how-to block ads
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to TK Junk Mail
Re: telephone service
said by TK Junk Mail  :~snip~ The main opponents of this deal from the beginning were the overpaid union workers. Some of them may lose their jobs and costs should come down as a result. How the hell do you define overpaid? Do you know what the pay scale for techs there is? If so, please post it so we can be enlightened as to what you think overpaid is. Until then, please stop the passive-aggressive (or any other kind of) Union attacks! | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by viperlmw :said by TK Junk Mail :~snip~ The main opponents of this deal from the beginning were the overpaid union workers. Some of them may lose their jobs and costs should come down as a result. How the hell do you define overpaid? Do you know what the pay scale for techs there is? If so, please post it so we can be enlightened as to what you think overpaid is. Until then, please stop the passive-aggressive (or any other kind of) Union attacks! Well, since the unions have monopoly power over the supply of labor to Verizon, many would consider them by definition "overpaid", i.e., Verizon is required to pay more in order to purchase labor, than they otherwise would have to, for what the market value of that labor would be in a free competitive market. | |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by PDXPLT : Well, since the unions have monopoly power over the supply of labor to Verizon, many would consider them by definition "overpaid", i.e., Verizon is required to pay more in order to purchase labor, than they otherwise would have to, for what the market value of that labor would be in a free competitive market. Why is it when Labor join together to increase power that is considered greedy.
When management positions a company to market dominance to maximize profitability that is considered great business acumen.
In a free market shouldn't all players continuously maneuver to increase competitive advantage?
/tom | |
workingman
@verizon.net
moderated:
February 27th, @12:21AM
|  reply to viperlmw
You don't even know the facts! Shame on you! The Public Advocate in the state of New Hampshire has always been opposed and still is. Every independent company hired by regulatory to analize the deal has denounced it stating that there are no stipulations both Verizon and Fairpoint could agree to that would outweigh the risk involved for the state also 122 state reps from New Hampshire sent letters to the board denouncing the deal. There is more if you'd like me to go on but I won't because you don't care about the hard working laborers in the country that have been getting the shaft by corporate America for many years now. You don't care about the jobs we are losing to other countries or the south, at least not until it's you're own. | |
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT :Well, since the unions have monopoly power over the supply of labor to Verizon, many would consider them by definition "overpaid", i.e., Verizon is required to pay more in order to purchase labor, than they otherwise would have to, for what the market value of that labor would be in a free competitive market. If it's a monopoly, than it's one sanctioned by the Company, because a Collective Bargaining Agreement is an AGREEMENT, reached by BOTH sides. Believe me, management wouldn't agree to it if it didn't benefit them (stable, trained, qualified workforce invested in the Company, highly structured working conditions, highly structured pay scales and disciplinary processes, assured thru the life of the contract, etc.). So if the Company doesn't consider their labor force to be overpaid (by definition, as they reached an AGREEMENT), then why would anyone else? BTW, remember your 'market value of that labor' when you recommend the NFL fire Eli Manning, or the NBA fire Shaq, etc. as they are all card carrying Union members. | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to tschmidt
said by tschmidt :Why is it when Labor join together to increase power that is considered greedy. 'never used the word "greedy". Of course, in a free market, all players are acting to maximize their utility; i.e., being "greedy". 'nothing wrong with that IMHO.
When management positions a company to market dominance to maximize profitability that is considered great business acumen. Yes, but when that dominance gets to the point where the company is deemed to have monopoly power, antitrust law severely restricts the things they can do. Not only are union members exempt from antitrust, but the law even sanctions their monopoly.
In a free market shouldn't all players continuously maneuver to increase competitive advantage? Of course. But the market isn't "free" in this case. Employees should be free to organize, and present a "package deal" to the employer to provide their labor services. But if the market was free, the employer would have the option of saying "no thanks", and be free to purchase labor services elsewhere. Under the law, they don't have that option. | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw :If it's a monopoly, than it's one sanctioned by the Company, because a Collective Bargaining Agreement is an AGREEMENT, reached by BOTH sides. It's not an agreement freely reached. The employer has a gun to its head; i.e., they have to agree to it in order to purchase labor. They can't go elsewhere for those services. The union thus has monoploy power.
Believe me, management wouldn't agree to it if it didn't benefit them (stable, trained, qualified workforce invested in the Company, highly structured working conditions, highly structured pay scales and disciplinary processes, assured thru the life of the contract, etc.). Next you're going to try to sell us a bridge in Brooklyn. Very, very few companies would prefer to continue to deal with a union, if they had the option not to. Any CEO that said so would be fired by the Board.BTW, remember your 'market value of that labor' when you recommend the NFL fire Eli Manning, or the NBA fire Shaq, etc. as they are all card carrying Union members. At least the unions in the entertainment industries (sports, TV, movies, etc.) permit performance-based compensation, rather than protecting mediocrity by insisting on seniority-based compensation (i.e., get a raise just for showing up). | |
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by PDXPLT :said by viperlmw :If it's a monopoly, than it's one sanctioned by the Company, because a Collective Bargaining Agreement is an AGREEMENT, reached by BOTH sides. It's not an agreement freely reached. The employer has a gun to its head; i.e., they have to agree to it in order to purchase labor. They can't go elsewhere for those services. The union thus has monoploy power. Believe me, management wouldn't agree to it if it didn't benefit them (stable, trained, qualified workforce invested in the Company, highly structured working conditions, highly structured pay scales and disciplinary processes, assured thru the life of the contract, etc.). Next you're going to try to sell us a bridge in Brooklyn. Very, very few companies would prefer to continue to deal with a union, if they had the option not to. Any CEO that said so would be fired by the Board. BTW, remember your 'market value of that labor' when you recommend the NFL fire Eli Manning, or the NBA fire Shaq, etc. as they are all card carrying Union members. At least the unions in the entertainment industries (sports, TV, movies, etc.) permit performance-based compensation, rather than protecting mediocrity by insisting on seniority-based compensation (i.e., get a raise just for showing up). There is no gun to management's head. They have the option of firing everyone and bringing in a non-union workforce. They can even do it during a strike, and have the option to 'lock out' the Union workforce. As for the Brooklyn Bridge, I'm not selling anything, I'm just re-iterating the typical management line whenever a new contract is agreed upon. As for those raises, that's not always the case. For example, the Union I belong to agreed to NO pay raises for 3 years, because the company was having some financial difficulty. Now that company is back to profitability and paying a dividend, and management credits, in part, it's close working relationship with it's Union personnel. So, while some boards may be hostile to Unions, others are not. Plus, every contract is different. Performance based incentives and raises are showing up more and more in contracts. | |
|
