suggestion I made twice now, with respect
to
including an ownership stake in a company
at
the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat on
the
GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government) intervention to
prevent abuses and protect stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically traded
companies is nearly nil.
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's all
we
need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do?
Since Reagan we haven't had enough in the right
places....
Yes.
The Republican government should not have
intervened in the Schiavo case.
The government should not be involved in a
woman's
choice about her life
The government should not be locking up people
who
use Marijuana.
The government should not be involved in
marriage.
Among others.
The government should be involved in issues
that
affect the entire public such as banks,
securities
trading. environment, food and drug issues,
national security, energy policy, and host of
other things that "... promote the general
Welfare,..."
Go look at what the founding fathers had to say
about "the general
welfare". There's a lot out there, but here's
one quote to help you
get started: “Congress has not unlimited powers
to provide for the
general welfare, but only those specifically
enumerated.” Thomas
Jefferson.
History, precedence, congress, and the USSC
disagree.
This is the 21st century not the 18th century.
|
Uh huh, I mean...sheesh...really...what did the founding fathers know
anyway??? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
tankfixer wrote:
| Quote: |
3 cars. While the Big 3 are losing billions of dollars and shutting down
facilities, the Japanese are opening up new plants in North America. It
is not the entire industry that is losing money, just the big three
North American companies.
Heard today that Toyota sales are down..
Bet the others are too.
|
That must be very recent. As of just a few months ago, while Ford and GM
sales were way down, Honda and Toyota sales were up.. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bert Hyman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
In news:49229eaf$0$5551$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com Dave Smith
<adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | tankfixer wrote:
3 cars. While the Big 3 are losing billions of dollars and shutting
down facilities, the Japanese are opening up new plants in North
America. It is not the entire industry that is losing money, just
the big three North American companies.
Heard today that Toyota sales are down..
Bet the others are too.
That must be very recent. As of just a few months ago, while Ford and
GM sales were way down, Honda and Toyota sales were up..
|
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/11/03/216174.html
TORRANCE, Calif., November 3, 2008: Toyota Motor Sales (TMS),
U.S.A., Inc., today reported October sales of 152,101 vehicles,
a decrease of 25.9 percent from last October, on a daily selling
rate basis.
http://www.japaneconomynews.com/2008/11/06/october-new-auto-sales-in-japan-down-131-to-1968-levels-toyota-cuts-fy2008-profit-projections-by-74/
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6j8nro
October new auto sales in Japan down 13.1%, to 1968 levels;
Toyota cuts FY2008 profit projections by 74%
November 6, 2008
By Ken Worsley
According data released Tuesday by the Japan Automobile Dealers
Association, domestic auto sales in October decreased to 233,922
vehicles, down a whopping 13.1% from October 2007. October's
figures followed a 5.3% decline in September and a 14.9% slide
in August. October was not only the third straight month that
sales showed a decline, but sales fell to their lowest level
since 1968.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
E. Barry Bruyea
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:24:35 -0800, "klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"E. Barry Bruyea" <lobbyists@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:tl85i4hsia375o3e6f581kvrfk7hcpehrj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:28:19 -0800, "klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org
wrote:
"E. Barry Bruyea" <lobbyists@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:jbt3i4p185urea37m9k0rl07d6pbvst3s0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:59:43 -0800, "klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org
wrote:
A long term view of company issues did not fit
their personal ambitions. This is a sickness in
many American corporations.
Over the last couple of decades, the granting of stock options has
accelerated in corporations and this, IMHO has created the need for
executives to create what I refer to as 'Window Dressing' of a
companies performance in regards to erroneous performance figures to
drive up the value of those 'Stock Options', thus enabling executives
to 'cash in' and to hell with the reality. I was involved with
several start-up companies over the years and saw this first hand and
have no reason to believe that larger, established companies didn't
suffer from the same thing and one of the best examples is Nortel,
formerly one of Canada's best companies, but as you all know, it has
been circling the drain for some time, initiated by some not so
creative bookkeeping for the sole benefit of its executives.
smaller companies and particularly in the tech arena have been offering
stock options for years... but, that's a little different than what I
was
referring to because the stock options they offer are nothing more than
an
opportunity to buy non-voting shares in the company at a discount
rate...
there is a HUGE difference between that and actually having an ownership
stake in a company where you can actually vote....
