Union Ownership

[Doug]

There are several threads about unions, including one about the GM stamping plant closing down because the UAW workers won't take a 50% pay cut.

Why don't the unions take some of their money and buy the factories in which their workers work. The unions could operate the factories with an eye toward fair treatment of the workers. All workers and all management employees would be union members. The workers could buy stock in their own company and make money as employees and as stockholders. You could even have special pricing or rebates for workers buying stock.

Has this ever been tried? What happened?

Would YOU buy into it?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not a bad idea.

No, I would most definitely NOT buy into it.

 

[Doug]

Not a bad idea.

No, I would most definitely NOT buy into it.

Hmmmm, well, if "Not a bad idea" means it's a good idea, why would you not buy into it?

 

[hornadylnl]

Hmmmm, well, if "Not a bad idea" means it's a good idea, why would you not buy into it?

Do you think it's a business model that would survive?

 

[jeremy]

But if the Union was the Management who would they demonize?!

 

[Zimm1001]

Simple business model: It is very expensive to manufacture a product. Labor, raw materials, energy costs, GOV"T REGULATION, etc, etc. A lot of variable costs (goes up as sales go up).

Unions: Majority of costs are fixed costs. Once the break-even point is met the sales go up and profits exponentially rise since there are very few if any variable costs. That is the reason for Unions to consolidate. More union workers paying into the pot; the more money for the Union Execs. Simple math.

 

[BigMatt]

Three words - Conflict Of Interest

You can't be paid by the union members to protect them and negotiate wages and at the same time negotiate against them as owner of the company.

 

[Doug]

Simple business model: It is very expensive to manufacture a product. Labor, raw materials, energy costs, GOV"T REGULATION, etc, etc. A lot of variable costs (goes up as sales go up).

Unions: Majority of costs are fixed costs. Once the break-even point is met the sales go up and profits exponentially rise since there are very few if any variable costs. That is the reason for Unions to consolidate. More union workers paying into the pot; the more money for the Union Execs. Simple math.

I think they are performing management functions as Union Executives; supervising, hiring, firing, and evaluating staff. Some costs, printing, mailing, etc., increase as membership increases. They could hire experts who could manage production. The point is: top management would be Union Members, not "greedy capitalists who want to get rich from the sweat of the workers." Theoretically, the workers would have the kind of boss they've always wanted.

Three words - Conflict Of Interest

You can't be paid by the union members to protect them and negotiate wages and at the same time negotiate against them as owner of the company.

But, if the top management was Union, wouldn't the workers trust that management was doing what was best for everybody?

 

[dross]

I think this was tried at United Airlines. Labor relations are just as contentious. It seems that when high ideals meets the reality of the marketplace, reality wins. Come to think about it, it seems like reality wins pretty much all the fights it gets into. I think people should maybe call reality the champ and stop challenging it.

Read about how the "Champions of the Little Guy," Michael Moore and Ralph Nader treat the people who work for them.

It seems that everyone, even union folks, sure want high production whey THEY are footing the bill.

 

[Lobb40118]

There are several threads about unions, including one about the GM stamping plant closing down because the UAW workers won't take a 50% pay cut.

Why don't the unions take some of their money and buy the factories in which their workers work. The unions could operate the factories with an eye toward fair treatment of the workers. All workers and all management employees would be union members. The workers could buy stock in their own company and make money as employees and as stockholders. You could even have special pricing or rebates for workers buying stock.

Has this ever been tried? What happened?

Would YOU buy into it?

This has been tried before I think Karl Marx wrote about it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Hmmmm, well, if "Not a bad idea" means it's a good idea, why would you not buy into it?

It's not a bad idea, because if Unions were forced to compete in the open market for labor it would force them to re-vamp.

I would not invest in it, because there is no way the unions will ever change.

Also, the UAW would want to retain their not-for-profit status, another reason why it would not be the best investment.

 

[Doug]

Unions are always portraying Management as evil profiteers who just want maximum work for minimum pay.
Assuming that is true, the Union taking over the management functions would allow Management (the Union) to treat workers fairly and maximize their income.

 

[hornadylnl]

Unions are always portraying Management as evil profiteers who just want maximum work for minimum pay.
Assuming that is true, the Union taking over the management functions would allow Management (the Union) to treat workers fairly and maximize their income.

Do you understand how a checkbook ledger works? Goes in's must be greater than goes out's. Pay and benefits go in the goes out's column. Product sales go in the goes in's column. In order to maintain a particular profit and have the goes out's to increase, the goes in's must get bigger.

How do I as a business man increase my cost of doing business and maximize my profits if the market doesn't support the price increase needed to raise pay and benefits?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Do you understand how a checkbook ledger works? Goes in's must be greater than goes out's. Pay and benefits go in the goes out's column. Product sales go in the goes in's column. In order to maintain a particular profit and have the goes out's to increase, the goes in's must get bigger.

