lurker

"dnoyeB" <Fake@ThisOneIsFake.com> wrote in message
news:tLydncbV09cZgEHenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hawk wrote:
>> dnoyeB wrote:
>>
>>> Hawk wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Hawk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The labor market for autoworkers will determine the pay. If there is
>>>>>> a shortage of qualified workers in that market, pay will increase.
>>>>>> If there is a glut of qualified workers the pay will drop. Common
>>>>>> sense. What you have now is the union forcing a certain wage level
>>>>>> that can't be sustained by the market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> union cant force anything. If the market were as you suggest, then we
>>>>> would all work for Walmart wages. If you think thats ok, then we will
>>>>> agree to disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The union can stage a strike, walk-out, work slowdown, etc. There is
>>>> quite a bit of power in that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't work for a union and I don't work for government yet I still
>>>> manage to pull in a decent salary and benefits. If there were any push
>>>> to unionize my job, I'd fight it vigorously. Why is there always this
>>>> huge assumption that Wal-mart and Wal-mart level wages are the only
>>>> possibility without a union?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thats the direction of the country. That seems to be acceptable by the
>>> citizens since they dont fight too hard against it and many are more
>>> hostile to unions that underpaying corporations.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps thats what YOU PERCEIVE as the direction of the country, but I
>> don't see that in my part of the country and have not seen data to
>> support it. Of course there can be regional differences.
>>
>> How do you determine a "fair" pay level for a given job. The market has
>> to determine that (ie supply of qualified workers and value of the
>> product being produced) not some arbitrary feeling that a given jobs pay
>> SEEMS too low.
>>
>> The economy is a constantly changing entity. The types, amount, and
>> variety of jobs is constantly in flux. I don't know of any people
>> training to work in a buggy whip factory these days. Sometimes certain
>> industries weaken and/or fade away. There are always new types of jobs
>> being created that offer opportunities in other areas.
>>
>> I think one of the biggest frauds shoved down peoples throats is the
>> notion that everyone on planet earth has to have a college degree. The
>> same people that push that belief are many times the first who will look
>> down their noses at plumbers, electricians, etc. Learning a trade is a
>> valuable skill, and can provide a damn good living. College is not
>> necessarily for everyone, but the idea is pushed that it is.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I make a decent living due to the fact that I put in some hard years
>>>> paying my own way through school and practically starving to improve my
>>>> situation. I am not unique in doing this by any stretch. The
>>>> subsequent years of hard work in my entry level jobs paved the way to
>>>> where I am now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone is not so fortunate. Everyone that is poor is not lazy. Not
>>> sure if you ment to imply that or not.
>>>
>>
>> Of course not all poor people are lazy, but you also have to acknowledge
>> that there are poor people THAT ARE. 100% are not lazy, but on the other
>> hand 100% are not doing the most they can to further themselves.
>>
>> I truly have compassion for people that are in a tough spot due to no
>> fault or poor decision making of their own. For example, someone that is
>> in dire financial condition due to a medical emergency with a family
>> member. I have no problem helping someone like that out, and do so
>> frequently with cash, clothes, and food dontations.
>>
>> The bottom line is that there will always be a portion of the population
>> that is "poor", and most of the time it is by choice because they COULD
>> better themselves but choose not to.
>>
>> There is also a portion of the population with mental health issues, or
>> problems with drugs or alcohol that will always make up a good sized
>> chunk of the poor. I don't see that ever changing. You could hand
>> people in those situations wheelbarrows of cash, and 6 months later
>> they'd be back in the same situtation.
>>
>>
>>>> Isn't it reasonable to believe that not all jobs can support a family
>>>> of four (or more)? I'm a big advocate of personal resposibility. If
>>>> you don't make enough money to support a bunch of kids and have no plan
>>>> to improve yourself so that you can, DONT HAVE A BUNCH OF KIDS! If
>>>> someone wants to be lazy or satisfied with a minimum wage job, don't
>>>> come complaining to me about how hard it is to support the family while
>>>> working at Wal-mart. Each and every one of us have the power to decide
>>>> our own fate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you don't suffer fools. 8hit happens. What to do with these
>>> people? If we ignore them they will make our lives less comfortable.
>>>
>>
>> My whole theory is that people have to become uncomfortable enough to
>> spark a change in their lives. If someone is constantly bailing them
>> out, people will just become dependant instead of doing the work
>> themselves. The path of least resistance is a powerful lure.
>>
>>
>>>> I fully acknowledge the fact that the automotive executives have made
>>>> massive promises that they probably knew in their hearts they couldn't
>>>> keep. No one side of this thing is guilt free. It still doesn't
>>>> change my opinion that the union does more harm to the employee and
>>>> company as a whole.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well i am not union, but I know I would not have a 40 hour work week nor
>>> benefits without the unions work. I used to get paid for overtime, not
>>> anymore, and they seem to expect it. I used to have good health
>>> insurance, not anymore, and company is paying less of percentage. Stuff
>>> has been going the other way for last ~8 years.
>>>
>>> I know there is always a fight to get what you are worth. With the open
>>> borders we have, wages will continue to drop. People should be free to
>>> defend their value in any way they can. Just keep the playing field
>>> level and may the best entity win.
>>>
>>
>> If you feel the company that you are working for is treating you
>> unfairly, then make a change. Go out and look at the job market, I
>> guarantee that if you look hard enough you will find a better
>> alternative.
>>
>> The only thing that will force a company to improve conditions and
>> compensation is the loss of valuable employees that cause them to become
>> uncompetitive in their markets. If there are a lot of people willing to
>> come in and do your job for less, that is the market speaking.
>>
>> If people just sit back and accept poor conditions and/or compensation,
>> what do you expect to happen? The company won't change a bit, because
>> they won't have a compelling business reason to do it. From their
>> perspective, since nobody is quitting they assume people are satisfied
>> with their situation.
>>
>> I know it ain't easy, but nobody ever said it would be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Damn, this has been an out and out ramble. I better take a break.
>>
>>
>> (*>
>
> Yea me too. I can't really disagree with any of that.
>
> --
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
> man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes
> 9:16

My old dad used to say to me (he's been dead many years) "Unions are a
necessary evil"
I guess he could have said "Might is right"

 

gosinn@gmail.com

Unions are not necessarily evil
They are trying to do their best
Unfortunately they do not have control anymore
The multies do what they please
They have no concern for the people and they try to avoid the unions
In many multies they are sidestepping the unions by going abroad and in
some cases they start new companies on the side and do the dealings
with their own companies and the Unions have no say there
So the Unions are slowly being starved to death

dnoyeB

gosinn@gmail.com wrote:
> Unions are not necessarily evil
> They are trying to do their best
> Unfortunately they do not have control anymore
> The multies do what they please
> They have no concern for the people and they try to avoid the unions
> In many multies they are sidestepping the unions by going abroad and in
> some cases they start new companies on the side and do the dealings
> with their own companies and the Unions have no say there
> So the Unions are slowly being starved to death
>

A current of anti-unionism is around these days. I live in Detroit
which is a union town. But engineers around here like to put down the
union all the time. They are a favorite whipping boy. Once this
current of anti-unionism is fully established companies can just dump
union workers without taking as much heat as they would have otherwise.

I recall when the local papers both went on strike and people didnt seem
to care. They bought anyway while scabs filled the empty jobs. Its
like people are ignorant of the benefits the union brought to us all.

i guess people will see what happens once they are gone. So long as we
dont get too ignorant and allow laws to be written outlawing unions or
outlawing strikes, we can always go back. It may cost us the blood and
tears it did the first time though.




--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

Mike Marlow

"dnoyeB" <Fake@ThisOneIsFake.com> wrote in message
news:PfqdnaJBU9rZfEHenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>
> A current of anti-unionism is around these days. I live in Detroit
> which is a union town. But engineers around here like to put down the
> union all the time. They are a favorite whipping boy. Once this
> current of anti-unionism is fully established companies can just dump
> union workers without taking as much heat as they would have otherwise.

That "current" you see has been swirling for decades. You just haven't seen
it unless you looked beyond the trades ranks.

>
> I recall when the local papers both went on strike and people didnt seem
> to care. They bought anyway while scabs filled the empty jobs. Its
> like people are ignorant of the benefits the union brought to us all.

And those "scabs" got those newspapers out didn't they? The unions brought
benefit to a segment of the workforce and that contribution is undeniable.
But, that contribution was a long, long time ago and the unions have become
nothing more than a cost burden over the ensuing decades. Take off your
union provided glasses and take a look around you at what unions have really
cost this country.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Hunter

Who told you unions were not good, your boss at McDonalds or WalMart? The
first unions were formed in the anthracite coal fields of eastern
Pennsylvania in the late 1899s. The miners were tired of working twelve
hours a day, six days a week, 51 weeks a year for a dollar a day, while one
or two of their fellow miners were being killed on the job every month.
that does make you think of China today? Methinks one would be better off
looking at the greedy American consumers, who are buying all of the imported
products and sending all of their own good paying jobs overseas, to find out
what is really going on in our country.

mike hunt


"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:b0289$43dd28a0$452896b0$3198@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> And those "scabs" got those newspapers out didn't they? The unions
> brought
> benefit to a segment of the workforce and that contribution is undeniable.
> But, that contribution was a long, long time ago and the unions have
> become
> nothing more than a cost burden over the ensuing decades. Take off your
> union provided glasses and take a look around you at what unions have
> really
> cost this country.
>
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>
>

Jane

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:_XidnTxzNddm20DeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Who told you unions were not good, your boss at McDonalds or WalMart?
> The first unions were formed in the anthracite coal fields of eastern
> Pennsylvania in the late 1899s. The miners were tired of working twelve
> hours a day, six days a week, 51 weeks a year for a dollar a day, while
> one or two of their fellow miners were being killed on the job every
> month. that does make you think of China today? Methinks one would be
> better off looking at the greedy American consumers, who are buying all of
> the imported products and sending all of their own good paying jobs
> overseas, to find out what is really going on in our country.

Very well said.

Jane (Proud CAW member)
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:b0289$43dd28a0$452896b0$3198@ALLTEL.NET...
>>
>> And those "scabs" got those newspapers out didn't they? The unions
>> brought
>> benefit to a segment of the workforce and that contribution is
>> undeniable.
>> But, that contribution was a long, long time ago and the unions have
>> become
>> nothing more than a cost burden over the ensuing decades. Take off your
>> union provided glasses and take a look around you at what unions have
>> really
>> cost this country.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Mike-
>> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>>
>>
>
>

Mike Marlow

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:_XidnTxzNddm20DeUSdV9g@ptd.net...

> Who told you unions were not good, your boss at McDonalds or WalMart?

Nice try Mike, but you missed by a mile. If you believe in unions, then by
all means - throw your dues at them, believe all their rhetoric about what
they're doing for the American worker today, and watch as your job moves
off-shore. Or... are you a union advocate because you're the shop steward
at the GM plant? Keep tellin' those folks how good they have it with the
good old union representing them Mike.

> The
> first unions were formed in the anthracite coal fields of eastern
> Pennsylvania in the late 1899s. The miners were tired of working twelve
> hours a day, six days a week, 51 weeks a year for a dollar a day, while
one
> or two of their fellow miners were being killed on the job every month.
> that does make you think of China today?

Still hung up on a point in time where the union actually did serve a
purpose and can't get over that can you Mike. Wake up - this isn't 1899.
Believe it or not, it's 2006. The entire world is a different place. But
then, adapability isn't your strong suit is it Mike. You've demonstrated
that you like to just climb up on your pedestal and bray into your bullhorn,
regardless of the relevance of what you're saying - perfectly suited to a
union cheerleader.


> Methinks one would be better off
> looking at the greedy American consumers, who are buying all of the
imported
> products and sending all of their own good paying jobs overseas, to find
out
> what is really going on in our country.
>

Or at the overbearing cost burdens that the unions have placed on the very
hands that fed them. Greed is right Mike. Greed on the part of the unions
and their members.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Hunter

My respect for what a union can do for a company is based on my personal
experience. I formally owed a fleet service business, that I stared with a
partner, I had the idea to service fleets and he had the startup money. We
started in one state, soon we were operating facilities in three eastern
states. When our techs decide to join the Machinist Union my partner would
have nothing to do with that. He wanted to sell out. Our partnership
agreement gave me first option. I had to mortgage everything I owned and
borrow from my friends and relatives but I bought him out and signed a
contract with the union.

That contract was the best thing that ever happen to my business. It
established specific job descriptions for every job in our facilities, the
technical requirements and rates of pay for each job class, as well as all
of the rules by which we operated. I still had all of the rights of
management when it came to production and work scheduling. I could fire any
employee who did not do his job up to the abilities of his job description,
did not come to work, stared late or left early, was a thief or substance
abuser etc. The only right the union had was to make me abide by the
contract I signed. The resulting wage agreement set our wages at about
$1.50 more than any of the other automotive related business in our areas of
operations. Sound bad? Far from it, the job requirement for the techs
working in our shops where tops in the industry producing high quality work,
which resulted in the best techs wanting to work for us. We had techs that
drove as far as fifty miles one way to come to work for us. Soon it became
apparent that our shops where far more productive with a huge reduction in
follow up work..

Because of our greater productively we were able to lower or shop rate and
we began attract more and more corporate and government fleets to our
business because we could do a better job more efficiently than their own in
house service facilities. Three years later I was operating facilitates in
six eastern states. I sold my business five years later for more money
than me and my family well ever be able to spend in our lifetimes, thank God
for the Machinists Union.


mike hunt


"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:2bbd6$43dd523c$452896b0$20221@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:_XidnTxzNddm20DeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>> Who told you unions were not good, your boss at McDonalds or WalMart?
>
> Nice try Mike, but you missed by a mile. If you believe in unions, then
> by
> all means - throw your dues at them, believe all their rhetoric about what
> they're doing for the American worker today, and watch as your job moves
> off-shore. Or... are you a union advocate because you're the shop steward
> at the GM plant? Keep tellin' those folks how good they have it with the
> good old union representing them Mike.
>
>> The
>> first unions were formed in the anthracite coal fields of eastern
>> Pennsylvania in the late 1899s. The miners were tired of working twelve
>> hours a day, six days a week, 51 weeks a year for a dollar a day, while
> one
>> or two of their fellow miners were being killed on the job every month.
>> that does make you think of China today?
>
> Still hung up on a point in time where the union actually did serve a
> purpose and can't get over that can you Mike. Wake up - this isn't 1899.
> Believe it or not, it's 2006. The entire world is a different place. But
> then, adapability isn't your strong suit is it Mike. You've demonstrated
> that you like to just climb up on your pedestal and bray into your
> bullhorn,
> regardless of the relevance of what you're saying - perfectly suited to a
> union cheerleader.
>
>
>> Methinks one would be better off
>> looking at the greedy American consumers, who are buying all of the
> imported
>> products and sending all of their own good paying jobs overseas, to find
> out
>> what is really going on in our country.
>>
>
> Or at the overbearing cost burdens that the unions have placed on the very
> hands that fed them. Greed is right Mike. Greed on the part of the
> unions
> and their members.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
>
>

dnoyeB

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:_XidnTxzNddm20DeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>
>
>>Who told you unions were not good, your boss at McDonalds or WalMart?
>
>
> Nice try Mike, but you missed by a mile. If you believe in unions, then by
> all means - throw your dues at them, believe all their rhetoric about what
> they're doing for the American worker today, and watch as your job moves
> off-shore. Or... are you a union advocate because you're the shop steward
> at the GM plant? Keep tellin' those folks how good they have it with the
> good old union representing them Mike.
>
>

Both sides have rhetoric. Neither can be believed. This does not mean
both are valueless. Jobs moving off shore has nothing to do with the
union. It has to do with how CEOs want more instantaneous profit.
Sure, the union can request to be paied like a China worker, but his
people wouldnt be able to buy houses or food, etc.

I don't think this can be stopped by union or management really. But
suffice it to say my belief is that without the union, the workers would
simply get a smaller cut of the profit of the company, nothing more
nothing less.



>>The
>>first unions were formed in the anthracite coal fields of eastern
>>Pennsylvania in the late 1899s. The miners were tired of working twelve
>>hours a day, six days a week, 51 weeks a year for a dollar a day, while
>
> one
>
>>or two of their fellow miners were being killed on the job every month.
>>that does make you think of China today?
>
>
> Still hung up on a point in time where the union actually did serve a
> purpose and can't get over that can you Mike. Wake up - this isn't 1899.
> Believe it or not, it's 2006. The entire world is a different place. But
> then, adapability isn't your strong suit is it Mike. You've demonstrated
> that you like to just climb up on your pedestal and bray into your bullhorn,
> regardless of the relevance of what you're saying - perfectly suited to a
> union cheerleader.
>

I will agree on one point. Theoretically OSHA has removed a lot of the
relevance of the unions.


>>
>
>
> Or at the overbearing cost burdens that the unions have placed on the very
> hands that fed them. Greed is right Mike. Greed on the part of the unions
> and their members.
>


Its an odd belief that you show. You seem to have a take whatever they
want you to have approach, rather than a take as much as you can get
approach, at least when it comes to working class. Why should working
class bow down while management stands up. Nope, let them both fight
for what they want. Nothing is free.


--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16