5 ms·

The UAW jobs bank idea was forced by a union not management You misspelled "agreed to". Nobody pointed a gun at a CEO and made him sign the contract.

by sethg 18y ago

jonknee 18y ago
Both sides made bad decisions, but when forced with the possibility of a strike dumb ideas like the jobs bank get approved. Even without a gun.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Actually a gun is involved. Suppose UAW workers fail to show up to work, and the CEO fires them and hires replacements. In that case, men with guns show up and shut down GM (it's illegal to fire striking workers and hire replacements). Also, if negotiations break down, men with guns may show up and broker an agreement (mandatory arbitration). Unions, as they currently exist, are based very strongly on using threats of force against non-union workers and employers. The CEO of GM did, in fact, have virtually no choice in the matter.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Suppose UAW workers fail to show up to work, and the CEO fires them and hires replacements. In that case, men with guns show up and shut down GM (it's illegal to fire striking workers and hire replacements). This is simply not true, at least in the USA. See for example: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPEALS+PANEL+VOIDS+PENALTY+FOR+FIRING+STRIKERS.(NEWS)-a083903004 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPEALS+PANEL+VOIDS+PENALTY+FO... and http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/16/us/caterpillar-s-trump-card-threat-permanently-replacing-strikers-gave-company.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/16/us/caterpillar-s-trump-car...
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
run4yourlives 18y ago
Thousands of workers threatening to shut down your entire operation is pretty much the biggest gun you can find, in my mind.
- sethg 18y ago
  The workers are "threatening to shut down your entire operation" by refusing to work for you on the terms that you would prefer. That's negotiation, not violence.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    If it was negotiation, the CEO could go and hire someone else. A negotiation you can't walk away from is not a negotiation.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - sethg 18y ago
      As someone upthread pointed out, the CEO was free to do just that (or at least, would have become free to do it as soon as the pre-existing contract ran out).

The UAW jobs bank idea was forced by a union not management You misspelled "agreed to". Nobody pointed a gun at a CEO and made him sign the contract.

by sethg 18y ago

The UAW jobs bank idea was forced by a union not management You misspelled "agreed to". Nobody pointed a gun at a CEO and made him sign the contract.

jonknee 18y ago

Both sides made bad decisions, but when forced with the possibility of a strike dumb ideas like the jobs bank get approved. Even without a gun.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
Actually a gun is involved. Suppose UAW workers fail to show up to work, and the CEO fires them and hires replacements. In that case, men with guns show up and shut down GM (it's illegal to fire striking workers and hire replacements). Also, if negotiations break down, men with guns may show up and broker an agreement (mandatory arbitration). Unions, as they currently exist, are based very strongly on using threats of force against non-union workers and employers. The CEO of GM did, in fact, have virtually no choice in the matter.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Suppose UAW workers fail to show up to work, and the CEO fires them and hires replacements. In that case, men with guns show up and shut down GM (it's illegal to fire striking workers and hire replacements). This is simply not true, at least in the USA. See for example: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPEALS+PANEL+VOIDS+PENALTY+FOR+FIRING+STRIKERS.(NEWS)-a083903004 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/APPEALS+PANEL+VOIDS+PENALTY+FO... and http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/16/us/caterpillar-s-trump-card-threat-permanently-replacing-strikers-gave-company.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/16/us/caterpillar-s-trump-car...

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

run4yourlives 18y ago

Thousands of workers threatening to shut down your entire operation is pretty much the biggest gun you can find, in my mind.

sethg 18y ago
The workers are "threatening to shut down your entire operation" by refusing to work for you on the terms that you would prefer. That's negotiation, not violence.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  If it was negotiation, the CEO could go and hire someone else. A negotiation you can't walk away from is not a negotiation.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - sethg 18y ago
    As someone upthread pointed out, the CEO was free to do just that (or at least, would have become free to do it as soon as the pre-existing contract ran out).