UAW On Strike

[Rookie]

GM could have been nice and continued it and maybe that would have caused less anger....heck, they can keep paying the striking workers too. That would really make them popular.

Last time I checked- no work, no benefits. Let the union take care of them.

I give up.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

GM could have been nice and continued it and maybe that would have caused less anger....heck, they can keep paying the striking workers too. That would really make them popular.

Last time I checked- no work, no benefits. Let the union take care of them.

I figured that's part of what the dues would be for.

 

[HoughMade]

I figured that's part of what the dues would be for.

They are.

 

[KokomoDave]

+ side for the temps is they don't have to do picket duty since they aren't eligible for strike pay...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

They are.

Then maybe the strikers would be better served by striking against the union. Keep working for GM, getting their bennies, but refuse to pay union dues until the union does the job that they were "hired" to do?

 

[Hohn]

You have to hand it to the unions, successfully perpetuating the myth that a union is about labor vs management. The truth is that it's labor vs other labor.

A company needs workers. If it could do without the workers, it would. If it could pay $20/hr instead of $30, it would. The company is trying to get the most labor for the least dollars, just as any of us would do with our own spending.

The laborer is a mirror image of this, trying to get the most dollars for his labor. The companies compete for labor just as the laborers compete for jobs.


A union works by market collusion. It's a price fixing scheme. A racket. Like any racket, it benefits the people inside the racket. And-- as any racket must-- it harms those outside it. The company. The consumer. And--critically-- OTHER LABOR.

Who's hurt most by labor? OTHER LABORERS NOT IN THE UNION. You know, the people who would outbid the union and do that $20 job for $18. So instead of being able to freely negotate with the company and enjoy the freedom of contract that is the right of every human-- as we insist upon for ourselves--, they are locked out, forced to hire a middleman they didn't ask for.

Instead of three jobs at $20/hr, there might not we two jobs at $30/hr. Two people are better off, one is unemployed.


So you see, it's not the struggling middle class against "the man" at all. It's the middle class against he lower class-- the people who haven't the luxury of saying no to a lower wage. The people who would gladly work, if only they weren't shut out. The people who would rather be working than on welfare, but they can't because some union fatcat is getting paid $60k a year to hang door panels, a job that requires little skill (is mostly automated) and is likely worth more like $30k/yr in a free market.

Unions weaken the labor competitiveness of any country in the same way that a farmer who slaughters his prize breeders and breeds his worst cattle instead. If distorts the relationship of merit to compensation.

Unions would have us believe that they are the reason we have 40 hour weeks and benefits and such. BULL. Ford offered that long before the UAW even existed. If it weren't for unions, we might have so much more prosperity that we'd all be working 4 days a week instead of 5.


You want to know why unions are a bad deal? It's because they are socialist governments in microcosm: screw the poor to buy off the middle to enrich the top.

Top level workers don't need a union. And the unskilled and meager who benefit most end up forming the bulk of the membership.


Fundamentally, a union is a price fixing scheme applied to the labor market. And we should be just as outraged at this collusion as we would be if all the gas stations were spiking gas prices or if someone was colluding the restrict the availability of ammo.

A union is Un-American. You cannot be a lover of freedom and liberty and deprive people of the fundamental freedom of association-- the right to choose whom you will or won't do business with.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"Bust the busters (Unions)
Screw the feeders (Corporations)
Make the healers (Could be corporations or arbitrators)
Feel the way I feel" (The worker)
-- Max Webster (with a little Geddy Lee on the side). Parentheticals mine.
[video=youtube;PMM6Bhwpy0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMM6Bhwpy0M[/video]

 

[Cameramonkey]

Never was in a union. I'd hate to be committed to the same pay everyone else gets, regardless of performance. I don't have a degree, but I once found out I was making considerably more than a colleague who had an MBA from Notre Dame. Apparently management thought I was doing a better job. My income was only limited by my ability. I never begrudge anyone who made more than me, we all cut our own deal.

Yeah, same boat. REALLY pissed off my wife's sister and brother in law. both working, both college degrees. She was a teacher, he was a mental health counselor. I was still making more than them. They didnt think that was fair that without a degree I could make more than both of them working in IT without a degree and the student loans. The two of them are now making slightly more than me now that she has her Masters. LOL

GM could have been nice and continued it and maybe that would have caused less anger....heck, they can keep paying the striking workers too. That would really make them popular.

Last time I checked- no work, no benefits. Let the union take care of them.

Yeah, I thought that was one of the hot reasons to be in a union too. Those great union benefits. In fact the electricians union is running radio commercials touting their great health care, free on the job apprenticeship training, and the chance at early retirement. Literally all those things.

And on a related note, apparently somebody posted a threatening meme on facebook accusing both Papa Johns and I think Dominos of taking sides because they wouldnt deliver to a union hall, and to take action against the companies (... you know what to do!) . I responded "are you SURE they are taking sides? Has anyone asked them to deliver to the hall before? Are we sure they just are not outside the delivery area?

Shortly afterward the threatening post was removed. Oops.

 

[Brad69]

So I delivered Cadillac hoods to the steel processing plant across the street from the GM plant at Kansas City, KS at 0315 this morning.

Picket lines were up it appears that the picketers were stopping the traffic attempting to enter the plant.
I personally received many “one finger” salutes and some cussing!
It added a interesting twist on a usually boring morning.

Sad thing is the steel place is non union and the guys have been cut down to 36 hours from 60 the company told them they are good for two weeks and after that they will be out of work.

 

[jamil]

I give up.

Give up on what? Changing a worldview? Takes more than rolly eyes.

 

[BugI02]

You have to hand it to the unions, successfully perpetuating the myth that a union is about labor vs management. The truth is that it's labor vs other labor.

A company needs workers. If it could do without the workers, it would. If it could pay $20/hr instead of $30, it would. The company is trying to get the most labor for the least dollars, just as any of us would do with our own spending.

The laborer is a mirror image of this, trying to get the most dollars for his labor. The companies compete for labor just as the laborers compete for jobs.


A union works by market collusion. It's a price fixing scheme. A racket. Like any racket, it benefits the people inside the racket. And-- as any racket must-- it harms those outside it. The company. The consumer. And--critically-- OTHER LABOR.

Who's hurt most by labor? OTHER LABORERS NOT IN THE UNION. You know, the people who would outbid the union and do that $20 job for $18. So instead of being able to freely negotate with the company and enjoy the freedom of contract that is the right of every human-- as we insist upon for ourselves--, they are locked out, forced to hire a middleman they didn't ask for.

Instead of three jobs at $20/hr, there might not we two jobs at $30/hr. Two people are better off, one is unemployed.


So you see, it's not the struggling middle class against "the man" at all. It's the middle class against he lower class-- the people who haven't the luxury of saying no to a lower wage. The people who would gladly work, if only they weren't shut out. The people who would rather be working than on welfare, but they can't because some union fatcat is getting paid $60k a year to hang door panels, a job that requires little skill (is mostly automated) and is likely worth more like $30k/yr in a free market.

Unions weaken the labor competitiveness of any country in the same way that a farmer who slaughters his prize breeders and breeds his worst cattle instead. If distorts the relationship of merit to compensation.

Unions would have us believe that they are the reason we have 40 hour weeks and benefits and such. BULL. Ford offered that long before the UAW even existed. If it weren't for unions, we might have so much more prosperity that we'd all be working 4 days a week instead of 5.


You want to know why unions are a bad deal? It's because they are socialist governments in microcosm: screw the poor to buy off the middle to enrich the top.

Top level workers don't need a union. And the unskilled and meager who benefit most end up forming the bulk of the membership.


Fundamentally, a union is a price fixing scheme applied to the labor market. And we should be just as outraged at this collusion as we would be if all the gas stations were spiking gas prices or if someone was colluding the restrict the availability of ammo.

A union is Un-American. You cannot be a lover of freedom and liberty and deprive people of the fundamental freedom of association-- the right to choose whom you will or won't do business with.

