Discussion: View Thread

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, "Martin W. Broin" wrote Re: Growth Potential
>A couple of comments on Phil's posting below.
---snip---
>While consumers now enjoy cheaper cars (car prices have risen slower =
>than the consumer price index over the last 15 years in the U.S.) and =
>these former auto workers have by and large found new jobs, many of them =
>will never again earn the kind of money that they enjoyed as auto =
>workers. The human cost is enormous.

Could we then conclude that if they had not been so overpaid (spelled
Unions) they would have been more competitive and not have experienced such
decline? The human cost may have been self induced -- by holding
corporations hostage instead of going to college along with their children.


If the unions had funded as many colleges as they did casinos, there would
have been seats for everyone.

Another thought for those who have built this growth (or anti-growth)
thread which seems to have started from a simple recipe I recommended for
planning a 50 person company (gosh, I was only trying to get them to 150
and would have been happy if they decided to take 100 years to get that
big). I wonder whether the anti-growth folks out there are doing family
planning consistent with their beliefs about employment growth. One way to
look at it is that we are each responsible for ensuring that a job will
exist for each of our offspring.

Closing the hatch and submerging to safe depth ---

Jack Ring
Kennen Technology, Inc.
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615

----------
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, "Martin W. Broin" wrote Re: Growth Potential
> >A couple of comments on Phil's posting below.
> ---snip---
> >While consumers now enjoy cheaper cars (car prices have risen slower =
> >than the consumer price index over the last 15 years in the U.S.) and =
> >these former auto workers have by and large found new jobs, many of them =
> >will never again earn the kind of money that they enjoyed as auto =
> >workers. The human cost is enormous.
>
> Could we then conclude that if they had not been so overpaid (spelled
> Unions) they would have been more competitive and not have experienced such
> decline? The human cost may have been self induced -- by holding
> corporations hostage instead of going to college along with their children.
>

I agree that sometimes when unions flex their muscles it may seem as if it's primarily to show and maintain their strength. However, recent financial reports that show how the top corporate heads are making more money, sometimes obscence amounts, as layoffs continue and salaries rise little if at all .... Well, you do the math!

> If the unions had funded as many colleges as they did casinos, there would
> have been seats for everyone.

This doesn't make sense. Colleges are not the answer unless you know the questions. As for the comment about casinos, this is just the modern version of "Don't pay the working stiffs enough money: they'll just spend it on liquor."

>
> Another thought for those who have built this growth (or anti-growth)
> thread which seems to have started from a simple recipe I recommended for
> planning a 50 person company (gosh, I was only trying to get them to 150
> and would have been happy if they decided to take 100 years to get that
> big). I wonder whether the anti-growth folks out there are doing family
> planning consistent with their beliefs about employment growth. One way to
> look at it is that we are each responsible for ensuring that a job will
> exist for each of our offspring.
>
> Closing the hatch and submerging to safe depth ---


Hit and run, eh?


> Jack Ring
> Kennen Technology, Inc.
> 32712 N. 70th St.
> Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> 602-488-4615
>
>

Robert Magnan
l_m@itis.com

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08, Lynch & Magnan <l_m@ITIS.COM> wrote Re: Growth
---snip--->
>I agree that sometimes when unions flex their muscles it may seem as if =
>it's primarily to show and maintain their strength. However, recent finan=
>cial reports that show how the top corporate heads are making more money,=
> sometimes obscence amounts, as layoffs continue and salaries rise little=
> if at all .... Well, you do the math!

The "however" is more of a "let me change the subject" but I will follow you.
The income levels of most corporate executives in the U.S. has increased in
the last several years to ludicrous levels.
However, I disagree with your implication that executive compensation
should be some simple ratio to worker salaries and number of workers. You
forgot to mention worker benefits, including skyrocketing medical insurance
costs. And you forgot to mention hours per week worked and several other
differences.

However, tell me about the incomes of Union executives, especially as a
ratio to what they do for the membership. Then do the math.

