UAW threatens to torpedo Ford
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#32
Originally Posted by rockville,Oct 28 2009, 08:51 AM
The Autoextremist had an interesting take on the Ford-UAW bit.
http://www.autoextremist.com/
http://www.autoextremist.com/
#34
Former Moderator
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Oct 27 2009, 04:37 PM
unions build our bridges and office buildings. They string wires between communities and businesses. Union workers do pretty much all the basic infrastructure in this nation. Kind of silly to contend unions are the sum of all evil.
Plenty of people argue that the management of the financial industry caused so much pain and ruin, maybe we should get rid of all white collar jobs, or perhaps the benefits that go with them? Or perhaps make "the government" dictate how much people can get paid?
Seriously people. The UAW make themselves a good target at times, but just a tiny amount of thought goes a long way. Ckit's post was a good example of this. The knee-jerk anti-union posts just seem like so much mindless parrotting of each other with no intelligent content.
Plenty of people argue that the management of the financial industry caused so much pain and ruin, maybe we should get rid of all white collar jobs, or perhaps the benefits that go with them? Or perhaps make "the government" dictate how much people can get paid?
Seriously people. The UAW make themselves a good target at times, but just a tiny amount of thought goes a long way. Ckit's post was a good example of this. The knee-jerk anti-union posts just seem like so much mindless parrotting of each other with no intelligent content.
#35
Originally Posted by rockville,Oct 28 2009, 06:51 AM
The Autoextremist had an interesting take on the Ford-UAW bit.
http://www.autoextremist.com/
http://www.autoextremist.com/
J. r.
#36
Registered User
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Oct 28 2009, 10:08 AM
BS. Just because NOW unions build everything, it doesn't mean that privatized companies can't do the same thing. First of all, what, are all those workers never going to work again? They simply need to have their contracts torn up, and told, this is the way it is now, don't like it, take a hike. You really think all those people will walk. They will huff, puff, and eat it.
If unions are so necessary to keep a company functioning properly, how do Toyota and other automakers get by without having them?
#37
Registered User
F' the UAW! From that article, "pinheads in the UAW" indeed. If you do a crappy job you shouldn't have that job (hah, or be promoted into management!).
I believe if a company does well it should spread some of that income to its people, call it profit-sharing, but I also believe the reverse. And the UAW is a one-way ratchet on costs (more, more, more). This is the flip-side of government intervention in our automakers. It was an opportunity to well-and-truly break the unions. If the results of your actions cause utter failure then you are forced to change. We didn't force enough change... yet.
I believe if a company does well it should spread some of that income to its people, call it profit-sharing, but I also believe the reverse. And the UAW is a one-way ratchet on costs (more, more, more). This is the flip-side of government intervention in our automakers. It was an opportunity to well-and-truly break the unions. If the results of your actions cause utter failure then you are forced to change. We didn't force enough change... yet.
#38
Originally Posted by CKit,Oct 27 2009, 12:52 PM
I hope that the government puts pressure on UAW to get a clue.
I'm not sure that the government was "protecting" the UAW as much as getting them invested enough that the realize that it's not UAW vs. auto makers. By giving them a big stake in the success of the future of those companies, hopefully they're making them work towards viability rather than short-term greed.
These are just my opinions and do not reflect in-depth research of the situation at hand.
I'm not sure that the government was "protecting" the UAW as much as getting them invested enough that the realize that it's not UAW vs. auto makers. By giving them a big stake in the success of the future of those companies, hopefully they're making them work towards viability rather than short-term greed.
These are just my opinions and do not reflect in-depth research of the situation at hand.
This distorts the incentive structure and enables unions to rationally choose to kill their associated firm.
#39
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Oct 28 2009, 07:08 AM
BS. Just because NOW unions build everything, it doesn't mean that privatized companies can't do the same thing. First of all, what, are all those workers never going to work again? They simply need to have their contracts torn up, and told, this is the way it is now, don't like it, take a hike. You really think all those people will walk. They will huff, puff, and eat it.
Police have a union. Don't see that system causing the downfall of civilization yet. Ever turn on a light or make a phone call? Unions made all that happen, too. And if unions are so f'ing bad, how the hell did Ford, GM, and Chrysler get this far with them? How is it possible it took 100 years for the bad, bad UAW to bring those companies to their knees? How bad could they be if it took that long?
Now, you can either keep saying "unions suck!" or try to learn something from reality. And reality is that those workers will walk if you try to strong-arm them, they won't just "huff, puff, and eat it." It's called a strike. Read some history, they've happened before.
Or just plug your ears and keep up the anti-union mantra if it makes you happy. Your call
#40
Registered User
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Oct 28 2009, 10:59 AM
And reality is that those workers will walk if you try to strong-arm them, they won't just "huff, puff, and eat it." It's called a strike. Read some history, they've happened before.