Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

More Guitar Center Union News


tazzboy

Recommended Posts

LOL! We didn't need the "Socialist Democratic Party" to cause high unemployment. The vulture capitalistic Republicans and war-mongering Neo-cons had that covered!

 

The good thing about communists is that they bleed freely. Demarroids will understand his when we, the Oath Keepers, settle scores. Your pig Prez is the vulture. His communist faggioot lover, Frank Davis, taught him well the commie way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Okay... from the printing biz perspective.

 

When I was a kid, a union card for a "printer" or pressman meant skill, talent and dedication.

 

On the other hand, it also was a major problem since the union seemed to want to keep the biz in hot metal, lousy photos and ugly ink printing. They became functionally extinct and battled newspapers and magazines like crazy and doggone nearly destroyed the business of printing various periodicals.

 

In fact, they probably played a major role in bigger and bigger companies acquiring publications in order to cope with what literally was a Luddite position.

 

Several of us have had unfortunate experiences with musicians union locals. I'm increasingly convinced they've caused more harm than good for live music where I live - and they have no apparent interest in members in this part of the world. I've written a batch of 'em and...

 

As for "Big Box" store retail unions, actually we're more likely better off today than we were 50 years ago. Today's big box is a lot more honest about their rules than the big retailers used to be. In the old days they kept folks believing they would get the great retirement programs, etc., etc. Only too late would they realize that without X hours a week, there was no retirement program and that the cash they thought was going into it, all went to the management employees.

 

We've too many folks today thinking that an entry level job should pay a senior level paycheck. Nope, that should reward greater value to the business. Expectations are pretty cockeyed nowadays, though. Employees in retail sales who barely sell enough to warrant their current paycheck should be fired; those who sell well should be getting commissions or higher hourly. Unions don't usually care for that sort of system.

 

But watch, with Obamacare, you'll see increasing numbers of retailers drop employee numbers; likely also splitting of corporations into smaller hiring entities to escape federal regs and penalties. Note how a number of costs of the "current" system were battled by the left that guaranteed us a broken system. It seems to me we'll inevitably see nearly everybody going for what both the left wanted, a nationalized single-payer system, or what a lotta big corporations wanted, the current system with tort reform and cost-cutting of the current fragmented payment system.

 

I predict things will end up so broken that we'll get a single payer system since hospital/physician lobbies are too strong to bring true nationalized health care at this point.

 

During the gamesmanship, workers will suffer and long-run, the entire economy. The current push for unionization today is part of the Obamacare package whether those behind the scenes will admit it or not; it's a way to force Obamacare participation or nationalized health care. It's the same package.

 

OTOH, corporations also are in many markets committing slow suicide by cutting productivity under the guise of cutting costs and paying more to shareholders - including many union retirement funds - before the big "hit" comes.

 

After having talked with some union guys in Germany, which came after my own experience as a union-management pingpong ball at a major magazine publishing corporation, I concluded that U.S. unions are counterproductive in the long run for their own members and for their industry - especially when compared to their German counterparts that ain't perfect either, but were looking ahead for them as much as for current paychecks and bennies.

 

Politics does impact the economy and, as in more obvious sorts of civil war, the villagers in the middle suffer most.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL! I love the way pro-unionites propagandize the union, they always talk about the long ago, back when employers chained workers to desks and locked them into buildings so they couldn't leave before the whistle blew, but not about the union today - which is all about politics and money. It's about power and strangling companies out of business. The day of the union being a good, positive and necessary organization ended many years ago.

This.

 

In a prior life decades ago, while working for a regional retail chain in another industry, one of the stores was opting to vote to unionize. During the meetings with the union officials (who btw, were not at all interested in the employees) my boss told them that if they won this battle, they would soon lose the war. Why? they asked. Because, he said. If they vote to Unionize, the next day there will be a sign on the door announcing the store's permanent closing. How many more stores will continue to vote to unionize?

 

When asked later in private if he was serious about closing the store, his reply was instantaneous "As a heart attack."

