Martin Luther King on “right to work” very revealing

I have a cousin who's a non-union worker for GM, she's doing just fine. In fact, she's doing fine enough that she went back to it after leaving for a while to pursue another career.

Originally Posted by Lair

Nice. So you work for GM?

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Maybe

Slushbox E46's have GM Transmissions. Right?

Originally Posted by Lair

The UAW didn't suffocate Detroit. GM management and their bean counter-designed rolling piles of crap suffocated Detroit.

Nobody whined about unions when GM was netting $7K on each bloated, hideous, gas sucking SUV it produced. Now *suddenly* the unions are the problem. Give me a fvcking break.

Bullshit. In order to meet the ridiculous financial requirements of the unfunded pension liability, GM has to cut corners wherever possible. The end result is a terrible consumer product. I hate GM vehicles. UAW pretty much owns GM at this point.

Originally Posted by tock172

Bullshit. In order to meet the ridiculous financial requirements of the unfunded pension liability, GM has to cut corners wherever possible. The end result is a terrible consumer product. I hate GM vehicles. UAW pretty much owns GM at this point.

Bullshit. Management is to blame for every problem GM has. They designed the vehicles, built the vehicles, marketed the vehicles, and signed the union contracts.

Originally Posted by Lair

Bullshit. Management is to blame for every problem GM has. They designed the vehicles, built the vehicles, marketed the vehicles, and signed the union contracts.

They signed the union contracts because they had no choice. UAW has a chokehold on GM and the government is obviously on the side of UAW.

Stop lying. They had a choice. They've always had a choice.

Why don't you point a finger at the tools that are running the company instead of the people who work for it?

Originally Posted by Lair

Stop lying. They had a choice. They've always had a choice.

Why don't you point a finger at the tools that are running the company instead of the people who work for it?

That's your opinion. Why are they tools? Because they are not aligned with your morals? I thought morals were a bad thing. Boo-hoo

They're tools because they can't make a profit because UNIONS!

I'm psyched about this right to work stuff. Now I get a pay raise since I won't have to pay dues to my awful and worthless union.

Originally Posted by Lair

The UAW didn't suffocate Detroit. GM management and their bean counter-designed rolling piles of crap suffocated Detroit.

Nobody whined about unions when GM was netting $7K on each bloated, hideous, gas sucking SUV it produced. Now *suddenly* the unions are the problem. Give me a fvcking break.

No way did the unions unwillingness to budge on the average salary with benefits of 130k/year for line workers, 7 weeks paid vacation and full pay for retirees while sales declined to foreign automakers have anything to do with it. No way.

Unions who demand a grotesque amount of money over the fair market value for a position only leave two options - pass the cost to the consumer, which hurts sales. Or create an inferior product with limited options of production because a company's hands are tied paying over priced labor. Which hurt sales.

The union mindset of greed and hatred toward the very company which feeds it killed the union. UAW would rather have GM go under and lose 100% of a job forever instead of making salary concessions.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

No way did the unions unwillingness to budge on the average salary with benefits of 130k/year for line workers, 7 weeks paid vacation and full pay for retirees while sales declined to foreign automakers have anything to do with it. No way.

Unions who demand a grotesque amount of money over the fair market value for a position only leave two options - pass the cost to the consumer, which hurts sales. Or create an inferior product with limited options of production because a company's hands are tied paying over priced labor. Which hurt sales.

The union mindset of greed and hatred toward the very company which feeds it killed the union. UAW would rather have GM go under and lose 100% of a job forever instead of making salary concessions.

Thank you again for shedding meaningful light. Hopefully Lair understands

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

No way did the unions unwillingness to budge on the average salary with benefits of 130k/year for line workers, 7 weeks paid vacation and full pay for retirees while sales declined to foreign automakers have anything to do with it. No way.

Unions who demand a grotesque amount of money over the fair market value for a position only leave two options - pass the cost to the consumer, which hurts sales. Or create an inferior product with limited options of production because a company's hands are tied paying over priced labor. Which hurt sales.

The union mindset of greed and hatred toward the very company which feeds it killed the union. UAW would rather have GM go under and lose 100% of a job forever instead of making salary concessions.

Let me ask you a question.
You get a home loan at 4.5% fixed over 30 years. 10 years into the loan, the bank comes to you and says "Hey, we really shouldn't have made that loan and we are not profitable anymore because making these type of loans. We want you to re-fi your house back to us at 8.75% so we can make a profit. How about it?"

What are you gonna tell the bank?

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Thank you again for shedding meaningful light. Hopefully Lair understands

Thanks. My guess is he refuses to understand. Ignorance is bliss.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Let me ask you a question.
You get a home loan at 4.5% fixed over 30 years. 10 years into the loan, the bank comes to you and says "Hey, we really shouldn't have made that loan and we are not profitable anymore because making these type of loans. We want you to re-fi your house back to us at 8.75% so we can make a profit. How about it?"

What are you gonna tell the bank?

I would answer "I do not have an ARM". I don't understand how that question is relevant to short term, organized labor contracts.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Let me ask you a question.
You get a home loan at 4.5% fixed over 30 years. 10 years into the loan, the bank comes to you and says "Hey, we really shouldn't have made that loan and we are not profitable anymore because making these type of loans. We want you to re-fi your house back to us at 8.75% so we can make a profit. How about it?"

What are you gonna tell the bank?

Loan =/= salary contract

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Loan =/= salary contract

Legally binding contract = legally binding contract

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

I don't understand

Yes, we know.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Legally binding contract = legally binding contract

I get your point.

But still vast differences between the two. A more appropriate example would be a contract between the federal government and a contractor.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Legally binding contract = legally binding contract

Exactly. Why should somebody invalidate a contract if it is not in their interest to do so. (take a loss in benefits, wages, etc...)

Some people are talking like the unions should do mgmt a "favor" and re-do the legally binding contract, just because the mgmt can't be profitable under that contract. That is not labor's issue nor is it labor's fault.

Thinking a union should re-do their contract to help mgmt be profitable is as silly as asking somebody to re-fi their house at a higher rate so the bank can be more profitable. "Hey, corporation....you entered into a legally binding contract. Now it sucks to be you....well tough $h!t." Companies will lay people off at the drop of a hat to save a penny on earnings the next qtr and think nothing of it. Then they want labor to "play nice" and help them out and think of the community. Bleep that.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Exactly. Why should somebody invalidate a contract if it is not in their interest to do so. (take a loss in benefits, wages, etc...)

Some people are talking like the unions should do mgmt a "favor" and re-do the legally binding contract, just because the mgmt can't be profitable under that contract. That is not labor's issue nor is it labor's fault.

Thinking a union should re-do their contract to help mgmt be profitable is as silly as asking somebody to re-fi their house at a higher rate so the bank can be more profitable. "Hey, corporation....you entered into a legally binding contract. Now it sucks to be you....well tough $h!t." Companies will lay people off at the drop of a hat to save a penny on earnings the next qtr and think nothing of it. Then they want labor to "play nice" and help them out and think of the community. Bleep that.

Good points in this post.

Originally Posted by rdsesq

Exactly. Why should somebody invalidate a contract if it is not in their interest to do so. (take a loss in benefits, wages, etc...)

Some people are talking like the unions should do mgmt a "favor" and re-do the legally binding contract, just because the mgmt can't be profitable under that contract. That is not labor's issue nor is it labor's fault.

Thinking a union should re-do their contract to help mgmt be profitable is as silly as asking somebody to re-fi their house at a higher rate so the bank can be more profitable. "Hey, corporation....you entered into a legally binding contract. Now it sucks to be you....well tough $h!t." Companies will lay people off at the drop of a hat to save a penny on earnings the next qtr and think nothing of it. Then they want labor to "play nice" and help them out and think of the community. Bleep that.

Thinking like Lair now...

Unions should have some consideration and not be greedy grubbing hustlers.