>
>> If the unions had funded as many colleges as they did casinos, there would
>> have been seats for everyone.
>
>This doesn't make sense. Colleges are not the answer unless you know the =
>questions.

Unless you are wanting to start another thread, let's stick with the
original message which observed that the workers were making such good
income they could afford to send their children to college but that many
currently could not do this anymore.

>As for the comment about casinos, this is just the modern vers=
>ion of "Don't pay the working stiffs enough money: they'll just spend it =
>on liquor."

You miss the point entirely. The issue is not what the workers did with
their money. The point I was raising is: What do the unions do with the
workers money? Pls do the math for me regarding how much unions have
invested in gambling casinos versus how much they have invested in college
or other opportunities for increasing the competencies and self-confidences
of the members, thus the future competitiveness of each member in the job
market.

As far as I have been able to discover, when it became clear that the
Japanese could assemble an automobile in one-half the manhours that Detroit
used (and at one fifth the pay per manhour), the unions did nothing to help
their members become more competitive.

>> Another thought for those who have built this growth (or anti-growth)
>> thread which seems to have started from a simple recipe I recommended for
>> planning a 50 person company (gosh, I was only trying to get them to 150
>> and would have been happy if they decided to take 100 years to get that
>> big). I wonder whether the anti-growth folks out there are doing family
>> planning consistent with their beliefs about employment growth. One way to
>> look at it is that we are each responsible for ensuring that a job will
>> exist for each of our offspring.
>>
>> Closing the hatch and submerging to safe depth ---
>
>
>Hit and run, eh?
>
Surprise!

And notice that you did not tell me whether you have ensured employment for
your offspring -- or are you expecting "capitalist pigs" to do that for
you??


Jack Ring
Kennen Technology, Inc.
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Phone) 602-488-4615
Fax) 602-488-4616

----------
> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08, Lynch & Magnan <l_m@ITIS.COM> wrote Re: Growth
> ---snip--->
> >I agree that sometimes when unions flex their muscles it may seem as if =
> >it's primarily to show and maintain their strength. However, recent finan=
> >cial reports that show how the top corporate heads are making more money,=
> > sometimes obscence amounts, as layoffs continue and salaries rise little=
> > if at all .... Well, you do the math!
>
> The "however" is more of a "let me change the subject" but I will follow you.
> The income levels of most corporate executives in the U.S. has increased in
> the last several years to ludicrous levels.

Actually, the "however" is that I'm not taking a simplistic approach to this discussion. I'm trying to examine it from several perspectives.

> However, I disagree with your implication that executive compensation
> should be some simple ratio to worker salaries and number of workers. You
> forgot to mention worker benefits, including skyrocketing medical insurance
> costs. And you forgot to mention hours per week worked and several other
> differences.

I didn't mean to imply any ratio, simple or otherwise. How did you infer that from my words?


> However, tell me about the incomes of Union executives, especially as a
> ratio to what they do for the membership. Then do the math.

I agree with you! Unions are businesses and their top dogs can be as fat as corporate CEOs, in proportion to the money involved.


> >> If the unions had funded as many colleges as they did casinos, there would
> >> have been seats for everyone.
> >
> >This doesn't make sense. Colleges are not the answer unless you know the =
> >questions.
>
> Unless you are wanting to start another thread, let's stick with the
> original message which observed that the workers were making such good
> income they could afford to send their children to college but that many
> currently could not do this anymore.
>
> >As for the comment about casinos, this is just the modern vers=
> >ion of "Don't pay the working stiffs enough money: they'll just spend it =
> >on liquor."
>
> You miss the point entirely. The issue is not what the workers did with
> their money. The point I was raising is: What do the unions do with the
> workers money? Pls do the math for me regarding how much unions have
> invested in gambling casinos versus how much they have invested in college
> or other opportunities for increasing the competencies and self-confidences
> of the members, thus the future competitiveness of each member in the job
> market.

I'm not sure that most colleges would do anything to make auto workers more competitive in the job market, more competent, or more self-confident.

If the unions invest in casinos, it's because they pay a better financial return than investing in colleges. It's just good business. Is that bad?

Do you expect unions to provide training for their members, so businesses can save money? Interesting .... Then can you be sure that the businesses will use the savings for their workers?

I'd agree that unions should support career development for their members, but that's as likely to happen as for companies to help their workers develop skills that they'll then take elsewhere as opportunities open up.

>
> As far as I have been able to discover, when it became clear that the
> Japanese could assemble an automobile in one-half the manhours that Detroit
> used (and at one fifth the pay per manhour), the unions did nothing to help
> their members become more competitive.


Are you starting a new thread here on cultural differences?


> >> Another thought for those who have built this growth (or anti-growth)
> >> thread which seems to have started from a simple recipe I recommended for
> >> planning a 50 person company (gosh, I was only trying to get them to 150
> >> and would have been happy if they decided to take 100 years to get that
> >> big). I wonder whether the anti-growth folks out there are doing family
> >> planning consistent with their beliefs about employment growth. One way to
> >> look at it is that we are each responsible for ensuring that a job will
> >> exist for each of our offspring.
> >>
> >> Closing the hatch and submerging to safe depth ---
> >
> >
> >Hit and run, eh?
> >
> Surprise!
>
> And notice that you did not tell me whether you have ensured employment for
> your offspring -- or are you expecting "capitalist pigs" to do that for
> you??

Did you ask? I must have missed the question.

Nobody can _ensure_ employment, of course, unless you own a company and believe in nepotism .... I've always tried to encourage my kids to work hard and avoid simplistic thinking. Unfortunately, that approach could doom them in many organizations.


>
> Jack Ring
> Kennen Technology, Inc.
> 32712 N. 70th St.
> Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> Phone) 602-488-4615
> Fax) 602-488-4616
>

Robert Magnan
l_m@itis.com

As an (hopefully) impartial observer to this discussion I think the last sentence has hit the problem with traditional versus modern work society right in its soft spot.

To recap:


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynch & Magnan [SMTP:l_m@ITIS.COM]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 1998 7:48 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Growth

I've always tried to encourage my kids to work hard and avoid simplistic thinking. Unfortunately, that approach could doom them in many organizations.

You are so right - such an approach will doom your kids in most - if not all - organisations. Hard work is no longer good enough to ensure anyone a job - only 'smart' work will do that.

Look at any successful man or woman today - did they get there by working hard? Only insofar that they worked hard at working smart. Test this theory by looking at the number of small businesses that crumble every year. Yes their owners work hard - but they do so in most cases to the neglect of working smart.

But, in fairness, you made another comment which I think points the finger at where the majority of blame should lay:


I'm not sure that most colleges would do anything to make auto workers more competitive in the job market, more competent, or more self-confident.

Colleges, and indeed universities and high schools, should take a far greater lead in preparing workers for life after puberty. Unfortunately because attendance at these institutions is a 'given', not many of them feel that they have to compete too hard for clients - they're going to turn up anyway. If, as happens in other countries, such institutions were measured by their success in preparing people for their real life then many of them would find it hard to compete - but that's a subject for another discussion.

The point I'm trying to get at is that any learning institution - be it government or private, tertiary or secondary, educational or training - has a primary responsibility to its clients to give them the competencies that make them "more competetive in the job market, more competent, (and) more self-confident". If they aren't providing these simple support mechanisms then what is the point of their existence? My guess is that they are too busy 'working hard' to understand how they could be more successful by 'working smart'.

I've worked with hundreds of colleges and universities here and overseas, and I can tell you that those who are the most successful, are most popular, and are now leading all others, are those who have seen the common sense in providing competencies that give people greater self-confidence and make them more competitive in the job market (include several who are training auto workers). They are the ones who are going to survive, not the traditionalists who think that hard work is all that it takes. Even Henry Ford knew better than that.

I hope that hasn't stirred up the waters too much.

(PS: I know I used the word 'clients' when talking about education and training institutions, but please, let's not open up that Pandora's box again. I remember the last, overly long, discussion that my last such comment raised.)

Phil Rutherford