Apparently, what you know about stocks, options or damn near anything
about business would fit in a thimble. But thanks for playing.
actually brouhaha, your response demonstrates you know sweet fuck all
about
stocks or you would know there's a difference between common and preferred
shares... but, thanks for proving yourself an imbecile once again... ;-)
Actually, Krank, it is extremely rare for company executives get stock
options as "preferred shares" and in your ignorance laden post, you
didn't even mention 'preferred shares'. But, I must admit, it gave
you an easy cop-out to cover up your lack of knowledge in regards the
whole question of stock options. But then, why should that be any
different than the rest of your posts.
actually dipshit, I did specifically state in my post, an ownership stake
where one can vote.... that IS the distinction between those two forms of
stock... but, nice try at backpedaling yourself out of one stupidity ditch
into another... 
|
Stock options are ownership when exercised, Krank, If I had meant
preferred shares, I would have said so. You just don't know the
difference and you've turned back-peddling into an art form, you dumb
ass. Just as you confused yourself on what stock options are and have
totally ignored my factual statement that executives rarely ever get
preferred shares as options. Now, go away and restock your condom
machines. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Geo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Nov 18, 4:04 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aea5e2d0-5c09-458e-beb6-42c2db8431fd@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 8:30 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:846f4a46-29b3-4297-b643-40cafbfe59eb@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 17, 9:07 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ab061dfb-8b46-4455-bf9b-7c1ab61a514b@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote
in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org
wrote
in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57"
dave-no_s...@nospam.net
wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote
in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's
troubles
is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than
setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars
and
pay
off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps
elevated
to
the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud
GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to
insist
that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM
shareholders)
have
to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get
by
have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go.
The
money is better in the middle
class
workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard
assed
for
not
forcing management to make good
decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted
the
authority to be able to provide
direction
to
management in the first place by
giving
all
employees ownership stake in the
company...
iow, part of their compensation
packages
should include stock in the
company...
at
least that way, your complaint may
have
some
merit.... and employees would
become
more
motivated to tell management that
they're
making bad business decisions by
designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking market
for
gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of
those
"lard
assed" union members give the boot
to
some
of those greedy, short-sighted and
incompetent management boobs for a
change...
and it would also be nice to see
that
the
people who are working hard to make
a
product that succeeds in the
marketplace
reap some rewards for their efforts
by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the
management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I
was
responding to the fool who blamed the
unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control
the
unions and consider the company's
long
term
stability.
actually... it's management's job to
negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are
with
ensuring workers get a fair wage,
decent
benefits and some form of protection
from
exploitative and corrupt
management...
unions
(should and) do consider the
company's
long
term stability because it is in their
and
their members' best interests to have
employment in the first place...
management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their
unions.
the only way management can "fail" in
dealing
with unions is by adopting militant
and
anti-union policies and practices...
and
many
companies have done this... like
walmart
has
aggressively prevented
unionization...
imo,
there should be some sort of
government
intervention which disallows this
sort
of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota
as
producing better, more desirable
autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer
while
Toyota designed and marketed the
Prius.
GM's management did very little
right.
I agree... the fault for this mess
lays
squarely on management's shoulders...
no
one
else...
also... the part you missed in my
post
is
that
employees who get some form of
ownership
in
the company are more prone to not
only
being
productive, but to also be more
proactive
in
addressing poor decisions by
management...
and
they also would be eligible to
receive
perks
which are currently given to those
who
sit
around board room tables or at
screens
watching their stock performance
while
being
completely disconnected from the
implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in
the
company's future, then they will be
less
prone
to just simply doing what their told
and
will
be more likely to contribute on
levels
which
not only ensure the company's
success,
but
to
work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for
some
time
now and if workers, who have inside
knowledge
of this fact are aware of such poor
performance, they would more likely
respond
sooner to do something to rectify the
situation before it gets out of
hand...
I'm well aware of a company's
relationship
with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and thanks
for
letting me know that you responded in
error
to
my previous post... it's always nice to
know
when someone admits to their
misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people
take
responsibility for their mistakes...
kind
of
like what's been happening throughout
this
multi-faceted economic nightmare... ;-)
I was chief negotiator in my company's
contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly
without
giving away the keys to the front
door.
I was also an employer trustee for the
unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in
the
last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position
leaving
their messes for someone else to cover
up.
