Unions are not concerned for the wellbeing of it's members as a whole. They are far more concerned with the power that is to be had by controlling the actions of a group as a whole(and being able to hold a company or government by the ***** by extorting it through various means). A very famous recent case comes to mind.

NJ Governor Chris Christie went to the teachers union of NJ and asked to renegotiate their contract in light of the recent financial crisis. He simply asked for them to hold off on any pay increases for one year and to contribute 1 percent of their pay to their health benefits. (which they currently pay nothing) Notably this is in a time where Social Security recipients will not get a cost of living increase for the second straight year because the government currently acknowledges the inflation rate is at 0%.

The NJ Teachers Union said outright no. No counteroffer, no other resolution. Just no. They chose to get the 4% raise in their pay guaranteed to them in lieu of accepting the new contract and knowing that if they didn't, teachers would be laid off. Subsuqently, teachers were laid off.

Private sector unions are no different. They are extortionist with a nice smile. They charge you a fee for membership, employ their own people at your expense, scold you should you hold an opinion that is different from the union, and cast you as betraying your coworkers if you choose the go to work and feed your family instead of striking. (See: Writers Guild Association)
And do it all while convincing you that it's for your benefit.

GM during the 90s did not record the profits it did because of any compermises made by the UAW. It made them in spite of UAWs actions. They did it because US auto manufactuers had a virtual monoploy on the half-ton and above truck industry. GM was able to produce relatively low quality trucks and sell them because of this. (As all US automakers did) When automakers like Nissan and Toyota made their own contributions to the half ton and above truck market, compounded with rising fuel prices, you saw GM profits dip.

Unions aren't protecting the middle class, they are squeezing the life out of it. Companies, including GM and Ford are finding that it is cheaper to move plants overseas in spite of higher tax rates in the countires.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/news...ings/index.htm

Now you will say that it's strictly the lower wages that drives companies to outsource and it has nothing to do with the wages...

Meanwhile foreign plants have built and thrived in the United States due to the fact that they have been able to resist workers unionizing.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...o-plants_N.htm

But the moment they do, you can count on those jobs leaving too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/bu...bal/23uaw.html

 

GM earnings were at record levels on paper. Being an international company, they were able to tinker with some numbers by skating the lines between US GAAP and International GAAP. Were their sales numbers high? Absolutely. Were their profits high? Not nearly as high as they reported. But it made investors happy, and made them look like everything is fine.

My point about Rattner is that he has strong ties to the Dems, who are very pro-union. That brings bias to his opinion. Pull an independent to do that job and see what comes out (a true independent, not a "righty"). Rattner's opinion that the unions were not the cause is biased, and to believe otherwise is pretty foolish.

 

No you are not the only one. Besides the ridiculous post whoring and multi-quote fail, there is no logic at all that comes from anything he posts. All we know is that he "lol" 's at everything. Like Darksol said, he's immature and has a chip on his shoulder. At least I can read wannabess posts, even though I strongly disagree with them, but everything ultimate says is most likely heard in a union hall and he just regurgitates it.

 

Well its certainly evident that Dems are pro-labor. But honestly how many "union" bills have gone through congress the last decade?

But honestly, So do you truly beleive that labor leadership gives zero consideration to the effect decisions might have to the finacial stability of a company during bargaing? And do you see UAW/Company bargaining as being one sided and it just simply consists of labor demands and not company at all? Im just curious how far this narrative goes

 

ULTIMATEORANGE... can you please take the hint I dropped in my last post and multi-quote instead of making 246512357256 posts in a row? I promise it's not that hard.

 

Multi-pass?

 

Leeloo Dallas, multi-pass

 

just because you dont want to comprehend **** and be hateful about things thats your problem.

the **** you post is out of anti union 101 handbooks like most of the puppets on here.

lollololol there you go.

 

ill try.


but how bout everyone worry about the topic instead of going on an anto union humpfest? and stop ******* worrying about who and what i am or anyone else is. ill say it again. if you dont like what i post, tough. deal with it or go away.


its not that hard i promise.

going to be a long night.

 

Not when they are pushing for raises in a recession, and bitching about concessions on unfunded liabilities when GM is in the process of bankruptcy.

Are you happy that unions were able to violate bankruptcy law by jumping to the front of the list for payouts? (Dumb question, of course you are. Contract laws be damned!)

 

lets see if people can see through their hate and use common sense.

ford had defective automatic transmissions for yrs.

http://www.fordification.com/tech/auto-trans_recall.htm

http://www.autosafety.org/ford-trans...lure-hold-park

now please explain how this would be the fault of the UAW? were they named in any lawsuits regarding this? did they design these transmissions? htf would be they aware that anything was wrong? it took yrs of investigation to figure out what the problem was.


dodge durango recalls.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...-durango-9.htm


suspension coming apart among other ****. this stuff wore out prematurely over time. it probably left an assembly line ok.


ford cruise control switch causing fires. biggest recall in automotive history if i remember correctly.

https://ls1tech.com/forums/newreply....e=1&p=14025477

again,please explain how this would be any fault of any UAW workers. im sure all they did was install the ******* things. lol


ford focus most recalled vehicle in automotive history.


http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news02/ford_focus.html

electrical ****. fires and stalling lol. again, how would an assembly line worker detect this stuff when an engineer didnt. wheels falling off. give me a break.

this is the **** that killed the big three. and it has ZERO to do with the UAW.


BUT WAIT. i can hear it hear it now. the big three PR people couldve claimed we had to use cheap parts because we couldnt afford to pay our workers so we figured it would be easier and cheaper to pay injury and death settlements. ROFL.


this easy enough to comprehend or would you rather continue to analyze my personality? lol

so go ahead and tell me how FOS i am and make no sense.

 

they got a raise in their last contract? can you show me? i thought they were no raises in the last agreement? im asking. thats all.


and really. im not happy with either side regarding this bankruptcy money. its a big ******* mess imo.

 

Is there something in your union contract that forbids you to use multi-quote? Because you're obviously either still making multiple posts to be a smartass, or you really don't understand what I am talking about.

 

maybe lol. how bout giving it a rest? i promise ill work on it.

but union workers can only do one job i thought? lol.

 

^^

I can see your point. The big 3 had a good amount to do with their own failures.

But, once the companies were failing, was it right for the unions to not make concessions or negotiate and try to keep the companies from going into bankruptcy?

Now I don't know the whole story, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there was fault to be shared. The corporations for not exactly making the best products out there, and then the unions for not making concessions when the companies were in trouble.

 

they did make concessions. please dont make me look it up lol. now some will argue it wasnt enough or soon enough. the UAW did agree to plant closings and layoffs so they could keep their pensions and benefits. downsizing has been going on for decades.


thing is the UAW tried to protect their workers. LIKE IT OR NOT ITS THEIR JOB SO SAVE IT LOL.

what happened was and yes this is true. the big three refused to accept foreign competition and continued to build ****. they kept selling vehicles that were the same under 5 different brands.yes, some will argue it was to keep people working but thats weak. they also were slow to change. theyd refuse to upgrade a body style for a long time. for instance toyota would change a body style every 5 yrs while the big three wouldnt for twice that time. now again, anti union people will argue they didnt have the money to reinvest but thats BS because at one time the big three dominated the industry. they were greedy,arrogant and complacent and that was their downfall.


while the UAW are no saints. i NEVER claimed they were. theyre a business like anything else. but the bottom line is horrible leadership brought them down. thats a fact. face it.

other things are shitty dealers. poor reliabilty(yes, quality which i addressed).horrible resale value, high warranty claims ect is what drove people to foreign vehicles. NONE of which are UAW related.

its really not hard to figure out. as i said earlier GM used to sell almost 1 out of every 2 cars sold deacdes ago. now its nowhere near that.

ill stop for now lol.

 

I am very sure of this. UAW leadership is only concerned with how many benefits can they get, regardless of the stability. I am completely sure that they don't care about fair market value relative to what non-unionized workers are getting paid
Example 1:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1426146420090214
UAW was faced with a choice: Renegotiate benefits and contracts. Benefits that end up paying workers and retirees $20/hour more than workers at non-unionized plants. Or see the company it's members work for have to declare bankruptcy and get taken over by the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/bu.../18sorkin.html
Absolutely, apparently. GM Paid 495 million dollars in lawsuits for faulty trucks alone
http://www.autosafety.org/gm-paid-495-million-suits

As an automaker, the big 3 have faced three choices
1. Make high quality vehicles in America paying union wages and lose almost all profitability.
2. Skimp on quality, maintain paying union wages (as mentioned above $20 an hour more than non-unionized foreign automaker plants)
3. Outsource work to overseas plants, build higher quality cars

GM at leasts chose 2. After the bailout, they have begun to choose 3. Outsourcing jobs when America needs them the most. In all honesty the lawsuit issue was a GM oversight issue, not thinking about the consquences. From a business perspective, they should have chose option 3 earlier.
http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...lose-its-doors

 

Very Well Said.

 

i know you arent implying GM intentionally built unsafe vehicles knowing people would be injured or killed? being that every vehicle sold here has to pass a min. safety standard.


this plant seems high quality and profitable. WAIT! UNION MADE TOO. HOWD THAT HAPPEN!/ LOL AGAIN!



http://thegarageblog.com/garage/gm-c...quality-award/

as i keep beating to death. make a good vehicle and people will buy them without having to give it away.

 

workers building foreign cars here dont want a union?


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...anizer-access/

hmmm whats going on ?