DeeJayH
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,728
- Reaction score
- 1,688
- Location
- Scooping Zeus' Poop
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
it is already leveraging its aid with salary limits, penalties for pre-payment of TARP funds, and based upon that is what politicians want, more power/controlI am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?
I am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?
I am not seeing where the government is actually going to manage GM. You have a source for that?
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.except
apparently the Consumers have decided that they are being paid too much
because the companies have FAILED and a major component of that failure is the UAWs extortion for ridiculous wages and benefits
$3000/wk for a labor job????
$163k/ yr for a labor job????
**** em, let em go under and see how the cost of labor goes down
8 out of the 10 cars i have owned were american made, including my present 300C. But enough is enough
We will find this? How about you back up that claim with a link to some facts.You will find the states that are highly unionized have a lower productivity then non unionized states. You will also find that those state lose jobs to other states/countries at faster rate.
How again is it good for the economy?
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.
The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh
you are an obama supporter, who lacks critical thinking skills?And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.
The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh
You sound very conservative when you make these kinds of statements which completely lack empathy. What if you weren't making enough? What if management didn't work it out? What then? Strike? Union? That's how it works pal.Interestingly enough, I work for a nonunion tier 1 auto parts supplier, and we don't want a union because we make enough, and when we have a problem with management, we just work it out, and it mostly works.
Ah... so it's just your opinion. I have been to a couple of the GM plants outside of Dearborn and have a very different opinion. I didn't see anything but hard workers.We have all been to UAW plants to do part sorts, and don't care for the attitude of the people there, both towards us and their jobs. If I was ever as lazy as some of these workers, I would deserve to be fired.
Seems like that's all you have, anecdotal evidence.Anecdotal evidence from my time in the auto industry.
Thank you for finally agreeing. They put their plants in the south and pay less (stupid southerners) for the same work while having healthcare subsidized by their government. :2wave:Of course it is. They have made better business decisions, absolutely. Lower costs is a better business decision.
I don't know what you are responding to but it wasn't anything I said.Again, I work for a tier 1 supplier. We supply GM, Chrysler and Toyota. I get paid the same no matter which I am making parts for that say.
And I replied:The fact that some of those same foreign auto makers supply many jobs to the US is worth noting as well.
Thanks for that capt. obvious. You left out the part about - at a lower employment cost.
And you, like so many people who lack critical thinking can't tell the difference between COST OF EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS and WAGES.
The long ago debunked number of $78/per hour includes retirees benefits in an aggregated number. The workers don't get a paycheck for $78/hr. :doh
Less competitive because their competition pays lower wages right? Right. :2wave:What UAW does that I would define as a perversion is they promote workers to such an extreme that it hurts the employers to the point that the employer is less competitive.
I know it because I do my research
Like this:
Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets - Los Angeles Times
And this:
Rare Identical Quadruplets Born - washingtonpost.com
And this:
Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions - Times Online
And this:
Banned cancer drugs better than NHS ones - Times Online
And this:
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007
I can give you plenty more if you like. I have dozens of articles like this bookmarked.
You sound very conservative when you make these kinds of statements which completely lack empathy. What if you weren't making enough? What if management didn't work it out? What then? Strike? Union? That's how it works pal.
Ah... so it's just your opinion. I have been to a couple of the GM plants outside of Dearborn and have a very different opinion. I didn't see anything but hard workers.
Seems like that's all you have, anecdotal evidence.
Thank you for finally agreeing. They put their plants in the south and pay less (stupid southerners) for the same work while having healthcare subsidized by their government. :2wave:
I don't know what you are responding to but it wasn't anything I said.
you said:
And I replied:
Let me give you some first hand knowledge. I moved from California to North Carolina in 2004, not because CA was bleeding jobs but because I got sick of the materialistic lifestyle and I could do my same job from a State closer to my familiy (IL and MI) and the cost of living is WAY cheaper. TADA! The south was seeing an economic boom because after the tech bubble, and the rise of the internet (working from home) people moved to lower CoL states. It's not that southerners suddenly created better paying jobs it's that smart people were selling their homes for BIG profit and buying nice homes in the south for next to nothing.Maybe you haven't been paying attention the last few years but the southern U.S. (up until the recession that's bit everyone) has been experiencing an economic boom for 20 years now. Our states in the south have been growing by leaps and bounds while the rust belt states, aptly named, up north have been bleeding jobs and population for years.
Take a look at the 2010 Census projections and how it will affect the Electoral College and Congressional apportionment.
Fileroposed Electoral College 2012.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look who is gaining seats: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. Look who is losing seats: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, etc.
The states that have practiced tax friendly economics to both businesses and residents have thrived. The yankees up north who are still stuck in the economic 1950s are sweeping up the dirt of their once great empires.
Like we've been telling you for a long time: The South will rise again!
Less competitive because their competition pays lower wages right? Right. :2wave:
So you think it's a perversion to pay people a better wage. Is there a difference in the standard of living between 2 workers doing the same job, one in Detroit and one in Kentucky? Yes, the guy in Detroit has a better standard of living. So if I were the guy in Kentucky I'd be like, why don't I make that much. Instead he says, the guy in Detroit gets paid too much... baffling.
Another con proving to be consistent by attacking the poster when you can't attack the argument.Another no-content response from good ol' Slippery.
Good to see that some things never change.
Less competitive because their competition pays lower wages right? Right. :2wave:
So you think it's a perversion to pay people a better wage. Is there a difference in the standard of living between 2 workers doing the same job, one in Detroit and one in Kentucky? Yes, the guy in Detroit has a better standard of living. So if I were the guy in Kentucky I'd be like, why don't I make that much. Instead he says, the guy in Detroit gets paid too much... baffling.
As little as possible does not automatically mean less work. In this instance it means that unless you pay more you won't have any workers. Or to put it another way, we want more pay for the job WE DO. Not more pay for less work.The job of anyone on a side of the negotiating table is to get as much as possible for as little as possible.
If you don't accept that, then it is YOU who are the naive one.
Interesting, so cars from the Big 3 are at astronomical prices while Toyota's are low priced. Interesting. You must be right because I don't see anyone driving cars built by the Big 3... :dohIt doesn't make GM any more competitive; it simply cripples the competition and make everyone less well-off, including the "middle class" who will see car prices in general skyrocket.
Another con proving to be consistent by attacking the poster when you can't attack the argument.
Good to see that some things never change.
There are a lot of stubborn folk like myself, who will not buy anything but American brand cars. Even my elderly neighbor who actually fought the Japanese while in the Navy buys Toyota vehicles, at least the last 3 times.Increasing the wages to be comparable would raise the car price to that of the Big 3. People can afford a GM car as evidenced by their sales. Sure, they have made business mistakes in the type of cars they produce but that's not compensation related. So your hypothesis is fails a simply examination.
That was all very eloquently outlined. Unfortunately for you I'm educated and can read through what you've tried to obscure with pedanticalness.No, I consider it a condition and a statement of fact, appropriate unless I am under contract, in which case we would both be required to honor those terms. As an contracted employee, or a contracted on with freedom to terminate unilaterally, I have the right to issue a simple statement of fact that I may exercise my right if I continue to feel that continued employment under the existing terms is not to my satisfaction.
If on the other hand I go to my boss and say, give me a raise or I'll shut your business down (strike), that is simple extortion, and never should have been legal.
To take a job, agree to the terms of employment and then try to force a change is the act of a common thug.
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:"Crap cars" which still outsold everyone else's.
If you're selling more cars yet still can't compete, what does that mean?
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:
You sound very conservative when you make these kinds of statements which completely lack empathy. What if you weren't making enough? What if management didn't work it out? What then? Strike? Union? That's how it works pal.
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?