Only if you accept that standard for everything you assert as fact in the future.Get back to me when it's proven
Only if you accept that standard for everything you assert as fact in the future.Get back to me when it's proven
.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
Only if you accept that standard for everything you assert as fact in the future.
Are you suggesting that cocoanuts migrate?They weren't lied to and because they had a CBA they weren't "at will" employees.
Are you suggesting that cocoanuts migrate?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
There is no clear relationship between CEO compensation and any measure of corporate performance," said the report's author Hugh Mackenzie in a statement.
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.
Hence my comment about "doing what it takes to keep the shareholders on board."Shareholders have the opportunity to clean-house every years as per the AGM.
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.
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.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
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.
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.Yeah, I think about that every time the Teachers Union threatens strike because inflation has gone up a notch
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.
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.