Obama is a RE-TARD...lets just destroy what business is left in the US

[that dude]

that dude, for what it's worth, I'm Vice President of BLET div 182. Some unions have just become worthless leeches. Sucking everything from the company they can until the company folds. Who wins then?

noone- but its a two sided sword/story..im just sic of people blaming the blue clooar union workers..its everyones fault..period

[SAMBUSA]

Ooops, it's div. 281, not 182. Not that it matters much

[that dude]

Ooops, it's div. 281, not 182. Not that it matters much

[Gump]

Dude, because your trying to take it to a level beyond discussion of personal opinions.

[that dude]

my point- dont come on a site of personal opinions are start bashing people jobs and livelihoods with your non union proaganda..i dont ever bash non unions or scabs. on that note i think we can leave it alone

[Gump]

To each his own-

[SAMBUSA]

my point- dont come on a site of personal opinions are start bashing people jobs and livelihoods with your non union proaganda..i dont ever bash non unions or scabs. on that note i think we can leave it alone

I'll bash a scab. Bash the fuckers head into the ground.

For legal purposes, the above was a joke.

[that dude]

I'll bash a scab. Bash the fuckers head into the ground.

For legal purposes, the above was a joke.

i like you more and more

[SAMBUSA]

[Disclaimer]

You're making the sheep jealous. And you don't want them angry. Angry sheep sex isn't as pleasurable as one may think.

[SAMBUSA]

You're making the sheep jealous. And you don't want them angry. Angry sheep sex isn't as pleasurable as one may think.

Already serviced them today. We're good.

[dorifto240]

The city of Columbus had to lay off a few hundred people recently because they couldn't afford the union pay raises. When offered the option of no pay raises, but no one gets laid off; the unions chose to take the raises and lay off their own UNION workers.

Unions were formed to protect the workers, to give them leverage with the company. Part of protecting the workers is keeping them employed, AND in a larger sense keeping the company competitive in the market. How is bankrupting a company because they have to pay a Union negotiated contract protecting your union members?

If we honestly believe in a capitalist economy, why would a company pay an unskilled/semi-skilled worker in America upwards of $50+ an hour (I'm including the full cost of benefits and such in that amount) to do a job that could be done just as well by an unskilled/semi-skilled worker in India for $10 an hour?

Management is responsible for the quality of a product, labor is responsible for the price. Your sweet union contract is the reason a Ford costs more than a Kia or Toyota, and the executives are the reason a Chevy can't compete with a Honda on quality or efficiency.

And let's face it, Unions have outlasted their usefulness. If unions disappear today, the five day work week isn't going to disappear nor would overtime pay, vacation time, or any of the other benefits that Unions gained for all of America.

And if you want to talk about mismanagement, and the idiots in charge, maybe you should look at who's running your unions on a national level? Why do the teamsters have an FBI DIVISION assigned to arbitrate their decisions?

[SAMBUSA]

The city of Columbus had to lay off a few hundred people recently because they couldn't afford the union pay raises. When offered the option of no pay raises, but no one gets laid off; the unions chose to take the raises and lay off their own UNION workers.

Unions were formed to protect the workers, to give them leverage with the company. Part of protecting the workers is keeping them employed, AND in a larger sense keeping the company competitive in the market. How is bankrupting a company because they have to pay a Union negotiated contract protecting your union members?

If we honestly believe in a capitalist economy, why would a company pay an unskilled/semi-skilled worker in America upwards of $50+ an hour (I'm including the full cost of benefits and such in that amount) to do a job that could be done just as well by an unskilled/semi-skilled worker in India for $10 an hour?

Management is responsible for the quality of a product, labor is responsible for the price. Your sweet union contract is the reason a Ford costs more than a Kia or Toyota, and the executives are the reason a Chevy can't compete with a Honda on quality or efficiency.

And let's face it, Unions have outlasted their usefulness. If unions disappear today, the five day work week isn't going to disappear nor would overtime pay, vacation time, or any of the other benefits that Unions gained for all of America.

And if you want to talk about mismanagement, and the idiots in charge, maybe you should look at who's running your unions on a national level? Why do the teamsters have an FBI DIVISION assigned to arbitrate their decisions?

There is soooo many false misconceptions in your post it's almost funny. Going to bed, if this is still alive in the morning, I'll address them then. Not that all of your post is wrong per se, just generalizing all unions as being the same.

[Disclaimer]

The city of Columbus had to lay off a few hundred people recently because they couldn't afford the union pay raises. When offered the option of no pay raises, but no one gets laid off; the unions chose to take the raises and lay off their own UNION workers.

