It is Ditto....Look, as a person I like ya, we have known each other for a long time on these boards, and You alone with others have always provided debate instead of bomb throwing, regurgitations of talking point blather...You're a smart guy. So you tell me am I reading this wrong....In one post you say....
Then just a couple of postings later you say...Originally Posted by Ditto
So at the very least you hedged your original statement....Originally Posted by Ditto
Although I too am, as a worker myself for anything that would help boost my own take home pay, I also have an eye toward the longevity of the business that provides the job I do. It's like conservation. Is it that labor in Michigan on a auto assembly line is worth $28 per hour, while the same assembly on a line in South Carolina is only worth $17 per hour? While the factors that compile these disparities in pay for the "same" job exist on a host of factors such as cost of living in different areas, it is not all that. And the fact that cost of labor past, and present drive the over pricing of American made autos to the point that they can not be competitive in a world market without outsourcing. That is a problem in the long term vision of the labor force in their negotiation tactic, and push.
If labor unions are going to be relevant in the future they have to change the face they are now showing to the public. Over bloated institutions, heavily political, with a weighted agenda toward more Marxist ideology, and a sense of entitlement that boasts their greatest achievements that came a century ago, and after such great changes they helped usher in, they have settled for a frame of heavy handed, corrupt, and ugly tactics, fostered in associations with nefarious characters, and one sided political ideologies.
Their popularity has waned from nearly 40% in the 70s and 80s to just 7% now, and what face do they show? Trumpka, Hoffa, etc., all doing their part to divide instead of looking at how to make the Union a viable alternative again...They want to do it by force, instead of winning the argument, and that is their down fall.
Democrats controlled the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011. Basic civics would tell you who appropriates the money.
The union is hired by the workers to negotiate better wages and working conditions for them, much as a lawyer is hired to negotiate for a better settlement, or perhaps a lighter sentence, in court.
The union is likely to put something on the table that it knows, the employer knows, and the workers should know, is not reasonable. The purpose of that is to establish a bargaining position. No one expects the other side to give in.
Management, usually through their lawyer or labor negotiator, will also come up with something that everyone knows is not reasonable and will be rejected.
From those extreme positions, each side gives a little bit until there is a middle position somewhere that both can live with.
That's how union labor negotiations work. I know from personal experience, having been on both sides of the table at one point or another.
If the management of the auto industry really agreed to nearly eighty bucks an hour for semiskilled labor, then they did a poor job of negotiation.
If I buy a car at sticker price, then that's not the fault of the dealership. I should have known better. And no, I've never bought a car at sticker price.
So, while the union is likely to place an unreasonable "demand" on the table, the rank and file is not going to go on strike to support it. If they do, then management is going to engage in some union busting, and things are likely to get ugly for both sides.
Without a union, the employees are individually negotiating with a much more powerful entity. Their choice is really my way or the highway, my way being whatever management wants to pay.
And, sometimes, what management wants to pay is perfectly reasonable. They do need to have a stable work force, after all, and the last thing they want is for labor to unionize.
So, in reality, the ability to unionize, even if the workers choose not to, helps keep wages up.
The unholy alliance between unions and politicians is another matter, as is the ability of large enterprises to purchase their own politicians. Money in politics is corrupting.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
*Sigh* I think we are talking past each other here....I can agree that Management made horrible deals that were not in the best interests of the company, and bear at least half of the responsibility of the outcome of those deals, which as we saw resulted in these companies on the brink of going under, and having to file bankruptcy. But, that doesn't absolve the Union end of it either...They knew that this program of guaranteeing full heatlt care, and 75% pension systems for 30 plus years in some cases were unsustainable, and yet once they got them, damaging or not would NEVER concede one iota of those deals without a strike. Which damages not only the business but the community as a whole when that happens, and politicians get involved.
This union system is a corrupt one, and arguing that unions are, or could be a positive force in some circumstances is not in question, what is in question is their current tactics. That must change or they will disappear.
If price were the biggest problem, Mercedes Benz would have been out of business a long time ago.
There is the factor of vehicles that consistently rank poorly in reliability when compared to similar and similarly priced vehicles made by other manufacturers. Your post above blames that one on the unions and their "pot smoking" members who make the cars. Now, I've never worked on an assembly line at GM, so I can't cite personal experience there. I do have experience driving and (unfortunately, at one point purchasing) GM products, and that experience tells me that their vehicles are not as well designed as are some of the others. Reading Consumer Reports and owner reports just confirms my hypothesis: GM cars are not as well designed as are the Hondas and Toyotas in particular.
And that bad experience I had with a GM car: It was not built on an assembly line in the USA, but was foreign made in reality.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
Yes and quit try to gloss over exactly what Republicans did to this country over the last 30 years. At some point the reckless attitude displayed by Republicans through tax cuts that benefitted only the top earners, massive military spending, give aways to big corporations, the repeal of Glass Stegall, and a few other caused the whole economy to crash. Obama really did not have a choice but to spend to get us out of the whole. One point I would like to make is yes when Glass Stegall was repealed Clinton was President and should have vetoed that bill. However it would have passed regardless because of who controlled the congress. At some point the fiddler had to be paid and regardless who one in 2008 we were looking at masssive spending. So dont act like it wasnt a choice.
PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says Barack Obama has 'doubled' the deficit
However take a look at the above article and see what has actually been done since then. Very telling and most Republicans will not admit it. Instead like Romney they are not going to let facts get in the way of a good ole fashion lie.
Is a reality of what people think of when they think of unions.