Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Sep 16, 2011
Who cares? Country club cheapskates aren't nothing new. The wanna be rich are always trying to hold down the average man. We have bigger problems then some wanna be rich guys hitting balls in holes who are cheapskates.
"There is a deeper issue here and that is that there are a number of contract issues with this Union around Northern CA. Settling at CCC where there is such a small by comparison work force would set a precedent that the Union does not want."
It isn't just Northern California that has deeper issues with UniteHere, or militant unions in general, it is the entire country. UniteHere and SEIU are both spin-offs of AFL-CIO, and are now considered affiliates. These two spin-offs were embroiled in their own legal battle for control of member bargaining units for over 18 months; because members pay dues and both unions wanted the money. Under the guidance of Andy Stern, the SEIU wanted control of UniteHERE and these two union groups spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, fighting over who CONTROLLED which employee groups. The battle had little to do with who could best represent these employees and everything to do who received the union dues that were kicked up the chain of command. The recession, an Obama appointment, and a rare case of union common sense helped to reconcile warring unions but did little to inject any common sense into the union argument.
The dispute wasn't resolved until after the controversial Andy Stern, former head of the (militant) SEIU, received an appointment to head the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB). He was appointed by the OBAMA/BIDEN administration (the former a labor organizer and the latter a devout union supporter). The new head of SEIU and UniteHere have since mended fences, ended the lawsuits', and divided up their dues paying members. But, even during an extraordinarily difficult period for our country, the unions present themselves as hard driving VP's of sales that want results and not excuses; economics be damned. Are the unions concerned about wage & benefit demands crippling their employer - doubtful! It's all about, as Charlie Sheen has said many times to his own detriment, "WINNING!"
Not sure if the comparable salary survey presented by the unions was for "like" country clubs or included other UniteHere groups that worked for Hotel Chains in food service. What I am sure of is that any salary survey presented by this union is highly suspect and ignored the fact every other CC was looking to reduce costs. If there is one thing unions know how to do it is present data that minimizes their compensation while maximizing the compensation of their piers in the salary survey. They have it down to a science and people they negotiate with do NOT understand how many ways the salary-survey document is manipulated. The same thing is happening right now with Pleasanton employee contracts.
Interestingly enough, CalPERS is a part of this conversation. Why would CalPERS have anything to do with a conflict between Unite Here and the CCC? They shouldn't
but maybe they do.
You definitely are an A-One, Arnold. Very apt name for yourself. Do you really think anyone reads beyond your first sentence? 67.43% ... -4.334%... tsunami, tsunami, tsunami ... i worship the evil genie, ron paul, tsunami, tsunami, tsunami....
Carl, is that all you have to say? Can take a moment and actually contribute to the dialogue?
Your post puts the debate into an interesting light. In the thick of a labor/ management dispute, it's easy to forget that a union has its own internal dynamic, a dynamic that affects its world view. I am especially impressed by your mention of the concept of union management as "hard driving VP's of sales that want results and not excuses", which suggests that winning is more important than the thing being fought over.
You've made a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Arnold, You'll soon meet an influential person.
Mike, Watched water does reach a boil, but often takes a long time.
Dan Quayle: "Boiling water is one way to make excellent steam."
tee hee hee, tee hee hee...
I'm sorry, but I do not understand the meaning of your post.
Given the precipitous incidence of ignorance manifested on these postings, it is lamentable that we not know from whence the ignorance has arisen. Today's double good fortune;
Financial success is right around the corner.
A tall person is taller yet when standing on tiptoes.
I still don't understand the meaning of your posts, but I now understand that their meaning is unimportant.
Meaning, despite it being oblique or multi-textured, is a task for the truly intelligent. Those unable to see the meaning are but hollow men.
Your last post serves as evidence in support of my previous conclusion.
Non-sequiturs are by definition meaningless.
Mike, I believe Carl is saying your posts sound more and more like the fortunes inside cookies from Chinese restaurant.
An honest days wages for an honest days work, tenure has nothing to do with it.
No, I'm not getting that at all.
I'm seeing an example of an individual who having lost one too many discussion-board debates has devolved into acting out his frustration by posting non-sense and snarky comments. We see this in group dynamics, don't we? It's a common strategy adopted by a minority position against a majority position in response to repeated defeat.
Embarrassing to see, actually, because it usually becomes painfully obvious to everyone but the loser.
He who argue with fortune cookie wisdom destined to wash dishes at Kwong Tong Noodle Factory. It like arguing with sack of flour.
Thanks for providing a timely example of my point.
I see your point, Mike and agree that there is an intellectual vacuum and general lack of maturity on many of the posts over the past several weeks. It's much easier for the trolls and imposters on these posts to misdirect the conversation or resort to name calling, rather than address the topic in a coherent fashion. It's lazy and counterproductive, but then I suppose I should not expect anything different from those who defend the status quo.
Amazing how that was exactly my point in reverse. Thanks to Mike and Steve for their continued maturity and depth of thought.
SEIU Local 1000 to consider six-figure salaries for officers
This is an article that appeared in the Sacramento BEE. The State Worker is a column that addresses public employee union issues.
"SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne Walker would receive three times her current wages under a new executive pay proposal that the union's statewide council will consider at its Sept. 16-19 meeting in Oakland.
The plan calls for members serving in Local 1000's top job to earn a total compensation package of $150,000 per year. In Walker's case, the union would tack on $103,000 to the $47,000 gross pay she receives as a legal secretary with the Department of Justice (that isn't total compensation).
Because Walker is on full-time union paid leave, SEIU already reimburses the state for her salary plus 35 percent to cover her benefits. So in reality (?), the entire $150,000 would come from union resources."
It's doubtful that the 35% payment toward benefits includes pension contributions. Why has the state even entered into such arrangements? And why is this UniteHERE union affiliate increasing the salary component of compensation by over 300%? Is this a trend?
Apparently there are many union members that aren't happy with the union:
"Employment Development Department employee Alex Hernandez was one of about two dozen people who e-mailed the agenda item (posted below) to The State Worker today. He's angry.
"This just adds insult to injury," Hernandez said, noting that the proposal has surfaced during a long, painful period for state workers who went from imposed furloughs to contractual unpaid days off and the threat of layoffs.
Hernandez, a former Local 1000 Council board member, said that the pay increase would also distance Walker and executive team from the real world pressures state workers confront, since the plan guarantees their overall pay rate if their state wages are reduced.
"This will exclude any of the officers from furlough, salary reductions, or any other (stuff) that is negotiated," Hernandez said. "This will remove any incentive to fight for our members at the bargaining table, because they will be exempt from any of it.""
