Originally posted by Xtrozero
Sorry Johnny, but did you miss the point that they were making too much to begin with and EVERYONE working at these plants were part of the UAW, even
the # bowel cleaners.
A unionised workplace is a unionised workplace. Would you suggest that some workers are not entitled to a collective agreement and others are? And,
not having read the contract, I'm willing to bet that the wording goes more to the point that if the line is shut down, a production worker can be
sent to mow the lawn or clean toilets rather than pick up the crossword. I should think that would appeal to you.
I think unions are good in the right condition, but what does a union do after they stabilized the wage, provided good benefits, and
established a work day and working conditions good for both the worker and the company? Well Johnny, they just keep going, don't they. An elected
Union official need to get elected again, there needs a reason for paying union dues etc. etc…
The mutually negotiated and agreed-upon
contract requires constant policing. New stewards are trained, workers are educated and
represented...they are busy people. The next contract is negotiated...and new locals are organised. And if the rank and file can't find a reason to
support their union, they can also vote to re-certify. Now I'm not going to die on a hill defending the UAW, after all, the CAW split from them for a
reason, but much of this discussion concerns labour in general. Point remains, the GMs, etc, went down because of management decisions, not the
How in the hell would keeping 12,000 workings on full pay cheaper then laying them off?
Donno...management's decision, not mine. Talk to the bean counters.
Let's not forget all of the spin-off benefits of a well-paid workforce and the money injected into both the local economy and the tax base. I'm sure
the regional retail/commercial sectors had no problem with a GM worker coming into their establishments to spend a little dough. The only thing that
made this unsustainable was the loss of a consumer base because other manufacturing sectors went overseas so that Wall Street had more cream to skim.
Don't blame your neighbour...blame them!
Originally posted by hinky
You get some foreign competition, first from Japan shipping cars in. Then the jap bastards actually build a plant in the USA. Nonunion workers willing
to work for less pay and benefits. They prosper and bring in even more cars. Then other countries get involved, with these now being built in America.
Yes, and those 'jap bastards' are paying wages commensurate with UAW wages in order to keep their companies from organising. They also look for
input from the guy on the line, to make him/her part of the team. UAW set the bar. I'd be more concerned about why North American lawmakers allow the
Asians to set quotas that don't allow for reciprocal auto trade. But that would require writing a letter to government with all facts in hand rather
than spouting off on a website armed with a set of opinions that don't hold a lot of water
The UAW answer; we want more in wages and earlier retirement, that will solve the industry's problem.
Take a tour of a line...that
process breaks people. Early retirement is based upon...what? 30 and out? Workers pay into pensions, calculated on that basis. What's your
It took you stupid UAW workers...
Did I say I was UAW? Sorry Sparky, I'm Steel. Stupid is making assumptions and resorting to name-calling on that basis.
And you're blaming first line management, get real...
It's not your neighbour with a good unionised gig that sank your economy, it's management and Wall Street. You try getting real.