Talk about stubborn, this could have been resolved
weeks ago when it was clearly an issue that wasn't
going away.

nancy

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:44:35 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> Talk about stubborn, this could have been resolved
> weeks ago when it was clearly an issue that wasn't
> going away.
>
Glad to hear everything worked out. We don't have a Market Basket
here and I'd never heard about it until it was mentioned in RFC.



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Talk about stubborn, this could have been resolved
> weeks ago when it was clearly an issue that wasn't
> going away.
>
> nancy

I wonder what might change due to the cost associated with buying out the
PITA cousin's faction. Fingers crossed.

On 8/28/2014 9:44 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> Talk about stubborn, this could have been resolved
> weeks ago when it was clearly an issue that wasn't
> going away.
>
> nancy


This case will be studied in business classes for years. Classic "what
not to do" but it is also a big boost for workers and the middle class.
Amazing how well 25000 workers organized and stuck to their guns for
what is right. They did more for themselves than any union could do and
without the dues.

Best of luck to Aurthur T and the workers. Many companies give
artificial fluff about the importance of the employee, Art T means it
and he got the support needed. I'm going to shop there more frequently
than I did in the past.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:59:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Market Basket employees showed resolve and the ability to stand for
> themselves. I admire that.

+1 and the public backed them up. They would have failed without the
support of Market Basket's customer base.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 8/28/2014 11:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:59:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Market Basket employees showed resolve and the ability to stand for
>> themselves. I admire that.
>
> +1 and the public backed them up. They would have failed without the
> support of Market Basket's customer base.

Not to mention suppliers refusing to deliver.

nancy

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:02:17 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> On 8/28/2014 11:21 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:59:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> Market Basket employees showed resolve and the ability to stand for
> >> themselves. I admire that.
> >
> > +1 and the public backed them up. They would have failed without the
> > support of Market Basket's customer base.
>
> Not to mention suppliers refusing to deliver.
>

I didn't know that part. Wow! Were they union?



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:02:17 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/2014 11:21 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:59:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Market Basket employees showed resolve and the ability to stand for
>> >> themselves. I admire that.
>> >
>> > +1 and the public backed them up. They would have failed without the
>> > support of Market Basket's customer base.
>>
>> Not to mention suppliers refusing to deliver.
>>
>
> I didn't know that part. Wow! Were they union?

I looked it up after reading about it here. Marvellous How was it
resolved? Did the other guy sell out?


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 8/29/2014 6:02 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>


>
> I looked it up after reading about it here. Marvellous How was it
> resolved? Did the other guy sell out?
>
>

Yes, Arthur T bought out the other side of the family for about 1.5
billion dollars. Family feud finally over, at least for the business.

On 8/29/2014 1:19 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

>
> Suppliers weren't refusing to deliver, just their own drivers who
> transported product from the main distribution facility(s) to the
> individual stores.
>
> I doubt any outside supplier would want to play favorites in this
> shitfest.
>
> -sw
>

At least a couple refused to deliver because they were not getting paid.
Not clear, from what I've read, if drivers refused to cross the line,
but it seems some may have. Of course, you can't deliver if no one
will unload you.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/29/2014 6:02 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>> I looked it up after reading about it here. Marvellous How was it
>> resolved? Did the other guy sell out?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, Arthur T bought out the other side of the family for about 1.5
> billion dollars. Family feud finally over, at least for the business.

Good result I suppose. I guess they aren't too close now the family tried
to boot him out.

Thank you

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/28/2014 9:44 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> Talk about stubborn, this could have been resolved
>> weeks ago when it was clearly an issue that wasn't
>> going away.
>>
>> nancy
>
>
> This case will be studied in business classes for years. Classic "what
> not to do" but it is also a big boost for workers and the middle class.
> Amazing how well 25000 workers organized and stuck to their guns for what
> is right. They did more for themselves than any union could do and
> without the dues.

They've vindicated the concept of a union.

> Best of luck to Aurthur T and the workers. Many companies give artificial
> fluff about the importance of the employee, Art T means it and he got the
> support needed. I'm going to shop there more frequently than I did in the
> past.

B School books will be rewritten but I guarantee it wilkl be about how to
quell slave rebellions.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 8/28/2014 11:19 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> I doubt any outside supplier would want to play favorites in this
> shitfest.
>
> -sw

I doubt you have a friggin' clue.

On 8/29/2014 9:29 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> Not getting paid is a reason not to fill orders for any company -

Nope, there is always credit.

On 8/29/2014 10:09 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/28/2014 9:44 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> Talk about stubborn, this could have been resolved
>>> weeks ago when it was clearly an issue that wasn't
>>> going away.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>>
>> This case will be studied in business classes for years. Classic "what
>> not to do" but it is also a big boost for workers and the middle class.
>> Amazing how well 25000 workers organized and stuck to their guns for what
>> is right. They did more for themselves than any union could do and
>> without the dues.
>
> They've vindicated the concept of a union.

Given how badly unions have behaved they could use some vindication.

>> Best of luck to Aurthur T and the workers. Many companies give artificial
>> fluff about the importance of the employee, Art T means it and he got the
>> support needed. I'm going to shop there more frequently than I did in the
>> past.
>
> B School books will be rewritten but I guarantee it wilkl be about how to
> quell slave rebellions.

Right...

On 8/29/2014 12:00 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

>
> Actually no. Terrible business decisions, shoddy products plus a hugely out
> of proportion executive compensation and pension liability is what killed
> GM. Don't forget how when gas prices shot up GM had retooled almost its
> entire inventory to gas guzzling cars and was suddenly caught with cars
> nobody wanted and factories that couldn;t make the cars they did want. .
> And they never made so much profit as when the UAW was at its peak.
>

Many reasons on both sides. Union made big demands and the auto makers
just raised the price of the cars and passed on the added cost. That
worked for many years when the economy was growing and jobs were
plentiful. Buyers bought whatever the Big 3 made.

competition from better built cars at the same or lower prices started
their demise.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/29/2014 12:00 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually no. Terrible business decisions, shoddy products plus a hugely
>> out
>> of proportion executive compensation and pension liability is what killed
>> GM. Don't forget how when gas prices shot up GM had retooled almost its
>> entire inventory to gas guzzling cars and was suddenly caught with cars
>> nobody wanted and factories that couldn;t make the cars they did want. .
>> And they never made so much profit as when the UAW was at its peak.
>>
>
> Many reasons on both sides. Union made big demands and the auto makers
> just raised the price of the cars and passed on the added cost. That
> worked for many years when the economy was growing and jobs were
> plentiful. Buyers bought whatever the Big 3 made.

For years before the crash he UAW mad a lot of concessions including
dropping their entry level wage to 14 bucks an hour and also taking huge
hits on pensions. Yet the executive compensation liability doubled, tripled
and then quadrupled. The execs took the money saved and gave it to
themselves.

> competition from better built cars at the same or lower prices started
> their demise.

When I was a kid in the 60s it was just expected your car would fall apart
in two years. Whenever you take a snapshot of the US car industry and
compare it to the Japanese makers you see the Japanese were always on the
leading edge and the American makers were considering innovation to be
taller tail fins. WHen people realized they had een rooked it no longer
became patriotic to drive a 4 ton monstrosity that fell apart before you
drove it home for the first time.

The rest is history.

>



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Mayo wrote:
>
> Sorry pal - unions had a heavy hand in bankrupting GM.

Unions are responsible for many large corporations moving overseas for
cheaper labor. And the hardcore liberals here will spout that it's
corporate greed and all about the almighty dollar. Get
educated...maximum profit is the bottom line of any company or
corporation. It's not evil. It's why people take risks to start up a
company.

G.

On 8/30/2014 10:10 AM, Gary wrote:
> Mayo wrote:
>>
>> Sorry pal - unions had a heavy hand in bankrupting GM.
>
> Unions are responsible for many large corporations moving overseas for
> cheaper labor. And the hardcore liberals here will spout that it's
> corporate greed and all about the almighty dollar. Get
> educated...maximum profit is the bottom line of any company or
> corporation. It's not evil. It's why people take risks to start up a
> company.
>
> G.
>

Its all about balance. Sure, profit is necessary for a business to
thrive and survive. It also has to treat employee fairly and respect
them.

I'm sure we can find examples of both corporate greed and union greed
and sometimes both will be in the same company.

On 8/30/2014 8:10 AM, Gary wrote:
> Mayo wrote:
>>
>> Sorry pal - unions had a heavy hand in bankrupting GM.
>
> Unions are responsible for many large corporations moving overseas for
> cheaper labor.

This is true.

> And the hardcore liberals here will spout that it's
> corporate greed and all about the almighty dollar. Get
> educated...maximum profit is the bottom line of any company or
> corporation. It's not evil. It's why people take risks to start up a
> company.
>
> G.

Eminently logical!