• 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

Baralis said:
I worked in a machine shop in the early 90's that was partialy unionized. The union workers not only made $4-5 more an hour then their non union counterparts but they also recieved more frequent and longer breaks.

I dont understand how anyone would fail to see how this would hurt the company. More money payed to people that work less. :shock:
Click to expand...

Did these Union workers produce more for these higher wages? :cool:
 
Baralis said:
I worked in a machine shop in the early 90's that was partialy unionized. The union workers not only made $4-5 more an hour then their non union counterparts but they also recieved more frequent and longer breaks.

I dont understand how anyone would fail to see how this would hurt the company. More money payed to people that work less. :shock:
Click to expand...

There's another reason to be mad. Because the union workers get paid above market rates, it means that you have to be paid below market rates.

You've gotta love the cartel method of the unions.
 
Slippery Slope said:
It means your competition has lower costs. Raise the labor cost so that the stupid southerners make a living wage and suddenly the Big 3 are competitive. :2wave:
Click to expand...

So, if a person working in a southern auto factory makes $50,000. / year and it costs $30,000. for him and his family to live in a nice house, feed them, pay utilities, taxes, etc., then they are able to save $20,000.

His counterpart in Michigan makes $70,000., but it costs him and his family $60,000. in living expenses, which one is the "stupid" one.

After all, you've already described in detail how much cheaper it is to live in the south.
 
Last edited:
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...

Sam Adams did say that people looking after their own interests and exploiting resources was a good thing. For workers, that also applies to their labor. In that context, there is nothing wrong with labor unions.
 
In and of themselves, labor unions are just fine; people have the right to assemble. But like anything else, they can become a problem. The UAW shows many examples of these problems.

There's a reason section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act exists.
 
PeteEU said:
Of course they can. It is America is it not? Do what Reagan did to the air controllers.. fire the bunch and hire others.
Click to expand...

Right, because it's just that simple.
 
winston53660 said:
Isn't one of the goals of a union to develop superior skill sets for its members there by making them more efficient and more valuable as an employee?
Click to expand...

What the **** have you been smoking? The only demands a union makes on its membership are for their union dues.
 
Gill said:
So, if a person working in a southern auto factory makes $50,000. / year and it costs $30,000. for him and his family to live in a nice house, feed them, pay utilities, taxes, etc., then they are able to save $20,000.

His counterpart in Michigan makes $70,000., but it costs him and his family $60,000. in living expenses, which one is the "stupid" one.

After all, you've already described in detail how much cheaper it is to live in the south.
Click to expand...

Excellent EXCELLENT point.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again your simplistic bumper sticker arguments ignore the realities of the higher productivity rates of these workers, lower investment costs to manufacture in these states and a lot of other FACTS that make these areas far better locations to do business in than states infested with the Liberal Union mentality of their politicians.

It doesn't undermine my argument; it undermines your desperate attempts to suggest that they are working for far less because they might be dumb rednecks.

Carry on; your bumper sticker mentality is merely more evidence of the lack of any attempts on you or other Liberals to make the effort to have coherent and substantive arguments.
Click to expand...
From the arguments made in this thread it seems that:
1) GM has high production costs
2) GM has made bad product decisions

Seems like number one is related to labor costs. GM would be outselling Toyota if only they didn't have such high labor costs. The arguments seem to be that Toyota has a higher profit margin allowing them to sell a comparable car at a cheaper price.

Therefore you can either lower the wage for GM employees or raise the wage for Toyota employees. Toyota has it's healthcare costs subsidized by it's government and it pays a lower wage for the same job as a GM employee.
 
UtahBill said:
I understand affording in the financial sense, but not the social sense.

Perhaps it is because I have no roots, no family connection, that I am so "portable".
Click to expand...
My sister relied on my mother to babysit thereby saving her HUGE amounts of money on childcare. My neighbor basically works to pay for the cost of childcare. There's one example.

People who anchor themselves to one spot, or just HAVE to be near mom and dad, are handicapping themselves.

After 12 years in the navy, we lived 8 years in Idaho, in my wife's hometown. During that time, I had 3 different jobs, all with the same company. If one boss doesn't treat me right, I look for another. Then we moved to AZ, for a LOT more money. The wife didn't like it at first, as she wanted to be near family, but she got over it. The big pay raises we got helped a lot toward her adjusting to the move. In AZ, over a 20 year period, I worked 3 different jobs for that company, changing everytime I felt I had "peaked". During that 20 years, my wife worked for the same school district, but at 3 different schools, and for awhile in a district level job.

During all that time, I saw lots of people stuck in positions where they were not happy, and some of them had more skills than I ever will.
Clinging to your comfort zone is costly. Working the same job at the same place as daddy worked is not progress.