 

Years later working for a nationwide Fortune 500 retailer, we realized that the only benefit unions could offer over what we did was paying monthly dues.

 

Unions are dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions have caused the closure, and demise of way to many companies in the US. A union has done wonders for Colt. And the same gang has done the same for the US auto industry.

True that. Now it seems like they're into engineering the demise of cities like Detroit and it's all going to be part of Obama's Legacy. But, just you watch, they won't report on that in those union run newspapers, right? I've already noticed how hushed up this story has been as of lately. I mean, Detroit, once the symbol of America's industrial might, now filing for Bankruptcy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True that. Now it seems like they're into engineering the demise of cities like Detroit and it's all going to be part of Obama's Legacy. But, just you watch, they won't report on that in those union run newspapers, right? I've already noticed how hushed up this story has been as of lately. I mean, Detroit, once the symbol of America's industrial might, now filing for Bankruptcy?

 

You've forgotten about Obamau's Get Out Of Jail Free card.

 

It says "BushDidIt!" across the front.

 

tap-tap-tap ... EN-ESS-AYE? You listening? Why don't you go ahead and file this all away at great expense to me just in case you decide you need it some day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the parties and their records on job creation and economic growth?

 

Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 38 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added 27 million. Data for all jobs, including government? Again, the Dems have created 48 million new jobs, compared with 31 million for Republicans.

 

Moreover… GDP, stock prices, and corporate earnings have all increased more under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. The S&P 500 stock index has risen 12.1 percent per year under Democratic presidents since 1900, and just 5.1 percent under Republicans. Since 1949, GDP has grown 4.2 percent per year under Democrats and 2.6 percent per year under Republicans. The same trend extends to corporate profits, which have grown 10.5 percent under Dems and 8.9 percent under Republicans.

 

So much for Liberal Commie Democrats being a detriment to the nation's jobs numbers and the economy in general! Amazing how facts can debunk old worn-out narratives handed-down for decades, and bought-into by so many. I didn't just make these numbers up. Do some research, and you'll find the same—if not similar—statistics.

 

But getting back to the topic at-hand...

 

I don't really care one way or another whether this GC location goes union, or that GC location doesn't go union. All I care about is the middle-class worker 1.) being paid a livable wage, and 2.) being protected from the whims and, at times, the greed of the few. If unions afford them such protections, then I have no issue with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I am pro-union and have been on union executives where it was absolutely necessary because some department heads in my workplace were absolute despots who actually had their underlings so fearful of them they actually lied when questioned about her breeches of the collective agreement-even the administrator knew of the fear that she had instilled in her staff.Thankfully there were 4 of her staff who were so sick of her abuse and autocratic attitude,that they lodged a formal complaint with which the administrator gladly raked her over the coals for and she resigned shortly after that after being stripped of her power.Even in this day and age there are still instances where there are employers and departmental bosses who treat their underlings with cruelty,fear and contempt,without unions to stand up for them they would be at the mercy of a heartless employer who runs their place of business like a sweat shop.

 

While I am the first to stand up for the need and benefits of unions,I am fully aware that some of them have become too powerful,corrupt and radical and this is something that I abhor about some unions because they have lost direction and sight of their original purpose and that is to ensure that workers get treated fairly and have a safe workplace.It's no secret that organized crime has infiltrated some unions and herein lies the biggest problem facing unions today the criminal element is only interested in swindling money paid in by the workers and in return do little or nothing for them and it appears that their power is such that even governments can't do anything about them.That's what causes a lot of anti-union sentiment,but it doesn't make them all bad or make unions useless outdated entities that aren't needed any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are no choices, then unionizing won't drive customers away...but could cause a 'Mom 'n Pop' store to open......Then you'd have to frequent the GC only for the 'big stuff', (e.g .Fender guitars and amps; Gibson guitars, etc.)

 

I have no other reason to go to a music store. I don't buy Squires, Epiphones, Tursers, what else? LTD, Washburn. I don't buy that stuff. I don't buy, no offense to anyone reading this, I don't buy beginners sub 200 dollar guitars and 5 watt amps with cd inputs. I don't buy the crap that you can get anywhere. And it didn't used to be like that, I could buy what I used virtually all over America, it was always the good thing about Fender and Gibson and Peavey and a few others, always stuff in whatever town yer amp blew up in or you used your last thick E string to fix the bong.

 

Today, no mom and pop shop can throw down half a million effing dollars to secure a Gibson sign, and I don't know what lunacy Fender asks for. It was bad enough in the old days when the truck showed up with 25k wortha stuff on it and you'd better be ready to sell it in the next year. Holy CRAP it is expensive to sell this stuff, and only the big fellers can do it.

 

Unionize or not, I don't care. If Fender and the nice people that host this can't sell their guitars they should be plenty worried, not me. If unions drive people out of the stores they should be worried, not me. If unions cause artificial price increases they should be worried about it, not me. This is what happens when you control the manufacture and the distribution, and a consequence of that is squeezing out the little money. I have 9 guitars and don't really need anymore. Anything I buy from them two companies is a gift to them, they should be concerned with the fewer and fewer outlets they have and the potential effect that could have on the people that actually have the money to buy expensive things like guitars and truss rod cover screws.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look for the label, The Union Label..............

 

I really don't know that it would matter much if a local GC does go union. Some states have an open shop law, that can really screw up the pudding. Mostly the open shop allows union and non union to work in the same shop. If the union associates go on strike, the non union associates must report for work as usual. That can be messy. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in this particular case with GC, the employees might actually benefit from unions, but it might be a death nail for GC.

 

Yea . The company is not in great shape. I can see another Hostess situation going down here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The place is owned by a bunch of financial guys with a time horizon of five minutes who would sell their momma for three dollars. The employees are a bunch of kids with a time horizon of tonight. Oddly enough, a union might have a longer time horizon than both the workers and management. Who knows?

 

Yes, Searcy, the brand is almost worth as much as the bricks and mortar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The place is owned by a bunch of financial guys with a time horizon of five minutes who would sell their momma for three dollars.

 

 

That statement right there is what keeps unions alive and well because people like that will treat the workers like crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... from the printing biz perspective.

 

 

 

OMG a fellow "former printer" like myself..hehe I used to work in prepress...table work (strip)and scanner operator ..back in the day before computers......first half of my career I was in a non union environment , second half I was in a union shop....would have better suited me if it was the opposite way around, I would still be in that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rowdy...

 

I think the printing biz is a great example of how unions have failed. Rather than seeing the technological handwriting on the wall and working to do the best possible for their members in terms of retraining, they fought like dogs to keep technology and rules in an earlier era of lower quality product.

 

That cannot work - but what it can and did do was create a corporate environment that was quite anti-union and it also brought greater sellouts of smaller firms to larger firms with the ability to close plants and/or outsource more jobs away from unions.

 

Again, perhaps I take Germany too seriously, but as much tech was changing in the '70s, those union guys were bragging about selling their company's product themselves, higher product quality and taking a leading role in retraining workers for the new tech environment.

 

Instead we see increasingly large corporations, that have forgotten what they sell, playing money games instead; and unions by their actions encouraging that by trying to live in the 1950s and '60s.

 

Then we have a political situation in the US - and I think mirrored elsewhere - that takes the center right onto the side of corporations because they fuel the economy, and the center and far left into taking the side of the unions in the belief that they have the votes.

 

Meanwhile the structure crumbles.

 

As for economies getting better under U.S. Democrat presidents, that's a question of macroeconomics as to what really went on in the economy and is too complicated. One might "prove" about anything one wishes on either side of the question - and they do.

 

The question for all you young guys is whether you're voting for politicians of any labels who can see beyond the short term problem and are looking at ongoing change in the entire world economic and physical security system, huge population increases - and whether the true result of poor leadership will be a worldwide crash that makes any prior crash look like a blip because the logistical system of feeding and clothing huge populations will crash.

 

Anyone who thinks the European political turmoil and failures of the first half of the 20th Century were beneficial to the overall living conditions of the world need also to look at the deaths of those in the turmoil. And yes, questions and assertions today are virtually identical to those of the past, but with a much more complex logistical system that can fail and, if it does, far more people to suffer.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the relationship between union and company used to be symbiotic. Now it's usually parasitic. I'm betting the new GC union isn't going to be holding any training for its members on how to improve sales and increase profit for the company any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rowdy...

 

I think the printing biz is a great example of how unions have failed. Rather than seeing the technological handwriting on the wall and working to do the best possible for their members in terms of retraining, they fought like dogs to keep technology and rules in an earlier era of lower quality product.

 

That cannot work - but what it can and did do was create a corporate environment that was quite anti-union and it also brought greater sellouts of smaller firms to larger firms with the ability to close plants and/or outsource more jobs away from unions.

 

Again, perhaps I take Germany too seriously, but as much tech was changing in the '70s, those union guys were bragging about selling their company's product themselves, higher product quality and taking a leading role in retraining workers for the new tech environment.

 

Instead we see increasingly large corporations, that have forgotten what they sell, playing money games instead; and unions by their actions encouraging that by trying to live in the 1950s and '60s.

 

Then we have a political situation in the US - and I think mirrored elsewhere - that takes the center right onto the side of corporations because they fuel the economy, and the center and far left into taking the side of the unions in the belief that they have the votes.

 

Meanwhile the structure crumbles.

 

As for economies getting better under U.S. Democrat presidents, that's a question of macroeconomics as to what really went on in the economy and is too complicated. One might "prove" about anything one wishes on either side of the question - and they do.

 

The question for all you young guys is whether you're voting for politicians of any labels who can see beyond the short term problem and are looking at ongoing change in the entire world economic and physical security system, huge population increases - and whether the true result of poor leadership will be a worldwide crash that makes any prior crash look like a blip because the logistical system of feeding and clothing huge populations will crash.

 

Anyone who thinks the European political turmoil and failures of the first half of the 20th Century were beneficial to the overall living conditions of the world need also to look at the deaths of those in the turmoil. And yes, questions and assertions today are virtually identical to those of the past, but with a much more complex logistical system that can fail and, if it does, far more people to suffer.

 

m

 

Oh ya, the union did nothing for me, no help or anything...altho they did manage to sent me mail to ask for my union dues...funny thing is at my first place of employment they let me go because I made the most money had the most time there and cost them to much and I wasn't a brown noser and they were hurting for money......the next place I went to I had to join the union ( cost me $ 500 back in 1998 ) and after a few years they lat me go because I was low in seniority and they couldn't get rid of the few higher ups that did nothing but moch of the union and company........so in both these cases there is good argument for pros and cons of unions....and in the end I was the one that got screwed ...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the relationship between union and company used to be symbiotic. Now it's usually parasitic. I'm betting the new GC union isn't going to be holding any training for its members on how to improve sales and increase profit for the company any time soon.

 

 

True that...and I am not betting because I know you'll win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPS is one of the most profitable companies in the world, while paying a living wage and benefits.

Costco is thriving in profitability, and their workers are happy with good pay and benefits. Sams, Walmart and target spend more to fight their employees than it would cost to take care of them.

Corporate greed is what is killing our jobs. Unions make up 6% of Americas workforce which is struggling to get by on 1978 wages while their companies CEO's rake in all of the money you earn them. When America's labor was at it's best unions made up 30 to 50% of America's workforce, they raised the living standards for everyone, but of course a living wage could never compete with 9 year old slaves working 15 hour days in third world countries.

People who think unions killed Hostess have been fed Fox news lies and ate them right up. All the executives of hostess divided up the company profit's, closed the doors and are currently living on easy street. They took the money and ran. Now back up and running in a "right to work state" and right back to crapping on their workers. Have a twinkie and get fat right along with the people who will crush an economy for greed.

It's funny how the people who are hurting people the most can convince them that the people who are helping them are the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...