« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The UAW: The Curse that Just Keeps on Giving

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary) | October 17th, 2010 at 03:45 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

The company formally known as General Motors (informally known as Government Motors) is preparing for an initial public stock offering (IPO). However, it appears the attractiveness of the “new” GM continues to be scarred by an old curse, the United Auto Workers.

While many Americans have already sworn off the buying of GM-made vehicles, investing in General Motors, alongside the United Auto Workers may be too much risk for investors to tolerate. This is especially the case as the auto industry gears up for negotiations next year.

The union is expected to ask that some of its givebacks be reversed during contract talks with the carmakers in 2011, when the contract signed in 2007 — and modified last year with more concessions as General Motors and Chrysler approached bankruptcy — expires.

But it gets even more complicated.

On Saturday, a large group of UAW members from Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan gathered picket signs and protested outside the headquarters of…the United Auto Workers. The cause of their ire was the two-tier wage system that the UAW negotiated with the government. According to some of the protesters, the UAW kept details of the deal secret from them until the last minute.

Saturday’s demonstration was organized by workers from the automaker’s big assembly plant in Orion, Michigan to protest the UAW’s decision to allow GM to assign workers with seniority of 10 years to a second-wage tier that would require them to take a 50 percent cut in pay.

“They didn’t tell us anything until the very last minute,” said Nick Waun, a member of UAW Local 5960.

He noted union officials had kept quiet about the potential for steep pay cuts for more than a year.

The UAW’s internal battle with its own members, who may push to end the concessions next year in negotiations, may put a damper on any possible enthusiasm investors may have toward investing in a business that is partially owned by the government, as well as the union.

GM and the UAW have a long history of conflict and the continuing signs of unrest could ultimately influence investor’s decision to buy the new GM stock, said Brad Coulter, an analyst with management consulting firm of O’Keege & Associates in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

He warned that while there’s been a change in management, GM has a history of destroying shareholder value, and the UAW has been a large reason for that destruction.

“The UAW has a long history of shareholders be damned and I’m not convinced the rank and file have bought into the new reality,” Coulter said.

Given the government’s demonstrated ability to manage the economy and their vast experience running private-sector businesses, it will be interesting to see how many investors jump on board with the GM’s IPO.

__________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

LaborUnionReport.com.

Tags: General Motors, GM, Government Motors, IPO, UAW, United Auto Workers

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

RedBeard

1. GM’s hapless (mis)management team.

2. UAW company-killing and job-killing extortion.

3. The federal government, which can’t even deliver a letter properly.

E Pluribus Unum

Especially #3. Same bunch that will be running the health care system if we don’t overturn it.

crosley

The millions of dollars the UAW gives to left-wing causes and politicians is staggering, and every time you buy a Ford, GM, or Chrysler you’re pumping money into this organization that is dedicated to destroying conservative causes. In addition to monetary resources, the UAW has an enormous “grassroots” force to advance their policy goals.

If conservatives stopped lining their pockets, and instead bought products like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc, that don’t use UAW labor (and are usually made in the U.S.), it would be an enormous blow to Liberalism in the Rust Belt.

Studies have shown that Republicans are much more likely to buy from Ford, GM, and Chrysler. They’re unintentionally funneling millions to the enemy.

RedBeard

acat

Seen it calculated out before, something like $3000 of every Detroit Three sold goes into UAW hands… and quite a lot of what they receive goes to Libs and Dems.

Besides, most of the “Japanese” cars you can find these days are built in the U.S. .. just with no “UAW tax”.

Mew

powertothepeople

although the amount is not really the issue is it….. Glad we can both agree the UAW is the biggest vestige of corruption in this country that should be removed ASAP.

acat

Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Hyundai, Daihatsu .. some parts are made here, some are made overseas – you can ask about the content if you buy new, harder if you buy used (like I do) …

Also keep in mind that this is the same for a lot of the Detroit Three products – they stopped saying “Made in U.S.A.” a long time ago, they now say “Made in North America” (i.e. the U.S., Canada, and arguably northern Mexico) or “Made in America” (meaning anywhere in North or South America) …

Mew

crosley

I’d rather buy an imported product that doesn’t bankroll the Left then support Detroit manufacturing.

Most of the “Japanese” car companies make their products here anyway, and provide millions of jobs for Americans. i just don’t buy into the argument that it’s unpatriotic to not buy from the UAW.

RedBeard

Why not throw Boeing (because it’s unionized) to the wolves as well, and get all our airlines to buy from Airbus, thereby enriching a gang of Euro-socialists?

While we’re at it, let’s get US oil companies (unionized workers) out of the oil business, and give the work to those Chi-Com companies who are camped on our borders lusting for it.

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

At this stage, I would say that defeating the Unions is a pretty high priority.
RedBeard

But if someone (Ford) has a tumor (UAW), the goal is to kill the tumor without killing the host.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

But I will not buy a car made with UAW labor.

If I have a choice, and in the case of an auto purchase I most certainly do, I will always opt for non-union labor.

Your examples simply are specious.
RedBeard

Why is it better to send your dollars to Japan?

Sure, a lot of Japanese cars are made here by Americans, but the profits fly across the ocean to enrich foreign companies.

In addition, what do you think will happen after the US auto industry is killed off, and the foreign companies have no competitive market restraints?
acat

There are plenty of vehicle manufacturers in the U.S. outside of the Detroit Three. Consider Tesla. Consider how Hummer started. (pre-GM buyout)

Should the government get out of the way (and get their damn hands out of my wallet) and let the Detroit Three go down, I predict a resurgence of smaller design and manufacture shops, possibly all working from an agreed-upon frame and drive system, but with different body style and feature packages.

And I don’t think Ford will go down. They were the first to recognize that they had too many dealers, and pared down without government help. They were the first to recognize the UAW problem, and have always pushed hard at the table. They’re still the healthiest of the three, having sold off some of their stranger purchases (Jaguar) for a fair price. They will also benefit from goodwill at the expense of GM and Chrysler.

Mew
RedBeard

The only help Ford needs is for government and the UAW to just go away.

As for GM, or what is left of it, and the Fiat’Chrysler mess, they should be turned loose to sink or swim in the free market, without the government/UAW albatross.

My only point about the boycott idea is that it’s counter-productive, and solves nothing. We must start with our rotten Congress (and yes, of course, the White House), and turn the UAW out into the cold. Nothing good can happen until that is accomplished.
acat

And yes, I am a cold-hearted child of unwed parents. I’m also right.

See, this is related to something I was discussing with asthete .. there’s no reason to protect the auto industry because new companies will pop up, just as Tesla did, just as Hummer did, just as DeLorean tried etc. etc.

If there’s demand, someone will figure a way to supply it.

As for a boycott, I want to be sure you’re understanding what I’m saying – I’m not “boycotting” GM and Chrysler. I’m not boycotting Ford. I’m boycotting the UAW. I refuse to play along.

Mew
JSobieski

If companies would just pop up like that, its even harder to justify any type of protectionism.
acat

Protect the ability to build cars domestically.

Don’t give a rat’s ass if it’s Ford, GM, Chrysler, or Sobieski Motors doing the work. Could care less if the UAW are picketing from Detroit to Denton.

