>Caddilac USED to be a competitor
>against other foreign luxury car
>makers. I'm talking about Lexus,
>BMW, Mercedes, Audi....those companies used
>to be trying to sell
>more cars then caddilac. They've
>only recently succeeded.

Not that recently.

>I'll agree with you, a lot
>of Caddilac's problem is piss
>poor cars. BUT, when they
>try and innovate and get
>past that....the Union stops them.

Read my post. The workers, WHO MAKE THE CARS, stopped them. I think it's completely valid for the people who construct a product to refuse to make it on the grounds that its production will be directly harmful to their lives.

>But let's Blame the union for
>not saying: "Ok, we see
>you want to make this
>new car with this new
>technology, let's reach a comprimise
>where you can use the
>new technology and lose as
>few people as possible"

I know the UAW. They say things like this MUCH more often than other unions (they're a little more prone to selling out, in other words). I can pretty much guarantee that they said this, but that the terms they offered (i.e. producing this new car WON'T result in layoffs) weren't accepted by the company so the company spun it as if the union "stopped" production.

>I'll admitt I don't really know
>what Manufacturing jobs pay, but
>I DO know they don't
>pay as well as executives
>and nor should they.

....why the hell not? More skill? Nope. More hours? Nope. More education? Maybe. If that's the only criterion, I'd say that asking to be treated fairly from someone who gets PHENOMENALLY RICH off of your manual labor isn't too much.

>Building better cars, making manufacturing processes
>more efficient and building better
>factories isn't always going to
>mean more jobs for workers.
>It often means the opposite.
>If GM made it's cars
>like Toyota and Nissan, they
>wouldn't need as many people....but
>of course the Unions won't
>allow that.

That's because the workers are already hired, and they HAVE a contract. The only time unions are at all effective in lobbying for new hires is when the plant is completely understaffed (which is often the case).

>Companies that are lean, mean and
>greedy aren't going to collapse
>under they're on weight.

Of course they aren't.

>Just
>ask Microsoft or GE. If
>they're always trying to get
>rid of redundancies staff wise,
>make things more efficient, and
>make as much money as
>possible...they're going to do better
>in the long run then
>a company that always tries
>to make the workers happy.

"Do better?" Depends on how you define that. Doing better can mean making more money, but it could also mean "sucking the life out of local economies and laying off workers and manipulating the market."

>I want all the things you
>want for Workers, fair pay,
>health care, a decent place
>to live, etc. BUT, I
>still believe in Layoffs and
>moving the factory to foreign
>countries.

Priceless. "I want fair pay, health care, a decent place to live...but I believe in a corporation's right to suddenly remove those things at any time."

That's what you're saying.

>It's the company's perogative
>to do both, I don't
>see corporations as these public
>service organizations whose duty it
>is to employ people.

Obviously not.

>I
>think that's where we really
>differ, if they can move
>them around...fine...but if they can't...such
>is life.

Seems fair. If you can get the operation, fine. If you can't such is life.

>The difference between
>you and I, is that
>I think the workers should
>be treated well while it
>is in the company's best
>interests to hire them....when it
>is no longer the case...and
>they have to lay them
>off...all bets are off.

So you don't think that job security is part of "being treated well?" If they can lay off anyone at any time, then there's ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE to treat the workers with any respect or afford them decent compensation/benefits. So they won't. You yourself have explicity outlined the motives of a corporation, and it doesn't include those things.

>As you pointed out several times
>in your post, Union=Workers..they see
>things from the workers side...not
>the company's.

.....I love how deeply you misunderstood this. UNION=WORKERS. The workers ARE the union. The union doesn't speak FOR them, or work AROUND them. The union consists of workers at the plant.

>If laying off
>10,000 people is good for
>the company, the workers won't
>care. Which is essentially my
>point.

?????

Those 10,000 people will care that they're getting laid off!

>You said that if I worked
>at a Chevy plant for
>20 years and then got
>laid off, I wouldn't care
>about the company (even if
>the company needed to do
>it)...my worry would be me.
>Well, what do you think
>happens when the Unions Negotiate...they
>are only thinking about themselves.

Yes, everybody in this equation thinks primarily about themselves. That's the way human society tends to work.
What are you trying to say?

>If the company keeps workers while
>another lays them off, and
>it ends up hurting that
>company....and the company gets acquired..it
>will be worse for everyone.

Why? Because the company is doing worse? Let me explain something. Unions negotiate, they don't dictate. The bargaining team sits down with the employer and says: "Your workers need this." The employer says "Well, this is what we've got in the budget for labor cost." The union either says "Okay, we'll take that" or they say "Bullshit, you've got tons of money tied up here and here, and you yourself make way more money than is at all reasonable, so loosen your budget." And on it goes.
If the company says "Giving you a $10 raise will sink us," and that's true (which it probably would be in most places), end of story. The worker's aren't trying to sink the company and get fired. But if management says "giving you a 50 cent raise over four years will sink us," someone has to stand up to that crap.

>As for Building wealth, it's not
>just organized Labor...paying factory workers
>120k/year won't close the wealth
>gap unless they know about
>building wealth. HEll, even a
>"living wage" as you call
>it won't do that either.
>Closing the wealth gap is
>a lot more then just
>raising incomes.


Agreed, but let's give this up. You're saying the same thing about education over and over, and I'm agreeing with you to the extent that we need education.

HOWEVER, just because you think a raised income won't close the wealth gap in and of itself doesn't mean that it isn't the first necessary step. I don't see how people can build wealth without income.

>The way I see it, Companies
>don't have to employ people...they
>don't have to guarantee anyone
>a job either. This is
>not a childish Utopia, where
>everyone gets a job...having a
>job isn't a right.

I wish I'd read this before I spent all this time responding.
Goodbye.

>I know from the worker's perspective,
>this is unacceptable...but they need
>to grow up.

Wait, I just wanted everyone to get another chance to read this little gem.

Actually, never mind. Now that I've read the rest of what has to be the single most irrational response on the Activist board, I think I should take issue with some of these comments.

>Business Cycles are a very real
>part of business, sometimes you
>have a lot of employees
>because things are hot...when things
>cool down..you have to let
>them go...and then when things
>pick up again....the cycle is
>determined by the economy and
>the consumer.

Exactly. How do you expect consumers to boost the economy if their low wages and zero chance of promotion drastically limit their purchasing power?

>I'm a Quasi-Independent consultant

Hurray for OkayActivist.

....whereas I work
>for a company which provides
>benefits, 401k, etc...but my pay
>is largely determined by whether
>or not I have a
>client that I'm billing.

But even if you don't you have a job.

>Did I whine? No!

You went home to your house and picked up your from their affordable day care and waited till January when you'd have plenty more clients to put you "way aheah cash-wise." Sounds like you were hurting.

>It's the nature
>of the Beast, so I
>accepted it...

Hurray for Activist Pt. II. Changing the world.

>Workers in this country need to
>stop whining and stop expecting
>companies to keep jobs in
>the country and/or not lay
>them off when things are
>going bad. I know they
>want their jobs, but that's
>the nature of the beast...they
>should stop whining...stop looking at
>it from only their side
>and deal with it.

Nice work.


Alek
________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."

____________________________
LEFT side of the bedroom, fool!
What? What?