Hershey Highway (NAFTA)

steveinaz

shack wrote: »

I guess we will always disagree on this subject. Several see gloom and doom without unions....I see a bright future...for all. Capitalism and free markets rule (they are only the foundations of the greatest economic power the world has ever seen....and STILL is!)

Capitalism and free markets can rule, agree with you--if they do the right thing. My fear is when they won't (or don't) what are any of us going to do about it? Unions are all but gone--I don't necessarily see doom & gloom in that, but it does concern me.

We agree more than you think--just at different levels.

You are obviously lucky, as am I with our places of employment. We're (I'm assuming) both well off, don't need for anything in particular, and live good lives. I'd like to see most Americans enjoy the same life that I do. That's all I'm saying.

rskarvan

Ricardo wrote: »

Ron, you are moving off subject here.

What I was trying to highlight is how dangerous it is to see educated people say things such as "WAKE UP PEOPLE -- WE ARE, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, VERY OPPRESSED!!!".
You don't know it and will deny it, but if your "dream" came true tomorrow and every person owned 7.5 acres, most would starve to death, because they would be too lazy to do something with that land.

Ricardo, what bothers me is that the rich are getting richer and the working class is getting poorer. The UAW auto wage has just dropped from $28/hr with full benefits to $14.50/hr with very poor benefits in a little less than a year or two. What will the ramifications of this be? The UAW just gave up 50 years of wage increases to keep the big three alive.

Every single full-wage ($28/hr) UAW job supports about 4 other jobs in the community.

It seems that we have just yanked the rug out from under the working class. The spill-over to every other industry/community in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio will be dramatic.

I'm not saying that socialism is good. But, for God sakes, somebody needs to pull in the reigns on capitalism. At this time, it seems like it is completely out of control. And, the dollar is at a near all-time low when compared to the Euro. I'm a little spooked because a lot of bad change is occuring very quickly and the local economy in the rust belt is being disrupted.

Finally, I do think the vast majority of americans are oppressed (whether they want to admit it or not). Health care insurance is skyrocketing. Fuel prices are way up. State taxes are going up. And, wages have stagnated. If this keeps up... people will start writing letters that begin with the words.... "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary...."

hearingimpared

steveinaz wrote: »

Like I said stated earlier, I am a conservative, but I believe that companies should do right by their employees--most don't--so therefore we have unions. We shouldn't have to have unions, but since some people are void of any sense of fairness--the employees have united. Hmmm...sounds like free-market to me. Or is it only "free market" when it benefits the corporation? Seems to me, if companies had done the right thing from the start, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

Greed rules the day, and just like the free-market, employess will do some adjusting of their own in an attempt to find an equitable relationship.

It's funny, many are all for the companies doing what they want, but let the employee negotiate a bit and everyone calls "foul" ....bit of a "plantation mentality" isn't it?

If I wanted a job in an auto factory for the same money and same benefits that a union worker has and I was infinitely more qualified for any of the jobs there, could I just walk up to the Human Resources dept. fill out an application, give them my resume and expect that the greedy corporate entity would give me a job . . . I don't think so . . . the jobs belong to the ENTITLED union workers. Case closed.

Ron your statements show that you are glaringly socialistic and entitled to everyone elses money and property and you then post something positive about that nut in South America and then blame the US for him; it appears as though you think like an insane person.

rskarvan

Ricardo brought up the Nut in S. America. I just quoted Time magazine that Bush helped to secure his position of power.

It seems that thinking objectively about economics policies qualifies one as insane. I don't think so. But, my thinking may be a bit off as I have worked deeply in the US auto industry for 20 some years now. So, my perception of economics might be skewed by "local reality". The UAW, GM, Ford, and Chrysler definitely qualify as an insular economy. Eventually, I figure the great big auto-boat will toss me off into the water (as it has thousands of other people) and I'll quickly learn to swim. Until then, I just enjoy the ride and complain about the waves/tides.

Systems

Like I said earlier. Things are still well balanced in the good ol USA. People have been talking about all these subjects for years and our economy is doing great (except this little housing thing). I've not seen the over all health of our economy have any problems even with 50 billion a month going into Iraq. Im not going to worry about it.

If our economy does hit another recession soon (which is inevatible as the good ol Sin wave works), I doubt these forces would be the causal factors over different things such as the housing bust and mounting debt people have been running up that they can’t afford.


