yo mama Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 wait. you call someone a "rape and pillage capitalist"... When that someone is Dmarc, its considered a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 If I were in a union, I'd be more interested in long-term job security than trying to get as much as humanly-possible out of the next CBA. I believe any modern progessive union that is worthwhile is very much thinking this way. Any of you that think that the union is about squeezing the company into collapse is not giving the union worker his proper credit. I have been down this road too many times to do it again but simply put if the companies were so nice to the employee's there would be no need for a union and we could all live happily together and worry about much bigger things. As I see it, we just are not where the nice company can be trusted to have nothing but the employee's best interest at heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 False. Whether or not you think unions hinder "progress" depends solely on what your interests are. But since you're a rape and pillage capitalist, I can see how those pesky unions might get in the way of maximizing your portfolio's performance. Of course, I'm sure families of union workers see it a bit differently. Regardless, the time of the unionized auto worker is over. But the existence of unions still provide a necessary counterbalance to market forces that favor the employer too heavily. and youre a lawyer. i think that makes us about even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I think a good start would be for EVERYONE to get paid what they're worth.....the average production line worker is overpaid, but the average upper level management all the way to the top are rediculously overpaid. American companies always look to the laborer as a means to cut cost (which I think in the auto industry is warranted), but never want to pay the president/CEO and the like less than the millions and millions they make each year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Everytime I step on the gas, I kill another P.O.S. Honda/Toyota. Whatever. My Accord is by far and away the best car I've ever owned. Not even close. Not looking for any debates, but comments like your crack me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 and youre a lawyer. i think that makes us about even. You've missed my point. As previously stated, I wasn't insulting you; merely illustrating that your view on unions is predictably titled given your well known MO of profit maximization. On the other hand, my being a lawyer has nothing to do with anything in this thread. So whether or not we're even (what ever that means) is irrelevant. Again, I'm not defending auto unions. But the concept of organized labor and the collective bargaining process still has a place in the US. Just ask Hollywood's writers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 GM's bottom line would be a boat load better if they cut out the middleman, quit bull$hitting everyone and just started hiring illegals tomorrow to do everything. GM lacks ingenuity and can't compete because of the $80,000.00 a year guys that call all the shots? Whoever is in charge at GM should be making at least $10,000,000 in compensation and stock options. That is pretty slick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 The Big 3 can't compete because their labor and retirement costs are so high. An average of $28 for assembly work is outrageous and doomed to torpedo most any manufacturer - it's generally does not require a high skill level. It's awfully hard to compete when Toyota and Honda are paying $15-18/hr in US facilities for the same work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I completely agree. It's unfortunate that unions sometimes over-play their hands during CBA negotiations. Changes in energy prices and the level of foreign competition have rendered many in the auto and airline industries out of work because their employers can't deliver what the CBA demands when their company's revenue shrinks. If I were in a union, I'd be more interested in long-term job security than trying to get as much as humanly-possible out of the next CBA. Although we're politically divided, I have to agree with this. The one caveat is that it would be really nice if the execs stopped thinking only as far as their next bonus and worked to solidify the company for the long term rather than the next quarterly balance sheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Whatever. My Accord is by far and away the best car I've ever owned. Not even close. Not looking for any debates, but comments like your crack me up. I don't think you are catching Tim's subtle hughmor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 The Big 3 can't compete because their labor and retirement costs are so high. An average of $28 for assembly work is outrageous and doomed to torpedo most any manufacturer - it's generally does not require a high skill level. It's awfully hard to compete when Toyota and Honda are paying $15-18/hr in US facilities for the same work. The Toyota facility in Georgetown KY pays line workers alot more than that. I have a cousin who has been there for 7 years and is pulling down over $32 an hour on the line. Starting wages are in the low-mid $20s I believe. Around central Kentucky, getting a job at Toyota is like winning the lottery. Of course, they put people through several rounds of testing before they are hired - they don't take idiots. (Not that the big 3 are staffed by a bunch of morons on the line.) The big difference is that American Auto makers, much like the Unions that have torpedoed them, have an "instant gratification" gene built in. While Toyota is making very expensive operational and functional improvements in their plants today that will lead to long term, sustained benefits and improvements, Ford, GM and Chrysler won't spend $$ on process improvements unless it yields an instant spike to the bottom line. The Camry you see roll off the line today has benefited from something done years ago. While the big 3 have caught up recently from a quality standpoint, they still have a ways to go before they can change the perception. Hell, even Hyundai is building better cars than the big 3 now - who would have thought that possible 10 years ago? I'll never buy an American car again. Its just a bad place to put that kind of money when its obvious that Honda and Toyota are making better cars that have better resale values and maintain value and quality for a longer period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Ford, GM and Chrysler won't spend $$ on process improvements unless it yields an instant spike to the bottom line. Bingo. Exactly my point about not being able to see past the end of the next quarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Ford, GM and Chrysler won't spend $$ on process improvements unless it yields an instant spike to the bottom line. The Camry you see roll off the line today has benefited from something done years ago. Pretty good post Cyclones and pretty dead on until that very last line. Much like the steel industry that just would not spend the money in the right place to keep up with Japan. Being from Pittsburgh, I know a ton of steel workers that lost jobs in the late 70's and early 80's. Every single one of them will tell you that the companies were to busy running off with profits and did not sink money into making modern updates that would have cost some major dollars but also would have kept the steel industry here in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 So many to blame. - Unions with their political influence. - Management for cow-towing to their demands (it is a free market economy) - The inability of CEOs of the majors to put forth vehicles that Americans want when fuel prices skyrocket I'm sure that there are many more facets to this, but there is something for everyone wanting a politically motivated angle. Bottom line is that those in charge sucked at managing their company. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddyman Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 wait. you call someone a "rape and pillage capitalist", i ask if you use a blowdryer, and you ask me why i am petulant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 You've missed my point. As previously stated, I wasn't insulting you; merely illustrating that your view on unions is predictably titled given your well known MO of profit maximization. On the other hand, my being a lawyer has nothing to do with anything in this thread. So whether or not we're even (what ever that means) is irrelevant. Again, I'm not defending auto unions. But the concept of organized labor and the collective bargaining process still has a place in the US. Just ask Hollywood's writers. unions do have a place for protecting rights and worker safety. i dont think an inflated paycheck is a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Looking for a new Chevy pickup myself. F the dirty unions, it's who you know and who you blow with that crooked bunch. And to all you ricer lovers; somewhere in Detroit there is a child hungry and with nothing to eat ... Good job. .. All the arguments about free market economics don't hide the fact that with your lack of loyalty; the Emperor gets your shiny American dollars in the end. Shame on you. Remember Pearl Harbor!! Off my soapbox now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 unions do have a place for protecting rights and worker safety. i dont think an inflated paycheck is a right. Apparently you missed the part where more profitable companies are paying their non-union employees more for the same job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 (edited) Apparently you missed the part where more profitable companies are paying their non-union employees more for the same job. Although the determination of firm and industry profitability has been the subject of much study,the impact of labor unions on company earnings and market value only recently has received careful attention. This neglect is surprising, given the importance of labor in production cost, clear-cut evidence of union-nonunion compensation differentials, and the marked decrease in U.S. union membership since the late 1970s. Recent studies examining the impact of unions on profitability have found unionism to be associated with significantly lower profitability, regardless of the profit measure, the unit of observation, time period, specification, or estimation method. [ overruled Edited February 13, 2008 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Looking for a new Chevy pickup myself. F the dirty unions, it's who you know and who you blow with that crooked bunch. And to all you ricer lovers; somewhere in Detroit there is a child hungry and with nothing to eat ... Good job. .. All the arguments about free market economics don't hide the fact that with your lack of loyalty; the Emperor gets your shiny American dollars in the end. Shame on you. Remember Pearl Harbor!! Off my soapbox now. Coocoo for Coco Puffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 those in charge sucked at managing their company. Plain and simple. But we can't sling mud over THAT obvious point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Apparently you missed the part where more profitable companies are paying their non-union employees more for the same job. Even assuming that the non-union empoyees are getting paid more per hour in wages, what is the difference in benefits and other non-cash compensation. That could be as much a factor as the actual cash compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 My how short the memories are regarding unions. Without unions we'd be living in China. You really want that? You want to work 7 days a week 12 hours a day in a sweat shop earning a pittance to spend at the company store? Of course some unions have overstepped their bounds. But to dismiss all the positives that unions have ushered into this country regarding decent pay, worker safety, environmental protections, and consumer protections is pretty myopic. Just the threat of unions also keeps many non-union businesses honest when dealing with employees as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Coocoo for Coco Puffs. So, what's your point? Fourth-quarter results underscore GM's need to get North American costs under control. It posted a fourth-quarter net loss of $722 million, a wide swing from the $950 million it earned a year earlier, as sales weakened in the USA and commodity prices continued to rise. "North America is obviously the most difficult place for them to turn a profit because it's where all the costs are," says Kevin Tynan, an analyst with Argus Research. The loss came even as GM posted record automotive revenue of $178 billion for 2007, helped by what the company called "explosive growth" in emerging markets. GM CEO Rick Wagoner has said he's pushing the company to aggressively diversify outside the USA, where markets are growing and consumers don't have the same negative feelings towards the company's brands as many do domestically. For the third year in a row, almost 60% of all GM's sales volume has been outside the USA. At home in North America, automotive operations posted a pretax loss of $1.1 billion in the fourth quarter, which couldn't be offset by strength in other markets. In Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, sales grew 18% in the fourth quarter, raking in $424 million in pretax income. Asia Pacific earned $72 million in the quarter, with annual sales up 18.5% in China and up 74% in India. Europe lost $524 million. "Emerging markets are going to continue to be the driver of our revenue growth," says Fritz Henderson, GM's chief financial officer, on a conference call with analysts. That's in part because it's easier to control costs in growing markets where labor is cheaper and where many products are imported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Although we're politically divided, I have to agree with this. The one caveat is that it would be really nice if the execs stopped thinking only as far as their next bonus and worked to solidify the company for the long term rather than the next quarterly balance sheet. Agreed as well. Both the corporate and the union execs are after the same thing: money and power. Unfortunately, the vast majority don't care much about Joe Six-Pack who works on the assembly line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.