woensdag 17 november 2010

Business Management Skills and Strategies

Most people don't see the need to go back to school or purchase books to increase their business knowledge. Some think since they hold a degree and have been running their businesses well; they don't need to invest in acquiring more knowledge. There is an urgent need to improve your skills and find ways of managing your business and finances. It's imperative to learn modern business systems, because with the current business trends and economical meltdown a radical approach is necessary.

Advancing your business management skills and reading relevant business books will help you take your business to the next level. Research has proved that small business enterprises provide employment to millions of people world wide. Training on business management, planning, marketing strategies and customer care techniques is required to ensure the growth of small businesses. These training programs will help bridge the gap between small and big businesses.

Small businesses owners deploy their skills and expertise in unrelated business fields and hence juggle between different areas of running their businesses like marketing, customer care and accounting and maybe their area of proficiency is in mechanical engineering. For these reasons I have come up with e-books that offer advice on business management skills, marketing strategies and money making tips among others.

A third of small businesses don't last their first three years of operation simply because they lack prudent management skills. It's time that small businesses invest in relevant training programs that will accelerate their business growth in the light of the changing business environment and customers expectations. To face the current global economic crisis, small businesses must deal these issues urgently

By Stephen Kavita

Business Negotiation Skills - Purchase

Negotiation is the art of arriving at a compromise on a subject to the satisfaction of the parties involved. Negotiation can take place between two people or several people. Negotiations can also happen between different firms or companies.

Negotiations can take place in the presence of the parties involved. It can also take place over the phone or in writing. As the people involved are trying to arrive at a solution to suit their needs, a compromise is evolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved.

Business negotiations could involve purchases, sales, loans, contracts or anything regarding business.

Negotiating for purchase

It is extremely important to formulate a strategy before starting any negotiation. And you should adhere to this strategy during the negotiations.

Before trying to buy anything you should make a study of the product or service and its value in the market. You should study the availability of the product from different sources. This will give you a very good insight to negotiate its price.

You should also decide on the best price you can offer a particular product and try to negotiate for a price below this. During the negotiation one should be very confident and never reveal the real position or the maximum price at which he is prepared to buy the product. One should pose as if he is prepared to walkout if the price is not to his satisfaction.

You should not hesitate to offer a price that is far below the price at which the product is offered. Some people hesitate to do this, because they lack confidence. One should also study the body language of the seller. It is possible that the seller lowers his guard at some point during the negotiation. This is the time, you clinch the deal at the best possible price.

Negotiation requires a lot of practice and experience. Some people are masters in the art of negotiation.

One should be confident and persistent during a negotiation but never abrasive. Application of gentle persistent pressure, will see the other party concede and you get your result.

Be on guard against standard terms being portrayed as concessions by the seller.

If you want a regular supply, over long periods, you can use this as a bargaining tool. If the supplier is unwilling to reduce the price, you can ask for better payment terms or delivery.

Don't put all the cards on the table initially. For example if you want to purchase a large quantity of material over a long period, you can mention a small quantity over a short period and get the price. Keep increasing is the quantity that you would purchase and negotiate the price for that quantity. You would finally get the material at the lowest possible price.

If you are the supplier's main customer, don't use this as a leverage to get the prices down beyond reasonable levels. Remember that the supplier has to exist and make reasonable profit to survive. Building trust is extremely important such cases.
 
By B.N. Sridhar 

Fighting Company Union Ideology in America

The evolution of the company union in the U.S. is a history of both labor’s progress and its missteps.  It is a story that, at bottom, speaks to the battle of workers to find an independent, powerful presence on the job — and to push this clout into the community to help shape the broader public realm.

 Unions came into existence organically wherever capitalism developed.  As soon as workers were brought together by a small number of employers and compelled to make profits for them, the employees naturally sought to defend themselves.  A living wage and decent working conditions failed to emerge through the good will of the employers, unfortunately, so workers took matters into their own hands.

They formed organizations that promoted their interests at the expense of the bosses’ profits. And as soon as these fledgling unions became powerful, the owners sought to undermine them.  When the unions were too powerful to be drowned in blood, the bosses sought other techniques. 

The company union was typically a preventative measure initiated by the employers to lure workers away from real unions.  Where workers became militant and bold in their demands, the company would offer a venue for them to voice their concerns and, sometimes, have these concerns properly addressed.

Of course, these company unions were totally controlled by the employer — they could be whisked away if the workers were impolite or too demanding.  These fake unions automatically eliminated the strength workers would have had if they belonged to an independent, larger labor union. Some issues that workers sought to remedy were purposely kept “off the table.” 

During World War I, the growth of company unions was encouraged by the U.S. government, which sought to stem the growing surge of worker radicalism.  Employer-employee councils were set up en masse, and where nothing could be agreed upon, the federal government would swoop in to try and smooth over the conflict.

 The union labor upsurge before, during and after World War II was unprecedented, scaring the employer class stiff by exhibiting its organized strength and winning workers demands.  F.D.R. used a combination of tactics to defuse the worker-owner conflict: compromise, the National Guard, and finally, appealing to the national patriotism needed to win workers support for WWII.

F.D.R. also set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in an attempt to “balance” the conflict between workers and their employers.  The NLRB falsely claimed that it would remain objective in its work, but it functioned inside a government where giant corporations dominate the political system.

 F.D.R.’s Labor Relations Act effectively banned the company union in practice, but the essence of the phenomenon would linger until the present, where it maintains its historic, poisonous influence.  The fundamental aim of modern company union ideology is to promote the concept of identical interests between workers and the employers.  It is a philosophy of cooperation and teamwork, where in reality bitter hostility and mutual distrust are accurate reflections of the attitudes of workers and owners — emotions based on the real antagonism between wages and profits.

 
The 1947 anti-worker amendment to the Labor Relations Act — Taft-Hartley — was a counter-attack on the organized workers’ movement. In it, a surplus of anti-worker measures are outlined that to this day render the union movement harmless in conflicts with employers (since most union officials refuse to disobey the unjust law).

 In addition to making it impossible for unions to support one another during strikes, a special provision of Taft-Hartley is often incorrectly viewed by some union officials as being“pro-labor.” The bill cleverly outlined an organizational body that today encompasses bank accounts of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Taft-Hartley "funds" are employer-employee financed accounts that help workers save for retirement, pay for health insurance and buy homes, etc.

 These accounts are presided over by an equally-weighted labor-management team, where often the fund is managed like a corporate bank, and the employers and employees view themselves as partner shareholders.  The Taft-Hartley bill was a very conscious attempt to disarm the labor movement.  By merging the interests of workers and management into a pot of money, sections of the labor movement found it difficult to demand their “fund partners” pay higher wages, etc.  Some workers identified themselves more and more as investors and used these funds to enrich themselves, or as stepping-stones into the corporate world of finance.  In any case, the company union philosophy blurred the interests of workers, who sometimes found difficulty in determining if they should go on strike or merely consult an investment broker.

 Another modern example of company unionism is the openly “collaborationist” grouping inside of the Alliance for American Manufacturers (AAM).  Here we have labor unions — the Steelworkers, for example — and giant corporations in the same organization working towards identical goals, aiming at a common enemy — China.   One of the AAM’s most cherished tasks is to promote “fair trade,” which they define as U.S. corporations out-competing other nations’ companies — though most notably China — on the world market.

 The AAM uses its corporate money to “lobby” Congressmen, who oblige by putting up taxes (tariffs) on Chinese imports, an action the Chinese accurately view as “economic warfare.” Of course, if workers are being taught to work with their bosses against the Chinese, the ability of workers to fight their bosses to win a good contract is greatly diminished.

 A broader, political example of company unionism is labor unions’ continued involvement in the Democratic Party.  The Democrats have always been dominated by big business; it’s a party where corporations come together to have their needs met, though less explicitly — and therefore more dangerously — than the Republicans.

 The few crumbs that Democrats threw to the unions have long since dried up; both Clinton and Obama are blatantly pro-corporate Presidents, with Obama presiding over a very pro-corporate Democratic controlled Congress.

 And although the Democrats have snubbed labor a thousand times, most top labor officials seem desperate to maintain this worthless “alliance,” something that requires them to constantly make “compromises” with the Democrats that are against the interests of the working class.  The most recent one is the acceptance of the Democrats’ “Cadillac” tax on workers health care plans.

 Another recent example of labor officials practicing dangerous cooperation with the corporate Democrats is the actions of the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randi Weingarten.