With enough education and a willingness to MOVE, there are plenty of jobs for those willing to do what it takes. To be fair, that isn't so easy anymore....current situations are new to us as a nation.
But the fact remains, way too many of us aim low and hit the mark right out of high school, and call it success. It isn't.
IMO, things are just going to get harder for the next few generations, until things settle out into whatever viable economy works for us..:(
Click to expand...
Well it's obvious that you really don't understand the value many people get out of their community. You also, like me, have the ability to pack up and move on to a better situation but many people have roots, best friends, family, church, whatever. My wife lived her entire life in N.CA. and it was VERY difficult for me to convince her to move 3000 miles from everyone she knows. It took 2 years before she started to feel comfortable here. I was in the military so, like you, I pulled up my roots long ago and it's been much easier for people like us to move around the country.
 
Redress said:
If the contract with the UAW hurts the company to the point that they have to lay off people(ie, the situation now), then referring to those in the southern nonunion factories making more than those up north who are unemployed is a legit comparison.
Click to expand...
But why is the contract hurting the company? Because their competition has lower wage costs. :2wave: Raise the wage in the south and suddenly GMs contracts are no longer a problem. THEN, all auto workers will make a better living. It's what drove the middle class before foreign car companies ever opened their first plant in the USA. Remember?
 
Slippery Slope said:
From the arguments made in this thread it seems that:
1) GM has high production costs
2) GM has made bad product decisions

Seems like number one is related to labor costs. GM would be outselling Toyota if only they didn't have such high labor costs. The arguments seem to be that Toyota has a higher profit margin allowing them to sell a comparable car at a cheaper price.

Therefore you can either lower the wage for GM employees or raise the wage for Toyota employees. Toyota has it's healthcare costs subsidized by it's government and it pays a lower wage for the same job as a GM employee.
Click to expand...

GM does have high production costs, but labor is far from the only reason for that. Legacy costs(mostly related to labor), inefficiencies, being slow to modernize methods and equipment, these are big parts of the high production cost. Labor is a contributor to GMs troubles, but certainly is not the only, or even necessarily the biggest reason for those troubles.
 
Slippery Slope said:
But why is the contract hurting the company? Because their competition has lower wage costs. :2wave: Raise the wage in the south and suddenly GMs contracts are no longer a problem. THEN, all auto workers will make a better living. It's what drove the middle class before foreign car companies ever opened their first plant in the USA. Remember?
Click to expand...

There's some Harrison Bergeron thinking there.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. They DO. So why wouldn't a UNION comprised of them try to do the same thing? YOU say they don't.
Click to expand...
It's not so much that they don't but rather the way in which you are putting it. If it's reasonable for nonunion workers then why is it unreasonable for union workers?

YOU brought it up. It was simply to expose the stupidity of YOUR statement.
Click to expand...
Don't be so disingenuous. I said "Interesting, so cars from the Big 3 are at astronomical prices while Toyota's are low priced. Interesting."
And you compared a corolla to a hummer instead of a Land Cruiser ($65K) to a Hummer. :doh

Once the government nationalizes all the car companies and drives EVERYONE'S labor costs up, then ALL car prices will go up. It's simple math.
Click to expand...
And if people made better money that increase wouldn't be so bad eh?

You, of course, seem to think I meant that GM's car prices are higher now, but that's not what I said, and HELLO -- of COURSE they can't sell their cars at higher than market price, which is why they're in trouble -- they're not bringing in enough money to cover costs. Even though they're selling plenty of cars.
Click to expand...
Right, so we increase the cost of a Toyota and GM is competitive.

Hey, you're the one saying you see no GM cars out there. Really. Go take a look.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of sarcasm... that's what the emote was for, to help you figure it out.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. That doesn't make GM more competitive. It makes the other companies LESS competitive and drags them down to GM.
Click to expand...
:rofl Seriously? If everyone's costs were the same then how would that make foreign auto companies less competitive? :confused:

And yes, you drive costs up for everyone, the price of cars will go up. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]
Raise their wage and the cost increase is balanced. It's that simple.
 
Harshaw said:
How about simply being able to compete and survive?
Click to expand...
So the only way for foreign car companies to compete and survive is if they undercut their competition (the big 3) by lowering their wages... So then the Big 3 have to lower their wages to compete with the foreign companies... making the labor costs to build, equal. You could accomplish the same thing by raising the labor costs up to the Big 3 level.

Besides, since WHEN did simply making a profit become a prima facie evil in this country?
Click to expand...
When profits become out of whack by paying less for more work and/or when doing so harms our ecomony... like it is now.

Let's see all your tax records. Are you making a profit in your self-employed world? Well, you must be screwing someone, because if you're bringing in more money than you're spending, then you're not paying someone enough. Put your money where your mouth is.

(And if you're making a LOT of profit, well, the more evil you are. Apparently.)
Click to expand...
Our profit isn't egregiously out of line with our costs.
Besides I never said making a profit was evil. That is just a specious argument regurgitated by cons but has no basis in the argument.
 
Slippery Slope said:
It's not so much that they don't but rather the way in which you are putting it. If it's reasonable for nonunion workers then why is it unreasonable for union workers?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about its reasonableness one way or the other. You were simply denying that they do it.


Don't be so disingenuous. I said "Interesting, so cars from the Big 3 are at astronomical prices while Toyota's are low priced. Interesting."
And you compared a corolla to a hummer instead of a Land Cruiser ($65K) to a Hummer. :doh
Click to expand...

I wasn't being disingenuous. It's not my fault you misunderstood the point.


And if people made better money that increase wouldn't be so bad eh?
Click to expand...

Yeah, inflation is great. But you're talking about raising prices for everyone and wages for few.


Right, so we increase the cost of a Toyota and GM is competitive.
Click to expand...

No. You've simply crippled Toyota so that it make GM look competitive. You don't make an asthmatic runner more competitive by making opponents wear a backpack full of bricks.

Ever hear of sarcasm... that's what the emote was for, to help you figure it out.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say. You called me "blind" over the point, but if you're conceding it now, then great.

:rofl Seriously? If everyone's costs were the same then how would that make foreign auto companies less competitive? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you find this confusing.


And yes, you drive costs up for everyone, the price of cars will go up. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Raise their wage and the cost increase is balanced. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

And what about everyone else who doesn't work for a car company? This is just breaking-records-on-your-head laugh-out-loud stupid. :roll:
 
Redress said:
I am not a con, but the reason would be the ability to be competitive. It does not serve the UAW nor it's members to have any UAW shop be closed due to the company being less competitive.
Click to expand...
And like I've said over and over, raise the labor costs for the foreign auto makers. Our ecomony relies on our ability to buy things. If you keep lowering the wage of the people so that corporations can make bigger profits then you undercut the "peoples" ability to buy things. When people can't buy things in a capitalist economy like ours then our economy suffers, corps lay off workers to maintain profits further undermining the economy.
 
winston53660 said:
Isn't one of the goals of a union to develop superior skill sets for its members there by making them more efficient and more valuable as an employee?
Click to expand...
That's one of the ideas. As you become more skilled you get paid more. A journeyman electrician makes more in the union than an apprentice.
 
Slippery Slope said:
And like I've said over and over, raise the labor costs for the foreign auto makers. Our ecomony relies on our ability to buy things. If you keep lowering the wage of the people so that corporations can make bigger profits then you undercut the "peoples" ability to buy things. When people can't buy things in a capitalist economy like ours then our economy suffers, corps lay off workers to maintain profits further undermining the economy.
Click to expand...

How are you planning to do that exactly? Tell Toyota is has to pay more, so they move out of the country? Are you going to expect suppliers to pay more too, or would you just shift more work from automaker plants to suppliers?
 
Slippery Slope said:
So the only way for foreign car companies to compete and survive is if they undercut their competition (the big 3) by lowering their wages... So then the Big 3 have to lower their wages to compete with the foreign companies... making the labor costs to build, equal. You could accomplish the same thing by raising the labor costs up to the Big 3 level.
Click to expand...

Simply repetition of the above.


When profits become out of whack by paying less for more work and/or when doing so harms our ecomony... like it is now.
Click to expand...

Prove that the healthy car companies' profits are "out of whack" and that it's "harming" our economy.


Our profit isn't egregiously out of line with our costs.
Click to expand...

But you make the assumption that Nissan's or Toyota's is. Prove it.

In fact, they could be making MORE profit by charging prices up where GM's would need to be in order to be profitable. Something tells me you'd have issues with that.


Besides I never said making a profit was evil. That is just a specious argument regurgitated by cons but has no basis in the argument.
Click to expand...

Here, you offered "corporate profits" as an illegitimate reason to lower costs.

Slippery Slope said:
No one has yet to explain WHY American companies should lower their employment costs (wages and benefits) to compete with foreign companies who sell their products to Americans. I know you cons keep saying they should lower those costs but you haven't laid out why. I mean other than to increase corporate profits.
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
That is a myth. In REALITY, and I speak from personal experience in the construction industry, Union labor merely adds to the cost and length of time it takes to complete a project.

I have NEVER seen any BETTER quality in the work between the construction I saw in the South and that I which saw in the Northeast.

The ONLY real difference was the doubling of the cost to build, the doubling of the time it took to build; the intimidation of laborers on the job site by Business Administrators from the Union (in their very expensive suits) and the FACT that these union workers worked specific and LESS hours.

They came to work at 7:00 a.m. and left exactly at 3:30 p.m. with THREE breaks taking with them the electrical breakers to ensure no one would work illegally after hours.

In the South, they would work from 7:00 a.m. till it got dark and in some cases, when the schedule demanded it, after dark. They didn't have specific break times and took lunch when the opportunity arose. They made MORE money by getting the work done and moving to the next job.

Unfortunately, the UNION leadership has been the Unions own worst enemies and have turned the UNION labor into more of an entitlement than a trained efficient work force and actually encourage workers to work at slower pace to ensure work and more labor requirements.

I worked for the machinists union as a young man and I speaking from personal experience; I was constantly being told I was working TOO fast and increasing the production requirements for my machine for others and this was made CLEAR to me as being no acceptable by the shop steward.

When I left, I promised to NEVER work in an environment like that again. By the way, this company produced oil valves for the Alaska Pipeline and is out of business now as are many machinist jobs which used to be pre-dominate in this area.
Click to expand...
Funny, I have plenty of family in various unions and (pipefitters and electricians) and my neighbor retired from the communications union in NY, they all have a completely different opinion and experience than you. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom