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)
16738 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 10:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 25, 2009 6:21 am) Absolutely, an injury to one is an injury/insult to all. My union brothers and sisters are family. There are so many union folks out there and you try to single out, the UAW, as the evil one's. We look at it as your going after all unions in the grand scheme of things to come. DD, you have to be a UAW paid infiltrator. I'm still awaiting my wages. UAW as it really is. A major cause of the current downfall of GM and Chrysler. Are we now omitting Ford? Aren't they UAW?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 24, 2009 10:52 pm) So all of these have a common factor. They are all UAW. Hence, one could, as you have done very well, single out the CEO as the major difference, between the well operated Ford and the poorly operated GM/Chrysler. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 24, 2009 5:07 pm) If these people really saved 2 years or more, they wouldn't be filing for bankruptcy or keep screaming that they're taking a hard blow due to the new wage. If these people really saved that much, why are they still declining pay cuts when it's the only way to survive? You're with UAW, while I have no clue how much you saved but making payments on 3 mortgage is no small issue. This shows that UAW workers are very generously paid. Well paid people yet at the same time most are living a life way beyond their reach. Hence when the turmoil hits them they go bankrupt right away, what happened to their savings? I'm sorry but I dont think it makes sense.
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 24, 2009 6:48 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 25, 2009 5:08 am) http://books.google.com/books?id=P84JAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=wage+at+coal+m- - ines+in+1914&source=web&ots=w8GtnswVI2&sig=SdRfeS1IaRfzm5uo4lzGICjfgvQ&hl=en&sa=- - X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA13,M1 The quote you gave showed a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The dollar value was not constant. Car prices went from $500 in 1929 to $180 in 1932. There was obvious monetary contraction going on. $4 in 1932 could buy more of most stuff than $7 in 1929 . . . just like a gallon of gasoline cost more than $4 a year ago, but only $1.70 now. Because of this kind of monetary fluctuation, wages have to fluctuate with it, or jobs get eliminated because companies can't afford to pay the old bubble peak wages due to consumers unwilling to pay the old bubble peak prices. Inability to adjust prices down quickly enough is the reason why there is massive unemployment at economic down turns. Unions exacerbate the problem by insisting on labor price inflexibility.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 25, 2009 6:41 am) |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 24, 2009 5:13 pm) MIT. In any case, glad you read up on what Gresham's Law is. Don't you see the analogous situation in labor pricing? If we arbitrarily command (by fiat) that all workers shoud be paid the same regardless the productivity of each, the "good ones" who are worth more will exit the system, and the "bad ones" who are worth less than the command price will have an incentive to stay. In any case, gold standard or any standard is not pre-requisite for Gresham's Law. GL applies any time there is a discrepancy between command value vs. intrinsic value. The pre-1965 90% and pre-1971 40% silver coins have disappeared from the circulation, so have the pre-1982 copper pennies in recent years. Ironicly, this current monetary contraction is so severe that the pre-1982 copper penny's metal value is falling below the command value again in the last few weeks, for the first time in over a decade. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 25, 2009 6:56 am) That is a lot of bunk. If that was the case you would not have NLRB elections were 2 or more unions compete for the same workers. I happen to be a victim of just that kind of brotherhood. I signed an IBEW card in 1970. I ended up a Teamster as they slid in and wined and dined enough telco operators to steal the election from the IBEW. I then got involved in the Teamsters and watched the Operating engineers weasel into the Teamster's territory and they both ended up losing the NLRB election. Your simplistic view of Union labor is laughable. After you are affiliated with 3 different Unions over 46 years, get back to me with your Utopian view of Union brotherhood. Why is the UAW into aircraft industry. There are several related Unions representing different aspects of the industry. It is because the UAW is like an octopus, stealing workers anywhere they can. Which Union did the UAW crush to get the black jack dealers in Las Vegas? Are we now omitting Ford? Aren't they UAW? I will include them when Ford begs for my tax dollars as the GM & Chrysler along with the UAW. Congress is not worried about the domestic auto industry. They are weighing the value of supporting the UAW. Quite frankly your 400k votes are meaningless. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 25, 2009 6:41 am) Its called the American dream" Dallas, in case you didn't notice it's impossible to become reality, that's why it's called a DREAM. "Envy is what the corporate owned media is counting on. They seek to foster public opinion in order to bring in their agenda. If you get yourself a union and quit worrying about what others are getting, you would be ahead. " It's the total opposite. Envy is what UAW is counting on to make strikes and demand more. They'll never quit envying what others are making. If one gets into the union and quit worrying about what others make then it'll be the end of competition, the end if improvement, which will result in the end of rising quality. They'll never be ahead. I sure as hell don't want such incompetence in US.
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 24, 2009 5:07 pm) You have been arguing that unions give workers higher wage, haven't you? Then how come they haven't saved a year's cost of living or more after decades under "UAW protection"? "Two years" is part of "a year's cost of living or more." Do I have to explain what "or more" means? Do I have to remind you that you were the one saying we only need to look at one year, when it was asked whether you were so pessimistic about UAW member's employability that they might stay unemployed for the rest of their lives.
|
|
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
