Political Crossfire Forums

[MplsBison]

http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=11438

How long until the UAW puts Ford, Chrysler, and GM out of business?


I guess the US will have to make due with Toyotas and Hondas.

[DSwain]

Trades unions destroyed the British car industry - I hope yours doesn't go the same way.

[Alizard]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=11438

How long until the UAW puts Ford, Chrysler, and GM out of business?


I guess the US will have to make due with Toyotas and Hondas.

The unions won't destroy them, they will just continue to send massive amounts of production to China and other countries where so many of the parts that go into our cars are built.

The carmakers will also set up assembly plants in other countries to build for the local markets there.

The unions won't break the car makers because those makers can just keep laying off workers until there are so few union workers that the union meetings are held in the last booth at the local IHOP.

[lilwolf]

Unions hurt this state real bad and several years back they were voted out and we aren't doing to bad now..

They have their good points, but very few. I say abolish them brfore they kill or auto industry. :td:

[MplsBison]

Alizard wrote:

The unions won't destroy them, they will just continue to send massive amounts of production to China and other countries where so many of the parts that go into our cars are built.

The carmakers will also set up assembly plants in other countries to build for the local markets there.

The unions won't break the car makers because those makers can just keep laying off workers until there are so few union workers that the union meetings are held in the last booth at the local IHOP.

So essentially what you're saying is that the only way they can survive is if they get rid of all their union labor.

You think the UAW will let that happen?

[Rankor and Pissing]

I know little about the auto unions. Aren't the unions also in the plants here in the U.S. for Toyota and other foreign company's or is the UAW not in them? My perception of the auto industry is that of capitalist competition - the other auto makers are making a better product, with better designs at a more competitive cost to the consumer... if the UAW is causing faults in the product while keeping the cost high, kick the unions out.

UAW is part of the Teamsters, aren't they?

[CountryGuy]

The problem is the beautiful global economy of ours. While the UAW and other unions could control US manufacturing based upon our laws defending unions, the same cannot be said outside of the US.

So, if you're company can make a car at 2/3rd's the price with twice the quality overseas, why wouldn't you?

You can't abolish unions entirely -- They are still necessary, but unfortunately are guided by 50's mantras on getting everything they can from the companies -- Because back then, the companies didn't have a choice.

These days, the unions need to work WITH companies to find a way to stay competitive, while ensuring fairness to the employees with regards to wages.

Remember... The alternative is Walmart, where it was discovered they are trying to reduce their full-time staffs again, as part-timers make less and have no benefits.

[bigstick61]

Unions aren't necessary. They promote the violation of property rights, which is one of the most fundamental rights. Ultimately, they are bad for business, and in the long run, hurt themselves. If the government didn't protect Unions this would not be a problem.

[CountryGuy]

bigstick61 wrote: Unions aren't necessary. They promote the violation of property rights, which is one of the most fundamental rights. Ultimately, they are bad for business, and in the long run, hurt themselves. If the government didn't protect Unions this would not be a problem.

Unions are necessary -- They protect the rights of workers by allowing workers to collectively bargain with employers. This in and of itself is not a problem.

If they "aren't necessary" as you say, exactly who protects the individual worker from exploitation from their employer (who, compared to an individual worker, has vastly greater resources)?

[MplsBison]

I have nothing against workers acting as a collective in order to negotiate more benefits from employers.

I have a problem with the way the government protects unions and their members.

[Kane]

Alizard wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: http://www.axcessnews.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=11438

How long until the UAW puts Ford, Chrysler, and GM out of business?


I guess the US will have to make due with Toyotas and Hondas.

The unions won't destroy them, they will just continue to send massive amounts of production to China and other countries where so many of the parts that go into our cars are built.

The carmakers will also set up assembly plants in other countries to build for the local markets there.

The unions won't break the car makers because those makers can just keep laying off workers until there are so few union workers that the union meetings are held in the last booth at the local IHOP.

We clearly lack the comparative advantage in Auto-Manufacturing given the several variables raising cost and decreasing profit. Given that I think we've now left the period of industrialization and are entering something completely new...the need to domestically insure their survival by punishing those that have done nothing but give the consumers what they want isn't all that justified in my mind.

If the company and the unions can't get it together to stay competitive in the world market...well, bye. When it all comes down to it...had GM or Ford focused on what the consumer wanted all along they wouldn't be in this mess.

[bigstick61]

The workers aren't being exploited. That's a communist myth. If they don't like their wages, they can bargain to their heart's content, learn a new skill or save money for education and learn new things so they can be more competitive, work harder, or save money so that they too can invest capital, even if only a small amount; if course, you're always free to leave and seek employment elsewhere. The free market is all about competition; if you don't do what is neccessary to get ahead, don't complain about being left behind. Many corporations started as smaller businesses, and most small business owners had to work to get the skills they needed to make the money they used to invest in the capital needed for the business and to pay the workers. From there, the business owner reaps the profits of his hard work and investment, and nobody has a right to tell him otherwise, or to tell him what to do with his money or property.

[holy_trinity]

Union labor isn’t hurting the USA auto-industry; it is America’s economic strategy and the fact that the American auto-industry keeps wheeling out inferior products. All this blaming the American worker is just propaganda put out by the pro-corporate, anti-union media and I see many of you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Whine about unions all you want but the American auto-industry is a dinosaur.
Once again, the American worker is expected to make sacrifices in their health just so money hungry CEOs can continue to afford their super yachts.

[bigstick61]

Since when is the media anti-union? That would be a first! It seems that you resent the fact that CEOs and others make alot of money. Why should they not? They invested in an education, and worked to earn capital to invest; why should they not reap what they've sewn? Investing millions in capital and managing an entire corporation should definitely yield high returns. Otherwise, most people would not bother, to the detriment of society, since there would be few jobs to be had.

[holy_trinity]

Ever since the major American media sets in the hands of only a few corporations. The major media depends on the sale of corporate advertisements to stay alive. Hence the media generally cannot run stories that offend corporations, because sponsors will threaten to pull their advertising dollars. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues.
I don’t resent CEOs but let me ask; do these CEOs make all of their products by themselves? Of course they don’t and depend upon the labor of others in order to build them. And these workers have “invested in an education, and worked to earn capital to invest; why should they not reap what they've sewn?” Of course businesses are meant to be successful…not so a handful of CEOs can feel entitled to wealth. When you start to work on the entitlement mentality you begin to see businesses fail and this is exactly what we are seeing. Auto workers, not the company itself, are being singled out for sacrifice. Lets face it; a lot of these CEOs make many times over what these workers do. If their salary were to be cut it wouldn’t effect their overall well being as opposed to cutting someone’s health care.

[Winchester]

Here's an interesting article on the auto industry.

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/who_pays_for_th.html

[bigstick61]

However, the owners have a right to do as they wish with their property. If they don't want to pay health benefits, it's their money. They rightfully should decide what to do with the profits reaped through their investments. What this comes down to is property rights. I maintain that the rights to life, liberty and property are the most important, and from where other rights originate. Most people who advocate for Unions have little to no respect to property rights. Is the worker entitled to the property of others? Absolutely not! Is the owner entitled to it? Yes, and more than that, he has a right to it. He only owes the worker what he and the worker agreed to have paid to the worker, no more, no less.

[melchizedek22]

America would never had the big middleclass without unions,but we are headed for a rich or poor society,so we might as well give more power
to money mad capitalist!

[bigstick61]

Actually, you would not be giving power to capitalists. The only power they have is by the virtue of their success, and it is mainly over their company. They are not the government. I'd rather have property rights recognized and respected than have some socialist worker's paradise, where property owners have little or no right to their property.

[MplsBison]

melchizedek22 wrote: America would never had the big middleclass without unions,but we are headed for a rich or poor society,so we might as well give more power
to money mad capitalist!

Would you rather that all the money go to the rich that live and spend in Japan or the rich that live and spend in the US?