How labor unions prolonged the great depression.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by beergood

GM Forklift Driver Wages $103,000.00 per Year. Soon From Our Paychecks. The Liberty Tree Lantern

See what I am saying???

If true and calculated accurately, that is crazy. And we wonder why the big 3 are in such financial distress.

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Philosophically, I don't agree with the "seniority first" mentality. Blue collar or white collar, you need the most capable running things. Competitve edge drops when this isn't the case, it's a fact.

I work for an Aerospace Engineering company. The company I work for has a defense and commercial sector. I work in defense...and the commercial sector based out on the west coast has an engineer union that you have to join. There is no way we win some of the defense contracts we do while being unionized. Our competitors would eat our lunch, literally. We simply can't be price competitive and the threat of production shutting down doesn't sit too well with the governement when we are supplying weapon systems the warfighter needs.

I can categorically tell you that there is no way in the pit of hades would I ever transfer to commercial, no matter the promotion, simply because I don't want to be unionized. It is that simple. I have heard horror stories from guys that work out there.

Just so you know, most on here would consider me one of the more liberal and democratic leaning posters. But with this issue, the dems have it all wrong. Again, I don't see the need for it in today's business world. Anybody not treating their employees right will go out of business.

I appreciate what you are saying, but it just doesn't add up to a defensible argument.

My experience too comes from a defense contractor were each product costs between 4 billion dollars and 8 billion dollars and takes 5 to 7 years to build.It to was a private company.My skills would transfer perfectly to defense. In a situtaion like yours were skill and ability were the rule of the day,and i could probally live with no union under those cicumstances.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

My experience too comes from a defense contractor were each product costs between 4 billion dollars and 8 billion dollars and takes 5 to 7 years to build.It to was a private company. My skills would transfer perfectly to defense. In a situtaion like yours were skill and ability were the rule of the day,and i could probally live with no union under those cicumstances.

Seems to me if that is your answer you would not want to work for a union anywhere. Like you said, skill should come first, not seniority.

Then why in favor of unions? Why would you think that a union is going to look out for your best interest if they want seniority first? You think it is fair that somebody not as skilled as you gets the better job first because they were hired 6 months before you? That is typically the way unions work.

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Seems to me if that is your answer you would not want to work for a union anywhere. Like you said, skill should come first, not seniority.

Then why in favor of unions? Why would you think that a union is going to look out for your best interest if they want seniority first? You think it is fair that somebody not as skilled as you gets the better job first because they were hired 6 months before you? That is typically the way unions work.

The short answers.

1.It would be dependent on the job and the company.

2.Arbitration.typicaly more benefits.Some unions do operate that way,not all.

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

The short answers.

1.It would be dependent on the job and the company.

2.Arbitration.typicaly more benefits.Some unions do operate that way,not all.

again, why is it about "benefits"? Why should a company be forced to pay 95% of an employee's health insurance premiums? And why would a union go on strike when the company wants the employee to pay 5% more?

again, there isn't a single benefit a union can negotiate by force that an employer can't offer simply as a means of attracting and retaining the best and most qualified applicants.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

The short answers.

1.It would be dependent on the job and the company.

2.Arbitration.typicaly more benefits.Some unions do operate that way,not all.

Seems to be working out wonderfully for GM and Chrysler.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by allvol123

If it took such skill along with your unique experience, why the need for the union membership?

Skip this one OB2?

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by MG1968

again, why is it about "benefits"? Why should a company be forced to pay 95% of an employee's health insurance premiums? And why would a union go on strike when the company wants the employee to pay 5% more?

again, there isn't a single benefit a union can negotiate by force that an employer can't offer simply as a means of attracting and retaining the best and most qualified applicants.

When you learn to answer a question........

What you do is not debate!

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Seems to be working out wonderfully for GM and Chrysler.

See post #15.

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

When you learn to answer a question........

What you do is not debate!

Unions suck. end of debate.

I win.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

Form my perspective and experience I would argue that the answer to both questions is the same.

Management or rather Mismanagement.


Today's unions understand timely effective work and the need for quality but the responsibility for operational practices and production models and modernization to effect quality is solely based,with a few good exceptions,squarely on the business in question.

Do you think management will ever take responsibility,when they always have a union to blame.

You mean this post 15?

The part in bold is some of the most laughable scribble I ever seen posted on this site.

As to your last comment. Management takes almost all responsibility, that is why they are management. On the other hand, the jobs monkeys can perform obviously need protection.

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by MG1968

I get my jollies being a poser.

I wish I understood what a ? mark was

fyp

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by allvol123

You mean this post 15?

The part in bold is some of the most laughable scribble I ever seen posted on this site.

As to your last comment. Management takes almost all responsibility, that is why they are management. On the other hand, the jobs monkeys can perform obviously need protection.

I think I understand were MG1968 got his failed tactical construct for debate from.

Poser and mini poser.By seniority of course

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

Form my perspective and experience I would argue that the answer to both questions is the same.

Management or rather Mismanagement.


Today's unions understand timely effective work and the need for quality but the responsibility for operational practices and production models and modernization to effect quality is solely based,with a few good exceptions,squarely on the business in question.

Do you think management will ever take responsibility,when they always have a union to blame.

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

When you learn to answer a question........

What you do is not debate!

Originally Posted by MG1968

Unions suck. end of debate.

I win.

Originally Posted by orangeblooded2

fyp

that's post 15 at the top, unedited by me. If I'm a "poser" for not understanding a question mark, what does that make you for not including the punctuation itself?

In the case of the Big 3, I don't remember any of the executives blaming the union. It's only natural that they will point to the UAW as being a problem since even Travis the Chimp knew that the UAW was slowly destroying the companies.

Management's problem was that they tried to be capitalists and have their companies produce the cars their customers demanded.

[orangeblooded2]

Originally Posted by MG1968

that's post 15 at the top, unedited by me. If I'm a "poser" for not understanding a question mark, what does that make you for not including the punctuation itself?

In the case of the Big 3, I don't remember any of the executives blaming the union. It's only natural that they will point to the UAW as being a problem since even Travis the Chimp knew that the UAW was slowly destroying the companies.

Management's problem was that they tried to be capitalists and have their companies produce the cars their customers demanded.

Now thats what I,m talking about.Thank you.