-
Here Is Your Weekly Missouri Labor Report: Your Voice Preserved! - 5 hours ago
-
Welcome The May 16, 2024 Orientation Class - 8 hours ago
-
Sunday Stats: Union Members PAY Increasing Faster Than Nonunion Workers - 2 days ago
-
Going To The Annie Malone Parade? Read This. - May 16, 2024
-
Aramark Run-Off Results - May 14, 2024
-
Union Meeting Tomorrow! - May 14, 2024
-
Memorial Saturday: Is GM Destroying A Win-Win For Business, Labor and Government? - May 12, 2024
-
Welcome To The May 9th Orientation Class! - May 10, 2024
-
Why Are We Making Up Units From The Strike? We Can Change! - May 10, 2024
-
This UAW Legend Died 54 Years Ago Today - May 9, 2024
How a CEO Screwed Your Family And His Business
The New York Times featured The Jack Welch effect: Why Income Inequaltiy began soaring in the U.S. four decades ago…
Was Welch’s approach good for corporate profits and bad for workers — or ultimately bad for the company, too? You lean toward the second answer, based on G.E.’s post-Welch struggles. Some other writers point out that many companies have thrived with Welch-like strategies. I’m left wondering whether Welchism is a zero-sum gain for shareholders or bad for everyone.
Welch transformed G.E. from an industrial company with a loyal employee base into a corporation that made much of its money from its finance division and had a much more transactional relationship with its workers. That served him well during his run as C.E.O., and G.E. did become the most valuable company in the world for a time.
But in the long run, that approach doomed G.E. to failure. The company underinvested in research and development, got hooked on buying other companies to fuel its growth, and its finance division was badly exposed when the financial crisis hit. Things began to unravel almost as soon as Welch retired, and G.E. announced last year it would break itself up.
(free graphic via clipartmag.com)