>-How do you know that by
>simply making a car with
>Aluminum that it is going
>to kill the workers?

Funny, I don't remember writing that. It'll help if you quote me when you respond, so you can keep all this complex stuff about "human rights" in your head.

>That
>wasn't the case here, the
>problem here is that they
>wouldn't need as much steel
>and the steel union would
>raise a ruckus.

Is this what happened? You led me to believe that the workers at the plant resisted the production of the new car. Can you please post a specific neutral summary of the progression of events in this case we're discussing?

>-How come it is okay for
>the workers to just see
>their perspective but not for
>the company?

Don't recall writing that either. Remember when I explained contract negotiations to you? Both parties go in with their own self interest, and they're both forced to take into account the interest of the other in order to negotiate.

>If executives run the Business, Market
>the products, Design the Products,
>decide which products to make,
>map out the strategic direction
>of the company and do
>the things that keep the
>factories running and the demand
>for cars up...why should the
>guy who just screws on
>mufflers all day get paid
>the same?

Well, that will never happen. So far, I've been focusing on the muffler-screwer getting paid fairly, and that's all. But if you have to ask why he might get paid the same as an executive, I'll tell you. Executives manipulate the business, develop and market the product, arrange for suppliers, etc. But if they don't put it together with a screwdriver, they have LITERALLY NOTHING.
That's why.

>They are more
>people who can work on
>assembly lines then can be
>good executives (or even mediocre
>ones for that matter)..

This is a complete myth. Manufacturing jobs ARE skilled jobs, requiring experience, knowledge, and intelligence. Oftentimes a whole lot more than is required to push papers around on a desk and set a budget.

>Anyway, I stand by my previous
>comments. Company's should pay fair
>wages, health benefits, etc...WHILE YOU'RE
>still employed. If they decide
>they no longer need to
>employ you for financial reasons,
>then that's the way the
>cookie crumbles.

Why (I asked this before) do you think a company will pay workers fairly at all? You've already said that you don't think they're "social-welfare" institutions. Especially if they can fire anyone at will, what in God's name would motivate them to pay their workers well?

Answer this time.

>As for me, in terms of
>% of income drop let's
>say I would be hurt
>more by a 2 month
>layoff then an Auto Worker.

Maybe, but you wouldn't be left with nothing.

>It boggles my mind that you
>think you have a right
>to tell someone what they
>can do with their own
>company...e.g. not lay people off
>or move jobs out of
>the country.......

Well, actually, the government has asserted that right on numerous occasions. I think every citizen has a right to say what they think will be best for people in our country, and voice their concerns over what they care about. Don't get dizzy, though, it's just the first amendment.

>Arghh, I'm sick of you socialist
>crack pots...

Not a socialist. Crack pot depends.

>so sure you know
>what's good for the worker.....

I'm only saying this because I am a worker, and I know countless others, and I've worked in unions, and I've spent lengthy ours talking with workers about their concerns. Not good enough?

>but
>having no understanding of how
>business works. Funny how 99%
>of you have never had
>a serious Business Job.......

Good statistics, businessman.
You have no clue what you're talking about, ESPECIALLY when it comes to your judgements about the professional composition union organizers.

>In my own life, I've had
>to make reccomendations to companies
>that they bring in new
>technology which would result in
>them having to let people
>go..and/or reccomending that they let
>people go in order to
>make their IT departments more
>efficient. Call me what you
>will, and I don't enjoy
>it...but it's neccessary for the
>long term health of the
>company as a whole.

Great. I think it's clear that you don't consider the long term health of the worker, and I think we should leave it at that.

>What's next? Naderism(s)? Everyone gets a
>job by law? No one
>can make more then 100k,
>the CEO cannot make more
>then 30x the average salary
>of the rest of the
>people working at the company?

I'd have no problem with that. How about Michael Eisner takes a %10 pay cut and donates that $20 million a year to a living wage for his offshore workers. Isn't that what you said you wanted?

Take your time.

Alek


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

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