| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is it possible... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 15 2008, 03:45 PM (215 Views) | |
| Dwayne | Dec 15 2008, 03:45 PM Post #1 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
The Boeing Machinist strike really did a number on my company's revenue... It's down by $50,000 over last year. Mine's a small company and our profit margins are quite small, and while we made money in 2007, we won't be so lucky in 2008. The loss of that revenue from Boeing/Spirit really hurt our cash flow and it's is directly attributable to the strike. Now my question is, why wouldn't it be possible to sue the union for the lost revenue? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 15 2008, 04:49 PM Post #2 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Do you have any friends that are lawyers? I don't think anyone on Sistertrek is a lawyer, so I don't think any one of us could answer that for you. I think it is at least worth speaking to a lawyer and finding out. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 15 2008, 08:12 PM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm no lawyer but somehow I doubt it. Maybe you could sue the company if they were in breach of a contract but if its just that they did less business then whats your case? Are they obliged to do business with you? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Dec 15 2008, 08:33 PM Post #4 |
|
Captain
|
Obviously a lawer would be your best bet but here in Oz you would have a case and that has severely restricted such union action. Has not ended it, some unions are large enough to have the financial resources to absorb the court and damages cost but will pick their fights carefully. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 16 2008, 12:13 AM Post #5 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I just think it's totally crazy that in this day and age with all the interconnectivity, a union is allowed to just go on strike. It seems to me that very act has such a detrimental affect on so many other people who lose out due to the work slow down, that the larger concerns must be addressed before such a thing can be allowed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 16 2008, 05:15 AM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
You cannot force people to work and if a large majority of workers walk out - particularly in a big company - then firing them all for not working would just bring that company to a halt for longer and could result in a serious loss of skills for the company. So the workers, when they join together in union, are powerful. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Dec 16 2008, 07:44 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
I disagree. If you're the only one who can do your job then the company will pay you appropriately and be very resistant to firing you. It's when almost any person off the street could do your job that you need a union. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 16 2008, 11:59 AM Post #8 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Dwayne, I'm sorry to hear of this loss. I wish I knew something to help you, but I'm not at all familiar with this situation, and my business law classes mostly covered incidences in "right to work" states (seeing as I'm in Texas). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Dec 16 2008, 12:11 PM Post #9 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ I'm in Kansas... It's a right to work state too. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 16 2008, 01:11 PM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
Which was kind of my point. If you have a large company and a majority of the work force walk out on strike its very unlikely you are going to want to lay of and then have to replace what could amount to thousands or in some cases even millions of workers. The amount of resources it would require to recruit a whole new workforce, together with the loss of knowledge and skills about the way the company works (the kind of knowledge that is passed between colleagues on a ongoing basis) would make it prohibitive. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Dec 16 2008, 03:56 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
vs These sentences are somewhat contradictory. How a company works? Do you mean the "ins and outs" of a union job? Start work at 8:00. As each car comes by, turn this bolt this way. Break is at 10:00-10:15 The bathroom is over there. Lunch is 12:00-1:00 Afternoon break is at 3:00 Stop doing your simple and repetitive task at 5:00 Oh yeah, while we're down here making an average of $36/hour in salary and benefits (50% of the current cost) the execs are up there making millions. Any questions? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Dec 16 2008, 04:31 PM Post #12 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
RTW - you are wrong about the level of skill required for unionized jobs. Unskilled workers work at places like McDonalds and have no union. Or maybe they are the cleanup crew. Most unionized jobs are in fact SKILLED labour. People like machinists have unions. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 18 2008, 09:50 AM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
A lot of union jobs in this country are UNSKILLED labor. One of the largest unions in this country is the SEIU. They represent janitors and are (in Houston) attempting to recruit illegal aliens into their ranks. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:12 PM Jul 11