Aka, there’s more important things to be discussing like how we will fix that those bubbles and the real fix on that is to get people to stop trying to live the “dream” and live with what they make. Aka, if you only bring in $30000 a year to your family, buying a full set of 7.1 channel Polk Rti speakers is not a good plan for your life (or that Hummer you drive in rush hour traffic for 2 hours a day).

rskarvan

My buddies in Detroit tell me that your typical working-class 3-br house in Detroit that used to cost right around $100K can now be purchased for about $35K. Sounds like a disaster to me!

jdhdiggs

If a 3 BR house costs $35K, explain to me why the employee's need to be make $48K rather than $25K to have a "liveable" and "fair" wage? Hell, if I made $25K/yeaar, I'd still be able to pay off that house in 5 years...

tonyb

Who the hell wants to live in detroit anyway???

When you build a town around one industry.....guess what!!

Industry goes belly up....and so does the town.
Detroit is a bad example,as other things come into play on that towns downfall.

tonyb

For the most part,I think the unions have done a pretty good job.There are exceptions of coarse.Do you guys really think an employer will give you a pay raise every year?Pay your health care benefits? Give you a pension?Still have your job waiting for you when your pregnant or ill for a period of time?Out of the kindness of that non union shop,the owner is going to pay your life insurance,take care of your wife and kids if you die.

Yeah...OK...and you still believe in Santa Claus too eh?

American auto companys are in trouble ,no doubt.But they can't compete with their foreign rivals.Not because of unions,but maybe,just maybe,because of the low tax we put on foreign trade comming in.Or maybe there lack of will to make a dependable car that will last.Nope,they make more money in the back of the house,repairs,than they do on new car sales.Does the word "reputation" sound familiar?

Ron...there will always be a seperation in class among us.Deal with it.Some work hard and never get anywhere due to lack of education.The world still needs those people.Some work hard with a determination to achieve a higher standard of liveing,and most do so.Some are just lazy and believe the world owes them...everything.This will never change Ron.And if you see more depressed area's,or oppressed people,it is because of there lack of willingness to change their life.It's called our greatest asset of all.....FREEDOM!! Free to choose,free to change,free to get off this stupid thread:)

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote: »

I just quoted Time magazine that Bush helped to secure his position of power.

That statement by time magazine is as rediculous as US News saying that Nancy Pelosi and Arnold are in the top ten best leaders.

shack

tonyb wrote:

Do you guys really think an employer will give you a pay raise every year?Pay your health care benefits? Give you a pension?Still have your job waiting for you when your pregnant or ill for a period of time?Out of the kindness of that non union shop,the owner is going to pay your life insurance,take care of your wife and kids if you die.

Yeah...OK...and you still believe in Santa Claus too eh?

Why should your employeer pay for 100% of medical coverage, 100% of life insurance, fund a defined benefit pension plan? Detroit's big 3 did all that and more and now they can't compete with the rest of the world. The cost of emplyee benefits for the big 3 (not wages) adds more to the cost of a vehicle than the raw materials. The majority of non-union American businesses that hire skilled labor do give annual raises and bonuses, provide a match for 401Ks, pay a large portion of medical, vision, dental, LT disability and life insurance premiums. They are required by law to maintain a job for maternity leave (even extended). We are now in a business environment where there is now responsiblity for the worker to participate in their own safety and financial security. No more cradle to the grave by the company. It never should have been that way. It was short sighted by the companies and the workers and doomed for failure since it was (and is) impossible to sustain.

tonyb

hearingimpared wrote: »

That statement by time magazine is as rediculous as US News saying that Nancy Pelosi and Arnold are in the top ten best leaders.

Da...Da......BINGO Joe!!!!

rskarvan

Lets face it...the reason this thread persists is because of its great title.

My recommendation... lets close this thread!

Polkersince85

The last time I checked, every person in this country was born butt naked. The first cry heard was the only one that should be celebrated and heard. From there on it is the individual decisions made as to what is accumilated and accomplished in a lifetime.

The companies that are moving operations are doing what each individual should do when faced with loss of income or uncertain futures; ie., do something about it. Make it happen, don't cry and whine as if you are laying on a cold table, butt naked. Make the company profitable. Dare anyone to make it or do it better than you. The can do attitude is what made these companies what they are.

The upper management and decision makers are only a small part of the company. The future is in the hands of the rest of the employees, the ones who do 99.999% of what the company does. It all boils down to each person coming to work every day and doing his job to the best of his ability. Don't give them a reason to move.

The U.S. can compete with anyone. Tomorrow when you go to work, just watch every thing going on around you. I'm sure there is enough wasted time and effort which could more than make up for wage differentials in out-sourcing.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

tonyb

shack wrote: »

Why should your employeer pay for 100% of medical coverage, 100% of life insurance, fund a defined benefit pension plan? Detroit's big 3 did all that and more and now they can't compete with the rest of the world. The cost of emplyee benefits for the big 3 (not wages) adds more to the cost of a vehicle than the raw materials. The majority of non-union American businesses that hire skilled labor do give annual raises and bonuses, provide a match for 401Ks, pay a large portion of medical, vision, dental, LT disability and life insurance premiums. They are required by law to maintain a job for maternity leave (even extended). We are now in a business environment where there is now responsiblity for the worker to participate in their own safety and financial security. No more cradle to the grave by the company. It never should have been that way. It was short sighted by the companies and the workers and doomed for failure since it was (and is) impossible to sustain.

While I can agree with some of this,the only reason non union places offer this is to stay competative with the unions.If the unions lower their standard,so will the non union places.Your assumeing that the average employer will continue to give you benefits if they don't have to to compete.Cradle to the grave?? No...can't go along with that one and I don't think most productive americans do.Just the lazy ones.And your average corp.is now doing away with matching in their 401k's.Greed is the last word here when it comes to corporate america.I think we can all agree on that.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

While I can agree with some of this,the only reason non union places offer this is to stay competative with the unions.If the unions lower their standard,so will the non union places.Your assumeing that the average employer will continue to give you benefits if they don't have to to compete.Cradle to the grave?? No...can't go along with that one and I don't think most productive americans do.Just the lazy ones.And your average corp.is now doing away with matching in their 401k's.Greed is the last word here when it comes to corporate america.I think we can all agree on that.

Tony that is not entirely true. While it is true that the corps do offer salaries and benefits to stay competitive it is not to stay competative with the union shops. It is to stay competative within their market. I was in IT for hospital information system for 35 years and we never had to compete with union shops or union employees. As a matter of fact I spent the last 15 years in executive management and we stayed away from union employees. All employees in my field had the option of doing their best and getting merit increases with a yealy evaluation. If one worked above and beyond, that person was rewarded accordingly. If a person was a slacker he was not long with the company. In union shops you don't get merit increases, you don't have any incentive to do your best because you got the same raise that the bum who did the minimum amount of work or effort got.

When I wanted to get my salary up higher than an employer could increase my pay within a year, I would play the field, I knew what I was worth and would negotiate my contract or salary accordingly.


That may have changed in the past five years; I don't know because I've been out of the market since.

shack

You really need to get your facts straight before you post some of this stuff

tonyb wrote:

the only reason non union places offer this is to stay competative with the unions.If the unions lower their standard,so will the non union places.

Less than 11% of the American workforce is unionized. Most of the industries in the US have no union competition and still offer the benefits I've mentioned. In industries where there are both union and non-union companies, the non-union firm will often fare much better and have much better long term growth because of their ability to adapt without union restrictions. Non-union business will often attract the more ambitious worker who knows if they outperform their co-workers they will be rewarded in the form of incentive pay or promotions. Not alway true in union shops where seniority is valued over performance.

tonyb wrote:

Your assumeing that the average employer will continue to give you benefits if they don't have to to compete.

I have said on in numerous posts that businesses must offer competetive salaries and benefits to compete....not with unions...but with other companies that are willing offer to skilled employees incentives to work for them. Unions are anti-competetive.

tonyb wrote:

And your average corp.is now doing away with matching in their 401k's.

Wrong again. The level of participation by American businesses in 401Ks is at it's highest level EVER...and still growing. The defined benefit pension plan is going away...and being replaced by the traditional 401K and the Roth 401k.

tonyb wrote:

Greed is the last word here when it comes to corporate america.I think we can all agree on that.

I for one do not agree. Profit is the last word. I see businesses fail, not because of greed, but lack of profit. The vast majority of "Corporate America" is not owned by the CEOs and so forth...it is owned by average Americans in the form of common stock either held individually or in mutual funds. It is those average Americans that are telling corporate America that their profits must continue to grow and return those profits to them in the form of dividends and stock value growth. Is that the greed you are referring to?

Systems

shack wrote: »

You really need to get your facts straight before you post some of this stuff



Less than 11% of the American workforce is unionized. Most of the industries in the US have no union competition and still offer the benefits I've mentioned. In industries where there are both union and non-union companies, the non-union firm will often fare much better and have much better long term growth because of their ability to adapt without union restrictions. Non-union business will often attract the more ambitious worker who knows if they outperform their co-workers they will be rewarded in the form of incentive pay or promotions. Not alway true in union shops where seniority is valued over performance.



I have said on in numerous posts that businesses must offer competetive salaries and benefits to compete....not with unions...but with other companies that are willing offer to skilled employees incentives to work for them. Unions are anti-competetive.



