Unions may be apart of the past but it the best there is for now. Come up with something better and I will be for it.
?
Not sure what you mean there.
Do you mean like the other auto companies that doesn't hire union workers and are profitable or do you mean the other 90% of the American work force who aren't treated like slaves despite not having union representation?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Check the fourth paragraph down. Unions have raised wages in non union plants. Now look at one of the biggest companys in what 20 states. They fire people for even joking about a union. I will say I shop non union Aldis. The difference is the people at A's voted the union down because the company treats them well. The other company fires people fires for even thinking about it. So keep shopping at Walmart because we can't let things like the law or peoples rights keep us from lower prices.
By the way I have caught shit for even slighting the name of all might Walmart before. People in my family shop there. I just keep it to myself. I just chose not to and it isn't even all about the unions. And just people do the same for me and let it lay.
The insanity of the whole thing is. . . . they would have NO problems filling those positions at $15 an hour. People will be happy taking those jobs. And that is what the market will bear. Hondas will be priced at a fair price as the labor that built it was bought at a fair price. Insert unions, and things get artificialy increased. Both wages and what the consumer will pay for the car. Why do we need to mess with stuff? If people are happy working at that rate. . . why change it? Don't people see that increasing wages simply increases the cost of goods that gets passed on to consumers? In what way is that good? Are you really any better off making more money if everything costs more anyway?
It's like the unions are getting together and saying "Ok, boys! We've taken two down, let's go after the other two now!!" They've sucked the big three dry and they are on the verge of dying. So now, they have to move on to the other two. I mean really. When will they stop?
Cakedaddy wrote: I mean really. When will they stop?
I think when the need is there. Just like they were formed when the need arrives. Doesn't anyone think it is time to get rid of the money sucking execs. They can be smart and do deserve money for thier troubles but what has been going on here the last few years with pay should turn peoples stomachs.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Something is already being done about the execs. Stockholders are selling off their shares, the stock is plumetting and the company's are going down the tubes. That's how you get rid of execs.
Unfortunately the federal government is determined to bail them out and save the execs. Bah.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
UAW pay rates affect the costs of cars much, much more than executive salaries do.
Do I think golden parachutes for failure is a good thing? No. But really, the entire issue is the high cost of inferior cars that no one wants to buy, and that is it. Cutting executive salaries down to minimum wage would make little difference to the cost of the cars, except that now no one with the ability to run a car company will want to run the company for shitty pay, and the entire operation would be shut down in about 45 days and then NO ONE will have a job.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
So keep shopping at Walmart because we can't let things like the law or peoples rights keep us from lower prices.
There are 5 general types of people that work at walmart. Mentally/physically challenged, retired old people serving as greeters, young kids, people looking for some extra cash, and those that are too stupid or lazy to get a job anywhere else.
It is the perfect setup. None of those above groups deserve more then the 8-9 an hour they are paid. People get paid what they are worth and customers get good deals.
Doesn't anyone think it is time to get rid of the money sucking execs.
I am all for getting rid of those execs who preform poorly but I am not willing to throw them out into the street for failure when they don't have any say or control over their biggest cost which is labor. If it was Honda execs asking for money and still getting big bonuses I would be pissed because they are running the company poorly and getting rewarded for it. The execs at the Big 3 don't have that control. Hell their doing a bang up job considering what they have to deal with.
Get rid of all the poorly performing money sucking execs at GM, just make sure you get rid of all the poorly performing money sucking line workers first.
I also don't have an issue with execs making crazy cash because as other have said they keep the company running and not everyone can do their jobs. With the people working the line everyone can do their jobs so their pay should reflect accordingly and be lower then others. Their are 6 billion people in the world and when all 6 billion can do a job the pay level should be low.
Cakedaddy wrote: I mean really. When will they stop?
I think when the need is there. Just like they were formed when the need arrives.
That's so wrong. They won't go away any more than the feminist groups or the environmental groups or the NAACP. They won't go away because they've transitioned from being a cause to being a business. When the majority of their complaints are addressed they can either say, "Job well done. Time to scale back our operation". Or they can manufacture the next big crisis they have to address in order not to have the money or power erode. That's what they've done every time. There are few advocates leading of these organizations any more. They're lead by power hungry extortionists.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Yeah, I can see unions voluntarily declaring the job done and disbanding about as quickly as I can see federal agencies doing the same.
It'll never happen. Governments, special interest groups, unions, religions, these things only ever go away if they are forced to do so. They never give up power willingly. Especially when they've gotten corrupt (which they all inevitably do).
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Alexander Hamilton is rolling over in his grave right now. I imagine Jefferson doing the same.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Cakedaddy wrote: I mean really. When will they stop?
I think when the need is there. Just like they were formed when the need arrives.
That's so wrong. They won't go away any more than the feminist groups or the environmental groups or the NAACP. They won't go away because they've transitioned from being a cause to being a business. When the majority of their complaints are addressed they can either say, "Job well done. Time to scale back our operation". Or they can manufacture the next big crisis they have to address in order not to have the money or power erode. That's what they've done every time. There are few advocates leading of these organizations any more. They're lead by power hungry extortionists.
Well for one I never said they would go away on there own. Alot of unions are getting weaker and having to merge. My wife has been in 3 different unions in as many years. Right now she is a steel worker. Funny she works at a glass company.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Bush fucked up when he said he would make TARP funds available BEFORE the Senate even voted, so the UAW/Democrats knew that he would cave, and didn't bother negotiating more.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
Overall, I think the government, on behalf of taxpayers, should play it's strong hand. It KNOWS that there is no other option for these companies for funding other than the government. They should demand significant cuts from everyone involved, force a bankruptcy to allow for easier reorganization, but publicly state that they will back/endorse warranties/service from the companies.
TheCatt wrote:Bush fucked up when he said he would make TARP funds available BEFORE the Senate even voted, so the UAW/Democrats knew that he would cave, and didn't bother negotiating more.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
I agree with your assessment. I think bankruptcy is the way to go. The unions REALLY don't want that. My understanding (and tell me if I'm wrong on this) is that the bankruptcy judge would be the final arbiter on the union contact if they had to renegotiate. The judge could effectively side with the company and tell the unions, "No, they aren't going to do that and no, you can't strike. Call for a vote on a strike and you're in contempt."
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
The automakers are gearing down for a 30-day shutdown in order to save money, but I heard the union workers still get 95% of their pay during that time.
That's a good fucking contract.
It's almost like they have an incentive to shut down their plants by any means necessary.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt wrote:Bush fucked up when he said he would make TARP funds available BEFORE the Senate even voted, so the UAW/Democrats knew that he would cave, and didn't bother negotiating more.
Bush has since realized he fucked up, and is now sounding alarms bells such as "orderly bankruptcy" in order to regain the negotiating strength.
Bush won't allow a bankruptcy. Or might allow Chrysler, but not GM.
I agree with your assessment. I think bankruptcy is the way to go. The unions REALLY don't want that. My understanding (and tell me if I'm wrong on this) is that the bankruptcy judge would be the final arbiter on the union contact if they had to renegotiate. The judge could effectively side with the company and tell the unions, "No, they aren't going to do that and no, you can't strike. Call for a vote on a strike and you're in contempt."
Basically, in bankruptcy, any obligation (contracts, debts, etc) can be invalidated. So yes, the judge would be able to completely nullify the UAW contracts, or modify them.
As for mgmt, GM mgmt clearly needs to go as well. They had losses even in the past 3 years when the economy was soaring. They have no competence. I have no idea how they've even stayed around this long.
GM, Chrysler Said to Be Poised for U.S. Loans to Get Into March
By John Hughes and Robert Schmidt
Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would get U.S. loans to stay afloat until March under a Bush administration rescue plan that may be unveiled as soon as today, people familiar with the talks said.
The government could take back the money should the automakers not comply with federal restrictions as a condition of receiving the funds, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. The plan isn’t final and may change, the people said.
The aid is intended to help GM, the largest U.S. automaker, and No. 3 Chrysler avoid collapse because they may run out of operating funds by early next year. GM and Chrysler have said they need $14 billion to stay in business through March and are temporarily idling plants to trim expenses.
“I’m worried about a disorderly bankruptcy and what it would do to the psychology of the markets,” President George W. Bush said yesterday during a forum at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Bush said he doesn’t want to “dump a major catastrophe” on his successor, Barack Obama. Still, he added, he also is “worried about putting good money after bad.”
The Treasury Department may lend to the automakers through their credit arms, GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial, to avoid having other industrial companies line up for access to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, the people said.
Using TARP
“The idea of TARP is to help with troubled assets, so Treasury can do it this way, and it already has permission to do it,” said Ed Fredericks, a professor at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business in Malibu, California. “This is one way that Washington can do it without, possibly, having to deal with congressional oversight or at least limited additional oversight.”
Greg Martin, a spokesman for Detroit-based GM, and Chrysler spokeswoman Shawn Morgan declined to comment. Ford Motor Co., the second-biggest U.S. automaker, isn’t seeking emergency aid.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an interview, “We’re not going to discuss any of the details, and especially since decisions haven’t been made.”
The negotiations with the Treasury Department have involved the three U.S. automakers and each of their finance arms, one of the people said. The talks have been difficult in part because Treasury’s expertise is in banks, not manufacturers, the person said.
While the option of placing Chrysler and GM into a prearranged bankruptcy has been considered, the administration decided that such a move would put Ford at a competitive disadvantage, the person said.
GM is reeling from almost $73 billion in losses since 2004 and a 22 percent slump in U.S. sales this year, while Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler’s drop is 28 percent.
GM reported having $16.2 billion in cash as of Sept. 30 and needs at least $11 billion to pay monthly bills. Chrysler ended last quarter with $6.1 billion and needs at least $3 billion to operate, Chief Executive Officer Robert Nardelli told Congress on Nov. 18.
