Another victory for the unions!

[Wilber]

I'm sure it was stipulated somewhere that they would be paid first when everything tanked. Too bad for the seniors collecting pensions that they're not similarly protected. But, the laws aren't set up to protect people - just investors.

No doubt. They did their homework and decided there were enough assets left to cover them when the company was broken up if they were at the top of the creditors list. ACE did the same thing when it made a loan to Air Canada at junk rates. Money it had made from the sale of the airlines own assets. So where did all the money go. We know the executives got a good chunk. No doubt Ripplewood managed to siphon off a bunch. Doesn't look like there was much effort made to change the company in order to make it profitable.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Doesn't look like there was much effort made to change the company in order to make it profitable.

That isn't the role of angel or vulture capitalists, without which there would have been instant death as an ongoing concern anyway. Some would even say it prevents the current management team from pissing away what's left. It is not unlike paying salvage prices for junk cars, hoping to make a profit on the parts.

[Wilber]

That isn't the role of angel or vulture capitalists, without which there would have been instant death as an ongoing concern anyway. Some would even say it prevents the current management team from pissing away what's left. It is not unlike paying salvage prices for junk cars, hoping to make a profit on the parts.

Exactly. They are interested in extracting the maximum they can before the company goes tits up. That includes whatever they can get from its employees.

[bush_cheney2004]

The employees aren't so innocent either, demanding their share of the scraps. Productivity plummets, layoffs ensue and the union seniority system begins to eat its own. The smart ones (labour and management) get the hell out long before the last gasp.

I specifically remember briefing and escorting two suits from a venture capital firm around our plant and labs, and it was my job to point out the hidden, mismanaged value to attract their investment to the tune of millions. The alternative is instant bankruptcy.

Edited November 20, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey maybe it was just a big sales stunt to clear the shelves of Twinkies and Ding-Dongs. Union may reconsider:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/19/hostess-twinkie.html

[Wilber]

The employees aren't so innocent either, demanding their share of the scraps. Productivity plummets, layoffs ensue and the union seniority system begins to eat its own. The smart ones (labour and management) get the hell out long before the last gasp.

I specifically remember briefing and escorting two suits from a venture capital firm around our plant and labs, and it was my job to point out the hidden, mismanaged value to attract their investment to the tune of millions. The alternative is instant bankruptcy.

If everyone is fighting over scraps, why shouldn't the employees as well. In many cases, going after the employees is just the process of grabbing more scraps than you otherwise could get. I don't blame employees for being reluctant to continually sacrifice just so people who really have no interest in the company's survival can pocket more themselves. Ultimately the vultures don't really change anything except who pockets the scraps.

My companies went through two merges and both times while things were dodgy and they were laying off, I was able to take leaves and go offshore while the dust settled. I wouldn't have been able to do that if unions hadn't negotiated those leaves to keep other guys employed. Just looking after #1 like the vultures.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Ultimately the vultures don't really change anything except who pockets the scraps.

The vultures don't have to break into the joint....they are invited to invest in a risky venture.

My companies went through two merges and both times while things were dodgy and they were laying off, I was able to take leaves and go offshore while the dust settled. I wouldn't have been able to do that if unions hadn't negotiated those leaves to keep other guys employed. Just looking after #1 like the vultures.

Fine by me....just wanted to point out that the "poor union employees" are often picking at the carcass and bones too.

[Wilber]

The vultures don't have to break into the joint....they are invited to invest in a risky venture.

They don't have to but they aren't there for the companies benefit, they are there for their own. Why blame the company's fate on the employees for acting the same way.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

They don't have to but they aren't there for the companies benefit, they are there for their own. Why blame the company's fate on the employees for acting the same way.

I'm not blaming one over the other....but the guys risking good money for bad certainly didn't screw things up. They are buying debt at a discount and aren't in business to lose money.

[Wilber]

I'm not blaming one over the other....but the guys risking good money for bad certainly didn't screw things up. They are buying debt at a discount and aren't in business to lose money.

I'm not really blaming one over the other either. I just don't buy this crap that the employees are the bad guys.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ultimately the employees are a labor and benefits cost that must be supported by sales revenue, along with the cost of sales, G&A, and other burden and material costs. Any business that waits too long to pull the trigger on reducing costs ultimately risks burning up more capital and beginning the debt death spiral. Smart employees, especially those invested in ESOPs, learn how to read a balance sheet and get a clue. Not only is their employment invested in a possibly failing company, but they may be buying stock at the same time.

Employee owned companies (like United Airlines) can also run things into the ground just like the fat cats.

Edited November 20, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

This is great. Not only did the executives get a raise this year, but they'll be arguing before a judge to get their bonuses as well.

Edit: ....and the judge sends them to mediation instead.

Edited November 20, 2012 by cybercoma

[Pliny]

Quit and do what, go work somewhere else with the same conditions. Like it or not, unions have improved conditions in non union companies because they provide competition when it comes to providing decent working conditions.

I guess people are stupid then. They can't use their skills and abilities to find decent work.

Unions are indeed good for countering employee abuse that will not correct itself. Working 12 hour days, six days a week was the norm and not abuse. It brought productivity levels to unprecedented heights and North America became the wealthiest continent on the planet. Certainly where technological change also improved productivity, that and the increased productivity of the employees themselves created the wealth that led to easier working conditions and a greater share in the wealth that brought up the living standards. There was no union at Ford when he started his production line and paid workers unprecedented wages. Unions came later.

Compulsory union membership is a myth.

Silly boy. I have been bullied by Pro-Union members before. They make it very uncomfortable for the employee who doesn't support the Union position on all issues. Most Union members just go along to get along and Unions know that. The Pro-union activist usually sees the Union position is forwarded.

In Canada, no one is forced to join a union. A non member in a union job must pay dues however as the courts have ruled they benefit from the unions representation even though they aren't a member. A court can also rule that a non member's dues go to a registered charity if it is convinced contributing to a union goes against a persons religious or other beliefs.

In the US, the Supreme Court has also ruled that union membership is not mandatory and unions can only collect dues from non members that are specifically used for collective bargaining.

Unions are democratic organizations where elected representatives act for the membership and all are bound by the will of the majority. You still have to pay taxes and obey laws if the Conservatives win the election but you voted Liberal.

The bullying tactics of Unions are not a myth.....hmm... it does seem pro-Liberal activists display some of the tendencies of Unions.

[Pliny]

I'm sure it was stipulated somewhere that they would be paid first when everything tanked. Too bad for the seniors collecting pensions that they're not similarly protected. But, the laws aren't set up to protect people - just investors.

Because investors aren't people? Are you saying there is too much regulation that protects "just invesotrs"?

[Pliny]

Google it and feel free to come back and apologize for using dailykos as a source.

I haven't seen that apology yet.

Dailykos spin is getting out of hand and it will soon discredit itself.

[Wilber]

This is great. Not only did the executives get a raise this year, but they'll be arguing before a judge to get their bonuses as well.

Edit: ....and the judge sends them to mediation instead.

Bonuses for failure. No sense of entitlement there.

[cybercoma]

Bonuses for failure. No sense of entitlement there.

No, stupid. It's the unions that have the sense of entitlement that collapsed the company. Duh!~

Edited November 20, 2012 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Because investors aren't people? Are you saying there is too much regulation that protects "just invesotrs"?

There's a double-reverse irony built in here. Investors are people... but... are they ?

[cybercoma]

I haven't seen that apology yet.

Dailykos spin is getting out of hand and it will soon discredit itself.

The company agreed to a contract and failed to uphold it, spending their employees' pension funds. Screw them. You sign a contract, uphold your end of the bargain.

[Bonam]

There's a double-reverse irony built in here. Investors are people... but... are they ?

Care to elaborate? Of course they're people. I didn't magically transform into a robot when I bought some shares.

[TimG]

I'm sure it was stipulated somewhere that they would be paid first when everything tanked. Too bad for the seniors collecting pensions that they're not similarly protected. But, the laws aren't set up to protect people - just investors.

Except the "seniors" with a company pension fund *are* investors since the health of their pension depends on the company. The only real issue are which investors get priority when a company is liquidated. I used to be of the view that there is no need for regulation but in the US where the government guarantees the pensions the pension liability should be at the front of the list to protect taxpayers. Even in Canada, I am coming around to the view that it is too easy for management of a failing company to game the system so worker pensions should be at the top of the creditor list (they already do this for worker wages and payroll deductions owed to CRA). Edited November 20, 2012 by TimG

[Merlin]

Care to elaborate? Of course they're people. I didn't magically transform into a robot when I bought some shares.

Robots are cool.

[Michael Hardner]

Care to elaborate? Of course they're people. I didn't magically transform into a robot when I bought some shares.

A corporation can invest in something. Is a corporation a person ?

[dre]

It brought productivity levels to unprecedented heights and North America became the wealthiest continent on the planet.

No North America became the wealthiest continent on the planet BECAUSE laborers fought for good pay and good working conditions. Thats what allowed us to build the gigantic middle class thats responsible for all the consumption that accounts for the majority of our economy.

[bleeding heart]

It's true. All we have to do is look at the timelines: the growth of the middle class, the increased secularization, advances in technology and knowledge in medicine, scientific knowledge generally, the decrease of corruption in the legal and political spheres, the increase in civil rights...heck, even the unprecedented increase in the numbers and holdings of the wealthy class....all occurred under the auspices of the social safety nets...of the "welfare state," if one prefers that language.

Now, sure, one could protest that "correlation does not necessarily imply causation".

But we'd be talking quite the coincidence, I'd say.