It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Volkswagen the UAW and the GOP surprise!

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I never thought of a situation that is so diabolical, the unions in our current system must give to the Dems to survive, this act means the Republicans must oppose them. This creates a infinite loop costing the people a lot more then money it has cost us the ability to have functional labor unions.

It's a fine example of divide and conquer!




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by AlaskanDad
 


You have to admit, it is job security alright. it's just not about supplying security to the individuals it's all supposed to be for in too many cases today, eh? The cycle you describe makes the future a very secure thing for those running the show though. Politicians and funding sources alike. Much like business from the other direction and cross purposes. Like you say and I have to agree with your take on it, it's like a big play where everyone is locked into their roles to replay the same tired scenes every night, endlessly.

One feeds and requires the action of the other...and neither even bother to stop and think of it that way, I'm sure.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Sometimes they are more open about it than others - take this story from yesterday.

Gov. Nikki Haley
"It's not something we want to see happen," she said after an appearance at an automotive conference in downtown. "We discourage any companies that have unions from wanting to come to South Carolina because we don't want to taint the water."

They would discourage free enterprise that associates with unions from moving in and creating jobs for their state's residents.

Why? They don't want political competition.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Greven
 



Why? They don't want political competition.


In your example there? I'd say you're absolutely right.

I'd also say Nikki Haley represents political corruption which thrives from the lack of competition. In ways, both 'sides' outright "own" some states for absolute power. Sometimes to the point that the opposite party doesn't even bother running candidates, and it's the case in both sides of it. Those states usually, in my experience, come to show the worst of the side controlling them without serious challenge or pressure to "stay honest".

Ugly all around, it is. Corruption is never anything but dark and ugly, IMO.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

AlaskanDad
I can now understand why the UAW does not belong in the South what I do not understand is why the South did not create their own Unions to cater to their needs and desires. But I suspect the reason may be it was easier to create hate with our current political system than it is to fix anything.


Well, the unions did nothing to help labor conditions in the South when they were born, but the [good] results of the unions in stopping the abuse of power by corporations did affect everyone, including those that did work in the few industries that were here.

By the time the auto industry looked this way for growth (especially the Japanese industries), labor laws were well established, the companies that came in treated their employees well, and did so precisely to remove incentive for union organizing. The newer companies continue that trend - with the single exception of the GM Spring Hill plant, and we see what the UAW did to keep that plant open and productive (one of the most expensive GM projects ever - shuttered for years and still working this day at minimal capacity). Too many good examples of non-union success, and the lone example of UAW failure, simply reinforces the general idea that union=bad.

Also, by the time the automotive industries moved here, the UAW, the Steelworkers union, and others had drifted so far away from their original purposes, that the 'hatred' of unions was established. And with the first industries established, and more looking our way, the trend is to keep the South as 'right-to-work' because most see it as the golden goose that brought the industries here and keep them coming here.

Another note to the OP - I also saw this thread as a repub-bashing pro-union posting when I first saw it, and I am pleasantly surprised to see logical discussion, and even some agreement, between the opposing posters. And I likewise agree that corruption has infiltrated both sides our political system, and agree the solution is not on either side, but somewhere in between.

I refrained from adding my flag to this thread...but will now do so to credit the discussion.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Greven
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Sometimes they are more open about it than others - take this story from yesterday.

Gov. Nikki Haley
"It's not something we want to see happen," she said after an appearance at an automotive conference in downtown. "We discourage any companies that have unions from wanting to come to South Carolina because we don't want to taint the water."

They would discourage free enterprise that associates with unions from moving in and creating jobs for their state's residents.

Why? They don't want political competition.


Well...that may be true...but the problem with the already-established unionized companies (and UAW in particular especially with the GM Spring Hill plant) is that the unions fight their company whenever they attempt to place a facility in a right-to-work state, and force the company to bring the union with them (in the pretense that that new facility will lead to less employment at their other unionized locations). Then, the unions will also fight to reserve some of the positions for employees at less-profitable plants, and write clauses that give preferential treatment to dislocated and unemployed people from the other locations. The result is less jobs available for the citizens of the state the new plant is built in.

So opposing unionized companies from locating down here can in effect result in MORE jobs for the state's residents simply because it attracts more of the non-union employers, that will fill all of their positions with locals, and not transplants.

In effect, the non-union companies are much better equipped and less restrained to offer all of their new jobs to the locals.

Its not all about political competition. Nikki Haley's statement may have been about that, but that statement is placed against the experience in the South that the unionized plants don't provide the locals the opportunities, but place the same drains on resources, so employment opportunity and profitability and return-on-investment is less. She didn't say that, but too many of her constituents heard EXACTLY that.
edit on 22-2-2014 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join