Posted on 12/24/2005 2:52:08 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I guess so. My wife worked for a non-profit software company. They weathered the dot com bust with flying colors, actually hiring and flourishing. They did this with a good business model, hard work, team work, professionalism, and so forth. Then things changed--they decided they wanted to make more money. However, instead of keeping all the things that had made them successful, they threw it all out the window. They wanted more money from their contracts which then led to several cancelled ones, including the loss of a gigantic one. They went public which turned out to be a huge mistake. There was rampant nepotims and more rules and regulations than ever before. The workers left were basically just working until there was a replacement found in India for them (note that the ones they kept here were from India--anyone hear of reverse discrimination before???). They kept almost as many lawyers around as workers. The products, instead of being constant and diversified, were lumped into one big sum and that had to do with losing the big contract. Now they are just a shell of their former selves. One of the guys who did a lot of the firing got canned himself because some of the higher-ups wondered why the leftover workers never worked together or talked to anyone. Their offic is little more than the size of a house basement now. Even the India thing is not panning out the way they thought it was going to.
While I would understand why some teachers feel frustrated in my area (bureaucrats put more and more regulations on them while rewarding their special interest cronies), I don't think it would be wise for them to strike. Sometimes people need to realize that those work in reverse.
What I don't understand is why both sides, being adults, can't work things out.
Some union members do indeed act like terrorists. They make the good, honest ones look bad. And yes, there are some out there. My next door neighbor sure is a good guy, but he'll never go on strike either.
In NYC it would work something like this -- they want to build a new stadium in Brooklyn. Basically it's a done deal. The developer has already purchased all the property. Surrounding property has tripled in price. Everyone involved stands a good chance to get either rich or richer.
So, can the city/state count on the unions to buy the bonds? What kind of six-figure jobs are available for idiot son-in-laws? How many union workers are added to the payroll? Etc. Etc. Etc.
This is messy, very unpleasant stuff. But it keeps the city running. Unions, for all of the politicians' harping, keep the city running. Bloomberg sees the union bosses regularly, either entertaining them at his townhouse or at charitable events, museum openings or political fund raisers. They move in the same circles and speak regularly, both officially and unofficially.
There are no conspiracies, just the hard-nosed, pragmatic fact that the city must be kept running. In that respect, they all tend to the same machine.
If people just work together with the same purpose without all of the politics, good things result.
We had two restaurants being built next to a big hardware chain. None of them wanted to pay for shared access (or even share the cost) between the restaurants and the hardware parking lot. Lawyers for all three went crazy at each other and refused to work together. It was like watching a courtroom drama at some city council meetings. Eventually "something" was worked out. A fence was put around the perimeter of the two restaurants and there is a tiny, narrow opening off of a main road just before a highway for cars to enter the restaurant parking lot. The easy solution would be to just share access and share the costs (thus allowing for ample parking too, because now there isn't). This doesn't have anything to do with unions, but does demonstrate what happens when there are too many egos and chiefs and not enough Indians so to speak.
Now put that example on a scale where billions of dollars are in play.
Now put that example on a scale where billions of dollars are in play.
Indeed. You can see why I detest those with inflated egos a lot, especially if someone is like me:). :0
Merry Christmas by the way. Keep up the good work.
Your story explains a lot. There was a Wall Mart next to a smaller shopping center with a Hallmark store. I liked to shop at the Wal Mart and then go to the Hallmark store to get the wrapping paper. I had to go to Wal Mart first so I would know what size gift bag to get, but I could not get from the Wal Mart lot to the shopping center except by going onto a 4 lane highway and making a u-turn. The way between the two shopping centers was barricaded all the way to the street. This used to drive me nuts as it was a very busy highway.
For a really interesting movie on NYC rent the under-rated City Hall.
That's exactly the case here. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. I guess they don't want the extra business that it would bring if they just worked together.
Thanks I will.
..and for an advanced course in NYC politics, there's always Power Broker, about Robert Moses. One of the weirdest most profoundly odd and powerful people NYC has ever produced. People are still arguing about him.
Who does? It was an illegal strike - does anyone go to jail?
MTA board. They wouldn't do it in a million years. Nobody goes to jail.
Bloomberg has no guts. He's your typical RHINO.
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with unions, especially after the way that owners have treated them throughout the years. The only problem is that American work landscape is changing. We produce more lawyers than steelworkers, and service jobs than manufacturing jobs. As such, service jobs have become the bane of workers who are on they way through college and professional schools, and with their education, they are not going to be taking name-tag jobs. Personally, what surprises me is that they are not supporting illegal immigration reform. Though, I must admit that one really, truly thing that I hate against unions is that they are all racist.
Good post. For more on Unions:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/unions.htm
Another one I'll have to check out.
Here's a good primer on NYC power.
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/leadership/
Click on the pictures for the bios. See if you can find what might be perceived as conflict of interests and the:
A)Need to keep unions happy
B)Benefiting from union money
Interesting. That David Mack looks like a mafia don. Interesting colleges too--even a couple from Trinity University.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.