The evolution of the company union in the U.S. is a history of both labor’s progress and its missteps.  It is a story that, at bottom, speaks to the battle of workers to find an independent, powerful presence on the job — and to push this clout into the community to help shape the broader public realm.

Unions came into existence organically wherever capitalism developed.  As soon as workers were brought together by a small number of employers and compelled to make profits for them, the employees naturally sought to defend themselves.  A living wage and decent working conditions failed to emerge through the good will of the employers, unfortunately, so workers took matters into their own hands.

They formed organizations that promoted their interests at the expense of the bosses’ profits. And as soon as these fledgling unions became powerful, the owners sought to undermine them.  When the unions were too powerful to be drowned in blood, the bosses sought other techniques. 

The company union was typically a preventative measure initiated by the employers to lure workers away from real unions.  Where workers became militant and bold in their demands, the company would offer a venue for them to voice their concerns and, sometimes, have these concerns properly addressed.

Of course, these company unions were totally controlled by the employer — they could be whisked away if the workers were impolite or too demanding.  These fake unions automatically eliminated the strength workers would have had if they belonged to an independent, larger labor union. Some issues that workers sought to remedy were purposely kept “off the table.” 

During World War I, the growth of company unions was encouraged by the U.S. government, which sought to stem the growing surge of worker radicalism.  Employer-employee councils were set up en masse, and where nothing could be agreed upon, the federal government would swoop in to try and smooth over the conflict.

The union labor upsurge before, during and after World War II was unprecedented, scaring the employer class stiff by exhibiting its organized strength and winning workers demands.  F.D.R. used a combination of tactics to defuse the worker-owner conflict: compromise, the National Guard, and finally, appealing to the national patriotism needed to win workers support for WWII.

F.D.R. also set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in an attempt to “balance” the conflict between workers and their employers.  The NLRB falsely claimed that it would remain objective in its work, but it functioned inside a government where giant corporations dominate the political system.

F.D.R.’s Labor Relations Act effectively banned the company union in practice, but the essence of the phenomenon would linger until the present, where it maintains its historic, poisonous influence.  The fundamental aim of modern company union ideology is to promote the concept of identical interests between workers and the employers.  It is a philosophy of cooperation and teamwork, where in reality bitter hostility and mutual distrust are accurate reflections of the attitudes of workers and owners — emotions based on the real antagonism between wages and profits.

The 1947 anti-worker amendment to the Labor Relations Act — Taft-Hartley — was a counter-attack on the organized workers’ movement. In it, a surplus of anti-worker measures are outlined that to this day render the union movement harmless in conflicts with employers (since most union officials refuse to disobey the unjust law).

In addition to making it impossible for unions to support one another during strikes, a special provision of Taft-Hartley is often incorrectly viewed by some union officials as being“pro-labor.” The bill cleverly outlined an organizational body that today encompasses bank accounts of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Taft-Hartley "funds" are employer-employee financed accounts that help workers save for retirement, pay for health insurance and buy homes, etc.

These accounts are presided over by an equally-weighted labor-management team, where often the fund is managed like a corporate bank, and the employers and employees view themselves as partner shareholders.  The Taft-Hartley bill was a very conscious attempt to disarm the labor movement.  By merging the interests of workers and management into a pot of money, sections of the labor movement found it difficult to demand their “fund partners” pay higher wages, etc.  Some workers identified themselves more and more as investors and used these funds to enrich themselves, or as stepping-stones into the corporate world of finance.  In any case, the company union philosophy blurred the interests of workers, who sometimes found difficulty in determining if they should go on strike or merely consult an investment broker.

Another modern example of company unionism is the openly “collaborationist” grouping inside of the Alliance for American Manufacturers (AAM).  Here we have labor unions — the Steelworkers, for example — and giant corporations in the same organization working towards identical goals, aiming at a common enemy — China.   One of the AAM’s most cherished tasks is to promote “fair trade,” which they define as U.S. corporations out-competing other nations’ companies — though most notably China — on the world market.

The AAM uses its cThe evolution of the company union in the U.S. is a history of both labor’s progress and its missteps.  It is a story that, at bottom, speaks to the battle of workers to find an independent, powerful presence on the job — and to push this clout into the community to help shape the broader public realm.

Unions came into existence organically wherever capitalism developed.  As soon as workers were brought together by a small number of employers and compelled to make profits for them, the employees naturally sought to defend themselves.  A living wage and decent working conditions failed to emerge through the good will of the employers, unfortunately, so workers took matters into their own hands.

