No wonder Michael Moore loves the UAW

[rsnoble-im-back]

im outta here, this thread is getting worse than a captive audience meeting at an organizing drive.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

and your right MS--there is no use fighting with ignorant assholes. You just have to keep pushing us into a corner hoping we'll go away. But eventually theres just gonna be too many of us with our backs up against the wall-and once again we'll be the nightmarish united force that you GOP freaks are so afaid of---and when this time comes you better have EVERY GODDAMN PENNY YOU HAVE spent on your protection-cause your gonna need it.

I'm not worried.

You're not a thorn in anyone's side.

I'm not in Bush's Cabinet.

Have a nice day.

 

[spongebob]

Incorrect. $2000 of every GM car's price goes to pensions. I read that in the WSJ about two weeks ago, and also came across it when talking to the owner of a Cadillac dealership a few weeks ago; I was testing the CTS-V. Great to drive, a rocket, but when I was talking price with the owner we got into a long discussion over this, and he's owned the dealership 30+ years, so he's been there for GMs ups and downs.

If you'd like I will find an authoritative source to confirm this pension statement for you. I am completely sure of it though. GM having pension problems is old news, I thought. How else would they pay for them?

Sure. But it is still true that absent unions, the prices of labor would drop, so would the price of cars.

I got really lucky a few years ago and can buy anything.
?

matt, a couple of quick questions. are you implying that the unions pension plans are what adds the $2000 to every GM?

id be willing to bet without looking at GM's dossier that the large majority of employees(im guessing 75% or more) are not union represented but salary positions.

and salary positions usually have more benefits, higher pay, and better pensions. that tells me that the $2000 is not attributable to unions.

not neccessarily, about the price of labor and cars dropping. an assumption that is all.

the industry i work in is probably 1/2 union and 1/2 not. the companies that are not union typically pay more and have better benefits.

but in comparison, being union doesnt make a difference on the bottom line. not from what ive seen.

so if you got lucky, maybe there are some people out there that may not be so lucky. id still rather have more of my nieghbors working than not, so they dont have to steal from me.

and remember matt, just like GM worker joe could have either woorked somewhere else, could have invested his own money instead of company pension, you to have an option. dont buy a GM car.

which i know you dont, so there! *sticks tongue out*

 

[spongebob]

I don't have a problem with unions per se; individuals are free to organize into groups, but their employer should be free to fire all of them without repercussions.



I love freedom. I am not that crazy about business. I want the market to determine someone's wage, not collectivization.

well like i said, i agree some of the unions activities are over reaching.

and not sure what you mean by not being able to fire someone. if on good grounds i have seen plenty of union people get fired from work. in fact rarely have i seen them win in arbitration.

just my opinion, but from what i have seen, if unions did not exist, the wages that i see in the petrochemicals industry would still reflect what we have today. the non-union companies actually pay more.

the jobs that truely are not that skillful are no longer getting the high wages in this industry. dont know about the auto industry though.

 

[Mr. dB]

just my opinion, but from what i have seen, if unions did not exist, the wages that i see in the petrochemicals industry would still reflect what we have today. the non-union companies actually pay more.

I'm not sure that's a valid comparison, because the non union shops are still competing with the union shops. The wages set by the union shops may exert some pressure on the job market in that industry.

 

[spongebob]

I'm not sure that's a valid comparison, because the non union shops are still competing with the union shops. The wages set by the union shops may exert some pressure on the job market in that industry.

yes, that is a valid theory.

but the industry does want highly qualified workers, and in order to obtain those people, the job needs offer something worth it. although it was probably the union that got the industry to a point where this is possible now.

whats funny about it is, unions often negotiate on average a 2.5 to 4 % annual raise in this industry. more often on the lower end. hell my company has successfully negotiated for us not to get a raise in 4 years. most people i know in other fields that unions do not exist in consistently get 3 to 4 % cost of living raises annually.

so this whole perception that the unions collective bargaining for wages is extortion is hogwash. all we are getting is what a majority of people get every year, a cost of living raise. often less and sometimes nothing at all.

i think people are reading too much into this whole idea of unions being some hardass towards thier employer, i would chaulk most of it up as big business propaganda.

i live near houston, and its surrounding areas, make up just about the largest concentration of petrochemical facilities in the world. alot of union plants. alot of them not. in actuallity, from what ive seen, the unions are getting weaker and weaker. alot of your big companies like BP, Valero, and others actually concentrate heavily on union busting techniques.

 

[BrothaBill]

I agree with skilled workers, the cost of turnover and retraining of workers is a very expensive cost to an employer. Good pay allows for a stable workforce making the company more efficient and thereby more profitable.

Collectivation is the right of workers to band together and exert more influence, makes logical sense. May not always workout, but every person wants to get paid more and a lone voice in the wilderness doesnt get you very far.
And its the workers that control the means of distribution