GM Strike

shiner 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.

My replies are toward the thread about GM unions and unions in general as far as the employee goes. However your interpretation of unions and their political supporters and how the system is working for them is a bit exaggerated.
Nothing short sighted about company/union agreements.

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.

LOL...wrong again with more exaggerations.
Lets flip this . I see your influnced by company and their political party machines.
Us vs them scare tactics is real and is working for unions and companies alike and very alive in the non union shops I've worked in.

People are biased from what they read or hear mostly from their political ties and shows in their comments about unions in general (pro or con).
Just like politics I'm not going to change your or anyones mind.... on the GM union contract thread in general...and no one is going to change mine.

JRscooby wrote:


You are comparing one union to companies in one industry. Look up the numbers for all corporations vs all unions. Lobbying to say get a judge on the court that thinks a driver should die in a broke down truck, and be fired if he gets a ride to safety, might help a auto company when a worker gets hurt.

ShinerBock wrote:
I have before and in most cases it is the same. Have you? If not, then how can you claim this if you haven't verified it? All I am saying is verify it for yourself because in my experience, a union will lie to you to gain more profits/membership. Not saying that all do or that everything they say is a lie. I am just saying that there are those that do and it is best to verify.

Well, you seam to think I get my info from unions. As a matter of fact, any time a politician is asking for my vote, I look at his donor list. If he is telling me something, check the list. If I see a ad paid for by dark money, I use logic, and the politician's donor list to make a guess about how well that politician will represent me. And when I have a question about the stance my rep is taking, I will ask them for a explanation. What's more, I write down what I need to remember for the next election.

JRscooby wrote:
Well, I have not looked in Texas. But I have studied a little in Ks, (enough to know what I would have to do if I put a driver in my truck in that state) I read repeatedly the law the people of Mo would not let our legislature put in force. I have read the proposed law circulated by ALEC. In every one, if a company has a contract with a union, all employees get paid the rate of the contract. And if there is a dispute worker/management, the union must represent the worker, even if the worker has decided not to pay dues. This is why I always refer to what is sold as "Right to Work" laws as "Right to Freeload"

Well I refer to the non-right to work laws and "forced to pay for something that you don't believe in especially if the money is going to politicians who do not share your values and actually works against them". Shouldn't it be the workers choice or do people not have that freedom to choose what clubs they want to join?

Can you name the union where the rank and file members do not vote to decide who will represent them when it comes times to decide how to spend the money?

Although, in my case and in other instances. I never wanted union help in any of my disputes so I was not "freeloading" anything. Whether the union was forced to by contract or law is a whole other story and discussion, but not the fault of the person who chooses not to join. I and many others who I knew that chose not to join unions would be more than happy to kick the union out of our business and disputes because in many cases it is them that is trying to get you fired for not being in their club, not the management. Maybe this is the whole reason why they are involved and are just telling members it is a law to make them angry.

Bet you only cashed 2 out of 3 paychecks too.

On the macro level, before unions where widespread, maybe the church insisted business close on Sunday, but work 6 days a week was normal, and the best your kids could hope for was a job as "good" as yours. Then there was I time when a man could work 40 hours, and have money and time to enjoy something like a camping trip. After about 30 years of class warfare, we are again to the point when it is very hard for a family to get time off all the jobs needed to spend a weekend camping. But I got mine, you are on your own.

The politicians that the union supports aren't for the American Worker. They scratch the backs of the union bosses and the union bosses donate to their political campaigns. The worker is there to support both of them with their dues.

The retirees of the company that I worked for just got what little retiree benefits we had taken away from us by the company. UAW International has said that they won't help us. My two brothers worked for a company for over 40 years each when they shut down. They were owed a huge severance package but never received it. Their union refused to help them. If you ain't paying dues you are left to fend for yourself.

JRscooby wrote:


You are comparing one union to companies in one industry. Look up the numbers for all corporations vs all unions. Lobbying to say get a judge on the court that thinks a driver should die in a broke down truck, and be fired if he gets a ride to safety, might help a auto company when a worker gets hurt.

I have before and in most cases it is the same. Have you? If not, then how can you claim this if you haven't verified it? All I am saying is verify it for yourself because in my experience, a union will lie to you to gain more profits/membership. Not saying that all do or that everything they say is a lie. I am just saying that there are those that do and it is best to verify.

JRscooby wrote:
Well, I have not looked in Texas. But I have studied a little in Ks, (enough to know what I would have to do if I put a driver in my truck in that state) I read repeatedly the law the people of Mo would not let our legislature put in force. I have read the proposed law circulated by ALEC. In every one, if a company has a contract with a union, all employees get paid the rate of the contract. And if there is a dispute worker/management, the union must represent the worker, even if the worker has decided not to pay dues. This is why I always refer to what is sold as "Right to Work" laws as "Right to Freeload"

Well I refer to the non-right to work laws and "forced to pay for something that you don't believe in especially if the money is going to politicians who do not share your values and actually works against them". Shouldn't it be the workers choice or do people not have that freedom to choose what clubs they want to join?