A long term view of company issues did
not
fit
their personal ambitions. This is a
sickness
in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven short-term
focus
is
what's at the heart of all of our
economic
woes... long-term views have been
long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick
buck...
this
is
a sickness that permeates our
society...
right
from the ground up throughout the top
levels
of
government and business... and the
suffering
we're seeing now will pale in
comparison
to
the
suffering that's around the corner if
we
don't
do something about the destruction
we're
currently visiting on our
environment...
and so... since you do have experience
in
the
area of union negotiations and
representation
for workers... how about a comment on
the
suggestion I made twice now, with
respect
to
including an ownership stake in a
company
at
the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat on
the
GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government) intervention
to
prevent abuses and protect stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically
traded
companies is nearly nil.
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's
all
we
need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do?
Since Reagan we haven't had enough in the
right
places....
Yes.
The Republican government should not have
intervened in the Schiavo case.
The government should not be involved in a
woman's
choice about her life
The government should not be locking up
people
who
use Marijuana.
The government should not be involved in
marriage.
Among others.
The government should be involved in issues
that
affect the entire public such as banks,
securities
trading. environment, food and drug issues,
national security, energy policy, and host
of
other things that "... promote the general
Welfare,..."
Go look at what the founding fathers had to
say
about "the general
welfare". There's a lot out there, but here's
one quote to help you
get started: “Congress has not unlimited
powers
to provide for the
general welfare, but only those specifically
enumerated.” Thomas
Jefferson.
History, precedence, congress, and the USSC
disagree.
This is the 21st century not the 18th century.
Uh huh, I mean...sheesh...really...what did the
founding fathers know
anyway???
They didn’t know shit about the 21st Century.
Republicans trying hard to take us backwards as
far and as fast as they can
|
But, they knew a lot of shit about overreaching govt. That's the part
that you don't seem to get. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Geo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Nov 18, 5:39 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d95972a6-630a-4537-bf7f-a99dc0edac56@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 4:04 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:aea5e2d0-5c09-458e-beb6-42c2db8431fd@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 18, 8:30 am, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:846f4a46-29b3-4297-b643-40cafbfe59eb@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 9:07 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ab061dfb-8b46-4455-bf9b-7c1ab61a514b@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote
in
message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org
wrote
in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote
in
message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org
wrote
in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57"
dave-no_s...@nospam.net
wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote
in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's
troubles
is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather
than
setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars
and
pay
off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps
elevated
to
the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to
defraud
GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to
insist
that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM
shareholders)
have
to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to
get
by
have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM
shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm
go.
The
money is better in the middle
class
workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard
assed
for
not
forcing management to make good
decisions,
then perhaps they should be
granted
the
authority to be able to provide
direction
to
management in the first place by
giving
all
employees ownership stake in the
company...
iow, part of their compensation
packages
should include stock in the
company...
at
least that way, your complaint
may
have
some
merit.... and employees would
become
more
motivated to tell management
that
they're
making bad business decisions by
designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking
market
for
gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of
those
"lard
assed" union members give the
boot
to
some
of those greedy, short-sighted
and
incompetent management boobs for
a
change...
and it would also be nice to see
that
the
people who are working hard to
make
a
product that succeeds in the
marketplace
reap some rewards for their
efforts
by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the
management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post...
I
was
responding to the fool who blamed
the
unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to
control
the
unions and consider the company's
long
term
stability.
actually... it's management's job
to
negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns
are
with
ensuring workers get a fair wage,
decent
benefits and some form of
protection
from
exploitative and corrupt
management...
unions
(should and) do consider the
company's
long
term stability because it is in
their
and
their members' best interests to
have
employment in the first place...
management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their
unions.
the only way management can "fail"
in
dealing
with unions is by adopting
militant
and
anti-union policies and
practices...
and
many
companies have done this... like
walmart
has
aggressively prevented
unionization...
imo,
there should be some sort of
government
intervention which disallows this
sort
of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that
Toyota
as
producing better, more desirable
autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the
Hummer
while
Toyota designed and marketed the
Prius.
GM's management did very little
right.
I agree... the fault for this mess
lays
squarely on management's
shoulders...
no
one
else...
also... the part you missed in my
post
is
that
employees who get some form of
ownership
in
the company are more prone to not
only
being
productive, but to also be more
proactive
in
addressing poor decisions by
management...
and
they also would be eligible to
receive
perks
which are currently given to those
who
sit
around board room tables or at
screens
watching their stock performance
while
being
completely disconnected from the
implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in
the
company's future, then they will
be
less
prone
to just simply doing what their
told
and
will
be more likely to contribute on
levels
which
not only ensure the company's
success,
but
to
work toward averting such
problems...
gm has been performing poorly for
some
time
now and if workers, who have
inside
knowledge
of this fact are aware of such
poor
performance, they would more
likely
respond
sooner to do something to rectify
the
situation before it gets out of
hand...
