Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / GMC Cars / October 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

UAW workers strike GM

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jim Higgins - 24 Sep 2007 18:25 GMT
Auto industry suicide

UAW workers strike GM
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/UPDATE/709240421/1148
/AUTO01


The United Auto Workers launched a national strike today against General
Motors Corp. after 10 days of marathon bargaining failed to produce a
new labor pact for the automaker's 73,000 hourly U.S. workers.

The UAW hasn't staged a national strike against General Motors since 1970.

General Motors spokesman Dan Flores confirmed the strike but said GM
still hopes for a deal.

"We are disappointed in the UAW's decision to call a national strike.
Bargaining involves complex and difficult issues that involve the job
security of the U.S. workforce and the long-term viability of the company."

The union has called a press conference for 12:15 p.m. at its downtown
Detroit headquarters, Solidarity House. The UAW had announced late
Sunday it would strike the automaker if no agreement on a national labor
contract were reached by 11 a.m.

At 11 a.m. officials at Local 599 in Flint got on their cell phones,
called in plant reps and said, "Take them out."

A few minutes after calls were made, workers began streaming into the
local hall, where picket signs were laid out on folding tables in front
of huge murals that celebrate this union's militant background of
sit-down strikes and mass marches.

Local 160 in Warren represents about 2,200 workers at the GM Tech
Center. About 11:10, a convoy of GM vehicles and workers on motorcycles
began streaming into the union hall parking lot near 12 Mile and Van
Dyke roads.

Doug Cramb, 51, of Goodrich, is a 12-year GM veteran welder. He waved a
picket sign but said "I was hoping we wouldn't be striking. They were so
close on the weekend."

Other employees headed into the hall to pick up their strike assignments
and their blue-and-white picket signs.

"I'm kind of disappointed. I didn't want a strike," said Ida Hodgen of
Detroit, a 31-year GM employee. "I'm hopeful it doesn't last long."

One of the first employees to pick up his sign was Dave Tucker, a
22-year employee who was heading out for the first strike of his GM
career. "It needs to be done," Tucker said. "It is a big corporation
taking advantage of the people. I back my union 100 percent with
whatever needs to be done."

Employees brandishing signs formed a human barricade at one entrance to
the Pontiac Assembly Plant on Opdyke Road. They used their own bodies to
block a semi truck from entering and shouting, "Back up!" to the driver,
who eventually complied.

Workers leaving the plant helped the barricade by parking their cars
across the entryway. Some passing vehicles are honking support; others
are blaring their horns at the traffic obstruction.

The stunning move came after the union told its members on Sunday they
were to walk off the job unless they heard otherwise by 11 a.m. That
word never came, and now GM is facing its first strike since the UAW
struck the automaker's operation in Flint in 1998.

The union and automaker have been wrestling for weeks to reach a new
pattern-setting labor agreement for Detroit's Big Three automakers. The
UAW picked GM as the lead company to strike a deal the day before the
current contract expired Sept. 14.

Working under an hour-by-hour extension, GM and the UAW appeared late
last to week to have reached agreement on the most difficult issue in
the talks - the creation of a massive, union-run health-care trust to
cover medical bills for GM's 340,000 retirees and family members.

But the two sides apparently hit an impasse Sunday night after lengthy
discussions over the weekend on details of the trust, as well as wages,
job security and work rules.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger issued a harshly worded statement late
Sunday setting today's strike deadline.

"We're shocked and disappointed that General Motors has failed to
recognize and appreciate what our membership has contributed during the
past four years," Gettelfinger said.

Since bargaining for a new contract began in July, GM's mission was to
drastically reduce labor and retiree costs. The union's top priority was
maintaining U.S. factory jobs.

At the core of the talks was GM's proposal to unload $50 billion in
retiree obligation through a company-funded, union-run trust fund.

Across the regions, workers left their stations and reported for picket
duty.

By one minute after 11, retirees and officials from UAW Local 599 were
manning a picket line at GM's Flint Powertrain plant. Only 10 minutes
after the strike deadline had passed, a steady flow of the plant's 1,100
workers were streaming off the job into their cars and out to the
street. Autoworkers honked their car horns and waved fists in the air as
they passed picketers bearing signs reading, "UAW on strike."

"I'm kind of surprised," said Jessie Collins, a worker at the plant. "I
can't believe it's happening, but now that it is we're going to show
that we have strength."