They formed organizations that promoted their interests at the expense of the bosses’ profits. And as soon as these fledgling unions became powerful, the owners sought to undermine them.  When the unions were too powerful to be drowned in blood, the bosses sought other techniques. 

 The company union was typically a preventative measure initiated by the employers to lure workers away from real unions.  Where workers became militant and bold in their demands, the company would offer a venue for them to voice their concerns and, sometimes, have these concerns properly addressed.

 Of course, these company unions were totally controlled by the employer — they could be whisked away if the workers were impolite or too demanding.  These fake unions automatically eliminated the strength workers would have had if they belonged to an independent, larger labor union. Some issues that workers sought to remedy were purposely kept “off the table.” 

 During World War I, the growth of company unions was encouraged by the U.S. government, which sought to stem the growing surge of worker radicalism.  Employer-employee councils were set up en masse, and where nothing could be agreed upon, the federal government would swoop in to try and smooth over the conflict.

 The union labor upsurge before, during and after World War II was unprecedented, scaring the employer class stiff by exhibiting its organized strength and winning workers demands.  F.D.R. used a combination of tactics to defuse the worker-owner conflict: compromise, the National Guard, and finally, appealing to the national patriotism needed to win workers support for WWII.

 F.D.R. also set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in an attempt to “balance” the conflict between workers and their employers.  The NLRB falsely claimed that it would remain objective in its work, but it functioned inside a government where giant corporations dominate the political system.

 F.D.R.’s Labor Relations Act effectively banned the company union in practice, but the essence of the phenomenon would linger until the present, where it maintains its historic, poisonous influence.  The fundamental aim of modern company union ideology is to promote the concept of identical interests between workers and the employers.  It is a philosophy of cooperation and teamwork, where in reality bitter hostility and mutual distrust are accurate reflections of the attitudes of workers and owners — emotions based on the real antagonism between wages and profits.

 The 1947 anti-worker amendment to the Labor Relations Act — Taft-Hartley — was a counter-attack on the organized workers’ movement. In it, a surplus of anti-worker measures are outlined that to this day render the union movement harmless in conflicts with employers (since most union officials refuse to disobey the unjust law).

 In addition to making it impossible for unions to support one another during strikes, a special provision of Taft-Hartley is often incorrectly viewed by some union officials as being“pro-labor.” The bill cleverly outlined an organizational body that today encompasses bank accounts of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Taft-Hartley "funds" are employer-employee financed accounts that help workers save for retirement, pay for health insurance and buy homes, etc.

 These accounts are presided over by an equally-weighted labor-management team, where often the fund is managed like a corporate bank, and the employers and employees view themselves as partner shareholders.  The Taft-Hartley bill was a very conscious attempt to disarm the labor movement.  By merging the interests of workers and management into a pot of money, sections of the labor movement found it difficult to demand their “fund partners” pay higher wages, etc.  Some workers identified themselves more and more as investors and used these funds to enrich themselves, or as stepping-stones into the corporate world of finance.  In any case, the company union philosophy blurred the interests of workers, who sometimes found difficulty in determining if they should go on strike or merely consult an investment broker.

 Another modern example of company unionism is the openly “collaborationist” grouping inside of the Alliance for American Manufacturers (AAM).  Here we have labor unions — the Steelworkers, for example — and giant corporations in the same organization working towards identical goals, aiming at a common enemy — China.   One of the AAM’s most cherished tasks is to promote “fair trade,” which they define as U.S. corporations out-competing other nations’ companies — though most notably China — on the world market.

 The AAM uses its corporate money to “lobby” Congressmen, who oblige by putting up taxes (tariffs) on Chinese imports, an action the Chinese accurately view as “economic warfare.” Of course, if workers are being taught to work with their bosses against the Chinese, the ability of workers to fight their bosses to win a good contract is greatly diminished.

 A broader, political example of company unionism is labor unions’ continued involvement in the Democratic Party.  The Democrats have always been dominated by big business; it’s a party where corporations come together to have their needs met, though less explicitly — and therefore more dangerously — than the Republicans.

 The few crumbs that Democrats threw to the unions have long since dried up; both Clinton and Obama are blatantly pro-corporate Presidents, with Obama presiding over a very pro-corporate Democratic controlled Congress.