If we can build cars, even if it’s a specialty kind of thing like Teslas or AM General’s Humvee, then I’m happy with no tariff at all, or better, a reciprocal tariff that pegs itself to the rate that the other country charges on similar products that they import from us.

The bar to entry in the auto industry is high, but a large part of that is the UAW.. and it’s a lot lower bar than it was at GM’s height, back when Detroit was Motor City, and the Detroit Three were the Big Three. …

I fully expect to see some entrepreneur buy one of the defunct badges from GM or Chrysler and make a go of it. (I think if the economy had been better, Penske would have had a run with Saturn…)

Mew
JSobieski

so why would protectionism be justified with things as they are?
acat

It would be, if all cars are suddenly made outside our borders.

It might be, if all car manufacturing inside our borders is by foreign manufacturers – at that point it would depend on whether or not we can make whole cars or whether key components are made outside our borders. If the latter, then some protectionism may be in order.

Mew
aesthete

We have a landmass about the size of Europe with manufacturing inputs that are the envy of the world. We would have to have Mexico-like policies to even approach a place where the US auto industry is feeble enough to require protectionism: and at that point, the solution more in keeping with economic freedom and national security is to repeal the Mexico-like policies that precipitated this decline.

BTW, what happens if you’re a small country with no manufacturing base? It seems to me that it is common sense for those countries to foster allies who will provide manufacturing inputs to you, so that you can have a functioning military, and allies who will help you when you find yourself in a bind. The best way to do that is to engage in free trade. Therefore, it makes little sense to jump to support protectionism whether your manufacturing base is large or small from a natl security standpoint: if you have abundant manufacturing inputs, you want them used as efficiently as possible. Free trade and foreign ownership foster that. If you have few manufacturing inputs, you need to get them from somewhere else. Free trade fosters that, too.
acat
aesthete

rising in the West. There would have to be collective insanity or stupidity on the part of America’s entrepreneurial class to not take advantage of America’s overwhelming amount of manufacturing resources. The free market dictates that opportunity to profit won’t lay untouched for long without harmful government policy. If those advantages are not being taken advantage of, it means that there is a HUGE roadblock in the way of entrepreneurs (usually government). It is much better to remove that roadblock than to plow on forward with more harmful legislation in the form of protectionist policy. Politics is a bit more ambiguous and its incentives less clear-cut than that, which is why prognoses like “Hillary will beat Obama” are less sure.
aesthete

We benefit from other nations’ goods; why should we tax them simply because they were dumb enough to tax our exports? To paraphrase Bastiat, it makes no more sense to be protectionist because other countries have tariffs than it would to block up our harbors because other countries have rocky coasts.
acat

And simpler is not better, but the two are often seen together.

As for your Bastiat quote, do you accept the counterpoint as also true – Country X manufactures goods using forced labor, but that is no reason to not let them undercut domestic manufacturing .. ?

Mew
aesthete

from being used by Country X? I have seen no evidence that they do, or that that is even the goal of those proposing reciprocal tariffs. If they don’t, what purpose does arguing for them on those grounds serve*? There is also little evidence to indicate that labor with low human capital (pretty much the definition of a slave, or a serf) is the best input for manufacturing efficiency. China, to pick on a popular example, would lose all of its competitive advantage if they didn’t undervalue the yuan, and the trend in manufacturing has been to move from being a labor-intensive process to being capital-intensive.

*That’s different from the question of whether we can use access to US markets as a bargaining chip in negotiations to move Country X away from human rights abuses: such negotiations have had mixed results, but at least aim at stopping forced labor from happening (which would not be the case with any tariff).
acat
aesthete

What about them, specifically, speaks to the effectiveness of tariffs to prevent them from engaging in employee abuse?
acat

when it comes to Hon Hai / Foxconn. And the iPod is merely the tip of the iceberg where they’re concerned.

Mew
aesthete

I thought we were talking about the capacity of tariffs to prevent human rights abuses (itself a rabbit trail off of the question of whether or not reciprocal tariffs are economically “better” than free trade). It’s pretty hard to keep track of where this conversation is going. At any rate, I think that an obvious component of the standard of living argument is that the worker retains control of his own labor, and that he is able to sell it. Obviously, forced labor and slavery don’t not meet this criterion. This to me says that the problem may lie with slavery, not free trade, given that slavery has been around longer than free trade, and that there is no causal relationship between free trade and slavery. Given that the Far East “Tigers” has seen the quality of life of their citizens go up since the opening of their markets, that Latin American countries with better policies on trade have seen quality of life go up (Chile being the big one), and that trade by definition is a voluntary exchange that leaves both parties better off, there really is no macro- or micro- economic argument to be made in favor of protectionism as a way to increase quality of life. Given that free trade is the free market ideal applied to world markets, it is obvious that economic arguments against free trade are really economic arguments against free markets.
acat

Relatively small countries (the asian tigers) and relatively large countries (china, india) do not behave the same way.

Also, it certainly looks foolish to claim that slavery is not one possible (albeit very low) standard of living – and that free trade has – in large countries – removed people from slavery.

Free trade and free markets depend, in part, on free men (and women) .. and yet, is that what we see happening?

Mew
aesthete

I’m confused by this response. I already pointed out that the prerequisite of a free market is that a worker is in command of his labor (IOW, not slavery). I would, again, note that free trade has not put a single chain on anyone, and that it has released quite a few people from existing chains, for the simple reason that there is only so much that unwilling workers with low human capital can do competitively. Will free trade singlehandedly solve global poverty/forced labor issues? Of course not, but I don’t see anyone saying that it will. It has done much more from an objective standpoint to alleviate global poverty than any government, union, or workers’ right group ever has, for the simple reason that it opens up the third world to development, and the first world to inexpensive, formerly luxury goods. More to the point, it has done more to help the poor than tariffs, which only serve to make it harder for aforementioned enslaved/poor people to sell their labor.
JSobieski

If people really mean it, they should simply ban products from certain places. Use of tariffs suggest that its more of an economic pretext than anything else.
aesthete

An outright ban, or discussing human rights in negotiations for trade, are the only places I can see restrictions of trade (or rather, the threat of the same) as potentially being used to help foster human rights. Tariffs don’t do anything but make it harder for the people in Country X to find a market for their goods.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

as a purely academic exercise, I disagree with you two that all tariffs at all times are harmful. You guys are guilty of absorbing a zeitgeist. Tariffs have been very helpful in the past to protect nascent industries in economies which have a sufficient consumer base to boost those industries.

The problem is when those industries become mature and no longer need the help, then they profit at the expense of the consumer.

Now, don’t get me wrong, as I said before, I don’t think our mature economy should have any such protectionism. But I just think that we ought to not speak in absolutes when there is contrary evidence, as this ultimately undermines our case.
aesthete

I also disagree. There’s a very good reason that free trade is axiomatic in economics: it is strongly related to the first principles of the discipline (people are profit-maximizing beings, and is well-backed by empirical data. As far as I know, the attempts to replace free trade with another system have been failures to the extent that they have been tried in areas that would otherwise have significant trade (Latin America and some African nations tried this, and while it was less of a failure in large nations like Brazil, the results were disappointing for those opposing free trade). We’re not talking the Phillips Curve here (and I’m guessing that the failure of such “conventional” economic thought is why you’re hesitant to fully embrace free trade): free trade is much more related to the basic economic concepts (macro and micro) which inform our view of the free market than the Phillips curve ever was. I would think that, therefore, any significant move away from free trade as an economic good would necessarily involve a move away from the idea that free, competitive markets are generally efficient.

