Comments on: The “Real” Reason NY Doesn’t Have MMA (Editorial) http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/ UFC and MMA News Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:30:38 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: justin http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87374 justin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:44:41 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87374 Anyways... that's enough of that discussion for here, please continue anything else in the other location I mentioned above. Anyways… that’s enough of that discussion for here, please continue anything else in the other location I mentioned above.

]]> By: justin http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87372 justin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:40:15 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87372 First paragraph, ok. Second paragraph, I don't want to get into why unions were formed in the first place, and the role they now fill. But suffice it to say that I know they weren't formed originally, and I doubt much of it today has to do with, a desire to create a work place where people are promoted based on merit rather than who they know. I realize that happens, and agree that it shouldn't, but Unions do little to change that situation. Just because Toyota employs more people, does not negate my point. I may not have worded it properly, but basically what I was getting at is that the the number of people that have a literal hands on role in building 1 Toyota is 1/3 the number of people that have a literal hands on role in building 1 Chevrolet. First paragraph, ok.

Second paragraph, I don’t want to get into why unions were formed in the first place, and the role they now fill. But suffice it to say that I know they weren’t formed originally, and I doubt much of it today has to do with, a desire to create a work place where people are promoted based on merit rather than who they know. I realize that happens, and agree that it shouldn’t, but Unions do little to change that situation.

Just because Toyota employs more people, does not negate my point. I may not have worded it properly, but basically what I was getting at is that the the number of people that have a literal hands on role in building 1 Toyota is 1/3 the number of people that have a literal hands on role in building 1 Chevrolet.

]]> By: zac http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87363 zac Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:27:59 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87363 i totally agree with your first paragraph, but if you look at what responsibility that most of the CEOs in the example i gave have done (Banking specifically...some people blame Clinton/Fair Housing...but only some banks overextended into the sub-prime mess, so nothing but the individual Bank CEO's decisions and oversight can be blamed). The second paragraph is what i was saying too. If you had the system of paying/promoting based on performance, you wouldn't need a union...but that is clearly not what things are based on...i work in corporate america, and i'm doing pretty good for myself, and i can promise you that there are many people that suck at what they do but are friends with the right people. From Hoovers.com: Toyota employees as of 2008: 316,121 http://www.hoovers.com/toyota/--ID__41889--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml GM employees as of 2007: 266,000 http://www.hoovers.com/general-motors/--ID__10640--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml While they havnt updated the 2008 numbers for GM, i do find Hoovers to be a reputable source of info...and i dont see how GM could have grown 3x as large as they were in 2007 to dwarf Toyota. That would mean that in 2008 GM had hired 682,363 people to make toyota employ 1/3 the workforce. Something is skewed here. =] i totally agree with your first paragraph, but if you look at what responsibility that most of the CEOs in the example i gave have done (Banking specifically…some people blame Clinton/Fair Housing…but only some banks overextended into the sub-prime mess, so nothing but the individual Bank CEO’s decisions and oversight can be blamed).

The second paragraph is what i was saying too. If you had the system of paying/promoting based on performance, you wouldn’t need a union…but that is clearly not what things are based on…i work in corporate america, and i’m doing pretty good for myself, and i can promise you that there are many people that suck at what they do but are friends with the right people.

From Hoovers.com:
Toyota employees as of 2008: 316,121
http://www.hoovers.com/toyota/–ID__41889–/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

GM employees as of 2007: 266,000
http://www.hoovers.com/general-motors/–ID__10640–/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

While they havnt updated the 2008 numbers for GM, i do find Hoovers to be a reputable source of info…and i dont see how GM could have grown 3x as large as they were in 2007 to dwarf Toyota. That would mean that in 2008 GM had hired 682,363 people to make toyota employ 1/3 the workforce. Something is skewed here.

=]

]]> By: justin http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87358 justin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:12:48 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87358 Zac, Companies can lose money and the CEO still deserve millions in bonuses (not that any of the examples you mentioned necessarily did). This is the case if the company stands to lose 100million, so they hire a new CEO with a track record for cutting losses for failing companies. If said CEO comes in and does their job and the company loses only 20 million instead of 100 million, they deserve a bonus, even if the company still fails, because their bonus is based on their ability to cut losses. If bonuses/promotions/salary were based on performance, the union wouldn't work, because in a union system bonuses/promotions/salary are based on position/length of employment and not necessarily the profitability of the employee. In regards to the Japanese automakers, they also use 1/3 the workforce to accomplish the same tasks, while the big three have people on payroll to do nothing, due to union contracts. Zac,
Companies can lose money and the CEO still deserve millions in bonuses (not that any of the examples you mentioned necessarily did). This is the case if the company stands to lose 100million, so they hire a new CEO with a track record for cutting losses for failing companies. If said CEO comes in and does their job and the company loses only 20 million instead of 100 million, they deserve a bonus, even if the company still fails, because their bonus is based on their ability to cut losses.

If bonuses/promotions/salary were based on performance, the union wouldn’t work, because in a union system bonuses/promotions/salary are based on position/length of employment and not necessarily the profitability of the employee.

In regards to the Japanese automakers, they also use 1/3 the workforce to accomplish the same tasks, while the big three have people on payroll to do nothing, due to union contracts.

]]> By: zac http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87356 zac Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:52:58 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87356 "Labor unions = inefficiency (e.g. The Big Three)" ok...i'll stop political discussions after this post and join the convo on youre separate group...but i gotta respond to Etherbunny.... CEO's + billions in bonuses + hemmoraging cash = inefficiency The problem is that if business operated like it should, and bonuses/promotions/salary were based on performance then there wouldn't necessarily be a need for unions. Give me one good reason why any company should pay a CEO millions of dollars to fail (see Hewlett Packard, The Big Three, Wall-street Bankers, etc). If you didnt have this behavior, you wouldnt need unions, you wouldnt have bailouts, and nobody would have a problem with successful CEOs making tons of cash. The Japanese automakers (The Big 3's biggest competition) have japanese gov't subsidized healthcare for their employees...which decreases their cost of production. so the few factories they operate in the US are the only ones costing them much for healtchare...this makes their cars relatively cheaper, because in America, our govt doesnt subsidize this cost...yet. When the USA eventually does, our automakers can build cars cheaper...then unionbusters can attack them for better reasons. “Labor unions = inefficiency (e.g. The Big Three)”

ok…i’ll stop political discussions after this post and join the convo on youre separate group…but i gotta respond to Etherbunny….

CEO’s + billions in bonuses + hemmoraging cash = inefficiency

The problem is that if business operated like it should, and bonuses/promotions/salary were based on performance then there wouldn’t necessarily be a need for unions. Give me one good reason why any company should pay a CEO millions of dollars to fail (see Hewlett Packard, The Big Three, Wall-street Bankers, etc). If you didnt have this behavior, you wouldnt need unions, you wouldnt have bailouts, and nobody would have a problem with successful CEOs making tons of cash.

The Japanese automakers (The Big 3’s biggest competition) have japanese gov’t subsidized healthcare for their employees…which decreases their cost of production. so the few factories they operate in the US are the only ones costing them much for healtchare…this makes their cars relatively cheaper, because in America, our govt doesnt subsidize this cost…yet. When the USA eventually does, our automakers can build cars cheaper…then unionbusters can attack them for better reasons.

]]> By: timcat http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87332 timcat Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:05:06 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87332 The WWE quit being regulated years ago. That all changed when Vince found a loop hole so he wouldn't have to pay the commision. He came up with the term "sports entertainment" and once he proved that his matches were pre determined the fee was waived. All Vince pays for is the use of Madison Square Garden, which by the way is not cheap. The WWE quit being regulated years ago. That all changed when Vince found a loop hole so he wouldn’t have to pay the commision. He came up with the term “sports entertainment” and once he proved that his matches were pre determined the fee was waived. All Vince pays for is the use of Madison Square Garden, which by the way is not cheap.

]]> By: etherbunny http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87323 etherbunny Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:10:41 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87323 Labor unions = inefficiency (e.g. The Big Three). There was a time and place for labor unions but that time has passed. Labor unions = inefficiency (e.g. The Big Three).

There was a time and place for labor unions but that time has passed.

]]> By: justin http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87285 justin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:57:49 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87285 Oh, and don't take this personally if you're pro union, but any opportunity I get to point out the negative (though usually unintended) consequences of having a unionized workforce, I'll take it. But that's not got much to do with MMA and more to do with politics, if you want to talk about that register with the site, and join the political discussion group I created. Oh, and don’t take this personally if you’re pro union, but any opportunity I get to point out the negative (though usually unintended) consequences of having a unionized workforce, I’ll take it. But that’s not got much to do with MMA and more to do with politics, if you want to talk about that register with the site, and join the political discussion group I created.

]]> By: justin http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87284 justin Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:54:36 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87284 I know that unions are more powerful in some states than others. North Carolina and Texas I know are both "right to work" states and NC is also "right to hire: right to fire" so unions aren't very strong here. There are some unions, like postal workers, and meat packers, but they're just not that strong. While in places like NY, PA, and KY the unions have more power. Unions in Philadelphia <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/30/national/a110813S24.DTL&type=bondage" rel="nofollow">forced builders to install useless pipes</a> (the linked article is prior to decision, but in the end the pipes and urinals were both installed). The point I'm making is, I don't know how things are exactly in Nevada, but I suspect that the unions are less powerful there than they are in New York, which has long been a staunchly pro-union state. I know that unions are more powerful in some states than others. North Carolina and Texas I know are both “right to work” states and NC is also “right to hire: right to fire” so unions aren’t very strong here. There are some unions, like postal workers, and meat packers, but they’re just not that strong. While in places like NY, PA, and KY the unions have more power. Unions in Philadelphia forced builders to install useless pipes (the linked article is prior to decision, but in the end the pipes and urinals were both installed). The point I’m making is, I don’t know how things are exactly in Nevada, but I suspect that the unions are less powerful there than they are in New York, which has long been a staunchly pro-union state.

]]> By: zac http://mmafrenzy.com/9461/the-real-reason-ny-doesnt-have-mma-editorial/#comment-87283 zac Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:34:23 +0000 http://mmafrenzy.com/?p=9461#comment-87283 i dont know...sounds like some union bashing to me. if this labor union is so powerful, why are they having difficulty unionizing the casinos in vegas. i'm sure there are plenty of extra groups that would like to have UFC in NYC that would include other unions, and plenty more that have been mentioned that wouldn't want UFC in the state (WWE, Boxing, anything that could possibly have to compete with a UFC event). Even NBA, MLB, and NHL might even be against it since NYC sports get most of the huge stars for huge paychecks...maybe a reach, but still a possibility. not a bad article, hopefully more research is done to find out if this is more than a conspiracy. i dont know…sounds like some union bashing to me. if this labor union is so powerful, why are they having difficulty unionizing the casinos in vegas. i’m sure there are plenty of extra groups that would like to have UFC in NYC that would include other unions, and plenty more that have been mentioned that wouldn’t want UFC in the state (WWE, Boxing, anything that could possibly have to compete with a UFC event). Even NBA, MLB, and NHL might even be against it since NYC sports get most of the huge stars for huge paychecks…maybe a reach, but still a possibility.

not a bad article, hopefully more research is done to find out if this is more than a conspiracy.

]]>