- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: GM immediately cuts benefits for striking workers; UAW triggered
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:30 pm to 777Tiger
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:30 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
trying to stay neutral and stir the pot here but in many cases these workers have a lot more vested in the company than the CEOs, who in many cases are "temporary" mercenary types that arrive and depart via golden parachute, and are in many cases turning to employees for cuts in benefits and pay to mitigate their poor business decisions
bullshite. Employees work for the company not the other way around. The cost of health insurance for these clowns are increasing every year. Do you think the company should just absorb that cost?
This post was edited on 9/18/19 at 12:32 pm
2
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:36 pm to Janky
quote:
The cost of health insurance costs for these clowns are increasing every year. Do you think the company should just absorb that cost?
not sure what you mean by this, but if the company offers a health care package, and typically the cost is shared and partially paid by the employee, it's just another one of the costs associated with running a business, and health care, pension, 40lK, etc., are usually offered by the company as a means of attracting better, more qualified applicants, not something that just popped up and is foisted on the company
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:37 pm to slackster
quote:Both of your charts have shown that the share of income (again, not wages) going to the top 10% or 20% of households has increased as union membership has declined. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
I've got charts for days though...
My argument would be that the household income growth among that top group is not due to "better workers" (which I take to mean a person who is more productive than someone else at the same task), being rewarded with higher wages due to being free of union restrictions on work and bargaining.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:42 pm to member12
A dog on the set of a tv show in 2019 is treated better than any human auto worker was treated in 1919 so you can argue the union was a good idea in 1919. Today, not so much.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:42 pm to 777Tiger
I am fully aware of how cafeteria plans work and the exact same thing can be said for hiring CEO's. My point is as these costs increase at some point the company will have to pass more of the burden on to the EE's.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:47 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
in many cases these workers have a lot more vested in the company than the CEOs,
please explain what the employees have "invested" in the company?
if a CEO has a benefit package that is closely tied to the performance of the company, but the employee has guaranteed packages through a CBA.......how is the employee have more invested??
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:47 pm to Janky
quote:
EE's.
what's that?
quote:
as these costs increase at some point the company will have to pass more of the burden on to the EE's.
variable costs are just that, it's up to the bean counters to price their product to be able to cover costs and still make a profit, nothing remains constant
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:47 pm to member12
quote:
GM immediately cuts benefits for striking workers; UAW triggered
LOL. And that’s how you do that.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:49 pm to Janky
quote:
The cost of health insurance for these clowns are increasing every year. Do you think the company should just absorb that cost?
Lol and the cost of vehicles goes up every year. Should consumers just absorb that cost?
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:49 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
what's that?
Employees
quote:
it's up to the bean counters to price their product to be able to cover costs and still make a profit,
So, raising the cost of the product to the end user? Imagine that, as an end user I am arguing against that.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:51 pm to Janky
quote:
raising the cost of the product to the end user? I
yes, capitalism and all
quote:
as a member of the proletariat I am arguing against that.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:52 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:
If you don't believe me you can ask the CEO how she survives on only $22 million per year.
I agree that a lot of CEO pay seems ridiculous.
That said, if that compensation was divided up it would only be about $130 a year per employee.
Reminds me of the lies we are told about taxing only the 1% to pay for trillion dollar government programs.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:52 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Lol and the cost of vehicles goes up every year. Should consumers just absorb that cost?
That is exactly my point. As the cost to the company increases the cost of the product increases. If more of cost was paid by the employees then product cost would not have to increase as much..... in theory.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:53 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Union strength had dropped precipitously in the last 30 years, which correlated to stagnating wages. Coincidence?
Hey I can play that game. Stagnated Wages is also correlated with the explosion in illegal immigration since 1990.
This post was edited on 9/18/19 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:55 pm to Janky
quote:
That is exactly my point. As the cost to the company increases the cost of the product increases. If more of cost was paid by the employees then product cost would not have to increase as much..... in theory.
it's supply and demand, no? if they put a product out there that consumers won't buy that's on them, if it is a for-profit company why would employees be expected to pay to produce the product and not the other way around? that's just crazy talk
Posted on 9/18/19 at 12:57 pm to Janky
Why should employees pay for the cost of the product?
Posted on 9/18/19 at 1:10 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:
Both of your charts have shown that the share of income (again, not wages) going to the top 10% or 20% of households has increased as union membership has declined. I don't think anyone would argue with that.
I figured you might click the link. Since you didn't here is another one...
Posted on 9/18/19 at 1:18 pm to JohnnyKilroy
Because you are costing me more than I can raise the price of my product without losing sales. That is why it is called contract negotiations.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 1:29 pm to member12
This is why we need unions.
GM trying to push the little guy around.
GM trying to push the little guy around.
Posted on 9/18/19 at 1:31 pm to pioneerbasketball
quote:
GM trying to push the little guy around.
[/img]
Page 6 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News