• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM goes bankrupt and gets nationalised

Goobieman said:
Not sure there is a difference.
When did a union not ask for more money when its contract came up?
When did a union not counter with a higher number when it was asked to take concessions?
Click to expand...

I have never been in a union, I dunno. When has a contract come up, and the cost of living not gone up?
 
zimmer said:
What about the folks that would rather work for a little less?
They don't have that "right"?
They have to be organized for their best interests.
That is in their best interests?
Click to expand...
I dont disagree that people have the right to unionize. My point is that, when the union does its job, it is bad for business, and to argue that everyone should unionize to make those already unionized more competitive is arguing to lower the playing field.

And what do you make of Obama wanting open union votes?
It's one thing to vote for it in a private vote, but to make votes public?
Intimidation.
Click to expand...
The Obama will do whatever the Union leadership wants.
 
bub said:
have you been part of an union??
Click to expand...
As an actual dues-paying member?
No.

As someone intimately related with the negotiations between union and management as well as the internal workings of the union leadership?
Three. One of them rather large.
 
Goobieman said:
Then it is diffcult for you to speak to any great degree on this issue, yes?
Click to expand...

How is it difficult to speak of what a union should be, especially since, if I was to end up in a union(I live in Michigan and work in the auto industry, so possible), the union is supposed to work for me.
 
Redress said:
How is it difficult to speak of what a union should be...
Click to expand...
Speaking about what they -should be- and what they -are- differ significantly. Anyone can talk about what they -should- be.

But, even then, you admit that the union exists to get it members more for less, which only makes turning a profit that much more difficult.

You use the term 'as reasonable' and I use the term 'as possible' -- uniions don't deliberatly or willingly take less than everything they can get, and so 'as possible' seems a lot more accurate than 'as reasonable'.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Well let’s look at some statistics.

The USA health care system is the most costly

Expenditure Per Capita current us$ by country. Definition, graph and map.

% Of GDP > Expenditure, Total statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

A lot of countries including most Europeans have more hospital beds per 1000 people than USA

Per 1,000 People > Hospital Beds statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

A lot of European countries have more physicians than USA per 1000 people

Physicians per 1,000 people (most recent) by country

The same then it comes to nurses.

Nurses (most recent) by country

A lot of Europeans countries have a lower infant mortality birth than USA

Infant Mortality Rate total (most recent) by country

A lot of Europeans countries have a higher life expectancy than USA

Total Population > Life Expectancy At Birth statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
Click to expand...

Why don't we look at some REAL statistics rather than the nonsensical notions that abuse statistical data?

What is Europe’s GDP over the last ten years versus the US?

What is the tax rate of Europeans versus comparable rates of US citizens?

What is the spending on Government welfare as a percentage of GNP of European nations and the USA?

Why is it that European nations can spend such a paltry sum on their nations defense over what the USA spends?

Why is it that you can take statistics about health spending per capita in a vacuum of what that spending constitutes; in other words, does it occur to you that we may spend more per capita because our plans allow us to do much more testing than that permitted by Government plans?

What is the R&D spending in European systems versus that in the USA?

How is Europe going to deal with the impending disaster of not being able to pay for its welfare and health programs by an already over-burdened tax payer?

Truly, it defies logic to think that these statistics somehow support the notion that Government managed ANYTHING is cost effective, provides better services, provides better care and has more choice than the current system in America.

A friend in Canada once called and complained that he had to wait more than a month to see a doctor for something as benign as acid reflux; I can get with my doctor tomorrow for ANYTHING.

I had another friend who told the story of her father’s death due to the failure of the British health system; a death that would NOT have occurred here. He had a serious heart condition and needed open heart surgery; he was placed on a waiting list. They decided that the condition merited paying additional money OUTSIDE the system for more immediate care; they were put on a two week waiting list. He died waiting for surgery that here in the US he would never have been let out of the hospital for.

There are several things certain that occur in a Government "managed" (oxymoron) plan; mediocrity for EVERYONE; less specialists; long waiting times; higher taxes and costs and a lack of research and development.

Why anyone would want to give up their freedom of choice and become a dependent ward of the State is beyond my comprehension. But Europeans and Canadians have been doing it for so long, they cannot comprehend a better system with MORE choice.
 
Redress said:
That would be a perversion of what a union should be...kinda like the UAW I admit, but still...

What a union should be, and what I would actually not mind having, is an organization that represents the workers and helps give them more of a bargaining position. Every one should have some one on their side, unions should be that for workers.

Unfortunately, this does not work well in practice.
Click to expand...
You are describing what I at least, call a "guild." Such an entity would actually employ the workers and contract them out for the best wages possible, but would also enforce standards to assure that the labor they were selling was of high quality.

I think that this might be a workable scheme.

The modern Labor movement would never go for it though.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You don't know what your talking about. That is very clear with your bigoted regionalist attacks.
Click to expand...
Please, don't assume you know jack. Not only did I live in Detroit for 10 years and outside Flint for 5 years in my youth but I now live in NC. I have and had many family members in various union jobs, including the UAW.
Union workers get paid more than what they are worth.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. That's really not for you to decide.

If they wanted more they themselves could have become, gasp, shareholders.
Click to expand...
Obviously you know nothing about the stock market too. Do you actually know anything?

Its funny to me because when all these too big to fail companies finally implode I get more job opportunities.
Click to expand...
Well good for you.
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
No, a British worker does not receive a better standard of health care than Americans. Health care in Britain sucks big time. They ration, they have massively long waiting lists for surgery, they get denied life saving drugs if the state deems it will cost too much, etc. You can read about this almost daily in some newspaper some where. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
And you know all about it because you live in South Carolina. :roll:
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
Yeah, that's what kills me more than anything. The government screws up everything it touches and yet we have all these morons out there who want to literally risk life and death for someone else to pay their medical bills all under the bureaucracy of the government.
Click to expand...
Yup, you really are from SC.

How does the entity that pays the bill cause you to risk life and death? Seems to me that people are dieing due to LACK of health coverage AND people are dieing because their private insurance won't pay for procedures. Go back to reading the bible, the end is near ya know.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again we see a "bumper sticker" argument from Liberals who would rather parrot Liberal talking points than examine the FACTS.

Initially, many transplant companies actively chose locations in right-to-work states in the south to avoid unionized labor in the north, and the presumed accompanying costs. Even though the transplants still prefer right-to-work locations, their per employee compensation costs have remained comparable to those of workers in unionized plants.

http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/North-SouthPaper.PDF
Click to expand...
Oh, so then it's not the union that hurt the big three... You can't blame the union workers and then, when it's beneficial to your argument, ignore your previous position.
 
Slippery Slope said:
What a load of crap. That's really not for you to decide.
Click to expand...

except
big 3 labor cost of $78/hr
Foriegn co's here labor cost of $48/ hr
How do you expect them to compete?
Click to expand...
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
 
Redress said:
This is false on a number of levels. Southerners are not stupid, and the fact that they do not unionize is certainly not the reason GM is failing.
Click to expand...
When you undermine your own pay because someone told you unions are bad then yes, you are stupid. Just as stupid as when you vote for a politician who is going to harm you in some fashion, economically, educationally... Stupid.

Most parts suppliers in Michigan don't want to be in a union, because we just do not like what the UAW is or represents.
Click to expand...
Got a source or did you mean that you, don't want to be in the UAW? What is it that is so terrible about the UAW?

Foreign auto makers only killed GM in that they have, some of them, been more successful than GM.
Click to expand...
And you don't think part of that is a lower employment cost, making cars cheaper? As well as bad business decisions.

The fact that some of those same foreign auto makers supply many jobs to the US is worth noting as well.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that capt. obvious. You left out the part about - at a lower employment cost.
 
Oftencold said:
This part appears to be the nucleus of your argument.

Try this. A labor union is extortion by another name, and a goodly number of people don't want to belong, and I do mean belong to what by rights should be considered a criminal enterprise.
Click to expand...
OK, so now collective bargaining is extortion. So when you, meaning YOU, go to your boss and say - I want a raise in pay or I'm going to quit - you consider that extortion in the legal sense? :shock:
 
Goobieman said:
A union's primary job is to get its memebers the most money for the least amount of work possible. This is NEVER good for business as it raises costs and lowers productivity.
Click to expand...
What? Geez, talk about hackery, dude, seriously, do you live in the south?

A unions job is to negotiate fair compensation for it's members.

So, the 'unionize the competition' is a solution only in the sense that it acts to bring everyone down to GM's level rather than strengthening GM's ability to compete.
Click to expand...
I guess you don't even understand what you are saying. If high compensation are the reason GM can't compete the raising the compensation of it's competition makes GM competitive. :doh
 
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?
 
Slippery Slope said:
When you undermine your own pay because someone told you unions are bad then yes, you are stupid. Just as stupid as when you vote for a politician who is going to harm you in some fashion, economically, educationally... Stupid.
Click to expand...

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. 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.


Got a source or did you mean that you, don't want to be in the UAW? What is it that is so terrible about the UAW?
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence from my time in the auto industry.


And you don't think part of that is a lower employment cost, making cars cheaper? As well as bad business decisions.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. They have made better business decisions, absolutely. Lower costs is a better business decision.

Thanks for that capt. obvious. You left out the part about - at a lower employment cost.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
That would be a perversion of what a union should be...kinda like the UAW I admit, but still...

What a union should be, and what I would actually not mind having, is an organization that represents the workers and helps give them more of a bargaining position. Every one should have some one on their side, unions should be that for workers.

Unfortunately, this does not work well in practice.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
It may be a perversion of what it should be, but it is exactly what it is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how so? What is it that the UAW does that is this so called perversion?

A bargaining position.... to what end?
Click to expand...
A higher standard of living? That's what labor laws and unions did for this country.
Unfortunately you and your ilk weren't around to work long hours in unsafe conditions for little pay.
 
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.
 
Slippery Slope said:
A higher standard of living? That's what labor laws and unions did for this country.
Click to expand...

I wont argue with that. At the founding of unions in the US they had a very good mission and did great things for the working man. However like everything else they have become a self serving entity. I am willing to bet they would suddenly lose interest in the worker if the workers all stopped paying their union dues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom