HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Why Unions must be broken (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=103972)

Joe T Choker 09-16-2004 12:06 PM

Why Unions must be broken
 
Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pb...28/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed

Poignant Discussion 09-16-2004 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pb...28/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed


:shakehead

I can't say anything to top this ignorant post. I wonder how much you would like unions though if you were working in a car plant at minimum wage

shakes 09-16-2004 12:52 PM

wow, what a rubbish post. I'd figure that someone with 5000 odd posts would come up with something better than that. :shakehead

Joe T Choker 09-16-2004 12:59 PM

what's so wrong with comparing UNIONS with UNIONS and corporations *like Southwest-non-UNION* make money, or don't make money for their companies/themselves...Union controlled airlines are filing Chapter 11's left right and center

PredsMan 09-16-2004 01:48 PM

Folks working in auto plants don't make minimum wage.

they make $30+ per hour, and have pensions out the rear end.

Wonder why manufacturing bolts out of the US? That's why.

Now you know why your car costs $35 k

7NA is right, as far as I'm concerned. There was a time when unions were VERY important in getting fair wages, and safe working environments. I think that time has passed us by.

H/H 09-16-2004 02:02 PM

I hope some of you brush up on your history and study how the conditions were for workers BEFORE unions came around.

AGraveOne 09-16-2004 02:05 PM

Something has to protect the workers from the owners...either that takes the form of Unions or the government (which in our case is supposedly a UNION (for the people))

Unions though become too powerful and can choke a company out of competition (ie Airlines).

I don't know the answer, but both sides have pluses and minuses.

i think i like the idea of arbitration...

littleHossa 09-16-2004 02:15 PM

Unions weren't created because someone though it would be fun, and they weren't created in an age of prosperity either. Someone saying that they should be taken down is pretty inconsiderate. Some unions abuse and go too far, some just have the worker's interest in mind. For Air Canada for example, it was taking big paycuts or the airline going out of business, they took the paycuts because they knew management was serious.
However for those greedy unions, what do you say to them, "yes the owners/bosses abused the average worker for 5000 years, but you're an evil person for asking for a 10% payraise!"

The same can be said about the NHL, when the union talks first started, the owners of Detroit traded that player to a hockey wasteland in Chicago. (some with hockey history help me on this) Phil Esposito was working in a steel factory during the summers between seasons, Phil Esposito.
I don't really side with the players, because I'm sure they don't do it with their past brothers in mind who taken adantage of for the NHL's first 70 years, but you can't call them the devil after they've only done it for such a short period of time when compared to the owners.

The Pucks 09-16-2004 02:24 PM

There are good unions and there are bad unions. There are good buisness owners and there are bad buisness owners.

Its just a cross section of humanity, we need both unions and owners, just sometimes one or the other gets to much power.

DarkHorse 09-16-2004 02:25 PM

I can't stand unions, and I've been in them twice and my wife's in one now.


Unions supress innovation and inspire laziness. Once, before OSHA, they were necessary. Now, they are made mainly to aid the top earners, as they are the only ones with the free time to work for the union. Unions don't care about the lowest-paid member. They are a drag on the average salary. You know, the amount paid to Bob Goodenow.

Every arguement from the players sounds emptier and emptier. Would I take a paycut to make sure my company would stay in business? You better believe it if it meant I still made over a million and worked 2/3rds of the year playing a game.

SmokeyClause 09-16-2004 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H/H
I hope some of you brush up on your history and study how the conditions were for workers BEFORE unions came around.

Unions have their place for protecting some workers, though very few modern workers actually need anything in the way of Union support (there's a reason unions are dying). But you cannot use history as a reason for keeping unions. A lot has changed in management philosophy in 100 years. Workers are viewed less and less as expendable commodities and more and more like valuable contributors (at least those that deserve to be). If unions truely were the way to go, the hundreds of great non-Union companies that litter "Best places to work" lists in business magazines everywhere would not exist.

With regards to the Airline industry. While unions certainly were a major factor in the demise of several major powers, the companies themselves were the ones who agreed to many of the laughable salary/status structures, etc. To that end, let the unions, whom workers tend to follow blindly like lambs to slaughter, and their corporate counterparts fall. Then, from the ashes, more companies like SouthWest (not necessarily the business model of low-cost, low-service differentiation, but of management philosophy of celebrating the employee) will spring up.

I have found that Unions tend to benefit the Union leaders and select undeserving individuals. By undeserving individual, I am speaking of the worker who doens't perform his job in a satisfactory manner yet keeps it due to Union power (If you have ever worked in a GM auto plant, you've met this guy). The deserving individual, who would likely garner more wages outside of a union system, is the one who pays. There are many instances of non-Union employees making considerably more than their Union-tied fellow employees while doing the same job for the same company :eek: .

But Unions do bring some workers together and pacify others and for that I applaud them. But common sense would tell you in this modern era of business, they are generally counterproductive.

joechip 09-16-2004 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGraveOne
Something has to protect the workers from the owners...either that takes the form of Unions or the government (which in our case is supposedly a UNION (for the people))

Unions though become too powerful and can choke a company out of competition (ie Airlines).

I don't know the answer, but both sides have pluses and minuses.

i think i like the idea of arbitration...

Unions are necessary to resolve temporary imbalances between management and labor, but they are only effective if the workers are in some way truly 'irreplacable.' In the case of factory workers (UAW members) spot-welders are not terribly hard to replace, for example. Even a highly-specialized group like Air-Traffic Controllers couldn't stand together when they were opened up to the market. Unions in the U.S. derive what power they have from their place as government-chartered entities. A union is needed for the sole purpose of making management stand up and respect the workers at a particular moment in time. The longer a labor struggle goes on the more 'replacable' the workers become.

Also, try to remember that it is ownership/management of a company that has undertaken the extreme risk of captial and time to put said company together. The workers ultimately assume very little risk in that regard. Their risk is only taken AFTER they've taken the job offered to them, not before.

Generally though, remember that the first rule of ANY organization is not to fufill the mandate for which it was created, it is to continue existing, and that's exactly what most protectionist rhetoric is about. Sometimes, in the case of a business, the organization's mandate is it's mechanism for survival, namely private enterprise, who survive only by providing a good/service that people are actually willing to buy.

Governments and, indirectly, their subsidiaries (Unions, Corporations, Public/Private Partnerships, Political Parties, etc.) gain their funding through the enforcement of laws and have no direct responsibility to their 'clients.'

7NA is absolutely correct in that the Union needs to be removed from this situation. And, frankly, if we don't have hockey for a year to get rid of the NHLPA (and I never have to hear Bob Goodenow speak ever again) then so be it. I have no idea if a salary cap will be good for the game or not. I know the union is not, though, because it is interested first and foremost in it's survival not the League's. I think it's safe to say that the League is interested in it's survival, though. As a fan which organization would you back?

I know my answer.

Ta,

joechip 09-16-2004 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkHorse
Would I take a paycut to make sure my company would stay in business? You better believe it if it meant I still made over a million and worked 2/3rds of the year playing a game.

Years ago myself and the rest oft he staff took a pay cut at a small NON_UNION company that I'd put in 3 years with because we were going through a rough time, but I, and everyone else thought management had been good to us and we wanted to be good to them, and I certainly made a helluva lot less than 5% of the average salary of an NHL'er. We would have gone out of business if we hadn't. That company, btw, though I no longer work there, still exists and is one of the few to survive a nasty industry contraction, with most of that staff still there.

Frankly, this is about protecting the Union and the Doug Weights and Curtis Josephs.... not the Adam Mairs and the Ty Conklins.

ta,

H/H 09-16-2004 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
Unions have their place for protecting some workers, though very few modern workers actually need anything in the way of Union support (there's a reason unions are dying). But you cannot use history as a reason for keeping unions. A lot has changed in management philosophy in 100 years. Workers are viewed less and less as expendable commodities and more and more like valuable contributors (at least those that deserve to be). If unions truely were the way to go, the hundreds of great non-Union companies that litter "Best places to work" lists in business magazines everywhere would not exist.

With regards to the Airline industry. While unions certainly were a major factor in the demise of several major powers, the companies themselves were the ones who agreed to many of the laughable salary/status structures, etc. To that end, let the unions, whom workers tend to follow blindly like lambs to slaughter, and their corporate counterparts fall. Then, from the ashes, more companies like SouthWest (not necessarily the business model of low-cost, low-service differentiation, but of management philosophy of celebrating the employee) will spring up.

I have found that Unions tend to benefit the Union leaders and select undeserving individuals. By undeserving individual, I am speaking of the worker who doens't perform his job in a satisfactory manner yet keeps it due to Union power (If you have ever worked in a GM auto plant, you've met this guy). The deserving individual, who would likely garner more wages outside of a union system, is the one who pays. There are many instances of non-Union employees making considerably more than their Union-tied fellow employees while doing the same job for the same company :eek: .

But Unions do bring some workers together and pacify others and for that I applaud them. But common sense would tell you in this modern era of business, they are generally counterproductive.

Some good points, but the thing is, if they disappeared you can be dead certain that many of the things workers have fought for over the last 100 years would probably disappear quite fast.

Jag68Sid87 09-16-2004 03:06 PM

"I wonder how much you would like unions though if you were working in a car plant at minimum wage"

The problem with unions isn't when you're working in a car plant, but rather when you're working in a white-collar world but still act like you have blue-collar problems.

H/H 09-16-2004 03:08 PM

I wonder why everyone here are treating the owners like some sad puppies. I don't think they're in as dire financial need as they say. The fight goes like this:

The players want to earn more money and have more control.
The owners want to earn more money, have more control and spend less.

gretzky1545 09-16-2004 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H/H
I wonder why everyone here are treating the owners like some sad puppies. I don't think they're in as dire financial need as they say. The fight goes like this:

The players want to earn more money and have more control.
The owners want to earn more money, have more control and spend less.


the difference between them is its possible for the owners to lose money, whereas the players can't. They cannot actually lose money out of their pocket. The players determine their own salary by their actions, the owner has less direct control over their profit or loss, its all about what others do (players, fans), so security is, and I think should be, more important for owners than players speaking solely on the idea of cutting back salaries in the NHL.

HughJass* 09-16-2004 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H/H
I hope some of you brush up on your history and study how the conditions were for workers BEFORE unions came around.

Yeah, but alot of the unions now are all about bull ****; atleast where I live. Brush up on your present day history.

H/H 09-16-2004 03:24 PM

The thing is, give the owners too much leeway and we'll be back to having players earning less than a McDonalds clerk.

Regardless of what they say, I still think the owners are netting the most money in the NHL. And this extreme inflation is not the players fault, it's because a few owners (no names mentioned, but you all know who I mean) can seemingly throw infinite money at average players (*cough*Holik(*cough*)

And how come the Penguins, one of the supposedly most financially dire teams in the league can go spending crazy with an impending lockout?

gretzky1545 09-16-2004 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H/H
The thing is, give the owners too much leeway and we'll be back to having players earning less than a McDonalds clerk.

Regardless of what they say, I still think the owners are netting the most money in the NHL. And this extreme inflation is not the players fault, it's because a few owners (no names mentioned, but you all know who I mean) can seemingly throw infinite money at average players (*cough*Holik(*cough*)

And how come the Penguins, one of the supposedly most financially dire teams in the league can go spending crazy with an impending lockout?

everyone wants to win, the balance between winning(now and in the future) and money is where the owners get screwed either way. If they go with money, they get viewed as despicable businessmen, such as the clippers owner. If you go after winning, and you lose money, you can't blame anyone else because you chose something concrete for something a little more intangible, which makes people less likely to sympathize with your plight.


The balance between the two seems to be incredibly hard just looking around sports teams. Not to mention the fact that hockey isn't pulling in the money that the other sports are.


I'm not a big fan of most owners, but some of the accusations against them seem unfair to me.

H/H 09-16-2004 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbsktball1
I'm not a big fan of most owners, but some of the accusations against them seem unfair to me.

Agreed, and that's what I'm getting at, everybody is getting down solely on the players, THEY ALWAYS DO when there's a lockout in any sport without much thought behind it. I guess it's because the players are in the limelight.

Both sides need to figure out that there is no winner here. With this lockout they already lost.

And again, before you give the players ALL the crap, remember that it's the owners that decided there would be a lockout.

A Good Flying Bird* 09-16-2004 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven_Nation_Army
Take the airline business models...what companies have filed for Chapter 11 in the US?

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1087052004

http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pb...28/-1/business

Compare these two with the success Southwest(non-union controlled) has had in its existence and you'll see why the Players' union must be crushed

This about as dumb as I've seen.

First of all, I can't really consider the millionaires of the NHL as part of a union, despite some similarities.

Secondly, I'm sick of seeing so many Americans agree that workers are no longer entitled to pensions, benefits, decent pay, etc.
Just drive off in your imported car and throw your garbage at the newly unemployed standing on the sides of the roads.

Of course, after the next 9/11, these bozos will lecture us all about patriotism.

Isles72 09-16-2004 03:49 PM

good seats to a Sens game 1996 - 75 bucks

same seat , 2003 - 120 bucks

almost a 50 per cent increase in a 7 year span

cuckoo

KingsFan7824 09-16-2004 03:50 PM

Quote:

But you cannot use history as a reason for keeping unions
Nope. You don't want to learn from history. It's not as if it has it's own fun little way of repeating itself.

Russian Fan 09-16-2004 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isles72
good seats to a Sens game 1996 - 75 bucks

same seat , 2003 - 120 bucks

almost a 50 per cent increase in a 7 year span

cuckoo


good seats to a Habs games 2000 - 75 bucks
good seats to a Habs games 2004 - 123 bucks

payroll of the Habs in 2000 = 44M$
payroll of the Habs in 2004 = 45M$

It's easy to blame the payroll & the players to the ticket price but I don't believe for 1 second that ticket price will lower in Montreal even with a 5M$ cap.

You will only get the owners richer & the fan will still be output to business man.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.