I was completely misled by your original description. It sounded like Cadillac employees were objecting to the production of the car, but actually it was the employees of the steel supplier. Totally different situation.

Regardless, it's clear from your statement below that even IF the employees had objected, you wouldn't see that as acceptable.

>The thing that bothers me, is
>the Union having a say
>at all in what materials
>the car is made of.

Why not? They make the car. The USE the materials. Why not give them at least a say in production (it works well at Saturn).

>I don't think the workers
>should be put in danger,
>but agreements dictating that a
>certain % of various cars
>have to use steel and
>what not have to go.

This is a completely separate topic. We can discuss it on another post.

>Anyway, I think we can agree
>that on BOTH sides the
>UAW and GM relationship is
>not healthy for either side.
>IMHO.

What exactly are you sayin? It's tangled.

>The Japanese also have a different
>culture then the US, according
>to some they work people
>"to the bone", to be
>honest I'm not even sure
>the Japanese have Unions in
>Japan...and I know that they
>don't use Unions in the
>US.

Wrong and....wrong. At the US plants which make Japanese cars the workers are unionized. In Japan itself they have a completely different system of labor law and labor relations, but they've got the equivalent.
Here's a hint. According to Human Rights Watch, the US lags far behind EVERY other industrialized nation in terms of the right to organize.

>In any event, it's a different
>culture and I've always felt
>that the Unions in Germany
>have a greater level of
>synergy with the companies they
>work with.

Germany actually HAS a labor movement. The synergy works because the balance of power is at least somewhat equal. Both constituents (corporations and unions) are strong social/political forces.

>Overall, I think we can agree
>that the UAW/US Automaker relationship
>isn't good for either side
>or even the consumer.

I don't think so.

>Furthermore, we should look at foreign
>manufactures who don't use Unions
>because they feel it would
>hurt them..but still pay their
>workers fairly as a clue
>that the Union isn't the
>great saviour it claims to
>be.

Find me one, then we'll look at it.

>As for executives, I haven't worked
>in a car factory...nor do
>I care to. However, I
>do know that they're more
>people available who can do
>that kind of work (or
>are trained to) then high
>level middle managers and execs.

Not at all. Training execs is FAR easier than training manufacturors. The difference is that execs are hired based on a self-limiting policy (class, race, education, etc.).

>You say that I don't
>know what I'm talking about
>when it comes to autoworkers..maybe

Definitely.

...but
>you for damn sure don't
>know what it takes be
>an exec, it's not some
>cushy job where you just
>push paper.

I was making a comparison about SKILL. Not hours of work (because manufacturors have long-ass hours and the work is much harder physically) or anything else.

>I work with upper managers and
>execs all the time, I
>see them coming in at
>7 and leaving at 7.

Then they need to organize too (and lots of them have).

>With no workers
>there are no cars, but
>the impetus that helps generate
>the need to make those
>cars does not come from
>the workers.

True.

>Finally, I'd like to have this
>converstion again when you've had
>a couple of years working
>in Business at a high
>level.

Well, then I guess we'll have to postpone it indefinitely.

>I admire your dedication
>to "help" the workers,

Thanks for the quotation marks.


>but
>it's not as easy as
>the company not laying people
>off, and just forking over
>the cash they're "hording"...

Did I ever once suggest that? There are plenty of ways to deal with layoffs, wage increases, or the NUMEROUS other issues I mentioned (none of which, incidentally, you've taken up because the fact that they're routinely ignored by the companies and this proves that companies simply don't care).

>and you
>really just don't "get" the
>corporate side of things.

Really? As part of my study of labor relations, I've devoted a huge amount of time studying American corporatism. I think I "get" it pretty well. Weren't we agreeing about it before? Profits and short term stability, right?

>There
>are a lot of issues
>related to Wall St., the
>Business Cycle, Sales Growth, (just
>to name a few) that
>you aren't taking into account.

I DO take them into account. I happen to think that in many cases they're simply functions of greed. You act like ecomonic theory is a law of nature. It's not, it's the theory of how people get rich, and the contemporary field of American economics and American business completely ignores worker's rights. So it's not that I don't take things into account, I just don't prioritize them the way Roger Smith does and you do.

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

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