|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 29, 2008 22:21:22 GMT -6
We're under 500k in the UAW for the first time bince WWII. I guess if Roosevelt kept the UAW under 500k when Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Hdubya couldn't, notwithstanding his Ponzi Scheme implementation, he couldn't have been that bad of a guy. Emergency Fed powers used for the first time bince the Great Depression. Equal sized UAW memberships. See libs, W is matching your hero Roosevelt. You just can't realize his greatness because you are so blinded by the darkside. biz.yahoo.com/ap/080329/auto_workers.html
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 30, 2008 0:10:03 GMT -6
The union (lower case) folks had there proper time and mission. Too bad they didn't stop there. Instead, they all became a bunch of greedy, worthless, donut eating, Oprah watching, ass scratching union (lower case) weanies who, along with their illegal immigrant sidekicks, almost singlehandedly forced companies to implement pay cuts, layoffs, move overseas or go out of business altogether. The people have obviously payed attention....hence seven percent union (lower case) membership in the United States. Is it any wonder that those companies and institutions who still employ the ass scratchers (lower case)are the most inefficient in the Country? Government, Ford, GM, Teachers, every TV and electronics manufacturer, steel workers, etc. The unions (lower case) brought them all to their knees. Thank you Union (lower case) aholes!
|
|
|
Post by The Bluzmn on Mar 30, 2008 7:09:35 GMT -6
You can both suck my dick. Pretty much my entire family is UAW. My grandfather and my mother's uncle have their pictures hanging in the Waterloo Local 838 Union Hall and the annual Thanksgiving dinner is named after my mother's uncle and his wife (both deceased). This is not an intellectual argument for me - you just attacked my family.
Fuck you.
|
|
|
Post by scotthawk on Mar 30, 2008 15:36:04 GMT -6
Even though the union leaders have ALWAYS been corrupt, the union had its place back in the day. Now, it's just another way to waste your money sort of like flushing it down the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 30, 2008 17:30:46 GMT -6
You can both suck my thingy. Pretty much my entire family is UAW. My grandfather and my mother's uncle have their pictures hanging in the Waterloo Local 838 Union Hall and the annual Thanksgiving dinner is named after my mother's uncle and his wife (both deceased). This is not an intellectual argument for me - you just attacked my family. f**k you. Pissing off union (lower case) pussies and supporters of union (lower case ) pussies is a badge of honor to be worn by the 93% of Americans who have told unions (lower case) to kiss their asses. Nothing but a bunch of greedy, nose picking, gimme gimme gimme, company hostage taking, socialist (lower case) slugs. By the way, thanks for solving the mystery surrounding why Waterloo smells so bad.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Mar 30, 2008 19:39:52 GMT -6
Iowafan, as you know, we can get along despite our differing views. But come on, there is a difference between playful ribbing, and being an asshole. Don't make me kidnap your ass and take you to the gay union bar to set you straight!
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 30, 2008 22:32:02 GMT -6
Iowafan, as you know, we can get along despite our differing views. But come on, there is a difference between playful ribbing, and being an asshole. Don't make me kidnap your ass and take you to the gay union bar to set you straight! Okay Ghostie, I've settled down now. I admit that not all union (lower case) weanies pick their noses. But the fact of the matter is there are very good reasons why union (lower case) membership decreases every year. Very few people have one ounce of faith in unions (lower case), especially union (lower case) leadership. I understand liberals (lower case) don't like being labeled socialists (lower case) (in fact, most liberals (lower case) are ashamed of the liberal (lower case) tag), but virtually everything liberals (lower case) stand for, including unions (lower case) is socialism (lower case) at its very core.
|
|
|
Post by ignatiusreilly on Mar 30, 2008 23:14:16 GMT -6
Iowafan, did you get your ass kicked by a guy with a bumper sticker that said "Paid for with union wages"? It sounds like you did, and you got worked over really good.
My dad was a union member for years and he's a science teacher now and they are sort of in a union. I was also a union member when I worked in a factory during college. I was actually elected to be a union steward there, which didn't entail much.
Iowafan, you have some issues about unions for sure. Just because that guy kicked your ass real hard shouldn't be a reason to hate unions like you do. I don't think I've ever met anyone that hated unions so much. Also, would you mind sharing what company you worked for that had a union labor force that you obviously weren't a part of. Some of those guys can be hard on coworkers who refuse to join. Is that when and why you got yer ass beat?
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 31, 2008 2:28:52 GMT -6
Iowafan, did you get your ass kicked by a guy with a bumper sticker that said "Paid for with union wages"? It sounds like you did, and you got worked over really good. My dad was a union member for years and he's a science teacher now and they are sort of in a union. I was also a union member when I worked in a factory during college. I was actually elected to be a union steward there, which didn't entail much. Iowafan, you have some issues about unions for sure. Just because that guy kicked your ass real hard shouldn't be a reason to hate unions like you do. I don't think I've ever met anyone that hated unions so much. Also, would you mind sharing what company you worked for that had a union labor force that you obviously weren't a part of. Some of those guys can be hard on coworkers who refuse to join. Is that when and why you got yer ass beat? You obviously love talking smack. You're out of your league. Lets get something straight slick. I couldn't give a rat's ass what the fuck you and bluz think about your socialist (lower case) union (lower case) clubs or that your families chose to go down the same avenue for losers. This is America pal, where my opinion is the majority opinion. 93% agree with me shit head.....only 7% with you. Repeat after me a hole...."America (Upper case) is not a socialist (lower case) country where one loser has to depend on another loser to keep his or her job. It is one of independence, Entrepreneurship and Capitalism (Upper case)." There is a great reason why I have never, nor will ever, go to a union (lower case) non work group. I am light years ahead of you as it pertains to the measurement of competency, intelligence, work ethic, benefits and income. So much so that you will never be able to catch up. I work for a non union (lower case) company on the upper end of the Fortune 500. Now go find bluz, walk hand in hand to your mommy's houses and tell them that a mean Conservative has laid the truth out for you and it hurts. Your Mommy will make it all better until you have to walk back into that loser union (lower case) non work group again to get the paycheck you didn't earn.....slacker. Lastly, when 93% of Americans are union (lower case) members, you come back and talk shit. Until then, shut it.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 31, 2008 8:09:47 GMT -6
Well.... I guess that consolidated mass of smack, random statistics, parenthesized statements, and bluster really super showed you then.....
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 31, 2008 8:34:56 GMT -6
I was working at farmstead foods in Albert lea but was not a member of the union. Only there for a year and a month and couldn't afford the union dues. I and my supervisor frequently got into arguments and he would call me into his office. The union guy would go with to show support I guess. My supervisor would chew my ass, write me up and I would get into it with him and the union guy would just sit there. Maybe because I didn't pay the dues, I don't know. I was 22 years old and had more important things to do with my money. I have to say though they were pretty good about me not joining. Didn't really hassle me or anything and I got along pretty good with them. I can't say anything bad about them guys.
My dad on the other hand is another story. He worked at Armour meat packing in Britt. He was in the Union and they were just a bunch of selfish, dumbass pricks who did whatever the company wanted them to do. My dad needed a day off for my mom, she had cancer in the mid 90's, and they told him if he takes it off he could be fired. He says screw you, takes the day off and gets called into his supervisors office and written up. The union guy just sits there and does squat. They told him, yeah you better sign it they are the boss. When ever it came time for a new contract the union would literally do whatever the company wanted. The company said a .25 raise increase, the union said, OK. Sounds good to us. The company said they only get 8 paid holidays a year off and the company said OK. The company said you can't take off to go be with your wife during surgery to remove a tumor by her ovary, the Union said OK. My dad dropped out of the union due to their complete worthlessness and ineptness and THEN they started hassling him. Making fun of him, vague threats, not helping him out on the line. Telling other people not to talk to him. In this case Iowafan is correct. The union was just a bunch of worthless, ass kissing pussies who were using their position in the union to get in good with the company.
The overview, some unions are good and they have good people and do good things. They are involved in local charities, I have seen were they are helping with benefits for employees in need financially due to an illness in the family, do good things in the company and stick up for their local man. Like mortgage lenders, they are not all bad, but their are certainly some bad apples in the group.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Mar 31, 2008 8:44:44 GMT -6
Iowaflame, I do agree with some of your points about unions, albeit with a little less hatred.
Hey, since you're talking about the government bailing out a bunch of losers... how do you feel about:
1. giant securities firms (lower case) being bailed out by Taxpayers (upper case). 2. bear stearns (lower case) and jp morgan (lower case) execs still likely making a killing?
How about this. Those execs (lower case) should not be allowed to make more than a GS15 (upper case) salary, since they were bailed out (upper case) by us taxpayers( upper case), many of whom apparently despise the government bailing anyone out (don't know the case....)
Opinions (upper case).
Now, I'm going to drink some expensive (upper case) european beer tonight, versus the swill that you must drink (lower case).
