Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joseph F. Hubel who wrote (55922)	11/1/2000 2:01:11 PM
From: U Up U Down	Respond to of 769670

"When the final story of the 2000 race is written, (Bush's) strategists will either be heroes or numbskulls," Brennan Center president Joshua Rosenkranz said of Bush's strategy of spending heavy cash in California. gomemphis.com

To: Joseph F. Hubel who wrote (55922)	11/1/2000 3:54:09 PM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Joe: I stand by my analysis. If you join a union, you have chosen to become a member of a workforce team. Little or no difference than investing in a company. Little or no difference than what big corporations do to squeeze money out of middle managers. Example: Boss comes around on Thursday afternoon and says, "Joe, I'm having a little get-together at my house Saturday night for Candidate So-and-so. We'd like you and the Mrs. to drop in for a while. Oh, and Joe, be sure to bring your checkbook. Most of us are donating $500, but what you donate is up to you. You'll fall in love with Candidate So-and-so's views on America and where he stands on 'right to work' laws pending in Congress." Yeah, right. You have the "option" to say no as a 30-something middle manager. Whether corporate, union or strong-arm giving, in all cases you are "investing" in an entity that will produce dividends down the road for you. If union members don't like the fact that their union dues go to support Democratic (or Republican) candidates, then they always have the option of quitting their job. That is an option you didn't mention. I believe by law a company also is required to fully inform new hires what the workplace rules are regarding that particular union. Am I not right? I've sat in on 50 to 60 bargaining sessions. You are correct in saying that I do get emotionally impacted from time to time. That is the absolute truth. I'm not good at hiding my feelings. But if I do get emotional, it is because I have heart-felt admiration and love for the common working man and common working woman. If I am cynical, it is because I personally have witnessed a wide assortment of dirty tricks from the corporate lackeys in suits making six-figure salaries. I will be happy to provide details. I've got some real doozies. When I mentioned management saying "This was their first and final offer," I was just using that as an example of histrionics, which, after about six unproductive bargaining sessions, begins to come to the forefront more. Negotiation is indeed a difficult art to master. You are absolutely correct in that regard. Re: "Would you expect your opponent to be unprepared": At times, that is indeed the case. You should know that feigned ignorance is indeed a tactic that is widely used by management negotiators. One way for corporate lackeys to balance a budget for a particular year, for example, is to extend contract talks until December. And feigned ignorance plays an important tactic in extending many individual bargaining sessions. If I had to name one aspect of bargaining that disturbs me more than anything else, it would be that management frequently comes to bargaining sessions unprepared besides having an elitist, arrogant attitude. The histrionics, the door-slamming, the name-calling ... that all goes with the territory. That stuff doesn't faze me. What really, really bothers me is when the management team says it will provide an answer to a particular question, then fails to do so at the next bargaining session. It is when bargaining lackeys have to run to the corporate office for the go-ahead to answer even simple questions. It is when management negotiators have not familiarized themselves with basic, elementary terms contained in pension documents. It is a little difficult to "bargain" when one must stop and define "reversion clause" every time it's used.