In some cases, that makes sense. I know that I had to take a pay cut this year to avoid laying people off - and I didn't even have a choice in the matter. Management just said, "we're doing this to avoid layoffs". Not everyone is at the same productivity level, so why not use the economy as an easy excuse to get rid of dead weight? You don't need to trim the entire tree if you can just cut off the dead branches. Where's my incentive to bust my ass if I know the guy that bullshits all day and using me to pickup the slack is not only still my coworker, but I've also suffered a reduction in pay to ensure he's still got a job.

Unions were formed to protect the workers, to give them leverage with the company. Part of protecting the workers is keeping them employed, AND in a larger sense keeping the company competitive in the market. How is bankrupting a company because they have to pay a Union negotiated contract protecting your union members?

It's supposed to be transparent collective bargaining. If you (as the management) and I (as the union) sit down and look at the financials... we should be able to come to some mutual agreement, given the sales history and profit year over year, what is fair for myself and my constituents, the actual people RESPONSIBLE for doing the actual manual labor that makes a profit. That's how it's supposed to be done, but I'm sure not everything is fully disclosed by either party.

If we honestly believe in a capitalist economy, why would a company pay an unskilled/semi-skilled worker in America upwards of $50+ an hour (I'm including the full cost of benefits and such in that amount) to do a job that could be done just as well by an unskilled/semi-skilled worker in India for $10 an hour?

Lets see, because the $50/hr allows the people who make things to BUY the things they make. For example, how many Indian people do you see driving around Chevy's? The "commoners" are lucky if they own a Tata over there. It's an economic cycle that is complete when the workers can afford things and use their income on other service/support expenditures that keep each community running.

Management is responsible for the quality of a product, labor is responsible for the price. Your sweet union contract is the reason a Ford costs more than a Kia or Toyota, and the executives are the reason a Chevy can't compete with a Honda on quality or efficiency.

I'd say the people on the line assembling the cars have a lot bigger impact on quality than management. All management can do is support those workers with the right tools and psyche (aka cheerleading) to make quality products. Labor is only 15-20% of a vehicle price. The majority is costs of goods. So, your reasoning is flawed.

And let's face it, Unions have outlasted their usefulness. If unions disappear today, the five day work week isn't going to disappear nor would overtime pay, vacation time, or any of the other benefits that Unions gained for all of America.

There's looking a gift horse in the mouth. You better watch what you wish for... they may SEEM unecessary, but they do serve a purpose in keeping management in check, just in case someone gets some crazy ideas. Edited April 10, 2009 by JRMMiii

[dorifto240]

There is soooo many false misconceptions in your post it's almost funny. Going to bed, if this is still alive in the morning, I'll address them then. Not that all of your post is wrong per se, just generalizing all unions as being the same.

I'm not generalizing, there are many great unions out there the Sand Hogs come to mind, so do the pipefitters and plumbers unions. I was selecting a few examples to highlight why people want to blame unions.

You better watch what you wish for... they may SEEM unecessary, but they do serve a purpose in keeping management in check, just in case someone gets some crazy ideas.

And who's going to check the union leaders when they get crazy ideas?

And if the plight of the working class in India is so awful why aren't the unions trying to organize there? I haven't heard much from the UAW branch in Delhi or Mumbai...

[dorifto240]

If a goods price point is lower; then whatever final product it is put into is, by rights, less expensive.

Beyond that I was pointing to the idea that management decides what parts to use in a car, what suppliers to use etc etc etc. That's the idea of "quality" that I meant. So if we have two production lines making the same car with the same parts and one set of laborers cost $20 an hour, and another costs $50 an hour, whose final product is going to be cheaper?

[Disclaimer]

More often than not, you get what you pay for.

[Disclaimer]

And who's going to check the union leaders when they get crazy ideas?

Management for one. Plus union leaders are typically ELECTED to represent the membership... so they have to answer to their members.

And if the plight of the working class in India is so awful why aren't the unions trying to organize there? I haven't heard much from the UAW branch in Delhi or Mumbai...

I don't even know if that's worth a rebuttal. Is that a serious question?

If a goods price point is lower; then whatever final product it is put into is, by rights, less expensive.

Beyond that I was pointing to the idea that management decides what parts to use in a car, what suppliers to use etc etc etc. That's the idea of "quality" that I meant. So if we have two production lines making the same car with the same parts and one set of laborers cost $20 an hour, and another costs $50 an hour, whose final product is going to be cheaper?

You have an odd definition of "quality"... I call what you described there as supply chain management. And you're overlooking so many factors in the production process that you're trivializing something that isn't trivial at all.

If you make a widget in the US @ $50/hr labor rate, and you make an identical widget in India @ $20/hr labor rate... that doesn't necessarily make the Indian widget cheaper.

It depends on:

Shipping costs - If you sell the widgets in America, and it costs $30/widget to ship them here, then it's break even.

Shipping costs for your suppliers - Where do the raw materials come from? It might costs you $10,000 to get material to your India facility, but only $3,000 to get material to the US facility if your suppliers are US.

Productivity - If US workers make 50 widgets per hour with 2 defects per production run, and the India shop makes 20 widgets per hour with 4 defects for production run.... India is more expensive.

Productivity also includes language barriers, communication hurdles, scheduling conflicts...

Government Labor Laws - different for each country... do you know that in Mexico, depending on the classification of the firm, they're required to provide transportation (via bus usually) and a lunch to their employees? That adds up.

Taxes and Tariffs - self explanatory

and many other factors....

And all these factors change with the global economy. It might make economic sense on paper to manufacture in China in 2007, but in 2008 when the energy prices soared, the shipping costs outweighed the productivity... so, again, you're wrong. There are many more factors (often counterbalancing or offsetting) beyond what workers are paid.

[jbot]

compete or get beat.

end of thread.

[A_Wal]

I dont know about other unions, but krogers union just likes to stiff the employees. I agree a lot with whats said however, and Im not saying keep or get rid of unions, Im just throwing my 2 cents in. I know at kroger I was promised a raise every six months, in a year and a half I've got 1, because a new contract. And with this new contract I got a $.40/hr raise, but then the union dues went up. So my raise pretty much goes to the union. Also, the union protects the people who do nothing there. I work like twice as hard as others doing the same thing and get paid half, just because I havent been there as long. Theres other things they have done unfairly that are minor so I wont go into those. I know not all unions are the same, so Im not bashing other unions, I just dont like the one Im in. They may have kept me a job through this economy but thats about it. I know this is probably all biased, but I just wanted to rant about my crappy job so thats all.

[jessecwalters]

^^^the post from A_wal is mine, didnt know i was signed in under my wifes

[Earache]

I don't like unions any more than most people, but the excessive contracts arent' all the union's fault. management agreed to these contracts. Management is just as much to blame as the union is.

In GM's case, it was easier to agree to what the unions wanted than to fight them. For years, GM had more money than God and their labor costs wewren't all that much of an issue. Just pay them what they want and be done with it.

I've been in many UAW plants over the years and was always amazed at the lack of efficiency, grossly overpaid people, too many people for the job, etc. It was much worse in the early 80's when I began working with these people, but a lot of it still exists today.

Example: we were installigng production equipment in a beer can making plant this week. Our engineers were not allowed in the breakroom at lunch. We weren't allowed to use the bathrooms in the plant - had to go into the office area. Workers were assigned to be with us so we didn't "replace" them on the job as we installed the specialized equipment that they had no experience with. They did nothing, didn't watch us to learn the equipment - nada. Sat around and took breaks all the time.

At shift change, we had to quit work and wait for the new guys to come on. So they could sit on their ass and not do anything.

It still exists. This, along with crap management styles, has got to change in order for Companies to survive.

[SAMBUSA]

In some cases, that makes sense. I know that I had to take a pay cut this year to avoid laying people off - and I didn't even have a choice in the matter. Management just said, "we're doing this to avoid layoffs". Not everyone is at the same productivity level, so why not use the economy as an easy excuse to get rid of dead weight? You don't need to trim the entire tree if you can just cut off the dead branches. Where's my incentive to bust my ass if I know the guy that bullshits all day and using me to pickup the slack is not only still my coworker, but I've also suffered a reduction in pay to ensure he's still got a job.

It's supposed to be transparent collective bargaining. If you (as the management) and I (as the union) sit down and look at the financials... we should be able to come to some mutual agreement, given the sales history and profit year over year, what is fair for myself and my constituents, the actual people RESPONSIBLE for doing the actual manual labor that makes a profit. That's how it's supposed to be done, but I'm sure not everything is fully disclosed by either party.

Lets see, because the $50/hr allows the people who make things to BUY the things they make. For example, how many Indian people do you see driving around Chevy's? The "commoners" are lucky if they own a Tata over there. It's an economic cycle that is complete when the workers can afford things and use their income on other service/support expenditures that keep each community running.

I'd say the people on the line assembling the cars have a lot bigger impact on quality than management. All management can do is support those workers with the right tools and psyche (aka cheerleading) to make quality products. Labor is only 15-20% of a vehicle price. The majority is costs of goods. So, your reasoning is flawed.

There's looking a gift horse in the mouth. You better watch what you wish for... they may SEEM unecessary, but they do serve a purpose in keeping management in check, just in case someone gets some crazy ideas.

Thanks Justin, very close to what I was wanting to say last night.

I do have a few things to add though.

The city of Columbus had to lay off a few hundred people recently because they couldn't afford the union pay raises. When offered the option of no pay raises, but no one gets laid off; the unions chose to take the raises and lay off their own UNION workers.

Unions were formed to protect the workers, to give them leverage with the company. Part of protecting the workers is keeping them employed, AND in a larger sense keeping the company competitive in the market. How is bankrupting a company because they have to pay a Union negotiated contract protecting your union members?

Unions were not formed to protect the workers. They were formed to get fair wages for the workers.

And yes, the members on the bottom of the seniority roster sometimes have to suffer for the greater good of the majority of the members. If I can get 40 members a $2/hr raise by cutting a couple off the bottom, then so be it. Why should I have to suffer just to keep someone else employed?

Management is responsible for the quality of a product, labor is responsible for the price. Your sweet union contract is the reason a Ford costs more than a Kia or Toyota, and the executives are the reason a Chevy can't compete with a Honda on quality or efficiency

Seriously? This statement is so stupid that it doesn't deserve a response. How is management responsible for quality? All they do is sit in their climate controlled office while the laborers are out busting their balls

And let's face it, Unions have outlasted their usefulness. If unions disappear today, the five day work week isn't going to disappear nor would overtime pay, vacation time, or any of the other benefits that Unions gained for all of America.

See right here? You were generalizing all Unions. I would agree that alot of Unions have indeed outlasted their usefulness. I posted just that earlier in this thread. However, the rest of your statement is completely false. If Unions disappeared, the companies would try to get the most profit with minimal cost. Who gets screwed there? The workers who now get their wages cut and have to work longer hours and 7 days a week. Dont believe me? They did it to us, which is the reason for our voting in a Union.

[that dude]

I don't like unions any more than most people, but the excessive contracts arent' all the union's fault. management agreed to these contracts. Management is just as much to blame as the union is.

In GM's case, it was easier to agree to what the unions wanted than to fight them. For years, GM had more money than God and their labor costs wewren't all that much of an issue. Just pay them what they want and be done with it.

I've been in many UAW plants over the years and was always amazed at the lack of efficiency, grossly overpaid people, too many people for the job, etc. It was much worse in the early 80's when I began working with these people, but a lot of it still exists today.

Example: we were installigng production equipment in a beer can making plant this week. Our engineers were not allowed in the breakroom at lunch. We weren't allowed to use the bathrooms in the plant - had to go into the office area. Workers were assigned to be with us so we didn't "replace" them on the job as we installed the specialized equipment that they had no experience with. They did nothing, didn't watch us to learn the equipment - nada. Sat around and took breaks all the time.

At shift change, we had to quit work and wait for the new guys to come on. So they could sit on their ass and not do anything.

It still exists. This, along with crap management styles, has got to change in order for Companies to survive.

of course they are not going to let you use their amenitites..your an ousider, i wouldnt either.they werent assigned to you as a "security". those breaks you talk about many are in our contract..morning lunch and afternoon..

[that dude]

Thanks Justin, very close to what I was wanting to say last night.

I do have a few things to add though.

Unions were not formed to protect the workers. They were formed to get fair wages for the workers.

And yes, the members on the bottom of the seniority roster sometimes have to suffer for the greater good of the majority of the members. If I can get 40 members a $2/hr raise by cutting a couple off the bottom, then so be it. Why should I have to suffer just to keep someone else employed?

Seriously? This statement is so stupid that it doesn't deserve a response. How is management responsible for quality? All they do is sit in their climate controlled office while the laborers are out busting their balls

See right here? You were generalizing all Unions. I would agree that alot of Unions have indeed outlasted their usefulness. I posted just that earlier in this thread. However, the rest of your statement is completely false. If Unions disappeared, the companies would try to get the most profit with minimal cost. Who gets screwed there? The workers who now get their wages cut and have to work longer hours and 7 days a week. Dont believe me? They did it to us, which is the reason for our voting in a Union.

they do protect the workers management/owner(s) and workers while giving good pay and benefits

Edited April 10, 2009 by that dude