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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (108341)	2/16/2010 9:07:56 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

consistently profitable at similar nickel prices just a few years ago. Sorry.. I missed that little nugget.. I swore I read that the subsidiary was now unprofitable.. My bad!! I would agree.. if they were profitable previously, and nothing significant has altered the mining operations, then hitting at labor costs should only be considered if management is willing to take the same percentage cuts. Again.. I'm not anti-union, but I am against Union bullying and abuses that drive businesses into a non-profit status or to cheaper labor markets. My father once ran a 1/2 union shop at his drywall firm. He had to because if you didn't have union labor, you didn't get the big projects. But where he had flexibility to train and utilize his non-union staff (switching between hanging and taping), his union shop had to have a specialist in each field. Effectively made them non-deployable on non-union projects because they weren't cost effective on lower margin jobs. There has to be a mutually beneficial relationship between corporate management and labor. Let management exploit and abuse labor and they'll screw you by doing a poor job, dragging @ss, getting "injured".. etc. And when management demands concessions from labor, they'd better be willing to match them on a percentage basis. Hawk

To: axial who wrote (108341)	2/16/2010 11:25:04 AM
From: mishedlo	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Just the facts Jack ... "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 AR - I never said it was BR - There is nothing inflammatory about it at all Indeed "Canadian Mining Union Stubborn to Point of Self-Destruction" is a simple statement of fact. They are losing their homes, their cars, and their lives because they are stubborn to the point of self-destruction. They could have at any time ended the strike. They would have had a job and they would still have had their pension. They would not have lost their homes or cars. New hires are the only ones with reduced pensions. They were economic idiots to wreck their lives for the sake of new hires. That too is a simple statement of fact. They gambled and lost. That is a statement of fact as well. That they held out for as long as they did proves they are stubborn. Again, another plain as day fact. What is NOT stated by Mish is how many companies have been driven to ruin by management stupidity. A statement of fact as well. However, It is something I have said many times before. I saw no reason to say it again. But if it makes you happy here you go: "many companies have been driven to ruin by management stupidity". That is a clear statement of fact. A widespread example (if indeed not the most widespread example) of "management stupidity" is giving in to union demands that are untenable in the long run. GM is a perfect example of management stupidity, negotiating contracts with unions that were guaranteed to eventually sink the company regardless of what else they did. Again, that is a simple statement of fact. Mish