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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (437469)	12/3/2008 11:59:21 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573901

Ted, Ever wonder why mgmt capitulated to the unions? What they got out of it? Manager is hired help. It is just a job. Making a stand against the union could kill the company quickly (by crippling strike). Manager's paychack stops. Capitulations kill the company slowly, the manager gets his paycheck while the company dies slowly... Joe

To: tejek who wrote (437469)	12/3/2008 8:44:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573901

The companies thought they would continue to dominate the market. If they had they could have afforded the union contracts. But assuming you will always be dominate generally isn't very wise. Also people are often tempted to put off pain, even accepting more pain down the line, for less pain right now. Strikes would have been damaging. And Joe is right when he points to the principal-agent problem, where the agent (management) has different interests than the principal (the owners, or in other words the shareholders). If your a manager making a fat paycheck, and you can put off problems until after your retirement, then your inclined to do so, even at the expense of making the problems bigger (after all they won't be your problems). Still I think its more arrogance and short sightedness than a principal/agent issue. The management didn't anticipate the way the auto market would change over time.