I'm well aware of a company's
relationship
with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and
thanks
for
letting me know that you responded
in
error
to
my previous post... it's always nice
to
know
when someone admits to their
misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people
take
responsibility for their mistakes...
kind
of
like what's been happening
throughout
this
multi-faceted economic nightmare...
;-)
I was chief negotiator in my
company's
contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly
without
giving away the keys to the front
door.
I was also an employer trustee for
the
unions
health, welfare, and retirement
fund.
GM executives were only interested
in
the
last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another
position
leaving
their messes for someone else to
cover
up.
A long term view of company issues
did
not
fit
their personal ambitions. This is a
sickness
in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven
short-term
focus
is
what's at the heart of all of our
economic
woes... long-term views have been
long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick
buck...
this
is
a sickness that permeates our
society...
right
from the ground up throughout the
top
levels
of
government and business... and the
suffering
we're seeing now will pale in
comparison
to
the
suffering that's around the corner
if
we
don't
do something about the destruction
we're
currently visiting on our
environment...
and so... since you do have
experience
in
the
area of union negotiations and
representation
for workers... how about a comment
on
the
suggestion I made twice now, with
respect
to
including an ownership stake in a
company
at
the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat
on
the
GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government)
intervention
to
prevent abuses and protect
stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically
traded
companies is nearly nil.
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's
all
we
need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do?
Since Reagan we haven't had enough in the
right
places....
Yes.
The Republican government should not have
intervened in the Schiavo case.
The government should not be involved in
a
woman's
choice about her life
The government should not be locking up
people
who
use Marijuana.
The government should not be involved in
marriage.
Among others.
The government should be involved in
issues
that
affect the entire public such as banks,
securities
trading. environment, food and drug
issues,
national security, energy policy, and
host
of
other things that "... promote the
general
Welfare,..."
Go look at what the founding fathers had
to
say
about "the general
welfare". There's a lot out there, but
here's
one quote to help you
get started: “Congress has not unlimited
powers
to provide for the
general welfare, but only those
specifically
enumerated.” Thomas
Jefferson.
History, precedence, congress, and the USSC
disagree.
This is the 21st century not the 18th
century.
Uh huh, I mean...sheesh...really...what did
the
founding fathers know
anyway???
They didn’t know shit about the 21st Century.
Republicans trying hard to take us backwards as
far and as fast as they can
But, they knew a lot of shit about overreaching
govt. That's the part
that you don't seem to get.
They knew all about King George.
They knew nothing about the 21st Century.
None of them could have forecast the needs of the
American people today.
|
Needs? You don't think the people of that time didn't have needs? We
have it so much easier then they ever did. No, it's not about
forecasting needs. It's more like desires. Actually, more like
entitlement mentality. The reality is that the founding fathers had
great foresight. They predicted that an overreaching and govt that is
too large would lead to exactly what we see happening now. Looks like
they hit the nail squarely on the head. That said, the constitution
isn’t about people’s needs. It’s about limiting the role of govt.
Well, that's what it's supposed to be about. Unfortunately, that no
longer appears to be the case and it's now been twisted to be
interpreted exactly as you state...about govt providing things for
people. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sid9
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aea5e2d0-5c09-458e-beb6-42c2db8431fd@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Nov 18, 8:30 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:846f4a46-29b3-4297-b643-40cafbfe59eb@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 9:07 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ab061dfb-8b46-4455-bf9b-7c1ab61a514b@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote
in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org
wrote
in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57"
dave-no_s...@nospam.net
wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote
in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's
troubles
is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than
setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars
and
pay
off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps
elevated
to
the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud
GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to
insist
that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM
shareholders)
have
to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get
by
have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go.
