PDA

View Full Version : Finally!!!! A union leader who gets it.



Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 05:48 AM
For Michigan to come back, its businesses must squeeze the maximum efficiency out of every dollar invested, says Pat Devlin. "We all have to bring value to the table. We're all in this together."Devlin will preach that message Monday when the Center for Michigan and Business Leaders for Michigan convene a summit of 600 business, community and political leaders in Lansing to discuss common sense reforms.

What makes Devlin's participation in the event notable is that he's a union man head of the Michigan Building Trades and Construction Council. After enduring a recession that has left 55 percent to 70 percent of members of the various construction unions out of work, Devlin has become a missionary for profits and business efficiency.

"If our contractors aren't profitable, our members don't work," says Devlin, who spoke to me along with Mike Jackson of the carpenters union. "The more money we can bring to the table in savings, the more money they have to invest in other projects that employ our members."


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20101212/OPINION03/12120310/Unions-getting-profit-religion#ixzz17tQwAtWY



After literally decades of job destroying policies, THIS union leader FINALLY gets the fact that without profits, there are no jobs.

If THIS mentality is able to gain traction amongst the other unions out there, this country will begin to get it's manufacturing base and a TON of other jobs back.

NJCardFan
12-12-2010, 10:25 AM
The real issue with unions is that they could give a flip about the rank and file. They never take into account their wants and needs, only the wants and needs of the leadership. Case in point are the recent police layoffs in Atlantic City, Camden, and Newark. All the union had to do is agree to some concessions which included taking a few unpaid days off throughout the year. If the union agreed to these, no one would be laid off. They refused and workers were laid off. Believe me, I've been on both sides of the fence and can tell you that unions are in it for their own gains and their own gains only.

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 10:48 AM
Of course a lack of profits can impede job creation. No one argued against that. The false assumption is that an increase in profits always leads to an increase in jobs. This can be easily disproven by observing the record setting profits this year and the correlating job creation (or lack thereof)

AmPat
12-12-2010, 11:10 AM
Of course a lack of profits can impede job creation. No one argued against that. The false assumption is that an increase in profits always leads to an increase in jobs. This can be easily disproven by observing the record setting profits this year and the correlating job creation (or lack thereof)
Gee, I wonder if the reverse is true? Hmm. A decrease in profits equates to a loss in jobs. No, preposterous. No way can this be true, it destroys my belief system in the Almighty Union god.:rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 11:20 AM
Of course a lack of profits can impede job creation. No one argued against that. The false assumption is that an increase in profits always leads to an increase in jobs. This can be easily disproven by observing the record setting profits this year and the correlating job creation (or lack thereof)

Why the hell should that be a criteria anyway??? It is an irrelevant point (and if you do a straight year to year comparison, it is also INVALID)


But EITHER WAY, a lack of profits GUARANTEES a lack of jobs - again, maybe not in that same year, but it WILL lead to lost jobs eventually.

PoliCon
12-12-2010, 11:30 AM
Of course a lack of profits can impede job creation. No one argued against that. The false assumption is that an increase in profits always leads to an increase in jobs. This can be easily disproven by observing the record setting profits this year and the correlating job creation (or lack thereof)

http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/hurr-durr-derp-face-her-dick-is-bigger-than-yours.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
12-12-2010, 12:01 PM
Loss of profits leads to loss of jobs? yes.

Increase of profits leads to increase of jobs? No, not necessarily.

Increased profits without an correlative increase in demand doesn't create jobs.

Is the goal of a business owner to create as many jos as possible? No of ccourse not, in fact labor costs and labor-associated costs like health care are some of a businesses largest expenses. Only profits + demand will create jobs, no employer wants to create jobs just to create jobs. They aren't going to hire people to stand around if there isn't enough demand to give these people some work to do.

This year is the proof. Profits were through the roof but demand was stagnant - Thus - little job creation.

PoliCon
12-12-2010, 12:05 PM
Loss of profits leads to loss of jobs? yes.

Increase of profits leads to increase of jobs? No, not necessarily.

Increased profits without an correlative increase in demand doesn't create jobs.

Is the goal of a business owner to create as many jos as possible? No of ccourse not, in fact labor costs and labor-associated costs like health care are some of a businesses largest expenses. Only profits + demand will create jobs, no employer wants to create jobs just to create jobs. They aren't going to hire people to stand around if there isn't enough demand to give these people some work to do.

This year is the proof. Profits were through the roof but demand was stagnant - Thus - little job creation.

Do you honestly think that repeating this lie often enough is going to convince people here that you're right? :rolleyes:
No evidence.
No facts.
No figures.
No perspective.
NO CLUE.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 01:21 PM
Loss of profits leads to loss of jobs? yes.

Increase of profits leads to increase of jobs? No, not necessarily.

Increased profits without an correlative increase in demand doesn't create jobs.

Is the goal of a business owner to create as many jos as possible? No of ccourse not, in fact labor costs and labor-associated costs like health care are some of a businesses largest expenses. Only profits + demand will create jobs, no employer wants to create jobs just to create jobs. They aren't going to hire people to stand around if there isn't enough demand to give these people some work to do.

This year is the proof. Profits were through the roof but demand was stagnant - Thus - little job creation.


There must be prolonged profits and a reasonable expectation that those profits will continue.


A business would be FOOLISH to go through the expense of hiring and training new employees based on a short term profit.

In most industries a single year is not enough.

PoliCon
12-12-2010, 01:27 PM
There must be prolonged profits and a reasonable expectation that those profits will continue.