"But she (Walker) defended the idea as just compensation for "a secretary doing a CEO's job" as the head of a multimillion-dollar enterprise with roughly 90,000 members.
"We need to take the people involved out of this and ask, 'Would this be appropriate compensation for the job?'" said Walker, who was elected the local's president in 2008 and reelected to another three-year term in May. "If it's not inappropriate, then there shouldn't be a problem.""
Just a secretary doing a CEO's Job! What do other union members have to say about this issue? There are an amazing 295 responses from very unhappy union members, many of which do NOT trust their union (at the end of the article). The comments are at least as interesting as the story.
Read more: Web Link
Big job. Reasonable salary. I have no problem with this whatsoever. Tempest in a teapot.
"an intellectual vacuum and general lack of maturity on many of the posts over the past several weeks. It's much easier for the trolls and impostors on these posts to misdirect the conversation or resort to name calling, rather than address the topic in a coherent fashion. It's lazy and counterproductive"
Very well said, indeed.
As stated in prior (more relevant posts), at some point CCC needs to cut there losses and realize this is a business decision.
Do I chance that the NLRB votes in my favor and owe nothing, or do I cut a deal with the Union and get my club back in order?
Time will tell, but you do not have to be an actuary to understand this is a HUGE risk. At the same time, value of a CCC membership is at an all-time low...and you have to stop blaming The union and look into the mirror. CCC holds the cards, yet they are choosing to go "all in" holding a pair of 2's.
A similar case was brought by the NLRB last year on behalf of this Union against CCC and was dismissed-- why is none of this discussed in this Union's organizers efforts to solicit support?? Why does this union's leadership fail to speak of the status of the displaced workers and what type of employment and compensation they have been able to find outside of Castlewood? How do Pleasanton's Public courses compensate in comparison? or other Country Clubs and restuarants in the area? These would be articles worth reading, if only the Pleasanton Weekly and Pleasanton Patch would write.....let's hear all the facts please.
You are making my point,
It is not the concern to review "other clubs", that's like saying during the NFL Lockout, let's compare the Canadian Football League to the NFL. After all, they both do pretty much the same thing!? No, they really don't.
WHAT IS MY EXPOSURE IF I LOSE? That is the question.
That's what the NFL owner were concerned about AND that is what the CCC Mgmt should be worried about.
If, and I say if, CCC loses the decision (and there is risk on both sides), they are screwed, because the membership value is at an all-time low, the majority of the members don't want the union (just going by responses) and the club will have to pay workers, most of whom will be back at there jobs looking for tips that most likely will not be there...now there's a place I want to have dinner!
I am guessing this is why a handful of CCC members have questioned the BOD. Let the members know their exposure...it's bigger than you think, but there I go, assuming that you are thinking past tomorrow's "Hit &Giggle".
You need to have a Plan B...because Plan A isn' t working so well...and analyzing all of the other clubs in the area will only make you wish you belonged there!
The club has made a "business" decision, just one that is not working in favor of this particular union. As mentioned a similar NLRB case was brought late last year and was dismissed. The club hasn't done anything significantly different since....The propoganda your reading on NLRB is put out there by this Union in using strong arm tactics to make up for poor judgement. The affect on you is one of "huge" risk? because this union's leadership spouts of millions in back pay? That is not the clubs true exposure-- talk to your Union leadership. And ask the hard questions-- why was the last review dismissed? what is their true calculation on club's financial exposure? How does that last offer compare to other opportunities? What is the status of the displaced workers. I applaud the club for maintaining integrity in light of this aggressive and abusive Union and it's leadership. It is not good business to lock yourself into a long-term unfavorable work contract because of Union propoganda and gimmicks.
Need to better understand the audience. I am not member of CCC, nor am I a member of the the Union. I am a businessman who views decisions based on economical merit and economical risk.
As a member of the "Castlewood Neighborhood", I will assume you can understand this concept.
There is risk...if, and I said this many times, IF the NLRB votes in favor of the union, get your checkbook out and be ready to pay back wages.
Get your head out of your foursomes ass and realize your leadership is betting on winning without regard for losing..."ballsy, indeed"' but who is going to be left paying the bill?
It is not a matter of winning...it is a matter of paying the least amount to make this go away...AND that concept is not in the Republican Playbook!
I played Pebble Beach on Saturday and realized service is not a way of life, it is embedded in fiber of the institution.
I played CCC three weeks ago and ii quickly realized there are "haves and have nots".
Not embarrasssed to say it, but i am probably in the latter, however at Pebble, they treated me like I was an owner of the company.
At CCC, with all due respect to my Member-sponsor, I was just a guy who was lucky enough to be on the course.
I won't compare CCC to Pebble, but I guess I just did!
GET YOU CLUB BACK TO A RESPECTABLE PLACE SO THE VALUE WILL GO BACK UP!
Malcolm-- you asked the Club to settle to avoid the risk of losing-- yet you don't understand the risks nor the costs, so your view sounds irrelevent. You seem to be a blind follower.
You make the term "settle" sound like like a bad thing...Apparently you have never been in a negotiation...YIKES, your losing credibility with every key typed!
"Don't understand risks nor the costs"...HMMMM, well golly, I guess there is no risk because CCC management says there is none---talk about blind faith!
Ignorance is bliss, but based on the value of a CCC membership, that's a given.
There is an old proverb that a wise man used to tell me that fits the CCC situation..."I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet".
Malcolm, -- it's seems like you are having a conversation with yourself---settling sometimes is the right thing, other times not---you have to know the situation to make the best decision. You contintue to speak like a blind union follower, which is unfortunate for the union members that have been displaced by this Union's leaderships poor decisions. Do you know anything about the NLRB and the complaint filed by the Union leaders? do you have any knowledge on the facts of the last complaint being heard and dismissed?
If I were talking to myself you would stop writing
Do you understand the risks?
Do you think there is risk?
I will assume you are a member of CCC, AND more importantly I will assume your membership is upside down like the 27 other members who have left over the past 12 months ( yah, I know a little more than you think).
If you are confident in the position of the club, then let that confidence speak for itself...
You can have an intelligent discussion and agree to disagree, but as a member, you have the most to lose if the court decision goes the wrong way---Christ, how much more does the value of the CCC membership have to decline before you realize you are throwing good money ad bad?
My view of this situation is that CCC has not the management nor the intelligence to
"win" this battle.
At the end of the day, a CCC membership value is $12,500. Who is really winning the battle?
At some point, even Captain John Smith realized the ship was going down..JP, let me clue you in---there aren't enough life rafts for everyone!
To pick up on JP's logic "The Club has made a business decision, just not one that is working in favor" of it's members. The Lockout has cost CCC members roughly a million dollars to date and will continue to bleed the members as long as this drags on. The Club started "using strong arm tactics" in going to an indefinite lockout in the first place and it has shown no flexibility in adjusting to the reality on the ground. It continues to pursue a fiscally loosing strategy with no apparent options or inclination to reduce member risk. The current NLRB risk, which could easily be another million dollars, is in addition to the continuing long-term lockout costs. "Win or loose" at the NLRB hearing, the members will loose as long as this drags on. The only issue is how big the ultimate cost will be. As JP points out, "sometimes settling is the right thing, other times not." In this case, given the facts on the ground, settling is the right answer the union benefits proposal is economically viable for the Club's members and well within the market for the local private country clubs. Settling is cheaper than fighting. The only justification for continuing to stay the course is the hope that the union will go away. Hope, in this case, is not a viable strategy, particularly given the demonstrated staying power of the Union. Again, to paraphrase JP, "it is not good business to lock your self into a long-term unfavorable contract" or strategy. Perhaps after the NLRB ruling, a new Board and a new year, both sides can agree that it is time to sit down in earnest and negotiate a compromise agreement for the next few years for the benefit of the Club's members and employees. Otherwise only the lawyers are winning.
Larry, that makes too much sense...It can't be that easy!!!
JP, Larry must be talking to himself too!
Of course, if the absent workers were paid, they would then have to RETURN all public monies they had received. Similar to the middle-class seniors who con the medi-cal system for skilled nursing purposes, family estate ultimately has to PAY BACK the value of their home, rightly so ! ! Even city leaders need to do the right thing.
Since the workers will have to pay back, maybe they'll reconsider and tire of being puppets 'used' as weapons to fight the union bosses wars.
If the Club looses it will have to pay the workers for the lost wages during the illegal lockout (minus earned income from a replacement job, but not minus their unemployment benefits during that period) and then the workers will have to repay an amount, equal to the unemployment benefits they received during that time, back to the government. It simply means that ultimately the Club, not the workers, will be paying the the government back - which is "no gain no loss" for the workers, but a big loss for CCC members. This is another needless liability that could likely be avoided through real negotiations.
I am mystified that the newly elected Club President himself collects a Union Pension...I am sure he justifies it that "he worked harder than these workers do and he deserves it".
It is the "I got mine" mentality that is crushing CCC membership value...not the benfits for guy who should be mowing your grass.
> CCC Club Membership - $12,500
> Benfits for family of 4 - $950/mo
> A Union Member now running CCC - Priceless
After doing the math of your correct assessment on re-imbursement to the displaced employees in the event of what is perceived to be an unlikely unfavorable ruling to the club-- the club has opted it's worthwhile to take the risk-- given the fact that a similar hearing was already dismissed by the review board just late last year (not much as changed)-- and in the unexpected event of an unfavorable ruling, the cost on a per member basis is manageable-- let's see what happens....
Away from the hearing as with regards to on going costs to the club-- they have been performing above budget and their overall financial health has improved substantially since the years prior to the expiration of the contract. Yes, it could be better if legal costs associated with the union are removed-- but then we'd be locked into similar long-term labor contracts that ultimately were part of the financial handcuffs of the past that led to poor financial performance. There have been no dues increases since the lockout as voiced by union members-- all propoganda. The fact is the club was locked into a very expensive labor contract and they should be reviewing all of their costs, including and especially labor; as many corporations and municipalities have undertaken the same process as we go through economic stress.
Ultimately aside from legal expenses, what the club has endured is attempts of annoyance at this stage and strong arm tactics of this union -- and they have done so very successfully from a financial perspective and is why the vast majority of the membership is in support. What is unfortunate is that there are union members who continue to struggle in finding not just comparable work, but just work other than part time. Larry is Castlewoods last offer not within the parameters of comparable pay?? I believe they are well above the median in overall comp. If they are, then this union leadership should put these people back to work.
Malcomb- you can take a lesson from Larry on how to present a case, thus far your content as been empty-- you're blindly supporting your union leadership. Membership cost? what were they before the lockout? ;) enjoy your day.
one note to your re-imbursement assessement: according to the article paragraph below in which Ms Norr (union rep) contributed.... unemployment receipts are subtracted...just as fyi.
"The union's estimate of the total owed by Castlewood has to be modified by money that the NLRB would subtract from it. Any unemployment insurance income collected by employees is subtracted. There have been several unemployment period extensions since the nation's economic recession started, so employees have been able to collect more than the old limit of 26 weeks would allow.
Further, any jobs they have been able to pick up would also be deducted. Typically these are part-time jobs, because the Castlewood workers are new on the job market, and usually can find only part-time work, said Norr".
Your are absolutely correct, I can learn a lot from Larry. I recently had a chance to meet him...You think CCC would listen to people with skin in the game.
Thanks for finally admitting that there is risk...This is the first time you have realized that risk is apparent, yet you have said the same thing on every post ..."we got out of it last time".
However, based on your last post, it appears that you may FINALLY be looking at the cost if you should lose...THAT IS WHAT SMART BUSINESS PEOPLE DO.
BTW, ignorance and arrogance are a bad combination in business...and aloofness in this case only makes you seem like an angry old man!
Malcom review the thread...you do not make sense.
Cost on a per member basis is manageable?
Let's see what happens?
That assumes all members would pay the assessment...yet another risk.
Haven't you guys thought thru every scenario?
You can't HOPE this will be ok, you need to control the outcome, instead you locked out these knuckleheads and you are hoping for a favorable outcome.
For your sake I hope this isn't a Harvard Business School case study on how not to deal with a union.
Clouser has left Marsh holding the bag...and the music is about to stop!
Union supporters question your facts, ask your leaders the tough questions-- how are the displaced workers doing? is the contract offer in line with other opportunities, forget the old contract that was a prohibitive cost to the clubs financial stability-- don't follow blindly. There is a lot of mis-information (propoganda) out there -- below is only one example:
"Serderber said the club's financial statements indicate the club lost $300,000 in 2010, after at least two years of profitability and club dues have been raised 5 percent to help cover the costs of attorneys and other expenses associated with the lockout."
There have been no dues increases since the lockout and the Club is operating in a more positive financial position than years prior to the expiration of the labor contract when they faced fiscal stress. The union employees had a fair contract renewal offer, above the mean/median of similar job opportunities in the area-- there is no reason for this union to hold out for more when their displaced members have not been able to find comparable work-- many collect unemployment and are working only part-time. AND they want to work. Stated unemployment in California is 12%- lot's of people want to work. The union's strategy of attempting strong arm tactics to force their hand is unreasonable in this situation. Picketing at a place where members our vested and committed to monthly dues, is not like picketing in front of the Hyatt where patrons might choose a different hotel. Weigh the facts of the case, not just support the Union blindly...when they are right and employees are truly mis-treated fall in line, but when they've mis-judged support the right thing to do-- at this stage union leaders should agree to anything that's still on the table to get their members back to work where they earn a FAIR pay for a fair days work.
Weigh the facts?
You may be 100% correct on all of the diatribe you are spewing, I get that...you are thinking best case...
...what is the worst case? Tell your members what the true exposure is!
Your Hyatt example is littered with holes (just ask the Raiders, the Warriors, St. Mary's)...they went elsewhere...that's lost revenue.
It's not blind following it's reviewing the facts and extrapolating the risk!
The fact is your fellow union members are out of work or working only part time, they have forgone a considerable amount in wages and continue to do so.. when they could be working for better than average pay at Castlewood for the work they provide. It's unfortunate that Unite Union leaders and supporters are not thinking of them, and instead use them to promote their own union agenda. The fact is unemployment is very high and there are lots of people out of work and cost cuts and union concessions are occurring all over the country. The fact is the club is currently in a more positive financial position than when they were locked into a very expensive labor contract-- so the decision to continue "as is" is a good one. The fact is the Union has taken a lot of "risk" on the back of their displaced union members who they are suppose to be serving. The fact is the Union pays for picketers and endure costs to adminster strong arm tactics. The fact is members are vested in and committed to the club and have distinguishly manage the union's nuisances-- the members account for the bulk of the revenues of the club and determine direction-- and the union is trying to hold a hammer over them?? Union leaders and blind supporterss like Malcolm want Castlewood to focus on what "could" happen to SCARE the club into settling, without regard to the "liklihood" of the occurance. You can not assess risk without guaging probability. Malcolm doesn't think the Clubs BOD and attorney's have weighed all the different scenarios and are not "intelligent"-- Union supporters don't be fooled and fall into this type of elementary thinking and blind union following--that's only the result of Union propoganda. The board knows and the membership understands all the risk and potential outcomes -- so let's get off of that type of discussion and instead focus on the diplaced Union workers. In that regard-- Does Malcom and other union supporters understand the "risk" that this union as placed upon it's displaced members? how much of the back pay exposure the Union claims the club has could have been in their members pockets-- what's the liklihood of that type of opportunity coming to them again?? If they NLRB dismisses that most recent case, as they did the prior, where does that leave the displaced workers.. and how much more in lost wages is the Union willing to risk on their backs???? that's the "risk" that Malcolm and similar supporters and Union leaders need to start assessing.
In closing, don't be like Malcom and follow union agenda's blindly:
To pick up on Malcolms quotes:
"I am a businessman who views decisions based on economical merit and economical risk."
"THAT IS WHAT SMART BUSINESS PEOPLE DO".
"CCC holds the cards, yet they are choosing to go "all in" holding a pair of 2's."
"Let the members know their exposure...it's bigger than you think, but there I go, assuming that you are thinking past tomorrow's "Hit &Giggle".
"Get your head out of your foursomes ass and realize your leadership is betting on winning without regard for losing..."ballsy, indeed"' but who is going to be left paying the bill?"
Malcolm all gibber no facts? who lost all credibility? AND what was it you said about ignorance and arrogance again??
Union supporters don't tote this line and put your hopes on strong arm tactics to bully an employer offering a fair employment opportunity--work harder to learn what's really on the table and what's really going on--it's about your fellow members jobs---let your people work while they still have an offer--it's the right thing to do! No outcome is worst than if they have to settle for unemployment, part-time work or even jobs that offer less...Unite has spent lots of money and time, and those poor workers continue to bear the risk--- that is not right, especially if they want to work-- ask them......
JP Great to have you engaged in this discussion. Interestingly you argue that the Club's proposal is good for the union employees and I argue that the Union's proposal is good for the Club members. I think both positions are valid and that it is surprising that the Board and the Union leadership cannot find common ground. Perhaps the members and the employees should unite to press on their respective leadership otherwise, all loose.
As for your facts:
1) The Lockout began on February 25, 2010 and the dues went up 5% on December 31, 2010. Had the Club settled on the Union terms in the Spring of 2010 there would have been no need for a dues increase and 2010 would have be profitable, rather than a operational loss.
2) I'm not sure what Ms. Norr said, but the NLRB compliance manual says that the Club does not get to subtract the unemployment payments from what they owe the employees, if the Club loses.
3) If "fact 2" is true then the members do not fully understand their liability nor is the statement that "the cost on a per member basis is manageable", unless you assume that $1000/member is acceptable to the majority of the members. I doubt it.
4) I do agree that both the Union proposal and the Board proposal on health care fall within the local market
Finally, I would like to stress that "financial performance" for CCC in 2008 and 2009 was very good, with net operating profits. The Union proposed a major give back on health care in 2010 potentially assuring a good year in 2010 also. If the Board had accepted the Union proposal CCC would have had good financial performance in 2010 and 2011 without a dues increase. Any net bad performance in 2010 or 2011 is due to errors in negotiations strategy on the part of the Board. Let me add that CCC working management has done a great job controlling costs within the constraints of the economy and of the broader Board strategy. Regards - Larry
Yikes, loosen up your Sansabelt slacks and take a deep breath!
It must be really getting to you that the working class is able to bring you to your knees (and from the sounds of it, maybe even to tears?)
Keep espousing the union hater stuff...that's an intelligent stance.
Get back to the table and negotiate...right now CCC BOD is failing the membership and the employees AND yes, THEY (AND YOU) ARE TOO IGNORANT AND ARROGANT to understand that.
I'd throw out more "gibber", but I am afraid you might weep on your keyboard.