Wrong again. The level of participation by American businesses in 401Ks is at it's highest level EVER...and still growing. The defined benefit pension plan is going away...and being replaced by the traditional 401K and the Roth 401k.



I for one do not agree. Profit is the last word. I see businesses fail, not because of greed, but lack of profit. The vast majority of "Corporate America" is not owned by the CEOs and so forth...it is owned by average Americans in the form of common stock either held individually or in mutual funds. It is those average Americans that are telling corporate America that their profits must continue to grow and return those profits to them in the form of dividends and stock value growth. Is that the greed you are referring to?

You paint a rosy picture of companies and I would believe you if I didn’t see CEO's that while running companies to billion dollar loss's walk away with 100+ million bonuses.

I worked in a global corp giant for 15 years (IT)
I’m a vested teamster of 6 years
I've worked non-union / non management (IT)
I’ve worked in small industry and as pretty much a CIO (IT)


There’s nothing you can tell me that would convince me that these world wide corporations could and DO screw workers as hard as they can.

90% of the time their non management people but I’ve seen them go after their own management.

I've witnessed a company roll out a time managing system to their class of 30000 IT people with the expectation that you plan your days in 15 minute increments for the next 2 weeks (in IT mind you) and expect you to hold to it 90% (if you don’t know, 75% of IT is putting out immediate fires). Basically with the purpose of getting people to quit... because 1.5 years later they actively wiped out 50% of the IT work force (I was out before this but lots of my friends were in it. Good for me since they did attrition by age and I hired some hard core awesome IT people that had no business being asked to leave). A forced buy out where they paid you $1000 in cash per YEAR you worked there (as compared to some GM layoffs with the union where it was something like $5K per year).

I could rattle off a million reasons but I fully believe the IT industry needs a push to unions (as the nursing industry had).

I lived the corporate world and its dirty man… dirty as hell. I watched the company go from a private company that was a wondrous place to popping out an IPO and becoming controlled by MBA’s. The old “lets send the news out that we are laying of 10000 people to get our stock price up a point”..

On the flip side, small/medium is… wow… a complete flip. It’s absolutely amazing how nice it is to work at a small business that takes care of its people. Where you barter for your wages instead of “accepting” their terms and slotted job positions. If the company does well, you feel it in bonuses. Hell on Friday you all whip out beers. Hell, BBQ’s ever few weeks. Fundamentally different work environments and philosophy on taking care of the people you have that do you well. A place that doesnt say "you are lucky to work for us and if you leave, you were not good enough"...

I knew some dudes at the “big company” that called themselves the “million dollar club”. These guys developed some programs that in 1 year saved the company millions of dollars. They got absolutely nothing for it except their normal monthly check that was 75% industry average. Not even a thanks.

shack

You have your impressions based on a single industry...a rapidly changing one where there are lots of dynamics worldwide. Regardless of what you do or don't like...the bottom line is that it is still about making a profit for the shareholders/owners. The ones that are good at it survive or are sold at a substantial profit....the ones that don't disappear and fade away into the sunset.

TroyD

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.....what a crock. When you look at the standard of living of the American 'poor' and the standard of living of the poor other places in the world....it's a crock of ****. I don't have numbers but I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you that a lot (not all but a LOT) of the American 'poor' are in the situations they are in because of the poor choices they have made. Again, at statistical full employment, the opportunities are there. The beauty of our system is that it's largely up to YOU where you want to end up in life.

Steve, I hear what you are saying but I'm just not seeing these evil companies that submit thier workers to a daily **** raping. Sorry, but the days of the sweatshop in the US are long gone. An ancilliary benefit of shipping low wage/low skill jobs offshore is that we tend to retain and promote the higher wage/higher skill jobs. Now, a high skill job by it's very definition is a job that it benefits the company to have low turnover in....so, the worker DOES have (James is a great example of this) a lot of leverage because the skill is not easy nor cheap (training etc all costs money) to replenish.

Now, Ron, as far as the wage cuts go......assuming what you say is fact, do you think that concession is going to undo two generations of sloth in few months? It's a preposterous notion. As for the values of property in Detriot. It's ****. I've got friends that live there and it's BS. Detroit IS a cesspool and has BEEN a cesspool for a long long time. The notion that overnight because of union concessions Detriot has all of a sudden become a blight, just doesn't wash.

Lastly, if the big 3 could have kept to Henry Ford's model of making affordable cars that everyone could afford to buy (and paying his workers a good wage so they could also afford one) as opposed to churning out overpriced crap.....you know, the auto industry might not be in this predicament.

Again, I'm not anti-worker and I'm not saying that the union is to blame....but, IMO, it shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to have predicted what the current reality is.

BDT

mrbigbluelight

Well, all very interesting viewpoints from a number of different folks.

But, I'd like to remind everyone I waved my magic wand and all the socialist unionists have been banished from the planet, so we need not worry about their ilk anymore.

There's always room for improvement, so I guess we can concentrate on a few minor tweaks at the management level in this country.

Anybody have any thoughts on any areas that management might be able to tweak a little bit ?

rskarvan

I have an idea. Management should be compensated at absolutely no more than 200% of the rate that they pay their very lowest paid worker (per annum). And, no games should be allowed to BIN the lowest paid workers as "temporary/contract/etc" to skew management salaries upwards. There is no I in team.

m00npie

Silverti wrote: »

I could rattle off a million reasons but I fully believe the IT industry needs a push to unions (as the nursing industry had).

In my best B-Rated Horror movie scream AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

Sorry, this just scared me more than President Hillary Clinton

TroyD

Ron,

It's a symbolic gesture. Nothing more. I've proved several times over that executive salaries are a literal drop in the bucket.

Therein lies the problem, some folks want to **** and say 'this is the problem' when in reality, it has nothing to do with the problem.

BDT

rskarvan

Troy, the real estate market in Detroit has changed dramatically in the last couple years. There are mega-bargains for buyers and established home-owners are fleeing leaving their homes for foreclosure because they need a job.

The recent change in economics in UAW contracts will not hit the local economies for a few years because all the older workers were paid $100k to quit. But, change is coming (for certain).

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

But, I'd like to remind everyone I waved my magic wand and all the socialist unionists have been banished from the planet, so we need not worry about their ilk anymore.

If only that were a reality... :rolleyes:

rskarvan wrote:

My recommendation... lets close this thread!

HA! You start this whiney thread and when you don't get the universal sympathy you hoped it would generate...you want it to end?

jdhdiggs

rskarvan wrote: »

I have an idea. Management should be compensated at absolutely no more than 200% of the rate that they pay their very lowest paid worker (per annum). And, no games should be allowed to BIN the lowest paid workers as "temporary/contract/etc" to skew management salaries upwards. There is no I in team.

WHAAAT!!! Holy bat crap that's freaking CRAZY!!! So you're saying a private practice surgeon should only be making double the rate of the janitor who empties the trash and mops the floor? You're saying someone who puts up their life savings to start a restaurant should only make twice what that 16 year old washing dishes is making? Are you really that deranged?

Oh wait, you meant only managers in business, I get it. So that guy who got a 4.0 in high school, got a double degree in engineering and business, continued on and got an MBA and worked his way up to be in charge of a billion dollar factory should only be paid double the salary of the high school drop out admin, the guy whoe works the sheet metal punch, the janitor, the QA guy, the guy un/loading the trucks?

You don't see how this concept would absolutely DESTROY the economy? What motivation would there be to ever achieve if the worst you could ever do is making half of the best/most valuable guy in the WHOLE COMPANY!!!

tonyb

Obviously one thing comes to mind,things are different depending on where your located.
East coast,West coast,midwest,south,all are a bit different in their buisness practices.As goes for the industry your in.

hearingimpared

rskarvan wrote: »

I have an idea. Management should be compensated at absolutely no more than 200% of the rate that they pay their very lowest paid worker (per annum). And, no games should be allowed to BIN the lowest paid workers as "temporary/contract/etc" to skew management salaries upwards. There is no I in team.

THis is what I mean when I say your thinking is like that of a insane person. Since when do the workers get to set the salaries of management? Oh yeah in communist countries. Union mentality is, "I'm ENTITLED" to your money and property!!! I'm entitled to lots of money for menial or minimal labor . . . insane!

steveinaz

Union=Socialism
That has to be one of the most off-base, make-no-sense comparisons I think I have ever heard.

Name a single communist country that allows workers to stand up to management?

Just looking at responses, its obvious that many of you have "read" alot---but not experienced much.

Employees setting their salary...LOL...WRONG
Free medical and retirement...ROTFLMAO...WRONG
Unions "shutting down" companies with strikes...WRONG, the company hires scabs to fill in. Hmm, if these union people are so overpaid and under qualified, I wonder why they don't keep the scabs?

Like many discussions of this nature, this is going nowhere. Have a wonderful day. I've got union meeting to attend, we're planning to bring government to it's knees with a 5% COLA increase this year...LOL

You high rollers take it easy. :rolleyes: