• 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

That was all very eloquently outlined. Unfortunately for you I'm educated and can read through what you've tried to obscure with pedanticalness.

Indeed. :roll:
 
As little as possible does not automatically mean less work. In this instance it means that unless you pay more you won't have any workers. Or to put it another way, we want more pay for the job WE DO. Not more pay for less work.

Right. Unions never negotiate for shorter hours, more vacation time, more paid time off for other reasons, etc.. Right.


If you don't accept that, then it is YOU who are the naive one.

Yeah.


Interesting, so cars from the Big 3 are at astronomical prices while Toyota's are low priced. Interesting.

If you compare a Hummer and a Corolla, sure.


You must be right because I don't see anyone driving cars built by the Big 3... :doh

Oh, it's been clear for a long time that you "see" exactly, and ONLY, what you want to see.

Yet, GM sells more cars than anyone BUT Toyota, and Toyota only surpassed them very recently by.


Increasing the wages to be comparable would raise the car price to that of the Big 3. People can afford a GM car as evidenced by their sales. Sure, they have made business mistakes in the type of cars they produce but that's not compensation related. So your hypothesis is fails a simply examination.

No, it doesn't. PeteEU keeps saying that GM is failing because they don't sell cars. But they do. More than anyone except Toyota, and even then, it's a difference of 7%.

So, it's not the number of cars they sell. If it were, then they wouldn't be in trouble.
 
We will find this? How about you back up that claim with a link to some facts.


Mandatory Union Membership Slows Employment, Productivity
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), adopted some 70 years ago, enables unions to require all workers covered by its collective bargaining power to become union members and to pay the corresponding dues. However, 22 states have since passed "right-to-work" laws that enable workers to opt out of such agency-fee clauses.

According to a new report by the Capital Research Center, states that have adopted right-to-work laws have enjoyed superior rates of business productivity, state-level economic growth and job-creation over the past two decades. The reports also showed:

Depending on the percent of workers unionized, unionization reduced the value added per hour of labor by as much as 6.5 percent.
Between 1981 and 2001, the economy of the average right-to-work state expanded by 236 percent, while that of the average non-right-to-work state grew by 221 percent.
Over the last twenty years, the average right-to-work state increased employment by 62 percent, as compared to 42 percent for non-right-to-work states.
Perhaps most importantly, there has been little difference in pay between right-to-work states and their counterparts once one accounts for the cost of living of living. In 2002, per capita disposable income averaged $27,476 for workers in non-right-to-work states, as compared to $24,335 in right-to-work states -- a disparity of about 11.4 percent. However, according to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the cost of living in the average right-to-work state is 11 percent lower than in non-right-to-work states.

Source: Paul Kersey, "The Economic Case for Right-to-Work Laws," Capital Research Center, January 2004.
Mandatory Union Membership Slows Employment, Productivity


I can get more but I thought this sums it up fairly well.
 
Sure, works for me.

Why couldn't GM invest heavily in R&D? They had to pay union extortion.

Lol you can blame the unions for anything I see. Again why did GM have to pay this "extortion"? Because of the management. It agreed to the terms after all.... often without much negotiation.

The US Constitution doesn't allow the US government to design cars, that includes setting CAFE standards.

Therefore the issue is one of government interference, not one of corporate control of Congress.

Great excuse! That is why GM spent hundreds of millions of dollars over many years in blocking any attempts to get uniformed fuel efficiency standards in the US or even any standard at all in any state..only California managed to get one passed last I looked. Lets see.. which countries were better off with 150 dollars oil... those that have mandatory rules that cars have to achieve 32+ mpg or those that dont? Or do you really like going to the gas station every other day because your car only gets 12 mpg and spending a fortune each time?

Oil ran out?

When did that happen? Last time I checked, the United States has 2,300 billion barrels of oil in reserve.

Where did I say it had run out? I said it would run out and it will. Prices will go up and up and GM have been in denial of this for decades since it has fought against any form of innovation on fuel standards over to alternative fuelled cars. Numbers dont like. GM, Ford, Chrysler saw their car sales drop off a cliff when the gas was high, because they did not have fuel efficient cars to sell.

Yes, it's the unions fault for electing socialist congressthings that the US government has steadfastly refused to tap those reserves.

HAHAHAH, how thick do you think we are? Congress being in the hands of the unions? HELLLO.. your lot had control of congress for a decade and for 6 years you had TOTAL control of the US government and you are saying that the Republican party is a bunch of union people? So why did you guys not do anything about it during your total power period?

