Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16705 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 14, 2008 9:34 am) |
|
|
|
|
The 1944 GI Bill gave America a 40% college graduate rate. The other competing nations were 25% at most. So this is more or less agreed to as the reason we have enjoyed the highest standard of living. Number one in innovation/new processes in technology. So what did those other 60% of Americans do? They had jobs created by our superior system. UAW or not the jobs were out there. To some extent the college graduate was somewhat dependent on the 60% of workers. Supervisors, managers, and the supporting cast required lead the manufacturing operations create a codependency. Today in the global economy we are behind in producing college graduates as compared to other nations. The high cost of education and other concerns have eroded the worlds best system. One would ask why other nations don't have this situations? The safety net or lack of provided by our nation is cited as the number one reason. National health in many countries has produced a higher college graduate rate. It stands to reason if someone doesn't have to enter the work force to obtain health insurance, they might stay in the schools longer and may even graduate. This would concern me more than if America loses its auto making industry. With long term implications and bleak prospects for those who fail to secure college educations. Will America stand for being a second rate nation? This is happening and for those who detest unions, this will cause hardship, which in turn social unrest, and the rebirth of the union. More or less the same logic used in the political arena as the pendulum has swung the other way just as far as it had to the right. In any case thats my thinking and welcome any thoughts. I've often enjoyed economics of any given situation. While I was burned during the dot com bust, I did see opportunity there after and exploited it. Rewarded beyond my wildest expectation. I'm looking at a rather bleak situation and many folks out there with few investment options. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 14, 2008 9:06 am) I suspect we almost all agree that we would want the US to be able to compete on a world scale and not allow anybody else to be the world class auto manufacturer. We just see different ways to achieve that. One way is protectionism and propping up industries in this country that frankly, aren't even near world-class today. Will incremental changes be enough to make the huge paradigm shift that needs to occur? Another way is to allow big pain now with the hope that we can emerge from the ashes with a new sense of strong competitiveness - we will be the BEST, we will be COMPETITIVE. To do that we need to be flexible and open-minded. Do you think incremental changes with the way the GM management has been operating and the way the UAW behaves with their work rules and 2200 page contracts are really going to provide the massive change that we need to get to that vision? It's taken 30 years since the Vega, 20 years since the Citation and Chevette, and we are not nearly there. No evidence that the current formula is working. I must say that with an outsider in charge of Ford (Mulally), there are signs that they are doing some impressive things. He has been pruning other models and brands from Ford, and the 2010 Fusion is looking very impressive based upon the Edmunds first look. I wish GM would get with it without it being forced down their throats by their own insolvency.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Dec 14, 2008 10:38 am) Fancy professional name. Who funds them and their research? Are they subject to peer review? On the flip side, all that does is try and justify giving the money to the Big 3 simply to maintain the FACADE of a manufacturing company, who will continue to make a product that no one wants to buy... Plenty of folks out their products and will continue to do so. I'll give you that they have some losers, model which are not as great as they could be. However, they have many more which are world class. The "entitlement" attitude of the average auto worker would put the average sports hero to shame...they think they can do no wrong, when they are about to be jettisoned to find out they will do nothing anymore... A person working all this overtime is just someone trying to do right by their family. Time off is the most expensive thing they can give themselves. While Madison Ave and this society bombard them with all the creature comforts which they would be better off with, they are taken in. Yeah they could cut off the cable TV, do away with cell Phones, internet service, and the many other non essentials. Then there would be less economic activity and thats by no means good in a capitalist system. You have the Big Three offering the overtime. They do it in order not to hire the additional employee. The UAW has recognized that people need time off, family time. So to discourage overtime they have a fund. $1 for each hour they work a UAW employee is put into this fund and the UAW/GM NASCAR is funded. I would consider it corporate greed/business sense in their not wanting to hire that additional employee to give the workforce relief. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 14, 2008 2:10 pm) I know it's been almost 15 years since I've been out of college, but I remember having access through the university for fairly cheap health insurance if I would have needed it. I know our current employer provided insurance will cover our kids until 24 years old. I can't see that as being a reason why people decide not to go to college. The 1944 GI Bill gave America a 40% college graduate rate. The other competing nations were 25% at most. I don't believe 40% of high school graduates went on to get a degree during the late 40's. I've read where nearly 1/2 of the WWII surviving veterans took advantage of the GI Bill, but the GI bill wasn't just for education, as it provided low cost mortgage loans etc. This is from the census bureau in 2004. Last year, 85 percent of adults age 25 and over had completed at least high school, an all-time high, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. Also in 2003, 27 percent of adults age 25 and over had a college degree, another record. census
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Dec 14, 2008 2:18 pm) Pick your poison. I would consider a BMW before any Toyota/Honda product. I'm a realist. China is subsidizing an inefficient steel industry and thereby making the more efficient producer go out of business. Thats a communist country. High level communist and their families are getting rich. They have one metric"JOBS". this assures the status quo and no uprising/social unrest. That might redistribute the wealth/income. If these multi national want access to one-fifth of the future consumers they must tolerate whatever China demands. Level that trading field. It has a slope which drops like a cliff. Competition is all and good in the text books, but this is a real world. All I see is a one way street and all manufacturing going to China. All the while corporate America/multi nationals have to suffer the unrighteous indignations and put up with them. That is if they someday want to have access to one-fifths of the future consumers of the planet. Patents, intellectual property, copy rights, and other silly western notions are violates daily. Violate as much if not more than human rights, child/prison labor, environmental crimes, and you name it. Many companies in China make product by day and knock offs by night. Why would we trade with China, by far a greater abuser of human rights than Cuba? Cuba doesn't have the one-fifth of the worlds future consumers. The population of China and India (Chindia) have one third of the futures consumers. If they tell a multi national to move a plant to the main land, they can't move it fast enough. The only thing I agree with you on is that those model were dogs. However, you have to consider the Toyota offering in the early days too. You don't even want to see their Matrix thread here on Edmund's.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Dec 14, 2008 3:17 pm) http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10877
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 13, 2008 10:06 pm) The winds of change might call for sympathy strikes. Maybe by all union and non union. Folks are reasonable as long as you treat them fair.This is the 2000's and not the 30's, 40's, or 50's.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 14, 2008 3:46 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 14, 2008 4:02 pm) There are legitimate strikes. No UAW strike in the last 10 years comes under that cover. GM has been bleeding red ink for 20 years. Every time GM comes up with a winner the UAW has tried to take advantage with a strike. Bailing out that kind of greed is criminal. Striking for parity against a company making a legitimate profit is what good Union leaders do. The UAW have leaders that need to be taken out and beat. They have destroyed the good jobs that were built over decades. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
