|
JIMMYK
|
North Park wrote: Folks, Excessive Distributions does eat away equity which in turn weakens the balance sheet. Any bottom line profit made goes into equity,right? Its identified as retained earnings..so in reality, excessive distributions doesnt help the overall strength of the Company which then (in microeconomic terms) effects the union.
I would be upset if i was a union member and I saw excessive distributions being made. May not effect the income statement but it does effect the balance sheet. And any contibutions from bottom line profits which should go into equity is distributed instead of retained. Am i missing something or are you two grand rapid guys going to duke it out some more? Based on the fact he just called CHIP a Nazi I am sure he will have something to say about it.
|
|
Chip
|
I see that the union supporters are just going to assume that all corporations are evil and break the law and lie about their financials. It's the typical us against them mentality that has your jobs being sent overseas anyway.
|
|
North Park
|
There are more reasons than one that has these plants closing. I think three, Officer salary, worker salary and rising costs for materials.
Ill say it again. I would take an higher salary any day. I just dont know if I want to risk circling a burning can in exchange for a pay check when Im told. It takes all kinds! Im more of the Ill fight for my own wage kinda guy. But to the ones fighting the fight! good luck you derserve to make $$ and work! I hope you find one thats good to you!
|
|
Chip
|
North Park wrote: Folks, Excessive Distributions does eat away equity which in turn weakens the balance sheet. Any bottom line profit made goes into equity,right? Its identified as retained earnings..so in reality, excessive distributions doesnt help the overall strength of the Company which then (in microeconomic terms) effects the union.
I would be upset if i was a union member and I saw excessive distributions being made. May not effect the income statement but it does effect the balance sheet. And any contibutions from bottom line profits which should go into equity is distributed instead of retained. Am i missing something or are you two grand rapid guys going to duke it out some more? Yes excessive distributions can negatively affect the financial stability of the company, so can you tell me how about a 1% return on investment is excessive? If the union was concerned about the health of the company why would they demand to be paid 2x the going rate for thier job? Why would they go out on strike and put the contract with Toyota at risk. The fact is if the investors were as greedy as the union employees they would have built a factory in Mexico that was due for completion when the union contract was up, then when they went on strike the would just shut down the plant and say sorry you walked off the job and now you get nothing. If the company was making a ton of money, shouldn't the investors who put up the money so the company could exist in the first place be rewarded? Union members fail to understand that if it wasn't for these investors they would not have a job in the first place. If the union members are so smart and the investers are making so much money why doesn't the union start its own company?
|
|
North Park
|
Chip wrote: <quoted text>
Yes excessive distributions can negatively affect the financial stability of the company, so can you tell me how about a 1% return on investment is excessive? If the union was concerned about the health of the company why would they demand to be paid 2x the going rate for thier job? Why would they go out on strike and put the contract with Toyota at risk. The fact is if the investors were as greedy as the union employees they would have built a factory in Mexico that was due for completion when the union contract was up, then when they went on strike the would just shut down the plant and say sorry you walked off the job and now you get nothing.
If the company was making a ton of money, shouldn't the investors who put up the money so the company could exist in the first place be rewarded? Union members fail to understand that if it wasn't for these investors they would not have a job in the first place. If the union members are so smart and the investers are making so much money why doesn't the union start its own company? youre asking too many questions Chip. I dont really care about the finances here, I see too many statements as it is. So...I cannot read all your post and address or "get into it" haha. Im only saying what I said. And may i add..Ive read nothing on this.. but i do know that there are many factors and greed is everywhere. Everyone deserves to work in my opinion. And if there someone not as qualified as I, making more $$. Well Im probably making more $$ than someone else out there more qualified than me. Its capitalist society, anyone can start a business if they want to.
|
|
North Park
|
ok chip i read it..curses to you! Sure stock purchases need to get a bone...but they dont have to..My suggestion a looong time ago was to have all salaries properly margined to forecasted sales. A percent would already be allocated. If projected revenues are exceeded then everyone gets a slice of the pie though some formula based bonus on years worked and position and ownership....now i have a real question. how come UAW never bought into the companies? If they put half their dues into buying a portfilio it might be paying off by now..again i dont know the rules here.
|
|
Tim
|
Great! Lets just raise the price of cars to pay for more 50 year olds that can retire at full benefits.
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
North Park wrote: Folks, Excessive Distributions does eat away equity which in turn weakens the balance sheet. Any bottom line profit made goes into equity,right? Its identified as retained earnings..so in reality, excessive distributions doesnt help the overall strength of the Company which then (in microeconomic terms) effects the union.
I would be upset if i was a union member and I saw excessive distributions being made. May not effect the income statement but it does effect the balance sheet. And any contibutions from bottom line profits which should go into equity is distributed instead of retained. Am i missing something or are you two grand rapid guys going to duke it out some more? Not me I'm done with this. I agree with what you've said.
|
|
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
JIMMYK wrote: <quoted text>
Based on the fact he just called CHIP a Nazi I am sure he will have something to say about it. I'm sure he will too. The same way as he hasn't had anything to say except to bash on me anyway.
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
Tim wrote: Great! Lets just raise the price of cars to pay for more 50 year olds that can retire at full benefits. I'm sorry, and I'm sure some super accountant will thrash me on this, but raising the price of cars to pay for more 50 year old retirements is bad accounting practices on the companies part. The union members had nothing to do with how the company honors their contract. If the companies would have done it right in the first place that would not be an issue. When the contract(s) were agreed on the company had the option to take the money agreed on for retirements out of the operation fund(s) and stick it away to gather interest. That would have actually given them "free" money to honor their contract(s) with. The benefit money the company and union agree on does not end up in the workers paycheck(s). The benefit money should have been put away in a growth account. That it is/was not is a company executive decision. It's just too easy to blame the little guy(s) for the wrong practices of management. Management is the one with all the education and business experience...right? They are the ones who deserve their millions of dollars in salaries and benefits...right?
|
|
Seenitbefore
|
North Park wrote: ok chip i read it..curses to you! Sure stock purchases need to get a bone...but they dont have to..My suggestion a looong time ago was to have all salaries properly margined to forecasted sales. A percent would already be allocated. If projected revenues are exceeded then everyone gets a slice of the pie though some formula based bonus on years worked and position and ownership....now i have a real question. how come UAW never bought into the companies? If they put half their dues into buying a portfilio it might be paying off by now..again i dont know the rules here. I'm not sure there's a "rule" or law against the unions buying stock in the companies. I seem to remember something about them doing it though. I could be wrong on that. If nothing else it would surely cause some raised eyebrows and howls over possible conflict of interest though. Just like when the, I don't remember exactly which, UAW President did get a seat on the GM board while he was still the UAW President. Frasher was it? Isn't it even today we see the GM and UAW partnership on the GM logo?
|
|
Chip
|
North Park wrote: ok chip i read it..curses to you! Sure stock purchases need to get a bone...but they dont have to..My suggestion a looong time ago was to have all salaries properly margined to forecasted sales. A percent would already be allocated. If projected revenues are exceeded then everyone gets a slice of the pie though some formula based bonus on years worked and position and ownership....now i have a real question. how come UAW never bought into the companies? If they put half their dues into buying a portfilio it might be paying off by now..again i dont know the rules here. I have no problem tying compensation to profit not sales. I think it is a great way for everyone in the company to focus on profitability. Employees work for those who invest into the company and they have a duty to serve the interest of those who allow them to have a job in the first place, profit sharing is a great way to reward both shareholders and employees. To make this a viable option the union must realize that they are already overpaid and are forcing an excess share of profits. If union employees made the same amount of $ as non-union employees, then it would be logical to ask for profit sharing if goals are achieved. FYI: I say profit because it would be too easy to increase sales if nobody cared about the bottom line. If it was my company the calculation would include sales, income, and cash flow, this would encourage people to act in the best interest of return on investment, and not a single denominator that could be exploited at the cost of another.
|
|
Chip
|
Seenitbefore wrote: <quoted text>
I'm not sure there's a "rule" or law against the unions buying stock in the companies. I seem to remember something about them doing it though. I could be wrong on that. If nothing else it would surely cause some raised eyebrows and howls over possible conflict of interest though. Just like when the, I don't remember exactly which, UAW President did get a seat on the GM board while he was still the UAW President. Frasher was it?
Isn't it even today we see the GM and UAW partnership on the GM logo? I can't see where there would be a conflict of interest unless they were privy to financials before the general public. It seems to me that the UAW should only invest in union companies. I'm sure this isn't the case because then they would get a poor return on investment, this of course does make them hypocrites, but what else is new.
|
|
Rob
|
Well well it seems that another union strike has taken it's toll on the american workforce.No surprise here,you can only go so long making ridiculous wages and getting big fat benefits before it turns around and bites you in the butt.There was a time when unions were needed but their time has come and gone.Let's see 27.50 an hour x 300=8250 an hour x 40 =330000 a week just in salaries not including benefits thats a little pricey for people.Maybe if you would have taken a cut down to 17.00 an hour (still too much but whatever) you would still have a job.I will bet that your "union rep" still gets his 100,000 or whatever he makes a year while you guys are out looking for a job and not getting paid.Youi should blame noone but yourselves see what greed gets you. Let me spell it out NOTHING.
|
|
Captain
|
Come on you guys know you are way over paid. Now when its a reality to all that your way over paid you cry but thats not all, I do agree that it should not be 65% pay cut thats crazy but you guys and gals have to come to realize if you don't do something you will be out of work for ever at that location. So if the UNION is so smart get the heck back to the table and get it done.
|
|
proud member
|
i work(ed)at the forge, imade 91,000 last yr. its gonna be tough!!!!!!!
|
|
Rob
|
Joe wrote: <quoted text>
You are an ignorant uninformed moron. These men are fighting to keep these jobs not only in NYS but in the United States. Shame on you. It's not about appreication they appreicate these jobs that's why they want to keep them here for their children and their children's children. It pains me to think that someone can be this jealous and harbor this much anger on a subject that doesn't concern them. Worry about yourself and your crap job and leave these hard working men and women alone. well if these were hard working people I would understand however I personally have toured some of these "hardworking union plants" and I really cringe at the thought of these being hardworking people.First off running a machine that does the job is not "hard" work monitering some machine that gun drills axle flanges is not that hard beleive me I have done it.So think abotu who you are talking abotu when you use the term "Hard working".
|
|
North Park
|
proud member wrote: i work(ed)at the forge, imade 91,000 last yr. its gonna be tough!!!!!!! thats alotta dough man.$91M?? I didnt know it was that much. HOLY MOLY!
|
|
Frustrated
|
Are you kidding me? What excuse with AA come up with next? GM needs to find another supplier-a billion dollar company should have no trouble doing that. It is hard enough working for GM this year let alone this on top of it.
|
|
BO JR
|
If you have nothing better to offer than putting in your time, join a union. As they say- "it all pays the same". The unions are the reason so much of our work is now in Mexico and China.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