Workers leaving the plant carried instructions about when and where to
picket for strike duty. By 11:25 a.m., the Flint plant's parking lot was
nearly empty, as the last few workers drove off.
John Horner - 24 Sep 2007 18:51 GMT
The circular firing squad of management and labor has formed the circle
and started shouting.  Will they have the wisdom to end it before the
firing begins?
Jim Higgins - 24 Sep 2007 21:38 GMT
> The circular firing squad of management and labor has formed the circle
> and started shouting.  Will they have the wisdom to end it before the
> firing begins?

Both sides have real trouble recognizing that the good old days are gone
forever and will *never* return, nobody wants to split the difference
and keep the train wreck at bay.
Brent - 24 Sep 2007 21:44 GMT
> One of the first employees to pick up his sign was Dave Tucker, a
> 22-year employee who was heading out for the first strike of his GM
> career. "It needs to be done," Tucker said. "It is a big corporation
> taking advantage of the people. I back my union 100 percent with
> whatever needs to be done."

How delusional are these people? If they are taking advantage of you,
QUIT! Go find another job that will pay someone with no education 100K+/year

Idiots.

b
Chevy Man - 25 Sep 2007 13:28 GMT
I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
GM needs to honor their obligations to their former employees.

> Auto industry suicide
>
[quoted text clipped - 107 lines]
> picket for strike duty. By 11:25 a.m., the Flint plant's parking lot was
> nearly empty, as the last few workers drove off.
Jim Higgins - 25 Sep 2007 13:54 GMT
> I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
> retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
>> picket for strike duty. By 11:25 a.m., the Flint plant's parking lot was
>> nearly empty, as the last few workers drove off.

The problem is that the old ways have changed, the platinum benefits
have changed and globalization has come.  The old ways have gone and
they will never return, ever.  Both GM and the UAW have set up a
circular firing squad, they earned it.
80 Knight - 26 Sep 2007 02:32 GMT
>> I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
>> retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> never return, ever.  Both GM and the UAW have set up a circular firing
> squad, they earned it.

How would you like it if everything promised to you for 30 years was taken
away during retirement?
Oh, and go f.ck yourself too, trolling moron.
Jim Higgins - 26 Sep 2007 02:46 GMT
>>> I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
>>> retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
> away during retirement?
> Oh, and go f.ck yourself too, trolling moron.

I would not care for it but that is the way it *is* now.  The old days
will never, ever return and both GM and the UAW will have to get by on
less or they will be lining up at McDonald's for jobs.  Would you rather
have 60% of something or 100% of nothing-as in no job, no health
benefits at all.  Your call.
80 Knight - 26 Sep 2007 05:10 GMT
>>>> I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
>>>> retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
[quoted text clipped - 129 lines]
> have 60% of something or 100% of nothing-as in no job, no health benefits
> at all.  Your call.

In other words, "It doesn't effect me, so why should I care?".
Brent - 26 Sep 2007 12:01 GMT
> In other words, "It doesn't effect me, so why should I care?".

I think it's the simple fact that life doesn't work like that anymore.
You can't pay a guy 100K a year to assemble cars. It's not rocket
science. Everyone has to pay for their own insurance now, and what the
hell is wrong with saving for your own retirement? It's not some
companies responsibility to take are of you for 30 years (55-85) because
you worked for them, earning a fantastic wage, for 30 years (25-55).

Take some personal responsibility.

b
80 Knight - 26 Sep 2007 12:06 GMT
>> In other words, "It doesn't effect me, so why should I care?".
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Take some personal responsibility.

That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is if you worked for a
company for 30 years, and all that time you were promised a retirement plan,
how would you feel if it disappeared?  GM agreed to this for years.  If they
have to make a change, then stop the practice now, with all new (as in,
hired after the decision) employees.  Don't take away things people have
worked 30+ years for.
Chevy Man - 26 Sep 2007 13:32 GMT
The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
put up with all the sh.t you have to put up with to work a factory job
without benefits.If a guy makes 100k a year it is because he has worked a
ton of overtime. No family life, no free weekends, looks like less than fair
compensation to me.
>>> In other words, "It doesn't effect me, so why should I care?".
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> (as in, hired after the decision) employees.  Don't take away things
> people have worked 30+ years for.
Brent - 26 Sep 2007 16:40 GMT
> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
> They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
> put up with all the sh.t you have to put up with to work a factory job
> without benefits.If a guy makes 100k a year it is because he has worked a
> ton of overtime. No family life, no free weekends, looks like less than fair
> compensation to me.