The
money is better in the middle
class
workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard
assed
for
not
forcing management to make good
decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted
the
authority to be able to provide
direction
to
management in the first place by
giving
all
employees ownership stake in the
company...
iow, part of their compensation
packages
should include stock in the
company...
at
least that way, your complaint may
have
some
merit.... and employees would
become
more
motivated to tell management that
they're
making bad business decisions by
designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking market
for
gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of
those
"lard
assed" union members give the boot
to
some
of those greedy, short-sighted and
incompetent management boobs for a
change...
and it would also be nice to see
that
the
people who are working hard to make
a
product that succeeds in the
marketplace
reap some rewards for their efforts
by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the
management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I
was
responding to the fool who blamed the
unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control
the
unions and consider the company's
long
term
stability.
actually... it's management's job to
negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are
with
ensuring workers get a fair wage,
decent
benefits and some form of protection
from
exploitative and corrupt
management...
unions
(should and) do consider the
company's
long
term stability because it is in their
and
their members' best interests to have
employment in the first place...
management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their
unions.
the only way management can "fail" in
dealing
with unions is by adopting militant
and
anti-union policies and practices...
and
many
companies have done this... like
walmart
has
aggressively prevented
unionization...
imo,
there should be some sort of
government
intervention which disallows this
sort
of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota
as
producing better, more desirable
autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer
while
Toyota designed and marketed the
Prius.
GM's management did very little
right.
I agree... the fault for this mess
lays
squarely on management's shoulders...
no
one
else...
also... the part you missed in my
post
is
that
employees who get some form of
ownership
in
the company are more prone to not
only
being
productive, but to also be more
proactive
in
addressing poor decisions by
management...
and
they also would be eligible to
receive
perks
which are currently given to those
who
sit
around board room tables or at
screens
watching their stock performance
while
being
completely disconnected from the
implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in
the
company's future, then they will be
less
prone
to just simply doing what their told
and
will
be more likely to contribute on
levels
which
not only ensure the company's
success,
but
to
work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for
some
time
now and if workers, who have inside
knowledge
of this fact are aware of such poor
performance, they would more likely
respond
sooner to do something to rectify the
situation before it gets out of
hand...
I'm well aware of a company's
relationship
with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and thanks
for
letting me know that you responded in
error
to
my previous post... it's always nice to
know
when someone admits to their
misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people
take
responsibility for their mistakes...
kind
of
like what's been happening throughout
this
multi-faceted economic nightmare... ;-)
I was chief negotiator in my company's
contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly
without
giving away the keys to the front
door.
I was also an employer trustee for the
unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in
the
last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position
leaving
their messes for someone else to cover
up.
A long term view of company issues did
not
fit
their personal ambitions. This is a
sickness
in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven short-term
focus
is
what's at the heart of all of our
economic
woes... long-term views have been
long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick
buck...
this
is
a sickness that permeates our
society...
right
from the ground up throughout the top
levels
of
government and business... and the
suffering
we're seeing now will pale in
comparison
to
the
suffering that's around the corner if
we
don't
do something about the destruction
we're
currently visiting on our
environment...
and so... since you do have experience
in
the
area of union negotiations and
representation
for workers... how about a comment on
the
suggestion I made twice now, with
respect
to
including an ownership stake in a
company
at
the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat on
the
GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government) intervention
to
prevent abuses and protect stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically
traded
companies is nearly nil.
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's
all
we
need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do?
Since Reagan we haven't had enough in the
right
places....
Yes.
The Republican government should not have
intervened in the Schiavo case.
The government should not be involved in a
woman's
choice about her life
The government should not be locking up
people
who
use Marijuana.
The government should not be involved in
marriage.
Among others.
The government should be involved in issues
that
affect the entire public such as banks,
securities
trading. environment, food and drug issues,
national security, energy policy, and host
of
other things that "... promote the general
Welfare,..."
Go look at what the founding fathers had to
say
about "the general
welfare". There's a lot out there, but here's
one quote to help you
get started: “Congress has not unlimited
powers
to provide for the
general welfare, but only those specifically
enumerated.” Thomas
Jefferson.
History, precedence, congress, and the USSC
disagree.
This is the 21st century not the 18th century.
Uh huh, I mean...sheesh...really...what did the
founding fathers know
anyway???
|
They didn’t know shit about the 21st Century.
Republicans trying hard to take us backwards as
far and as fast as they can |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sid9
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d95972a6-630a-4537-bf7f-a99dc0edac56@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Nov 18, 4:04 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:aea5e2d0-5c09-458e-beb6-42c2db8431fd@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 8:30 am, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:846f4a46-29b3-4297-b643-40cafbfe59eb@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 9:07 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:ab061dfb-8b46-4455-bf9b-7c1ab61a514b@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9"
s...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote
in
message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org
wrote
in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote
in
message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org
wrote
in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57"
dave-no_s...@nospam.net
wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote
in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's
troubles
is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather
than
setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars
and
pay
off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps
elevated
to
the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to
defraud
GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to
insist
that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM
shareholders)
have
to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to
get
by
have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM
shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm
go.