A business would be FOOLISH to go through the expense of hiring and training new employees based on a short term profit.

In most industries a single year is not enough.

combine that with the uncertainty of what the tax rate will be in the coming year(s) because Barry, Nancy, and Harry are so very against continuing the Bush tax cuts and the risk becomes too great.

m00
12-12-2010, 01:55 PM
Of course a lack of profits can impede job creation. No one argued against that. The false assumption is that an increase in profits always leads to an increase in jobs. This can be easily disproven by observing the record setting profits this year and the correlating job creation (or lack thereof)

Depends on the industry, and the size of the corporation. In some industries, profits DO lead directly to job creation (typically, in either creative or producing industries). Whereas in banking, investment, and similar industries that rely primarily on monetary instruments and capital gains, no... profits have never lead directly to job creation.

NJCardFan
12-12-2010, 02:31 PM
This year is the proof. Profits were through the roof but demand was stagnant - Thus - little job creation.
Just when I didn't think WeeWee couldn't get any stupider, he says something like this. See, it's this kind of thinking is why liberals make for poor business owners. And answer me this. How can you have record profits with stagnant demand? Idiot.

m00
12-12-2010, 02:35 PM
Just when I didn't think WeeWee couldn't get any stupider, he says something like this. See, it's this kind of thinking is why liberals make for poor business owners. And answer me this. How can you have record profits with stagnant demand? Idiot.

Also, how could there not be profits when the government forked over 1.3-whatever trillion in bailout money? That money ends up on the books.

Madisonian
12-12-2010, 03:25 PM
Just when I didn't think WeeWee couldn't get any stupider, he says something like this. See, it's this kind of thinking is why liberals make for poor business owners. And answer me this. How can you have record profits with stagnant demand? Idiot.

Profit is not directly correlated to demand, particularly in manufacturing.
Just look at Ford. Even before the market collapse in 2007-2008, they were steadily losing money even with year to year increases in volume and revenue.
After restructuring, closing plants, reducing labor levels, selling of unprofitable arms like Jag, Volvo, and the rest of the PAG group and increasing efficiencies in all areas from top to bottom, they are more profitable then they have been in ages with decreased sales volumes and revenues over previous years.
So I would agree that demand is a factor, but only one of many.

Zeus
12-12-2010, 05:52 PM
The wealth redistributers still fail to realize that the uncertainty of how much the risk takers will be penalized for boing successful affects the desire to put any capital or physical output at risk. This affects investment,reinvestment and ability to want or need employees.

It aint rocket science. the Moochers are fully aware of what they are asking and doing,they just don't care.

Odysseus
12-12-2010, 06:32 PM
Of course a lack of profits can impede job creation. No one argued against that. The false assumption is that an increase in profits always leads to an increase in jobs. This can be easily disproven by observing the record setting profits this year and the correlating job creation (or lack thereof)


Loss of profits leads to loss of jobs? yes.

Increase of profits leads to increase of jobs? No, not necessarily.

Increased profits without an correlative increase in demand doesn't create jobs.

Is the goal of a business owner to create as many jos as possible? No of ccourse not, in fact labor costs and labor-associated costs like health care are some of a businesses largest expenses. Only profits + demand will create jobs, no employer wants to create jobs just to create jobs. They aren't going to hire people to stand around if there isn't enough demand to give these people some work to do.

This year is the proof. Profits were through the roof but demand was stagnant - Thus - little job creation.

Just why do you hate the rich?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-12-2010, 07:43 PM
The wealth redistributers still fail to realize that the uncertainty of how much the risk takers will be penalized for boing successful affects the desire to put any capital or physical output at risk. This affects investment,reinvestment and ability to want or need employees.

It aint rocket science. the Moochers are fully aware of what they are asking and doing,they just don't care.

Exactly.

This is one of the big reasons short term profits doesn't lead to more hiring.


But some here just don't get it.

NJCardFan
12-12-2010, 11:53 PM
Just why do you hate the rich?

For no other reason but they have more than he does.

noonwitch
12-13-2010, 11:49 AM
The real issue with unions is that they could give a flip about the rank and file. They never take into account their wants and needs, only the wants and needs of the leadership. Case in point are the recent police layoffs in Atlantic City, Camden, and Newark. All the union had to do is agree to some concessions which included taking a few unpaid days off throughout the year. If the union agreed to these, no one would be laid off. They refused and workers were laid off. Believe me, I've been on both sides of the fence and can tell you that unions are in it for their own gains and their own gains only.




I agree, as a union member myself. There are some good people within it-the ones who represent workers in grievance procedures are usually good at what they do and are about representing the dues-paying members. But the national UAW people (which is my union) are as corrupt as they allege management to be.

AmPat
12-13-2010, 01:21 PM
I agree, as a union member myself. There are some good people within it-the ones who represent workers in grievance procedures are usually good at what they do and are about representing the dues-paying members. But the national UAW people (which is my union) are as corrupt as they allege management to be.

I submit they are "more corrupt than."

PoliCon
12-13-2010, 03:25 PM
The moment the union has a single paid employee - it's too big.

Madisonian
12-13-2010, 03:51 PM
I submit they are "more corrupt than."

You mean like this? (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/12/28/uaw-union-bosses-abusing-positions-for-pay/)

I was at the plant Modzelewski was the chairman of at the time. Even after this, the membership re-elected him and Gettelfinger did nothing.
Modzelewski has since been voted out, but remains an hourly employee at the plant.