Larry, appreciate your balanced approached as it is a waste and a shame-- wasted money is one thing, people do that all the time-- I feel for the displaced workers as they are suffering more than anyone. It's important that we focus on the real best outcome-- in my opinion, that is they get work where they can earn a fair pay and do not have to settle for unemployment, part-time work or a less desireable situation. Health care is a very risky (uncontrollable) cost, in fact they've increased exponentially over the past decade. Every business, municipality and private organization has to have some control over them- or risk financial instability. No one should blame a business (Castlewood) for brining their labor costs in line, as well as health and pension liabilities-- they are large costs! From my understanding, and in your statement with regards to Health coverage Castlewood is within parameters, it is also my understanding that with regards to total comp they are well above the mean/median....so on the ground how are the displaced workers doing? are they finding work, are employers are offering them health care? if so is the coverage beyond themselves? are the offers better than Castlewoood offer?....how does the rest of the compensation look in comparison?...that's all union leaders should be focused on. Ultimately, we all have to face the labor market as it sits. Unemployment is at historical highs, businesses from all facets are struggling--Castlewood's old expensive contract has expired, negotiations have to focus on comparable pay and the job market-- that's only right, why should the Union expect anything more? In fact, Castlewood and the Union have negotiated and there best efforts leave a gap--what's the next step when each shows their best hand and can't come together-- parting of the ways??? is that really what is best for the displaced workers? My fear is the workers are suffering; is anyone at Castlewood suffering as much? At what point given that Castlewood is well within comp parameters (FAIR PAY- better than most), do Union leadership recognize that it's in their members best interest to work? my sense is they are not on this thought track... instead feel they can achieve their objective with regards to health care and protecting their agenda by using leverage in attempts to inflict financial pain on an employer and pay people to create a nuisance where people go to enjoy themselves (and those are the people that steer direction!)...all in an effort to "win"..is that the direction you'd advise? If Castlewood was out of parameter-- or even below the averages, by all means go to those extremes, but since they are not-- and we are in a weak market for labor and a slow economic cycle that could persist for who knows how long...who is bearing the most cost? I say the displaced workers who still struggle to find comparable work. Castlewood is offering work at fair pay, do the workers want to work (did they get a vote)? if so why is the union holding up the process.....on the other hand, Castlewood doesn't seem to suffer the same, as they've been able to hire employees at more advantageous cost, and from what I understand members continue to be satisfied and in fact are becoming content-- how will that play out...??
Larry I would be interested in hearing how you'd agrue the union's proposal would be good for the membership over the long run. Do you believe it's a better proposal than the club can achieve in the open market? in that vain do you believe the club's proposal is better than what is available to them in the open market?
I wouldn't expect much from union entrenched Larry ferdebrer, Malcom Gee, Unite Here, or anyone else who's paycheck & benefits are inflated because of the union gang mentality. The Castlewood pay package being offered would be reasonable during the best of times. It is more than reasonable during this deep recession as evidenced by the lower wages, reduced benefits, or unemployment these former employees are currently facing.
"is that really what is best for the displaced workers? My fear is the workers are suffering; is anyone at Castlewood suffering as much? At what point given that Castlewood is well within comp parameters (FAIR PAY- better than most), do Union leadership recognize that it's in their members best interest to work? my sense is they are not on this thought track... instead feel they can achieve their objective with regards to health care and protecting their agenda by using leverage in attempts to inflict financial pain on an employer and pay people to create a nuisance where people go to enjoy themselves (and those are the people that steer direction!)...all in an effort to "win". "
You hit the nail on the head; "all in an effort to "win"." Unite Here is only concerned about Unite Here. What this union is about, in the misguided words of Charlie Sheen, is "winning".
I do not know one single person that doesn't fully support CCC right to ensure the financial stability of what many people consider an asset to our community. Stay strong.
Stop with the "poor worker" stuff...
I would have more respect for you if you would continue to call the locked out workers "blind followers" and "strong-arm tacticianeers"...
This new, soft position tells me that one members spouse is starting to weaken your position.
But hey, from what they tell me, even Richard Nixon thought he was right---all the way to the end...
CCC is Fair,
Stick to your Hitler Youth Blog...the adults are talking...
You might want to step outside of your comfort zone and realize there are several members who think you, JP, Clouser! Marsh, et. al, are making it up as they go.
Although I appreciate the Charlie Sheen reference, leave the gibber up to me ( right JP)
Malcomb, you've been on this thread for awhile -- anything more to add other than Castlewood has risk-- so settle, gibber and proverbs? if not we understand- so you can go away now and take your respect with you.
Thanks for the advice...
After Larry's posts, if i were you, i would lay low for a while...you can't do anything but type 750 words of gibberish.
Yet you haven't answer a solid question yet.
Again, keep living the Catlewood Dream: Relax, Play, Shampoo, Repeat
Sorry Mr.Gee, but I'm not JP nor do I know who he/she is. I'm not even a club member. I'm just sick of listening to you and Lab Larry trying to dictate how a private CC operates. As someone familiar with the Golf world/business/Country Club economics, I can assure you the response from yourself and Mr. Ferdeber are short sighted, uninformed, and grounded in union dynamics. On the other hand the CCC is trying to ensure survival during tough economic times for all Country Clubs.
Instead of trying to drive a Pleasanton asset out of business, and they provide an excellent venue for many charitable organizations to raise money, to justify your own worth maybe Larry should just join another club, and you should focus your union efforts on destroying something else.
Malcom your welcome, now take it and say goodbye--so that your brain is not so strained in trying to figure out what Larry, I or anyone else says of substance. You like proverbs-- here's one just for you -- better to remain silent and appear ignorant, than to speak and remove all doubt. Happy Holidays Malcomb- go get your sign and start marching in front of those golfers-- you are really bringing them to their knees.
Though Larry never asked questions, only stated facts as he knows them, I wasn't going to address because it really isn't pertinent to a resolve- and I'm more interested in hearing Larry's case, than to trade tit for tats. HOWEVER since it's come up--does the club endure legal costs and have costs associated with the dispute?-- yes, does the union? yes. 1)To take that into saying to the press that the club had to increase dues to pay attorney's is simply propoganda- dues are a perpetual line item. 2) neither Larry nor I know the exact exposure of back pay(I've heard $400/member, Larry says $1000)-- no one wants to pay that and it is very unlikely, but can members who pay over $600 month for club dues afford it? you tell me Malcom....If it were me, i'd gladly pay than to give into Union Bullying- Remember this case was heard and dismissed just a year ago, don't know what the union can accomplish when this one is dismissed as well-- it will not bode well for the displaced workers. 3)Castlewood continues to outperform budget and is now in a better financial position than in the past-thanks to many supporters who continue to use the facility, and for very positive things. Many items result in profit and loss--it's not just any one thing it's many- to infer financial ruin as a result of union activity is only what the Union hopes for to bully an above market contract. It's one thing to recognize that both the Club and Union have exposure to legal costs, but to indicate that financially the club is falling to it knees as a result of union activity is propoganda--and it's just not true. It is only put out there to solicit union support. Using propoganda and strong arm tactics is normal for this Union, but to get an above market contract as a result of the scare and financial burden they inflict?? instead of doing the right thing and letting there employees return to work for fair pay should be disturbing to everyone. Inflicting financial harm to a provider of jobs, just doesn't make sense.
