Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 That's not how union contracts work and I think you probably know that. So the contract isn't an agreement between the Company and the union? I must be missing something here....
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
05-06-2008, 03:08 PM
| #21 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs 
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 So the contract isn't an agreement between the Company and the union?
I must be missing something here. | ||||
     |
|
05-06-2008, 03:10 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Scrum Unions have many of their plants in areas where the labor pools is small. They also have rigged the contracts in such a way that GM is slave to the unions. There are clauses in the over arching contracts that allow them to sue for laying off employees nad require substantial severence packages. The result is jobs are continually moved overseas.
The unions get the agreements they want int he short run and wind up jobless in the long run because their contracts are NOT market driven. edit: btw management at GM carries a lot of blame too...but the unions are slitting their own throats | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 03:26 PM
| #23 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Yeah it's a strange situation. The reason the UAW formed was because GM was the only major employer in alot of areas and as such, could run roughshod over the employees and they had no choice. there was no where else to work. So the unionized.. Now they have the reverse problem. Because GM is the only employer in the area, every potential employee is a member of the union or is closely related to a union member, they can't fire everyone, because there is no one else to hire. THe union formed for a legitmate reason, but now they have overplayed thier hand and will end up screwing themselves AND GM in the process. | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 03:45 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator  Democrat Omaha, NE
| IF we were to resort to simply firing everyone I would personally like to see them honor the contracts, then simply not renew them at the end of their term. Once they sign the agreement they at least should honor that agreement. | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 04:16 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Leges sine Moribus Vanae  Liberal University City, Philly and Buffalo
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 You're being disingenuous. That's exactly how it works.
The union is one side of a contractual obligation, and the plant represents the other side. They come together to negotiate wages and benefits packages. If the plant thinks they're being held hostage, GM will shut the plant down and transfer the production to a different plant somewhere else. To say that the free market involves only individual workers selling their labor as a commodity for an equilibrium wage is to drastically over-simplify the way the free market works. You know that. | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 05:01 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Ignore list is for pussies.  Realist
| Originally Posted by A_C_E I don't know the specifics of this strike but many times the problem is that the union doesn't represent the workers' best interests, it represents the union's best interests and those interests can be wildly different.
When I was at UPS there was a strike because (ultimately, short version) the union wanted more money so it pushed the workers to strike and they did. The workers were out for weeks and ended up with a quarter raise. That's shit for the worker, but that quarter per employee *and* the strike settlement payoff added up to big bucks in the union coffers. | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 05:10 PM
| #27 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by A_C_E The issue is that a contract is only a valid contract when both sides are free to accept or reject the terms. You could argue that at some point, the UAW or GM perhaps were under duress during the negotiations and felt pressure to accept terms that they did not really want. When you are faced with the prospect of the UAW shutting you down totally and blocking access to your plant with picket lines and violently going after "scabs" who try and cross the lines.. you aren't exactly in a position to accept or reject terms.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 05:38 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Not to mention you cant' simply retool a plant or move production capacity to another plant in short order. The result is you are forced to accept the a shitty deal on the contract side to resume production and recoupe sunk costs.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 07:38 PM
| #29 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 And sometimes you can't move your family to another city for better work so you are forced to take a job that doesn't pay you enough to make ends meet.
 | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 08:57 PM
| #30 | ||||
| The one and only  libertarian
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Really? Do you have any idea how many people the Big Three employ here? I seriously doubt any foreign companies could just come in and replace all our workers. There's no way. It would take years. Oh, and why haven't they this started already, if they're so eager?
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 08:59 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by wanna be drummer Ummm they have started already, honda, nissan, toyota all have substantial manufacturing facilities in the USA.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 09:09 PM
| #32 | ||||
| The one and only libertarian
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 Sorry, I meant in Michigan
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 09:52 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Leges sine Moribus Vanae Liberal University City, Philly and Buffalo
| Originally Posted by wanna be drummer Well that one's easy, Michigan has labor laws written by unions, for unions. Moving a manufacturing plant there will subject you to the same sort of conditions GM has been fighting for years.
Most production plants run by the Japanese Big Three are in Tennessee and Indiana, which are a lot more friendly to corporations than Michigan. | ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 10:00 PM
| #34 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by A_C_E Not ot mention Texas, the Carolina's and a whole host of other states that dont treat corporations like the great satan.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 10:02 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Leges sine Moribus Vanae Liberal University City, Philly and Buffalo
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 Leftward-slanted though I may be, I find labor laws written to protect Union employees in the 1940's-60's to be drastically impeding progress in once-powerful areas like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York.
| ||||
| |
|
05-06-2008, 10:05 PM
| #36 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by A_C_E Yeah you're right, they are totally impeding the forward progress of those states
 As a result its hurting the nation as a whole. | ||||
| |
|
05-07-2008, 07:31 AM
| #37 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by A_C_E It virtually guarantees that no new auto plants will be built there. All it does is economically screw the people who live there. Perhaps there is a reason that Detroit is one of the poorest and most crime ridden cities in the country.
 | ||||
| |
|
05-07-2008, 10:14 AM
| #38 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator  Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by A_C_E but if were ever to try to run as a reform candidate you get laughed out of the state.
| ||||
| |
|
05-07-2008, 11:43 AM
| #39 | ||||
| Leges sine Moribus Vanae Liberal University City, Philly and Buffalo
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor Collins won in Erie County
 It's a start  | ||||
| |
|
05-07-2008, 11:49 AM
| #40 | |||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator Republican In Name Only
|
