That was supposed to be "an". Sorry, but typos happen.
And that comment wasn't directed at you, but at the theoretical idiot you had described. For the record I do no consider you an idiot. Just ... misguided.
Will there be a car bailout before bankruptcy?
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
And I don't like being patronized by dumb fucks who think that "book learning" means "ignorant of the world." I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder, but you clearly tell yourself that to compensate for something. Hate to burst your bubble, but it's just not true.unkbill wrote:Maybe I just don't like to be patronized by people that think they are fucking smart. So now you can win the arguement by calling me a troll that is disruptive because I don't agree with you. Bite me.
So go have a beer with your working man buddies. Console yourselves with the notion that it's all the fault of THE RICH, and not the "working man" extorting so much out of the companies that they can't make a profit. Tell yourselves how things would work out so much better if Uncle Sugar would just steal some dough from everybody else in the country (who obviously are not "working men," because otherwise they'd be UAW members). Be sure to remind yourselves that you're helpless victims of The Man, who don't have the brains (or balls) to get a job that pays you what you're worth, not without Joey the Hammer standing behind you getting his piece of the action.
Maybe if you could read a fucking book, you'd know that you and your bailout-begging working-man friends are just one more gang pushing the bobsled on down the road to Hell.
When shopping for something you want, do you not look for the cheapest price? Or do you buy the more expensive one because of principle, or they deserve it, or whatever?
Why must the big three pay more than the market will bear? There are TONS of people that would do the same job for less money. But the big three can't hire them. There are LOTS of people at Wal-Mart that would KILL for a big three job at half the pay that the current big three workers are getting. But no. Let's not hire them. Let's keep the price of that product artificialy high.
You get the luxury of shopping around for the labor you want to hire, and for what you want to pay. The big three do not. They have to hire who they are told to, and pay what they are told to. For no other reasons than being strong armed by thugs.
You act like unions aren't violent and there are no broken noses. Have you ever tried to cross a union line? Ya. Pleasant group of people there. There's nothing violent about unions. Nothing at all. It's all hugs and hand shakes in that crowd.
Why must the big three pay more than the market will bear? There are TONS of people that would do the same job for less money. But the big three can't hire them. There are LOTS of people at Wal-Mart that would KILL for a big three job at half the pay that the current big three workers are getting. But no. Let's not hire them. Let's keep the price of that product artificialy high.
You get the luxury of shopping around for the labor you want to hire, and for what you want to pay. The big three do not. They have to hire who they are told to, and pay what they are told to. For no other reasons than being strong armed by thugs.
You act like unions aren't violent and there are no broken noses. Have you ever tried to cross a union line? Ya. Pleasant group of people there. There's nothing violent about unions. Nothing at all. It's all hugs and hand shakes in that crowd.
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
Chip on my shoulder. What about yours. GM and the rest never made a profit. Do they pay thier execs millions of dollars. Why do the execs sign the contracts if they don't think they can make money. Oh I forgot about the broken nosed union official holdong a hammer over the other hand threating to break it if they don't sign. Did they ask the execs to give up half thier pay? Sure most of the high up said they would work for a dollars. Til the company becomes profitable again and they collect thier back pay. Are they going to pay the blue collar worker back his money? NOthibodeaux wrote:And I don't like being patronized by dumb fucks who think that "book learning" means "ignorant of the world." I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder, but you clearly tell yourself that to compensate for something. Hate to burst your bubble, but it's just not true.
So go have a beer with your working man buddies. Console yourselves with the notion that it's all the fault of THE RICH, and not the "working man" extorting so much out of the companies that they can't make a profit. Tell yourselves how things would work out so much better if Uncle Sugar would just steal some dough from everybody else in the country (who obviously are not "working men," because otherwise they'd be UAW members). Be sure to remind yourselves that you're helpless victims of The Man, who don't have the brains (or balls) to get a job that pays you what you're worth, not without Joey the Hammer standing behind you getting his piece of the action.
Maybe if you could read a fucking book, you'd know that you and your bailout-begging working-man friends are just one more gang pushing the bobsled on down the road to Hell.
So ya I have a chip on my shoulder abut high payed execs making so much off the sweat of the working man. If there wasn't someone to force him back he would have people working for free.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Thats fine lower the pay scale for joe worker. I expect the overpaid execs to give up half their pay also.Cakedaddy wrote:Why must the big three pay more than the market will bear? There are TONS of people that would do the same job for less money. But the big three can't hire them. There are LOTS of people at Wal-Mart that would KILL for a big three job at half the pay that the current big three workers are getting. But no. Let's not hire them. Let's keep the price of that product artificialy high.
As for paying more yes I do because I refuse to shop at Walmart. That is a separate arguement you can pick on later. So yes I do pay higher prices at times. I also don't shop at Home Depot or Furniture Row.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Sorry for saying bite me.TPRJones wrote:That was supposed to be "an". Sorry, but typos happen.
And that comment wasn't directed at you, but at the theoretical idiot you had described. For the record I do no consider you an idiot. Just ... misguided.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
I have an idea!! Lets just get rid of the executives that run the company! Pay them nothing! Cut off the hand that's feeding the working man!!! See how long the working man has a job then. . . .
Maybe the execs make so much money, because they keep so many people working. How many people does GM employ? Divide that into what the execs make. I bet it would be cheaper for the employess to pay the execs their crazy salaries out of their own pockets, than what they pay in union dues every year. . .
Exec makes say $10,000,000. GM employs. . . 25,000 (I have a feeling this is a very low estimate) people. That's $400 a year that the workers would pay the exec to have a job. . . they pay more than that to the unions! (I made those numbers up because I couldn't find real ones. But you can see how little it costs to pay the execs anyway)
Anyone could do the working man's job. . . only a few can do the exec's job.
And what kind of naive do you have to be to think there's no strong arming going on at the bargining table? You think the GM execs want to sign those contracts? They can choose not to sign them, and then everyone walks off their jobs, then GM doesn't make anything, and isn't making money. Or, the execs sign the contracts and hope people want to buy their over priced, under qualitied cars. If the execs don't sign, then the union fucks with them. To me, that's extortion. Unk makes it sound like the unions present good/fair contracts and the execs just want everyone to work for free. The execs KNOW they can get cheaper labor than they are getting from the unions. But they also know that the unions would beat the shit out of (litteraly. As in, with bats and other things) anyone that tries to cross the union lines. So, they can choose between no work being done, or paying too much for who the goons at the hall will allow into the building. Oh, and if you want a job at GM, you have to pay your protection money to the goons at the hall.
If you don't think that violence is a part of unions. . . . your crazy.
And please don't skip this question. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.
Edited By Cakedaddy on 1229279622
Maybe the execs make so much money, because they keep so many people working. How many people does GM employ? Divide that into what the execs make. I bet it would be cheaper for the employess to pay the execs their crazy salaries out of their own pockets, than what they pay in union dues every year. . .
Exec makes say $10,000,000. GM employs. . . 25,000 (I have a feeling this is a very low estimate) people. That's $400 a year that the workers would pay the exec to have a job. . . they pay more than that to the unions! (I made those numbers up because I couldn't find real ones. But you can see how little it costs to pay the execs anyway)
Anyone could do the working man's job. . . only a few can do the exec's job.
And what kind of naive do you have to be to think there's no strong arming going on at the bargining table? You think the GM execs want to sign those contracts? They can choose not to sign them, and then everyone walks off their jobs, then GM doesn't make anything, and isn't making money. Or, the execs sign the contracts and hope people want to buy their over priced, under qualitied cars. If the execs don't sign, then the union fucks with them. To me, that's extortion. Unk makes it sound like the unions present good/fair contracts and the execs just want everyone to work for free. The execs KNOW they can get cheaper labor than they are getting from the unions. But they also know that the unions would beat the shit out of (litteraly. As in, with bats and other things) anyone that tries to cross the union lines. So, they can choose between no work being done, or paying too much for who the goons at the hall will allow into the building. Oh, and if you want a job at GM, you have to pay your protection money to the goons at the hall.
If you don't think that violence is a part of unions. . . . your crazy.
If there wasn't someone to force him back he would have people working for free.
Then what's holding back the non-union automakers in the US from paying their people nothing?
And please don't skip this question. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.
Edited By Cakedaddy on 1229279622
From what I'm hearing, the unions are agreeing to pay cuts, but they aren't agreeing on giving an actual date for the these paycuts to actually happen.
These paycuts are starting to resemble those other mythical creatures "Hope" and "Change".
These paycuts are starting to resemble those other mythical creatures "Hope" and "Change".
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
A few years back, I would have gone with the executives keeping the company working argument. I'm not supporting unions, I'm just not supporting executives. These days it's a good ole boy club that rewards the 'rape and pillage' mentality that drives companies under with their obsessive quest for quick profit at the expense of longevity and vision. It's the leaders that keep longevity in their vision that deserve these ridiculous bonuses we hear about. In my limited experience I have yet to see that in any company, startup or otherwise. It's all about turning a quick buck. Corporate whores all of them.
As for unions, they served their purpose. Now they serve their own purpose of existence at the expense of the the people the supposedly represent. Forcing other members to picket for an unrelated strike just hurts the other workers who could be earning a full day's wage. The entitlement mentality in the workforce is a huge productivity suck that cost countless soft dollars in lost work. In my one time experience, if I was billing at $20/hour they paid $120 for me to find the right person to turn a wrench to replace a valve on a machine sitting idle for 2 days. Keep in mind I wasn't the only tech there.
As for unions, they served their purpose. Now they serve their own purpose of existence at the expense of the the people the supposedly represent. Forcing other members to picket for an unrelated strike just hurts the other workers who could be earning a full day's wage. The entitlement mentality in the workforce is a huge productivity suck that cost countless soft dollars in lost work. In my one time experience, if I was billing at $20/hour they paid $120 for me to find the right person to turn a wrench to replace a valve on a machine sitting idle for 2 days. Keep in mind I wasn't the only tech there.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
President Bush said Monday he might use money from the Treasury program to aid financial services companies in order to avoid the bankruptcy of U.S. automakers, but he would not provide a timeline.
In an interview with reporters on Air Force One en route to Afghanistan, Bush said that "an abrupt bankruptcy for the autos could be devastating for the economy."
Hmmm, so can we have a not-so-abrupt one?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Because the working man is so stuppid righht. Can't take care of himself. Home many execs walked away from bankrupt companys with millions of dollars in golden parachutes. Leaving the working man holding the bag. So explain to me why they deserve so much money.Cakedaddy wrote:I have an idea!! Lets just get rid of the executives that run the company! Pay them nothing! Cut off the hand that's feeding the working man!!! See how long the working man has a job then. . . .
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
The unions not being willing to sit down and renogotiate their contract so that a bailout can be passed is disgusting and shows their true colors.
For or against the bailout, anyone can see that unions do NOT have their members' interests as their highest priority. They should be at the table 24/7 trying to figure out a way to make the car companies profitable. Instead they're sitting on their asses doing nothing except trying to hold onto their sweet deal. If the autos do go bankrupt and it voids the union's contract the people who are going to get fucked the most are the retirees and/or those about to retire.
Doctor Chaos - My company is all about the long term and not the quick buck. So, it's not ALL companies and executives. Our CEO doesn't make millions. We have an ESOP in which the company puts 25% of our annual salary each year. In 6 years we get to walk away with 100% of that cash. We have massive annual bonuses (obviously affected by the company's profits).
Oh, and we don't have a union.
I know unions served a purpose back in the day, but they've become so rife with corruption that they've produced nothing but sloth, greed, and poor work habits.
A very large number of my family and friends are in the UAW (I am in Toledo...). I could tell you lots of stories about how the union has protected shitty employees and keeps people from working.
However, everything you need to know about unions can be summed up by my mom's company. She's an office manager for a company that provides parts to the big three. She is not in the union, nor does she negotiate with the union or have anything to do with their contracts. She does, however, work alongside all the union folks and is friends with them. She has worked at this place for 28 or so years and has been credited with single handedly keeping it afloat at various times.
Recently, the union there went on strike.
While driving into work, where she has to show up if she wants to keep her job/benefits and get paid, the striking union members would try to block her path, curse at her, call her names, throw things at her car, etc. Another office worker had her car damaged and there was at least one instance of violence. After the strike, the union members somehow go back to acting like they did before the strike. Like their behavior wasn't fucking insane.
Justify that.
Fuck unions for their corruption.
Fuck unions for protecting worthless employees.
Fuck unions for driving up our prices.
Fuck unions for limiting good employees.
Fuck unions for the bailout as they're a major part of why there is one.
Fuck unions for the "us against them" mentality they imprint on their members.
Oh, and a note on my mom's company: They are doing horrible because of the auto troubles in the U.S. Had the union not demanded ridiculous wages, their members would still be there working instead of being fired or forced into accepting buy out packages.
And FYI, I'm not on the side of these asshole executives who burn their companies for their own gain, but I certainly am not on the unions' side.
Edited By Leisher on 1229351987
For or against the bailout, anyone can see that unions do NOT have their members' interests as their highest priority. They should be at the table 24/7 trying to figure out a way to make the car companies profitable. Instead they're sitting on their asses doing nothing except trying to hold onto their sweet deal. If the autos do go bankrupt and it voids the union's contract the people who are going to get fucked the most are the retirees and/or those about to retire.
Doctor Chaos - My company is all about the long term and not the quick buck. So, it's not ALL companies and executives. Our CEO doesn't make millions. We have an ESOP in which the company puts 25% of our annual salary each year. In 6 years we get to walk away with 100% of that cash. We have massive annual bonuses (obviously affected by the company's profits).
Oh, and we don't have a union.
I know unions served a purpose back in the day, but they've become so rife with corruption that they've produced nothing but sloth, greed, and poor work habits.
A very large number of my family and friends are in the UAW (I am in Toledo...). I could tell you lots of stories about how the union has protected shitty employees and keeps people from working.
However, everything you need to know about unions can be summed up by my mom's company. She's an office manager for a company that provides parts to the big three. She is not in the union, nor does she negotiate with the union or have anything to do with their contracts. She does, however, work alongside all the union folks and is friends with them. She has worked at this place for 28 or so years and has been credited with single handedly keeping it afloat at various times.
Recently, the union there went on strike.
While driving into work, where she has to show up if she wants to keep her job/benefits and get paid, the striking union members would try to block her path, curse at her, call her names, throw things at her car, etc. Another office worker had her car damaged and there was at least one instance of violence. After the strike, the union members somehow go back to acting like they did before the strike. Like their behavior wasn't fucking insane.
Justify that.
Fuck unions for their corruption.
Fuck unions for protecting worthless employees.
Fuck unions for driving up our prices.
Fuck unions for limiting good employees.
Fuck unions for the bailout as they're a major part of why there is one.
Fuck unions for the "us against them" mentality they imprint on their members.
Oh, and a note on my mom's company: They are doing horrible because of the auto troubles in the U.S. Had the union not demanded ridiculous wages, their members would still be there working instead of being fired or forced into accepting buy out packages.
And FYI, I'm not on the side of these asshole executives who burn their companies for their own gain, but I certainly am not on the unions' side.
Edited By Leisher on 1229351987
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Executive compensation is an issue. The largest problem is the inbreeding of corporate boards, and lack of board independence. It really is like an old boys' club. These people allow outrageous pay, etc, because they know these people. They're the guys they see on vacation, at social events, and at Augusta National.
Executive compensation is also quite tricky. It's hard to say what the value of the CEO is, or how to align the interests of the CEO with those of the owners of the company (the shareholders). A lot of people smarter and more knowledgeable than I have tried to tackle the issue, but there's just not a good long term solution.
Executive compensation is also quite tricky. It's hard to say what the value of the CEO is, or how to align the interests of the CEO with those of the owners of the company (the shareholders). A lot of people smarter and more knowledgeable than I have tried to tackle the issue, but there's just not a good long term solution.
It's not me, it's someone else.
The number of good and valuable CEOs is probably quite close the number of good and valuable Union Representatives. You know statistically that some must exist, but it just seems so damn unlikely that you'll ever actually see one.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
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. Yes the entire company should be talking 24/7 to help save the industry.
I guess the part that bothers me is that no one seems to say fuck the execs what are they pitching in. From what I have read they have discussed pay cuts but when it turns around they want all there backpay and bonuses. They get a free pass because they went to school and are smart. Give me a break.
I guess the other thing I have learned is that I can't argue with the criminally sane.
I guess the part that bothers me is that no one seems to say fuck the execs what are they pitching in. From what I have read they have discussed pay cuts but when it turns around they want all there backpay and bonuses. They get a free pass because they went to school and are smart. Give me a break.
I guess the other thing I have learned is that I can't argue with the criminally sane.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
unkbill wrote:I guess the part that bothers me is that no one seems to say fuck the execs what are they pitching in. From what I have read they have discussed pay cuts but when it turns around they want all there backpay and bonuses. They get a free pass because they went to school and are smart. Give me a break.
I guess the other thing I have learned is that I can't argue with the criminally sane.
Now that President-elect Obama has suggested that General Motors and the rest of the Detroit Three may need to install new management
Yeah, losing your job isn't "pitching in."
It's not me, it's someone else.