4 ms·

We can probably all agree that's it's silly to require that workers play dress-up and come to a non-existent job every morning. But, assuming that requirement

We can probably all agree that's it's silly to require that workers play dress-up and come to a non-existent job every morning. But, assuming that requirement were dropped, you haven't exactly explained why it was wrong of the workers to ask for a piece of the (extraordinarily high [0]) earnings the company enjoyed at that time, or why it was wrong of the company to pay it. Am I wrong to assume that the company thought it to be the best terms they could negotiate at that time? What should the union have done? Accept less than they could negotiate for? What should the company have done? Insist on more favorable terms even if the cost of a protracted labor dispute were actually more expensive? I keep hearing people refer to outcomes that appear to be the natural result of difficult negotiations in strictly moral terms. This seems silly. Help me understand why I'm wrong. [0] http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/09/a_brief_history_of_general_mot.html http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/09/a_brief_hist...

fallentimes 18y ago
That's a strawman; I never said it was wrong to ask. Anyways... The company should have invested more of their marketing budget in R&D and produced quality cars. Empirically (consumer reports, Car & Driver, et al) U.S. cars have been subpar compared to their foreign counterparts for many years. Though some of my friends & family insist they're rapidly catching up nowadays. In the present, I don't know one way or the other. In the States' current system, the company doesn't have any obligation to share high earnings with their employees. They have an obligation to deliver profits to shareholders - that's it. If the employees don't like it, they can get another job that pays them market wages or treats them better. In short, that's the best part & worst part of the system. Paying employees above market wages is not sustainable. In the short term, companies can unfortunately deliver profits to their shareholders with shady tactics, breaking the law, gray area revenue recognition, poor employee treatment and "earnings management". In the long-term, that doesn't work and is stupid. And many times it's against the law. It's not a coincidence that the companies that treat their employees the best outperform the market. [1] [1] http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php
- dionidium 18y ago
  "The company doesn't have any obligation to share high earnings with their employee. " I never suggested that they do. In fact, I think I rather explicitly argued that they paid those wages because it was the best deal they could negotiate at the time. If they could have negotiated a better deal, they would have. More generally, if I agree to do a certain amount of work for a certain pay, it does not imply that I deserve that pay (whatever that means). But surely it means that the person paying me thinks that wage (considering the alternatives) to be in their best interest. "If they don't like it, they can get another job that pays them market wages or treats them better." Or collectively negotiate better wages?
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Right, but you asked why they didn't. If they collectively negotiate above market wages the company will die in the long term.
- Dilpil 18y ago
  It's not a coincidence, indeed, it is a logical inevitability: it is far easier to treat your employees well if your company is successful.
  - mbreese 18y ago
    But it's also true that happy workers are more productive, healthier, less likely to quit, and thus will make the company more successful.
HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
What should the union have done? Accept less than they could negotiate for? Sometimes it makes sense to accept less than you can negotiate for: (a) you don't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs and (b) that overly hard negotiation can mean you're walking around with an "Outsource Me" target on your back. Get what you want when you can get it, but remain aware of the consequences.

fallentimes 18y ago

That's a strawman; I never said it was wrong to ask. Anyways... The company should have invested more of their marketing budget in R&D and produced quality cars. Empirically (consumer reports, Car & Driver, et al) U.S. cars have been subpar compared to their foreign counterparts for many years. Though some of my friends & family insist they're rapidly catching up nowadays. In the present, I don't know one way or the other. In the States' current system, the company doesn't have any obligation to share high earnings with their employees. They have an obligation to deliver profits to shareholders - that's it. If the employees don't like it, they can get another job that pays them market wages or treats them better. In short, that's the best part & worst part of the system. Paying employees above market wages is not sustainable. In the short term, companies can unfortunately deliver profits to their shareholders with shady tactics, breaking the law, gray area revenue recognition, poor employee treatment and "earnings management". In the long-term, that doesn't work and is stupid. And many times it's against the law. It's not a coincidence that the companies that treat their employees the best outperform the market. [1] [1] http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php

dionidium 18y ago
"The company doesn't have any obligation to share high earnings with their employee. " I never suggested that they do. In fact, I think I rather explicitly argued that they paid those wages because it was the best deal they could negotiate at the time. If they could have negotiated a better deal, they would have. More generally, if I agree to do a certain amount of work for a certain pay, it does not imply that I deserve that pay (whatever that means). But surely it means that the person paying me thinks that wage (considering the alternatives) to be in their best interest. "If they don't like it, they can get another job that pays them market wages or treats them better." Or collectively negotiate better wages?
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Right, but you asked why they didn't. If they collectively negotiate above market wages the company will die in the long term.
Dilpil 18y ago
It's not a coincidence, indeed, it is a logical inevitability: it is far easier to treat your employees well if your company is successful.
- mbreese 18y ago
  But it's also true that happy workers are more productive, healthier, less likely to quit, and thus will make the company more successful.

HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago

What should the union have done? Accept less than they could negotiate for? Sometimes it makes sense to accept less than you can negotiate for: (a) you don't want to kill the goose laying the golden eggs and (b) that overly hard negotiation can mean you're walking around with an "Outsource Me" target on your back. Get what you want when you can get it, but remain aware of the consequences.