Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and a
valid market rate is less than that.
Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume

They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.
So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.


The Plum finally took a stool softener. Now for the hard part. Back
peddling.

In article ,
says...

Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and a
valid market rate is less than that.
Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume

They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.
So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.


The Plum finally took a stool softener. Now for the hard part. Back
peddling.

I think Plum is an agitator sent here to agitate. I don't know why any
of you engage her in conversation, she is just a somewhat polite Harry
Krause.

On 11/5/09 8:48 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
...
wrote in message

Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and a
valid market rate is less than that.
Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume

They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.
So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.


The Plum finally took a stool softener. Now for the hard part. Back
peddling.

I think Plum is an agitator sent here to agitate. I don't know why any
of you engage her in conversation, she is just a somewhat polite Harry
Krause.



It's great fun when the right-wing diarrhea here talks about "manners."

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:13 -0800, Bill McKee wrote:


They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.

Funny, instead of focusing on bottom up, perhaps more focus should be
placed on top down. Toyota's top 37 executives earned a combined $21.6
million. That bum Wagoner's compensation, alone, was $14.4 million. At
Honda, the top 21 executives earned $11.1 million combined. Ford's CEO
Mulally's compensation was $17.7 million in 2008. If the boss thinks
there's that kind of money floating around, why wonder if the working man
wants a piece.

Or, is this just another example of voodoo economics, you know, Reagan's
"tinkle down" economics?

If the working man has the ability to climb the coproate ladder and earn
the fat pay check, good for him. Not everyone has the ability.

Jealousy of what someone else has achieved in life is no way to live the
rest of yours.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
...will last until the union or the government figures out a
way to
stop it.

" Ford is also running into resistance from its unionized
work force
as it tries to cut costs further.

Its improving fortunes were the main reason cited by the
United
Automobile Workers on Monday for rejecting another round of
labor
concessions that would have roughly matched concessions that
workers
at Chrysler and General Motors approved in the spring."

The U.A.W.'s president, Ron Gettelfinger, and its vice
president in
charge of the Ford unit, Bob King, said in a statement that
the
carmaker's third-quarter profit was "evidence of the
contributions
that Ford workers have made.""

http://tinyurl.com/ya4pyay


Why should they cave to demands from management? How about
producing decent products that people want to buy?

--
Nom=de=Plume


They are decent products. But if you are paying some low
skilled laborer excess money, then the decent product is
priced out of the market.

Then, when the contract expires the company should seek to
renegotiate. It takes two parties to make a contract. If
there's good management in place, then the union members will
feel better about consessions.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, they should pay the workers what they are worth. A lot
less than they are making. $65 bundled labor cost to install a
lug nut?

Yes. I agree. What, pray tell, are they worth? Who determines
this? You?

--
Nom=de=Plume


The market place. Not the union strong arming the company.
Between the union and **** poor management over the at least 40
years before the crash, there is no way the car companies can
succeed.

Hate to tell you, but a negotiated contract _is_ the market rate.
Looks like Ford is going to do ok and even GM is doing better.
Chrysler I think is on the way out completely.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The artificial market rate. **** Poor management is the reason for
those egregious contracts. American car companies at the time had
80 or 90% of the world market. Why worry about fiscal
responsibility when you could pass on the cost and produce crappy
cars. Now the real market rate is maybe 25% of the negotiated rate.
My daughter bought a used Hyundai station wagon a couple years ago.
100k warrantee, good car, 70% the price of a comparable American
car. Buy American? Not when it comes with a 42% premium. For a
car with less warrantee.

Please show us the data for the "real" market rate. Yes. ****-poor
management. I agree. Thus, unions came into being.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and a
valid market rate is less than that.

Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume


They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.

So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a
plant somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.

Thus they pay the valid market rate. Not sure what you mean by "enough."
Union shops pay a valid market rate also, but with different facts involved.
They will also build a plant somewhere else if they need more capacity union
or no union.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and
a
valid market rate is less than that.
Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do
you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume

They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less,
if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.
So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine
if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't
happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a
plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.


The Plum finally took a stool softener. Now for the hard part. Back
peddling.

I think Plum is an agitator sent here to agitate. I don't know why any
of you engage her in conversation, she is just a somewhat polite Harry
Krause.


I think that Jim is a jerk. No, a rude jerk. I really don't care what either
of you think. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read my posts.
That seems to be impossible for either of you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:13 -0800, Bill McKee wrote:


They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less,
if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.

Funny, instead of focusing on bottom up, perhaps more focus should be
placed on top down. Toyota's top 37 executives earned a combined $21.6
million. That bum Wagoner's compensation, alone, was $14.4 million. At
Honda, the top 21 executives earned $11.1 million combined. Ford's CEO
Mulally's compensation was $17.7 million in 2008. If the boss thinks
there's that kind of money floating around, why wonder if the working man
wants a piece.

Or, is this just another example of voodoo economics, you know, Reagan's
"tinkle down" economics?

If the working man has the ability to climb the coproate ladder and earn
the fat pay check, good for him. Not everyone has the ability.

Jealousy of what someone else has achieved in life is no way to live the
rest of yours.


Yes, we all dream of being in the NBA also, but the reality is that very few
people will be pro athletes and very few will be millionaires. What's your
excuse?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 11/5/09 1:10 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
In inet,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:13 -0800, Bill McKee wrote:


They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less,
if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.

Funny, instead of focusing on bottom up, perhaps more focus should be
placed on top down. Toyota's top 37 executives earned a combined $21.6
million. That bum Wagoner's compensation, alone, was $14.4 million. At
Honda, the top 21 executives earned $11.1 million combined. Ford's CEO
Mulally's compensation was $17.7 million in 2008. If the boss thinks
there's that kind of money floating around, why wonder if the working man
wants a piece.

Or, is this just another example of voodoo economics, you know, Reagan's
"tinkle down" economics?

If the working man has the ability to climb the coproate ladder and earn
the fat pay check, good for him. Not everyone has the ability.

Jealousy of what someone else has achieved in life is no way to live the
rest of yours.


Yes, we all dream of being in the NBA also, but the reality is that very few
people will be pro athletes and very few will be millionaires. What's your
excuse?



Bertie Robbins (BAR) barely got out of high school, disdains formal
education, joined the marines, and was so competent at that he never not
an overseas posting. Now he works at a low level management position at
a Washington, D.C., tech company. He thinks he is a rugged individualist.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:48:24 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and a
valid market rate is less than that.
Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume

They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.
So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.


The Plum finally took a stool softener. Now for the hard part. Back
peddling.

I think Plum is an agitator sent here to agitate. I don't know why any
of you engage her in conversation, she is just a somewhat polite Harry
Krause.

The politeness is rapidly disappearing. She's become a regular HK
wannabee.
--
Loogy says:

Conservative = Good
Liberal = Bad

I agree. John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:48:24 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

Look at what the non union successful car companies are paying and
a
valid market rate is less than that.
Huh? Non union car companies not paying a valid market rate? How do
you
figure that one?

--
Nom=de=Plume

They pay less, have less onerous work rules, and would pay even
less, if
the unions were not getting a bunch from the bankrupt companies and
taxpayers.
So, the non-union car companies pay a valid market rate, which is
fine if
you can convince the workers to get rid of the union. It doesn't
happen
that often, but I have no problem with it per se.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Basically the non union shops pay the workers enough and will build a
plant
somewhere else if they need more capacity if the shop goes union.


The Plum finally took a stool softener. Now for the hard part. Back
peddling.

I think Plum is an agitator sent here to agitate. I don't know why any
of you engage her in conversation, she is just a somewhat polite Harry
Krause.

The politeness is rapidly disappearing. She's become a regular HK
wannabee.


Well, I hope you've plonked me by now.

--
Nom=de=Plume