UAW Strike
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Yeah the usual crap. If the unions hadnt been around in the 20s and 30s most of the poeple here wouldnt have the money to pay for a bus ride. buncha ingrateful ingrates
skadistic
Caomhanach
About the same or worse. Who do you think will be paying the taxes that fund the national system? GM would have pay the workers in their salary to cover the health care tax. And then there is the corporate tax for health care. And its not like the unions wouldn't strong arming something more out of GM now would they?
Unions. They told GM either give us what we want or we go on strike. And its not like they want fair things like an honest wage and safe working conditions. They want pay for people who don't work. They want obscene amounts of money compared to the work done. The UAW has seen to it that a broom pusher makes $25 an hour plus health care for life. This is just for pushing a broom around a factory line. If you've ever been in a modern assembly line you know its not that dirty.
Its not a problem for non-union shops or even union shops who only pay for the people that actually work for them. Health care isn't that expensive when you have people paying into it with their daily production. How ever when you get basically black mailed into paying for it for people who don't add into the bottom line your costs quickly out pace your income. And its not like its for a few years. Your talking about paying a mans health care for 30 years even though he no longer works for you. Thats just not right.
So overpaid for skill level and benefits for life = bad for the bottom line.
skadistic, you obviously dont understand the purpose of a union; you think that getting free stuff for members is all bad but that is the job oof a union. you honestly are mistaken as to the role a union serves.
you also need to let go of this idea they have any responsibility to the public, corporation, or anyone that isnt a member. cause they dont. unions arent bad in and of themselves. they are just self serving like a corporation.
you also need to let go of this idea they have any responsibility to the public, corporation, or anyone that isnt a member. cause they dont. unions arent bad in and of themselves. they are just self serving like a corporation.
skadistic
Caomhanach
I know exactly what a union is for. I also know how corrupt they are and the underhanded practices they use. Its not like didn't work for a few of them or had them picket my offices or sabotage my job sites or black list my company or any thing like that. Unions are obsolete in todays market. Thats why union membership is on a steady decline. The bosses know this, thats why they push for more then what is warranted for the job being done. The bosses are more concerned with keeping the dues coming in then whats actually good for the members or the companies that employ the members. Then there is the whole political shenanigans aspect of unions and the DNC. Because of things like what the UAW does the AFL-CIO is breaking apart. I know full well what the unions are about.
Unions are just like corporations. You just believe they should have altruistic ambitions and I think thats a load of crap. Unions function like corporations where they bosses (or execs and managment) care about the bottom line so much as it actually benefits them. They want more for less work, and seek to maximize that.
I see no difference between a union and a corporation except for what products and services are being sold.
and while you think they are obsolete, they still persist. dont let your emotions get in the way of your thinking.
I see no difference between a union and a corporation except for what products and services are being sold.
and while you think they are obsolete, they still persist. dont let your emotions get in the way of your thinking.
skadistic
Caomhanach
They still exist in lower and lower numbers each year. Unions are not just like corporations. And that you even think so shows your lack of understanding on the subject.
So does this gem. A onions job is to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions for its members. But thats not really needed any more.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Evidently certain auto workers wouldnt agree with you. And its "Union", not onion
Why do you think your definition of a union's responsibility is the correct one, other than the fact you came up with it. You're looking at a union from the position of why they came into existence, not what are their responsibilities now.
I look at a union as an entity that seeks to give it's shareholders (dues paying members) the best return on their investment.
Verbose
Deity
Funny (not the ha-ha sense), the rest of us seem to be able to make ends meet without corporations strangled by responsibilities which have nothing to do with their core purpose? I live somewhere where taxes, lots of them, already fund the national system after all.
Afaik GM and others have already complained about competitive advantages of that sort among their European competitors.
And that would be because there is no universal health insurance in the US I'd be willing to wager? It's a bad system. I can only assume it's there because some other aspect of US society works even worse?
Oh I agree it's not right.
But it might be why the state granting healthcare as a citizens right might work better than having corporation do it to employees, and former employees (and the families of former employees it would seem)?
Except the provision here, that isn't the system intended to allow GM et al. to be able to cut the whole healthcare thing at the point it becomes too expensive? That is part of the point isn't it? So why don't they?
aneeshm
Deity
And why do you assume that higher salaries are an objective good in and of themselves?
skadistic
Caomhanach
Actually the question is why does the union try to force itself on Wal*mart. It isn't the workers who want to unionize its the union. And higher wages lead to higher inflation that leads to those same higher wages being worthless. But then again Wal*mart pays a fair wage for the work being done. Get a union in there and they will try to force Wal*mart to raise wages higher then the market value. Can Wal*mart afford higher wages? Sure it can. Can the economy afford the inflation? After a while when everything levels out in a decade.. But until then its just going to hurt a lot of people. Namely those the union wants to supposedly help. The union just wants those dues. Can you imagine all the money they can squander from dues paid by Americas largest employer. That would amount to maybe hundreds of millions a year if not more. Think of all the democrats you can buy into office with that money.
if giving higher wages alone increased inflation to an impactful level, wouldnt it make more sense to pay people static wages lest we risk increasing inflation? see, increasing wages is necessary because inflation occurs on it's own with or without wage increases, and the mere thought that an extra 500-2000 dollars a year for 100,000 people contributes to net inflation increases that hurts everyone severely is laughable. it is one of many factors that cause inflation, but by no means is it screwing the union members be causing inflation. in fact i'd be interested to see if salary increases for union members outpaced inflation YoY.
skadistic
Caomhanach
100,00 people? Try again. Wal*mart employs 1.3 million people. and has 127 million weekly shoppers. If the union came in and raised wages just enough to cover the dues thats an extra $200 a year times 1.3 million. And where will that money come from? Thats right raised prices at Wal*mart. for the 127 million weekly customers. But the union isn't just going to force wage increases to cover the dues now is it? No they will squeeze Wal*mart just like GM until its near bankrupt.
About 17 cents per customer per month - that's assuming all of Wal-mart's employees are union. How will the economy not collapse under that heavy burden?
haha, pwned,
skadistic
Caomhanach
Thats so nice of you to do the math JR. But that just theoretically covers dues. At an $8 hour average now the union will will want more. So what would a 2 dollar an hour increase come out to? Now do the math for all the people who will get raises to compete with Wal*mart. Target, Costco, Boscov, K-mart, Cmart, and the rest.
Was I really? I'm sure the layered complexity eludes you as to to just what cascading effects will happen.
so what? the union is looking out for itself, as it should. I fault GM for putting up with them, not the union for doing what unions do. You obviously havent grasped the concept that unions are these idealistic institutions that are supposed to be altruistic and beneficial to everyone in the economy. Where did you get this idea that unions are supposed to be this idealistic?
the union wants more and I say so what? that is their job. they are there to benefit their member solely. they have no obligation to the greater good of the world, just as no corporation does.
you may not like unions because you think they are a net economic drain, but you could make the argument for many corporations.
Wal-Mart is already at the low end, so it wouldn't be a $2 across the board raise in the industry. Plus you have to discount the non-union employees plus other cost cutting Wal-Mart could do with its bloated management team in Bentonville. Plus, you have all of those millions of people making more money, putting more money into the economy, and thus creating jobs outside of the big box sector. Sort of like trickle down voodoo except from the wage serf end. Sure there would be inflationary pressure, but the American economy thrived enough to remain an economic superpower when the unions were more prevalent than they are today, so I think you paint a overly pessimistic picture about the potential downsides to the stingiest retailer being unionized.
Similar threads
