I dare you to defend the UAW

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:53 pm

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... spx?page=1

more info on union costs.

"That was a couple of years before Detroit agreed to let autoworkers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working."

"Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen -- the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. -- who actually are paid by the car companies."

I dare anyone to defend the UAW.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Sarvis » Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm

kiryan wrote:http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/hey-gm-can-i-retire-at-48-too.aspx?page=1

more info on union costs.

"That was a couple of years before Detroit agreed to let autoworkers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working."

"Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen -- the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. -- who actually are paid by the car companies."

I dare anyone to defend the UAW.


Did they do anything beyond try to get the best deal for themselves? It's exactly the behavior conservatives laud in corporations, and GM was stupid enough to give in.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:16 pm

and i guess when they go bankrupt we can say the UAW as stupid enough to ask.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Sarvis » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:21 pm

Maybe. It's not really different than the credit swap crap banks pulled, is it?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:39 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/hey-gm-can-i-retire-at-48-too.aspx?page=1

more info on union costs.

"That was a couple of years before Detroit agreed to let autoworkers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working."

"Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen -- the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. -- who actually are paid by the car companies."

I dare anyone to defend the UAW.


Did they do anything beyond try to get the best deal for themselves? It's exactly the behavior conservatives laud in corporations, and GM was stupid enough to give in.


I agree here its the UAW job to get the best deal they can for its workers, they didnt do wrong. Its not thier fault that GM cant compete in a market where its products are inferior to others, and does not wish to consumer needs. What the UAW has negotiated has without a doubt caused them to become less competetive sure. But they were acting like any other company would and try to make the most profit that they can.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Ashiwi » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:56 pm

The "best deal" does not automatically equate to pricing your representatives out of their jobs. They went for the short-term big bang of right-now results without considering the consequences of their actions.

Sorry, no sympathy.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Sarvis » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:28 am

Ashiwi wrote:The "best deal" does not automatically equate to pricing your representatives out of their jobs. They went for the short-term big bang of right-now results without considering the consequences of their actions.

Sorry, no sympathy.


How is that different than the banks? Or many other corporations?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Corth » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:50 am

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/hey-gm-can-i-retire-at-48-too.aspx?page=1

more info on union costs.

"That was a couple of years before Detroit agreed to let autoworkers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working."

"Every Detroit factory still has dozens of union committeemen -- the bargaining committee, shop committee, health and safety committee, recreation committee, etc. -- who actually are paid by the car companies."

I dare anyone to defend the UAW.


Did they do anything beyond try to get the best deal for themselves? It's exactly the behavior conservatives laud in corporations, and GM was stupid enough to give in.


I tend to agree with Sarvis' defense of the union. I can't fault the union for wanting to get the best deal it can for its members. Management ultimately agreed to their demands. Moreover, I suspect that management knew that it would bankrupt the company down the line, but figured by then it would be someone else's problem.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:37 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Ashiwi wrote:The "best deal" does not automatically equate to pricing your representatives out of their jobs. They went for the short-term big bang of right-now results without considering the consequences of their actions.

Sorry, no sympathy.


How is that different than the banks? Or many other corporations?


It's not, really, when you look at the corporation-aspect overall. The only real difference here is that the employees who were members of the union had a direct influence on the outcome, and the impact they were having is something that has been pointed at for years now. For almost all of the large union-driven companies, the negative impact of their demands has been criticized publically by a wide range of interests over the last several decades, and many, many predictions of failure stemming from union gluttony and steadfast refusal on their part to map the consequences of their demands on the financial stability of their organizations in the future global economy.

They got what they wanted, if what they wanted was a large layoff because their demands were too expensive to support. I'd like to have sympathy for them and their families, and I do to a point, but if you squander a valuable and limited resource, and you have the power within yourself to reduce or stop squandering it, then it's nobody's fault but your own when it's gone.