Then they are free to find work elsewhere. You can't say the company is
unfair when you can always quit and go somewhere making more money. It's
a personal choice, not a right to employment.

b
80 Knight - 26 Sep 2007 21:17 GMT
>> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
>> They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> unfair when you can always quit and go somewhere making more money. It's a
> personal choice, not a right to employment.

Look who's talking.  You also are free to apply to work at GM, making the
good bucks.  It works both ways.
Brent - 26 Sep 2007 22:18 GMT
>>> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
>>> They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Look who's talking.  You also are free to apply to work at GM, making the
> good bucks.  It works both ways.

I wasted 5 years in a steel factory, no thanks. I make more than those
guys at GM and I represent myself. Thanks for the career advice though.

b
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 07:22 GMT
>>>> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they
>>>> can. They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I wasted 5 years in a steel factory, no thanks. I make more than those
> guys at GM and I represent myself. Thanks for the career advice though.

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client".  Seriously though, if
you are making such good money and are so happy, what's your problem with
the Unions?
Brent - 27 Sep 2007 11:13 GMT
> "He who represents himself has a fool for a client".  Seriously though, if
> you are making such good money and are so happy, what's your problem with
> the Unions?

I just think they have such an outdated 'Us vs Them' rhetoric that
simply isn't true at best and devastating to a company at worst.

I've been a factory guy, now I'm management and the only difference is
the clothes. Everyone has to work hard, sometimes make sacrifices and do
what's best for the company because in the long run because that's also
best for you. They just need to be more flexible. These guys sound like
5th graders, *life isn't fair!*, well duh, life isn't fair. Deal with it
or stagnate.

b
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 11:46 GMT
>> "He who represents himself has a fool for a client".  Seriously though,
>> if you are making such good money and are so happy, what's your problem
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> 5th graders, *life isn't fair!*, well duh, life isn't fair. Deal with it
> or stagnate.

I can certainly agree that no one deserves to get everything they want.  The
reason I was replying in this thread is it is my belief that if you put in
30+ years for a company, and are promised something for all of those 30+
years, why shouldn't you get it?  You said "people should plan for there own
retirement".  Well, that's all well and good, but if you were told your
retirement would be taken care of completely, would you save for it?
Doubtful.
tango - 30 Sep 2007 20:23 GMT
>>> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they
>>> can. They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Look who's talking.  You also are free to apply to work at GM, making
> the good bucks.  It works both ways.

For 60 or 70 years the auto industry was a monopoly which pretty much did
as they pleased including the Unions and Management.
When the Monopoly began to disintegrate, starting in the late sixties,
they continued to give themselves outrageous wages compared to most other
Americans. The Unions and Management entered into a mutual agreement to
look the other way at each others outrageous Benefits and Bonuses,
including big discounts on new cars which every other American who bought
a car was forced to pay, which has led to their current rude awakening.
NO ONE should feel any regrets for either of these groups who could care
less about anyone except their greedy selves.
Mike Hunter - 01 Oct 2007 20:10 GMT
If what you believe was actually true, how does that account for the fact
foreign brand vehicles, assembled in non union plants cost at least 20% more
than similar sized and equipped domestics?   LOL

mike

>>>> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they
>>>> can. They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> NO ONE should feel any regrets for either of these groups who could care
> less about anyone except their greedy selves.
80 Knight - 26 Sep 2007 21:16 GMT
> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
> They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
> put up with all the sh.t you have to put up with to work a factory job
> without benefits.If a guy makes 100k a year it is because he has worked a
> ton of overtime. No family life, no free weekends, looks like less than
> fair compensation to me.

Exactly!  Glad someone has a brain.

>>>> In other words, "It doesn't effect me, so why should I care?".
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>> (as in, hired after the decision) employees.  Don't take away things
>> people have worked 30+ years for.
David Starr - 26 Sep 2007 22:42 GMT
>The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
>They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
>put up with all the sh.t you have to put up with to work a factory job
>without benefits.If a guy makes 100k a year it is because he has worked a
>ton of overtime. No family life, no free weekends, looks like less than fair
>compensation to me.

This is the first time I've seen things explained that way.  Thanks.
It's funny: they "have" to pay execs millions or they'll leave.  The people in
the plants that actually build the product that makes the corporation money are
supposed to work for peanuts.  An "executive" making a million a year is getting
$500.00 per hour, based on a 2000 hour work year.  My pay rate as an electrician
when I retired in 05 was $31.05 per hour.

