Liberal Supermajority

Whatever union lover, next your going to tell me that any kid that shows up to an athletic event should get a trophy just for trying. Yeah that's a good way to teach work ethic, and pamper the lazy. I would love to see an union employee try to work in a non-union factory, the key word there is "work," you won't find that in any union dictionary. Then you will follow up with the education system needs to eliminate physical education just because little Johnny or little Suzy may not be as good as others and their feelings may be hurt...

Ignorance combined with a healthly dose of utter nonsense. Lovely concoction . . .

Before busting 8588s chops you probably should've done a little more homework. He is much closer to being correct on this point than you. While the worldwide sales and employee numbers are the same you forgot the most important number....I know this is hard for a lefty to comprehend....profits. GM = - $2B, Toyota = + $ 13B.

You should also read this article from AutoObserver/Edmunds, a non-politcal source:


Imagine that, a company from a socialist country having (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20050401/FREE/504010702) the upper hand. Hopefully the democrats will be able to duplicate their (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_%28Japan%29) success politically, socially, and commercially (without the mistakes of course ;)).

GM has 5 billion a year committed to health care for current employees and 47 billion in future obligations to retirees (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/business/economy/17auto.html). If only unions would allow GM to terminate these health benefits GM would be in much better shape. As for 8588's posts, they're nothing more than dickish rants. There's nothing correct about calling them under-worked and overpaid.



So, Toyota's No. 1. What Now GM? - Auto Observer (http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/04/so-toyotas-no-1-what-now-gm.html)

The article mentions exactly what 8588 is talking about. From the article:
North America: GM’s Challenge
Still, North America is GM’s home base, and the carmaker has its work cut out for it here.
It’s still got too many employees -– both salaried and hourly –- in its ranks. Clearly, GM needs a favorable contract with the UAW this fall and could use some help on health care issues, as the entire country could.
But it’s also got bloated ranks of salaried employees, many of the complacent and adding no value; in fact, they may well be hindering value. Only yesterday, hours after the “Toyota surpasses GM” announcement, I sat at a high school sporting event with a GM employee. He was telling me about co-workers just putting in their time until they were offered a buyout or were due for retirement. One, that very afternoon, was seeking out a quiet spot for an afternoon siesta, he told me. GM, get rid of them!

I don't have any experience in the auto industry, but I have extensive experience in the telecom/networking industry and I can tell you with 100% certainty, whenever I was pricing a project that involved union workers I knew my cost would be significantly higher, the rules/regs would be much more difficult to navigate, and the customer would ultimately be at the mercy of the "union rules". I always avoided using union labor after a couple of bad experiences.

Were the unions a good thing back in the first half of the 1900s, absolutely. Today the free market is the best way to determine wages and pricing. That's why a vast majority of US workers are non-union, and companies cannot be competitive with union workers. You and the left may not like it, but that's reality.

I don't even know what that means. There are plenty of non-union shops where people hold similar sentiment and I am sure you would take a buyout from a sinking ship as well. Don't confuse human nature with nurture.

Ignorance combined with a healthly dose of utter nonsense. Lovely concoction . . .

Say what you want the point is America is getting to "SOFT"...

Imagine that, a company from a socialist country having (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20050401/FREE/504010702) the upper hand. Hopefully the democrats will be able to duplicate their (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_%28Japan%29) success politically, socially, and commercially (without the mistakes of course ;)).

GM has 5 billion a year committed to health care for current employees and 47 billion in future obligations to retirees (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/business/economy/17auto.html). If only unions would allow GM to terminate these health benefits GM would be in much better shape. As for 8588's posts, they're nothing more than dickish rants. There's nothing correct about calling them under-worked and overpaid.



I don't even know what that means. There are plenty of non-union shops where people hold similar sentiment and I am sure you would take a buyout from a sinking ship as well. Don't confuse human nature with nurture.
So now your getting your facts from Auto Weekly and last month it was YouTube. I'm guessing next month will be SNL. LOL

So now your getting your facts from Auto Weekly and last month it was YouTube. I'm guessing next month will be SNL. LOL

It is certainly better than simply saying "I hear that [...]"

Let's not forget, unions usually provide safer working environments and better trained workers.

8588, if you dont mind, what kind of work are you in?

My statement is FUD??? Did you just watch Sicko or are you just following the socialized medicine talking points?

Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12667987)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

Evidence from countires with socialized medicine show higher mortality rates than the U.S. for cancer and significantly longer wait times for treatments. Do some research and don't drink the Obam-Aid.
Yes, FUD. Our current system does not work:
NEJM -- The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United States (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/26/2635)

Your response is typical of the "I'm in the pocket of a lobbyist" movement attempting to stifle true healthcare reform that is good for everyone - "I can't really refute the facts or the polls, so I'll call it socialism" (or maybe even fascism!).
Political Irony › Like a jealous lover, the insurance industry doesn’t want you to be able to get health insurance from anyone, even if they turned you down (http://politicalirony.com/2009/06/27/insurance-industry-jealous-lover/)

Most polls support the public option:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html)

But many Rs and Dems are beholden to special interests:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Special Interest Money Means Longer Odds for Public Option (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html?2ndtry)

So, yes - FUD.

8588, if you dont mind, what kind of work are you in?

At my place of employment we produce powder metal parts solely for the automotive industry. I am in charge of 18 different parts that go into BMW'S, Mercedes, VW's, and GM trucks. Our sister company is about 10 miles away from us and they voted a union in about 3 years ago. Myself and my colleagues agree that it is much better to work where we are at rather than at our sister company that has the union.

For example, we are launching a new part for a brand new customer and we transferred a piece of equipment from our sister plant to our plant. We had to get the unions permission to have the maintenance person that worked on the equipment to help set it back up at my factory. Of course the union said no. I mean hell when ever they need help we have no problem sending people over to help out. I mean with the economy doing what its doing and companies failing in the powder metal industry right and left, hell it makes perfect sense that the union would not cooperate...

Let's not forget, unions usually provide safer working environments and better trained workers.

The unions did at one time but in truth thanks to unions, we have the safer working environments today. The government has so many regulations that the need for unions is no longer needed. But I am not so sure of the "better trained workers." In a way the union hinders the training because it only lets people work on 1 thing. For example, let's say you work in maintenance and you need to weld something. At my plant the worker is allowed to weld the parts that need welded. At a union plant that maintenance worker has to call his boss to get a welder, then the welder has to call his boss to see if he is allowed to weld on that piece of equipment. Its just a lot of pissing around when 1 worker could have just done it and its over with. I believe that in non-union plants workers get to expand their career growth. In union plants you are stuck in one career because you may go against union regulations to do a simple task.

Another example of the unions uselessness is a that the union tried to get a friend of mine fired because he was going to school at the time and would stay at his machine during his breaks to work on homework. The union feared that this action made other workers look bad. Tell me that's not messed up...