I have as much sympathy for them as I do the real estate and banking organizations who jacked up the value of real estate in order to get rich off of idiots who couldn't figure their own budgets and realize they couldn't afford a $1,500.00 a month house payment, and just as much sympathy for the people who keep plonking down the credit card when they know they can't pay it off.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby avak » Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:57 pm

So the solution is that the unions should start being 'reasonable' about their expectations? In other words, they should not negotiate as hard as they can?

lol

Guess what corporations do with windfall profits? They go to executive bonuses and shareholders. That is the reward for exceptional strategic thinking and execution resulting in market advantages (ie profit). Now you have the Big 3 running their companies in to the red with shitactular product lines that don't reflect a changing market and you have the audacity to blame it on the workers? Nuts.

The second unions start showing that they will make exceptional sacrifices to save the company is the same second the company execs go in to a feeding frenzy.

If I sell you a $1000 car for $5000 and you buy it...your fault or mine?
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Ashiwi » Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:09 pm

The example of unions is one more like: If my product is worth $1,000.00 and I price it at $5,000.00, and then the warehouse I sell through goes out of business trying to market an inferior product at an unrealistic markup, whose fault is it, mine, or the people who can no longer afford to buy the product?

For the union, their product is the employees. Like any market, if the product is priced over what the market will bear, eventually there will be no place for it in the free market. Because of the way American automakers and the unions worked together, they had what they thought was an assured market, but the signs have been pointing to the fact that it was no longer assured for a long time. They negotiated their product right out of their marketability.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:28 am

Sarvis has a very good point which I don't think most of you have addressed. Unions are supposed to buck as hard as they can within the law and within reason for the best deal for their employees as possible.

The real problem in this case is that I think that America, politically, had too much of a soft spot for union-type labor causes. The Union has a political advantage that the corporations they fight against. They have the actual numbers - the physical paper chad, so to speak, when it comes to politics.

This gives the union disproportionate representation in the government. The corporations will often try to counter by pouring money into lobbying for their interests, however, these lobbying funds are questionably spent on the ears of people elected in by the unions.

This is one of the fundamental issues with the Republic, where geographical political interests can overwhelm common sense. It's rare, but the labor union is one of those cases.

Anyway, as the union has disproportionate representation within their local, state, and possibly the Federal government (certainly among their legislators), the union has a political axe larger than the companies they work for. On top of that, they have disproportionate power over the corporations they work for. The power to strike is one that the corporations in question cannot ever match. The federal government has furthermore given the corporation no means by which to match this power, and in-fact have handicapped the corporations in this regard, so that they cannot possibly match this power.

Unions use these to their full advantage. The problem is, they've bucked so hard that they're starting to take advantage - of your money.

The laws need to change. American politicians need to have the stones to stand up to organized labor for sensible labor law and sensible union practices. If the unions cannot adjust themselves to the point where they're willing to be reasonable and recognize the position of power AND responsibility they are in, we should recognize the position of power AND responsibility unions are in and regulate them like we do with corporations.

So that you and I aren't paying for a UAW worker's mortgage and pension bailout.


(Corth would be slightly sick to have read the part about the government's involvement. I think he would argue that if the government didn't step in at all with OUR money, the problem would have been self-correcting marketwise - and the UAW workers would be looking for new work after they killed Ford, GM, and Chrysler. I'm inclined to agree, but this post is based on the fact that the government did already steal money out of your bank account to pay for the UAW's abuse.)
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Disoputlip » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:53 pm

I think standing together, and negotiating salary together, is extremly powerful, and all it really does is give some resistance to the corporate leader that may make him take a reduced salary.

Comming from a socialist nation that works, Denmark, then I can see that unions and trade agreements have leveled out society in a way that I hope more countries will experience one day.

There are tonns of reasons americans can't produce cars. But I don't think trade union agreements are the number one reason.

Weakening the worker may optimize the elite in the society, but for the nation as a whole, then I think it is a clear advantage that workers stand together and help eachother against the evil employers.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Corth » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:41 am

Man.. I feel so freaking evil. I might just decide not to pay my employees this week: )
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:56 pm

Disoputlip wrote:Comming from a socialist nation that works, Denmark,


Denmark:

95% Evangelical Lutheran

Yeah, it works once you've implemented the final solution, chased out other cultures, religions, and ideas, and hole up knowing the Americans will save you from the Nazi\Soviet\Next Guy onslaught.

Socialism - it speaks for itself. And only for itself.

A brief tutorial on what makes America different: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=21176
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Callarduran » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:42 pm

Thanks to Teflor, I now know that as an Evangelical Lutheran, I am a socialist. Thanks Teflor!
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:46 pm

Callarduran wrote:Thanks to Teflor, I now know that as an Evangelical Lutheran, I am a socialist. Thanks Teflor!


Interesting fantasy conclusion but no dice. Try reading what was posted.

Also, A brief tutorial on what makes America different: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=21176
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Callarduran
Staff Member - Admin
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The Twin Paradises of Bytopia

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Callarduran » Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:13 pm

*sigh* Teflor, seriously. First, your post was vague at best - but that's beside the point. I rarely post here, and I can't think of a time that I have ever bothered to post for or against you. Yet a small poke at you, making a jest, and you immediately assume that I am against you.

Gotta break it to ya Teflor, I could care less. :) You say for me to try reading? Try not to take everything so seriously. Seriously.

Enjoy the thread.
--There needs to be a word for the irrational desire to reason with the delusional.

Oghma OOC: 'Please use me.'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:29 pm

Callarduran wrote:*sigh* Teflor, seriously. First, your post was vague at best - but that's beside the point. I rarely post here, and I can't think of a time that I have ever bothered to post for or against you. Yet a small poke at you, making a jest, and you immediately assume that I am against you.

Gotta break it to ya Teflor, I could care less. :) You say for me to try reading? Try not to take everything so seriously. Seriously.

Enjoy the thread.


You admit that you make a small poke, and yet, you are astounded by a small reaction. I think you are the one taking it too seriously.

"you immediately assume that I am against you." - Again, interesting fantasy conclusion, but incorrect again. I am one of the few people that don't polarize every post, discussion, issue, or subject. First of all, you couldn't possibly know enough about what I am about or what I believe to even be against me in the first place.

Try thinking. Seriously. A little less condescension would probably serve you well.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby kiryan » Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:48 pm

ok so we've concluded that unions are doing exactly what they were intended to do through no fault of their own, just like banks and insurance companies and everyone else who is getting bailed out. now can we start talking about regulating unions? Thats the solution to banks right, regulate them, put caps on their pay.

--

I agree with Teflor about unions having too much political power. First thing we should do is make it illegal to force people to pay union dues. Positions should not be "union" positions meaning by being hired into that position you are required to pay what is essentially union dues (even if you decline to join the union).
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:30 pm

kiryan wrote:ok so we've concluded that unions are doing exactly what they were intended to do through no fault of their own

I have to disagree with this as well. While a mechanic is supposed to run up the bill on you as high as he can without breaking the law (lying), he SHOULD know that if he runs it up too high, the customer will go somewhere else.

For non-individual entities, there are two rules of thumb. Within the law and within reason.

The reason is the part that is lacking - that is to say, self-regulation. If we need to, we should use the government in a time and scope limited, unalterable legislative manner to regulate the behavior and activities of the union. Any bill should have provisions for expiration, renewal, and cancellation conditions and clauses. Finally, it should be not be alterable by the next set of politicians. This is the path of good governance. Limited politicization, limited reach, limited power.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Tanji Smanji
Sojourner
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: I dare you to defend the UAW

Postby Tanji Smanji » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:20 am

I didn't read the whole thread (or even part of it) but this just leaped off the page at me.


Corth: I tend to agree with Sarvis'

Teflor: Sarvis has a very good point




Now that it's officially snowing in hell, I think I'm gonna go build a snowman.
How to go from Waelos to Weylarii.

Weylarii group-says 'oh shit! my penis is stuck in the toaster. afk'

Corth ASSOC:: 'up to you.. need a ranger, but if you want to afk i can probably find someone else'

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests