|
Whooopeee!!!!!
On 18 Nov 2008 17:29:02 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:27:03 -0500, Marty said: Thirty bucks an hour! Less, much less. Toyota and Honda pay quite well. (shhh, don't tell Dave) Have you included in the Toyota and Honda numbers the costs of all fringes and payments to former workers not to work? Have you included those costs in the Big Three wage costs? Yeah, turns out the assembly line workers at Toyota are making $1000 an hour, 24/7 until they drop dead, regardless of whether they show up on any day other than payday. They are pressing management to start mailing them their paychecks so they don't have to break up their week by coming in at all. Sheesh! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:23:50 -0500, Marty said: So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides *agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a contract that kills the company who's fault is that? Certainly not the taxpayers' fault, is it? Should the taxpayers expect to absorb the cost of the foolishness of the auto company management and the UAW workers who followed their short-sighted leaders? I don't think so. Agreed 100% Cheers Martin |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:44:47 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are willing to talk about going forward. You just keep telling yourself that, Jon. So, you're claiming that there was no negotiation? I didn't realize the UAW was in charge of the board of directors of all three. Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:30:39 -0500, said: I'm just fatigued from all your evasive running around the truth, So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? It's always the workers' fault, isn't it. Management had no responsibility to the shareholders and didn't negotiate any of the contracts. The UAW said jump, and management jumped. Except that this is your fantasy, which has been severely undermined by the recent two elections... oops. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:55:56 -0500, said: So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? Throwing money at them in thier present form will only prolong the agony. It won't help them one bit in climbing out of the hole they are in. I'm not at all sure that they CAN be saved. At least not all three of them. That's what Chapter 11 is for. If they can't be saved, they end up in Chapter 7, their assets are sold, and the creditors take the proceeds. And, 5+ million are out of work, out of money, no pension, no healthcare. Great. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:30:39 -0500, said: I'm just fatigued from all your evasive running around the truth, So what is your version of THE TRUTH, Not at All? What should be done about the Big Three? Throw taxpayer money at them so the UAW bosses can keep their jobs? Dave, you do realize that unions *negotiate* with companies? Both sides *agree* to a contract and sign it. If the company negotiates a contract that kills the company who's fault is that? Cheers Martin No. He knows. He just can't admit it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:45:39 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Sell better cars. Good idea, Jon. They could import some of those cars from abroad, and people would buy them. Oh, wait a minute. Those cars wouldn't be built in UAW plants, so the car companies couldn't count them against their CAFE requirements. ?? You asked how they can make money. I answered. Not my fault if you don't like the answer. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:47:30 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs, which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. You need to do some homework. Google up "jobs bank." What's the percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer. I think perhaps you should 'splain that to the UAW leadership. You need to try your own research suggestions. The additional cost is about $1600 per car. That's a lot. But, they sell crappy cars. The UAW is willing to put "all of the benefits" on the table, according to their pres. Dave is also overlooking (deliberately?) the fact that over the past 30 or more years, the UAW has often agreed to giveBACKS when things were tough. Unions in other industries have done the same. Mentioning that would be a problem for Dave. Actually, in the last few days.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... On 18 Nov 2008 12:37:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:47:30 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: The UAW is willing to put "all of the benefits" on the table, according to their pres. I'll be you believed "I did not have sex with that woman" too. I can easily believe you didn't have sex with any woman, Dave. Dave wins. He alluded to Clinton (pick the gender) as the resolution to the argument in his favor. I didn't even get a chance to mention KAR! LOL Sigh... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
On 18 Nov 2008 19:26:02 -0600, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:56:35 -0500, said: Yeah, turns out the assembly line workers at Toyota are making $1000 an hour, 24/7 until they drop dead, regardless of whether they show up on any day other than payday. They are pressing management to start mailing them their paychecks so they don't have to break up their week by coming in at all. You mean they chose the UAW? No one knows. The ballot was secret. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
For those who wish to read more on the subject of Chapter 11 and how it
