UAW forced to be paid as a Southern Foreign factory worker.

LOL! Right-o.

I had some mind-numbing jobs for slightly better than minimum wage.
No union in sight So I went out asap and got another job.

Assembling cars can be dangerous, and there should be pay accounting for
that. But the current wage structure is ridiculous.

I was making less than autoworkers when I was assembling and testing
aircraft components. Of course, that was a bit more stimulating than
turning bolts...

 

I am afraid I am lost...are you *FOR* UAW workers, or against???

This post leads me to believe you are against UAW. Make up your mind, will
ya?

IOW, this post says, "It's OK to remain stupid. The UAW will get your
money for you."

That's a good sentiment...Whew...

 

Nobody who works for a company with decent heath insurance is willing to
settle for the same kind of health care that is provided by those nations
with a national health care system. That is especially true of the UAW.

 

So your point is Japanese cars cost thousands less than American cars? Thats
your reasoning for buying Japanese? The last time I looked japanese cost
about the same or more. Also your hypothetical question makes little sense
to compare a $1.50 per gallon product to a $20,000 product. Its like asking
would I buy a hershey bar made in the U.S or a German made chocolate bar.
Not only that, the number of American workers working on oil rigs will have
no major effect on the US economy.

 

I personally don't care what type of work daddy did, but the fact is the
unions were formed by workers who needed protection in certain industries.
If you were not part of that industry then you obviously did not need a
union. I personally never worked in industry so I have no use for a union,
but again the facts remain that some industries needed to be unionized.

 

If everyone was forced to buy American cars (or did so voluntarily) the
price would increase because they would have no (or little) competition and
the quality would start to fall off dramatically.

If everyone was forced to buy gasoline produced from American oil companies,
the price would increase because they would have no (or little) competition.

In the late 1980's, when the price of oil hit a low of $8 per barrel, there
were about 500,000 US jobs lost in the oil industry, and other jobs lost in
the communities were those jobs were located. The oil industry jobs in
question are not just those who work on oil rigs.

Since those oil industry job loses didn't occur where you live, you don't
care, and you seem to suggesting the job losses don't really matter or
didn't even happen. I can assure you that those jobs losses had a
devastating effect on many part of Texas, Louisiana, Colorado, and other
places that went far beyond those directly employed in the oil industry.

 

Probably just as much if not more as you.

Learn to read english, because thats not what the last line says.

$25 and hour isnt that much in todays economy, how many people really add in
the cost of benefits into there entire salary other than to exagerate a
point. If I am making $100,000 per year should I say I really make $140,000
a year with my health and other benefits? Is that the new way of now
determining someones salary or is it just a new way to exagerate a point to
make a point?

And I thought all car manufacturers were now rotating around the floor.

So now you are determining who should not have a job?? Where should they
be... on welfare on your tax dollar? Another knucklehead post who crawled
out from under a rock.
And how would you know the quality of a US car, you drive a Toyota. You are
pissed because you couldn't find a HHR, at least that is your excuse. If the
quality was so bad why were you looking for a HHR?? Whos posts are ignorant?

 

BUT, how many people have good healthcare plans? The number is
dwindling. In addition, very few can afford the increasing costs of
medical treatments without an HMO. Do you know the stats on how many
people use emergency rooms as their doctor? All opponents of
universal healthcare say taxes will increase. Well, I will lose my
excellent medical plan soon when I'm outsourced and layed off. To
provide something similar will cost me $12,000 or more a year. That
is going to be a stretch if I wind up making $25,000 a year in one of
the few service jobs still available.

Most of the people here who rant and rave about universal healthcare
are retired. I expect a storm of flame posts.

 

Maybe you are confusing "good" with "free" (or close to free). I am talking
about quality, not cost.

In virtually all countries that provide government health care, they decide
what doctor you go to, they decide what treatment will be done (unless you
go to a private doctor and pay for it yourself). Even if you get the
treatment you want, you might have wait months or years to get it, unless it
is emergency surgery. If you are of a certain age, they will often not
approve certain procedures because they cost too much for someone who
doesn't have a lot of years to live (they decide what "a lot" means).

Now, whether or not these things that are characteristic of government run
health care systems are reasonable or not, the UAW will not accept them for
their own coverage. If they did, the Big 3 auto workers would not need to
borrow billions from the US government to stay in business.

BTW, who was chosen as our company's outsourcing provider?

 

I'm talking 'good' or 'free'. I'm talking some or none. You know, it
doesn't have to be government supplied, managed, etc. Just make the
providers switch to non-profit.

The outsourcing has several streams and centers, Central America,
Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and a large American corporation. The
goal is to outsource all services and operations. I don't want to get
too specific.

