Well I guess Obama giving GM and Chrysler to the unions was not enough, and now come the middle of this month the UAW wants Ford employees to strike if a new agreement is not reached. Meanwhile GM and Chrysler have expressed no intentions of a strike, even though their contacts end at the same time.
Why are union folks so ignorant that they can not realize the conflict of interest that arises once a union owns the company they work for?
Here is a quote from Fox news that further backs up my statements!
Ford is the only one of the Big Three domestic automakers where, legally, workers can strike. Both GM and Chrysler and their union workers agreed in accepting the federal government's auto bailout in 2009 to resolve contract issues through binding arbitration.
I'd like you to explain how it's a conflict of interest. I would think the employees should have a say in how the company is run, and giving partial ownership to the employees gives them incentive to perform well. Hell, there are companies that are entirely employee owned - like yours. Is your company a conflict of interest??? Just because you can't perform well, doesn't mean you don't have incentive to.
After reading your above post I have come to the conclusion that the reason business loves union workers so much is because they really are dumber than a rock.
GM and Chrysler can no longer strike and must settle for arbitration because they are now owned in part by the union. Ford's is next on the list.
You people even PAY these people in the form of dues for their representation! LOL Thats one hell of a racket! If I ever get to the point I have employees outside myself I am going to ask them to pay me dues so they can work at my business. I wonder how well that will go over? If they say okay then I know I got myself a sucker!
Thanks for the tip on how to hire workers PowerStroker! LOL!
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
Let's say you were in a lawsuit and your attorney not only represented YOU, but was also representing the person who was suing you. That would be a conflict of interest.
Same holds true if you were paying a labor union to protect your interest, yet that same labor union had an ownership stake in the business you were paying them to protect you from.
Come on PowerStroker, tell me your just pulling my chain because if you can't see the conflict of interest there I am going to have to seriously consider questioning your intelligence.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
They don't protect us from the business, they make sure we get fair compensation from it. With an ownership stake, they have incentive to make the business run efficiently so all owners can benefit.
Well PowerStroker, if what you say is true than none of this would be an issue. As it stands many companies are going out of business or filing Chapter 7 to bust up the Unions.
So tell me PowerStroker, when GM and Chrysler went under and was passed to the unions how come they lost their right to strike? Apparently the union higher-ups know a conflict of interest when they see it, however the workers are just plain ignorant and lose more and more.
I guess it's okay PowerStroker. I could give a rats ass because I dont have to pay union dues, nor do I have to abide by their ideals or directives. You on the other have DO have to abide by the union. If I don't like the way a unions employees act, they get fired. On to the next company. Try to fire your union the next time they piss you off!
Because it eventually turns into a burden on the nation. Plus I have to listen to union guys brag when things are good, and cry like babies when they dont get their way.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl