Could there be any better reason to ER?

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkieTexan Last year I took a stab at reading "Das Kapital" the treatise on capitalism written by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels back in the mid 19th century. Reagan was the leader of the Screen Actors' Guild at one time. So, when he was a "worker bee" and had to make his living as an actor, he favored labor unions. As president he delivered a serious blow to labor movements. Is that hypocrisy or just capitalism at its best?

Interesting summary, OkieTexan.

In the end IMHO, it's likely that each individual will act what they perceive as their best short-term financial interests. Labor, management, big, and small. Altruism and long-term planning are out there, but preciously uncommon.

It makes me feel a little cynical to conclude that, but it gets confirmed over and over as the best predictor of economic behavior.

[Andre1969]

I'm considered an exempt employee, but I guess I'm pretty lucky. My regular work week is 40 hours, but if I work more than 40, I get paid for it. However, I only get straight-time for those OT hours, and not time and a half.

I've heard the term "comp-time" before, but have never worked in a job where it applied to me.

I used to be non-exempt, where I got time and a half for OT. But back then I also didn't make nearly as much. I also had a part time job that, after taxes, actually came out to more $ per hour than my full-time job. And if I had to work OT at my full-time, it cut into my part-time. I had to use that as a bargaining tool on several occasions when they tried to switch me. I know my company didn't appreciate this, but my sentiment was that they paid me to be available from 7:30-4 every day, Mon-Fri. Any time other than that was my own, to do with as I saw fit. So if they wanted me to stay late and that cost me money at my other job, they needed to step up and compensate me for it.

When they did finally switch me from non-exempt to exempt, I was no longer working the part time job, and they also gave me a 10% mid-cycle raise when they made the transition. So I wasn't complaining. Too much. :P

[OkieTexan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud PATCO worked under a rule (law?) where they could not strike... but struck anyhow.... he just said the ones who struck were fired... PATCO killed themselves..

You are correct. I believe the impact of that action is still felt today in the labor movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa In the end IMHO, it's likely that each individual will act what they perceive as their best short-term financial interests. Labor, management, big, and small. Altruism and long-term planning are out there, but preciously uncommon.

Cynical or not, I agree. Wall Street is constanlty bashed for being "short-term" and "bottom-line" oriented when making decisions. However, investors are rewarded for these decisions with still higher returns. Is that ironic, or evil, or just capitalism at its best?

One thing I noticed in the book (DK) was society's attitude (in Engel's time) toward this short sighted, self serving pursuit of financial interests. Most regarded it as arrogance and aristocratic. Today, it is often lauded as the core value of the American dream. Each individual can plot his/her own economic destiny. This was unheard of in 19th century Europe. Now, the whole world wants to be a part of it! Das Kapital was a fun read.

I do hope to read the Road to Serfdom. I notice the forward was written by Milton Friedman. It should be good.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha It sounds like it is time for employees to begin to unionize again.

Wow, I'd personally hate to see unions become the 'answer' to this problem. While there may be some pain in letting the free market work, I really think it is best in the long run.

If 'Joe' is creating a bad work environment, he will either adapt to the feedback he gets, or the will lose the best workers (always the most marketable), morale will crumble and productivity will go down. This only goes on so long before his more productive competitors drive him out of business, or the company adapts. Yes, it is hard, but I still say, if you don't like the work environment, takes steps to change it and be prepared to leave for greener pastures.

Here's why I don't like the union 'answer': it becomes a 'one size fits all' set of rules and regulations. Now, envision a hypothetical small start up of very motivated, very innovative, very skilled workers. They know the only way they can take on the 'big guys' is to work long, long hours and little time off for a couple of years in order to get their product ready. But the payoff, to them (and to society if their product is truly innovative and useful) is huge. They *want* to work the long hours. But, in a union dominated environment, this type of behavior could be 'outlawed' - and we all suffer.

I say - let the free market work. Some of the posters think all these companies are just stuck into short term thinking - and that's the problem? That may be true, but then use it - make some lemonade. Start your own company and show them how much more profitable long term thinking works. It should be easy right - after all, these guys are all so dumb, anyone should be able to do it better? Go get 'em.

-ERD50

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Here's why I don't like the union 'answer': it becomes a 'one size fits all' set of rules and regulations.

I think the only reason unions exist... is management.

It's just as easy to point the fingers at bad unions as it is to point at bad management. On the whole, though, unions have reined in the worst of the management excesses.

But Hydro's original post doesn't need a union to fix that problem. It'll probably fix itself when the CFO is ignored/circumvented and goes down in self-immolation. He's certainly not a concensus-building team player!

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I think the only reason unions exist... is management. It's just as easy to point the fingers at bad unions as it is to point at bad management. On the whole, though, unions have reined in the worst of the management excesses.

Agreed. But typically, bad management can only persist when there is little free competition in the hiring industry. If there is competition, workers will leave badly managed companies and move to better managed companies. If a company manages to develop a monopoly and can force bad situations on employees, I'd prefer to see the govt step in and open up the market. I think that is the lesser of two evils.

Quote:

But Hydro's original post doesn't need a union to fix that problem. It'll probably fix itself when the CFO is ignored/circumvented and goes down in self-immolation. He's certainly not a concensus-building team player!

Agreed again, the free market will catch up with them - in time.

-ERD50

[sgeeeee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompoundInterestFan . . .I'm still not convinced that this is as widespread as people make it out to be. I've seen quite a few articles discussing the problems companies are running into with outsourcing, and some are choosing not to puruse that route. There's no question that it's occuring; I just haven't seen evidence that it's a standard practice now. . . .

Look closer. Read "The World is Flat", or "Intelligent Enterprise". It isn't happening in every industry to the same degree, but any large company that isn't exploring outsoursing at least some of it's work is not competitive today.

[Craig]

When I think about short-term / long-term business thinking I think of Toyota ... and how they're kicking the a$$es of our Detroit automakers. Arguments can be made about how "free market" Toyota and other Japanese companies truly are, but they are long-term thinkers ...

[Toejam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles When I think about short-term / long-term business thinking I think of Toyota ... and how they're kicking the a$$es of our Detroit automakers. Arguments can be made about how "free market" Toyota and other Japanese companies truly are, but they are long-term thinkers ...

Someone wrote a cynical post regarding Bill Ford Jr.'s decision to appoint former Boeing executive Alan Mulally as the new CEO of Ford Motor Company:

"Mulally thought Airbus was tough to deal with, wait until he has to deal with the likes of Toyota - Mulally will soon find out that keeping his seat upright and in the locked position ain’t going to do squat - the barf bag may come in handy though…

Today’s in-flight movie: Airport ‘77. Enjoy your flight with Air Ford.

Over and out,
SKT "

And to think Mulally had been driving a Lexus prior to his appointment at Ford.

I myself am hoping the Big 3 can turn things around and become more competitive.