John Deere strike imminent?

Urbandale2013

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
2,883
3,271
113
27
Urbandale
Smart management understands that it IS in their shareholders best interest to have a productive and stable workforce. That doesn't mean cave to every worker demand, but it does mean having p!ssed off workers doesn't do anyone any good either. IMHO, human resource and people management is the single hardest thing to do well in business.
Agree but not isn’t very common from executives at major corporations.
Are you suggesting the government sets limits on employee compensation, AND gets to decide how companies use those savings?

No thanks.
I don’t think they should set limits on compensation but I think they should look at removing the ability to artificially inflate their stock price. Companies have begun focusing on increasing their share price to the detriment of their actual business. Bring back the ban on stock buy backs and I think it improves a lot of the problems in our economy in general.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
4,810
4,207
113
Which is a good thing, the space between the corporate officer and investor income and the people doing the actual physical work has expanded to an immoral level.

A good start would be to go after ridiculous corporate compensation to leadership and redistribute to their workers on the floor.
That's Marx and Lenin paraphrased. Stoking class envy to justify someone (whoever controls government power) taking property from someone else. How did that turn out for workers in the communist paradise? You just end up with new masters, except they also have the monopoly on force, so then you are really hosed. Sorry for the historical aside, it just really struck me as Marx 101.
 

mramseyISU

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2006
4,306
3,333
113
Waterloo, IA
That’s not true. There is no such thing as a quarterly bonus. The only bonus is profit sharing given out at the end of year. Deere has a thing called Continous improvement pay plan (cipp). This is part of your wage and gets paid out 4 times a year. It’s never massive.
I might have been confusing the cipp with their year end profit sharing.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
4,810
4,207
113
Agree but not isn’t very common from executives at major corporations.

I don’t think they should set limits on compensation but I think they should look at removing the ability to artificially inflate their stock price. Companies have begun focusing on increasing their share price to the detriment of their actual business. Bring back the ban on stock buy backs and I think it improves a lot of the problems in our economy in general.
Totally agree. Half of corporations and corporate executives are below average!


WRT banning stock buy backs... it's interesting, but not sure if its best solution. It's the most tax efficient way to return cash to shareholders (dividends get taxed at higher rate than capital gains) which is mostly why its used. But there may be good reasons for companies to do buybacks beyond returning cash. But it's certainly worth consideration as policy; maybe combined with other things it has a role.

Generally anything that gets executives to manage for the medium and long term as much as short term would be a very good thing. And when they start looking at medium and long term, that's when workforce gets a lot more attention as an asset rather than just a cost. Execs who can't see that are in the below average category, imho.
 

Macloney

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2014
4,384
4,814
113
Up Nort
I know several local "sit-down" restaurant owners. Earlier this year, they were struggling badly, because they couldn't get workers. They were running partial dining rooms, which is unsustainable for many in that industry. The interview pool was strong, but the people coming in for interviews were leaving fake call-back contact info...they were just coming in to satisfy the requirement to get unemployment benefits.

At the end of June, Texas opted out of the federal Covid jobless benefits...since late summer, those restaurants are now fully staffed and running full dining rooms. Fast food places are still struggling to get workers though.

You are absolute right about the unsustainable federal spending. I would suggest however, that it is already ugly. The Fed has recently admitted that we now have "real" inflation, with no particular immediate relief in sight, as opposed to transitory inflation mantra they were peddling early this year.
There was no search for work required for the Federal relief and even Kansas waived that requirement for state funds, so I doubt your story very much.

And, how many people who post this crap can really know so many restaurant owners?
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
4,810
4,207
113
There was no search for work required for the Federal relief and even Kansas waived that requirement for state funds, so I doubt your story very much.

And, how many people who post this crap can really know so many restaurant owners?
Can't speak to restaurants, but back in about May, I had someone I used to work with approach me with her resume. She said she didn't really want a job with our company, but had to show her case worker (or whatever they are called) that she was actively looking. So she needed a "not hiring at this time" email from me to show she was "trying".

This was a person who is NOT someone I would consider a freeloader or lazy in the slightest. Just making a rational decision wrt free money.

I don't think it is impossible to believe some people are working the system for unemployment benefits. Frankly, it would be impossible to believe the opposite.
 

theguru1

Member
Sep 6, 2012
82
41
18
I might have been confusing the cipp with their year end profit sharing.
Cipp is part of your pay that each employee has already earned so I’m pretty sure it will get payout and it has nothing to do with a November deadline. Cipp is easily manipulated by management so it is usually less then a paycheck after all the deductions. It’s not going to be a strikebreaker. Actually an overwhelming number of employees want to get rid of it but the company loves it so it is not going anywhere
 

Macloney

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2014
4,384
4,814
113
Up Nort
Can't speak to restaurants, but back in about May, I had someone I used to work with approach me with her resume. She said she didn't really want a job with our company, but had to show her case worker (or whatever they are called) that she was actively looking. So she needed a "not hiring at this time" email from me to show she was "trying".

This was a person who is NOT someone I would consider a freeloader or lazy in the slightest. Just making a rational decision wrt free money.

I don't think it is impossible to believe some people are working the system for unemployment benefits. Frankly, it would be impossible to believe the opposite.
By "free money" do you mean money that anyone who has ever worked has paid into their entire life? I guess unless they have never paid any taxes, but then they would probably not need unemployment because they would be a failed businessman, reality TV star who became President.
 

Cyclones1969

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 26, 2021
4,653
2,108
113
52
That's Marx and Lenin paraphrased. Stoking class envy to justify someone (whoever controls government power) taking property from someone else. How did that turn out for workers in the communist paradise? You just end up with new masters, except they also have the monopoly on force, so then you are really hosed. Sorry for the historical aside, it just really struck me as Marx 101.
Is this for real?
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: dosry5

Cyclones1969

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 26, 2021
4,653
2,108
113
52
There was no search for work required for the Federal relief and even Kansas waived that requirement for state funds, so I doubt your story very much.