Although, in my case and in other instances. I never wanted union help in any of my disputes so I was not "freeloading" anything. Whether the union was forced to by contract or law is a whole other story and discussion, but not the fault of the person who chooses not to join. I and many others who I knew that chose not to join unions would be more than happy to kick the union out of our business and disputes because in many cases it is them that is trying to get you fired for not being in their club, not the management. Maybe this is the whole reason why they are involved and are just telling members it is a law to make them angry.

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.

ShinerBock wrote:
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.

You are comparing one union to companies in one industry. Look up the numbers for all corporations vs all unions. Lobbying to say get a judge on the court that thinks a driver should die in a broke down truck, and be fired if he gets a ride to safety, might help a auto company when a worker gets hurt.

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.

Well, I have not looked in Texas. But I have studied a little in Ks, (enough to know what I would have to do if I put a driver in my truck in that state) I read repeatedly the law the people of Mo would not let our legislature put in force. I have read the proposed law circulated by ALEC. In every one, if a company has a contract with a union, all employees get paid the rate of the contract. And if there is a dispute worker/management, the union must represent the worker, even if the worker has decided not to pay dues. This is why I always refer to what is sold as "Right to Work" laws as "Right to Freeload"
BTW, when I heard Mo had passed the law, I was bouncing union haul to union hall to get copies of the petition and collected signatures to get it on the ballot to have the law repealed. And after the law was repealed by a big majority of voters, next legislative session one of the donkeys introduced it again. Why did we stop the tar and feathers?

time2roll wrote:

JRscooby 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.

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?

So did the Union actually pay for those pastries or did they bully the training camp to provide if the union sent enough people? Did the training camp give a union discount on the classes on top of providing snacks? We will never know.

Another aspect is if it was at a hotel conference room. Most hotel conferences I have booked come with those kind of things as a part of the package. This kind of stuff is generally supplied at all training seminar's I have been to that lasted a day. If this were the case, then the union guys would be dicks for not sharing something that was free.

JRscooby 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.

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?

So did the Union actually pay for those pastries or did they bully the training camp to provide if the union sent enough people? Did the training camp give a union discount on the classes on top of providing snacks? We will never know.

Groover wrote:


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.

You are right, in theory OSHA, and Fair Wage and Hour board should replace unions, but in way to many cases the agencies are controlled buy the industries they should regulate. Most of my life I have worked in construction. Unless federal money is involved in the finance of the project, wage and hour will only get involved if not paying overtime or minimum wage. (I called once when I worked a month, and was paid for a week.)
OSHA? What percentage of safety issues do they investigate if nobody dies yet? Example. Hey this company wants me in a hole with no shoring. OSHA "Do you still work there?" No, I don't want to die. Report goes to file labeled "Un-happy ex-employee" may get pulled when somebody dies. But if "Yes, but I'm afraid for my life" (OT, but if blue shoot to kill) then the under-funded under-staffed agency will send somebody out to investigate, when they get caught up with all the bodies. (This was explained to me in a class required by OSHA I had to take to work my trucks on a project)
Now if a union shop is digging the hole, when the operator is shown what to dig, if a plan and the shoring is not in place, the steward and supervisor get together, and work out how to do the job safe as possible.
(One job, company wanted trucks to run a edge of a hole. First day, supervisor told half dozen OOs what to do. We showed him tailgates. Next day Union drivers in company trucks. They argued until they had 4 hours in, went home. 3rd day, company trucks from across state line, "right to freeload" state. Second hour of work, a truck totaled)

I have seen and experienced cases of the hourly people taking home more money then their supervisors that are working he same hours.

Your point? Most jobs, the people doing the work know more about the work than the supervisors.

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.

This is a issue. But to often workers have been promised "You work for this money for this many years, and we will pay this much for the rest of you life" then been told "Sorry, where broke" when they retire.
And you brag about the returns from 401. Many that where happy until they found the value drop like a stone when they needed it. And it can happen again. Most do not have the power to run the stock market up and down at will. (Will we ever know what he made doing that?)

Charlie D. wrote:

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.

Could be. I know little about car manufacturing. However, other companies are getting into the EV market pretty seriously. GM should consider actually bringing models to market if they want to stay in the game. At this point they couldn’t even get Bolt production to 30,000 units per year, and it is primarily outsourced to Korean companies and assembled here. Just saying they should consider getting a little more aggressive in this area if they are going to compete with VW etc in the future.

Jmho.

Bert Ackerman wrote:

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.

Generally it is a more effective recruitment exercise to welcome non-members and politely share the benefits of membership.