One of my cousins still works as a maintenance electrician in the plant I
retired from.  He is now the only electrician in an area that management once
assigned 5 electricians to.  He maintains the same number of machines and
material handling systems that 5 people did just 2 1/2 years ago.  I talked to
him over the 4th of July weekend, and he said he had worked 2000 hours as of
June 30.  That's an average of 11.1 hours per day, 7 days per week, with no
holidays off.    Makes for a great family life.

In the last year I worked, 5 of my coworkers suffered job related injuries.  Two
slipped in oil that had not been cleaned up after it was spilled and had a knee
replaced.  One had rheumatiod arthritis as a result of having her arm pulled
into a machine several years before.  One slipped on an oil covered overhead
catwalk and destryoed his back.  The fifth suffered a torn bicep that was not
properly treated by plant medical.  When they sent him to a specialist, he was
told it was too late for corrective surgery.  All 5 had work restrictions due to
their injuries, and were called to medical one at a time and told "We no longer
have a job that you can do with your restrictions".  All 5 had to hire a lawyer
and go to court to get any compensation.  The last one just got his settlement -
2 years after he was pushed out the door.  So much for the company caring about
their workers.  BUT - the CEO is flown to the Mayo Clinic every year for a
physical.  

Personal opinion - those that cry about auto workers "obscene pay & benefits"
have never worked an hourly job in an auto plant, and probably haven't even been
in one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike Marlow - 26 Sep 2007 23:15 GMT
> The company offers you these benefits to get the BEST employees they can.
> They keep you because of the benefits. I do not believe that anyone would
> put up with all the sh.t you have to put up with to work a factory job
> without benefits.If a guy makes 100k a year it is because he has worked a
> ton of overtime. No family life, no free weekends, looks like less than
> fair compensation to me.

I've never heard a UAW worker complaining about that OT.  In fact, quite the
contrary.  Nothing about that sounds like less than fair compensation.

Signature

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Brent - 26 Sep 2007 16:43 GMT
> That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is if you worked for a
> company for 30 years, and all that time you were promised a retirement plan,
> how would you feel if it disappeared?  GM agreed to this for years.

Well sure I'd be disappointed but they gotta start dealing with reality
instead of trying to milk every penny out of the company. Let's be
realistic, these guys make tons of money and you should never trust a
company to put your welfare over profit. The company can't pay
retirement benefits if it's closed.

b
80 Knight - 26 Sep 2007 21:15 GMT
>> That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is if you worked for a
>> company for 30 years, and all that time you were promised a retirement
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> company to put your welfare over profit. The company can't pay retirement
> benefits if it's closed.

We're talking General Motors here, not some convenience store down the road.
They can afford it, they just don't want to take money away from there
6-figure bonus packages.
Brent - 26 Sep 2007 23:51 GMT
>>> That's not what I am saying.  What I am saying is if you worked for a
>>> company for 30 years, and all that time you were promised a retirement
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> They can afford it, they just don't want to take money away from there
> 6-figure bonus packages.

They lost 12billion last year. That can't continue or management will be
the first ones to go. Shareholders vote.

b
Edwin Pawlowski - 27 Sep 2007 02:57 GMT
"80 Knight" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message

> We're talking General Motors here, not some convenience store down the
> road. They can afford it, they just don't want to take money away from
> there 6-figure bonus packages.

They can afford it?  Why are they losing billions if they can afford it?

Sure, executive pay is obscene same a most huge corporations, but when a
company is losing money, it is difficult to say "they can afford it".  That
is different than "the workers deserve it"  but wages should never be paid
just because a company can afford it..  You also want to work for a company
with substantial cash reserves to get it through the lean times, pay for new
technology or whatever is needed to remain competitive.
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 07:27 GMT
> "80 Knight" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> company with substantial cash reserves to get it through the lean times,
> pay for new technology or whatever is needed to remain competitive.

This reply is directed to both Edwin and Brent.  GM's sales actually rose
this month, while Toy and the others dropped.  GM has a lot more money then
they pretend to have.  This isn't the first time GM has cried "broke".
As for what the workers deserve, if you haven't worked on a line like GM (or
another company), then you know nothing about what they deserve.  Do you
know how many accidents happen a day?  Do you know what it's like doing
exactly the same thing for 8 hours a day?  And, I mean *exactly* the same
thing.  It's not all glory for them.
Brent - 27 Sep 2007 11:17 GMT
> This reply is directed to both Edwin and Brent.  GM's sales actually rose
> this month, while Toy and the others dropped.  GM has a lot more money then
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> exactly the same thing for 8 hours a day?  And, I mean *exactly* the same
> thing.  It's not all glory for them.

I'm not gonna tell you that it is. It's not work that I can do, I tried
it for 5 years and then got the hell out.

What do you think of a company like Microsoft who has near 100billion in
cash? Should they be paying all the poor programmers who sit at a
computer inputting 12 million lines of code more money? You think that
isn't incredibly boring as well?

It's not that I don't see the point, but I have very little sympathy. If
you don't like your job, get a different one. Those men do a lot of hard
manual work for one hell of a wage.

b
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 11:53 GMT
>> This reply is directed to both Edwin and Brent.  GM's sales actually rose
>> this month, while Toy and the others dropped.  GM has a lot more money
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I'm not gonna tell you that it is. It's not work that I can do, I tried it
> for 5 years and then got the hell out.

I know several people who worked for GM but couldn't handle it, and got out
as well.  Many can't do it, and people who have never tried, can't
understand "why".

> What do you think of a company like Microsoft who has near 100billion in
> cash? Should they be paying all the poor programmers who sit at a computer
> inputting 12 million lines of code more money? You think that isn't
> incredibly boring as well?

I would have to say that is very different.  For starters, I know
programmers who love there job's.  Would I do it?  Hell no.  But, I also
don't know how much Microsoft pays the programmers to begin with.  They
should be paid what they are worth.  Obviously the main company has to make
a profit, but if you want workers to do good work, pay them well.

> It's not that I don't see the point, but I have very little sympathy. If
> you don't like your job, get a different one. Those men do a lot of hard
> manual work for one hell of a wage.

And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
Brent - 27 Sep 2007 12:43 GMT
> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.

I just don't see $20/hr as a bad wage for the work performed. I think
Toyota workers are pretty satisfied with the jobs they have. Toyota is a
hell of a good company to work for. Managers desks are on the floor
where everyone on the line can see what they are doing and they are
expected to help when needed.

b
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 13:03 GMT
>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> everyone on the line can see what they are doing and they are expected to
> help when needed.

Here is a question then:  Should GM pay less, or Toy pay more?  IMHO, GM,
Ford, Toy, Dodge, etc, should all pay (at least around) the same wage, for
the same job.
Jim Higgins - 27 Sep 2007 14:17 GMT
>>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Ford, Toy, Dodge, etc, should all pay (at least around) the same wage, for
> the same job.

Drag Toyota & Honda down because they produced efficient cars that
Americans wanted to buy?  Reward GM for treating customers shabbily?
Reward Detroit for failing to read the hand writing on the wall?  Not
hardly.
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 23:00 GMT
>>>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>>>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Reward Detroit for failing to read the hand writing on the wall?  Not
> hardly.

Yeah, that's why Toy's sales are going down and GM's are going up, right?
Oh, and go f.ck yourself, again, Troll.
Jim Higgins - 28 Sep 2007 05:01 GMT
>>>>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>>>>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Yeah, that's why Toy's sales are going down and GM's are going up, right?
> Oh, and go f.ck yourself, again, Troll.

Since the new tier two employees will be making way less they would be
ahead of the game to go to work for Toyota or Honda and make more
money-without UAW dues.
Mike Hunter - 28 Sep 2007 16:12 GMT
Not really.  The starting wage at union plants will still be higher than
paid by the import brands and the benefits will still be greater.

mike

>> Yeah, that's why Toy's sales are going down and GM's are going up, right?
>> Oh, and go f.ck yourself, again, Troll.
>
> Since the new tier two employees will be making way less they would be
> ahead of the game to go to work for Toyota or Honda and make more
> money-without UAW dues.
Brent - 28 Sep 2007 16:47 GMT
> Not really.  The starting wage at union plants will still be higher than
> paid by the import brands and the benefits will still be greater.
>
> mike

Until the union plant closes.

b
Mike Hunter - 28 Sep 2007 17:56 GMT
I guess you don't remember the VW plant in western PA?    LOL

mike

>> Not really.  The starting wage at union plants will still be higher than
>> paid by the import brands and the benefits will still be greater.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> b
Brent - 27 Sep 2007 16:23 GMT
>>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Ford, Toy, Dodge, etc, should all pay (at least around) the same wage, for
> the same job.

Seriously? A lot of people have hard jobs that pay much less than $20/hr

That's what I find ridiculous about the union guys talking about how
unfairly they are treated at $27/hr, I mean come on guys. The new plants
are being built in the south where the people are thankful for the jobs,
and they'll work hard for a good wage. It might not be 27/hr, but it's
higher than the manufacturing jobs that are around that area.

b
80 Knight - 27 Sep 2007 23:03 GMT
>>>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>>>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> for the same job.
> Seriously? A lot of people have hard jobs that pay much less than $20/hr

That I can agree with.  But, that brings us back to your "if you don't like
your job, they get another one".

> That's what I find ridiculous about the union guys talking about how
> unfairly they are treated at $27/hr, I mean come on guys. The new plants
> are being built in the south where the people are thankful for the jobs,
> and they'll work hard for a good wage. It might not be 27/hr, but it's
> higher than the manufacturing jobs that are around that area.

The question becomes, how do you lower the wages, and still come out looking
good? I doubt they can ever accomplish that, nor could any other company.
Brent - 27 Sep 2007 23:22 GMT
> The question becomes, how do you lower the wages, and still come out looking
> good? I doubt they can ever accomplish that, nor could any other company.

You aren't going to look good, but just keep moving production to the
anti-union south. It's working for the Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan and
Honda. Michigan is in deep trouble.

b
Mike Hunter - 27 Sep 2007 23:51 GMT
Doesn't work that way.  UAW contracts are with the auto company, not the
plant.  If the company opens a new plant. like GM did with Toyota in
California, the workers are automatically part of the company contract that
says the UAW represents all of the workers except for the exempt (bosses)
and non-exempt (clerks) workers.

Renault discovered that they could not "runaway" from the union after they
bought "Mack" and built a new plant in North Carolina.  Renault fought that
clause in the contract in federal court because NC was a "right to work"
state but they lost.

The Governor at the time said inviting Mack down here was the worse thing I
ever did, after he lost the next election.  The reason was all the other
non-union skilled workers around the Mack truck plant like electrician,
carpenters, machinists etc. started to join unions and got raises, benefits
and better working conditions, after they saw what Mack was paying down the
street for the same type of skills.

Even the waitress all around the plant in Willingborough loved the union
guys.  The Mack workers, that came down from Pennsylvania were giving tips
in dollars while the locals were tipping with quarters

You might ask the Toyota workers in the California plant if they would
prefer to work in any of the other non-union Toyota plants     LOL

mike

>> The question becomes, how do you lower the wages, and still come out
>> looking good? I doubt they can ever accomplish that, nor could any other
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> b
80 Knight - 28 Sep 2007 02:28 GMT
>> The question becomes, how do you lower the wages, and still come out
>> looking good? I doubt they can ever accomplish that, nor could any other
>> company.
> You aren't going to look good, but just keep moving production to the
> anti-union south. It's working for the Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan and Honda.
> Michigan is in deep trouble.

What's good for Toy is good for everyone, eh?  Is that how you would handle
this situation?  Workers complain to much, so shut there factories down and
move to a town more "suitable" to the companies needs?
I'm sorry Brent, but you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
Brent - 28 Sep 2007 11:21 GMT
> I'm sorry Brent, but you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough my friend.

b
Mike Hunter - 27 Sep 2007 21:31 GMT
DUH, so are the "managers" in domestic plants "on the floor.  By the way the
starting wage in a Wal-Mart warehouse, for picking boxes is $14.50,
including benefits."   The average way is $17

mike

>> And if they stop fighting for that wage, you can bet your house it will
>> disappear.  Look at how much *less* Toy pays there people.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> b
Steve W. - 28 Sep 2007 00:41 GMT
> DUH, so are the "managers" in domestic plants "on the floor.  By the way the
> starting wage in a Wal-Mart warehouse, for picking boxes is $14.50,
> including benefits."   The average way is $17

Depends on the D.C. The frozen foods D.C.s get more because of the low
temperatures they work in. The Fashion D.C. that my wife works in starts
the unloaders at 12.50. Add in the safety bonuses (20-50 bucks), the
quarterly incentive (based on hours worked and good shipped) can be from
200-400.00, company discount of 10% (foodstuffs not included except
vegetables).
 Her boss works side by side with her.