It’s good that you’re not dogmatic about free trade, but I think ultimately wrong: there are some truths self-evident enough that one can be dogmatic in their defense. With protectionism on the rise in Europe, it is doubly important that we preserve one of the few positive legislative achievements of the past 20 years, and resist the calls for protectionism (and I applaud you for noting the folly of protectionism for the US in the current age).
JSobieski

we did need to protect native industries to give them time to mature against superior European competition. Europe was the economic capital of the world, we were the backwater.

You agree that protectionism in the 21st Century by the US is ill advised, and leave it at that.

P.S. What contrary evidence do you have in mind? Did anyone practice free trade in 1800?

In a 20th century comparison, we can compare Hong Kong to the whatever protectionist country you like. In the 19th century, there was no Hong Kong to compare to.

It is undeniable that the US prospered in the 19th century while having protectionist trade policies.

It is very much deniable that the prosperity RESULTED from those trade policies. Kind of like when Clinton supporters cite the healthy US economy and point to his income tax increases. They coexisted, but one did not cause the other.

International trade in the 19th century was of insufficient volumes to make much of an economic difference in any case, either way.

Free trade among the states did however contribute to the rise of the US in comparison to Europe. Our largest common market was unarguably a source of strength.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

It is a very special case, One city, whose protection and government expense was provided by the British empire, and which was one of the very few places that was allowed to trade with the massive nation of China when it was mostly closed off to the rest of the world.

I doubt if you can draw any conclusions about anything in Hong Kong that would apply to anywhere else in the world.
JSobieski

that unilaterally says we don’t care what tariffs you place on our stuff, we aren’t going to put a tariff on your stuff.

Honk Kong doesn’t care about “fair trade” and yet as a backwater city with no natural resources to speak of, became one of the most prosperous places on earth in a relatively short time period.

Security is a prerequisite for prosperity, but aside from that prerequisite (which is of course shared by the US in any case) its not clear why it matters. Lots of secure places aren’t particularly well off.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

because of the reasons I just stated. It is a very special case.
JSobieski

France? Secure
UK? Secure
Mexico? Secure
Iceland? Secure
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

they were not the only Entrepot for the largest nation in the world!
acat

Just cuts off the U.S. market. See also Asthete’s (wait, that’s you..) argument about how a that’d preclude a trade war…

So, why not use the tariff to increase the cost of the imported (slave-manufactured) good to where its’ cost is similar to that of a domestic or imported (non-slave-manufactured) good?

Seems to me that this would discourage the use of forced labor while, at the same time, protecting the labor of free individuals.

Mew
aesthete

You (and I ) are right: an outright ban would help no one. The threat of the same in negotiations might, though (even then, the evidence that negotiation on such issues is ideal is mixed). It is also, for the morality in foreign policy crowd, arguable that it is more moral to cut off trade with nations engaging in human rights abuses than to trade with them (I don’t count myself as part of that crowd, but there’s that argument). If that wasn’t clear, then that’s what I was getting at.

The answer to the question you ask is that, first of all, you’ve moved the goalposts from a general tariff to a specific tax on slave-manufactured goods. The second, and more pragmatic, point is that identifying and investigating employee abuse is much more easily said than done, due to perverse incentives within government. Unions haven’t been making arguments similar to yours out of the kindness of their hearts: they’ve made them because they and their lackeys are at the levers, and would define and prosecute based on what is best for the unions, not based on actual human rights abuses. It is already difficult enough to investigate US corporations for compliance with federal statutes: there is nothing to indicate that foreign companies will be any easier to deal with regarding these issues.

Leaving that aside, if your position is that we should use our trade policy to reduce human rights abuses worldwide, damn the costs and complexity associated with said endeavor, I must again ask: why not ban products produced using slave labor, rather than use a tariff? I could understand (though probably disagree with) using tariffs for a variable that is continuous (carbon emissions, for instance), but the variable you’re looking at is binary (with the values free/not free). Anything less than an outright ban on slave-produced products is just dickering about the price of the whore.
acat

We have “free trade” with China.

China has forced labor. By definition, therefore, not all Chinese laborers are not “at liberty” to sell their skills.

Therefore, do we really have “free trade”?

Mew
aesthete

What we do not have is the condition which would be required for the statement “free trade raises the standard of living” to be true in all cases (though it remains true in many cases due to the indirect and second-order effects of free trade). It certainly holds more true than the statement “protectionism raises the standard of Any laborer in China who is not forced to work at a specific location is better off as a result of free trade, as it opens up more options for him to “shop around” his labor, and it forces companies to compete for a scarce resource (namely, the worker’s labor). Again, the problem is not with free trade: it is with forced labor. So far, you’ve shown me plenty of problems with forced labor and countries using their resources inefficiently, but I have yet to see an argument against free trade itself.
acat

The statement “free trade raises the standard of living” is false.

Setting up a straw man “Protectionism raises the standard of any laborer” does not change this.

I also did not say that. What I said was that setting up a limited tariff, to the extent that our government charges the difference between our or our other trading partners’ free labor and their forced labor to import something made using forced labor would discourage the use of forced labor.

You have not shown that this is false. You can rail on and on about it all you like, but it does show that there are issues beyond economics involved. This applies at all levels – including taxes.

Mew
JSobieski

would do more political good and less economic harm than a tariff against a foreign industry.

A ban makes it clear that the rationale is not economic, but political/human rights.

Making a narrow ban against a specific labor condition MIGHT avoid a trade war in a way that an across the board tariff would not.

Increasing tariffs on Chinese products does nothing to limit slave labor products being made in China, and shows remarkably little confidence in the position of human rights.

Its like, if you are going to treat people like slaves, we will . . increase the cost of your product by $1.00? That is a WEAK statement to make for political purposes and a dumb policy for economic purposes.
JSobieski

And good luck getting affordable tennis shoes.
acat

I really don’t see it that way.

Let’s suppose that a widget contains $5 worth of raw materials, and requires 2 hours of labor (from raw material to finished widget) to make.

If labor is $18/hr, then it’s a $31 widget, wholesale.
If labor is $2/hr, then it’s a $9 widget, wholesale, plus the transport cost to the west coast. Boats are relatively cheap….

We’ll stipulate that the quality is identical.

So, if the U.S. places a $18 tariff on widgets, the cost (wholesale) would stay about the same – making the decision about which widget to buy a moral or random one, not a financial one.

This is not precisely protectionist – a South American widget factory that could make widgets with $9/hr labor would reduce the price of their widget to $23, with comparable transport cost – and the tariff should drop – forcing the U.S. widget makers to look at reducing their costs.

Mew
JSobieski

Comply with human rights, but if you sell toys for $10 each that would otherwise be sold for $15 we will level the playing field?