This only works when the company employing them cares about more than maximizing profits

I certainly don't want my surgeon or the pilot of my aircraft to be the lowest skilled lowest bidder for the job, nor do I want them over utilized by a short-staffed employer such that they are tired and mistake-prone. Same goes for the semi drivers i share the road with. Pure capitalism is always "... red in tooth and claw" and will always need something to run interference for the individual worker. If the employer doesn't care about production quality but only quantity, and doesn't place any value in the workers it has, it's product will suffer. But if all business is conducted that way, the consumer will be shut off from better alternatives by ruthless wage competition. For an example, look no further than the people loading your luggage on your next flight EDIT Or the quality and durability of anything made by the ChiComs

 

[HoughMade]

Give up on what? Changing a worldview? Takes more than rolly eyes.

We're trying to change a worldview from what to what?

 

[KokomoDave]

"Cheap labor isn't always skilled and skilled labor isn't always cheap."

Quote I saw on Pinterest.

 

[Hookeye]

Some days the 30 an hr union job aint enough.
Other days it's too much.
Averages just about right, for most, if they are conscientious workers.

But then those folks might question the value of a union.

So for self preservation, the union wants idiots and screwups in the membership.
They'll save their job once or twice and have sworn allegiance til the day they die.

 

[Hookeye]

Union jobs..............they aint all cushy.
Some suck. Some aint bad.
Then there's being bumped to diff shifts, diff plants.......got kids in school? Tough.
Long term effects of some jobs..........not good.

But the average outside critic thinks they know it all.

Like Kokomo Dave has said.........we lost a lot of coworkers at Delco to cancer.
Repetitive jobs have crippled others.

Work 30 yrs and retire, only to be sick and die.

Yeah.............those autoworkers are paid too much.

Some are, some are not.

I know some good people, talented/smart..........that took auto jobs to support a family, or start a family.
It was secure, good pay and benefits. It was a safe choice.
Or so many thought.

My dad did 35 yrs, been retired for a while, and it worked out pretty good for him.
Aint nothing to be jealous about.
Others in other professions have had good outcomes as well.

Glad for em.

 

[Hookeye]

I've seen plenty of idiots in management, engineering and other, at automotive plants.

Newsflash...........

Seen a bunch of the same not in auto plants.

 

[T.Lex]

The UAW? I thought that died years ago.

 

[Big Flounder]

Unions would have us believe that they are the reason we have 40 hour weeks and benefits and such. BULL. Ford offered that long before the UAW even existed. If it weren't for unions, we might have so much more prosperity that we'd all be working 4 days a week instead of 5.

I've never seen the UAW claim to have gotten us the 40 hour work week. Rather it's always stated that unions in general started the 40 hour work week and that is for the most part true. Labor unions were asking the government to implement a 40 hour work week as early as 1890, a full 36 years before Henry Ford started it in his plants. Ford didn't start it in his plants because he cared for his workers either. He started it because he believed

"Leisure is an indispensable ingredient in a growing consumer market because workingpeople need to have enough free time to find uses for consumer products, including automobiles." Those are his words. He felt if workers, not just his, had more time off and were more relaxed, they would shop more. Prior to the 40 hour work week, a government study in 1890's showed the average work week was about 100 hours.


At the end of the day, we all have our opinions. Those opinions will be shaped by things we've seen, heard, read, lived through, etc. Having the freedom to share, discuss and have those opinions is one of the many things that makes this country so great. Thanks again everyone for having a civil discussion. Not everyone is willing, or even capable, of that nowadays.​

​

 

[churchmouse]

Any job we do long term will effect us in some way. Factory work is not "Easy" by any measure. I have done it. I figured out pretty fast it was not for me union or not.
Long term repetitive work will hurt you in some way shape or form even riding a desk.
My trade has taken a terrible toll on my body but a lot of it could have been avoided. Who knew.
Being around a long list of carcinogens most every day has taken its toll as well. Who knew.
Being in a skilled trade payed very well. But it was not all roses and puppy dogs. We earned the money.

We all have choices. We make them. There is sometimes a price involved.

I was talking to a couple of guys I worked with pretty regularly out of the now closed Muncie Chevy transmission plant. We keep in contact. Both retired. I was involved with that plant for about 5 years. I shut down the chillers and helped pack them up when they were moving a lot of the production line out. They have some pretty interesting views on this whole strike thing. It was an eye opener for me.

 

[Indy317]

Instead of three jobs at $20/hr, there might not we two jobs at $30/hr. Two people are better off, one is unemployed. ... So you see, it's not the struggling middle class against "the man" at all. It's the middle class against he lower class-- the people who haven't the luxury of saying no to a lower wage. The people who would gladly work, if only they weren't shut out. The people who would rather be working than on welfare, but they can't because some union fatcat is getting paid $60k a year to hang door panels, a job that requires little skill (is mostly automated) and is likely worth more like $30k/yr in a free market.

Employing more people, but everyone taking a lower wage, doesn't automatically make things positive for all. The only way this works is if the costs of living, for everyone, goes down. That isn't how things operate though. Housing values would have to crash, new home construction would crash, energy prices would have to fall. The reason is because you had two households making at least $60K/year, one making $0/year. If they all end up making $20K/year, sure everyone is employed, but the problem is two households now only make 1/3rd what they were making. So that means housing, energy, etc. would all need to cost 2/3rds less. Even if the wages weren't that drastic and everyone is making $30K/year, still have two households who have taken a 50% cut in household income.

Unions would have us believe that they are the reason we have 40 hour weeks and benefits and such. BULL. Ford offered that long before the UAW even existed. If it weren't for unions, we might have so much more prosperity that we'd all be working 4 days a week instead of 5.

Is this a joke? The entire history of the working world points toward exploitation of lower level workers, not making their life easier. Child labor, unsanitary/safe working conditions, the company store back in the day. Even with so many rules and regulations we still have absolute proof of worker exploitation happening today. Walmart supervisors telling employees to stay over an extra fifteen to twenty minutes off-the clock to finish the last few boxes of stocking. I don't think unions are the end all, be all, but I do think they played a big, big role in making a lot of work safer, and not making it so people were basically almost slave like to those in power (be it private business or quasi-government manufacturing/production).

A union is Un-American. You cannot be a lover of freedom and liberty and deprive people of the fundamental freedom of association-- the right to choose whom you will or won't do business with.

The word union is just another term for collective, gathering, etc.. Business associations are unions. Industries/jobs that need government permission slips are unions. Regulatory creating bodies are unions. They all do whatever they do given their underlying reason for existing. You slam the UAW, but what about the group, the union, of people who came together to beg the government for a bailout for GM? What about the union of rich people who form a PAC with the ultimate goal to cut their taxes or change laws to benefit them financially? What about the union of people known as the NRA? Why are some unions of people un-american but others aren't?



I'll ask everyone, what type of world does anyone one human get to live in? What is fair? Is it fair that people live in shanty towns, barely making ends meet? Should the government be subsidizing housing? Should they be providing monetary food allotments? Should government be subsidizing healthcare for different unions of people (Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for older people, and the VA system for those who served in the military)? If so, why are those unions of people special? Why are they more deserving than the unions of people who work in a factory, or even at fast-food (those folks are demanding more as well)?

It seems the world is changing so much, especially with technological advances, family formation (families aren't forming and first time marriage rates for those born in the 80s and 90s are doing things never seen before), etc.. Right now, this country only has a good economy because of the tech revolution. A lot of $60K+/year manufacturing jobs that some here seem to despise were thankfully replaced with tech jobs. Guess what, those jobs could be gone tomorrow. A lot of call center type jobs were off-shored in the 90s and 2000s. Same thing could easily happen to programming jobs. Don't be surprised when a lot of low to middle rung tech people magically start forming unions to try to save their jobs and wages if that does happen with any significance. Wonder if those who slam the UAW types will slam these folks as well?

There is a reason the uber rich are talking about a "guaranteed income." I think the younger uber rich have slightly more feelings of concern than the old guard. I wonder if they see a dystopian future on the horizon as technology replaces a lot of jobs and we have a lot of willing and able workers who just don't have any work out there for them.