F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/15/14, 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon
those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the
economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating
model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW
Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.


The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/15/14, 5:26 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon
those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the
economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating
model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW
Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.

It's a young "workforce."
They make more money than the GM, Ford or Chrysler workers.
As long as they are well-treated by management, they're ok.
That's how all the foreign brands keep the union out.
It works, and will continue to work until workers are mistreated.


The ultimate goal of right-wing politicians in right to work states is
to break unions and the union movement so businesses can lower pay and
benefits to workers. It has nothing to do with the right to work.
No, the workers aren't forced to pay dues to do-nothings that **** their
money away.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/15/14, 5:54 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 2/15/14, 5:26 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon
those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened
the economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating
model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the
UAW Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed
with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.

It's a young "workforce."
They make more money than the GM, Ford or Chrysler workers.
As long as they are well-treated by management, they're ok.
That's how all the foreign brands keep the union out.
It works, and will continue to work until workers are mistreated.


The ultimate goal of right-wing politicians in right to work states is
to break unions and the union movement so businesses can lower pay and
benefits to workers. It has nothing to do with the right to work.

Can't blame the politicians.
It was the workers who voted the union down.




Do you know what the politicians there were threatening, including a
U.S. Senator, if the workers voted to go union?
Do you? That would have been all over the news.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/15/14, 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:26:00 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:41:52 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/lp99as6

Damn shame. That'll put some folks in a real sour mood. I reckon
those Southerners aren't so stupid
after all.

Perhaps the union organizer said it best:

"Unfortunately, politically motivated third parties threatened the
economic future of this facility
and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating
model that would grow jobs in
Tennessee," UAW Southern Region organizer Gary Casteel said."

Those damn politically motivated third parties. Of course, the UAW
Southern Region is in no way
politically motivated.

Right, FOAD?

It appears that they rejected the idea of a union that was in bed with
the company they were working for. That is the way unions are in most
of those foreign country union people like to cite.

It's a young "workforce."
They make more money than the GM, Ford or Chrysler workers.
As long as they are well-treated by management, they're ok.
That's how all the foreign brands keep the union out.
It works, and will continue to work until workers are mistreated.

IBM did the same thing.


I read the other day that IBM is downsizing in an attempt to raise its
share price.
It's called economics. Google it.

wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:37:38 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/15/2014 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 19:44:01 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
I read the other day that IBM is downsizing in an attempt to raise its
share price.
I am not even sure what IBM's new business model is going to be.
they don't seem to want to make anything or do anything that involves
employees.
They still have an excellent SiGe (silicon/germanium) IC process that is
wonderful for very high speed analog/digital ICs and made in Burlington,
VT. Unfortunately the wafer cost is higher than pure CMOS from TSMC
Taiwan and few are willing to pay a little more for the performance. I
loved designing on that process.
They have sold off the server business to Lenovo and I would not be
surprised if Burlington goes with a deal like that.
They are heading in the direction of Motorola.

On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.

On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.

On 2/23/14, 8:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.





Perhaps part of the fault with much corporate management these days is
in thinking that capital is many times superior to labor. To me, capital
and labor should be on the same step. Capital is not more valuable than
labor. I'm not advocating workplace democracy...someone has to be in
charge...but I am advocating treating everyone and everything involved
as valuable assets.

On 2/23/2014 8:47 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 8:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.





Perhaps part of the fault with much corporate management these days is
in thinking that capital is many times superior to labor. To me, capital
and labor should be on the same step. Capital is not more valuable than
labor. I'm not advocating workplace democracy...someone has to be in
charge...but I am advocating treating everyone and everything involved
as valuable assets.



Treating everyone as valuable assets is critical but so is treating the
company and it's future as a valuable asset as well. Again, it's a team
and each group or person has a job to do based on their area of
expertise. I can't see having the worker's having equal say in a major
decision such as in the case of the German model whereby they can
control where VW builds a plant in the USA. It may work or be
traditional in Germany (or at least be the norm) but that doesn't
necessarily mean it will work everywhere.

The German system is not without it's problems, be assured. It might
sound like utopia for someone like yourself with strong union
ties/interests but I've had many discussions with the two German
associates that indicate otherwise. The shear bureaucratic complexity
of how they must operate is one of the reasons my little company often
kicked the major German company's rear time and time again after we got
rolling. The German competitor was no slouch either. They were a
multi-billion dollar company with a world-wide market.

On 2/23/14, 9:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2014 8:47 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 8:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2014 7:57 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/23/14, 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:53:02 -0500, "Earl! " . wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:

The state's politicians poisoned the well with direct and indirect
threats to jobs.
Cite?

It is another stretch of the facts from Harry. What the state said is
they *might* rethink FUTURE tax incentives for NEW plants. It had
nothing to do with current employees.


Uh-huh, sure, Gregg. Right. Of course. And Senator Corker didn't play a
role at the end, either, and the workers weren't left with the
impression that if they voted union the state might play fun and games
with their employer. Well, we shall see what happens. Corker said if
the
workers voted no, VW would be building another plant in their state
then...he reneged on that statement after the vote, and that had
nothing
to do with the vote, either. Luckily, VW's workers in Germany will have
something to say about future plants in the United States.


I had two business associates who were executives in a major German
engineering and manufacturing company. Both left Germany and relocated
to the US. One joined and later started a similar company here. The
other joined my company. Why? Because the German style of
management/employee co-running the business drove them nuts.

I had a very democratic philosophy in the running of the business I had
but soon realized that there were limits to how much control employees
should have in decision making. It's not that the corporation's goals
were at odds with the employee's ... it's simply a case where the
employees typically were looking at issues from a personal point of view
rather than a more global view required to successfully manage and run a
company. We all have jobs to do, all are important but people are
better at some things than others.

We had a very knowledgeable thin films engineer on our staff. We would
meet with a prospective customer who also had thin film engineers who
typically wrote the technical specifications and requirements for a
system they wanted us to design and build. In several cases, our
"expert" would start challenging the customer's approach because he
didn't agree with it, promoting *his* way of doing it. This happened
two or three times, resulting in customers becoming uneasy with awarding
a contract to us. To me, it's ok to offer alternative ways of doing
things if you think they will benefit the customer, but not to the point
where you are actually insulting them or causing them to think their
system will not receive our best efforts.

He didn't last long in my democracy. He ended up starting his own
company that fell flat on it's face in a short period of time.





Perhaps part of the fault with much corporate management these days is
in thinking that capital is many times superior to labor. To me, capital
and labor should be on the same step. Capital is not more valuable than
labor. I'm not advocating workplace democracy...someone has to be in
charge...but I am advocating treating everyone and everything involved
as valuable assets.



Treating everyone as valuable assets is critical but so is treating the
company and it's future as a valuable asset as well. Again, it's a team
and each group or person has a job to do based on their area of
expertise. I can't see having the worker's having equal say in a major
decision such as in the case of the German model whereby they can
control where VW builds a plant in the USA. It may work or be
traditional in Germany (or at least be the norm) but that doesn't
necessarily mean it will work everywhere.

The German system is not without it's problems, be assured. It might
sound like utopia for someone like yourself with strong union
ties/interests but I've had many discussions with the two German
associates that indicate otherwise. The shear bureaucratic complexity
of how they must operate is one of the reasons my little company often
kicked the major German company's rear time and time again after we got
rolling. The German competitor was no slouch either. They were a
multi-billion dollar company with a world-wide market.



I would assume every complex system has its problems.

If the German auto workers prevent VW from building another factory in
Tennessee or another anti-worker state, it'll make me smile.