The
money is better in the middle
class
workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard
assed
for
not
forcing management to make good
decisions,
then perhaps they should be
granted
the
authority to be able to provide
direction
to
management in the first place by
giving
all
employees ownership stake in the
company...
iow, part of their compensation
packages
should include stock in the
company...
at
least that way, your complaint
may
have
some
merit.... and employees would
become
more
motivated to tell management
that
they're
making bad business decisions by
designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking
market
for
gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of
those
"lard
assed" union members give the
boot
to
some
of those greedy, short-sighted
and
incompetent management boobs for
a
change...
and it would also be nice to see
that
the
people who are working hard to
make
a
product that succeeds in the
marketplace
reap some rewards for their
efforts
by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the
management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post...
I
was
responding to the fool who blamed
the
unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to
control
the
unions and consider the company's
long
term
stability.
actually... it's management's job
to
negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns
are
with
ensuring workers get a fair wage,
decent
benefits and some form of
protection
from
exploitative and corrupt
management...
unions
(should and) do consider the
company's
long
term stability because it is in
their
and
their members' best interests to
have
employment in the first place...
management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their
unions.
the only way management can "fail"
in
dealing
with unions is by adopting
militant
and
anti-union policies and
practices...
and
many
companies have done this... like
walmart
has
aggressively prevented
unionization...
imo,
there should be some sort of
government
intervention which disallows this
sort
of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that
Toyota
as
producing better, more desirable
autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the
Hummer
while
Toyota designed and marketed the
Prius.
GM's management did very little
right.
I agree... the fault for this mess
lays
squarely on management's
shoulders...
no
one
else...
also... the part you missed in my
post
is
that
employees who get some form of
ownership
in
the company are more prone to not
only
being
productive, but to also be more
proactive
in
addressing poor decisions by
management...
and
they also would be eligible to
receive
perks
which are currently given to those
who
sit
around board room tables or at
screens
watching their stock performance
while
being
completely disconnected from the
implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in
the
company's future, then they will
be
less
prone
to just simply doing what their
told
and
will
be more likely to contribute on
levels
which
not only ensure the company's
success,
but
to
work toward averting such
problems...
gm has been performing poorly for
some
time
now and if workers, who have
inside
knowledge
of this fact are aware of such
poor
performance, they would more
likely
respond
sooner to do something to rectify
the
situation before it gets out of
hand...
I'm well aware of a company's
relationship
with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and
thanks
for
letting me know that you responded
in
error
to
my previous post... it's always nice
to
know
when someone admits to their
misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people
take
responsibility for their mistakes...
kind
of
like what's been happening
throughout
this
multi-faceted economic nightmare...
;-)
I was chief negotiator in my
company's
contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly
without
giving away the keys to the front
door.
I was also an employer trustee for
the
unions
health, welfare, and retirement
fund.
GM executives were only interested
in
the
last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another
position
leaving
their messes for someone else to
cover
up.
A long term view of company issues
did
not
fit
their personal ambitions. This is a
sickness
in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven
short-term
focus
is
what's at the heart of all of our
economic
woes... long-term views have been
long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick
buck...
this
is
a sickness that permeates our
society...
right
from the ground up throughout the
top
levels
of
government and business... and the
suffering
we're seeing now will pale in
comparison
to
the
suffering that's around the corner
if
we
don't
do something about the destruction
we're
currently visiting on our
environment...
and so... since you do have
experience
in
the
area of union negotiations and
representation
for workers... how about a comment
on
the
suggestion I made twice now, with
respect
to
including an ownership stake in a
company
at
the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat
on
the
GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government)
intervention
to
prevent abuses and protect
stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically
traded
companies is nearly nil.
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's
all
we
need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do?
Since Reagan we haven't had enough in the
right
places....
Yes.
The Republican government should not have
intervened in the Schiavo case.
The government should not be involved in
a
woman's
choice about her life
The government should not be locking up
people
who
use Marijuana.
The government should not be involved in
marriage.
Among others.