I.e. We care about human rights . .. or you can just pay us $5. That is the message that the Chinese will take from it. They will laugh at how cheaply western principles can be purchased.

Many Chinese consumer products in the US sell for under $20. Its precisely those low margin products that make China so attractive.

What you also ignore is that many Chinese sales are B to B, which means that you are negatively impacting the US buyers you in turn use those products for their supply chain.

Unless of course you are proposing a tariff that is a de factor ban, in which case, why not just ban. Just say no slave labor imports, and keep low tariffs on everything else?
acat
JSobieski

like friendship, familial relationships, civility towards your neighbor, etc.

We keep all sorts of things out of the economic sphere to avoid cheapening them. For example, 20 years ago, prenuptual agreements were rare, and polite people didn’t engage in discussion about compensation for “companionship.”

Why do we prohibit the selling of organs for transplant? Prositution? Because these things cheapen human life whatever cost is plugged in.

Allowing seapage of non-economic issues into the economic sphere is a mistake. Just as many individuals would be well advised to keep business separate from the personal/social, the same is true for countries.

It allows a far more substantial opportunity to make a point. Can you imagine if Reagan’s response to the USSR was to increase some tariff 50% or 100%? It would have softened the message, not strengthened it.

I am all for taking on China in a manner analogous to the Reagan approach to Gorby. Some carrot, some stick, and a lot of clear line drawing talk. Putting an incremental monetary cost to slavery is hardly a way to sharpen the stick.
acat

.. as long as there’s tough talk from the White House to go along with it?

I’ve got news for you, J. Our government already puts a price on human lives. Our courts find the value of a life taken every day in wrongful death cases. Insurance companies pay out every day on the value of a life lost. We monetize life, and every aspect of it.

I choose to be aware that this goes on. You, apparently, choose otherwise. That’s your right. Just .. please stop arguing from there.

Mew
aesthete

If you are making a non-economic argument in favor of a tariff, you are setting a marginal cost equal to whatever the value of the tariff is as being equal to the value of that liberty. However, it strikes me as unserious in the same way that charging murderers a fine would be unserious: unlike wrongful death and insurance payments, where the paying party is rectifying a situation which was not intended, both murder and forced labor entail a taking of a basic liberty. We do place a value on life in various ways, but we don’t place a price tag on murder: there’s a difference. Conflating the two is, well, as silly as proposing a tariff for non-economic grounds in lieu of a ban.
acat

Slaves have several costs associated. In fact, there was a whole accounting around this in this country at one point – it is somewhat similar to that of large industrial machinery. Cost of acquisition, cost of maintenance, etc. The same applies to serfs, etc. etc.

Also, since it’s the free traders who have been arguing against a ban, I find it utterly unsurprising (although disappointing) that you’re arguing against any form of “moral” tariff.

Mew
aesthete

One does not have, in this country, the choice of paying a fine in exchange for keeping a fellow human being in chains. One does not have, in this country, the option of recompensing the state for murder. One either doesn’t get caught, or goes to jail. A tariff is essentially the paying of a fine in exchange for keeping a fellow human being in chains. If you are serious about your concern for human rights, a tariff is ridiculous, as it puts a price on the taking of a liberty: it changes Patrick Henry’s famous forumulation to “give me liberty, or give me $4.55/good, adjusted for inflation”.

If a ban would help alleviate slavery/forced labor, I’d be in favor. I see little evidence that it would do so, and a lot of evidence that it would be a bludgeon for unions to use against foreign companies that undercut their businesses.
acat

You’re right – an outright ban effectively sets the labor cost in the offending country to infinity. It’s now the least cost-effective spot to manufacture widgets.

A tariff sets the cost of labor somewhat below the cost of domestic labor. This makes the decision which product to buy, or which contract manufacturer to go with, a *moral* one, not an “economic* one.

Citing smaller Asian, European, and South American countries while trying to understand how to influence China is akin to studying rhesus monkeys while trying to understand how to influence great apes. Yes, there are certain similarities, but – to borrow from Uncle Joe, “Quantity has a quality all its’ own”.

Mew
JSobieski

You don’t see a public discussion by insurance companies about the value they assign to a human life.

When a life is lost, we try to compensate the victims. When a person is still living, we don’t approach the issue in that way.

I admit that there are some exceptions (you don’t seem to acknowledge the contrary data points). However, the 80/20 rule applies here—the rule is not to put a monetary value on human life, and the exceptions are almost all after death.
acat

.. for corporations whose employees work in hazardous conditions definitely monetize cost in advance of death. So do life insurance policies, for that matter.

The rest of your argument falls flat.

Right now, the “value” the free traders are putting on the lives of Chinese laborers are 0 yuan. I fail to see how putting *some* value on them is a wrong thing.

Mew
aesthete

There is no negotiation of a fee when one murders or enslaves someone: insurance companies are not compensating familes for murder, nor are wrongful death cases assessing the value of a particular murder, they are accounting for the costs that appropriate parties must pay for a natural human occurrence (death) which they are involved with in some way. There is a differenc between a company which has an employee die due to too few safeguards, and looking to kill someone for whatever reason. You are not acknowledging this fact, which makes your reasoning shallow.
acat

life and death every day. Car companies decide whether to use a lighter material to save mileage or a more dense material which is safer. Trade-offs. Food companies decide how close to FDA guidelines to come. Some people die. Municipal water suppliers decide how much chlorine to use. Municipalities also decide how many cops and firefighters and EMTs to hire. These are dollars-to-lives economics decisions that you seem to be ignoring.

Every life already has a price associated. Dollars come into it, because people *will* die. Life is dangerous.

What I’m saying is that the “free trade” argument regarding China is a load of cow manure. The current statement is that we know buying from Chinese firms is costing Chinese lives, but we’re okay with it because, well, they’re Chinese and it’s cheaper.

I disagree with this.

Your previous statements regarding free trade falter on this point – your previous statements regarding trade in general falter, and I must conclude that you’ve either thought only in economic terms (which is what i said some time ago) or that you really are ignorant.

Mew
aesthete

You’re making an equivocation (death=murder) that makes no sense. *That* is what I’m saying.

I *still* have no idea how we jumped from national security to forced labor, to (apparently) the value of Chinese lives in non-forced labor situations, but here’s my opinion, in linear form:

1) Does a tariff do anything to reduce forced labor? It depends on various real world constraints (availability of information, the decision-makers and policy implementers in question, marginal benefit of forced labor), and these constraint lead me to believe that it would not.

2) Assuming away the real-world problems with such a tariff, it could potentially be effective, depending on the marginal value of forced labor as an input. However, a ban would be far better if one’s goal is to reduce forced labor, for the same reason that prison sentences are better at reducing murder than charging a fine per murder.

3) Monetizing human liberty is a terrible idea. In one adheres to the idea that one’s rights are inalienable (and we do in the US), we cannot put a price on making them alienable.

4) That having been acknowledged, we can go one of two routes: the first is saying that someone besides the US government is responsible for protecting the human rights of Chinese laborers, and that we should remain agnostic when it comes to international human rights abuses. The second is saying that the US has a moral obligation to foster freedom worldwide, and should shape its foreign policy to maximize international freedom. The former would involve no specific “moral tariff/ban”, the latter would certainly involve a “moral ban”, if such a ban actually maximized international liberty. I’m oscillate between the two viewpoints, but in either case, don’t see the ban as maximizing freedom due to the real world incentives alluded to in point #1 (much less the value of the tariff).

I also must say that saying that the entire free trade argument concerning China fails because of the poor strawman you established before (that free traders believe that quality of life will always go up for slaves) is premature, given that that is not the entire argument in favor of free trade.
JSobieski

that you are simply trying to make a buck using human rights as an excuse. I stated above that a tariff actually WEAKENS the human rights argument.
acat

Reduce the profit motive for using forced labor and the argument for using it becomes weaker.

An outright ban has the same effect, but .. so far, the free traders have blocked that.

I saw your statement above. I believe it’s a load of crap since you are arguing that it’s okay to kill Chinese to keep the shelves at WalMart stocked.

Mew
JSobieski

I am saying that non-economic matters should be addressed in non-economic ways.

Leftist groups like unions like to combine the two, I don’t.
acat
JSobieski

Leverage attempts that look like crass economic opportunism are less effective than efforts clearly free of economic interests.
acat

Cite where free trade advocates, who you claim to be among, have agitated for *any* changes in the policy toward China.

Mew
JSobieski

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6260

“A free-market approach to human rights policy does not mean Americans should be indifferent to human rights abuses in China. Steps should be taken by the United States and other nations to restrict China’s use of slave labor, political prisoners, and very young children to compete in international markets. But blanket restrictions, such as the denial of MFN trading status or the use of sanctions not directly targeting the wrongdoers, should be avoided.”
JSobieski

where protecting jobs at home isn’t the real motivation.
acat

if you look back, that economic policy was the only thing that mattered.

Obviously, using just economic policy is something CATO recognize and pay lip service to .. and, of course, the Pope uses a totally different scale.

You’re wrong on free trade, J.

Mew
JSobieski

Which is that trade restrictions should not be used for purposes of economic policy.

You ask me to provide links of examples of people arguing for human rights pressure while in favor of free trade, and I did.

Both the CATO article and the Pope references are examples of people favoring BOTH free trade and doing something about China.

You are wrong even in your reading comprehension.

I am in favor of putting human rights pressure on China. I am in favor of free trade with China. There are plenty of people like me out there. If you are in favor of using tariffs for purely non-economic reasons, you are in a crowd of 1.
JSobieski

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xa8-tPNf0UMC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=vatican+free+trade+human+rights&source=bl&ots=SLDRU4D8QQ&sig=HJFuBI8Hp0Mc6nmWe_8wDxK5WFc&hl=en&ei=Rse_TKL-K4T78AaC6-n7BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=vatican%20free%20trade%20human%20rights&f=false
crosley

I really don’t buy the argument that profits go overseas to die.

If companies like Toyota and Honda increase their sales, they’ll expand their North American operations, hiring more (non-UAW) workers. Those profits get reinvested into our economy into all sorts of jobs: manufacturing, engineering, marketing, technicians, etc..

Also, thousands of American investors, mutual funds, and pension plans own shares in these stocks, so Americans will also share in those profits.

I could understand not supporting imports from a country like Iran, but Japan is a strong ally of the US, and I have no problem with engaging in healthy trade. They’re not some “evil empire” that needs to be destroyed economically.

As far as “keeping profits here”, what profits? That’s the whole problem, GM and Chrysler couldn’t make a profit, so the US taxpayer had to bail them out. They’re a net drain on our country now.
Adjoran

They have stockholders around the world – as does Ford, and GM and Chrysler used to, less since they ripped off the bondholders to save the unions.

Investors have to be crazy to consider GM now. Their sole innovation since the bailout is the Volt, which it turns out has a very limited all-electric range and worse overall energy mileage than competitive all-gas cars. So customers can get a very small car, with a short range, no particular fuel efficiency or net”green” benefit at all, for only about $12,000 more than a comparable gas-only car.
partyof1

And a taxpayer funded concession to the federal gov. who want more “green” cars.
gunsrus

I have a GM car that emails me when the tire is low. When I hear Obama run his mouth about how America cannot build a car that people want, I think about what a “POS” we have for a leader,
acat

when the tires are low. I have no interest in my car sending me spam.

Mew
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Take out the UAW and you could build a competitive US auto manufacturing company. The other thing that needs to go is the executive mentality that sits in the board rooms and senior management offices of US car companies, especially GM. They should have been put down when the opportunity was there.
acat

I say former because I no longer own a German car.. I got very tired of there always being something that didn’t work, and of his high hourly rates…

Mew
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

And the big Japanese create GOOD jobs in America.

Some shallow, narrow-minded “sending our jobs to X” reasoning just doesn’t cut it.
RedBeard

Please show me where I said anything about “sending our jobs to X.” Perhaps you just didn’t read my post very carefully before you pounced.

The good side of foreign car makers setting up shop in the US is the jobs they create for Americans. Of course. That would be “keeping jobs here” actually.

Better still would be American car makers, owned by American stockholders, expanding and creating new jobs for American workers. And that won’t happen as long as the UAW writes the rules and our leftie politicians continue to stand in the way of prosperity.

By the way, you don’t really need to remind me that the UAW supports socialism. That would be one of the prime reasons I want the UAW crippled or dead.

We’re on the same side.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Change jobs to profits.
davesinsanantonio

that money. in the long run, but send it back? Even if it takes a circuitous route–say through Saudi Arabia.
American money, as is all money, is a useful fiction. It represents a promise to accept it back in exchange for goods and services. So, we get Toyotas and they get green paper. (Actually, they get electronic impulses–which are now 96% of all “money” in America!) But, if they want something of value instead of green paper, they have to send it back to us, and we then send them some of our stuff. Then we use that same green paper to buy more of their stuff. And so on and so on.
Besides, the profit is a small percentage of the price of the car, and the rest stays here in the form of wages for labor and payment for raw materials (some of the raw materials at least). Trade is wealth producing. Protectionism is not. If the Arabs refuse to sell us oil, how much real wealth does that create for them? Was the oil that existed in pre-Columbian America “wealth” to the Indians? No, because they did not use it. It did not become wealth until someone took it out of the ground and found a use for it and began to sell it to others who wanted to so use it. So, not selling to foreigners does not make us any wealthier. And, not buying their resources does not help us create wealth either.
Of course, there may be political reasons to not trade–to deny that useful fiction or needed resources to our enemies, but that usually only works for a short term, unless you have an absolute monopoly on the vital resource. Even that is really only temporary too, because someone will figure out an alternative–like we did with synthetic rubber during WWII.
partyof1

but how do we break the UAW without killing GM?

For years I’ve shaken my head at the unsustainable business practices of the Big Three. “Jobs Banks”, (Paying people not to work) Paying grass cutters the same as skilled line workers, and wages that are more than 50% above auto worker pay in Japan.

But I always took some small comfort knowing that when they finally destroyed themselves it would clearly illustrate the destructiveness of unions and vindicate free market principles — and from the ashes, a better, stronger, union-free US auto industry could emerge.

And now that day has come, but instead of allowing GM to live and die by its own decisions, Obama reaches into MY pocket to bail them out?

I’m ready to boycott union made cars.
acat

Make the case, please.

I’ve been boycotting the UAW for quite a while now.

Mew
The_Gadfly

but I’m not sure it could be said that someone who has bought exactly 1 new car in his life is much of a player in the car market. It was a Ford Focus because even though I knew it was an antiquated notion at the time, I wanted to buy a safe “American” car and they were the only one in the Consumers Reports top ten list.

I might buy a new car again next year. I will be looking at Honda and Toyota. Especially Toyota after the pummeling they took at the hands of The Big o’s administration this past year.
acat

.. .and if there’s no demand for used Chevys, that affects the demand for new ones as well.

Mew
The_Gadfly

to boycott a product they aren’t in the market for in the first place. I haven’t bought a used car since then either.
http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

What you see left is the zombie GM, animated by union and Obama lackeys, desiring to eat your wallet.
qixlqatl
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

In any transaction, wealth is created on both sides, not just on the seller side.
RedBeard

Why didn’t you just say that, instead of resorting to juvenile snark?
powertothepeople

who claims to be a conservative christian but yet supports some of the raunchiest dems who support so many anti christian measures and he supports the union like it is his child.

Now saying you support what he does, but you did make the same argument about buying UAW cars in order to keep the auto industry alive. Here is why that premise is wrong:

If this country boycotted the UAW owned manufacturers, it would damage them or even run them out of business. At the start, it would hurt, that is a fact. But in the long term, this country would benefit tremendously. Most of the time when car manufacturers open a site, they chose an non union state so they can avoid the union. If the big three were to go down, very quickly their business would be grabbed up by other companies and upstart auto companies. This would allow these new companies to streamline brands and kill the union hold. While many jobs would be lost, jobs would also be saved pretty fast. It would also allow for new companies to open their doors due to being free from union rules and cost. This would create even more jobs. The loss would be great at the start, but not permanent. And without the dues rolling in from the auto maker, the unions would fall or at least have most of its clout killed.

Capitalism has always had business die, yet it never really dies. Once the one part dies, someone else comes in and scoops up the body, brings it back to life, and makes it grow. The union, the bailout, and the current state of affairs at the auto club are anything but capitalism. Letting them die would be a good thing and in the long run would benefit us all.
RedBeard

…because to put me anywhere near a pro-union position would be completely off key.

As I have stated in several comments here, the UAW and the current sway it has over Congress is the problem, and it must be stopped.

Capitalism and the free market will sort out the auto makers, if only government would get out of the way. And the only way to start that process is by reforming Congress.

Boycotting domestic companies like Ford because of UAW workers won’t solve anything. If Ford goes under, and government is still diddling with the auto industry controls like a drunk at the wheel of a semi, then no entrepreneur in his right mind would want to start a new car company.

First things first. Reform Congress, then remove the lock the UAW has on government policy, then watch the UAW wilt as Ford, a privatized GM, and any new companies wanting to enter the biusiness tell the weakened UAW where to get off.
powertothepeople

in the matter about the government intervention and if they still have a hand in the auto industry, no one would want it. Very true.

You are also correct about needing the fix the government but that goes without saying….

My only point is that asking people to continue to support the major two (left out Ford because at least they refused government money) just to keep them from going under or to keep our dollars here is not the way to go. The UAW are like chiggers. They have dug a burrow into the auto makers skin and are chewing away. Scratch and they dig deeper or move to another spot. It would take a Jesus type miracle to get enough votes to fight the union in Congress. The best way us average citizens can fight the union is to hit them in the pocketbook. And that is accomplished by refusing to by the cars they control. IF the union lost just 30% of the auto revenue, their clout in our country would decrease by 50%. If us fighting the union causes one or more of the big three to go under, so be it. If it causes them all to go under, so be it again. We will enjoy a union free auto class for the first time in 75 years and very quickly you will see the business taken over by someone. That is if we get Obama out of it!
RedBeard

I don’t want GM to disappear, but I don’t want to support GM as it now operates, with a sleazy Marxist as CEO. I want it returned to private hands (competent ones, not like the management of late) and run like a proper company. And in order to do that, we must first get rid of the UAW-owned politicians, and break the union’s grasp on the industry. That is job #1.
Jack_Savage

…all made in America, just to name a few. I think I will be able to get by with one of those brands.

I’ll consider a Ford.
qixlqatl

whenever the economy recovers enough for me to actually buy a vehicle…

Kia just opened a new plant in West Point, Ga. that is going to be a major economic plus for our local economy. Assuming, of course, that there are enough customers left who can afford to buy [i]any[/i] kind of car.
The_Gadfly

that to some extent it doesn’t matter whether you buy a “foreign” or “American” car, the money gets split up almost the same as a percentage cost of the car. Except for the UAW tax.
mirac777

they already are relegated to no longer producing Airplanes for Airlines in America. Every single plane you get on today, is Euro-trash you speak of. You going to quit flying now?

50scars

Toyota Camery has a USA content, not North American Content that is the highest of any car sold here. They even list as USA Content. My last Ford Crown Victoria was built in Ontario, and had North American content under 50%, and it was a ’99.

thurman

A family member of mine worked for a GM-owned non-auto company and I have the GM family discount for life

I’ve owned a few of their cars and always been happy with their quality actually

But I vowed after the UAW bailout (yes let’s call it what it was) never to buy another UAW-manufactured car ever again

I think it’s a perfectly rational decision to buy cars made in the US by non-UAW workers i.e. the wonderful Toyota plant near me in San Antonio

The Big 3 can decide to get tough with the UAW, or they will be a casualty of the animosity many of us feel toward unions and the UAW in general

It’s their choice whether to die on the vine, not mine

txgho1911

More accurate to call that one a pay off.
davesinsanantonio

did not get their hands on any of the Ford shares out there. So, in a sense, Ford did not benefit UAW.
So, I am still willing to buy Ford. The next round of negotiations will decide the issue. If Ford will stand up to UAW in the next labor negotiations, then I will still buy Ford. If they cave….

edintexas

If you need a truck (3/4 ton or bigger) for work, you need a Ford truck. Used to be you could buy a Chevy/GMC if you only needed a “Cowboy Cadillac”, but I wouldn’t recommend them to anybody now.
mirac777

Ford wasn’t on the brink of bankruptcy, like GM and Chrysler. Its is nothing short of stupid to lump Ford in with the same pile of taxpayer-sucking, Obamanomics- supporting morons. I have been a Chevy man all my life. No more, sad to say. I will drive the arch-enemy of my lifelong car maker GM and buy a Ford next year.
On the same note, I have a question here. Why did GM stop producing the Hummer and why did Saturn get phased out? Both were profitable divisions. Both were very good cars in my humble opinion. Seems to me the game was to get rid of profitability in those decisions. Those decisions could have been made to further collapse the American Auto Industry also. Sure looks like it to me.

JSobieski

Actually, they were on the brink earlier than GM or Chrysler was. At some point in the 2005-2006 timeframe, some here were speculating about a possible acquisition by GM.

Ford did a really smart think before the credit markets tanked. They took every asset of the company (real property, personal property, intellectual property) and used it all for collateral. They borrowed something in the neighborhood of $26B dollars when such loans were available. It bought them the time that GM and Chrysler didn’t have.

FYI–the new Ford Focus is one of the best compact cars I have ever experienced. Handles far better than a car of its price. I strongly recommend the product.

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

One thing that might help is for GM to pay its workers out in cash + stock for the next decade. Move the company to employee owned. Then if they sink it, they are sinking themselves.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ cdhost

That’s up for GM’s workers to decide. They have to vote to disband.

RedBeard

But the amount of undue power a union has can be curtailed by electing a proper Congress. If the unholy alliance between Big Labor and Big Government can be broken, then we would see a dramatic shift back toward sensible behavior in labor relations.

The problem isn’t unionization per se; the problem is what monsters unions have become with the aid of a grotesque leftist Congress.

acat

And how do you propose to do so?

Mew
RedBeard

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Of course you’re a banned lefty troll… so I don’t expect common sense from you.

Unionism in America is full of all sorts of government support.

And if GM is party state-owned, then we can decide to just stop negotiating with the unions and tell them to take a hike.

Adjoran

In “union shop” states, if you hire non-union workers you still have to pay them the wage and deduct the dues. Refuse to negotiate with the union, they picket, and none of your suppliers will cross the line. The only real solution is close down all ops except sales in union shop states and move them to right-to-work states.

But fat chance of that happening – even after a huge wave, there will be far too many Democrats (and Republicans from union districts in the NE/GL) for a federally-owned company to be able to pull that off.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

What GM supplier can afford to cut off GM?

Finrod

As long as we can take back the Congress and cut these auto companies loose off the government teat, then paying the union in company stock means that if they run the company into the ground (which is what unions do), they also run the union into the ground at the same time.

davesinsanantonio

of the Left is stupid enough to strike a company to death, even if it means the end of his or her own livelihood. They will then just whine that the rest of us must take care of them forever. We have do develop a “tough love” attitude towards such children, and make them suffer the consequences of their actions. Otherwise, they will never learn to grow up and begin to make better choices.
And, Heaven help us if they ever get in charge of the country again. They will throw such a revenge tantrum that it will utterly destroy this nation.

mirac777

Do you think Democrats woul embrace that? hahahah Yes thats sarcasm. Democrats are so far left today they have fell of my screeen.

bostinks2

What kind of individual would risk investing in GM. How can an individual invest in government and think their invest will make a profit. GM needs to pay back its stimulus debt first before any one who invests in the IPO sees a penny of any substantial return. GM still has outstanding debt you know, to the fed… I havent seen headlines recently that GM is free and clear of any government debt. There is more commonsense to invest in FORD or other non government/union run operation.

acat

I predict a rapid return of the Vega and Gremlin models …

Mew

http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

any number of kids in our hatchback, and we had lots of fun with its manual transmission and handbrake on the hills in San Fran and the East Bay (until Mom backed UP the driveway and dropped the tranny–it was never the same…..) LOL

acat

And it was a fun little car to drive .. but it did have some quality control and rust issues that the .. I forget the model, but it was an early Toyota import wagon a friend of the family picked up about the same time .. and was still passing down kid to kid well after the Vega was scrapped.

Mew

blooch
acat

I remember it being narrow and blue…

Mew

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

A whole bunch of times.

The current estimate of what GM’s IPO prospectus will look like is projecting a market share that they’re already going to miss on the current quarter.

This IPO is a loser on the hoof. I doubt if even the UAW retirement fund would buy this turkey.

bostinks2

Ask yourself where will your profit come from, if any, to risk your money in a company that is union backed and demands obamacare package. Ask yourselves this as well, Where is the return to invest in government when it is TAKE type organization. The government cannot create jobs like a lot of socialist demoncrats espouse, but should establish the environment and provide guidance to achieve individual economical freedom, not burden people and small businesses with regulation and additional taxes. To invest in GM IPO just doesn’t make sense. and will TAKE more money from you and I to waste on some political pet program.
texasgalt

and I want a Mercedes 500 SL, but it isn’t happening.

The unions will eventually be violently in the street, just like in Europe. It’s not if but when.

RedBeard

Idiots. Can’t see beyond the end of their noses.

texasgalt

and get about fixing our broken government and economy. Sadly, these battles between competing philosophies never work that way. We have to have the pain and the dark side has to be PUSHED back.

They will not relent and we cant blink until they are defeated.

davesinsanantonio

ETERNAL vigilance is the price of freedom!

texasgalt

Eternal vigilance.

Funny, the lefty intellectuals told us the end of history was at hand back in ’89. Didn’t work out that way. I guess they were just playing for time to regroup.

http://www.twitter.com/RS_yoyo yoyo

Didn’t they cave to the Unions only to go out of business several months later?

The Union Members won the battle, only to loose their jobs?

I was too young to remember it fully…I am not quite 40 yet.

Jack_Savage

I had a ticket to go to St. Croix when they went belly up. Bastards.

Eastern was actually a pleasure to fly – I took my second trip on a plane on Eastern, the first was on Piedmont.

http://www.scragged.com petrarch

A great union slogan, and one the UAW should shout from the rooftops. It’ll just bring that “last day” that much quicker.
http://www.twitter.com/RS_yoyo yoyo

Was it Delta or Continental? I can’t remember, but both (Eastern and the Other) were going through Union negotiations at the same time and where Eastern caved to demands, the other didn’t.

All I know is that one did not make it out of the 80′s and the other did.
http://www.scragged.com petrarch

Continental under Frank Lorenzo had lotsa fun with their unions – he owned/bought several different airlines and would juggle planes between them when unions at one or the other were being stroppy. Kinda managed to create his own little internal union competition. Which the unions loathed, of course.

It’s illegal to do that now. Fun while it lasted though.

He did do some other things that weren’t very nice and messed up an awful lot of customers, so much so that the FAA has implied they won’t grant a certificate to any airline with him as an exec. But I think he pretty much set the bar for how to deal with unions if you find yourself stuck with them.

Delta has unions, but fewer – IIRC their FA’s are non-unionized.

RedBeard

…is to install a proper Congress.

We can’t wish the UAW away, and we can’t risk killing our domestic industrial base. Changing the politics is the only way to pull the fangs of the unions.

A decent Congress would also allow what’s left of GM to reorganize as a private company, or maybe even two private companies, without UAW thugs in charge, and return to selling cars in a free market environment.

thurman

but of course the Dems couldn’t let that happen, could they?

Instead we got that sham of a restructuring where our tax money is funneled into UAW coffers and bondholders got stiffed

Letting them really renegotiate all of their UAW contracts was never on the table with this administration bought and paid for as they are by unions
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Across the whole thread, you have no clue what you’re talking about.

You have to have not only a Congress, but the POTUS to do what you’re proposing. Congress can’t stop the Labor Dept from giving favorable treatment to unions without a pro-business Labor Dept. You won’t get a change at Labor with a major change in the Oval Office.

RedBeard

I won’t respond in kind. It’s enough to say that we disagree on the best way to cripple the UAW. You do understand that I want the UAW gone or reduced to irrelevant political staus, right?

And I suppose, in light of your comment, that I need to state the obvious, and say that of course the White House must be freed from the Marxist who resides there now, and put into responsible hands. That’s a given, something I hardly thought needed debate in this forum on this site. My oversight.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

even approaching an “ad hominem” comment.

As far as your commentary, as presented here, you’re clueless. First, there’s nothing until this comment that would lead anyone to believe that you want the UAW “gone”. In point of fact, your major point seems to have been that anyone who would refuse to buy a car produced by the UAW is downright unAmerican.

With respect to what you now seem to think is “obvious”, the only thing that’s obvious is that you’re making this up as you go along.

As an addendum, thurman, in his comment just above, is absolutely right. The most appropriate thing to have happened would have been a bankruptcy. Secured holders would have found the legal protection they had a right to expect and the union would have been busted.

RedBeard

You haven’t been understanding my position. Maybe that’s my fault for being less clear than I should have been, but it really doesn’t help further any sort of understanding to continue the “clueless” theme.

You don’t seem to know who your friends are. We’re mostly on the same side, so this antagonism is really quite unnecessary. Save it for the lefties.

davesinsanantonio

the Labor Department. If Obummer refuses to sign a budget he doesn’t like then the government shuts down (if the Congress has the guts to let it), and that could be the best thing for a while. Congress could pass a funding resolution for national defense and securing the border (at least to the extent that Obummer is willing to do anything to benefit this country) and maybe one or two other vital operations, but the rest can be on unpaid leave until he is forced to come around. And, if he doesn’t, find a reason to impeach and convict him and then replace him, and all of his successors until we get one who cares about the country and not just his image in the mirror.
JSobieski

nt

izoneguy

They need to get out of the way and let the private sector re-build the economy.

PLEASE US CONGRESS STOP……

The R’s just need to keep Obama in check.

JSobieski

The goal should be to map against 2008 or some earlier budget line and prepare for shutdown if the President wont go along.

Don’t think that military appropriations to fund our soldiers won’t get sucked into the battle.

I’m just asking that people not be too simplistic or naive as to how some of things are likely to play out.

I for one would be happy with just say no!
izoneguy

and start ripping up ObamaCare then we will have big problems.

We don’t need to “fix” ObamaCare.

We need tort reform and competition.
JSobieski

I am well aware of some good health care solutions (HSA accounts should be front and center), but its hard to see how we will be able to anything more than some symbolic votes that don’t result in legal changes . . . OR we will have a government shut down.

I suspect that the shut down will occur, but I am not sure everyone on our side is ready for it, or is thinking objectively about how things could play out.

TXCHLInstructor

I just read Jim Collin’s book Good To Great http://sn.im/gd2grt , which is a study of how underperforming companies managed to “beat the odds” to become great companies, and “beat the market”.

It is painfully obvious after seeing the studies in Good To Great, that GM has NONE of the qualities that would allow it to recover from it’s present circumstances. In order to recover, it would have to first get rid of it’s current de-facto CEO, Barack Obama, who is about as far from being a Level 5 leader as you can get.
izoneguy

http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/10/plant-expansion-linchpin-in-bmw-plan-to-dominate-us-luxury-market.html

The BMW Group officially opened the expansion of its Spartanburg, S.C., manufacturing complex Wednesday, a key step in its quest to achieve dominance of the U.S. luxury-vehicle market.

The expansion to BMW’s existing Spartanburg, S.C., plant adds 1.2 million square feet of space, boosts annual production capacity by nearly 50 percent to 240,000 vehicles by 2011 from the current 160,000 and adds 1,600 jobs for a total of 7,600 employees by year-end.

Southern Auto Industry Influences Unions

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/23/southern-auto-industry-influences-unions/

Hundreds of applicants stand in line at a BMW jobs fair at Spartanburg Community College in Upstate South Carolina.

“To make the money that I want to make… I will drive almost three hours to get a job,” said Cynthia White of Salisbury, NC, who lost her job with a trucking company one and a half years ago.

BMW has announced it’s adding about 500 jobs to its South Carolina manufacturing plant to meet increased orders — a sign of the relative health of foreign automakers building cars in largely Southern, non-union plants.

The success of America’s “other” auto industry has prompted labor unions representing workers at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors to agree to dramatic changes over recent years.

“The fact is that union and non-union pay rates now, and benefits for that matter, tend to be almost identical,” said Leslie Hough, project director of National Community Development Services, an economic development consulting firm. “Part of that is the result of the concessions that unions have granted to the Big Three for competitive reasons, just out of necessity.”

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

that will compete with a BMW.
http://www.twitter.com/RS_yoyo yoyo

South Carolina and it’s Right-to-Work Law; Gotta love it.

Boeing’s make-or-buy decision involving the 787 plant in NorthChuck was a stunner. Boeing figured it cheaper to build, in a SWAMP, a brand spanking new plant (at a tune of $750M) 3000 miles from their traditional home, than to stay in Everette, on their existing facility, and have to mess with the Unions. Again. Ever.

Well, they were right. And we in SC welcome the jobs. Thank you, Unions.

northernrockiesguy

I will stick with a company that said “no” to government bailout. Ford took on alot of debt and may not make it, but they are doing a good job now.
We need someone in the oval office who will deal with the unions the way Ronald Reagan dealt with the air traffic control union. Unfortunately we have just the opposite.
raginpatriot

Just watch this video of the UAW President Bob King addressing the socialist “One Nation” rally a few weeks ago.

Buy a UAW-built vehicle and this is what you are supporting.

Refuse to buy a UAW-built vehicle and this is what you are opposing.

In other words, be a patriot supporting America by refusing to purchase a UAW-built vehicle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqwxV_54dY
mkozikowski

Last year, when Obama GAVE GM to the workers, I was laughing.
Before the ink was even dry, I was asking, “How are they going to negotiate (strike) for wages, health care and retirement options? They own it. It would be an action against themselves.

Then we see from “AFP” article
“US autoworkers’ union makes investors nervous”

“Workers have the right to vote on pay cuts,” he said. He
being Nick Waun, a member of UAW Local 5960.

If anyone were to buy stock or ownership of GM knowing
what we all know, they would be getting what they pay for.
The first order of business would have to be to move to a
right to work state, or perhaps out of the country.

Otherwise, the criminals, pirates, scabs and GOLD-BRICKS keep the anchor that sits around their
necks. It is their doing, they should be proud of the
ownership
qixlqatl

why the recent diaries, comments and redhot links are missing from the right side of this page? Not happening on any others afaik…
http://www.alyssakaeding.com Alyssa Kaeding

Honestly: The fact that GM got involved with the government really is too bad. Do they make the best products on the planet? Probably not. I am not a car expert. I do happen to own an 2002 Chev Cavalier though and you know what- it has been the perfect car for me. It’s got 186,000 miles on it and I have done very few repairs. It was cheap to start with, so I have certainly gotten my money out of it. And now the government is telling GM what kind of cars to make…..

I hate to say it, but my next car will not be a GM even though my car has proven to be a good one. GM screws its’ investors in pursuit of neutralizing the overpaid UAW workers. I would think those workers should just be happy to still have jobs! I went to college in Michigan and saw the economy go from bad to the absolute worse.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The UAW: The Curse that Just Keeps on Giving

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL