Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 04:32:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that the Toyota we have was not built by non-union
workers in the USA.

Why did I choose it? Because at the time I purchased it, the
corresponding
Ford and GM vehicles were too large.

I assume you bought a used Tundra.

Eisboch

I believe he said he had a 4Runner.
--
John H.


Oh. I was wrong. I thought he mentioned a Tundra.
I assume it is an older, used model.

Eisboch



4Runner with 100,000 miles. Still in good shape, but only used as a boat
ramp tow vehicle these days. When we got it, Ford and GM didn't make a
mid-sized SUV with similar tow capacity, as I recall, and, of course, I
wouldn't take a Chrysler product on a bet, not with those old-tech
pushrod engines.

That was almost six years ago, though. I haven't stayed "current" with
what is being offered by Ford or GM these days. In fact, I'm not really
that interested in cars these days.

I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized
deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the
employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:07:17 -0500, Boater
wrote:


4Runner with 100,000 miles. Still in good shape, but only used as a boat
ramp tow vehicle these days. When we got it, Ford and GM didn't make a
mid-sized SUV with similar tow capacity, as I recall, and, of course, I
wouldn't take a Chrysler product on a bet, not with those old-tech
pushrod engines.

Nothing wrong with a good pushrod engine, especially for a truck.
BTW, wheels and levers are old-tech.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:07:17 -0500, Boater
wrote:


4Runner with 100,000 miles. Still in good shape, but only used as a boat
ramp tow vehicle these days. When we got it, Ford and GM didn't make a
mid-sized SUV with similar tow capacity, as I recall, and, of course, I
wouldn't take a Chrysler product on a bet, not with those old-tech
pushrod engines.

Nothing wrong with a good pushrod engine, especially for a truck.
BTW, wheels and levers are old-tech.

--Vic

At least with a pushrod you typically just lost a cylinder if one broke. If
the timing belt goes on some of the overhead cams because you forgot to
replace it at 70k miles, the engine can completely self destruct.

Eisboch

"Boater" wrote in message
...

I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal
for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers
aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.



Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be
found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal
for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers
aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.



Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be
found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch




I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations
would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities.

My union's pension fund has *no* unfunded liabilities, and we intend to
keep it that way, for moral and legal reasons. The hourly contributions
go where they are supposed to go, and, even though we do not invest in
stocks, we are still several percentage points ahead in earnings so that
we can handle distributions.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized
deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the
employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.



Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot
be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch


I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would
have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension
plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have
pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's
about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if
good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea.
with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized
deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the
employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality.


Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot
be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from
traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current
organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However,
contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times
when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of
health plans.

Eisboch

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would
have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension
plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have
pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's
about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement.

Eisboch




Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers,
if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan
or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a
new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health
care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school
mentality.


Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management
cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get
away from traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The
current organized employees need to be considered and fairly
treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated,
particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts
the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the
administrators of health plans.

Eisboch

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations
would have to do if they were required to fund their pension
liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with
pension plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't
have pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Eisboch



Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.

And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad.
So sad.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:59:56 -0500, Jim wrote:

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers,
if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan
or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a
new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health
care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that.

I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school
mentality.


Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management
cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get
away from traditional business and MBA concepts.

I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The
current organized employees need to be considered and fairly
treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated,
particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts
the whole operation at risk.

I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the
administrators of health plans.

Eisboch

I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations
would have to do if they were required to fund their pension
liabilities.


I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with
pension plans.
Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't
have pension plans.
They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Eisboch



Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.

And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad.
So sad.

The irony escapes him.
--
John H.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.