PedalFaster

Lots of terrible arguments here.

You have yet to address the obvious rebuttal to this point, which is if unions are so essential to locating and maintaining a trained labor force, how do all of the corporations which don't employ union workers manage to locate and maintain their trained labor forces?

[QUOTE=NuncoStr8,Oct 28 2009, 08:59 AM]It isn't an accident or some nefarious scheme that got things that way.

PedalFaster

Just read the Autoextremist article and could not agree more. He makes a similar point that I made above:

...except that they're not doing it to "protect their warped view of the world", but rather to line their own pockets.

rockville

You should look into what the transportation workers union in NY did to the city's budget. You should also look into the union dealings in San Diego. The city went belly up because of dirty pensions and unions.

NuncoStr8

Private companies hire union workers to do these kinds of jobs. That's how it works. It's a system that exists because it is more efficient than the alternatives, i.e. each company finding and training their own personnel each time a bridge needs building.

Yes, some companies do find and train their own personnel rather than use union labor, but those companies generally don't build roads and skyscrapers. That's the bottom line.

Your argument that "it's not working today" flies in the face of reality. That's how it DOES work today. Reality is the rebuttal. Exceptions on a small scale do not negate the truth.

I don't think it's the workers or the cars that are having a hard time competing. Over the past 30 years, the trend has been to open the US to foreign competition with the idea that it makes US companies more competitive. If Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, et al were allowed to build factories here and open dealerships and spend billions on marketing, it would be rather surprising if they DIDN'T increase their market share. And if we open our markets to competition faster than the market grows, there is only one thing that can happen to domestic makers - their market share decreases. It's not a statement on quality, it's a predictable effect of increasing competition and choice on the market.

If we are honest, the idea that high sales is somehow proof of Toyota or Honda product quality inherently means that high sales are also proof of Ford, GM, and Chrysler product quality, seeing as they have high sales as well.

People don't have to be "fed up" with a company's products to switch brands. They just have a desire to exercise choice. I've owned cars by numerous makers, in the interest of sampling some of each. I wasn't driven by dissatisfaction, it was curiosity and opportunity. I hardly think I'm the only one who has done that. In fact, most people I know care less about brand and perceived quality than the actual thing they are buying, whether vehicle, wireless router, sandwich, whatever.

rockville

BTW,

I will acknowledge that getting the members of a union to see reason is often like herding cats. The problem is the union is a democracy. So lets say the leadership realizes that we can either close one factory and thus protect say 2 other factories or we can keep all 3 open and risk the company going under. Now in this case it should be clear to the leaders that one plant needs to go. However, how do you get the union members to vote for that?

From the point of view of a member in the factory that might be closed it's clear you should vote against the closing. It's simple economics. Vote against the closing and you may get paid (say 50% chance of losing your job). Vote for it and you lose your job (100% chance). So it is in your own interest to resist the change and hope for the best. Of course if you are one of the workers in the remaining 2 factories it should be clear that you need to vote to close. A vote to close means 0% chance that your job goes away.

Things get more complex if you don't know which plant will be shut down. If we use the 50% chance that the company goes under then a vote for keeping all three factories gives you a 50% chance of losing your job. A vote to close one results in a 33% chance that your factory is closed. So in this case it makes sense to vote for closure.

But if that 50% number is less certain or even worse, if you just assume GM will always be their, then you might assume the risk of corporate failure is say 10%. Now it makes sense to vote no on the closing. A vote yes is a 33% chance of losing your job vs a 10% chance the other way. The problem is one way you might lose your job, the other way everyone loses their jobs. In general it will be better to keep the company operating even if it means killing some jobs but what's good for the total economy isn't always what's best for the individual.

Personally, I think it would be great if $1 from all tax payers went to me but I don't see that being great for the economy at large. I'm sure I wouldn't invest the money wisely... unless racing tires count as wisdom

rockville

I don't think that had anything to do with it. When people started importing Toyotas their intent was to make money. They weren't thinking, "this will fix the Big 3".

PedalFaster

You're still answering a question different from the one being asked.

Do you acknowledge that there are companies / industries that employ skilled non-union workers? If you answer no, then you're asserting something which is obviously factually incorrect, and thus your argument collapses right there.

If you answer yes, then please explain how that statement is consistent with your assertion that unions are necessary for hiring and maintaining a skilled work force. That assertion is one of the main pillars of your argument, but I believe from firsthand experience that it's untrue.

Also, you yet again avoided all of the other points in my response. Maybe you should ask yourself why you're avoiding them if your argument is so strong.

wickerbill

It's not on the info card his union gave him to use in arguments like this.

Penforhire

Unions are completely unnecessary today. We have labor laws to protect workers. Yes, unions were necessary to accomplish that. Not any more.

Professional certifications are NOT the same as labor unions. There is no correlation between union membership and skills. I'd are a possible negative correlation, since unions tend to encourage "book rate" and similar lowest-common-denominator (serves the weakest members) techniques.

Nunco, your rhetoric is weak and wasted on those of us with non-union experience who ever had to deal with union workers.

Wildncrazy

Unions didn't make any of those things happen NuncoStr8. It just so happens that at some point in process those companies got unionized which slowed up the progress and raised the cost of the product.

And your talk of training is also way off base. You talk as if no one but union people have any skills or training. Bah. Union people get paid to train others pay for their training. Who do you think pays the most attention? Union members can't be fired for being a retard and non union employee has to prove they can actually use any training they got.

I'm from a very Union family and except for defending themselves from non-union people all they ever think of is what's best for them, never for the company and never a thought for the fact that there might not be a company one day.