The government should be involved in
issues
that
affect the entire public such as banks,
securities
trading. environment, food and drug
issues,
national security, energy policy, and
host
of
other things that "... promote the
general
Welfare,..."
Go look at what the founding fathers had
to
say
about "the general
welfare". There's a lot out there, but
here's
one quote to help you
get started: “Congress has not unlimited
powers
to provide for the
general welfare, but only those
specifically
enumerated.” Thomas
Jefferson.
History, precedence, congress, and the USSC
disagree.
This is the 21st century not the 18th
century.
Uh huh, I mean...sheesh...really...what did
the
founding fathers know
anyway???
They didn’t know shit about the 21st Century.
Republicans trying hard to take us backwards as
far and as fast as they can
But, they knew a lot of shit about overreaching
govt. That's the part
that you don't seem to get.
|
They knew all about King George.
They knew nothing about the 21st Century.
None of them could have forecast the needs of the
American people today. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"LauraM" <fingerson88@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfc7a476-c7ac-43c6-abbf-6a03b549126f@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 5:36 pm, "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
"LauraM" <fingerso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81803983-20bc-4a29-baf3-d617c721238e@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 11:41 am, "Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@nospam.net> wrote:
"Roedy Green" <see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do
things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money
to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway.
Double-agreed. Unions are the death of american business. I once
asked a union secretary to laminate a phone list for me and she told
me it wasn't her job according to the union. GIVE ME A BREAK.
well... blaming an entire union for one asshole's militant attitude is
rather short-sighted.. there are assholes on both side of the fence and
to
follow your logic is to also state that management is the death of
american
business... which leaves us without any business to run... do you get the
picture now, dipshit...?...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I responded to a comment about unions. Yes, there are a lot of lousy
managers and CEOs out there. All with golden parachutes I suspect.
But you don't need a union to run a business. Absolutely,
positively. But you do need management.
|
lol... are you entirely certain about that...?... with today's
cross-functional teams and flattened hierarchies and particularly in many
common white collar jobs... management is nothing more than a bookkeeper
keeping track of what people do...
but, I will admit to a bit of facetiousness around this response... because
a unions' role isn't the day to day affairs of the business... it's to
protect employees... so, your comment is clearly one which is out to lunch
at best... but to follow your logic... without representation, employees
have no protection... and employees without protection get exploited... and
when employees get exploited they leave for greener pastures... and what's
left are those who can't get better work... overall quality suffers and the
business goes under...
| Quote: | All unions care about is getting more members so they can grow
financially and grow in power politically. Their main goal is NOT the
best interest of the business. It's two opposing forces. Why have
that when thousands and thousands of businesses operate very
successfully without unions.
|
the main goal of a union is to represent the employee... it never has been
the best interests of the business... but, that's also a short-sighted
comment because unions who do not factor the long-term health of the company
in their bargaining are simply shooting themselves in the foot... automakers
and their unions have been learning this the hard way and have begun to
change...
and although there are militant unions out there that have screwed over
business to line the pockets of their incestuous in-crowd at the expense of
their membership; there are also management groups out there that do the
same damned thing...
unions are nothing more than a counter-point... a check to balance the books
in order to ensure that people are not being exploited to the point of being
incapable of living a decent life by working for a wage with benefits that
can stave off poverty...
companies like walmart who actively work against the formation of unions
have armies of employees who are essentially slave wages without benefits...
few have full-time work and fewer still have any sort of medical or dental
or other benefits... they make barely enough money to get by from week to
week... and they and their families suffer and society suffers from it
because poverty does cost everyone...
and furthermore, people who work for businesses operating successfully
without unions are getting the wages they do precisely because unions have
established a market rate through their own negotiations which is far
greater than would be the case without them...
| Quote: | Okay, now...are you still going to lower yourself to calling me names?
|
are you still going to make ignorant comments which demean an entire set of
organizations that are just as important to a healthily functioning society
as businesses because you had a bad experience with one person...?...
if you are going to behave like a short-sighted dipshit who heaps disdain
over something you clearly haven't bothered to examine in any manner beyond
a narcissistic attitude, then you should not be surprised to receive such a
response... ;-)
"death of american business"...?!?!?!?!?!?... give me a fucking break...
assholes like you only get what you give.... and then you whine like
children when you get treated in the manner that you treat others... grow
the fuck up... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"E. Barry Bruyea" <lobbyists@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:4qn5i4d5u5flvj35ikabf306t003bt8fp3@4ax.com...
| |
