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 17:01:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:11:07 -0500, said:

It had ZERO to do with whether the labor was union or non-union, or
how much money they were paid.

$1,000 an hour for everyone, right? Won't make any difference.

The only people making $1000 an hour were in management. Once again
you are avoiding the truth. The workers were not making $1000 an hour.
If they had, it would have made a difference, but they DIDN'T. YOU
have already pegged the difference in wages between Toyota and UAW
workers at $30 an hour. Just another dead red herring to throw on the
pile.

Not a red herring at all. I was simply demonstrating how your claim that
the
amount paid labor has zero to do with a company's ability to compete is
ludicrous.

Except we are talking about a specific company, and you went off the
deep end with a nonsensical Hail Mary about paying the assembly line
workers $1000 an hour.

Red Herring. A big stinking Red Herring being ridden hard and put away
wet by a straw man.



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.

--
"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