- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 8
in this case - I agree.
in this case - I agree.
You are not grasping the point. Simply put, A CEO's job is to manage the bottom line. That is what matters. An employees cost of living is entirely irrelevant except when considering whether or not location changes may result in cheaper labor.
You entitled your opinion about between cost of living and wage.
but for me, I disagree with that.
It is not an opinion....it is fact. It is Business 101.
I don't understand why manager didn't hire any replacement workers to keep company in operation.
I agree about striking already killed the operation and made difficult to sell, however managers should be responsible to find a replacement.
No, it isn't fact, so make think about wage is relevant or irrelevant is opinion matter, so the course I took don't cover because greater factor is market demand.
replacement is very costly. it's not easy to simply find somebody else and train them. it takes months to train them for skilled jobs.
delivery job is a different story but with thousands of workers just not showing up for work.... that's damaging enough for a company especially when it comes to manufacturing job.
All that management bullshit!
Not really, CEO's are "talent" and usually pricey commodities. There are fewer at the top so increases in salary have little impact on the bottom line. When a company is in trouble it is fairly common to pay higher ups more to keep them from jumping off a sinking ship. Especially if it is believed those executives are the right people for turning the company around. (in this case that is somewhat suspect).
The biggest mistake management made was paying union labor $20/hr with a nice benefit package for squirting cream into a sponge cake.
You are not grasping the point. Simply put, A CEO's job is to manage the bottom line. That is what matters. An employees cost of living is entirely irrelevant except when considering whether or not location changes may result in cheaper labor.
It takes a very special talent to oversee people squirting cream into a sponge cake. No matter that the squirters were overpaid union thieves, and the company was going bankrupt; those squirter overseers needed to double or triple their salary right before they went to bankruptcy court., even though it might reflect poorly. After all, they were extremely talented squirter overseers, and Little Debbie was secretly making job offers to the squirter overseers, because they were....extremely talented.
The squirters are free to squirt elsewhere if they are unhappy with their wage.
oh god what have I done... I should have enabled SafeSearch for google image.... *smh*
The squirters are free to squirt elsewhere if they are unhappy with their wage.
And they likely will need to, because the squirter overseers did a poor job of overseeing, except for their bank balances.
I could ask you point blank; are you ok with the execs giving themselves massive bonuses on the eve of bankruptcy court, and the union workers are the reason the company is in trouble, but I think I already know your answer. We will disagree until the end of time. Greed kills jobs. Unions are often greedy, as well as business executives. One is forced to negotiate, the other is not. Pick your poison.
BTW, I will never buy Hostess products again. I blame the greed of the company (not going to single any side out) and the fact I like to live healthy. That precludes all of their products from finding a way into my home.
Perfectly ok with it. It is/was their company to run as they see fit. Their pay is more but the consequences are greater too.