View Single Post
Old
09-11-2004, 04:50 PM
  #65
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 4,604
vCash: 500
It's not bad management when someone wants a salary comparable to someone working in a way more lucrative market. The GM wouldn't suddenly stop to spend more money than he should, because he would loose even more. If your income is based on your employee's reputation, you just cannot choose a salary that works for you.

The owners know that some of them spent more money than they had. Most of them didn't want but had to, so their income wouldn't reduce even more.
Now they want to correct this and the employees do everything to prevent them from reaching their goal, because they would loose money and influence...

A union should have no influence whatsoever on what the owners can and want to spend. They should be there to prevent a rich company from lowballing their employees, not stopping a company with problems from consolidation.

If the NHL really had a free market, there would be no Arbitration and no guaranteed contracts. The teams should be able to fire their employees if they want to, without having to pay a big compensation.
Because companies in reality, using a free market system, tend to do that, if they are in financial trouble...

Sanderson is online now