Signature

Steve W.

Edwin Pawlowski - 28 Sep 2007 02:49 GMT
"80 Knight" <nospam@nospam> wrote in message
> This reply is directed to both Edwin and Brent.  GM's sales actually rose
> this month, while Toy and the others dropped.

That's good.  I hope they  pull out and do well as they have in the past.
While I've had issues with GM at times, I still like ther cars for the most
part and hope to buy them in the future.

> GM has a lot more money then they pretend to have.  This isn't the first
> time GM has cried "broke".

Perhaps.  I've not taken a detailed look at he books.  I do fault the
executives that are taking raises while cutting the pay of the workers. I'm
against that at any company.

> As for what the workers deserve, if you haven't worked on a line like GM
> (or another company), then you know nothing about what they deserve.  Do
> you know how many accidents happen a day?  Do you know what it's like
> doing exactly the same thing for 8 hours a day?  And, I mean *exactly* the
> same thing.  It's not all glory for them.

I'm all for making a decent living.  Yes, it is tough work but others work
as hard for less.  If you can get it, good for you.  The "corporation"
though, is not a bottomless money pit that you can suck on more and more and
remain competitive.  It is not just GM, it is many companies and some
sectors of the government that find they gave away benefits without the
means to pay for them.  The greed was on both sides.  The union wanted more,
the company did not want a strike, so we'll give them what they want and
raise the price of the car.  Worked for a while, but those days are gone.

As for profit and cash reserves, a business needs to have rather substantial
amounts for the lean times.  Right now, my company has not had any
production for 10 weeks and will not for another 12 to 16 weeks.  This is
through no fault of our own.  Without substantial reserves (and good
insurance) we'd be gone.  Instead, none of us have missed a paycheck.  All
of our suppliers are paid and all the contractors we are now using will be
paid too.  Yes, my bonus will probably be small this year, but so what?  It
will get better again.    Sad that employees must have an adversarial
relationship with the employer.  I'd never want to work like that.
Mike Hunter - 26 Sep 2007 17:26 GMT
It is curious how so many people are against unions yet all of the things
they enjoy in the workplace today all came about when coal miners and auto
workers, who were being used and abused by employers, finally banded
together in unions.  When I was young my dad and other members of my family
worked for 12 hours a day six days a week in a steel mill and earned just
enough to get by.  Steel workers did not unionize until the early forties.
My mother packed a lunch and he would go to the mill, if they did not have
enough work for all of those that showed up he would come back again, which
was often.  Those that got to work most often were the white men.  In
eastern Pennsylvania where I lived at the time, not a day went by that a
steel worker or a coal miner was not hurt on the job and not a week went by
that one of them was not killed on the job, and many times it was more than
one.  Everyone would rush to the mines or the steel mill when we heard the
shrill steam whistle blowing that indicated an accident.  If someone was
killed at work the company would bring the body, or what remained of the
body, home to their family.  If no one was home they would leave it on the
front porch, for God sake.

One of the reasons OSHA came into existence was the unions fought to bring
the safety conditions, they fought to get, where expended to all workers.
Even today union plants are the safest place to work.  Today most employers
offer just enough to keep their workers from joining unions.  Me thinks they
think unions are no good because that is what they hear from their
employers.    ;)

mike

>>> I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
>>> retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
[quoted text clipped - 123 lines]
> away during retirement?
> Oh, and go f.ck yourself too, trolling moron.
Edwin Pawlowski - 27 Sep 2007 01:02 GMT
> It is curious how so many people are against unions yet all of the things
> they enjoy in the workplace today all came about when coal miners and auto
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> earned just enough to get by.  Steel workers did not unionize until the
> early forties.

> Even today union plants are the safest place to work.  Today most
> employers offer just enough to keep their workers from joining unions.  Me
> thinks they think unions are no good because that is what they hear from
> their employers.    ;)

True
False

Yes, years ago the unions helped make American a great place for the worker.
They were needed.  They brought about much needed reform.

Then things changed.  Unions started to worry more about themselves than the
workers they represented.  I've seen this firsthand in negotiations and in
meetings before the negotiations.  I've seen the dealings and then the big
show for the workers.  The workers did not know the contract was "settled"
at lunch weeks before and they were just used as sources of income from
dues.

