Ask the Car People.SM


The GM Strike - READ ONLY

38 messages,  Last post on Aug 04, 1998 at 5:30 AM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- see logJsError128.html for a stack trace discussion.

Messages Page 4 of 4

#29 of 38 P.S. by Brutus

Jul 07, 1998 (5:28 pm)

The last line in paragraph two should have said that Wall Street is not certain that GM has a long term strategy to deal with UAW strikes. In other words, Wall Street is on the side of management, but feels they may not be organized in their strategy to deal with the union.

#30 of 38 Rocles by Rocles

Jul 08, 1998 (3:55 am)

Time to bite the bullet. Short-term losses is nothing compared to long-time woes.

#31 of 38 Amazing! Intelligence in the UAW! by E3MP6

Jul 11, 1998 (10:34 pm)

Found a good memo from a UAW worker (striker) on abcnews.com. here's the URL


http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/DailyNews/gmflintmemo980710.html


Check it out soon, I don't know how long ABC keeps old stories on their web site.

#32 of 38 cookie1 by cookie1

Jul 28, 1998 (4:19 pm)

It's about time GM shut up and put out!!!!!
Unions were vital when unions were unions. Now, they piss and moan about anything. I know they have some valid points and should get some of their grievances resolved, but come on, how much do they really need? If I was making at least $16.00 an hour starting pay with full benefits with no high school diploma, I would shut up and work my tail off, no matter what the working conditions were like. If you can't cut the mustard, get the heck out! It serves GM right in losing enough market share to make them #2, which they will definitely do if the strike lasts into August. GM has too many Chiefs and not enough Indians to do the jobs. Time to get rid of management and put more workers on the lines. Simple as that?

#33 of 38 E3MP6 by E3MP6

Jul 28, 1998 (5:05 pm)

Not if Indians won't work for less than Chief's pay.

#34 of 38 Brutus by Brutus

Jul 28, 1998 (8:45 pm)

I'm kind of confused by post 31. GM is against the union (UAW) and the above average wages of the UAW members.

#35 of 38 richflynn@yahoo.com by richflynn

Jul 31, 1998 (6:36 am)

In reality, I'm anti union.


When my wife and I got married in '65 we took a vacation to visit her home town in western PA. The town was a thriving and vibrant community. The employment opportunities were two major manufacturing plants, two major oil refineries with several smaller refineries and numerous machine shops that were supporting these industries. Today, the town is exactly what one thinks of when the phrase rust belt is used. Today jobs are so difficult to come by and the ones that do exist are not much better than minimum wage.


This town was not really paying attention while our government encouraged firms to move manufacturing jobs off shore. When it was realized what was happening, it was too late. (Not that much could be done anyway.) The town is almost like Jerome, Arizona. (Not quite, but close.)


The difference here is that the workers at GM are fighting to save their livelyhood and their ability to send their children to college. The American auto worker is fighting where the workers who made shoes and televisions didn't. The American auto worker is really fighting for all of us.


I read the Jeff Gates letter mentioned in post #30. It has been my experience that Jeff's attitude is typical of most workers. Usually the inept, incompetent and slacker doesn't last long in a manufacturing environment. Their coworkers usually won't put up with any crap.


So, who won and who lost?
The 300+ jobs that were eliminated belonged to those who lost. Hopefully, those 300 will be placed elsewhere in GM. The winners are the 50,000 or so GM employees that remain. In reality, every American won because we're keeping jobs in America. I know that because the GM auto worker is still working, my company has the opportunity to compete for their business. So my company won also. And yes, I'm still anti union and becoming more anti government policy every day.

#36 of 38 Mack and the union by E3MP6

Aug 01, 1998 (2:20 am)

Rust belt syndrom?


About 10 years or so ago, Mack trucks moved into my dad's hick hometown of Winnsboro, SC. A dead and dying town if I've ever seen one. Mack moved in because there were no organized unions in the area, and promised GREAT pay and GREAT benefits. The inbred morons in the town decided they wanted to unionize for better pay. As if the wages Mack offered weren't better than working at the Piggly Wiggly. Mack said no-dice, pulled the offer for GREAT pay/benefits, made the new union fight for every penny, and the moron workers ended up with 25% less pay and 1/2 the benefits than Mack offered as long as it stayed a non-union shop.


Kind of reminiscent of the UPS strike...

#37 of 38 Brutus by Brutus

Aug 01, 1998 (3:13 pm)

Too bad GM didn't have the ability to fire them all and hire other American workers to do the same job in the same factory for close to the same wages and benefits. The quality of the product probably would have improved. When you have people who feel fortunate to have their job, they tend to take more pride in the products they make and they have more loyality to the company that gave them the opportunity to earn a good living.


Union membership in the US has dwindled dramatically in the past 15-20 years. One of the biggest chunk of union members are federal workers, and that efficiency level speaks for iteself. I can't understand why the unions can't look at the facts and figure out that they are winning little battles at the expense of losing the war because they refuse to they continue to interefere with the supply and demand factors in the US that determine market value wages and benefits. There naivity in this area, combined with what appears to be a lack of understanding of global markets, will certainly cost them members in the future and, unfortunately, it will probably cost more American jobs.


We have the workforce to do the job at a competitive rate. Just because a worker in Mexico can do the job for a couple bucks an hour doesn't mean that it is more cost efficient to build vehicles there. There are alot of other factors involved, not the least of which is getting the vehicles to the US. The US has a competitive advantage in many areas over other countries. If we let the supply and demand factors in the US determine market wages and benefits, we'll keep alot more jobs here.


As I've always said, we should consider ourselves overpaid if there are other American workers who will gladly perform the same job at the same quality level for a lower wages and benefits. That doesn't mean that you go in and tell the boss you want a paycut. What it means is that you should be flexible when it comes time to renegotiate that contract.

#38 of 38 Rocles by Rocles

Aug 04, 1998 (5:30 am)

  Good point. Made in Mexico doesn't always mean cheaper cost.
  By the way, those Mack trucks moved from an area near me to the south simply because union wouldn't give.

Messages Page 4 of 4

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement