GM Strike

goducks10 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
My Dad used to work for a utility company and I remember him telling me about when he attended a training course for a day in Houston and during a morning break the men went to a break room. When entering the room he was told the non union break room was down the hall. What he noticed in the union break room was a table full of pastries, Houston Chronicle news papers at every table, juice, bottle water and soda on ice and coffee dispensers full of coffee. When he entered the non union break room there was a coffee maker which they made coffee themselves and a vending machine.

So and your point is?

Looks top me like being a union member is more enjoyable.

Yes, you pay dues, and get a stale donut and a pack of Lance crackers lol.

FishOnOne wrote:
My Dad used to work for a utility company and I remember him telling me about when he attended a training course for a day in Houston and during a morning break the men went to a break room. When entering the room he was told the non union break room was down the hall. What he noticed in the union break room was a table full of pastries, Houston Chronicle news papers at every table, juice, bottle water and soda on ice and coffee dispensers full of coffee. When he entered the non union break room there was a coffee maker which they made coffee themselves and a vending machine.

So and your point is?

Looks top me like being a union member is more enjoyable.

JRscooby wrote:


Unions do spend a lot of money to rent politicians. But the amount shrinks a lot when you compare to the amount spent by corporations.

This is false. At least in this case with GM versus UAW. The UAW spends considerably more on politicians and lobbying than GM. In fact, they spend a little more than GM, Ford, and FCA combined most years. I thought the same as you because that is what a union pamphlet told me, but found it to be false when I verified it.

JRscooby wrote:
One of the things one party wants to do is pass the "right to freeload" laws that require the unions to represent all workers, even if the workers do not pay dues. If a worker must have the protections without paying, this will reduce the amount of donations to the other party. The only solution I can see is some kind of public finance of campaigns.

There is no law stating that the union has to represent the non-union member in Texas according to Texas Labor Code 101.001. I would check to verify this in other states if you were told that by your union. I am not saying your union is purposely lying to you. I am just saying the unions that I have dealt with have in order to increase membership and profits.

My early years were in a union. Later, as a supplier rep to the auto industry, I saw first-hand how the union folks and management worked together. (much friction) Even now, the automakers have a hard time making timely improvement decisions because of union worker fear of losing jobs, or just plain obstinacy. I don't believe it was a good decision to bail out the automakers. (Ford received no bail out)
Had they gone through bankruptcy like any normal failing business, they could have restructured as more efficient organizations.

"I agree to most of this. OTOH, Capitalism with no controls we mean that only a few can own any of the means of production. For the workers that produce to get a share of the production, we need either government regulation, or unity between the workers."

I agree that some government regulation is needed. Since unions started up we not have OSHA, the EPA the Fair Wage and Hour board and numerous other government agencies to protect us. I will also argue that the main weakness in the protection that they offer is with the salaried exempt employees. I have seen and experienced cases of the hourly people taking home more money then their supervisors that are working he same hours. Many of the "oppressed workers" have very poor financial skills and would rather immediate gratification than participation in the 401K program where the company matched all contributions. I had an 18 year old employee make $15/hr go out and buy a brand new loaded pickup and then spend another $6,000 having it customized. He didn't realize that he didn't actually owned the truck. The truck and the bank owned him. I was driving a 25 year old Impala and was quite happy with it and the returns on my 401K.

I have been through several union drives in the factories where I worked. The unions have so much protection that for the most part we weren't even allowed to call out the blatant lies that the union organizers told. Most of the people supporting the union were the ones needed to be fired long before the drive started. The hostility that the organizers were trying to create was obvious and I made up my mind that if the plant I worked in ever went union I would quit. The plant never did go union but the work still went overseas due to foreign competition that appeared to me to be unfair. I believe that it would have gone much sooner if the union had been voted in.

What the government and the unions are supposed to do is create a healthy workplace environment where workers can thrive and make a decent wage. To me the economy as whole has been neglected or even attacked by both until recently. Somehow many people convinced themselves that we don't need manufacturing in this country when that is actually what creates the wealth that we all seek.

There is merit to free trade. The idea is that each group of people do what they do efficiently and trade with people that do something else more efficiently. The problem is that it has become very one sided. What I would like to see is an emphasis but on reducing trade deficits. I think that the best technique is that every importer be required to report their deficit and pay a tax on it with the tax rate adjusted frequently until a near balance is achieved. An additional tariff should be created for IP theft.

free radical wrote:

Bert Ackerman wrote:
I think Mary Barra is hot.

Maybe so,too bad she has NO clue what kind of cars are popular and what people want

Send GM your resume, maybe you can be her replacement?

I don't think she is getting @ 20 million a year in salary, stocks and options, and bonuses by NOT having a clue, but stranger things have happened.

Lantley wrote:


I have no dog in this fight. But the amount of money that unions spend politically, generally to one party, is staggering. tens of millions,
There is something terribly wrong with the system if the unions are donating huge sums of money to causes its members do not support.


Unions do spend a lot of money to rent politicians. But the amount shrinks a lot when you compare to the amount spent by corporations. One of the things one party wants to do is pass the "right to freeload" laws that require the unions to represent all workers, even if the workers do not pay dues. If a worker must have the protections without paying, this will reduce the amount of donations to the other party. The only solution I can see is some kind of public finance of campaigns.

Besides the need for term limits, all this spending just corrupts are political process and overshadows the desires of the people.
Ultimately you get as many votes as you can afford....which is not the way our voting system was designed to work.

Reisender wrote:

free radical wrote:

Bert Ackerman wrote:
I think Mary Barra is hot.

Maybe so,too bad she has NO clue what kind of cars are popular and what people want

For example can anyone say this concept rear wheel drive Buick wouldnt sell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_Avista

Why not make beautiful cars like that?

Definetly a nice looking car. Give customers the option of a pure electric drive train and hit an emerging market.

Cost of developing new cars is huge and it is based upon the Cadillac and Camaro design which means that the market is too small to support a third vehicle unless the Camaro or Cadillac was dropped.

ShinerBock wrote:


How does it help US jobs of we have open borders for workers from foreign countries, more free trade agreements, and lower tariffs on countries we already have huge trade discrepancies with?

Trying not to point this that party. I think the country needs a Labor party.
Try to look another way. If you read all of the "free trade agreements" the purpose is to allow open borders for capital.
If worker rights where protected as well as capital rights, I think they could be a good thing. Under most of the agreements, the best place to build a factory would be on a barge. First time a worker asked for another dime, move the factory to another country.

Lantley wrote:

I have no dog in this fight. But the amount of money that unions spend politically, generally to one party, is staggering. tens of millions,
There is something terribly wrong with the system if the unions are donating huge sums of money to causes its members do not support.

Unions do spend a lot of money to rent politicians. But the amount shrinks a lot when you compare to the amount spent by corporations. One of the things one party wants to do is pass the "right to freeload" laws that require the unions to represent all workers, even if the workers do not pay dues. If a worker must have the protections without paying, this will reduce the amount of donations to the other party. The only solution I can see is some kind of public finance of campaigns.

ShinerBock wrote:

1. None of that answered my question about how it help US jobs if we have open borders for workers from foreign countries, more free trade agreements, and lower tariffs on countries we already have huge trade discrepancies with? Sometimes people are focused on short term entitlement promises that they lose sight of the long term.

I tried to address earlier. Which entitlement are you referring to?

2. I understand that you are influenced by union propaganda. I was too at one point. But some of what they say is not reality. Some of it is scare tactics to keep the "us versus them" status quo which keeps them relevant. They have to create this false fear that the company and politicians are out to get you and they are your only savior to keep them in business and profitable. If much of these scare tactics were true, then you would see it in states and factories that do not have a union.

Well I first heard most of this paragraph in the anti-union meetings when a factory was trying to organize, back when I was in my teens. I had to deliver to both ends of a bridge being built over a state border river. Compering just the parking lots, a lot fewer newer pickups on the "right to freeload" state.

I am not saying that there are not bad companies out there. There are good in bad with everything as I said earlier. Companies, government, political parties, and even unions have their bad apples . There is also good in all those things so this notion the union propagates that all companies and politicians on the opposite side are bad and out to get you while only the union and politicians on their favorite are the good ones here to protect you is just pure poffy ****. The facts just do not support this, and I have been on both sides of the card and both sides of the collar.

I agree to most of this. OTOH, Capitalism with no controls we mean that only a few can own any of the means of production. For the workers that produce to get a share of the production, we need either government regulation, or unity between the workers.

FishOnOne wrote:
My Dad used to work for a utility company and I remember him telling me about when he attended a training course for a day in Houston and during a morning break the men went to a break room. When entering the room he was told the non union break room was down the hall. What he noticed in the union break room was a table full of pastries, Houston Chronicle news papers at every table, juice, bottle water and soda on ice and coffee dispensers full of coffee. When he entered the non union break room there was a coffee maker which they made coffee themselves and a vending machine.

I can understand that. With the non-union group, who was in charge of the break refreshments? And paid for them? Should the non-union workers be allowed to free-load?