I've seen dues collected every month for years and not one penny paid out.
I'd not give them a penny.
Mike Hunter - 27 Sep 2007 01:36 GMT
Really?  Do you think all of the union lawyers work pro bono or the union
hall appeared out of thin air or it operates by magic?  You give the
government a lot more than the few hours pay that you pay in union dues, do
you ever "see" a penny of that coming your way?    LOL

mike

>> It is curious how so many people are against unions yet all of the things
>> they enjoy in the workplace today all came about when coal miners and
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> I've seen dues collected every month for years and not one penny paid out.
> I'd not give them a penny.
Edwin Pawlowski - 27 Sep 2007 02:43 GMT
> Really?  Do you think all of the union lawyers work pro bono or the union
> hall appeared out of thin air or it operates by magic?  You give the
> government a lot more than the few hours pay that you pay in union dues,
> do you ever "see" a penny of that coming your way?    LOL
>
> mike

Yeah, this guy was no lawyer. He was the union negotiator and packed a
pistol. He told us how much money they needed for the union and that is the
only thing he had to take back.  These guys never saw the union hall or a
penny of benefits.  The shop steward got a few bucks a month for his
position but he made more on the side cleaning the office on the side..

Oh, I forgot to mention. ---- We paid the workers more that called for in
the contract.  Why? because the both deserved it and we had to be
competitive with neighboring companies that wanted the same workers.

At least for  every dollar I give the government in taxes I get maybe a
nickel in benefits.  That is more than these guys got from the union.
Mike Hunter - 27 Sep 2007 21:24 GMT
If you are the average working man in the US you are in the 28% income tax
bracket, union dues is a few hours pay a month, get real

mike

>> Really?  Do you think all of the union lawyers work pro bono or the union
>> hall appeared out of thin air or it operates by magic?  You give the
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> At least for  every dollar I give the government in taxes I get maybe a
> nickel in benefits.  That is more than these guys got from the union.
Jim Higgins - 27 Sep 2007 22:44 GMT
> If you are the average working man in the US you are in the 28% income tax
> bracket, union dues is a few hours pay a month, get real
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> At least for  every dollar I give the government in taxes I get maybe a
>> nickel in benefits.  That is more than these guys got from the union.

With the new two tier pay setup to pay new folks about 1/2 of regulars
(that should create a real morale problem) with the 2nd tier people pay
1/2 of regular dues-or are they stuck with full dues for 1/2 pay?
Mike Hunter - 27 Sep 2007 23:23 GMT
If indeed they earn only your assumed "half as much," they will pay half as
much in dues for the exact same coverage as those that pay more, for their
representation that provides the union with it's only power and that is to
require management to abide by the contract.

mike

>> If you are the average working man in the US you are in the 28% income
>> tax bracket, union dues is a few hours pay a month, get real
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> (that should create a real morale problem) with the 2nd tier people pay
> 1/2 of regular dues-or are they stuck with full dues for 1/2 pay?
Edwin Pawlowski - 28 Sep 2007 00:32 GMT
> If you are the average working man in the US you are in the 28% income tax
> bracket, union dues is a few hours pay a month, get real
>
> mike

Get real?  The guys paid union dues. They got NOTHING in return.  Where is
the justice in that or the justification for it?  They were just sources or
revenue for the union leaders.  No one ever collected a penny in benefits of
any time from the time I started in 1970 to the time the company was sold
and closed in 1981.  Why should they work a few hours for some union
official that does nothing for them?  Screw that.

Go ahead, send in your dues.  I'm not. Never did, never will.  I've managed
to find my way in life independently.
<RJ> - 25 Sep 2007 15:51 GMT
>I hope the UAW gets everything they are After. How can GM screw their
>retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
>GM needs to honor their obligations to their former employees.

sh.t happens !!

Times change.... circumstances change.
Promises made in the best of times
sometimes don't come true.

I worked for a computer company in the 50's
Their motto was;
"Hire with Burroughs, retire with Burroughs"
Then, they went belly-up.
Did they owe me a retirement ?

<rj>
zzbunker@netscape.net - 25 Sep 2007 21:24 GMT
> >I hope theUAWgets everything they are After. How canGMscrew their
> >retirees who have worked hard for years and are now on a fixed income?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Then, they went belly-up.
> Did they owe me a retirement ?

  Of couse not, since Burroughs was the
  typical AI freaked out company in the 1950s
  working with auto companies to promise
  a non-existent future.
  Which is why it only took the invention
  of Laserdisks to put then out of buisness,
  along with the Cadillac.

> <rj>
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.