On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:28:33 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of
course business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class,
as usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business
would be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they
were paying for covering their employees under their current plans.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Who do you think is financing our health care now? That's right
business. Our health care system is running upwards of 15% GDP. Other
countries with "universal health care" pay around 10% GDP, or less. It
seems to me, that 5% is quite a disadvantage in the global market place.
It's no wonder our car companies are expanding their operations in
Canada, where there is "universal health care", at the same time they are
closing plants here.

"Failing to address the health care crisis would be the worst kind of
procrastination, the kind that places our children and our grandchildren
at risk and threatens the health and global competitiveness of our
nation's economy." That wasn't Chavez speaking. That was the CEO of
General Motors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb10.html

On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:20:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:13:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Scotty" wrote in message
...
unions are a major contributor to the down fall of this
country.

They certainly contributed significantly to the outsourcing of
manufactured
goods to foreign countries.

Max

Since I may be the only one here who has actually run a large union
organization, negotiated contracts, and sadly, negotiated both the
decision and the effects of a closing contract, I would have to
challenge that statement. The Union in my organization had absolutely
nothing to do with the outsourcing of manufactured goods to foreign
countries, unless you call earning an average of 13.50/hour for
highly productive work, with basic benefits like health care provided
on a cost sharing basis a contributing driver.

UAW members love to quote their "meager" wages of only $22 per hour, plus or
minus. Of course they never volunteer the others aspects of their contract
package that net them somewhere in the $40 to $50 per hour range, like
health care, retirement package, disability income insurance, etc. When a
foreign concern employs workers in the $5 to $8 per hour range, it makes it
really tough for a manufacturer to stick it out with the union workers.


Corporate greed was a driver. The Union and most Unions have no
protection what so ever from outsourcing and they are like a "deer in
the headlights" where it is concerned. And that outsourcing takes
place wether there is a union or not.

It's always "greed," isn't it. Profit is a nasty word, eh? Fact is that no
one, not even you, will work for nothing. Profitability is what business is
all about, and one's shareholders generally want to see earnings on their
investments. If one's labor costs are limiting his profitability, he looks
for cheaper labor, and generally finds it offshore where unions don't exist.

No, profit is what drives the economy. Maybe you don't fully
understand how I define the word "Corporate greed". Go to the "goose
that laid the golden egg" for understanding.

In my case my company was extraordinarily profitable. The U. S.
Operation was extraordinarily profitable. On a proforma basis 12%
return on sales, 34% return on invested capital, great cash flow, 10%
growth per year, all organic, that is all from increased business due
to new products and improved market penetration. And the most
respected product in the industry.

So the corporate whiz kids (ex consultants BTW) determined that they
could do better by consolidating companies and taking it all offshore.
Net result. Company destroyed, stock holders screwed, all those
"greedy" union guys described above out of a job (most in their late
fifties), and the chief perpetrator of debacle eased out at a cool
million bucks a year for life. Those "nasty" union guys get about
$4000 per year when they draw their pensions, and if they haven't
reached 65 and qualify for medicare, they can "buy" their insurance
for $5000 dollars per year per family member. Most have too, because,
ususually at that age someone in the family has some uninsurable
condition.

Your initial post was blanket. I disagree. For every case of Unions
being a cause there are 10 cases like I described above. You just
can't paint them all with the same brush. I'm seeing them all the
time. Union membership is down significantly, not because they think
that management is now "nice", but because they know that they can't
do anything to stop the offshore flow. The "deer in the headlights"
syndrome.

I'm not pro union, would rather manage without one, but I know when
they are getting a bad rap.

Frank


Health care costs was a driver. In my many years of struggle against
cost increase, I could always offset cost of living labor increases
with productivity, impact material costs postively, lower total unit
overhead by consolidation and growth. The only costs I could never
control were health care costs. Double digit percentage increases
every year. No matter what kind of effort I put into changing TPA's,
(we were self insured) negotiating new provider networks and
prescription drug contracts, etc. When I embarked on a way to
"target" potential health risk employees (meaning potential high
dollar heart or cancer cases), not to eliminate them, but to incentify
them into a wellness program, the government stepped in and passed the
latest version of HIPPA, effectivly killing the program.

I won't dispute any of that. It's a problem faced by business and
government. And there are no easy answers. Bear in mind, however, that
third-party carriers (health insurance companies) are, and have been,
recording record profits during the past decade or so. Managed care is
really "managed profits." It's a shame that the bulk of the recent
increases in health insurance costs can be directly attributed to an
industry that in actuality has no relevance in the diagnosis and management
of disease, or wellness.

Certainly there are bad unions and possibly many of the UAW locals
qualify. My experience with the USWA could not be classified as such.
And most locals around the country are more typical of what I
experienced.

No one is foolish enough to believe that all unions are guilty of the greed
that exemplifies the UAW. But that union is a major player and constitutes
much of what is costing jobs in this country. It's a no-brainer to want to
reduce one's labor costs, especially if it can be in the 40% to 50% range,
or more.


In most manufacturing operations, labor makes up about 7-10% of total
cost. Material is about 60% and the rest is manufacturing overhead,
Operations that have paid attention to the world have raised
productivity to that level. In our case the "strategists" went for
the spread between 13.50 plus about 30% benefit load to get that $1.00
fully loaded Chinese labor. No brainer, right? Except real costs
actually went up (rework, air freight for missed schedules, warranty
expense, purchasing overhead, and normal container freight costs) and
the reputation of the product was destroyed. Bottom line, whats left
of the company (and it was sold) is about 20% of its former self.



Max

On Mon, 21 May 2007 04:20:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:13:19 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Scotty" wrote in message
...
unions are a major contributor to the down fall of this
country.

They certainly contributed significantly to the outsourcing of
manufactured
goods to foreign countries.

Max

Since I may be the only one here who has actually run a large union
organization, negotiated contracts, and sadly, negotiated both the
decision and the effects of a closing contract, I would have to
challenge that statement. The Union in my organization had absolutely
nothing to do with the outsourcing of manufactured goods to foreign
countries, unless you call earning an average of 13.50/hour for
highly productive work, with basic benefits like health care provided
on a cost sharing basis a contributing driver.

UAW members love to quote their "meager" wages of only $22 per hour, plus or
minus. Of course they never volunteer the others aspects of their contract
package that net them somewhere in the $40 to $50 per hour range, like
health care, retirement package, disability income insurance, etc. When a
foreign concern employs workers in the $5 to $8 per hour range, it makes it
really tough for a manufacturer to stick it out with the union workers.


Corporate greed was a driver. The Union and most Unions have no
protection what so ever from outsourcing and they are like a "deer in
the headlights" where it is concerned. And that outsourcing takes
place wether there is a union or not.

It's always "greed," isn't it. Profit is a nasty word, eh? Fact is that no
one, not even you, will work for nothing. Profitability is what business is
all about, and one's shareholders generally want to see earnings on their
investments. If one's labor costs are limiting his profitability, he looks
for cheaper labor, and generally finds it offshore where unions don't exist.


Health care costs was a driver. In my many years of struggle against
cost increase, I could always offset cost of living labor increases
with productivity, impact material costs postively, lower total unit
overhead by consolidation and growth. The only costs I could never
control were health care costs. Double digit percentage increases
every year. No matter what kind of effort I put into changing TPA's,
(we were self insured) negotiating new provider networks and
prescription drug contracts, etc. When I embarked on a way to
"target" potential health risk employees (meaning potential high
dollar heart or cancer cases), not to eliminate them, but to incentify
them into a wellness program, the government stepped in and passed the
latest version of HIPPA, effectivly killing the program.

I won't dispute any of that. It's a problem faced by business and
government. And there are no easy answers. Bear in mind, however, that
third-party carriers (health insurance companies) are, and have been,
recording record profits during the past decade or so. Managed care is
really "managed profits." It's a shame that the bulk of the recent
increases in health insurance costs can be directly attributed to an
industry that in actuality has no relevance in the diagnosis and management
of disease, or wellness.

I missed this one on the other post. See that I said I was self
insured. I used a third party administrator who charged $11.00 per
insured family, per month. And kept that same rate for the last 5
years. So the problem I saw was not the insurance companies, I only
bought $100,000 deductible catastrophic. That rate went up once in
five years. The problem was the suppliers and providers, cause that
was all that was left.

Don't get me started (Oh, you already have:~))

Certainly there are bad unions and possibly many of the UAW locals
qualify. My experience with the USWA could not be classified as such.
And most locals around the country are more typical of what I
experienced.

No one is foolish enough to believe that all unions are guilty of the greed
that exemplifies the UAW. But that union is a major player and constitutes
much of what is costing jobs in this country. It's a no-brainer to want to
reduce one's labor costs, especially if it can be in the 40% to 50% range,
or more.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:11:01 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I guess that begs the question... do we need GM if Toyota builds cars in
the
US?

Jon,

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly not
understood and misused.


I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I begging
another question?)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On May 21, 2:04 pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:38 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly not
understood and misused.

I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I begging
another question?)

The generally accepted meaning of "begging the question," at least until
recently, has been a logically fallacious technique of argumentation in
which the proposition to be proved is assumed (generally implicitly) in one
of the premises. Of late it has become widely misused to mean "invites the
further question." Perhaps the error has become so widespread that a
descriptivist, at least, would say it's no longer an error.

As I read your statement you were saying, not that Joe was fallaciously
assuming we need a U.S. auto industry (which I don't think he did), but that
Joe's argument invites the further question whether we need a U.S. auto
industry.

Exaclty.....;0) And we do.

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 21, 2:04 pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:38 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly
not
understood and misused.

I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I
begging
another question?)

The generally accepted meaning of "begging the question," at least until
recently, has been a logically fallacious technique of argumentation in
which the proposition to be proved is assumed (generally implicitly) in
one
of the premises. Of late it has become widely misused to mean "invites
the
further question." Perhaps the error has become so widespread that a
descriptivist, at least, would say it's no longer an error.

As I read your statement you were saying, not that Joe was fallaciously
assuming we need a U.S. auto industry (which I don't think he did), but
that
Joe's argument invites the further question whether we need a U.S. auto
industry.

Exaclty.....;0) And we do.

Joe



Why?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that were
reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at the
knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a solution...
universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto industry can
recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will
be draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of course
business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class, as
usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business would
be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they were
paying for covering their employees under their current plans. Wow, that
makes a lot of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the
top of the heap.

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:27:02 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max


Please consider moving anyway. You'd fit in better there, and they could
probably use some cheap, ill fitting, contact lenses.

I was thinking Venezuela might be a great place for you, left-winger that
you are. Not to mention that your Whitworth tools will come in handy for
fixing your Yugo (they'll undoubtedly fit the metric and British mishmash on
those cars).

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:11:38 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

You need to look up the term "begging the question." It's increasingly
not
understood and misused.


I believe I used it properly. Why do you think I didn't? (Or, am I begging
another question?)

The generally accepted meaning of "begging the question," at least until
recently, has been a logically fallacious technique of argumentation in
which the proposition to be proved is assumed (generally implicitly) in
one
of the premises. Of late it has become widely misused to mean "invites the
further question." Perhaps the error has become so widespread that a
descriptivist, at least, would say it's no longer an error.

As I read your statement you were saying, not that Joe was fallaciously
assuming we need a U.S. auto industry (which I don't think he did), but
that
Joe's argument invites the further question whether we need a U.S. auto
industry.

That explanation will be way over BB's head, Dave. Can you put it in middle
school terminology for him?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 17, 3:03 pm, "Capt. JG" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message

. ..







"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message

Yeah, that's the ticket... fire or at least blame the
workers for
_negotiating_ successfully.

the ''workers'', and I use that term loosely, only do / vote
what the mob / union bosses tell them to.

SBV

So what? At this point, who's going to be harmed, according to Joe's
post...
the boss' or the workers?

--
"j" ganz - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Jon. In case you have not noticed the Americaqn auto industry is
in deep trouble because of all the dead weight the unions strapped
them with. The American auto industry spends more money on heathcare
for RETIRED employees than they spend on steel. Just how is any
company going to make a profit when they are forking out so much? The
only way they can compete in a world market is to start over without
the dead weight.

Joe



Agreed. However, 100s of 1000s are dependent on the agreements that
were reached when the industry was healthy. You can't cut people off at
the knees, so something needs to be worked out... gee, here's a
solution... universal healthcare. Everyone is then covered and the auto
industry can recover. Sorry... I know that's pretty liberal of me. g

Of the 10 or so UAW members that I know personally, about half intend to
retire at age 50 or younger. The others won't work beyond 55. That
leaves an average of 23 years during which those retired employees will
be draining the auto companies' profits with zero productivity.

So you propose so-called "universal health care." Since Hugo Chavez
isn't our leader, and we don't have his oil money to finance this
socialist health care agenda, someone will have to pay for it. Of
course business will be footing the bill (and probably the middle class,
as usual). Hillary's plan in the early 90s assumed that most business
would be paying more in taxes to cover "universal health care" than they
were paying for covering their employees under their current plans.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

Max



We have plenty of money and creativity to find a way to insure the 47
million people. If we can't do that, we don't deserve our status at the
top of the heap.

We could probably have insured the masses for decades with the money spent
on the Iraq war. That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com