Yes. First off, the cost of car ownership is dominated by initial purchase price, which is driven by labor costs.

And those labour costs are driven up by spineless management that does not know how to say no. It is the union's job to get as much as possible for its membership so at least they were doing their freaking jobs, unlike the GM management.

Secondly, as pointed out, it's the unions that elect the socialist congressthings that have kept the oil underground. And with those two items, the last becomes irrelevant.

As I said, Republicans controlled congress from 1996 to 2006, and the whole government from 2000 to 2006, so again.. are they all socialists? Does this mean Newt was a commie?

GM made damn good trucks. I still like my 350-V8 3500 series van from 1990.

I see. Since when are trucks a car? I am fully aware that American's love big cars, even though they dont need them, but come on.. it is time to grow up America. And dont come with the lame excuse I constantly hear about "long distances" between work and home..

In a word, yes.

So it is the Unions fault that the GM management caved time and time in labour negotiations? Wow, you live in a very twisted world. Let me guess, you also believe it is the womans fault when she is raped right?

The US has an excellent health care system. Just because it's not a smoking wreck of a socialist system doesn't mean it's wrong.

The cost and statistics dont show that. But that is another discussion for another thread.

Oh. You mean the government.

Yea in part, I give you that. It was after all the Bush administration that put in place the monopolistic laws and rules often written by the industry itself... so yea.. That first law Bush signed just happened to close off the US drug market, and make it a crime for you to buy aspirin in Canada and go over the border.. Such thing dont at all drive prices up noo... not at all. :roll:

The union was a huge part of GM's failure. Anyone denying this can't comprehend what happened.

I aint denying that the Union's demands over the years have not contributed to the fall of GM.. not at all.

What I am saying, and what you and your conservative jackboots are not, is that the GM management is at just as much fault if not more.

While there is no doubt that the labour costs of GM are a big part of the problem, it cant be the fault of the unions who's only job is to get as much for its members as possible. They did their job, and it was in fact the GM management that caved in. Now one can say that it is the unions fault in a way that they did not earlier retract said benefits to save GM earlier, but again why should they when everyone could see that the GM management's business plans were bonehead and a failure? Would only have prolonged the long and painful death of GM.

It is funny that NO one has mentioned how GM management has kept failing car manufactures in the US and around the world in business for decades... They bought SAAB, a company that has had only one profitable year during the last 30 years, and let me guess, that is the unions fault also?

The Unions have nothing to do with the strategic and tactical business decisions done by the GM management that have contributed to the fall of GM. Is it the unions fault that Pontiac aint selling enough cars to make a profit? That Hummer is a dud? That SAAB was a loss making company when it was bought? That the only real profitable part of GM for a considerable number of years was Opel... in "socialist Europe"?

Sorry but giving the GM management a total get out of jail free card and placing most of the blame on the unions is nothing but partisan bs and has nothing to do with reality.
 
No, it doesn't. PeteEU keeps saying that GM is failing because they don't sell cars. But they do. More than anyone except Toyota, and even then, it's a difference of 7%.

So, it's not the number of cars they sell. If it were, then they wouldn't be in trouble.

No I aint. I am saying GM is failing because of bone head decisions by the management over the decades and this includes the insane labour costs.
 
No I aint. I am saying GM is failing because of bone head decisions by the management over the decades and this includes the insane labour costs.

What else could they do about the labor costs?

If they don't meet the unions demands the union strikes.
Management can't just cut labor costs without meeting the unions minimum standards.
 
What else could they do about the labor costs?

If they don't meet the unions demands the union strikes.
Management can't just cut labor costs without meeting the unions minimum standards.

Of course they can. It is America is it not? Do what Reagan did to the air controllers.. fire the bunch and hire others.

Like it or not the management had no spine during the negotiations.. pure and simple. Not even in Europe do we have such idiotic labour costs (relatively speaking) put on companies when compared to the rest of the society.
 
You have some evidence that those "stupid southerners" are not making a living wage? Hell, they are making a better wage than many of us unemployed northern auto workers...
Come on, Redress... let's not turn each other into fools by making silly riech-wing style arguments. I mean, seriously... they are making a better wage than the unemployed? :roll:

As for making a living wage... I guess we'll have to go through the pointless exercise of determining what each of us considers a living wage and then denying each others position... :doh I'll save us all a lot of time and grief. I withdraw the "living wage" phrase and replace it with "a comparable wage". Feeling better?
 
No. "How it works, pal" is that you didn't mention the preferred alternative: find a different job that pays more.

Can't find a job that pays more? Then who are you to say your job "should" be paid more? Why shouldn't the company replace you with someone less greedy?
Well, you know I'm going to say that, as a matter of course, you lack empathy. How unusual for a con. Like it or not, most people cannot afford (financially and/or socially) to pick up and move their family every time an employer takes advantage of them.
 
I find the profound and deep-seated bigotry of this statement pretty much consistent with your overall reasoning skills. But then, that level of reasoning is where hate generally hatches its maggots.
I don't view all southerners this way, just the idiots who work against their own self interest so that a foreign (domestic too) company can make bigger profits off of their labor. Or so a politician can enact legislation that harms them (medicare drug bill, credit card bill...). Naturally you'd like to be dismissive because I expose your nonsense with common sense.
 
Right. Unions never negotiate for shorter hours, more vacation time, more paid time off for other reasons, etc.. Right.
Don't ALL employees NEGOTIATE these things as part of their compensation? So I guess ALL employees try to get more pay for less work. Funny though that Americans have steadily been working harder and hard for less and less pay since the Reagan revolution. For years now, comapnies have been laying off people and putting that workload on other employees without additional compensation. I've seen it in every job I've had until I became my own boss and everyone I know can tell you similar stories.

If you compare a Hummer and a Corolla, sure.
I'll just let you bask in the stupidity of that statement.

Oh, it's been clear for a long time that you "see" exactly, and ONLY, what you want to see.
Fortunately not everyone in the country has your failing eyesight.

Yet, GM sells more cars than anyone BUT Toyota, and Toyota only surpassed them very recently by.

No, it doesn't. PeteEU keeps saying that GM is failing because they don't sell cars. But they do. More than anyone except Toyota, and even then, it's a difference of 7%.

So, it's not the number of cars they sell. If it were, then they wouldn't be in trouble.
Which you think says what? That it's employment costs? I'm fine with that. So let's force Toyota to pay an equal wage and not subsidize their employee healthcare through their government... level the playing field, and you might see GM on top once more. But no, instead you want everyone to lower their wages to that of foreign companies... how very American of you.
 
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.

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.
 
What else could they do about the labor costs?

If they don't meet the unions demands the union strikes.
Management can't just cut labor costs without meeting the unions minimum standards.
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.
 
Well, you know I'm going to say that, as a matter of course, you lack empathy. How unusual for a con. Like it or not, most people cannot afford (financially and/or socially) to pick up and move their family every time an employer takes advantage of them.

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".

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..:(
 
Come on, Redress... let's not turn each other into fools by making silly riech-wing style arguments. I mean, seriously... they are making a better wage than the unemployed? :roll:

As for making a living wage... I guess we'll have to go through the pointless exercise of determining what each of us considers a living wage and then denying each others position... :doh I'll save us all a lot of time and grief. I withdraw the "living wage" phrase and replace it with "a comparable wage". Feeling better?

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.
 
Don't ALL employees NEGOTIATE these things as part of their compensation? So I guess ALL employees try to get more pay for less work.

Yeah. They DO. So why wouldn't a UNION comprised of them try to do the same thing? YOU say they don't.


I'll just let you bask in the stupidity of that statement.

YOU brought it up. It was simply to expose the stupidity of YOUR statement.

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.

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.

Fortunately not everyone in the country has your failing eyesight.

Hey, you're the one saying you see no GM cars out there. Really. Go take a look.


Which you think says what? That it's employment costs? I'm fine with that. So let's force Toyota to pay an equal wage and not subsidize their employee healthcare through their government... level the playing field, and you might see GM on top once more. But no, instead you want everyone to lower their wages to that of foreign companies... how very American of you.

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.

And yes, you drive costs up for everyone, the price of cars will go up. It's that simple.
 
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.

How about simply being able to compete and survive?

Besides, since WHEN did simply making a profit become a prima facie evil in this country? 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.)
 
No I aint. I am saying GM is failing because of bone head decisions by the management over the decades and this includes the insane labour costs.

No, you don't. You keep referring to making "cars no one wants" as being to blame.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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?

I would hope so, can't speak to that from experience, but it sounds good.
 
I would hope so, can't speak to that from experience, but it sounds good.

In my experience working with a union people would have be qualified to do certain jobs like drive a fork lift or do rigging.
 
In my experience working with a union people would have be qualified to do certain jobs like drive a fork lift or do rigging.

OK. Where you going with this? I am nonunion and have a forklift and crane license. I think I am missing something.
 
Back
Top Bottom