OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

That's how I see it.
The top management are so busy giving themselves outrageous bonuses that
there was little left to modernize plants.
Live for today...tomorrow will take care of it's self??

Harry Krause wrote in message
...
A 68-year-old auto assembly plant? A plant built in the 1930s? A
pre-World War II factory?

No wonder GM finds it hard to compete. I'm sure it has been modernized
that plant over the years, but the age of the facility speaks volumes
about what is wrong with the management of America's car manufacturers.


--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:42:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:

Active? Probably close to zero...not counting NEA members. Retired?
Probably many...but I've always maintained that unions have had their
necessary place in history. Today, they're just a parasite on our economy.

True, in many companies, but in others the same factors that made unions
necessary are still at work. Take your favorite Walmart, a company that
ignores the law and intimidates their workers to work of the clock,
perhaps a union should be in their future.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/clot..._sweatshop.cfm

http://threehegemons.tripod.com/thre...blog/id57.html

http://www.lieffcabraser.com/walmart%20lawsuit.htm

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:8lsbb.21089
No wonder GM finds it hard to compete. I'm sure it has been modernized
that plant over the years, but the age of the facility speaks volumes
about what is wrong with the management of America's car manufacturers.


No kidding. Management should have shut it down years ago in favor of
opening a more profitable non-union plant. I guess it took 68 years of
"negotiations" with UAW to finally win concessions for closing the place.

Please provide ANY evidence that the plat was kept open for 68 years
because of "negotiations with the UAW to finally win concession for
closing the place."

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:8lsbb.21089
No wonder GM finds it hard to compete. I'm sure it has been modernized
that plant over the years, but the age of the facility speaks volumes
about what is wrong with the management of America's car
manufacturers.


No kidding. Management should have shut it down years ago in favor of
opening a more profitable non-union plant. I guess it took 68 years of
"negotiations" with UAW to finally win concessions for closing the
place.

Please provide...

No. *You* prove I'm wrong.

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

No kidding. Management should have shut it down years ago in favor of
opening a more profitable non-union plant. I guess it took 68 years of
"negotiations" with UAW to finally win concessions for closing the place.

Please provide ANY evidence that the plat was kept open for 68 years
because of "negotiations with the UAW to finally win concession for
closing the place."

Yeah, that's it. The place was a big loser from day one, and GM would have
closed it right away except for the Union.
Nitrous leak in the office?

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
No kidding. Management should have shut it down years ago in favor of
opening a more profitable non-union plant. I guess it took 68 years of
"negotiations" with UAW to finally win concessions for closing the
place.

Please provide ANY evidence that the plat was kept open for 68 years
because of "negotiations with the UAW to finally win concession for
closing the place."

Yeah, that's it. The place was a big loser from day one, and GM would have
closed it right away except for the Union.

You don't think that hasn't happened? Why do you think GM won't close
plants that are less efficient and costly to run in favor of plants
somewhere else that are more efficient and less costly to run? Because the
Unions would strike if GM announced massive layoffs in a town that employs
thousands.

Remember our discussion about Boeing moving? And Boeing doesn't have the
union problems that GM does.

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

You don't think that hasn't happened? Why do you think GM won't close
plants that are less efficient and costly to run in favor of plants
somewhere else that are more efficient and less costly to run? Because the
Unions would strike if GM announced massive layoffs in a town that employs
thousands.

Remember our discussion about Boeing moving? And Boeing doesn't have the
union problems that GM does.

GM has closed scores of plants over the years, and I would have to think the
union howled almost every time.

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You don't think that hasn't happened? Why do you think GM won't close
plants that are less efficient and costly to run in favor of plants
somewhere else that are more efficient and less costly to run? Because the
Unions would strike if GM announced massive layoffs in a town that employs
thousands.

Remember our discussion about Boeing moving? And Boeing doesn't have the
union problems that GM does.

GM has closed scores of plants over the years, and I would have to think the
union howled almost every time.

Blame both GM and the unions. The plant closing is due exclusively to neither party.

However, with increased automation in an attempt to cut costs, union labor workforces
have been cut...perhaps due to the high costs of those union workers.

One also has to wonder about the efficiency of an old plant like that and whether or
not GM attempted to modernize it to keep it as efficient as possible.

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:22:46 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:8lsbb.21089
No wonder GM finds it hard to compete. I'm sure it has been modernized
that plant over the years, but the age of the facility speaks volumes
about what is wrong with the management of America's car
manufacturers.


No kidding. Management should have shut it down years ago in favor of
opening a more profitable non-union plant. I guess it took 68 years of
"negotiations" with UAW to finally win concessions for closing the
place.

Please provide...

No. *You* prove I'm wrong.

This is a logical fallacy called "shifting the burden of proof." The burden of
proving any assertion rests, by convention, with the person making the
assertion.

Furthermore, someone using this type of "fallacy of distraction" is trying to
hand the other person in the argument the very difficult task of "proving a
negative."

From the standpoint of credibility in any argument, it better to be ready to
substantiate an assertion, rather than trying to use any tactics of distraction.

Joe "Logic-R-Us" Parsons

OT--Ouch! Right in Harry's backyard...
 

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:8lsbb.21089
No wonder GM finds it hard to compete. I'm sure it has been modernized
that plant over the years, but the age of the facility speaks volumes
about what is wrong with the management of America's car
manufacturers.


No kidding. Management should have shut it down years ago in favor of
opening a more profitable non-union plant. I guess it took 68 years of
"negotiations" with UAW to finally win concessions for closing the
place.

Please provide...

No. *You* prove I'm wrong.
Umm, I wasn't the one who MADE such an ignorant statement. Now, do you
have ANY facts to back up YOUR statements?