Employers can legally lie to employees

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,910
5,000
113
Moccasin Flats
When DuPont and the Union made an agreement they were only discussing the sale not in the process of selling. They didn't lie.

DuPont and the union agreed that the Unit employees would be given a deadline to decide whether to move to DTI, and the fate of those who decided to stay would be subject to further bargaining. DuPont allegedly assured the Unit employees, to persuade them to move to DTI, that DuPont would keep DTI, even though, unbeknownst to the employees, DuPont had already discussed selling DTI with a potential buyer, Koch Industries
.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Only if you accept that standard for everything you assert as fact in the future.


The point is that fraud, lies, deception, etc are par for the course as it relates to the employer and employee (unions incl).

The OP is thumping it's chest about this egregious circumstance, yet there are ample examples all around that support the practice by the very groups that are crying foul-unfair.

The entire issue is quite ridiculous in my eyes
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,258
1,021
113
Toronto, ON
The union is not part of the company management and the company has no obligation to inform them of pending sales, restructuring etc.

This whole issue is silly

I agree. However, to come out and say the exact opposite seems wrong to me. I guess that is probably why I am not a CEO with 5 swimming pools in the back yard.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I agree. However, to come out and say the exact opposite seems wrong to me. I guess that is probably why I am not a CEO with 5 swimming pools in the back yard.

I've watched, from the outside looking in, how a companies get handcuffed by 'work actions' when management has chosen a direction that was not supported by the union.

The unions have the best interests of the membership in mind just like the company has the best interests of the equity holders in mind.

In terms of the CEO with '5 swimming pools', I can tell you with great confidence that the vast majority of companies (and their officers) don't enjoy that over-exaggerated luxury, but if they do, that is the benefit to someone that invests their own risk capital, takes the chances and earns that benefit.

Wanna be part of a group that demands guarantees and takes no risks?.. Then I guess that you won't be spending time in your 5 pools.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
46,374
1,239
113
Washington DC
The unions have the best interests of the membership in mind just like the company has the best interests of the equity holders in mind.
From my observations, the company has the best interests of the officers and directors in mind, and the unions have the best interests of the officers in mind. In both cases, the officers do only what they need to keep the sharholders/members on board, and otherwise are busy feathering their own nests.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,258
1,021
113
Toronto, ON
I've watched, from the outside looking in, how a companies get handcuffed by 'work actions' when management has chosen a direction that was not supported by the union.

The unions have the best interests of the membership in mind just like the company has the best interests of the equity holders in mind.

In terms of the CEO with '5 swimming pools', I can tell you with great confidence that the vast majority of companies (and their officers) don't enjoy that over-exaggerated luxury, but if they do, that is the benefit to someone that invests their own risk capital, takes the chances and earns that benefit.

Wanna be part of a group that demands guarantees and takes no risks?.. Then I guess that you won't be spending time in your 5 pools.

Googled CEO salaries and came up with this:

Top Canadian CEOs earn annual worker's salary by lunchtime on Jan. 2 - Canada - CBC News

Forgive the source, CBC was the top of the list.

The review found the average compensation among Canada's top 100 CEOs was $7.96 million in 2012. This compared with the average annual Canadian worker's salary of $46,634.

I don't know how many swimming pools $7.96 million / year is. I think you could support 5 pretty easily but if it's 4 or 6, I will stand corrected on that number.

There is no clear relationship between CEO compensation and any measure of corporate performance," said the report's author Hugh Mackenzie in a statement.

Seems that they get hired by the shareholders/board and rake it in. The money does not appear to be their own (well it is since it is paid to them and then becomes theirs) but rather the companies.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
From my observations, the company has the best interests of the officers and directors in mind, and the unions have the best interests of the officers in mind. In both cases, the officers do only what they need to keep the sharholders/members on board, and otherwise are busy feathering their own nests.

Shareholders have the opportunity to clean-house every years as per the AGM. A vote is all it takes... On that front, I can not think of a single example wherein the executive, officers, directors have unilateral say in what their compensation of bonus structure looks like (if one does exist)... The message being that the only way to pad their pockets is to deliver preset and tangible results

From what I know of the union situation here in Canada, the voting process is by 'show of hands' and the unions are aggressively opposing legislation that will allow for a secret ballot.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
The way you treat your employees is how your employees will treat you. If you are unwilling to look after them, they are unwilling to look after the company.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The way you treat your employees is how your employees will treat you. If you are unwilling to look after them, they are unwilling to look after the company.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

The other way of looking at this is to suggest that if you want to get greater pay, then produce more.

You rarely hear that idea bandied about
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
46,374
1,239
113
Washington DC
The other way of looking at this is to suggest that if you want to get greater pay, then produce more.

You rarely hear that idea bandied about
You've GOT to be kidding me! What the heck do you read? The "wedge" between productivity and wages is one of the hottest topics in business publications. The Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Financial Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Forbes, and SHRM have all discussed it at length.

Just because it ain't in the Blaze or on Hockey Night in Canada don't mean it ain't being discussed, dissected, studied, reported, and commented on.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
The other way of looking at this is to suggest that if you want to get greater pay, then produce more.

You rarely hear that idea bandied about

Cause it's not a reliable means of getting more money or being treated better. The only way to ensure you are paid what you feel you're worth is to have skills that no one else has or that for the employer to get someone with such skills they'd have to pay the other person even more.

There is a mentality in certain work environments whereby an employer is quite happy to work you to exhaustion with no opportunity for advancement or better pay. They'll just replace you cause it's cheaper in the long run.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You've GOT to be kidding me! What the heck do you read? The "wedge" between productivity and wages is one of the hottest topics in business publications. The Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Financial Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Forbes, and SHRM have all discussed it at length.

Just because it ain't in the Blaze or on Hockey Night in Canada don't mean it ain't being discussed, dissected, studied, reported, and commented on.

Yeah, I think about that every time the Teachers Union threatens strike because inflation has gone up a notch
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
46,374
1,239
113
Washington DC
Yeah, I think about that every time the Teachers Union threatens strike because inflation has gone up a notch
No, clearly you don't think about it at all. And you assume that because you ain't thinking about it, nobody else is. And then you prove the quality of your thought process by arguing by anecdote.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Cause it's not a reliable means of getting more money or being treated better.

It's extremely reliable

The only way to ensure you are paid what you feel you're worth is to have skills that no one else has or that for the employer to get someone with such skills they'd have to pay the other person even more.

You've just described skilled trades and professional positions.

Wonder where the local is for the Lawyer's Union.

There is a mentality in certain work environments whereby an employer is quite happy to work you to exhaustion with no opportunity for advancement or better pay. They'll just replace you cause it's cheaper in the long run.

Using overly exaggerated statements doesn't make it true

No, clearly you don't think about it at all. And you assume that because you ain't thinking about it, nobody else is. And then you prove the quality of your thought process by arguing by anecdote.

Google is your friend, check it out and then get back to me on the anecdote thingy