Employers get control by turning to lockouts

  • Article by: JIM SPENCER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 28, 2012 - 10:32 PM

Workers in contract disputes are more often told to stay home.

  • 38
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mchristiOct. 28, 1210:26 PM

Employers already have an inherent edge in power over employees. The ability to organize and strike, if necessary, is an appropriate and necessary balance on that power, even though it rarely actually brings it into balance. Lockouts are a power play by the powerful and tip the scale even further and significantly out of balance. Lockouts by employers ought to be illegal, with the law seeking to balance power between employer and employee, even in the absence of employees being organized for collective bargaining.

27
27
erikj3Oct. 28, 1210:30 PM

The $52 million lobby at the MN orchestra is just appalling in and of itself, and more so as it is demanding musicians take a huge pay cut. Just shameful.

30
14
sullytoolOct. 28, 1211:35 PM

It's bad enough that the unions are being broken by the republicans, and wages have not even kept up with the rate of inflation for the last 25 years. These corporations could and should be able to pay fair wages, but don't. They are infected with the sickness of greed and bad management who are only concerned with themselves and not the good of this country and the middle class. The worker has no rights any more, and i don't want to hear about minnesota being a right to work state. If i want time off, i am afraid to ask for the simple worry of not having my job the next day. If you don't work the hours they want you to work, your just a trouble maker and a waste of their time. It's another example of the class warfare that is coming soon. I have no problem with companies making money, but not at the expense of the american worker who has given up too much already.

34
21
dewarfOct. 28, 1211:42 PM

I'm certain each situation is different. The sugar beet plant(s) employees are certainly different from the highly paid professional hockey players and the talented, but less-than-popular symphony musicians. Each side must make their decision based on their future. Lumping these all together as a nationwide strategy doesn't ring true.

21
11
gofigerOct. 29, 1212:25 AM

Employers already have an inherent edge in power over employees. - Imagine that, the person providing the job, has all the jobs. If you don't want to work there, go somewhere else. If you voluntarily leave your job, maybe you should lose it. If you think it's better somewhere else or want more money, prove you are worth it or find someone who will pay you more. Novel idea.

15
9
akadamsOct. 29, 12 1:46 AM

@dewarf...by the phrase "less-than-popular symphony musicians" I can tell you were not in attendance at the sold-out concert given by the locked-out musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra on October 18. By all accounts, the atmosphere was electric and the performance unforgettable. You're right, though: Hockey players, musicians and sugar beet workers do different work. However, they all have families, deserve respect, safety, benefits, sane hours...you get the idea. There's no finessing the existence of those basics, however different the work.

14
7
comment229Oct. 29, 12 5:36 AM

Rumor has it that some/most, whatever, employees are going to walk out on Black Friday. Are you going to tell me that management is going to try to hire enough replacement workers to replace them without training? Or is management going to jump in and try to take over the load? Maybe, that is a good idea, to see what they expect out of their own workers, for the pay they get.

3
6
comment229Oct. 29, 12 5:39 AM

I agree with whoever said this should be a case by case evaluation to determine if labor or management may be at fault. Simply, asking for extreme pay cuts when massive spending is planned for building at the same time, is unethical. Further, asking an employee union for concessions, when the CEOs of the company get a huge raise, and corporate earnings are off the charts, is unethical. Henry Ford recognized the value of having a decently paid employee in his day; something a lot of corporations could take a lesson from.

13
5
comment229Oct. 29, 12 5:43 AM

I sometimes watched the TV show "Undercover Boss" and although I think it is a mediocre program (my opinion) it always sent a clear message as to how out of touch some corporate leaders are with their employees. I don't want to stereotype corporate CEOs however, because I do know a few who have instituted "profit sharing" programs and they have extremely loyal employees. Again, there are many things to be considered in management/employee disputes, and you just don't hear about profit sharing as much these days. I wonder why?

16
1
johnhloydOct. 29, 12 5:51 AM

Read your history... Too bad our leaders don't--- Should be a standard of course work every elected official is required to take before he or she can run for office... I'm thinking we'd be protected from the flakes such as Michele.... (sorry about the last comment, just couldn't help myself...)

5
6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT