What are your thoughts on the NAFTA HWY

rskarvan

I will support the NAFTA superhighway on two conditions:

1. No foreign trucks or foreign truck-drivers on USA roads.
2. We can export hazardous waste and trash on the return trip to S. America.

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote: »

I want a union because I want SOME ELEMENT OF CONTROL over my situation. As an employee, I have no control over my compensation. All I can do is "leave and go elsewhere". Forgive me, but I just don't like that option very well as my family has acclimated to my community.

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense to me. Just a note: Work for a smaller company gives you that control, so does running your own business, but if what you want is to be a plugger for a big company, I can see the draw. The problem with being a plugger is that you are, at the end of the day, expendable. Therefore I see your want for protection.

However, your approach is odd. Why sign over whatever control you do have to a union negotiator? Do you really think he has your best long term interests in mind? I would bet that he cares more about lining his and the unions pockets than he does about you. (I think that sounds like your gripe against management, no?) Of course the only way he gets paid is to get you more money which is where his bonus is. He could care less if the shop is outsourced in 5 years because of labor costs. He got his money. When you are dealing straight with an employer, you can negotiate anything, (raises, benifits, parking spaces, work hours, office space, whatever). If you ask a union to do that in your stead, you've signed away all your rights on those subjects and have lost all control.

As for your second post, item 1, that's the way it already works, the second is a "WTF?" statement.

TroyD

Ron, I have empathy for you. I honestly do. I also have empathy for the workers. I'm in a similar situation. I can only hope that those above me do the right thing or I can take my ball elsewhere, which as you have pointed out, carries risk and uncertainty. The ills of the industry though, aren't solved by firing or cutting CEO salaries. Again, if you look, UAW has representation on all the decision making boards of all the companies, it's probably in the union contract. So, it's not like you DON'T have representation. The image of a benign and powerless union is a myth. Union tactics and demands are A (not the whole, but a big part) reason for what is going on.

Mr. Gettelfinger has managed to protect wages and benefits at the auto parts maker Delphi, which had demanded deep cuts under bankruptcy protection. Workers there are still earning the $28 an hour in wages and receiving the same pensions and health care benefits they got before the company filed for Chapter 11 status.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/business/16auto.html?ex=1336968000&en=f50d88b269c93d3d&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

The chairman and chief executive, Robert Miller, a corporate turnaround specialist who is leading Delphi through Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for $1.5 million a year, said his new salary would be $1 starting Jan. 1. The company's president, Rodney O'Neal, said he would take a 20 percent reduction to his $1.15 million salary, and 20 other ranking officers have accepted 10 percent pay cuts.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/17/business/delphi.php

Hmmmmm, it would appear that YOUR mgmt team is taking a cut in pay. Yes, they still make a lot of money but you have been railing for the symbolic jesture....here you go.

BDT

rskarvan

In theory, a union is a democracy. A union's membershi elects its leaders. A union elects those who negotiate salaries (bargaining committemen). Contracts must be ratified by popular vote. So, the union offers me a represented seat at the negotiation table (offering me the ability to pick those who negotiate on my behalf). In short, a union is a democratic organization (by contract). Why not vote for a say in how you are going to be paid? The cost of this "democracy structure" is 1.5% of gross pay (roughly 2 hours per month).

People who are anti-union are really advocating against democracy in the work-place. Why work at the "pleasure of your employer" when you can instead have a firm contract? I just don't understand the non-union mentality. Doesn't it make sense to stand together for better compensation?

By the way... my quote was... "I would take the socialist system in Paris over the free market system in Flint, Michigan". (Flint is a hel%-hole).

TroyD

That's not democracy, it's a republic.

That's all well and good, Ron. However, these deals that the UAW have been negotiating have been propelling costs through the roof. It's been apparent for a number of years that these agreements aren't sustainable and while the UAW has made concessions over the years, it hasn't been enough.

I don't support unions because I believe that the folks who 'own' the company should have the absolute right to set the terms and have every right to reap the profit. Those that don't like it, are free to leave. **** all you want about security and so forth but you do have options. I also don't believe that threatening an employer with strikes and shutdowns AS HAS BEEN DONE is right either. That is extortion.

The UAW concept of standing together for better compensation is ruining the industry. This isn't even remotely debatable. You guys piss and moan about the industry wanting you to take a paycut. Sure, it sucks. However, isn't it better than being unemployed when the company goes under? Delphi is in Chap. 11 for crying out loud. THE INDUSTRY IS DYING and you guys just want to stick your heads in the sand and point fingers and blame the CEO's salary for the ills. It's retarded.

Also, you want to know another reason that I don't like unions? The steel industry. The US steel industry collapsed in the 1970's, one reason was uncompetitive labor costs. The unions ignored the reality that the status quo wouldn't last and kept squeezing the nuts of the industry. Eventually it collapsed. Where was the union for THOSE guys? Did the union keep them employed? Nope. I had family affected by that and they lost everything. Even after they were slipping into bankruptcy after being out of work, wanna know what they union did for them? Put a lein on thier home (which they lost anyway) for unpaid union dues. Eff the union.

Flint should be a shining beacon for you, no? I mean, it's a union town, isn't it?

BDT

PolkWannabie

rskarvan wrote: »

Why work at the "pleasure of your employer" when you can instead have a firm contract? I just don't understand the non-union mentality. Doesn't it make sense to stand together for better compensation?

Only if you think you have at most average talent ...

If you are anywhere above average you'll be stuck with whatever the average raise is ...

Personally I'd rather have my earnings adjusted based on my own contribution as opposed to the average workers ...

SLOCOOKN

TroyD wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, however, if you don't control the technology...all the industrial capacity is useless. If you control the former, the later is much less of an issue.

BDT

QUOTE=amulford;654753]I wouldn't call it a handout.

Yes it is great to master the technology, but the technology is useless if it isn't produced for implementation. Trust me, if we lose that capacity to produce, we'll also lose the capacity to innovate. The production, and selling of the product, is what pays for the R&D.

Tight control of both is necessary.[/QUOTE]

Troy,

How many people dose it take to create a great idea?

How many people dose it take to produce that idea?

Manufacturing is not a dying dinosaur. Manufacturing employs a lot of people.

There are some very skilled manufacturing jobs and we are losing them as well. I agree with Amulford's statement.

Question: How would you "CONTROL" technology?

PhantomOG

rskarvan wrote: »

I
People who are anti-union are really advocating against democracy in the work-place. Why work at the "pleasure of your employer" when you can instead have a firm contract? I just don't understand the non-union mentality. Doesn't it make sense to stand together for better compensation?

Democracy in the workplace? Why should there be democracy in a private company?

I think unions were important at a time when there was no goverment regulations of safe workplace conditions, minimum wage, and overtime paid. Those things are needed and I'm glad they are there and am thankful unions had a place in creating that much government involvement. Beyond that, I don't think the government needs to be telling each and every business owner what they can and can't do with employees.

With that said, I have no problem with a whole factory of workers who want to get together and say they will stop working until conditions are met. I also have no problem with the factory owner then firing each and every employee he sees fit, or even moving the factory to Mexico. Freedom cuts both ways. It seems that with the amount of government control of free enterpise people want in this thread, we might as well give up freedom and move to a communist/socialist state.

SLOCOOKN

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/06/18/afx3830610.html

Here is another example of our government protecting and not really protecting us.

If you read the article. U.S. companies selling depleted uranium, underwater cameras, lasers, and some communications eqp have a problem selling this stuff to China so they can't pass it along to terrorists.

Yet in the article once the "front" company is verified, nothing else is needed.
Useless system that just collects fees for licenses.

TroyD

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

Troy,

How many people dose it take to create a great idea?

How many people dose it take to produce that idea?

Manufacturing is not a dying dinosaur. Manufacturing employs a lot of people.

There are some very skilled manufacturing jobs and we are losing them as well. I agree with Amulford's statement.

Question: How would you "CONTROL" technology?

How many people does it take to create an idea? Who cares?

How many people does it take to produce? Who cares.

The point is that the former DRIVES THE LATER. You guys want to put the cart before the horse. I'm not saying that production capability isn't important, it is. However, what's more important is superiority in technology. That has always been the secret to American success. American innovation (ie technological superiority) has been and is the reason for our economic good fortune.

Again, if you can't create and design the best widget, how well you produce them isn't really relavant because the person that CAN holds the cards.

Alot of you union guys think the world spins around what you guys do. I'm not saying it's not important and noble, it is. However, it's not the beginning and end of the story.

BDT

BTW, TQM is a crock.

The TQM gurus of the world fondle themselves trying to emulate the Japanese model. While it is useful, it generally fails as a strategic level principle. The trap is that TQM'ers are so wrapped up with 'improving' a process it really doesn't address the overall issue of are we really building a 'better' mousetrap. Now, you can build the hell out of a mousetrap but if the initial design is faulty, it really doesn't matter how efficient your process is.

SLOCOOKN

TroyD wrote: »

How many people does it take to create an idea? Who cares?

How many people does it take to produce? Who cares.

The point is that the former DRIVES THE LATER. You guys want to put the cart before the horse. I'm not saying that production capability isn't important, it is. However, what's more important is superiority in technology. That has always been the secret to American success. American innovation (ie technological superiority) has been and is the reason for our economic good fortune.

Again, if you can't create and design the best widget, how well you produce them isn't really relavant because the person that CAN holds the cards.

Alot of you union guys think the world spins around what you guys do. I'm not saying it's not important and noble, it is. However, it's not the beginning and end of the story.

BDT

BTW, TQM is a crock.

I am a self employed business owner. I am not employed by a Union or under contract or regulated by anyone except the Missouri Department of Revenue.

You missed the point all together! There needs to be a balance. You can sketch on paper all you want. You can write our all you grandiose ideas you want. You will still need someone to produce the goods. With the link I provided in my last link it shows that having the ability to produce goods is invaluable. China is our second largest importer and soon will over take Canada. When we do something that is meant to protect our country and they get pissed. They can turn around and squeeze us.

You still did not answer the question of how you would control technology.

TroyD

I didn't miss the point. I agree with what your saying. What I'm saying is that the technology has to drive the capacity. It won't work in reverse and if I HAVE to choose, I'm going to choose the technology. If you have the technology, the capital and the capacity WILL follow. It always has.

Put another way. Imagine a society that, for all intents and purposes was based on industrial capability. A society with a premise that labor in and of itself was the bedrock on which a society could and should be based. Got a picture in your mind? I do, it was the USSR and last time I checked, that sumbitch folded it's tent about 15 years ago. No doubt, the USSR had industrial capacity. The problem was, without stealing it, they couldn't design a telephone that was worth a crap. HOWEVER, they COULD produce millions of them.

BDT

SLOCOOKN

TroyD wrote: »

BDT

BTW, TQM is a crock.

The TQM gurus of the world fondle themselves trying to emulate the Japanese model. While it is useful, it generally fails as a strategic level principle. The trap is that TQM'ers are so wrapped up with 'improving' a process it really doesn't address the overall issue of are we really building a 'better' mousetrap. Now, you can build the hell out of a mousetrap but if the initial design is faulty, it really doesn't matter how efficient your process is.

Or you could have a wonderfully designed mousetrap and a really **** build!
Easily spun....

TroyD

Jaysus, it's not so easily spun.

If I own and control the design of the mousetrap, wouldn't it make sense that I could also control the methods of production? If factory A isn't getting the job done, I can always find a factory B, no?

However, if I'm the factory, aren't I sort of operating at the whim of the person who 'owns' the widget?

I mean, how many people think it's a good idea to open a factory THEN worry about what they are going to build?

BDT

SLOCOOKN

TroyD wrote: »

I didn't miss the point. I agree with what your saying. What I'm saying is that the technology has to drive the capacity. It won't work in reverse and if I HAVE to choose, I'm going to choose the technology. If you have the technology, the capital and the capacity WILL follow. It always has.

Put another way. Imagine a society that, for all intents and purposes was based on industrial capability. A society with a premise that labor in and of itself was the bedrock on which a society could and should be based. Got a picture in your mind? I do, it was the USSR and last time I checked, that sumbitch folded it's tent about 15 years ago. No doubt, the USSR had industrial capacity. The problem was, without stealing it, they couldn't design a telephone that was worth a crap. HOWEVER, they COULD produce millions of them.


BDT

They would have survived if WE would have been importing from them! And sending our plants to the USSR.
Instead of China!

We are giving away our base to other countries. That is why China is becoming a power house!

What we are dealing with is a loss of manufacturing jobs, uncontrolled illegal immigration, failing education system and the break down of the family unit.

With out fixing these problems we are not going to have the ability to produce the next generation of Americans.

TroyD

China is replacing Taiwan which begat Japan. 30 years ago it was Japan is going to take over, then it was Taiwan, now it's China.

The real danger is that where we are failing is to maintain or technological superiority. In the past, Japan built the better moustrap and it was cheaper. However, we still owned the design. THAT is the danger is we are losing the ability to design.

BDT

SLOCOOKN

TroyD wrote: »

China is replacing Taiwan which begat Japan. 30 years ago it was Japan is going to take over, then it was Taiwan, now it's China.

The real danger is that where we are failing is to maintain or technological superiority. In the past, Japan built the better moustrap and it was cheaper. However, we still owned the design. THAT is the danger is we are losing the ability to design.

BDT

What are we not designing?...

rskarvan

Ultimately, what the USA had better maintain control over is our ability to design, produce, and maintain better-than-world-class military weaponry. These things are difficult to import from a country that doesn't like who you will be pointing the guns at.

If we have the very best military, everything else is negotiable.

PolkThug

deja vu

tonyb

PolkWannabie wrote: »

Only if you think you have at most average talent ...

If you are anywhere above average you'll be stuck with whatever the average raise is ...

Personally I'd rather have my earnings adjusted based on my own contribution as opposed to the average workers ...

Maybe in Jersey it's like that.But here,a Union contract is a starting point.Good workers are paid above the set union wages and offered perks if the employer see's fit.Such as bonus's,gas cards,company vehicle.You have to remember also,in buisness,you pay the position.That position may have a range of 20 g's with the better worker at the top of that scale.If you really want to make more coin,seek an uppward position or a new company.Alot of buisness exec's I know bounce around from company to company just for the package they offer in case your let go.A contracted position can be very sweet in the upper management positions.