And, how many people who post this crap can really know so many restaurant owners?
But he had a friend. Maybe he owned a McDonald’s and had to pay people $31/hr

I’m certain there is all kinds of context left out of a rw fairy tale he was trying to spin
 

DSMCy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 1, 2013
3,604
3,814
113
West Des Moines
Can't speak to restaurants, but back in about May, I had someone I used to work with approach me with her resume. She said she didn't really want a job with our company, but had to show her case worker (or whatever they are called) that she was actively looking. So she needed a "not hiring at this time" email from me to show she was "trying".

This was a person who is NOT someone I would consider a freeloader or lazy in the slightest. Just making a rational decision wrt free money.

I don't think it is impossible to believe some people are working the system for unemployment benefits. Frankly, it would be impossible to believe the opposite.
This is absolutely someone I would consider a freeloader.
They are capable of working, they are capable of looking for a job but instead they'd rather do nothing and collect the higher unemployment.
How is that not lazy and freeloading?

I'm guessing the answer is that you did, but please tell me you didn't oblige and give this person the not hiring email.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
4,810
4,207
113
By "free money" do you mean money that anyone who has ever worked has paid into their entire life? I guess unless they have never paid any taxes, but then they would probably not need unemployment because they would be a failed businessman, reality TV star who became President.
By "free money" I mean money from the government that they give you when you are unemployed, and you do not have to work at any job to receive. Perhaps I could have been clearer about that.

Unemployment insurance is paid by employers, not employees; its part of payroll tax. It isn't a savings plan employees contribute to, that can be drawn on later when you are unemployed. I suppose an economist might say wages would be marginally higher if employers didn't have to pay it, so in that sense it could have been given to the employee instead.
 

Sousaclone

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2006
1,372
623
113
Inland Empire
Yes, I get that, but Deere has access to all the same information the rest of us have. Both parties could work with this to speed up the process of getting back to work, since both parties already know the first deal didn't cut it. Obviously the leadership group isn't as in touch with the labor as they need to be, but that can only be solved by the Union -- and it can't be resolved right this second. One would think Deere would want to help where they can, since sitting idle is not in their business interests, period.
I'm sure JD knows what the employees want and can live with and the Union knows what JD wants/can live with, but that's not the game that's being played currently. It's a contract negotiation. Who can get the most while giving up the least. It applies to everything from labor disputes to house buying to farmers selling grain to kids trading snacks at the lunch table in elementary school. Both sides know what they want and what they can live with. Plus there is no guarantee that even if you do put a "fair" deal on the table it gets accepted. The other side may see it as weakness and want more.

I've seen it before on union work. Gave an inch and a mile was taken. We were never able to get stuff changed despite what was signed in the labor agreement.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MeowingCows

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
4,810
4,207
113
This is absolutely someone I would consider a freeloader.
They are capable of working, they are capable of looking for a job but instead they'd rather do nothing and collect the higher unemployment.
How is that not lazy and freeloading?

I'm guessing the answer is that you did, but please tell me you didn't oblige and give this person the not hiring email.
I understand where you're coming from, and it was selfish action in this case. My point was even someone very hardworking (farm wife with full time job off the farm too) was capable of just mailing it when the incentives were there.

I did send the email; it was true in that we weren't hiring at that time. And her previous employer did kind of hose her - they laid off a bunch of people and then disputed their unemployment claims, saying they weren't making sales goals - in the middle of Covid! So I had some empathy. Maybe I am part of the problem too, in fairness.

To be honest, if she had a slightly different skill set, we probably would have hired her just for her experience even without an existing opening.
 

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
28,861
24,403
113
Iowa
I'm sure JD knows what the employees want and can live with and the Union knows what JD wants/can live with, but that's not the game that's being played currently. It's a contract negotiation. Who can get the most while giving up the least. It applies to everything from labor disputes to house buying to farmers selling grain to kids trading snacks at the lunch table in elementary school. Both sides know what they want and what they can live with. Plus there is no guarantee that even if you do put a "fair" deal on the table it gets accepted. The other side may see it as weakness and want more.

I've seen it before on union work. Gave an inch and a mile was taken. We were never able to get stuff changed despite what was signed in the labor agreement.
I get that's what it is, but I guess I don't see what business interest long-term JD would have in allowing this to drag out forever. This is possibly the least amount of leverage over the workforce they've had in decades. There will be plenty of opportunities to take those miles back later down the road (these are only 6 year terms at a time, right?), but lost profits now are lost forever. This current labor situation is certainly not forever.
 

swiacy

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2009
889
337
63
That's Marx and Lenin paraphrased. Stoking class envy to justify someone (whoever controls government power) taking property from someone else. How did that turn out for workers in the communist paradise? You just end up with new masters, except they also have the monopoly on force, so then you are really hosed. Sorry for the historical aside, it just really struck me as Marx 101.
I get where you are coming from but I was pointing out the massive growth in compensation at the top end compared to the income at the low end of the company. I saw a chart that showed the growth in this gap over the past decades and it pointed out that the production line worker's income increase was slight while the compensation for CEO's, CFO's, etc. was massive. Bringing this gap back to where it was say twenty years ago would be a positive business decision for a company that recognizes the importance of a stable well trained workforce. The transition from a privately owned company to an ESOP has been a very successful venture in the cases I have been involved. Marx/Lenin were advocating that every player in the economy be compensated at the same level and that is not what I am suggesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CascadeClone