Hi Hawk -
"Mish has presented some very compelling examples, especially with regard to public sector workers who are making extraordinary amounts of money that are completely out of sync with the reality in the private job markets."
Of course he has, and as indicated in other posts, even though he neglects the reason the situation arose, the stories are true.
However, in the case at hand, Mish stated:
"Canadian Mining Union Stubborn to Point of Self-Destruction"
Note:
[A] - This is NOT a public-sector union.
[B] - He makes the inflammatory and derisive statement that the union is "stubborn to the point of self-destruction". Fine; let's go to the linked story and my response for the facts, which you are choosing to ignore
---
"Except for the fact that unions as a general rule are stubborn to the point of self-destruction, I would find stories like the following shocking."
---> Not true of all unions; preclusive of present and future adjustments by unions as an outcome of negotiations. There are many unions (public-sector and private) working efficiently and profitably.
"Even if the company gave in now, those union workers will never gain back what they lost. The irony is the union brought this entirely upon its own members, and the longer the union foolishly strikes, the more lives will be destroyed."
---> A complete mis-statement of the situation. Since you seem to be ignoring it, I'll re-post; as stated by management of the former owners:
"However, former Inco executives said the company was consistently profitable at similar nickel prices just a few years ago. “They just want to break the union. They want to completely hit the reset button on the entire labour situation and the agreements that have been put in place in the past,” said a former Inco executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
theglobeandmail.com
---
In short, Mish is perverting the presentation. The facts are being mis-stated, in favor of an anti-union bias.
You may (or may not) have noted that upstream, it was agreed that in many cases, unions must make corrections. Agreed: there are places where shameless waste and inefficiency must be eliminated.
What is NOT said by Mish is that there is higher-cost waste and inefficiency in management. What is NOT stated by Mish is how many companies have been driven to ruin by management stupidity.
It's everywhere. It's in public-sector workplace management, one of the worst. It's in GM, with its multimillion-dollar endorsements so executives could play golf with Tiger Woods (and fly there in executive jets). It's in obscene executive compensation, without regard to performance. It's in completely unnecessary triannual junkets for management training "seminars" at deluxe resorts. It's in endless "meetings" where management "spreads" decision-making so no individual can be fingered for the losses and stupidity. It's in back-dated option prices. It's in alignment with major shareholders to steamroller investor opposition to compensation increases, and lack of profitability. It's in dressed-up financials, and corrupt misstatement of performance. It's in unnecessary and unprofitable ego-driven acquisitions, sometimes sufficient to bring down BOTH companies.
I'll say it again: management -- bad management -- has ruined more companies than union wages ever did.
In many areas there is a clear need for unions to improve - and they will, or they'll be gone. They know it, and we know it.
In many other places, here and overseas, unions are completely aligned with the interests of shareholders and management but that fact is never stated on Mish's thread.
To take the case of miners striking against globalist owners who are falsely claiming financial ruin because of union wages is unconscionable.
And to cherry-pick the facts and distort the argument in favor of a public-sector argument -- when the Mish's linked story is clearly about a private-sector fight against globalist practices -- is something I thought you were above.
Jim
|