Thanks for engaging Gee-Wiz...
Put down your scotch and realize that the charitable organizations that you espouse of have all left CCC. That is because the NFL, MLB are union organizations... But wait even St Mary's Has bailed from CCC because they think this is a bad cause...........And they have a board member belonging to CCC...
JP, keep ducking the questions....just cut and paste your diatribe...and feel good that you are relevant in the discussion...
I am starting to think that I am engaging with " the old guy at the end of the bar"....
"Put down your scotch and realize that the charitable organizations that you espouse of have all left CCC. That is because the NFL, MLB are union organizations"
What a boob. I'm a supporter of private sector unions but your group is clueless.
Let's cut to the chase about the members of CCC...
I have three questions for you to answer....very simple:
> Value of a CCC Family Membership in 2000:
> Value of a CCC Family Membership in 2008:
> Value of a CCC Family Membership in 2011:
I know the economy, I know Obama has killed the American Dream, just answer the three questions...
Your moniker speaks volumes...thanks for your comments!
Malcolmb, "your starting to think"? you can't fool me, I already know you don't know how to think. "you know about the economy and Obama"? you know nothing. "Cut to the chase"? you've been cut out of this conversation pal-- ;)
JP purports to know so much about CCC. I wonder why he doesn't respond to Malcolm Gee's questions? They strike me as reasonable questions to ask. JP seems unwilling to answer them, but instead resorts to spitting out venom. Not a very compelling case you're making there, guy! If you are the designated apologist for CCC practices, it's easy to see why the company is currently in deep doo-doo.
I knew the Obama name would come out sooner or later...it took you 2 months to hold it in...
Never mind answering my questions...I will answer yours...
"Will members who pay over $600/mo pay an assessment of $1000?"
Most likely they will if it is to "better" the club. But NO ONE wants to pay for ignorant management decisions.
My original post was to help understand what the exposure is to members...because from what I was told, there was no clear number given.
AND the only number you have given is "$1,000 per member" and "Lets see what happens".
Wow, in two months you have narrowed it down to "let's see what happens"?
Larry F. has skin in the game and you try to poo-poo his facts, but you can't. You type a monologue of info with no direction except "we won last time". I wish you well my friend, but you ought to ask the BOD, what the true exposure is....because $1,000 per member may not cover it. Especially when the walk away value of you membership is $2,500...just my opinion!
I really wish you would answer my membership value question...it is really easy...
Lookie Lou? are you Malcomb in disquise so someone will speak to you? ;) in short, do you own a home or anyone you know own a home? what have home prices done in 2000, 2008 and 2011? what did other club member values do? was Unite 4 picketing on their front yards also- please focus on the pertinent issue-- the displaced workers. Do you know anyone who's lost their job since 2008 or is unemployed? what's it like for them???? Castlewood pays more than most similar jobs and offers food/beverages servers full medical for themselves and even offers some coverage to their family- next time you are in restuarant ask if the person serving you gets the same.
So, in other words, JP is able to provide no response to Malcolm's reasonable questions. Anyone surprised by this? Of course not: one more dumb, right-wing ideologue is exposed.
Malcomb meet Lookie Lou, Lookie Lou meet Malcomb ;)
I'm from Hayward, work in a shop with union and non-union employees jp covers it and makes sense to me.
JP is lost in his own inability to address any question or concern raised by other posters.
Jamie Castro says "I'm from Hayward, work in a shop with union and non-union employees jp covers it and makes sense to me." Oh, okay. Which means you're every bit as much of a fool as is JP.
This post effectively ran its course after Larry Ferderber and Malcolm Lee refuted with reason and facts every week piece of CCC propaganda thrown up at the wall. Once they accomplished this, the thread deteriorated into JP's shrill cries for attention.
[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
"I think the workers have been suffering quite a bit and to have a dinner, a benefit at Castlewood -- it is what it is and people want to say something about it," Hegde said (UNION REP). Sept. 16th 2011 -see above article
"Typically these are part-time jobs, because the Castlewood workers are new on the job market, and usually can find only part-time work", said Norr (UNION REP). Sept. 3rd 2011-Independent News article "New on the job market"- I like that one.
What's not to understand people? your fellow union members are suffering... and I know where they can find a very good job with above average pay and they get medical benefits.
Larry F--if still engaged after the direction Malcolm/Lookie took this thread, I still would like to hear your thoughts on how Castlewood accepting the union terms will be good for the members there...I think we all know how the displaced workers benefit in accepting CCC terms.
I was responding to the know-nothing contents of your dozen and a half words, Jamie. I can assure you, despite the grammatical hurdles you had difficulty with, that I understood perfectly the vacuousness of your comment.
JP says "in short, do you own a home or anyone you know own a home? what have home prices done in 2000, 2008 and 2011? what did other club member values do? was Unite 4 picketing on their front yards also-"
you reply "So, in other words, JP is able to provide no response to Malcolm's reasonable questions. Anyone surprised by this? Of course not: one more dumb, right-wing ideologue is exposed.
Jamie, Don't bother with Lookie Lou. Also known by many other names on various other topics out here. Only knows how to insult; clearly lookie lous for the opportunity.
[removed because it had nothing to do with the conversation]
I love the fact that you can't answer a direct question.
Just for the record,
I paid $702K for my house in 2004, it went to 1.0M in 2008 and now is at $720K...
Members at CCC that I know paid in excess of $50K for their membership in early 2000 and it is now worth $2,500 (as you know the house gets $10K)...and these are the "smart folks" are supposed to be making money on their investments!
Blackhawk memberships are going for $30,000 (confirmed this weekend over Thanksgiving dinner)...and that's a dog track compared to CCC.
Keep typing your geriatric-laden paragraphs of the same stuff, but understand, your members deserve better.
To say that you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, is an insult to those "who have actually cut off their nose to spite their face!"
CCC used to be the gem of the East Bay, but now it is the butt of jokes for guys like me. Your 1950's mentality is "tired" and you really need to get out of the dark ages before you lose the 50 and under crowd...I am sure the guys drinking Manhattans think your a genius!
Stop typing your diatribe and answer these 3 simple questions:
1) What is the TRUE exposure for members if the CCC loses the NLRB decision.
2) What is the plan if CCC wins the decision regarding the NLRB decision.
3) What is the 5 year plan for the club to regain its mojo as the "Gem of the East Bay" after the lock out is over.
You keep focusing on the CCC workers and what they are "gaining", but you really need to focus on the CCC members and what they are "losing"
because at the end of the day, win or lose, its the members that keep the place running...not the workers...you are so bitter you have forgotten that fact.
Have a good week!
The Union's proposal, or something between the Union and Board's proposal, would be good for the members in the long run because:
It is cheaper today to settle than to fight on a month-by-month go forward basis
A settlement would bring peace to the Club and allow the Board to focus on building the Club's future
A negotiated settlement can cap wage and benefits growth in the near term (length of the contract) and give time to see how the national health care debate/environment settle out
Total comp and benefits in the second quartile put CCC in a better competitive recruit/retain position in a slowly improving job market this has been the Board's strategic goal but they appear to have abandon that in the heat of the battle
A settlement would likely eliminate the significant liability of an adverse NLRB ruling
The bottom line is that CCC has poured a lot of money down the drain and CCC management has been distracted from much more productive efforts by blindly continuing the lockout. There is no evidence that anything will change until real give and take negotiations happen. It is a no-lose proposition for CCC members, even if they accepted the Union proposal, and they should be able to get better that that with good faith bargaining.
Larry, can you share your numbers that show it would be cheaper in the long run for the club to settle?
While you gather your financial analysis, with regards to your other points:
a)It interesting that you use the word "fight" and " bring peace"-- Union coercion is all that comes to mind- wouldn't it be nice if that wasn't the case and we could let the market determine the comp? b) refer to capping wage and benefits-- at above market levels?? does that make sense for a club focused on it's future?...c)attract and retain employees- castlewood has already hired equally competent employees, and members are enjoying them d) NLRB? didn't Union ask for postponement..why? d) BOTH the club and the union have spent a lot of unnecessary time and money that could have been used elsewhere- that's the unfortunate part of this entire dispute. In the end, Castlewood has a food/beverage operation that is financially stronger with employees that are equally as good; also the membership has a long-term capital plan and goals for course and club house improvements, and the continued goal and recent success of bringing it's finances in order..and the members continue to enjoy the benefits of the membership they have-- no doubt it would be nicer yet, if the Union would come to terms but that is not in their control. What's on the other side, displaced employees suffering and union leadership egaging a "win" at all cost agenda. I'd argue all day long that they "win" in just signing the contract on the Club's terms--their members return to above market wages and benefits, and the Union is still in the game-- but yet they hold out to avoid a little "egg" in their face?? so what! Instead they continue the scenario that if they can inflict enough financial harm to the Club, they can coerce the Club into agreeing to above market labor rates? does that make sense, is that good for society? Ultimately that's why your cost/benefit analysis will be interesting to see--and why I'm hoping for numbers specific to the dispute...(not the general numbers and inferences you've written before). It'll be interesting to see your projections for future costs to the club to "fight" and what you know to be the cost savings already obtained in hiring the current workers vs what the displaced workers costs.... Also, if from a balanced approach, you can share the current status of the displaced workers (the wages and benefits they've foregone) and the costs of the Union to continue to fight as well-- it could be eye opening for "blind" followers on either side.
You want a cost/benefit analysis...really?
Take a look at the value of your CCC membership...it's $12,500.
How about you and the geniuses tell the members how you get their membership value back to a respectable level so people stop "walking away" from their memberships.
JP, You belong to a prestigious club...
JP, This club is suffering because it is in a disagreement with workers
JP, Why in the he'll do you worry about what the workers make as long as you continue to have a great club?
JP, are your at angry that you think someone making a decent wage will hurt the value of your club " just to make a point"?
Stop with the comparable stuff...if I am the Marketing Manager at CCC I want members and more importantly perspective members to think that "WE" are the club to join, not the club that is "just like everybody else".
I AM AMAZED THAT SOMEONE WHO OBVIOUSLY WAS SUCCESSUL ENOUGH TO MAKE THE MONEY THAT IT TAKES TO JOIN A CLUB LIKE CCC HAS ABSOLUTELY NO VISION AS TO THE GREATER GOOD OF CCC.
JP, at some point you need to realize the glass is half full!
History will show that the CCC lockout was ill conceived and ill managed, and cost much more than a disciplined negotiation and settlement, particularly after the decertification attempt failed.
The monthly cost of lawyers and lost business alone continue to greatly exceed the cost to settle with the Union - and in fact is greater than the cost of settling and giving the all employees the health care benefits sought by the union with no end in sight.
The Union's response to the lockout is standard practice that should have been expected by CCC and no more coercive than the lockout in fact it has turned out to be a more reserved response than how most unions would respond to a lockout. Both sides are simply using the tools available to them, coercive as they may seem to the other side.
Based upon the last survey data provided by the Club, the Union continues to be asking for "within market" healthcare and total compensation, not "above market" remembering that the market is a range defined by the private clubs in the North and East Bay.
It is absolutely within the members control to bring peace and long term financial stability to CCC by instructing their negotiating team to negotiate in good faith and in earnest. CCC started this fight and is in total control of ending it.
Punching someone in the nose (the lockout)and crying foul when they punch back (the picket line) is unbecoming of CCC management, members or supporters.
Larry-- the Club has negotiated...they just see it differently. The Union benefits in soliciting support in distributing propoganda, for blind union follower's it would help to understand the details of the dispute which is not being shared by the Union or it's vocal supporters--except to the extent that benefits their cause-- show us the costs are greater over the long term.... Market rates are those that have been achieved already-- which may be even lower than the Club is offering the displaced employees...Larry is the club's offer above the mean/median in total comp? What type of labor environment are we in??? All clubs if -not already- will be engaged in cost reductions including their labor costs... they have to! The lock-out was necessary given an impasse and with no lockout the Club would have had to continue paying ridiculous labor rates and benefits under the old contract until an agreement...not consistent with long-term financial performance. Tools? Castlewood puts what it feels is it's best offer on the table or else is willing to explore other options for it's long term financial goals, Union refuses last offer-- contract is expired. Castlewood can not afford the old contract so locks out, but still willing to bring workers back at above average comp. Union says no, we'll make you PAY (NO PEACE!)for offering us above average comp.... What??? Tools? If the Union and the displaced workers were being treated unfairly, there would be no need for them to be walking and chanting.. they'd be working somewhere else making more money and with better benefits. Who's doing the punching?? cmon-- it's one sided. What more can the club do? go back to negotiating...they already have and left a great offer on the table. If you don't like it, go away--Union coercion is not good for society nor the economy-- when the goal is something other than a fair days work for a fair days pay--and that's what's being offered in this case. Why doesn't the Union let the workers vote on "not" on whether to decertify, but just whether or not they wish to return to work???
Malcomb/Lookie- get a clue. So long as you continue with irrelevent conversations, spread bad data- that leads you to draw incorrect inferences-- no one will take you serious.
Nothing better than a buffoon who likes to hear (and see himself speak).
Wake up...it's not 1975. You have to stop with the 1000 words of bullshit and realize we are all people with reason...at least I think we are.
You have NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW CONCEPTS TO THIS BLOG IN WEEKS.
We get it. You have drawn your line in the sand....yet you espouse the value proposition of "the offer" for which you haven't a clue to understand.
There in lies the problem, you have no vision as to the future of your club!
I am just now realizing that you may be the Al Davis of Castlewood...RIP!
Leave the decisions to those who understand the economy of 2011
Here's what we can learn from history (and I'll make this easy so Malcolm/Lookie MIGHT understand), almost two years now since the lockout, longer if you start at the beginning of negotiations...what's on the ground?
Castlewood has a full staff of equally competent and likeable employees that have displaced Union workers at a much more effective costs that will help dramatically with long-term financial performance.
And, as described in recent articles Ms Hedge and Ms. Norr (both Union reps) are quoted as saying the displaced workers are "suffering quite a bit" and "many are able to find only part-time work".
The ONLY thing in the balance, is the Union and you Union blind followers can't figure it out-- and still choose to opt for strong-arm tactics instead of facing what's right in front of you and doing the right thing. The Club negotiated right! and Union leaders need to put those people back to work in jobs comparable to the ones they left both in comp and benefits- you owe them that. All the union propoganda (nonsense) you promote and contiue to distribute is on their backs.... yet Larry, Malcolm/Lookie can't even talk about them and tell us how there doing...baffoons even understand that Malcolm- reasonable??--stop talking nonsense and start THINKING.
Thanks for another 300 words of "the same old thing"
you keep telling us what the employees are getting (or asking for)
Let me take another tact at asking questions for which you can not answer:
WHAT IS CCC LOSING DURING THIS LOCKOUT:
> Weddings...some folks call that revenue
> Golf Tournaments - Raiders, A's and St.Mary's (ouch), again revenue lost
> Current Members leaving...approximately 27 (revenue)
> Potential Members...you figure that one out!
> Overall Member Value - $12,500 (really, that's what I get?)
JP, Be proud of your management...they are willing to drive the value into the ground, just to make a point...however, someone should apologize to the members who paid over $50K less than 10 years ago for a membership that is at $12,500 today.
You're doing a helluva job Brownie"
JB, something tells me that your last name may be Brown!
Malcolm you bring disgrace to your cause--You can't make a case for a dispute on pay and benefits evidenced by the fact the club has hired new employees, and displaced workers are struggling and for two years!!--time has told that tale pal--- why can't you see??
SO you want to disrupt peoples weddings, charitable events, golf tournaments, walk onto elementary school campus's chant and walk...is that what you are saying? hit them where it hurts? yes that'll work it makes sense, helluva a job Malcolm/Lookie now that's a person with REASON. If we can't prove that the workers deserve what the Union asks for, then we'll bully them--we'll make them pay!! After all we know better than them what it takes to run their business!!
I just hope you invite all 60 of them to your home for Christmas and try to explain what you've written on this thread- let's see what would you say to them, we've got them right were we want them-they have risk, they've lost revenue and value on their investment (that's right a country club membership is an investment now)..no worries you'll be working soon with all the pay/benefits you want....oh WAIT, but if we are really successful, then they won't be able to pay you???? ......:)
Castlewood friends of Malcomb/Lookie (IF any), please inform this blind follower as to what the environment is really like at the Club.....and relieve him of his strain to be relevant.
Your new moniker is Brownie,
I am going to give you the fact that the club has hired interim workers and at a much lower rate than the previous group.
That is given...well done!
Here is my question...how do you get your club out of the financial and PR "rut" it currently in with the Union?
You haven't solved the problem, you have put a band aid on a deep laceration...and said, "yep, it looks like the blood has stopped"!
Are you really going to allow 60 workers to drive your Club into the ground? Check that...are you going to "continue" to allow 60 workers to drive your value into the ground?
My original post was to get a true cost for the exposure of CCC members if the lock out is proven to be unlawful.
Brownie, you haven't a clue as to how to solve the problem, AND your anger toward the "union employees" is tragic.
On behalf of the 27 members who have decided it is better to walk away from CCC rather than pay $750 per month to stay (and for the others on the list to sell), I say thanks Brownie!
You are a pillar of the CCC establishment!
Well I was hoping to hear a finanacial specifics case from Larry --your mentor Malcolm...? ;)instead it appears he's dis-engaged with no specifics. And all that's left is Malcolm/Lookie spouting irrelevant and erroneous Golf Club membership value propaganda to keep up the hopes of those poor workers. My gift to you Malcolm- all private clubs in our area are on "floating" initiation fees (I'll let you figure how that works).....and because of the "house" take are worth less the moment you join (regardless of when you join)-- so golf memberships are NOT an investment--THINK!! BUT ask Larry and your Castlewood friends which Club has sold the most memberships the past two years...;) and ask yourself how could that be? could it be that costs are back in-line?? uhm?? THINK!! We are talking labor dispute (right level of comp/benefits for the job) and you espouse to speak of a weak economies effect on membership values-- THINK!! and make-up facts to support your argument-- my kids don't even do that!! "Blackhawk memberships are going for $30,000" did you even check their web-site?? did you do any real deep comparisons of club value and analysis on the industry? THINK!! so more poor analysis and bad information from Malcolm/Lookie to keep alive what was ill concieved comp/benefit negotiation of a poorly led Union--- I will say though you've contributed NOTHING to further the focus of what should be your cause-- the displaced workers!! your responses throughout this thread have been "entertaining"....For a good laugh read Malcolm/Lookie replies..... I'm outta here....Merry Christmas my friend! and please take care of the 60 displaced workers.
Stop it! You are starting to scare me...don't you see you are typing in tongues.
I don't need websites, I have family members at Blackhawk...that is the reality that you don't understand...On paper you are 100% correct in your position.
The problem is that in 2011 (not the Reagan Administration) you have to think like today.
I will say it again.
POST A POSITION THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR CLUB (and the union).
I am assuming you went to college, but based on on 850 words of nonsense, your dad probably handed you the keys To his company and said..."keep it going Brownie".
I am sure you are , making him proud...
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Obama's Executive Order on Gun Control
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 776 views
L.A. court decision has San Ramon ties with national implications
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 524 views
Colleges You Ought to Know
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 432 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2016 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.