previously affected companies: http://www.stanford.edu/~zhipengz/pa...,%20JFE) .pdf It's from the "Journal of Financial Economics", available through Stanford Universities website. Not only does one have to be able to read to get anything of value from the paper, one also has to have a thinking, critical mind including being critical upon one's own biases. It's obviously not for everyone. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message ... On 18 Nov 2008 19:26:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:56:35 -0500, said: Yeah, turns out the assembly line workers at Toyota are making $1000 an hour, 24/7 until they drop dead, regardless of whether they show up on any day other than payday. They are pressing management to start mailing them their paychecks so they don't have to break up their week by coming in at all. You mean they chose the UAW? No one knows. The ballot was secret. How did each Democrat vote on the Lieberman deal? |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... Dave's just snapping. Sure, labor costs are a factor. BUT GM makes lousy cars. That's the bigger factor, as evidenced by the more expensive cars that Toyota/Honda sell hand over foot. So there is a high correlation between UAW workers and crappy cars in America. The only thing left is to show a causal relation. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:10:02 -0700, "Charles Momsen" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message areasolutions... Dave's just snapping. Sure, labor costs are a factor. BUT GM makes lousy cars. That's the bigger factor, as evidenced by the more expensive cars that Toyota/Honda sell hand over foot. So there is a high correlation between UAW workers and crappy cars in America. The only thing left is to show a causal relation. I don't believe the assembly line workers have much say in the design or marketing strategies of GM. They make whatever they are told to make. Duh! They don't "make" anything (other than trouble when striking, etc.) The subcontractors do the making. Assembly line workers assemble pre-made parts. Double duh! Bitty Bill = Bitty Brain -- Gregory Hall |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:10:02 -0700, "Charles Momsen" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message areasolutions... Dave's just snapping. Sure, labor costs are a factor. BUT GM makes lousy cars. That's the bigger factor, as evidenced by the more expensive cars that Toyota/Honda sell hand over foot. So there is a high correlation between UAW workers and crappy cars in America. The only thing left is to show a causal relation. I don't believe the assembly line workers have much say in the design or marketing strategies of GM. They make whatever they are told to make. GM is capitalized at about $2 billion. Why doesn't the UAW simply buy them out and run things correctly? I'm sure the Democrats in Congress would give them a paltry $2 Billion to buy the company, it's so much less than what management is asking for I bet some Republicans would go along too. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
|
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:59:27 -0700, "Charles Momsen" wrote: Chinese engines: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/bu...evy.html?fta=y Bailing out China too? Where do you think the U.S. gets (borrows) all the funds it is using for these bailouts? Some from China, some from Japan, some from the oil countries and places elsewhere. |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:40:46 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Gimmes to unions?? These were NEGOTIATED contracts, which the unions are willing to talk about going forward. You just keep telling yourself that, Jon. So, you're claiming that there was no negotiation? I didn't realize the UAW was in charge of the board of directors of all three. Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?? Another straw man. Halloween's over, Jon. I'm willing to talk about giving you $100. You gonaa go out and spend the money now? So, again... you're claiming the contracts weren't negotiated? Not sure what you mean by the $100? If you give it to me, yes, I'll spend it. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:43:35 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: That's what Chapter 11 is for. If they can't be saved, they end up in Chapter 7, their assets are sold, and the creditors take the proceeds. And, 5+ million are out of work, out of money, no pension, no healthcare. Great. Wrong again, Jon. Thanks to our guvmint, since 1974 the taxpayers are effectively on the hook for pensions earned to date via the PBGC. As for the jobs, healthcare, etc. it's unfortunate that healthcare is tied to jobs, thanks to perverse tax incentives put in place during WWII. And yes, the folks who have been getting those high wages, and the payments for not working might have to find other jobs. And the shareholders who also made bad bets will be out their money. The taxpayers do not owe them a living. The more likely scenario, however, is that bloated costs are eliminated, and a new buyer or buyers go forward with one or more slimmed down businesses with fewer employees, new management and a new capital structure capable of earning a profit. There will be the unemployment numbers I said. Are you disputing it? Seems pretty easy to find out. Do a search. This is absolutely precious: "it's unfortunate that healthcare is tied to jobs" So, you really don't give a crap about anyone less fortunate that you? That's pretty harsh. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:45:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Sell better cars. Good idea, Jon. They could import some of those cars from abroad, and people would buy them. Oh, wait a minute. Those cars wouldn't be built in UAW plants, so the car companies couldn't count them against their CAFE requirements. ?? You asked how they can make money. I answered. Not my fault if you don't like the answer. On the contrary--I like your answer. Now if the Congress critters would just make it possible by changing the silly CAFE laws to allow it to happen.... ?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:13:22 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: So, you're claiming that there was no negotiation? I didn't realize the UAW was in charge of the board of directors of all three. Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?? Another straw man. Halloween's over, Jon. I'm willing to talk about giving you $100. You gonaa go out and spend the money now? So, again... you're claiming the contracts weren't negotiated? You need to read a bit more carefully. You're simply repeating the same straw man. Not sure what you mean by the $100? If you give it to me, yes, I'll spend it. Those who read with understanding will have no trouble following what I meant. So, as usual, you are unwilling to answer a simple question when cornered. This isn't very professional and adds nothing to the discussion. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:15:25 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: This is absolutely precious: "it's unfortunate that healthcare is tied to jobs" So, you really don't give a crap about anyone less fortunate that you? That's pretty harsh. On the contrary. What I don't give a crap about is throwing more and more money at members of the medical profession and their associated hangers-on, as we've been doing for 60 years. Ah, it's the docs fault! Who exactly are the hangers-on... nurses?? In any case, you're advocating throwing 5M into the unemployment lines without healthcare. What a humanitarian! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: On the contrary--I like your answer. Now if the Congress critters would just make it possible by changing the silly CAFE laws to allow it to happen.... ?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef? Case 1: Ford imports a car it bought from Mazda, and that Mazda also sells under its own name. Ford sells it in the U.S. under the name Portege or (or some such thing). Case2: Ford instead licenses the design from Mazda, has the cars built in Brazil by Brazilian workers, and imports and sells the cars in the U.S. Case 3: Ford licenses the design from Mazda and builds that same car in the U.S. using UAW workers. Question: What are the implications for Ford's meeting CAFE standards in each case? Answer: The CAFE standards don't change. Therefore, the cars that have good quality, more so in the case of Ford, sell better, not quite so dependent upon price. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:43:46 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Those who read with understanding will have no trouble following what I meant. So, as usual, you are unwilling to answer a simple question when cornered. This isn't very professional and adds nothing to the discussion. Sorry, Jon. No special ed version for you. You'll have to try to get what everyone but you gets without a special nursery level explanation. You sound quite familiar with the special ed version, since you can't answer a simple question. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:47:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Answer: The CAFE standards don't change. You obviously haven't a clue as to how the CAFE standards work. Obviously, you don't like the answer. "Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:26:38 -0500, said: Most of the money for healthcare is made by drug companies, followed by insurance companies. Once again, Dave blames the bottom rungs of the ladder for problems on the roof. Typically fuzzy thinking, Not at All. Blaming "companies" or "the corporations" makes for nice easy propaganda for consumption by the dimmer bulbs on the tree, but thinking people know better. "Companies" are collections of people. So tell me, who makes more money on average, a brain surgeon, or a researcher or manager employed by a Pharma company? Dave, I must commend you on the beatings you are delivering. They are outstanding! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:26:38 -0500, said: Most of the money for healthcare is made by drug companies, followed by insurance companies. Once again, Dave blames the bottom rungs of the ladder for problems on the roof. Typically fuzzy thinking, Not at All. Blaming "companies" or "the corporations" makes for nice easy propaganda for consumption by the dimmer bulbs on the tree, but thinking people know better. "Companies" are collections of people. So tell me, who makes more money on average, a brain surgeon, or a researcher or manager employed by a Pharma company? Dave, I must commend you on the beatings you are delivering. They are outstanding! Yeh, but I'd really like to see what he could do with people who weren't clueless morons. . . Wilbur Hubbard |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:05:20 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: You obviously haven't a clue as to how the CAFE standards work. Obviously, you don't like the answer. "Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search terms and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. I stand by my answer. So far, you haven't answered my very simple question, which is typical of your obstructionist behavior. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Charles Momsen" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:26:38 -0500, said: Most of the money for healthcare is made by drug companies, followed by insurance companies. Once again, Dave blames the bottom rungs of the ladder for problems on the roof. Typically fuzzy thinking, Not at All. Blaming "companies" or "the corporations" makes for nice easy propaganda for consumption by the dimmer bulbs on the tree, but thinking people know better. "Companies" are collections of people. So tell me, who makes more money on average, a brain surgeon, or a researcher or manager employed by a Pharma company? Dave, I must commend you on the beatings you are delivering. They are outstanding! Yeh, but I'd really like to see what he could do with people who weren't clueless morons. . . Bwahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search terms and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. I stand by my answer. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water..... The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted at the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they have to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job protection boondoggle. Smackdown! |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search terms and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. I stand by my answer. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water..... The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted at the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they have to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job protection boondoggle. Bzzzzt. Wrong again Dave. You can try to reason with a right-wingnut, but..... So, you're trying to claim that Toyota doesn't have at least that percentage in it's US sold cars??? Think again dude. As I said, I stand by my original answer. For example, "Toyota Tundra's solid domestic-parts content rating, up to 80 percent for 2008 from 75 percent for 2007." "The '08 Ford Focus dropped to 65 percent from 75 percent in domestic-parts content." Why don't you try and blame the UAW again, if it makes you feel better. LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. This from the man who's first line of defence is to shout "ad hominem!" Cheers Martin |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. This from the man who's first line of defence is to shout "ad hominem!" Cheers Martin But I have two clews, at least active anyway.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search terms and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. I stand by my answer. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water..... The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted at the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they have to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job protection boondoggle. What hogwash; it's the UAW's fault that Ford can't engineer a vehicle to get a decent milage? Honda, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, Nissan, to name just a few have no problem? How many of those engineers are members of the UAW? Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... Martin |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Marty" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:19:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: You didn't Google far enough, Jon. Add "two fleet rule" to your search terms and repeat your search, and then you might be able to begin to answer my question. Or at least perhaps fool somebody into thinking you have a clue. I stand by my answer. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You can lead a horse to water..... The answer is that unless the cars Ford sells have at least 75% domestic content, Ford can't count those cars against its separate U.S. fleet CAFE requirements. This is the result of a rule the Congress critters enacted at the behest of the UAW, designed to insure that domestic manufacturers couldn't meet their fuel economy requirements by selling cars produced by more efficient or less expensive labor offshore.The effect is that they have to produce and sell enough small cars built with U.S. labor to offset the low mileage larger vehicles they produce here, even if they have to sell those domestically produced small cars at a loss. It's a UAW job protection boondoggle. What hogwash; it's the UAW's fault that Ford can't engineer a vehicle to get a decent milage? Honda, Kia, Subaru, Mazda, Nissan, to name just a few have no problem? How many of those engineers are members of the UAW? Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... Martin Thank you sir. I'll take another.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:24:02 -0500, Marty said: Dave, you clearly feel that it would be better for us all if we still had 12 year olds working six and half days a week, eighty hours for barely enough compensation to pay for their own food.... I haven't visited those plants in SC, Alabama, etc. where the Japanese companies are beating the pants off Detroit using non-union labor. Is the above an accurate description of the workforce in those plants? Whoooosh....... ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------ Do your users want the best web-email gateway? Don't let your customers drift off to free webmail services install your own web gateway! -- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_webmail.htm ---- |
Whooopeee!!!!!
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:08:00 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: So, you're trying to claim that Toyota doesn't have at least that percentage in it's US sold cars??? Another red herring thrown out. You must have quite a supply. They used to say in law school that if you can't answer the question asked on the exam, answer some other question that you can answer. Looks like you took that as your motto. Dude... I did answer the question. You have refused. Not sure what they would say in law school about that. Did you take the 5th? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Whooopeee!!!!!
wrote in message
... On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: ?? Toyota/Honda/Kia, etc. have the same standards. Where's the beef? Another Wendy's reference! Chairman Dave must be loving this! It's from an old political add, but yes, Wendy's also. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com