"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.

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.

"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.

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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.

The old plant was probably not suitable for upgrade to the next generation of
automation. That would be a death knell, even if they had convict labor working
for
35 cents an hour.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.

The old plant was probably not suitable for upgrade to the next generation of
automation. That would be a death knell, even if they had convict labor working
for
35 cents an hour.



What auto worker do you know that is making $8/hour? Try $26-$30/hour plus another
$35/hour in benefits.
http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg02.cfm

Jim - wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.

The old plant was probably not suitable for upgrade to the next generation of
automation. That would be a death knell, even if they had convict labor working
for
35 cents an hour.



What auto worker do you know that is making $8/hour? Try $26-$30/hour plus another
$35/hour in benefits.
http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg02.cfm



Poor Jim/Dennis...can't even compete with a blue collar auto worker.



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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim - wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.

The old plant was probably not suitable for upgrade to the next generation of
automation. That would be a death knell, even if they had convict labor working
for
35 cents an hour.



What auto worker do you know that is making $8/hour? Try $26-$30/hour plus another
$35/hour in benefits.
http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg02.cfm



Poor Jim/Dennis...can't even compete with a blue collar auto worker.

Based on the intention of that remark, you obviously think little of the blue collar
auto worker you claim to defend. You are a total farce.

The argument isn't about *if* the plant needed to be closed...but, rather,
about *why* it wasn't closed sooner. UAW has a history of pressuring GM
from closing many unproductive plants due to threats of a walk-out.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't
matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether
the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't
as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.

The old plant was probably not suitable for upgrade to the next generation
of
automation. That would be a death knell, even if they had convict labor
working
for
35 cents an hour.

Cost of closing a plant is almost more than keeping it open. When the UAW
worker gets laid off, or furloughed, they get 95% of the pay they get when
working. Do not know for how long, but 2 years sticks in the memory. Then
the remaining workers go out for any perceived slight.
Bill

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't
matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether
the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't
as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.

The old plant was probably not suitable for upgrade to the next generation
of
automation. That would be a death knell, even if they had convict labor
working
for
35 cents an hour.

Gould 0738 wrote:

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.

I would have to agree. The way they make cars these days, it doesn't matter
very much if the guys on the line are getting
$8 an hour or a decent, living wage.

Being competitive today is more about robotics and automation than whether the
workforce has been hired for the lowest conceivable dollar. There aren't as
many man hours in a car as just several years ago.


Which brings up an interesting hypothetical question. If we were to
"automate" all manufacturing, distribution, and information 100%, what
would we have left for the American worker to do?

The answer would probably be a good career choice for a high school
senior to contemplate.

Dave