| Sorry, but I think some people need to remember what the heck "at will" employment means. Like it or not, in this type of economy it is up to the employer to determine how much it is willing to pay and it is up to the individual worker to decide how much it is willing to accept. When the two cannot come to an agreement, either one side wins out or else the worker goes elsewhere. In nearly every industry there ARE options for disgruntled employees. They are welcome to leave the company at any time and go wherever they want.
If they cannot find better pay elsewhere, then it would appear the employer is correct in surmising that the employee may only be worth X when the employee feels their value is Y. If they can, then they should say "screw this job" and take thier skills elsewhere. At some point they'll find an employer who values them and is willing to pay Y...or perhaps they're simply NOT that valuable an employee.
I mention this because if the wwbw truly is a promising venture, and if it can be managed successfully and make the company good money, then regardless of whatever labor disputes a manufacturer may have, it is a good business decision.
THe bottom line, though, is that this is independent of the decision to settle with a union (that has already turned down four offers). If you start coupling business decisions with labor disputes like this you quickly strangle a business's effectiveness.
Just as a business may layoff or fire someone, or HIRE someone at will, so too may an employee quit or leave at will. The decision to strike and go hungry was made by the employees.
A local theatre here was recently bought out by another chain, and the result was the immeidate cut in pay of 20-30% salary for most of the full time workers. They lost benefits, tenure, and income; yes, it sucks. But they're still putting food on the table and not having to stand in food lines to get fed. Meanwhile, they're all looking for better jobs.
SOme will manage to find a better job, and they'll be much happier off. Some won't (or aren't looking), becuase they feel that there are other things besides money to think about.
Again, the real choice is the employees as much as anyone else. If they wish to disempower themselves by granting the union the power to dictate their lives, so be it, but that is all their choice.
As for me, I'm not a fan of Bach, haven't been for some time. I am also quite saddened to hear that wwbw was up for grabs and in bankruptcy. I guess I wasn't aware. I hope that whomever takes over them manages to do well with it, because they had a great thing going. I also have reservations about a manufacturer controlling one of the largest retailers in the country, the conflict of interest is clear.
Nevertheless, I think jumping on the "they're evil for starving their employees and spending zillions on another business" rhetoric is a bit much. There is merit on both sides of the argument, even if only one side was ever presented.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who do not. |