- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 8,834
- Reaction score
- 2,812
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Collective bargaining is easy to understand. Individuals designate someone or a few to represent the whole group to negotiate. The collection of individuals is also known as a union.
As long as the bargaining is not done by employees paid with tax dollars for public positions, I have no issue as they have been proven to to be uncompetitive in the marketplace...
Iron workers would dissagree.
The government now employees iron workers directly who bargain for their wages and benefits?
Collective bargaining is easy to understand. Individuals designate someone or a few to represent the whole group to negotiate. The collection of individuals is also known as a union.
The government now employees iron workers directly who bargain for their wages and benefits?
I know it's easy to understand... i've understood for 50 years.... I certainly don't need you to try and explain it.
I do not have collective bargaining as done by the Unions.. we have an entirely different process.
in our process, there is no designated individuals , no chosen few to speak for the rest.....no one person stands above the rest. ( another reason why unions would fail in my company... everybody is an elite here, not just the chosen ones)... it costs a bit more time and money to do it our way, but it's much more empowering for the employees.. and it's a lot of fun...we make it fun
They hire contractors who hire workers.
They would disagree that non union iron workers are more productive as they are not.
So you don't have collective bargaining. You have employees who don't want to get fired and tell you what you want to hear.
If you even own anything at all.
he didn't say anything about productivity.. he spoke on competitiveness.
aye.. and they get to believing that their "master" is the end all be all of their world.
to foster such behavior , to me, is not leadership.. it's tyranny.
leadership, to me, isn't about fomenting compliance or dependence... but all too often, that's exactly what it turns out to be (especially when it comes to government leadership)
So leadership, to you, would be nurturing independence and initiative, creating more individual growth and success, yes?
More productive is more competitive.
not necessarily.
Could you provide an example?
walmart.
Walmart got be be successful because they invested in the most efficient and productive warehouse and distribution system up until that time. That is the essence of productivity. I believe your example fails.
of course you believe it fails... you've shown a history of homing in on a single factor and attributing causation to that factor.
productivity is but one facet in competitiveness..
in my first business, i knew independent contractors who were the epitome of productive.. very efficient operations they ran... unfortunately for them, they weren't competitive and they lost their businesses because of it.
hell, they were far more efficient and productive than I was... not nearly so competitive , though... I lived, they died.
I attribute that to them being similar in mindset to you.. falsely attributing single factors as determining factors....missing the forest for the trees.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?