 

No one is forcing companies to deal with providers that are for proift. In
fact there are a number of health care systems that are non-profit, but they
are typically not as efficient as the for profit ones. Of course, since you
are a socialist, you will not ever admit that.

Most of the Blue-Cross Plans were non-profit until the last 10-15 years when
switched over to for profit organizations. Many hospitals are non-profit,
but they are usually the ones in the most financial trouble.

Most large companies such as IBM and GM are self-insured, and they only pay
a fee for an insurance company to do claims administration, so in that sense
they are non-profit because the companies are trying to reduce costs, but
not make a profit.

While we are making companies non-profit, I guess that apply to your company
also, which means that you will would have to take a pay cut (people who
work for non-profit rarely make as much as those in a for profit company).

 

Well said!

I'm sorry the workers may lose benefits but, the option is to shut
down American Auto companies. To understand, look at the history.
Unions organized in the 1930s and became very powerful by 1950. With
unsustainable profits and prosperity in the 1950s, the companies met
most union demands to keep the production lines rolling. Today, on
the other hand, the 3 remaining auto makers are on the brink of
banruptcy and most American consumers are unable to buy a 35,000
automobile.
I'd like to see all auto makers unionised but I'd also like to see the
price of cars reduced. Lets hope the OBama guys make significant
advances to level the plying field for all auto makers.
The Japanese companies have no retired pensioners to support but
companies like GM have thousands. Auto makers in foreign countries
can rely on the government to provide health care while here health
care costs knock your socks off. Hospital fees, like union benefits,
are based on a level of prosperity that hasn't existed in America for
40 years.
It's funny the administration demands auto makers to get rid of all
corporate jets. What about eliminating air force one? And what about
all those congressmen and Senators who are flown wherevever they want
to go by military aircraft?

 

Moses,

Well said! I think you have captured the essence of the issue without the
union bashing fingerpointing that this thread now wallows in.

American labor unions grew at a time when manufacturing jobs were plentiful
to produce a multitude of products that were in great demand. US industrial
capacity won WWII and became an industrial powerhouse replacing factories
destroyed by the conflict in Europe and Asia. US unions became strong as
world demand for products grew. A US middle class was created. But,
automation has eliminated many of those manufacturing jobs and offshore
production capacity/low labor costs now drain the rest. This thread talks
about the auto industry jobs but ignores the fact that most US manufacturing
capacity (clothing, leather, electronics, etc.) is already long gone. Even
high tech jobs are now outsourced.

The world is a smaller place in these last 50~100 years. The internet has
made it smaller.

Detroit's problems ARE caused by managements' many failures including their
capitulation to union demands but let's not quibble about the demise of,
what is in essence, the buggy whip industry. Where to now?

I didn't vote for Obama but he will be our President and his team will
direct the next four, may be eight, years. Let's all pull in the same
direction.

This thread has determinate into a union bashing

I'm sorry the workers may lose benefits but, the option is to shut
down American Auto companies. To understand, look at the history.
Unions organized in the 1930s and became very powerful by 1950. With
unsustainable profits and prosperity in the 1950s, the companies met
most union demands to keep the production lines rolling. Today, on
the other hand, the 3 remaining auto makers are on the brink of
banruptcy and most American consumers are unable to buy a 35,000
automobile.
I'd like to see all auto makers unionised but I'd also like to see the
price of cars reduced. Lets hope the OBama guys make significant
advances to level the plying field for all auto makers.
The Japanese companies have no retired pensioners to support but
companies like GM have thousands. Auto makers in foreign countries
can rely on the government to provide health care while here health
care costs knock your socks off. Hospital fees, like union benefits,
are based on a level of prosperity that hasn't existed in America for
40 years.
It's funny the administration demands auto makers to get rid of all
corporate jets. What about eliminating air force one? And what about
all those congressmen and Senators who are flown wherevever they want
to go by military aircraft?

 

Your lips to the RIAA's ears.

 

.... and to go full circle - those days are long gone. Nice to see you
catch up, even if it is by circling around the rabbit trail a little bit.

 

I'm in one of "those" countries...the gov't DOES NOT decide which doctor I
see...I have a family dr, and I see her whenever I need to.
I recently torn the hell out of my knee during sports...(I'm 53 and getting
too old for that kind of shit!!), anyways, I saw my family Dr with 2 days,
had an MRI within 2 weeks, saw an Ortho surgeon within 1 month and surgery
within 2 months. Since it was not a life -threatening injury, thats not too
bad, and acceptable.
Is the health care system here perfect ?? no...is the US one ?? absolutely
NOT. Millions do not get the care they need.

 

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Gee. I thought it said this:

And I bet if your father was putting bread on your
table for screwing on a bolt, you would have no problem at all buying
American would you?

Could'a sworn that's what it said.

$25 is a lot for people that have the skills necessary to wash dishes.
I know people that work at GM. Hey, good for them! They have a job that
pays well. Some of them even have high school diplomas.

Benefits, Worker's Comp, Unemployment insurance and pensions cost the
employer money per employee. Most people don't figure it in the cost of a
salary. It's often calculated under Cost Of Goods Sold or some other such
accounting principle. But it is part of the compensation a worker
receives, and is figured into the cost of the car.

You don't consider your benefits part of your wage package? Must be a
union worker. They don't consider much of anything, on the whole.

And I was a union worker a couple times. Yeah, I was paid well. But I also
had highly skilled jobs that required a certain level of education,
training and experience. You want to to get on a plane that had parts
assembled by the lowest common denominator?

And I was still $6 less than the average Detroit UAW member. That is, what
I got in my paycheck. I didn't have quite as good benefits as they did,
either.

Took them long enough...

Yup. I spend my money where I want. I get the best I can for the dollars I
work for.

I had a Chrysler. Damn good car. It was given to me by a friend. I traded
it toward the Scion I bought instead of the HHR. One of the nicest cars I
ever owned, ran well, dependable, comfortable. It was also $30,000 in 1994.
Nice car, but no car is worth $30,000. For inflation, that car would now
be ~$40,000.

If Detroit can compete, they should. But they don't. They're too damn
arrogant to realize they don't make the best product. GM has been getting
cheaper and cheaper over the years. You know why? They want to keep the
Shareholders happy. So the customer suffers so the shareholders can have a
bigger return.

For 25 years I have been saying that keeping the shareholders happy was
not the way to do business, and if they don't start making the customers
happy, they're going to be in trouble. I even put that in a paper I wrote
about the car industry 17 years ago.

The only reson none of this happened earlier was because they were using
the financial divisions to hold up the failures of the manufacturing
divisions. Guess what? The financials collapsed, and now they're caught
with their pants down.

The bottom line? not only are the customers not happy, but the
shareholders aren't either. And they've proved it by voting with their
feet. Seen the price of GM stock lately?

So tell me, why should I buy a crummy car in order that someone should
have a job?

Welcome to the Real World.

You chose to cross post this to the Nissan, Toyota and Honda groups. So
someone comes up and throws an egg at you and you go to pieces?

Next time try alt.kids.movies where it won't get pointed out what a
hammerhead you are.

Or are you just a Troll?

See above about the Chrysler. And I have also had a 2-year old Caravan,
and 2 15 year old Grand Voyagers. They were beaters (except for the
Caravan) but they ran well. Of course, all of them had the transmissions
replaced at some point in time. And one of the Voyagers had an egine
problem common to early 3.3 liter engine, sounded like it was going to
blow up any second, but it still ran.

Because I was looking for something to haul band gear around in, that
looked good, and would be fun to drive if there wasn't any band equipment
anymore. And I liked the old Pie Wagons from the 50's.

The damn thing couldn't get out of it's own way with two people. I have to
admit the interior didn't look as cheap as GMs from the late 80's/early
90's, and the switches didn't feel like they were going to come off in my
hand.

But I waited 2 weeks before buying the Scion, and then 4 weeks after that
they called me and said they had a 171 HP model on the lot. Five-speed?
Nope?

Can't guy something they don't have, can I? The Scion I wanted wa right on
the corner of the lot waiting for me when I pulled in.

 

Jack, unfortunately, you are not arguing against facts. You are
arguing against a massive propaganda effort by the neo-cons and one of
their best buddies, the insurance industry. They have been
brainwashing the ignorant folks here in the USA for years with their
stories of doom and gloom.

The fact is that here in the USA the insurance companies are a totally
unnecessary profit layer between people paying for the health
"insurance" (really a service plan, not insurance) and the people they
are paying. The insurance companies are smart enough to keep that
issue from being discussed. Instead, they wave the red flag of "you
don't want the government deciding on your health care" - when the
alternative is an insurance company executive whose only goal is to
maximize profit by providing the minimum amount of care and coverage.

Unfortunately the neo-con machine is very sharp in their marketing aka
brainwashing.

 

There is a lot of profit in the health care business, but not very much in
the insurance end. Most big companies are self-insured for health care and
that includes GM (also companies like IBM). They only pay a fee to the
insurance companies to do claims administration. There is nothing preventing
these companies from doing there own claims administration if they thought
they could do it cheaper.

If you are so convinced the problem is with insurance companies, then you
might want to invest them, because their stocks are very depressed.

 

You are a completely fucked up pigfucking social commie moron who doesn't
give a rat's ass about the needs of children and those who can make it on
their own.


</flame>


Okay, feel better?



Good.


Now back to my regularly scheduled government job.