Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Michael Moore: Happy F*n' Labor Day

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Hell just froze over, ypu and I actually agree on something. Yup, the UAW is way past its time and far more to blame for the failure of American car companies than anything else. Unions were necessary at one point in time, now they are just money making machines for a select corrupt few.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by whatukno
 


Hell just froze over, ypu and I actually agree on something. Yup, the UAW is way past its time and far more to blame for the failure of American car companies than anything else. Unions were necessary at one point in time, now they are just money making machines for a select corrupt few.


Nonsense!
Rough figures for the cost of labour on a North American-built car come in at about 10%. I hardly think that you can blame the failure of the auto companies on whatever portion of that figure you would cite as excess. You are better off blaming it upon the other manufacturing jobs that were shipped overseas by Corporate America, thus lessening the ability of the middle class to buy a new car.

Just another case of blaming the victim. And as a former chief steward, I will attest to the fact that management will try to screw the worker at any juncture. A union is the only way to push back. As a matter of fact, having the competition unionised is the best motivation for any employer to treat his workforce well.


Lug

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Rough figures for the cost of labour on a North American-built car come in at about 10%.


As a Canadian, does it tick you off that you're still paying 60 cents on the dollar for Big Three cars built in Canada? That standard was set long ago because the Canadian dollar used to be worth that compared to USD. That's changed for a while now since CDN has been at or close to parity' for years. That's a 40% mark-up making the 10% labor costs seem like chump change.

I'm with you on the unions. They have been setting the standards for a century and the western world would never have created a consumer society without them.

That's right... if you can't afford all those shiny new toys every year, you shouldn't be buying them and if ordinary Americans don't buy, then I guess the companies go under.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Micheal Moore is a chump trying to make himself look like something he's not. He's a self made millionaire trying to tell the little people how they have been mistreated. Problem is, it's people like him that make money off the little people and he will not give any of his money back. He employs no one, unlike the bad people he constantly rants against.

As for his comment about wall street stealing the taxpayer's money, no; I recall Congress and the House had to just give that $800,000,000,000 away to "save" the economy and even force some banks into taking loans. This action had to be done in hours with no thought process of what was really being done, let alone debated by anyone. Funny how he has selective memory.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
Micheal Moore is a chump trying to make himself look like something he's not. He's a self made millionaire trying to tell the little people how they have been mistreated. Problem is, it's people like him that make money off the little people and he will not give any of his money back. He employs no one, unlike the bad people he constantly rants against.

As for his comment about wall street stealing the taxpayer's money, no; I recall Congress and the House had to just give that $800,000,000,000 away to "save" the economy and even force some banks into taking loans. This action had to be done in hours with no thought process of what was really being done, let alone debated by anyone. Funny how he has selective memory.


Ok, so now we know you don't like Moore. Anything to say of relevance to the thread?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Did we miss the point on that? Management arrived at the conclusion that it is cheaper to pay workers on lay -off than it is to have to let them all go and have to retrain a sizable number of people to fill the positions of those who go elsewhere. Yes it's in the UAW contract because they and management negotiated a solution that made the best business case.


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. At what point is there no profit, growth or sales.

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…

How in the hell would keeping 12,000 workings on full pay cheaper then laying them off? Well, off the top of my head I would suggest that the union established some really nasty workmen’s comp expenses that make this crazy thought actually right.

I agree that the company agrees to everything for it to happen, but I can think of many ways this can be agreed to where the company has little choice in the end. A tundra plant opened up in San Antonio Texas which does not have unions and 7000 people applied for 800 plant jobs that ranged from 15 to 25 dollars per hour. I do not see any limits on people who would be willing to work if they did lay off 12,000 and hired back 6,000 a year later.

Many of these big union states have seen stagnation for 35 plus years because no new company can afford to go there and all the older companies there are moving or dying out.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Ok, so now we know you don't like Moore. Anything to say of relevance to the thread?


Your take on the UAW is wrong.

They are a much big part of the auto industry failure than mismanagement of the managers trying to keep the workers down. Management agreed to extortionist wages and benefits while trying to sell crap cars to a public who didn't want them. In most companies, when the company has a bad year or two, everyone sucks in the belt and pulls for the company. Not the UAW, give me more wages with better benefits; I don't care about the company going broke.

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. The UAW answer; we want more in wages and earlier retirement, that will solve the industry's problem.

This is the auto history BEFORE 1980. It took you stupid UAW workers over 25 years to realize you were finally killing your golden goose. Two out of three of the USA's auto giants went bankrupt but were bailed out by my tax dollars. Thank you very much! Politics at it's finest in saving these companies. Companies with over inflated pensions and full benefits, not bad for a lug nut installer with 20 years on the line.

I've been a union guy for over 40 years and use nothing but union workers on my job sites for over 25 years. I compete with rat companies all the time, in bids. Some I win, some I lose. I know a few things.The UAW almost killed your industry. And you're blaming first line management, get real...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Unions care little about businesses, they see it a success story when they hold a company up for ransom and they get the guy who puts a bolt on a nut 50 bucks an hour and retirements that cripple any growth, and then wonder why the company can't compete against its competition or when everything gets outsourced overseas.....

It's because of Free Trade Agreements that they can't compete against the competition. All Free trade means is cheap labour and bigger profits.

Solution: Stop Free Trade. Buy American and then you may have American Jobs manufacturing those goods.

Anything we used to buy from America when I was a kid meant it was high quality and built to last. My Dad used to go on about 'American Steel'. Now it's all cheap and thin Chinese steel that rusts if you just look at it.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327

Solution: Stop Free Trade. Buy American and then you may have American Jobs manufacturing those goods.


We need quality and price too. I drive a Subaru because I really like it and if Ford made the Sti I would be driving a Ford. What kills the middle class is the cost of things. When you go back to the 50s and 60s and see how much percentage of a person’s wage paid for their house and car you will see that it was a much lower percentage than today.

I had a crap job when I was young and I complained to my dad I didn’t make crap and he asked me how much do I think the job was worth and I said, about what I make. That made me want to get a better job and better pay, and that better job was based on better skills.

I agree with limiting the free trade crap, because we do not want to compete against workers who might make 3 bucks a day overseas that allows a company to beat the competition always and still make huge profits.

Take Nike, the shoes are made by workers who cannot feed their family on the wage but Nike will still sell its shoes for 100 buck a pair, and if they had to sell for 25 bucks a pair to attack the competition they would do it and still see profit.



Anything we used to buy from America when I was a kid meant it was high quality and built to last. My Dad used to go on about 'American Steel'. Now it's all cheap and thin Chinese steel that rusts if you just look at it.


Japan killed American steel...they had government offset the cost of their steel for decades allowing them to sell below anything we could come up with until our steel factories went out of business, and something like a steel company, once it is gone it is gone for good.

edit on 8-9-2010 by Xtrozero because: grammer



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

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 workforce.


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 problem?


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.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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…


Further to this specific point, may I quote the following from the current Steelworkers' activities:

Steelworker Stewards in Action - This course is designed for new and experienced stewards. It will help participants better understand the role stewards play in not only grievance handling, but also in "building solidarity" in the unit, the local and the community. The course covers: - Structure of the union - Responsibilities of the steward - Where the steward fits - Grievance writing and handling - Investigating grievances - Communicating in the union and with management - Mobilizing in the workplace - Taking action beyond the workplace

Health & Safety Level II: Law - Participants must have completed "Health & Safety Level I". Building upon their existing base of legal knowledge, participants look closer at how occupational health and safety laws and regulations can be used to help safeguard worker health. Also important is a review of the inadequacies of the actual legislation and enforcement. Participants will formulate strategies to overcome these inadequacies and to lobby for legislative and other solutions.


Not to mention issues of pay equity, employee harassment, etc.,etc. I am quite certain that Steel just one example of how Labour protects and maintains the interests of the workforce and promotes legislation that helps everyone.

I'm not gonna say that some Unions aren't bloated...but union busting would take us a great big step back into the 19th century.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Rough figures for the cost of labour on a North American-built car come in at about 10%.


I'd be interested in reading more about that figure, if you can post the source. What I am mostly curious about is, if the 10% estimate is based solely on the wages of those employed by the plant which assembles the car.

I'm betting it does not take into account the wages of those involved with the manufacturing of the materials used in the entire production process. What, also, must be considered are the labor costs in the steel production, the plastics production and the manufacture and assembly of the individual components, which the automakers purchase from others, rather than make themselves. Everything from the valve stems on the wheels and the rubber in the tires to the glass in the windows and glass mirrors.

edit on 11-9-2010 by WTFover because: I'm an idiot?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Rough figures for the cost of labour on a North American-built car come in at about 10%.

I'd be interested in reading more about that figure, if you can post the source. What I am mostly curious about is, if the 10% estimate is based solely on the wages of those employed by the plant which assembles the car.


This was off the top of my head...likely CAW, but here's one source:wiki.answers.com...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join