On 11/5/09 5:18 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:48:24 -0500, 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.

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


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



The tribe of Right Wing Lost Boys here cannot tolerate dissent. They're
probably discussing you on their secret site.

H the K wrote:
On 11/5/09 5:18 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:48:24 -0500, 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.

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


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



The tribe of Right Wing Lost Boys here cannot tolerate dissent. They're
probably discussing you on their secret site.

I don't think I've seen mention of you or la Plum over there. Sorry to
disappoint. Does Karen know you have this thing going on here? She
probably wouldn't give a **** anyway.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/5/09 5:18 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:48:24 -0500, 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.

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


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



The tribe of Right Wing Lost Boys here cannot tolerate dissent. They're
probably discussing you on their secret site.


Is that at Cheney's undisclosed location? I heard it was a 7/11 outside of
Cheyenne.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

wrote in message
...
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.


They should be at-will employees, each accountable for their hard work
and
dedication to the product they make and the company that employs them.
Union crap like seniority, and other entitlements, only penalize the
hard
workers. The payroll and overhead of the union organizers would land
right into the pockets of the workers if they had any self respect.
They
are ****ing away millions in dues in order for some to be slackers who
just happened to be on the job a few years earlier than the rest.

-S


I agree. They should be, but since management was so bad for so long,
that's
not going to happen any time soon.

As is the normal practice, they can and should attempt to renegotiate the
terms. You do believe in negotiation don't you? Or, do you think a lock
out
will work?


In a democratic society of people who can think for themselves, the
negotiation process typically takes place as a one-on-one interview - not
a wholesale demand for a pay increase without regard for individual
performance. In that case, the slackers win and the motivated lose.

-S


So, you're saying that each individual worker should negotiate with
management about health, safety, employment practices, benefits, etc.? Talk
about bringing a company to a standstill....

As with the rest of our country, the union members elected their leadership
for better or worse. This is called a representative democracy.



No. The process should take place like any other non-union company.
Salary is negotiated, the benefits are in the employee manual. There is
already government oversight for safety. If you have ever worked a
non-union job you understand.

-S

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

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.


Good employees don't work for businesses and people they don't like.
They aren't forced to take a particular job. The unions serve to place
those who can't think for themselves.

-S

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

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
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?


It should be the open market. Not back-room negotiating by union thugs
who suck money from their members.

-S


Hate to tell you, but it _is_ the open market. See representative democracy
vs. management thugs.


"Management" doesn't force an employee to work for them. That seems to
be a common thread that is easily ignored. There are other places to
work. They could start their own business. A guy at GM isn't required
to stay there until retirement.

-S

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
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.

There's another option. Ford can tell the unions to **** off.

If it were only that simple...

-S


That's a perfectly valid thing to do, as long as you accept the
consequences.



Do you think the automakers would have invested so heavily in robots if
they could get people to *work* at a decent wage without all of the
over-the-top entitlements?

-S

"Stevie" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
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.


They should be at-will employees, each accountable for their hard work
and
dedication to the product they make and the company that employs them.
Union crap like seniority, and other entitlements, only penalize the
hard
workers. The payroll and overhead of the union organizers would land
right into the pockets of the workers if they had any self respect.
They
are ****ing away millions in dues in order for some to be slackers who
just happened to be on the job a few years earlier than the rest.

-S


I agree. They should be, but since management was so bad for so long,
that's
not going to happen any time soon.

As is the normal practice, they can and should attempt to renegotiate
the
terms. You do believe in negotiation don't you? Or, do you think a lock
out
will work?


In a democratic society of people who can think for themselves, the
negotiation process typically takes place as a one-on-one interview -
not
a wholesale demand for a pay increase without regard for individual
performance. In that case, the slackers win and the motivated lose.

-S


So, you're saying that each individual worker should negotiate with
management about health, safety, employment practices, benefits, etc.?
Talk
about bringing a company to a standstill....

As with the rest of our country, the union members elected their
leadership
for better or worse. This is called a representative democracy.



No. The process should take place like any other non-union company.
Salary is negotiated, the benefits are in the employee manual. There is
already government oversight for safety. If you have ever worked a
non-union job you understand.

-S


Look up the word union. The workers empower the union leadership to
negotiate on their behalf. That's how it works in a union shop.

If you ever worked in a union, you'd know this.


--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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.


Good employees don't work for businesses and people they don't like. They
aren't forced to take a particular job. The unions serve to place those
who can't think for themselves.

-S


Really? Always? When you're trying to feed your family, you take what you
can get. Unions historically serve the workers by negotiating in their best
interest. Usually, that's how it works. Sometimes union bosses are corrupt.
Sometimes management is reasonable. Sometimes not.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Stevie" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
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?


It should be the open market. Not back-room negotiating by union thugs
who suck money from their members.

-S


Hate to tell you, but it _is_ the open market. See representative
democracy
vs. management thugs.


"Management" doesn't force an employee to work for them. That seems to be
a common thread that is easily ignored. There are other places to work.
They could start their own business. A guy at GM isn't required to stay
there until retirement.

-S


Correct. This is true in a union and non-union company. If there are other
places to work, in the current economy, they don't last for very long. A guy
at GM is certainly not required to stay until retirement. Were you trying to
make a point? If so, what?

--
Nom=de=Plume