4 ms·

Well, a problem with company culture is still absolutely the fault of management, so I think it's fair to lay the blame at their feet. If your workforce is unde

Well, a problem with company culture is still absolutely the fault of management, so I think it's fair to lay the blame at their feet. If your workforce is underperforming, invest in training them or finding a better workforce. If you can't find a better workforce for what pay you're offering, offer higher pay. And if you can't afford to do that and keep your business profitable... Sucks to suck; you don't have any guaranteed right to profit.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
When I said “cultural issues with their workforce” I didn’t mean general “company culture” but the “union culture” specifically. Is that still a responsibility of management? Sure, for some aspects. But unions remove a lot of the control and tools management usually has to deal with some problems effectively.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The problem isn't Exec vs. Union or McDD vs. Engineers or any specific bit of Boeing, it's all of Boeing as a whole from top to bottom including the striking workers and that's why a bankruptcy will be a good thing. A bankruptcy will force Boeing to either restructure from the ground up or be cut apart and distributed to companies who can hopefully conduct business better.
- genocidicbunny 2y ago
  Absolutely still a responsibility of the management. Management can find other, different tools to deal with problems if they're feeling like they're being hampered by the union. Management is not entitled to anyone's labor and if said labor collectively tells management "our way or the highway", well, c'est la vie. Unions provide a form of power symmetry between the general workforce and the upper management of the company, and while it's not always balanced with the power of the company itself, the alternative is even more asymmetric. And ultimately, if the union is behaving in such a way that none of their members can find employment, the problem will tend to correct itself.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    The union mindset is being exhibited in your comment here, where you scapegoat the management for everything. Even things where the unions aggressively fought for and have now mandated into law at the expense of management's contract freedom.
    - genocidicbunny 2y ago
      > where you scapegoat the management for everything. Well, that's sort of their job -- to be the ones responsible for the actions of the company. If I hire you to do a job, and you don't do it, I'm not 'scapegoating' you if I complain that you didn't do the job I hired and paid you to do. > Even things where the unions aggressively fought for and have now mandated into law at the expense of management's contract freedom Most of these are the 'FO' part of 'FAFO' historically, so I have little sympathy there.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        The laws unions had passed give legal control over significant amounts of company operations over to unions. They put a straightjacket on management by restricting the contract freedom of the employer. The employer cannot fire workers for unionizing or striking, and cannot negotiate with any party but the union if the majority of a work unit votes to unionize. Property/control get transferred to the unionized employees under unprovoked duress — by prohibiting the employer from entering into any other contracts. It's not a free market and yet you want to place all blame for the failings of companies with unionized workforces on the employer. You justify all of this with a faux victim ideology that is anti-capitalist in its roots and vilifies the employer for exercising their property and contracting rights in ways that a critical mass of employees, constituting a mob, don't like. Well, anti-capitalism begets a loss of capital and with it prosperity. And that's all we've ever seen from it.
        2y ago

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

When I said “cultural issues with their workforce” I didn’t mean general “company culture” but the “union culture” specifically. Is that still a responsibility of management? Sure, for some aspects. But unions remove a lot of the control and tools management usually has to deal with some problems effectively.

Dalewyn 2y ago
The problem isn't Exec vs. Union or McDD vs. Engineers or any specific bit of Boeing, it's all of Boeing as a whole from top to bottom including the striking workers and that's why a bankruptcy will be a good thing. A bankruptcy will force Boeing to either restructure from the ground up or be cut apart and distributed to companies who can hopefully conduct business better.
genocidicbunny 2y ago
Absolutely still a responsibility of the management. Management can find other, different tools to deal with problems if they're feeling like they're being hampered by the union. Management is not entitled to anyone's labor and if said labor collectively tells management "our way or the highway", well, c'est la vie. Unions provide a form of power symmetry between the general workforce and the upper management of the company, and while it's not always balanced with the power of the company itself, the alternative is even more asymmetric. And ultimately, if the union is behaving in such a way that none of their members can find employment, the problem will tend to correct itself.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  The union mindset is being exhibited in your comment here, where you scapegoat the management for everything. Even things where the unions aggressively fought for and have now mandated into law at the expense of management's contract freedom.
  - genocidicbunny 2y ago
    > where you scapegoat the management for everything. Well, that's sort of their job -- to be the ones responsible for the actions of the company. If I hire you to do a job, and you don't do it, I'm not 'scapegoating' you if I complain that you didn't do the job I hired and paid you to do. > Even things where the unions aggressively fought for and have now mandated into law at the expense of management's contract freedom Most of these are the 'FO' part of 'FAFO' historically, so I have little sympathy there.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      The laws unions had passed give legal control over significant amounts of company operations over to unions. They put a straightjacket on management by restricting the contract freedom of the employer. The employer cannot fire workers for unionizing or striking, and cannot negotiate with any party but the union if the majority of a work unit votes to unionize. Property/control get transferred to the unionized employees under unprovoked duress — by prohibiting the employer from entering into any other contracts. It's not a free market and yet you want to place all blame for the failings of companies with unionized workforces on the employer. You justify all of this with a faux victim ideology that is anti-capitalist in its roots and vilifies the employer for exercising their property and contracting rights in ways that a critical mass of employees, constituting a mob, don't like. Well, anti-capitalism begets a loss of capital and with it prosperity. And that's all we've ever seen from it.
      - 2y ago