 And although the Democrats have snubbed labor a thousand times, most top labor officials seem desperate to maintain this worthless “alliance,” something that requires them to constantly make “compromises” with the Democrats that are against the interests of the working class.  The most recent one is the acceptance of the Democrats’ “Cadillac” tax on workers health care plans.

 Another recent example of labor officials practicing dangerous cooperation with the corporate Democrats is the actions of the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randi Weingarten.

 Instead of preparing teachers for a battle against Obama’s anti-public education  “reform,” the AFT President has decided that “working together” would be more effective.  Both the Democrats and mainstream media are attempting to adopt many long-time conservative notions regarding education. Obama calls his plan the“Race to the Top” campaign (a name as misleading as Bush’s No Child Left Behind).   

 The Democrats attack on public education requires undermining the power of teachers’ unions, a task done by instituting teacher-specific, conservative reforms, including tying a teacher’s pay and job status to a student’s performance or closing down “failing schools” and opening non-union, private charter schools.  Both of these schemes are integral to Obama’s education reform and have already been ruthlessly implanted in New Orleans and Chicago, to the huge detriment of both teachers and students.

 In response to future, potentially crippling attacks in Obama’s plan, the AFT President is disarming her membership while walking them into a war zone.

 Weingarten has not only failed to condemn the President’s plan, but has spoken positively of it, and how teachers could best work with the Obama administration.

 In a recent speech to the U.S. Press Club, the AFT President cited two recent examples of teacher collective bargaining retreats — including an especially bad defeat in Detroit — and proclaimed the outcomes as victories of “collaboration”, to be mimicked throughout the country in accordance of Obama’s anti-teacher plan.  Weingarten admits that one of the contracts included classic conservative reforms like “rigorous evaluations, more flexible hiring authority, and performance pay on a school-by-school basis…” 

 In a classic example of company union ideology, Weingarten states:  “We must transform our mutual responsibility into mutual commitment. Our relationship should be a constant conversation that begins before and continues long after we meet at the bargaining table.” 

 This would be a fine statement if not for the fact that Weingarten’s partners in “mutual commitment” are out for teacher’s blood.

 Advancing the labor movement cannot be done with friendly cooperation with management or voting for either of the corporations’ political parties.  The past gains in living wages of union workers— which are now quickly shrinking— and their benefits were won in past generations through a combination of two very important factors.  The first was the recognition that the interests of working people and the employers were diametrically opposite, where wages came at the expense of profits and vice versa.

 Secondly, workers employed organized militant actions, for example, large demonstrations, strikes with massive picket lines and at times workplace occupations, etc.  Those who promote less confrontational solutions to labor’s problems have had decades to prove their theories. They have completely failed.  Labor continues a decades-long backward slide. The promised Employee Free Choice Act is being relegated to the Obama bin of betrayals.

 Labor can and must change course, the sooner the better.  This can be done by directly challenging the Obama administration’s pro-big business policies of foreign wars, bank bailouts, cuts in needed social services, corporate health care, attacks on public education, etc.  Mass demonstrations are an effective tool to organize and educate workers, while giving an explicit warning against politicians who promote anti-worker policies.  Labor unions around the country have passed resolutions endorsing a march on Washington demanding jobs, peace and justice.  Below is a model resolution to propose at your local union.

 Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign Model Resolution

 http://wercampaign.org/2010/01/07/monde_resolution/

 National March on Washington for Jobs, Peace, Affordable Health Care For All and Ending Foreclosures and Evictions

 Whereas — despite the so-called economic recovery — the economic crisis for working people has continued unabated with growing unemployment and rising home foreclosures and evictions,

 And whereas this economic crisis has resulted in the underfunding and degrading of public education and social services,

 And whereas the government has bestowed billions of dollars of bailout money on the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed created this economic crisis,

 And whereas there is growing opposition to the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq by a majority of the people here in the U.S. –not to mention the great and ever-growing opposition by the citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq,

And whereas these wars are costing billions of dollars each month,

Therefore be it resolved that ____________ call on the AFL-CIO and Change to Win to organize a Solidarity Day III march on Washington D.C. in the spring of 2010 to demand jobs, housing, health care, full funding for public education and social services, and peace. rporate money to “lobby” Congressmen, who oblige by putting up taxes (tariffs) on Chinese imports, an action the Chinese accurately view as “economic warfare.” Of course, if workers are being taught to work with their bosses against the Chinese, the ability of workers to fight their bosses to win a good contract is greatly diminished.

A broader, political example of company unionism is labor unions’ continued involvement in the Democratic Party.  The Democrats have always been dominated by big business; it’s a party where corporations come together to have their needs met, though less explicitly — and therefore more dangerously — than the Republicans.

The few crumbs that Democrats threw to the unions have long since dried up; both Clinton and Obama are blatantly pro-corporate Presidents, with Obama presiding over a very pro-corporate Democratic controlled Congress.

And although the Democrats have snubbed labor a thousand times, most top labor officials seem desperate to maintain this worthless “alliance,” something that requires them to constantly make “compromises” with the Democrats that are against the interests of the working class.  The most recent one is the acceptance of the Democrats’ “Cadillac” tax on workers health care plans.

Another recent example of labor officials practicing dangerous cooperation with the corporate Democrats is the actions of the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randi Weingarten.

Instead of preparing teachers for a battle against Obama’s anti-public education  “reform,” the AFT President has decided that “working together” would be more effective.  Both the Democrats and mainstream media are attempting to adopt many long-time conservative notions regarding education. Obama calls his plan the“Race to the Top” campaign (a name as misleading as Bush’s No Child Left Behind).   

The Democrats attack on public education requires undermining the power of teachers’ unions, a task done by instituting teacher-specific, conservative reforms, including tying a teacher’s pay and job status to a student’s performance or closing down “failing schools” and opening non-union, private charter schools.  Both of these schemes are integral to Obama’s education reform and have already been ruthlessly implanted in New Orleans and Chicago, to the huge detriment of both teachers and students.

In response to future, potentially crippling attacks in Obama’s plan, the AFT President is disarming her membership while walking them into a war zone.

Weingarten has not only failed to condemn the President’s plan, but has spoken positively of it, and how teachers could best work with the Obama administration.

In a recent speech to the U.S. Press Club, the AFT President cited two recent examples of teacher collective bargaining retreats — including an especially bad defeat in Detroit — and proclaimed the outcomes as victories of “collaboration”, to be mimicked throughout the country in accordance of Obama’s anti-teacher plan.  Weingarten admits that one of the contracts included classic conservative reforms like “rigorous evaluations, more flexible hiring authority, and performance pay on a school-by-school basis…” 

In a classic example of company union ideology, Weingarten states:  “We must transform our mutual responsibility into mutual commitment. Our relationship should be a constant conversation that begins before and continues long after we meet at the bargaining table.” 

This would be a fine statement if not for the fact that Weingarten’s partners in “mutual commitment” are out for teacher’s blood.

Advancing the labor movement cannot be done with friendly cooperation with management or voting for either of the corporations’ political parties.  The past gains in living wages of union workers— which are now quickly shrinking— and their benefits were won in past generations through a combination of two very important factors.  The first was the recognition that the interests of working people and the employers were diametrically opposite, where wages came at the expense of profits and vice versa.

Secondly, workers employed organized militant actions, for example, large demonstrations, strikes with massive picket lines and at times workplace occupations, etc.  Those who promote less confrontational solutions to labor’s problems have had decades to prove their theories. They have completely failed.  Labor continues a decades-long backward slide. The promised Employee Free Choice Act is being relegated to the Obama bin of betrayals.

Labor can and must change course, the sooner the better.  This can be done by directly challenging the Obama administration’s pro-big business policies of foreign wars, bank bailouts, cuts in needed social services, corporate health care, attacks on public education, etc.  Mass demonstrations are an effective tool to organize and educate workers, while giving an explicit warning against politicians who promote anti-worker policies.  Labor unions around the country have passed resolutions endorsing a march on Washington demanding jobs, peace and justice.  Below is a model resolution to propose at your local union.

National March on Washington for Jobs, Peace, Affordable Health Care For All and Ending Foreclosures and Evictions

Whereas — despite the so-called economic recovery — the economic crisis for working people has continued unabated with growing unemployment and rising home foreclosures and evictions,

And whereas this economic crisis has resulted in the underfunding and degrading of public education and social services,

And whereas the government has bestowed billions of dollars of bailout money on the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed created this economic crisis,

And whereas there is growing opposition to the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq by a majority of the people here in the U.S. –not to mention the great and ever-growing opposition by the citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq,

And whereas these wars are costing billions of dollars each month,

Therefore be it resolved that ____________ call on the AFL-CIO and Change to Win to organize a Solidarity Day III march on Washington D.C. in the spring of 2010 to demand jobs, housing, health care, full funding for public education and social services, and peace. decided that “working together” would be more effective.  Both the Democrats and mainstream media are attempting to adopt many long-time conservative notions regarding education. Obama calls his plan the“Race to the Top” campaign (a name as misleading as Bush’s No Child Left Behind).   

The Democrats attack on public education requires undermining the power of teachers’ unions, a task done by instituting teacher-specific, conservative reforms, including tying a teacher’s pay and job status to a student’s performance or closing down “failing schools” and opening non-union, private charter schools.  Both of these schemes are integral to Obama’s education reform and have already been ruthlessly implanted in New Orleans and Chicago, to the huge detriment of both teachers and students.

In response to future, potentially crippling attacks in Obama’s plan, the AFT President is disarming her membership while walking them into a war zone.

Weingarten has not only failed to condemn the President’s plan, but has spoken positively of it, and how teachers could best work with the Obama administration.

In a recent speech to the U.S. Press Club, the AFT President cited two recent examples of teacher collective bargaining retreats — including an especially bad defeat in Detroit — and proclaimed the outcomes as victories of “collaboration”, to be mimicked throughout the country in accordance of Obama’s anti-teacher plan.  Weingarten admits that one of the contracts included classic conservative reforms like “rigorous evaluations, more flexible hiring authority, and performance pay on a school-by-school basis…” 

In a classic example of company union ideology, Weingarten states:  “We must transform our mutual responsibility into mutual commitment. Our relationship should be a constant conversation that begins before and continues long after we meet at the bargaining table.” 

This would be a fine statement if not for the fact that Weingarten’s partners in “mutual commitment” are out for teacher’s blood.

Advancing the labor movement cannot be done with friendly cooperation with management or voting for either of the corporations’ political parties.  The past gains in living wages of union workers— which are now quickly shrinking— and their benefits were won in past generations through a combination of two very important factors.  The first was the recognition that the interests of working people and the employers were diametrically opposite, where wages came at the expense of profits and vice versa.

Secondly, workers employed organized militant actions, for example, large demonstrations, strikes with massive picket lines and at times workplace occupations, etc.  Those who promote less confrontational solutions to labor’s problems have had decades to prove their theories. They have completely failed.  Labor continues a decades-long backward slide. The promised Employee Free Choice Act is being relegated to the Obama bin of betrayals.

Labor can and must change course, the sooner the better.  This can be done by directly challenging the Obama administration’s pro-big business policies of foreign wars, bank bailouts, cuts in needed social services, corporate health care, attacks on public education, etc.  Mass demonstrations are an effective tool to organize and educate workers, while giving an explicit warning against politicians who promote anti-worker policies.  Labor unions around the country have passed resolutions endorsing a march on Washington demanding jobs, peace and justice.  Below is a model resolution to propose at your local union.
by Shamus Cooke

How Companies Talk About Unions

ince the industrial revolution, employees and organizations have been engaged in labor struggles. The premise is largely the same as it has ever been: Labor is a company's highest cost, and workers want to be rewarded for their efforts. But communication strategies within this struggle have changed tremendously over the years, especially on the part of business leaders. Contemporary labor communication helps organizations remain union free and improves the relationship between management and employees, improving the overall work environment.

In the past, attempts by organizations to remain union free typically evoked mental images of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency and its caustic tactics, or other violent means to stop union organizing. However, corporate leaders quickly recognized that these measures were counterproductive to the success of the organization. This recognition, along with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, drastically changed the way organizations approached remaining union free.

Following the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, organizations turned toward industrial-organizational psychology, management theories, and labor law to avoid unionization. Consultants with training in industrial-organizational psychology and management theories began working to help leaders understand the complexity of relationships among people in an organization. Additionally, as labor laws increased and became more complex, organizations as well as consultants turned to labor attorneys and firms to help interpret these laws and understand their legal rights during union campaigns. In an article by Bruce E. Kaufman and Paula E. Stephan, that examined the role of management attorneys on union organizing, the authors state that management law firms may have been more influential in union avoidance than consultants.

Union avoidance consultants and firms have been partnering with companies to help them remain union-free since the early twentieth century. An article by John Logan that discusses the history of union avoidance notes that until the late 1970s and early 1980s, employers thought of unionization as almost inevitable and approached union-avoidance strategies with apprehension, for fear of unions retaliating. This anxiety can be partially attributed to communication within organizations prior to the early 1980s. Up until that point in time, communication about collective bargaining was kept between union officials and the organization's industrial relations staff, isolating employees and top management from the bargaining process. This bargaining structure gave unions stronger negotiating abilities and led to larger contracts, including those that applied to multiple organizations, such as the Teamster's "National Master Freight Agreement." According to Kochan et al., this bargaining structure was largely ineffective in the changing marketplace.

As the corporate landscape continued to evolve and employers became more emboldened to speak out against unionization , they also recognized the need for reorganization of communication flow within the company to achieve more bargaining strength. This recognition sparked a major departure from the former isolated bargaining structure that alienated employees and management to one that decentralized information flow and made information available to all members of the organization. Soon, members of management were actively engaging in discussions about the organization's well-being and the threat of unionization with employees. They were breaking down the management versus employee barrier and approaching unionization as a threat to everyone's interests, not just those of management. Using data from a survey conducted by The Conference Board between 1977 and 1983 regarding management-industrial relations strategies, Chalykoff and Cappelli corroborate this shift, pointing out that in 1983, priority shifted from management industrial relations strategies that used best-bargaining solutions to strategies that worked proactively to keep organizations union free.

This shift paved the way for organizations to implement strong union avoidance strategies. With the expert help of union avoidance resources, companies also began improving management-employee relationships by providing honest information about union organizing and its potential impact on the organization, the employee, families, and the community. By the 1990s, union-avoidance had developed into a robust industry. Contemporary firms now offer cost-effective solutions that help organizations create a proactive labor strategy, even before they are ever targeted by unions.

With the current economic crisis, EFCA legislation looming, and unionization slowly rising (union membership was up to 12.4 percent in 2008 from 12.1 percent in 2007 ), it is imperative that business leaders take advantage of the expertise of union-avoidance professionals to create a healthy work environment for everyone and remain union free. Today, companies are taking notice of key communication tools from videos to websites to interactive eLearning. Each of these tools is designed to give all members of the organization information about union organizing, including their rights during a union organizing drive. The key to remaining union free is for management and employees to communicate openly, honestly, and effectively.

An organization is only as strong as the employees who comprise it. Don't let unions reduce your strength. Ensure all members of your organization understand your company's union-free philosophy. The experience and expertise of union-avoidance resources can help accomplish this and empower your organization to remain union free and successful.
 
by Walter Orechwa

vrijdag 24 september 2010

DE VOORBEREIDING

DE VOORBEREIDING; ZORG DAT U WEET WAT U WIL

Maak voor uzelf uit hoe graag u de deal wil sluiten.
  • Heeft u een probleem dat het product of de dienst die u gaat kopen, zal oplossen?
  • Bereken hoeveel geld en/of tijd de aankoop van het product of de dienst u op lange termijn zal uitsparen.

Bepaal uw marges
  • Bepaal wat de ideale prijs is, welke prijs u verwacht en welke prijs u onaanvaardbaar acht.
  • Beslis hoeveel tijd u in de onderhandeling wil investeren.
  • Probeer u voor te stellen welke voorstellen de verkoper zal doen en wat uw antwoord er op zal zijn.
  • Als u er op uit bent om regelmatig iets van deze verkoper te kopen, sluit dan een deal op lange termijn.

Beslis waarover onderhandeld wordt
  • Bepaal waarover u wel en niet wil onderhandelen door na te gaan wat de mogelijke gevolgen kunnen zijn.
  • Hecht u meer belang aan een verlaging van de prijs of aan gratis toevoegingen voor dezelfde prijs?
  • Kan u iets bieden dat u weinig kost maar van grote waarde is voor de verkoper (vb. misschien kost het u weinig om de goederen zelf af te halen maar bespaart het de leverancier een hoop werk).
Om een onderhandeling te doen slagen, dient u goed voorbereid aan de onderhandelingstafel te verschijnen. Doet u dat niet, bent u een vogel voor kat. Wees maar zeker dat de verkoper zijn voorbereidingen wel getroffen heeft!