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 31, 2008 8:59:04 GMT -6
You can both suck my thingy. Pretty much my entire family is UAW. My grandfather and my mother's uncle have their pictures hanging in the Waterloo Local 838 Union Hall and the annual Thanksgiving dinner is named after my mother's uncle and his wife (both deceased). This is not an intellectual argument for me - you just attacked my family. f**k you. As someone who both has a lot of family members that are/were in unions and is also generally anti-union, let me just say this. The problem is not that every union member is greedy and/or lazy. That's certainly not the case. The problem is that the existence of unions makes it too hard for companies to fire lazy workers and there are elements within union leadership that are greedy.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Mar 31, 2008 9:04:01 GMT -6
You can both suck my thingy. Pretty much my entire family is UAW. My grandfather and my mother's uncle have their pictures hanging in the Waterloo Local 838 Union Hall and the annual Thanksgiving dinner is named after my mother's uncle and his wife (both deceased). This is not an intellectual argument for me - you just attacked my family. f**k you. As someone who both has a lot of family members that are/were in unions and is also generally anti-union, let me just say this. The problem is not that every union member is greedy and/or lazy. That's certainly not the case. The problem is that the existence of unions makes it too hard for companies to fire lazy workers and there are elements within union leadership that are greedy. I agree completely. I have worked, and managed staff, in both union and non-union environments. There are actually pros and cons to both. However, I'm generally anti-union, for the exact reason you noted above. Unions make it really hard to get rid of bad employees, and they reward those who sit around for 30 years. (deadwood....lower case).
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 31, 2008 9:07:40 GMT -6
My family had members in unions as well, but are decidedly anti-union. I believe that there is nothing wrong with collective bargaining, however I also believe it is wrong to force people to be part of a union. I think less of anybody who supports closed shop unions.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 31, 2008 9:59:55 GMT -6
Unions were born in the 30s in the USA out of necessity IMO.
Management had crapped over workers for decades, and the workers needed protection. Decades of child labor, abuse, low wages, dangerous work conditions, no voice, no profit sharing, etc.
I've been fired from a job for horse shit reasons (supervisor didn't like me) and I could have used union protectionism in that case.
I have no issue about the basic premise of unions.
With that said, after the 60s, it's my experience unions became myoptic and bloated. They developed a rather unique entitlement mentality.
Their labor/health care costs for example, for non-college educated labor, ended up pricing more than a few American goods out of reach when compared to the rest of the world.
We're in a global economy, but unions tend to operate in a "here and now only" premise. Unions bastardize the normal supply/demand curve regarding salaries with negotiated salaries which make little economic sense.
The local union drove Maytag out of my hometown of Hampton, threatening to go on strike for the 3rd time in 8 years in 1982. In 1982, they were receiving on average (with benefits) approximately $23/hour, in a small town, with ZERO college education. Quite a nice sum of cash. White collar was getting less pay for more education and working way more hours. It apparently wasn't enough.
My hometown suffered for 15 years after Maytag said "enough" and moved the operation to Arkansas and Newtonin 1983. Houses sat on the market for years. People went broke. Hampton's economy suffered. The shuttered Maytag plant still sits on the SW part of town, a monument to entitlement myopia and unmitigated union brashness.
So, now, IMO, unions still have a place in protecting workers, providing a management conduit, etc. There will always be a place for that.
But anything over that, they need to shut the hell up and do away with the entitlement mentality which kills the workers' spirit, drive and productivity.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 31, 2008 10:28:07 GMT -6
Unions were born in the 30s in the USA out of necessity IMO. Management had crapped over workers for decades, and the workers needed protection. Decades of child labor, abuse, low wages, dangerous work conditions, no voice, no profit sharing, etc. I've been fired from a job for horse shit reasons (supervisor didn't like me) and I could have used union protectionism in that case. I have no issue about the basic premise of unions. With that said, after the 60s, it's my experience unions became myoptic and bloated. They developed a rather unique entitlement mentality. Their labor/health care costs for example, for non-college educated labor, ended up pricing more than a few American goods out of reach when compared to the rest of the world. We're in a global economy, but unions tend to operate in a "here and here only" premise. The local union drove Maytag out of my hometown of Hampton, threatening to go on strike for the 3rd time in 8 years in 1982. In 1982, they were receiving on average (with benefits) approximately $23/hour, in a small town, with ZERO college education. Quite a nice sum of cash. White collar was getting less pay for more education and working way more hours. It apparently wasn't enough. My hometown suffered for 15 years after Maytag said "enough" and moved the operation to Arkansas and Newton. Houses sat on the market for years. People went broke. Hampton's economy suffered. The shuttered Maytag plant still sits at the SE part of town, a monument to entitlement myopia. So, now, IMO, unions still have a place in protecting workers, providing a management conduit, etc. But anything over that, they need to shut the hell up and do away with the entitlement mentality which kills the worker's spirit and drive. Good story... but a few questions you need to ask yourself: Is it the union that forced Maytag's departure? Was there a reason those employees received those wages? How could Maytag have EVER turned a profit when it was as foolish with their money as they appear to have been? What motive would the company have to come up with a scapegoat for all their ills? While I'm not saying the union was 100% innocent, placing the blame on the unions for your town's demise doesn't take in nearly all the factors at play. ...Something else to think about... what if the genetic lottery had made you be born in Newton instead of Hampton?
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Mar 31, 2008 10:35:40 GMT -6
I think that this is a good, productive discussion. Thanks, Seth for the story.
I also wonder, with Socal, if Maytag had additional reasons for closing a plant or two. Sometimes, American companies have a combination of issues that result in drastic changes. In the case of Caterpillar in the 1980's, for example, unions were an issue, but a larger issue existed. Cat failed to have a cohesive strategic vision that anticipated global emerging markets, and did not have a culture of innovation and flexibility (at THAT time). They closed many plants in the US. Unions were a part of that picture, but in Cat's case, it was a case of leadership that had a crappy strategic architecture. Sorry for the long explanation, but I wonder if sometimes unions get blamed for everything...not saying they shouldn't but there are more factors.
GM is another example. The biggest reason for their struggles awhile back, and their continuing ones, were that the Japanese companies had a clear vision, and developed long term core competencies (such as Honda's small engine development) that stood the test of times. American companies have been reactive, versus proactive, in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 31, 2008 10:40:06 GMT -6
Unions were born in the 30s in the USA out of necessity IMO. Management had crapped over workers for decades, and the workers needed protection. Decades of child labor, abuse, low wages, dangerous work conditions, no voice, no profit sharing, etc. I've been fired from a job for horse shit reasons (supervisor didn't like me) and I could have used union protectionism in that case. I have no issue about the basic premise of unions. With that said, after the 60s, it's my experience unions became myoptic and bloated. They developed a rather unique entitlement mentality. Their labor/health care costs for example, for non-college educated labor, ended up pricing more than a few American goods out of reach when compared to the rest of the world. We're in a global economy, but unions tend to operate in a "here and here only" premise. The local union drove Maytag out of my hometown of Hampton, threatening to go on strike for the 3rd time in 8 years in 1982. In 1982, they were receiving on average (with benefits) approximately $23/hour, in a small town, with ZERO college education. Quite a nice sum of cash. White collar was getting less pay for more education and working way more hours. It apparently wasn't enough. My hometown suffered for 15 years after Maytag said "enough" and moved the operation to Arkansas and Newton. Houses sat on the market for years. People went broke. Hampton's economy suffered. The shuttered Maytag plant still sits at the SE part of town, a monument to entitlement myopia. So, now, IMO, unions still have a place in protecting workers, providing a management conduit, etc. But anything over that, they need to shut the hell up and do away with the entitlement mentality which kills the worker's spirit and drive. Good story... but a few questions you need to ask yourself: Is it the union that forced Maytag's departure? Was there a reason those employees received those wages? How could Maytag have EVER turned a profit when it was as foolish with their money as they appear to have been? What motive would the company have to come up with a scapegoat for all their ills? While I'm not saying the union was 100% innocent, placing the blame on the unions for your town's demise doesn't take in nearly all the factors at play. Good retort questions. Again, this is only my opinion, but it is an educated one in this case. The 50s - 70s were the golden era for union labor. Unions were powerful. American goods were superior. There were no foreign competitors for Maytag's goods for example. Only other American-union-based competitors. So things escalated because it was the USA union norm. Maytag made money hand over fist in the 60s - 70s. Again, IMO, due to lack of non-USA competition. Union wages pricing its products higher and higher didn't really matter because all the USA companies were doing it. Competition came from between American companies (sales, promotions, etc). Also, again, Maytag had had two strikes in the past 8 years, crippling production, causing headaches, and they were being paid fairly, very fairly. Extraordinarily fairly I'd say. I think three things happened in Hampton: #1--Maytag saw the light in the 80s regarding global competition. #2--Maytag was paying way too much for labor and they knew it. They couldn't keep the product prices steady knowing what the union was going to ask for (about $3/hour per person...not insignificant in 1983). #3--Maytag did their research and understood other states would welcome them, the jobs and economy infusion without the expensive union hassles. So, they made a business decision (followed by most big companies shortly thereafter), and said "enough" to non-educated labor bending them over backwards. They rest is history. Ironically, Maytag white-collar malfeasance eventually cause Maytag's demise in Newton, in 2005 I believe. Were there any other circumstances? Probably. But again, I lived there, and lived through this. It was a union "us against them" mentality instead of a "how can we make Maytag more competitive so we can all enjoy our jobs" mentality. Myoptic and pure entitlement mentality. It was the major cause of the union's own demise in Hampton in 1983.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 31, 2008 10:53:52 GMT -6
Good retort questions. Again, this is only my opinion, but it is an educated one in this case. The 50s - 70s were the golden era for union labor. Unions were powerful. American goods were superior. There were no foreign competitors for Maytag's goods for example. Only other American-union-based competitors. So things escalated because it was the USA union norm. Maytag made money hand over fist in the 60s - 70s. Again, IMO, due to lack of non-USA competition. Union wages pricing its products higher and higher didn't really matter because all the USA companies were doing it. Competition came from between American companies (sales, promotions, etc). Also, again, Maytag had had two strikes in the past 8 years, crippling production, causing headaches, and they were being paid fairly, very fairly. Extraordinarily fairly I'd say. I think three things happened in Hampton: #1--Maytag saw the light in the 80s regarding global competition, and #2--Maytag knew it was paying way too much for labor and they knew it. They couldn't keep the product prices steady knowing what the union was going to ask for (about $3/hour per person...not insignificant in 1983). #3--Maytag did their research and understood other states would welcome them, the jobs and economy infusion without the expensive union hassles. So, they made a business decision (followed by most big companies shortly thereafter), and said "enough" to non-educated labor bending them over backwards. They rest is history. Were there any other circumstances? Probably. But again, I lived there, and lived through this. It was a union "us against them" instead of a "how can we make Maytag more competitive so we can all enjoy our jobs" mentality. As I said, myoptic and pure entitlement mentality. It caused their demise. The us vs. them may have been how things were publicized... or maybe even be the 100% cause. But as we've seen for the past 7 years on other topics, the us vs. them argument tends to work when one side feels wronged --- regardless of whether the argument is true or not. In the end, regardless of their labor disputes- the end result didn't seem to work out as well as intended for the company. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag...so much for the "competition"...
|
|
|
Post by Solar Stud on Mar 31, 2008 12:31:13 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong...I'm not 100% anti union.
Not at all. They have a place. I could have used one in 1978 when I got (illegally) shit-canned from a construction job.
I just think they lost their way, focus and vision.
Seems logical to assume if people thought they'd be better off with a UAW union, the UAW membership wouldn't be decling.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Mar 31, 2008 13:01:49 GMT -6
Good retort questions. Again, this is only my opinion, but it is an educated one in this case. The 50s - 70s were the golden era for union labor. Unions were powerful. American goods were superior. There were no foreign competitors for Maytag's goods for example. Only other American-union-based competitors. So things escalated because it was the USA union norm. Maytag made money hand over fist in the 60s - 70s. Again, IMO, due to lack of non-USA competition. Union wages pricing its products higher and higher didn't really matter because all the USA companies were doing it. Competition came from between American companies (sales, promotions, etc). Also, again, Maytag had had two strikes in the past 8 years, crippling production, causing headaches, and they were being paid fairly, very fairly. Extraordinarily fairly I'd say. I think three things happened in Hampton: #1--Maytag saw the light in the 80s regarding global competition, and #2--Maytag knew it was paying way too much for labor and they knew it. They couldn't keep the product prices steady knowing what the union was going to ask for (about $3/hour per person...not insignificant in 1983). #3--Maytag did their research and understood other states would welcome them, the jobs and economy infusion without the expensive union hassles. So, they made a business decision (followed by most big companies shortly thereafter), and said "enough" to non-educated labor bending them over backwards. They rest is history. Were there any other circumstances? Probably. But again, I lived there, and lived through this. It was a union "us against them" instead of a "how can we make Maytag more competitive so we can all enjoy our jobs" mentality. As I said, myoptic and pure entitlement mentality. It caused their demise. The us vs. them may have been how things were publicized... or maybe even be the 100% cause. But as we've seen for the past 7 years on other topics, the us vs. them argument tends to work when one side feels wronged --- regardless of whether the argument is true or not. In the end, regardless of their labor disputes- the end result didn't seem to work out as well as intended for the company. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag...so much for the "competition"... What's your point socal? Companies buy each other all the time. If they didn't, guys like BTR and me wouldn't have jobs. The trap that unions fall/fell into is that the entire mentality of a lot of union leadership is based on taking as much as possible from management. There's no market discipline that impacts what unions ask for and the mentality is that any kind of concession is bad. That worked fine while the competitors were American companies operating under the same constraints. It stopped working when competitors started coming from cost places overseas. It's not an "us v. them" argument (though it's interesting that you phrase it that way given that that was the mentality of organized labor). It's a recognition that American companies shouldn't have be saddled with unnecessarily high cost structures. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that paying a guy $75/hour in wages and benefits to mow a lawn is going to impact a company's ability to competitively price its products. Of course liberals would rather just talk about how great organized labor is while hypocritically finding other reasons not to buy the products put out by American companies forced to use unreasonably priced organized labor.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 31, 2008 21:32:17 GMT -6
Having seen a client watch his family's business become comletely unsalable because union bullshit mismanagement that caused the aggregate withdrawal liability of firing union workers exceed the book value of the business, I have nothing but disgust for the union scam in this country. Oh well, I guess, a "rich" guy like that with his 20 employee business is better off not being able to mechanize his business and being bled into bankruptcy so the remaining businesses that are parties to the CBA get hit themselves with unconscionably high withdrawal liability so every other business in that industry is unsalable. Then, when everyone is bankrupt, the union can go to the god damn Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. and get a taxpayer bailout for the pension fund because they were too damn greedy to work with management to save jobs and protect their own pensions.
If workers want to unionize, good for them, but the only role the government should have is to grant them an exemption from the antitrust laws, despite the fact that thier behavior is clearly a violation thereof. This NLRB riff raff bullshit needs to go. There is no reason some mouthbreather from the government should have to go sit at the table or investigate union busting or anything. If employees decide they are going to form a union, the government should just get the hell away. If the business refuses to negotiate, good for them. If they want to turn sprinklers or high pressure fire hoses on to water the lawn adjacent to the sidewalk where the picketers walk, no problem there either.
Abolish the NLRB!!! Revoke the NLRA!!!!
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 1, 2008 6:09:35 GMT -6
Wow, such hyperbole from lykos & BTR...
$75/hr lawn care specialists...
One example of a 20 person business that went under... for no other reason than union labor.
Sounds like your ulterior motives cloud your judgement - to the state where you must use hyperbole to try and scare away anything that might take away your job or threaten your future. Perhaps you should unionize.
The phrasing came from Seth. I reused it. (Good job keeping up).
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 1, 2008 6:44:50 GMT -6
That 20 employee business was the tip of the iceberg. What happens is one business in an industry when one business goes under is that each other business gets assessed a bump in withdrawal liabilities as the unfunded pension liabilities snowball when the number of mouthbreathers collecting a pension stays the same but the number of businesses kicking into the pension drops. In the instance of the transaction I worked on, the union had vociferously opposed mechanization of the plant, which would have cut the union workforce from 40 or 50 to 4 or 5. There still would have been a few union jobs, as the machine operators in that business were all union guys, but when the union tells you cannot mechanize and you have to watch foreign competition decimate your business due to protectionism or lose your workforce when you attempt to modernize, you're kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. In a situation like there, if the union isn't 99% responsible for the downfall of the company (and that industry as whole), I don't know what the hell is.
The $75 an hour lawn care specialist was a UAW special. The UAW got a deal that all landscaping at the Big 3 had to be done by unionized workers. On one hand, you've got the coercive nature of the union and on the other you've got the bullshit terms of employment they seek to impose that no manager would willingly enter into but for that coercion.
Don't worry about our jobs. We make money if the economy goes up or down. Economy goes up, financed M&A deals fly in. Economy goes down, 363 sales and reorgs fly in (and with good cause since in bankruptcy the court can rewrite the CBA), not to mention the wave of new regulations that get passed that inure straight to the benefit of lawyers. If I was speaking in my own professional self interest, I would seek MORE regulation, not less. Big government regulation like the Internal Revenue Code, the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the HSR Act, ERISA, CERCLA, etc. should be renamed the Lawyer Relief Acts of [insert year]. Every piece of legislation like that significantly increases compliance costs that end up in lawyers' pockets. I care about the economy and country, if I got deregulated out of a job, fine by me, I'd go do something else.
|
|