1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Unions in Debt

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jun 10, 2009.

  1. Freedom

    Freedom New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I don't believe that at all. Unions filled a need in the past. There were unsafe working conditions and management took advantage of workers. Now unions only serve to secure unwarranted benefits and inflated wages for their members. Unions are making America uncompetitive in the world market. When union members think they DESERVE better medical benefits than management or professionals and guaranteed employment, they've overstepped their bounds.
     
  2. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some of vote for individuals but others clearly vote strait party lines.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Holy smoke....me & Freedom agree.

    :eek:

    :D
     
  4. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Long run advantage of a pro-labor state

    The long run advantage of working in a unionized state comes at retirement time. If a working class person works 30 years in a unionized state where pay and real estate is 50%-100% higher than in a scab state he is in a much better financial condition when he retires. (Under normal conditions) He can sell his 4 bedroom place for say $400K, move to a sunny scab state, get a 100K condo and put his $300 cash in some sort of annuity and add that to his SS and other savings. He can then sit on his butt and spend about the same every month as his working neighbor.
     
  5. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love it...

    As usual, the union apologist ignores the problems unions cause, and attempts to blame non-union folks for the problems modern unions create.

    The part you have wrong...quite a few union folks "sit on their butts" long before retirement...and get paid for it.

    Don't worry...we don't expect your acknowledgement of such.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    A number of fundamental problems, not the last of which is that we are seeing what happens in this scenario. That 50%-100% higher real estate is a fraud. Ask me how I know? I live in Michigan where high paying union jobs drove up housing prices and now you can't give them away. I have friends who can't make their payments and can't sell their house. They are bankrupt because of the greed of the unions. All around them live people who worked for unions who overbid for houses, got them, and now they can't make their payments either. Those high paying union jobs ultimately cost high paying union jobs because they couldn't be sustained. Now, the housing market is in shambles, the tax base is gone.

    Where can you buy 100K condo? In a non-union state. Those housing prices would exist in union states if they weren't unionized.

    And most union retirees don't have 300K in cash. They have a pension that is in jeopardy and will probably ultimately be paid by you and me, the tax payer.

    Higher wages sound good, until you realize that higher wages require higher cost of living, and the increase in wage is eaten up by the increase in cost.

    So Bill, you sunny union scenario just doesn't work. It is part of the problem that got us here.
     
  7. Freedom

    Freedom New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should union non-management employees get better benefits and guaranteed jobs while their management or professional counterparts with college degrees suffer? No way Jose.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >Why should union non-management employees get better benefits and guaranteed jobs while their management or professional counterparts with college degrees suffer?

    Because BA/BS degrees have become dime a dozen and only demonstrate that the person was qualified to graduate from . . . high school. A semi-relative just got a job with a large semi-govt agency as a steel buyer because they had a masters in something that had NOTHING to do with business, buying, or steel. All I can think is that the master's was required to weed out all the people with meaningless BA/BS degrees who should never have graduated from high school.

    Another 10 years and one will need a "degree" in "recycling science" to drive a garbage truck. Grade inflation had become degree inflation.

    The genuine worker shortage is in the skilled trades, machinists, mechanics, electricians . . . . Last I saw the utilities around here were crying for people who could work with high voltage, Starting pay around $25/hour?

    Me, I have a great gumment pension. Thanks, Washington State tax payers.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree except I don't think it has anything to do with college degrees. It has to do with productivity. The union protects deadbeats, lazy people, and underachievers. There is no shield in management, or in non-union employees. People should be paid based on merit, not based on union dues.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    You didn't name one problem unions cause.

    Also remember, no union ever had one benefit management didn't agree to. Labor organizing is a right. I can agree some of the benefits are a waste like paying laid off workers 96% of their pay but you have to also blame the nut in management who agreed.
     
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    How did high paying union jobs cause all those problems? For years it was a working arrangement. However, as the economy began to tank it was managements job to downsize the company to match revenue's. This could include negotiating benefits back from the workers.

    Look you guys, UAW is in Ford like it's in GM and Chrysler. Ford didn't need a bailout and they didn't file bankruptcy (not yet). So to totally blame the union for all the problems is wrong.
     
  12. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was an "arrangement" that was destined to fail. The question was when. Ignoring that fact ignores basic economics.

    Ford isn't out of the woods. But non-union shops are healthier companies. Once again...ignore it if you wish; but that doesn't change that all the companies that the UAW are involved with are in trouble.


    You're serious? Not ONE problem? Well..here you go: Union costs add roughly $2K to the cost of "union shop" cars.

    Here's a graph of how much unions add to the cost of a car:

    http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/wm2135_chart1.gif

    Education unions: We currently have an Alabama teacher, guilty of having s_x with a 14 year-old (she is 56 (!)); she has been convicted, yet she receives pension and salary until her ridiculous union appeals (which will take years) are exhausted.

    http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=10463704

    I could go on, but you either get my point, or you will ignore it.

    True...however, Obama wants to change these rules too...and revoke "secret ballot" voting for unions. This will allow open intimidation. Trust me, that happens. I had the slashed tires and the threats to prove it.
     
  13. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >True...however, Obama wants to change these rules too...and revoke "secret ballot" voting for unions.

    Secret ballots work when every voter is in the same room. There has never been a secret ballot of tens of thousands that can't be fixed. Don't be afraid to put your money where your mouth is.
     
  14. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd be quite afraid, actually. I've had my tires slashed and been physically threatened by those wonderful "union" folks.

    Such paragons of virtue, they are. Disagree with them, and they'll ruin your stuff, and mess you up...

    Of course, I doubt that matters to you, as long as your precious unions get their "dues"...
     
  15. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is a weak argument since labor began organizing back in the eighteenth century. You saying it was destined to fail but it took all these years?

    Healthier is a relative term that is fragile in and of itself. Also, as I said before, the total trouble with the US auto industry can't be solely blamed on UAW. You have to give some of the credit to management who not only agreed to the demands but also failed to adjust the companies as revenue began to decline. GM and Chrysler should have closed dealerships and factories long before now.

    A graph from the conservative post is sure to be non-biased. One thing about the numbers the conservatives keep throwing out, those benefit dollar amounts you see include the cost of providing benefits to retiree's, disabled etc...Those are very deceptive numbers. The graph just as clearly demonstrates managements failure to reduce UAW benefits as revenue's began to fall.

    Imagine this, imagine if the UAW had the workers out on strike for more benefits when the collapse of the industry took place. Management missed a big opportunity to cut union cost as the industry began to fail but again you can defend them and put all the blame on the union workers???

    Again, who agreed to this ridiculous condition? I agree with you, a teacher fired for any reason should loose all benefits but if no one agreed they would not have this benefit. Negotiation are a two way street.

    You are giving this legislation far more power than it has. A minority of workers can't force the majority to unionize against their will. If the minority is slashing tires and intimidating, it is for the majority to stand up to them. As you stated, those things happened to you WITH the secret ballot so not sure what you expect this legislation to change???

    Secondly, the workers still have the choice to choose secret ballot if they desire. I would also suggest anyone not wanting a union not to sign a card. Why would you sign a card then later vote against the union?

    I personally think unions have made themselves extinct because they are not vested stakeholders in the company. I believe management should put productivity benchmarks in the agreement then let the union deal with unproductive employee's. I also think unions should get a percentage of the profits and let them divie out benefits as they see fit.

    However management is equally not without fault when they get million dollar bonuses from these same failed companies. How do you earn a bonus from a company that is failing? Answer... The bonus criteria was not tied to company success.

    Again, you're blaming just one side when both are at fault.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Highly paid workers could afford to pay more for smaller houses. And they bid against other highly paid workers, and the net result was the driving up of real estate prices. What people don't realize is that real estate is a market driven price. A house is worth only what someone will pay for it, and a house is worth everything someone will pay for it. As a seller, if I have a guy bidding 110,000 and one bidding 120,000 I will take the 120,000 not because the house is worth it, but because the market will bear it. In an economy where the wages are less, the same two guys are bidding 70,000 and 75,000. High wages drive up prices because it increases the amount people can pay.

    They couldn't though because the unions would threaten to shut down the plant. The unions had too much power. The company couldn't impose a unilateral cut, which is what they needed to be able to do. They couldn't lay off people because of hte jobs bank.

    Ford took out loans prior to the crash, so they are in a better position for now, but they have been in a very bad position for a lot of years with declining market share. Long term, they need concessions from the union as well. They are asking for the no-strike guarantee.
     
  17. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, LeBuick...since management was stupid, you absolve unions of all responsibility?

    You don't seem to want to hold them to any standard of accountability.

    You also are completely ignoring the difference between the "Big 3" and all other manufacturers. I showed you a graph, but since you didn't approve of the source, you ignored it. Fact is, GM/Chrysler/Ford put out a substandard product compared to most other manufacturers...and they don't manage to do it for less $$. Now...what is the difference between the two groups of entities? The UAW. Play ignorant if you want...the facts are clear.

    Read Consumer Reports, and tell me how many GM, Ford, and Chrysler cars are recommended vs. Honda, Hyndai, Nissan, Toyota, and others...
     
  18. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    There were more than just union workers competing for those houses. AND, if it were just the union workers competing for the houses in that market then they were only hurting themselves. Other people had other places to buy a house.

    Sorta... Allowing the workers to close the factories and go on strike may have been wise. They were producing more cars than were being bought so management equally had bargaining chips. Management also had the economy on their side, who would be sympathetic to the UAW when 500K per month were loosing their jobs and many other jobs were being off shored? Management could have negotiated the job banks off the contract in order to save other workers from the ax.

    Management blew it... and the UAW was greedy...

    Exactly my point, Ford is negotiating with the union with the understanding that the union gives concessions or Ford will walk the steps of GM and Chrysler. Ford also closed dealerships and closed factories to deal with their declining market share. Ford clearly had better management.

    Let's call a spade a spade, the guy at GM had 30 days to present a plan where the company could be viable. The world was open. He and his staff clearly couldn't do it because what they came back with was not close to being viable. I hated to see Obama have to fire him but it was far worse to the tax payers and the economy than to leave that joke at the helm...
     
  19. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0

    While we are identifying garden implements (or suits of cards), let's also piont out that until this administration, there existed an entity known as "private enterprise." How quaint.

    But hey, I'm sure Obama knows best. Can we trust him? "Yes, we can!"

    :tonofbricks:
     
  20. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    No Sir, unions are greedy. But unions can only get with management gives.

    What I hate to see is workers getting minimum pay while the executives get fully paid benefits and million dollar bonuses. They can be equally as greedy and the looser is the investor.

    I didn't ignore you graph but I did explain part of what you were seeing. You also fail to mention how the states in the south have helped the Japanese with large incentives. As you may know, Detroit is broke and the big 3 are more nationwide to include Canada.

    I am not denying the American auto industry cut quality to try and turn a competitive profit. You are totally right. However, the union workers are not the only fat on the big 3. You can bet the union workers don't get one benefit that management doesn't get equally or better. The UAW doesn't get bonuses either.

    Secondly, management agreed to every benefit the UAW has.... Why do you keep leaving that out?

    The American philosophy of running a business makes it automatically less profitable than the Japanese. In Japan, your salary is the compensation for the work you do. Bonus, it had better be tied to huge profits and not to attract some dude like the old CEO of GM. Executive travel and perks??? No where near like the US.

    I am the one who don't know why we compensate our executives so much to run companies so inefficiently. There is something wrong when a company needs money from the government to stay in business but owes someone a bonus.
     
Loading...