I have argument with that at all.
My only point was that cost benefit analysis doesn't neccesarily save money. In fact, one could argue that it can actually waste money by justifying more expenditures.
I think that was the point I was trying to make in the beginning with not bottom line on a financial report.
Gotcha!
Swingman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Nothing odd there, that's how union jobs are usually handled. Airlines, railroads, post office, they all work that way.
John
Man... I am so out of touch with the rest of the world sometimes. I have b een self employed for over thirty years now and it never has occurred to me (except in a cigar smoke and whiskey induced pleasant dream) of being able to pick and choose my work or how hard I would like to work that week or m onth. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine being very well paid and then g etting to decide what I wanted to do and how hard I wanted to work.
I never worked for anyone that gave me a choice, either. I was paid a wage about 40+ years ago, then have worked for myself or on commission only for the rest of the time. I am amazed at the concept of 3 week plus vacations , 10 days paid sick/personal time a year, and all kinds of other things tha t go on in the workplace now as nearly a case of American Civil Rights.
When I started in the trades in the 70s, I worked for a very progressive gu y that let us have 1 week vacation (unheard of for trades people then)that was UNPAID. No sick days. He worked all of us like rented mules, and if w e didn't like it that was fine. You could always quit. Or get fired. His hourly pay was low, but we had a ton of overtime weekly, he paid time and a half, and his checks never bounced.
I could never in a million years imagine approaching that mean old hard cas e from Jasper, Texas to tell him I wanted to bid on the work I was interest ed in.
Gawd, I feel like a dinosaur.
Robert
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
OK, I think you're misunderstanding how this works. There's a set number of jobs (postal routes, whatever), that matches the number of workers. Guys bid on which one they want. The bidder with highest seniority wins. Typically, the new guy ends up with the least desirable job - worst hours, least overtime, grouchiest customers or whatever. Then they work that job every day until something changes (a new route is added, or something), then everyone bids again.
I can use my buddy at the railroad as an example. Last time they rearranged jobs and everyone had to rebid, he had two he bid on (he's in the middle of the seniority rank, so no point bidding on the best jobs). One was a day job that usually worked 8 hours, the other went on at 3am but usually got a couple hours overtime each day. A lot of guys wouldn't bid the 3am job, even tho it paid better, because of the hours. My buddy actually likes working nights, so he was pleased to win that job.
John
Could you define "bid" this context? Does it simply mean "choose"?
There's a list of jobs and you choose from what's left when it's your turn, based on your seniority rank, right?
Yep, and in a nutshell why we see such mediocre performance from entities where jobs are based on politics instead of market forces.
Yes, it seems that "choose" is a better term, here. If it were a "bid" one would say "I'll do that job for $xx,xxx per year.", or some such.
DerbyDad03 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Not exactly. There's a list of jobs, and everyone bids at the same time. Highest seniority guy bidding on a particular job wins it.
If you don't win the job you bid on, you stay in your current job, unless someone with higher seniority bid on it. If that happens you get a "roll", and you get to pick from the jobs held by lower seniority guys. That propagates down the chain until everyone is in a job.
It sounds like it could get messy, but in practice everyone knows their seniority, and which jobs different people like, so guys just bid the job they know they'll get. Pretty much the only thing that scrambles it up is when an older guy decides to move from a job with lots of overtime to one with fewer hours (because he doesn't need the money and wants to take it easy for the his few years). Then you have a high seniority guy bidding on what's usually a low seniority job, and a low seniority guy might end up in the primo job if he's the only one who took a chance bidding on it.
(note - I've never actually worked that sort of union job, so this is based on how I understand what my buddy at the railroad has explained)
John
I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know, to "bid" on something usually involves money.
"I won the auction because I bid higher than everyone else."
"I got the contract because I bid lower than everyone else."
I assume that these guys aren't paying the jobs or taking a lower salary to get them, so how is this a "bidding" process?
DerbyDad03 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
"Bid" is the word that's used. I assume by analogy with bidding on a contract to provide some service, but I don't know the background of it.
John
Bidding is tendering an offer for something,usually in an auction style format. The something could be anything, like a car, or a job, or a wife.
What the offer you are tendering could be money, years of service, or goats.
I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job, I big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
Jack wrote in news:mu8ran$80n$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
I don't have any of those things, but 200 gold bars for a Festool vacuum? I'll get one!
You'd have to offer a lot more than 3 goats for a daughter nowadays. Haven't you heard of inflation?
Puckdropper
But you haven't met the daughter in question--3 goats might be excessive.
That's for sure... some guys would want an entire herd of goats to take some daughters. ;~)
That always seemed strange to me, winning an auction. Are you really a winner when you agree to pay more for something than anyone else was willing to pay? ;~) Seems to me the seller is the winner.
I bid 4 in a game of Spades. ;~)
Certainly the seller is a winner but in any trade, there are (at least) two winners. Both want what they don't have more than what they do.
>
I understand the principal. But there should be a better term.
It is not unusual for an auction to have identical items, literally.
The first auction bidder "wins" with a bid of $400. The second auction bidder "wins" with a bid of $300.
Who was the winner? The second for paying less for the exact same thing or the first for paying more? It would seem that the first winner clearly paid $100 too much.
I realize that it is more like a race to the finish, who lasts the longest in the bidding. Really more so than paying more than anyone else was willing to pay, especially when common items are "won" for more than that what they could have been had for at a local store.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.