Your harshest criticisms for this plan

[tony]

I was sitting around thinking today and I've been trying to figure out how you can push the incentives for companies to do right by their employees to level off the strong push to boost profits while employees are exploited.

Since I know the attention span is brief on subjects like this I'll try to keep it simple.

Companies who use tax deductions from the government to minimize overhead would be subject to an "evaluation" of sorts. This evaluation would come in the form of a survey of the employees of the company and their satisfaction within the company. It would be administered by a 3rd party so there is no tampering with the results.

The the tax deduction given will be based on the results of this survey. Obviously you cannot satisfy everyone so there would be reasonable slack. But the deduction drops as employee satisfaction lowers. For example:

Company A has a 87% employee satisfaction rate. If all companies with a satisfaction rate of 75% or higher receive a full deduction.. company A. would see 100% of their tax deduction.

Company B has an employee satisfaction rate of 59%. For each percentage point under 75% a company's deduction drops 1 percent. So Company B would only receive 84% of their desired tax credit.

Obviously this would only be a requirement if you are looking for a tax deduction, otherwise its business as usual.. treat your employees as you like.

I came up with this plan today and I believe it shifts the incentive from profits to doing right by employees.. which in the long run will only benefit the company and the economy. It cuts government spending due to those corporations who will not see a 100% tax deduction, AND helps fight environments where Unions are required.. if you can start the push to do away with Unions while keeping workers rights protected you begin to set this Economy in a direction it hasn't seen in a very long time.

[BanginJimmy]

I understand where you are going with this, but I dont know about the survey idea. There are so many people that believe they have a right to a 1 hour lunch, or a right to a 20 minute break every couple hours that it will skew the results as a way of forcing the company to give in.

I am from Chicago, where unions run everything, and I have seen the good and bad side of them. The unions have strong armed politicians to the point that you cannot get a govt contract unless you use union labor. You HAVE to be in the union if you want to work in certain industries, and on and on. These unions also ask for more than is right. The UAW is a perfect example. Members are getting paid 3-5x what is reasonable for their skill level. Then you add the outstanding benefit and retirement packages and that is the main, but not only, cause for the downfall of the Big 3.

[Tech5]

eeeehhhh

[AirMax95]

I love the notion of this plan, but I have to agree with Jimmy in regards to employee responses. They are either hard working and angry, or content and lazy as hell, lol.

Surveys are going to be the downfall of this plan simply b/c of the mentality already in place. It is going to be VERY hard to change the Union mentality, not that its bad, but companies (big and small) are known for finding a way to take advantage of workers. Greed runs a lot of this country. Until CEO's, upper level management, supervisors, and the like can sit down with Union reps and layout a compromise, nothing will change.

Right out of college I was in a MIT program with a large southeastern trucking company. The location was in a humid city, on a open truck dock, with no fans and shitty equipment. No unions in the SE part of the country, but the mentality was in the workers. I was forced to resign b/c I was the voice of reason for the dock workers. I couldn't understand why the terminal manager could not fix the dock fans, order better equipment, etc. Our effiencies were low, closeout times were extended, and hours were WAYYY over because workers said fuck it, "treat me like shit, I shit on you". The Ops manager and supervisors couldn't understand WHY the performance ratings were suffering.

Bottom line, this is an awesome idea, but companies need to hold seminars and be real with the people who drive their businesses. We all want the company we work for to be profitable, but not at the expense of mistreating the people who do the grunt work. Companies who are unionized are backed into a corner now. They are getting milked by the employees :no:

Hope I made some sense in there, lol.

[BanginJimmy]

Greed runs a lot of this country.

I will start off by saying that I will almost always side with business in these discussions, but I do agree with most of this. Greed runs in ALL areas of this discussion, but it is an individual mentality, not a corporate one. From the CEO's that cook the books to hit their benchmarks for incentive pay, to the union leaders that strongarm businesses into meeting their demands, no matter how unreasonable.


Until CEO's, upper level management, supervisors, and the like can sit down with Union reps and layout a compromise, nothing will change.

I firmly believe in this. Unions need to back off business, especially in these hard times for businesses. For example, the UAW, a 20% reduction in pay across the board(this also includes execs) with benefits, bonuses and incentives still 100% in tact for anyone under the executive level and a cut of 20% for anyone on the executive level would relieve the Big 3's financial crunch. The employees will still be making an average pay of nearly $15/hr which is definately a livable wage in 99% of the country if you are smart about it.

After doing a little research, I really wish the UAW would publish its pay scales so I could be more accurate. The best I could find was the total HR costs for GM divided by man hours which equates almost $70/hr.

[tony]

I understand where you are going with this, but I dont know about the survey idea. There are so many people that believe they have a right to a 1 hour lunch, or a right to a 20 minute break every couple hours that it will skew the results as a way of forcing the company to give in.

I am from Chicago, where unions run everything, and I have seen the good and bad side of them. The unions have strong armed politicians to the point that you cannot get a govt contract unless you use union labor. You HAVE to be in the union if you want to work in certain industries, and on and on. These unions also ask for more than is right. The UAW is a perfect example. Members are getting paid 3-5x what is reasonable for their skill level. Then you add the outstanding benefit and retirement packages and that is the main, but not only, cause for the downfall of the Big 3.

Like I said there is slack on the evaluations. Obviously getting more than 80% of your workforce to approve of your Corporation is far fetched that is why you keep the tax deduction competitive.. but not critical to the day to day functions of the business. Give just enough to be competitive but not enough to bankrupt anyone.

You get rid of the Unions by phasing them out through competition. We see what Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, etc is doing to GM, Ford and Chrysler. They cannot compete because the Unions are like dead weight.. it doesn't matter how connected they are.

Let the marketplace set the tone, Unions stagnate this economy.. if you remove the environment where Union's thrive they will become a thing of the past.

[AirMax95]

Like I said there is slack on the evaluations. Obviously getting more than 80% of your workforce to approve of your Corporation is far fetched that is why you keep the tax deduction competitive.. but not critical to the day to day functions of the business. Give just enough to be competitive but not enough to bankrupt anyone.

You get rid of the Unions by phasing them out through competition. We see what Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, etc is doing to GM, Ford and Chrysler. They cannot compete because the Unions are like dead weight.. it doesn't matter how connected they are.

Let the marketplace set the tone, Unions stagnate this economy.. if you remove the environment where Union's thrive they will become a thing of the past.

You speak truth.

[STRteg]

:thinking:

[BanginJimmy]

You get rid of the Unions by phasing them out through competition. We see what Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, etc is doing to GM, Ford and Chrysler. They cannot compete because the Unions are like dead weight.. it doesn't matter how connected they are.

But what does it cost us to phase them out? I read that if the Big 3 collapse it will cost more than 10 million US jobs within 5 years. Its not just the actual GM plants that will shut down. It is also the dealships and component suppliers that will fold or at least cut back dramaticly. The US as a whole cannot afford to simply let them collapse.


Let the marketplace set the tone, Unions stagnate this economy.. if you remove the environment where Union's thrive they will become a thing of the past.

I dont know that unions stagnate the economy, but they, along with unfair trade practices, drive up the cost of American made products, making them uncompetitive compared to foreign made products in the same price range. Again, look at American made cars. People always complain that they are made like shit, yet cost the same as a foreign car. The reason for this is simple, the foreign companies can afford to use high quality parts in their vehicles while American manufacturers are forced to use lower quality parts to stay in the same price range.

The enviroment where unions thrive is always among minimally skilled laborers like the construction and manufacturing industries. Because those industries will always exist there will always be an enviroment in which someone with education can convince the uneducated that unionizing would benefit everyone.

[tony]

But what does it cost us to phase them out? I read that if the Big 3 collapse it will cost more than 10 million US jobs within 5 years. Its not just the actual GM plants that will shut down. It is also the dealships and component suppliers that will fold or at least cut back dramaticly. The US as a whole cannot afford to simply let them collapse.



I dont know that unions stagnate the economy, but they, along with unfair trade practices, drive up the cost of American made products, making them uncompetitive compared to foreign made products in the same price range. Again, look at American made cars. People always complain that they are made like shit, yet cost the same as a foreign car. The reason for this is simple, the foreign companies can afford to use high quality parts in their vehicles while American manufacturers are forced to use lower quality parts to stay in the same price range.

The enviroment where unions thrive is always among minimally skilled laborers like the construction and manufacturing industries. Because those industries will always exist there will always be an enviroment in which someone with education can convince the uneducated that unionizing would benefit everyone.

At the rate they're going, they are going to collapse anyway. What I'm saying is, not to change the company but change the environment in which they operate. Remove the strong desire for only profits and put some emphasis on the treatment of workers. If workers feel they are being treated fairly then there is no desire for them to collude. I am currently in a Union and you want to know when the Union hall is most empty? It's when things are good, people don't feel the need to fight the "establishment" when they are being treated well.

A plan like this one doesn't put the big 3 out of business, it requires them to take ownership of their workforce which I'm sure studies show time and time again.. grows business.

Trust me, Economically.. especially times like these Unions are dead weight on the economy.

[NevrNufTorq]

it's called profit sharing people!!!!!!!!! no government intervention, no union, if the company makes money, the employees make money. works in our business but we only employ 135 people so its just my :2cents: as always