On 4/12/10 11:45 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:28:34 -0400,
wrote:

autoworkers in most democracies are
unionized. Even Ferrari autoworkers are unionized. *If* GM and Chrysler
are making "substandard" cars, it is entirely the fault of management.

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
improvements in productivity.


You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions. In other parts of the world, the
relationship between the manufacturers and the unions, while adversarial
in many countries, is quite different.

The auto manufacturers in this country got precisely the relationship
with the unions that they deserved.

Quality control at an auto plant is entirely the function of management.






--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:46:29 -0400, hk
wrote:

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
improvements in productivity.


You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions.

1930s ?

That's like red necks still fighting the civil war 150 years later.
It's time to move on into the 21st century.

GM and Ford could have busted the unions any time they were willing to
take the big strike and start sub-contracting out major
sub-assemblies to non-union suppliers. The short term profit motive
and politics always won out. The UAW would target the weakest of the
three sisters and everyone else would fall into line.

On 4/12/10 6:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
improvements in productivity.


You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions.

1930s ?

That's like red necks still fighting the civil war 150 years later.
It's time to move on into the 21st century.

GM and Ford could have busted the unions any time they were willing to
take the big strike and start sub-contracting out major
sub-assemblies to non-union suppliers. The short term profit motive
and politics always won out. The UAW would target the weakest of the
three sisters and everyone else would fall into line.


U.S. automaker policy towards unions has not changed since the 1930's.
It's still relevant.

And the rednecks are still fighting the civil war 150 years later...you
need look no farther than the state of virginia and the teabaggers.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On Apr 12, 9:00*pm, hk wrote:
On 4/12/10 6:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:





On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. * The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
* track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
* improvements in productivity.

You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions.

1930s ?

That's like red necks still fighting the civil war 150 years later.
It's time to move on into the 21st century.

GM and Ford could have busted the unions any time they were willing to
take the big strike and start sub-contracting out *major
sub-assemblies to non-union suppliers. *The short term profit motive
and politics always won out. *The UAW would target the weakest of the
three sisters and everyone else would fall into line.

U.S. automaker policy towards unions has not changed since the 1930's.
It's still relevant.

The union's policy against the very mouths that feed them has not
changed in as many years, Lunacy.


And the rednecks are still fighting the civil war 150 years later...you
need look no farther than the state of virginia and the teabaggers.

Yet it is still the same old scalawags and carpetbaggers that continue
to propagate the civil war. It's over. Get it?

On 4/12/10 11:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Apr 12, 9:00 pm, wrote:
On 4/12/10 6:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:





On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
improvements in productivity.

You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions.

1930s ?

That's like red necks still fighting the civil war 150 years later.
It's time to move on into the 21st century.

GM and Ford could have busted the unions any time they were willing to
take the big strike and start sub-contracting out major
sub-assemblies to non-union suppliers. The short term profit motive
and politics always won out. The UAW would target the weakest of the
three sisters and everyone else would fall into line.

U.S. automaker policy towards unions has not changed since the 1930's.
It's still relevant.

The union's policy against the very mouths that feed them has not
changed in as many years, Lunacy.


And the rednecks are still fighting the civil war 150 years later...you
need look no farther than the state of virginia and the teabaggers.

Yet it is still the same old scalawags and carpetbaggers that continue
to propagate the civil war. It's over. Get it?


It's certainly not over in your redneck, racist state.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On 12/04/2010 4:16 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
improvements in productivity.


You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions.

1930s ?

That's like red necks still fighting the civil war 150 years later.
It's time to move on into the 21st century.

GM and Ford could have busted the unions any time they were willing to
take the big strike and start sub-contracting out major
sub-assemblies to non-union suppliers. The short term profit motive
and politics always won out. The UAW would target the weakest of the
three sisters and everyone else would fall into line.

Yep, auto was at war with union and the taxpayer loses.

Say Heil Obama. Sort of sounds like GM in the mid 1930's in Germany.
You scum will support the UAW!!!

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

On 12/04/2010 11:46 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/12/10 11:45 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:28:34 -0400,
wrote:

autoworkers in most democracies are
unionized. Even Ferrari autoworkers are unionized. *If* GM and Chrysler
are making "substandard" cars, it is entirely the fault of management.

I would agree that there are some unions that assist with, and
encourage, good quality. The UAW has never impressed me that way.
Whether or not that is ultimately the fault of management is certainly
arguable.What is perfectly clear is that the UAW has an unblemished
track record for opposing the modernization of work rules and other
improvements in productivity.


You really do not know what you are talking about in your last
sentence, nor do you have any understanding of the severely adversarial
relationship that has existed between the UAW and the employers of its
members for many, many generations, going back to the 1930's and the
Ford Motor Company attacks on union members, organizers and
pamphleteers. The employers have never let up for a moment in their
attempts to bust the unions. In other parts of the world, the
relationship between the manufacturers and the unions, while adversarial
in many countries, is quite different.

The auto manufacturers in this country got precisely the relationship
with the unions that they deserved.

Quality control at an auto plant is entirely the function of management.

Tehn they should fire everyone that isn't management and hire "contract"
term managers. If they don't get with the plan, then don't renew the 6
month contract.

Less benefits and severance that way too.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.