How do I as a business man increase my cost of doing business and maximize my profits if the market doesn't support the price increase needed to raise pay and benefits?

Bing...you just get socialized...you're not there to make an evil profit, no...you are there for the better good of the community by providing people with livable wages.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Bing...you just get socialized...you're not there to make an evil profit, no...you are there for the better good of the community by providing people with livable wages.

Of course, if profit is not a motive, how do you attract outside investors (who provide most of the capital for big businesses)? Ask the Teachers' Union Retirement Funds and the Police Pension Funds who were invested in GM stocks how well their investments turned out.

 

[dross]

How do I as a business man increase my cost of doing business and maximize my profits if the market doesn't support the price increase needed to raise pay and benefits?

It's quite simple, really.

First, I pay my CEO less money. How much less? As much less as you want. There are people who run companies who make as little as 100K.

What's that you say? You can't find anyone qualified to run your company that will accept a salary much lower than what you're already paying? Well, maybe you don't understand what you really need in a CEO.

Next, just lower your obscene profits.

What's that you say? What are profits, you ask? That's simple, just listen to the news. On the news you'll learn by implication that profits = gross revenue. What do you mean I'm wrong? Profits are actually gross revenues - expenses? Oh, I get it. You're using that accounting wizardry on me. Please just use real numbers and don't try to fool me with your accounting voodoo.

What, more objections about profit? Your stockholders will be mad if you reduce your profits? Why is your stockholders' needs more important than your employees' needs? Because your stockholders hire and fire you? What, are you that selfish?


Finally, if your labor expenses are so much, just draw into that secret fund of cash all businesses hoard to themselves so they can go on exploiting their employees while telling stupid lies and using creative accounting to get out of what you rightfully owe, which is a job to everyone you've ever hired.

 

[hornadylnl]

Of course, if profit is not a motive, how do you attract outside investors (who provide most of the capital for big businesses)? Ask the Teachers' Union Retirement Funds and the Police Pension Funds who were invested in GM stocks how well their investments turned out.

Just knowing you invested in the greater good provides are far better reward than any dividends you could receive.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Union employee ownership was tried where I work. The company was losing money like crazy and at a stock owner meeting upper management proposed giving themselves crazy huge bonuses. The union employees that showed up had enough ownership among them to vote the bonuses down. Since stock ownership was part of the retirement plan management decided to change that, forcing everyone with stock ownership through the retirement plan to sell and switch the money to another part of the retirement plan.

Can't have those pesky union types getting in the way of bonuses.

 

[ATF Consumer]

It's quite simple, really.

First, I pay my CEO less money. How much less? As much less as you want. There are people who run companies who make as little as 100K.

What's that you say? You can't find anyone qualified to run your company that will accept a salary much lower than what you're already paying? Well, maybe you don't understand what you really need in a CEO.

Next, just lower your obscene profits.

What's that you say? What are profits, you ask? That's simple, just listen to the news. On the news you'll learn by implication that profits = gross revenue. What do you mean I'm wrong? Profits are actually gross revenues - expenses? Oh, I get it. You're using that accounting wizardry on me. Please just use real numbers and don't try to fool me with your accounting voodoo.

What, more objections about profit? Your stockholders will be mad if you reduce your profits? Why is your stockholders' needs more important than your employees' needs? Because your stockholders hire and fire you? What, are you that selfish?


Finally, if your labor expenses are so much, just draw into that secret fund of cash all businesses hoard to themselves so they can go on exploiting their employees while telling stupid lies and using creative accounting to get out of what you rightfully owe, which is a job to everyone you've ever hired.

You forgot to use purple.

 

[Doug]

It's quite simple, really.

First, I pay my CEO less money. How much less? As much less as you want. There are people who run companies who make as little as 100K.

What's that you say? You can't find anyone qualified to run your company that will accept a salary much lower than what you're already paying? Well, maybe you don't understand what you really need in a CEO.

Next, just lower your obscene profits.

What's that you say? What are profits, you ask? That's simple, just listen to the news. On the news you'll learn by implication that profits = gross revenue. What do you mean I'm wrong? Profits are actually gross revenues - expenses? Oh, I get it. You're using that accounting wizardry on me. Please just use real numbers and don't try to fool me with your accounting voodoo.

What, more objections about profit? Your stockholders will be mad if you reduce your profits? Why is your stockholders' needs more important than your employees' needs? Because your stockholders hire and fire you? What, are you that selfish?


Finally, if your labor expenses are so much, just draw into that secret fund of cash all businesses hoard to themselves so they can go on exploiting their employees while telling stupid lies and using creative accounting to get out of what you rightfully owe, which is a job to everyone you've ever hired.

dross,
On this board purple is used to denote sarcasm. You get it by left-clicking on the "A" to the right of the word "sizes" at the top or the reply window.
If you did not mean your statement sarcastically, where is the situation you described being practiced?