haha Sorry about that
Grow Up, Bob.
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
I laugh every time I see a union sticker.
Quote:
The UAW may have taken some wage cuts, but their workers are STILL grossly overpaid compared to the private labor market and the skill most of these workers have.
And I will add that the salary workers made WAY MORE concessions and cuts than the UAW and that irrates the heck out of me.
The UAW may have taken some wage cuts, but their workers are STILL grossly overpaid compared to the private labor market and the skill most of these workers have.
And I will add that the salary workers made WAY MORE concessions and cuts than the UAW and that irrates the heck out of me.
There was a story about 7-10 days ago, about an auto parts plant in Indianapolis, where the UAW was trying to force the workers to take a huge pay cut (from $29/hour to $15.50/hour) for the benefit of General Motors.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
I thought setting your own rules on your own property was american.
It is. I don't think anyone's arguing that what Mr. King is doing should be illegal; simply that it's a childish thing to do.
Agreed. Simply put, if the Union and management for the big 3 do not change their attitude and stop blaming everyone else for their problems then I honestly believe it will be their downfall and 2 of the big three will not be here in 10 years.
Quit [censored] about the competetion and start getting customers back with good products and gain customer trust again.
Originally Posted By: Win
I thought setting your own rules on your own property was american.
It is. I don't think anyone's arguing that what Mr. King is doing should be illegal; simply that it's a childish thing to do.
Agreed. Simply put, if the Union and management for the big 3 do not change their attitude and stop blaming everyone else for their problems then I honestly believe it will be their downfall and 2 of the big three will not be here in 10 years.
Quit [censored] about the competetion and start getting customers back with good products and gain customer trust again.
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
I thought setting your own rules on your own property was american.
It is. I don't think anyone's arguing that what Mr. King is doing should be illegal; simply that it's a childish thing to do.
Agreed. Simply put, if the Union and management for the big 3 do not change their attitude and stop blaming everyone else for their problems then I honestly believe it will be their downfall and 2 of the big three will not be here in 10 years.
Quit [censored] about the competetion and start getting customers back with good products and gain customer trust again.
Bingo, what will get me to buy a Big3 car again is for that car to be the best choice for my family.
Blaming the consumer for choosing other brands is not going to sell more cars. It will likely drive those consumers away.
I bought almost exclusively GM from 1981 until 1994 and then still bought big 3 until 2000. Technically I've had a GM for almost all of those year. Just the last 7, my GM has been a Toyota with a Geo and now a Pontiac badge on it.
Seems GM sold the heck out of the Vibe and the Prizm around here. But they don't offer cars like that, so I'm not sure the Cruse (Cruze?) will entice me into the show room
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
I thought setting your own rules on your own property was american.
It is. I don't think anyone's arguing that what Mr. King is doing should be illegal; simply that it's a childish thing to do.
Agreed. Simply put, if the Union and management for the big 3 do not change their attitude and stop blaming everyone else for their problems then I honestly believe it will be their downfall and 2 of the big three will not be here in 10 years.
Quit [censored] about the competetion and start getting customers back with good products and gain customer trust again.
Bingo, what will get me to buy a Big3 car again is for that car to be the best choice for my family.
Blaming the consumer for choosing other brands is not going to sell more cars. It will likely drive those consumers away.
I bought almost exclusively GM from 1981 until 1994 and then still bought big 3 until 2000. Technically I've had a GM for almost all of those year. Just the last 7, my GM has been a Toyota with a Geo and now a Pontiac badge on it.
Seems GM sold the heck out of the Vibe and the Prizm around here. But they don't offer cars like that, so I'm not sure the Cruse (Cruze?) will entice me into the show room
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Quote:
The UAW may have taken some wage cuts, but their workers are STILL grossly overpaid compared to the private labor market and the skill most of these workers have.
And I will add that the salary workers made WAY MORE concessions and cuts than the UAW and that irrates the heck out of me.
The general labor market can be driven down to min wage (which, BTW, is a result of unions) if there is enough surplus of labor. Look at the desperate countries like Vietnam and communist China.
Quote:
The UAW may have taken some wage cuts, but their workers are STILL grossly overpaid compared to the private labor market and the skill most of these workers have.
And I will add that the salary workers made WAY MORE concessions and cuts than the UAW and that irrates the heck out of me.
The general labor market can be driven down to min wage (which, BTW, is a result of unions) if there is enough surplus of labor. Look at the desperate countries like Vietnam and communist China.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
And I will add that the salary workers made WAY MORE concessions and cuts than the UAW and the irrates the heck out of me.
Doesn't surprise me one bit...
Once fat, usually always fat!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
And I will add that the salary workers made WAY MORE concessions and cuts than the UAW and the irrates the heck out of me.
Doesn't surprise me one bit...
Once fat, usually always fat!
Originally Posted By: cousincletus
The general labor market can be driven down to min wage (which, BTW, is a result of unions) if there is enough surplus of labor. Look at the desperate countries like Vietnam and communist China.
Took you long enough.
When are we going to get our lesson on how American freedoms are destroying America? My popcorn is getting stale.
The general labor market can be driven down to min wage (which, BTW, is a result of unions) if there is enough surplus of labor. Look at the desperate countries like Vietnam and communist China.
Took you long enough.
When are we going to get our lesson on how American freedoms are destroying America? My popcorn is getting stale.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What a complete hypocritical fool; blaming "foreign" car companies for taking tax payer money, when his own frikkin union was bailed out by taxpayers and the biggest company his unions represents, took over $ 40 billion from us taxpayers?
The UAW will be the cheapest government union we ever bail out.
The other govt/public employee unions will cost the taxpayer, well, the half or less of the population that actually pays federal income taxes, many more billions.
It will make the UAW bailout look like a trip to the five and dime store. What types of cars the UAW does / does not allow on their property is completely inconsequential.
The UAW product is no more crummy than the products churned out by, say, the public education unions, and at least the UAW has to face some degree of competition.
edit: wasn't there some public union(s) that sucked another $26B out of the treasury just last week? Teachers or something? There are so many of these bailouts I can hardly keep up with them.
What a complete hypocritical fool; blaming "foreign" car companies for taking tax payer money, when his own frikkin union was bailed out by taxpayers and the biggest company his unions represents, took over $ 40 billion from us taxpayers?
The UAW will be the cheapest government union we ever bail out.
The other govt/public employee unions will cost the taxpayer, well, the half or less of the population that actually pays federal income taxes, many more billions.
It will make the UAW bailout look like a trip to the five and dime store. What types of cars the UAW does / does not allow on their property is completely inconsequential.
The UAW product is no more crummy than the products churned out by, say, the public education unions, and at least the UAW has to face some degree of competition.
edit: wasn't there some public union(s) that sucked another $26B out of the treasury just last week? Teachers or something? There are so many of these bailouts I can hardly keep up with them.
Last edited:
Perhaps.
However, it's extremely short sighted for Bob to cry about the subsidies the foreign automakers got while still in the shadow of the recent GM and Chrysler bailout packages.
That's what makes him look two-faced.
Perhaps I should have cited this as the example in the saving a stranger or a dog thread. It's another example of the point I made there.
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What a complete hypocritical fool; blaming "foreign" car companies for taking tax payer money, when his own frikkin union was bailed out by taxpayers and the biggest company his unions represents, took over $ 40 billion from us taxpayers?
The UAW will be the cheapest government union we ever bail out.
The other govt/public employee unions will cost the taxpayer, well, the half or less of the population that actually pays federal income taxes, many more billions.
It will make the UAW bailout look like a trip to the five and dime store. What types of cars the UAW does / does not allow on their property is completely inconsequential.
The UAW product is no more crummy than the products churned out by, say, the public education unions, and at least the UAW has to face some degree of competition.
edit: wasn't there some public union(s) that sucked another $26B out of the treasury just last week? Teachers or something? There are so many of these bailouts I can hardly keep up with them.
However, it's extremely short sighted for Bob to cry about the subsidies the foreign automakers got while still in the shadow of the recent GM and Chrysler bailout packages.
That's what makes him look two-faced.
Perhaps I should have cited this as the example in the saving a stranger or a dog thread. It's another example of the point I made there.
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
What a complete hypocritical fool; blaming "foreign" car companies for taking tax payer money, when his own frikkin union was bailed out by taxpayers and the biggest company his unions represents, took over $ 40 billion from us taxpayers?
The UAW will be the cheapest government union we ever bail out.
The other govt/public employee unions will cost the taxpayer, well, the half or less of the population that actually pays federal income taxes, many more billions.
It will make the UAW bailout look like a trip to the five and dime store. What types of cars the UAW does / does not allow on their property is completely inconsequential.
The UAW product is no more crummy than the products churned out by, say, the public education unions, and at least the UAW has to face some degree of competition.
edit: wasn't there some public union(s) that sucked another $26B out of the treasury just last week? Teachers or something? There are so many of these bailouts I can hardly keep up with them.
Originally Posted By: Win
It will make the UAW bailout look like a trip to the five and dime store. What types of cars the UAW does / does not allow on their property is completely inconsequential.
Pretty sure Drew was talking about a statement King said, not his parking lot policy.
Originally Posted By: Win
The UAW product is no more crummy than the products churned out by, say, the public education unions, and at least the UAW has to face some degree of competition.
The UAW doesn't have to contend with policies that force its workers to underperform.
It will make the UAW bailout look like a trip to the five and dime store. What types of cars the UAW does / does not allow on their property is completely inconsequential.
Pretty sure Drew was talking about a statement King said, not his parking lot policy.
Originally Posted By: Win
The UAW product is no more crummy than the products churned out by, say, the public education unions, and at least the UAW has to face some degree of competition.
The UAW doesn't have to contend with policies that force its workers to underperform.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
.... However, it's extremely short sighted for Bob to cry about the subsidies the foreign automakers got while still in the shadow of the recent GM and Chrysler bailout packages.
That's what makes him look two-faced.
Somebody needs to cry out about it.
It's absurd to turn a blind eye to the land giveaways, property and income tax waivers, employment incentives, and the myriad other taxpayer giveaways that go, predominantly it seems to me, to foreign national corporations to induce them to locate manufacturing facilities here, and then feign outrage when established corporations that are placed at a competitive disadvantage by this fiscal insanity have to be bailed out or go belly up in the face of this unfair trade practice.
I don't see any material difference between a giveaway on the front end, or a giveaway on the back end. Both are wrong. Some taxpayer still has to pay for it.
.... However, it's extremely short sighted for Bob to cry about the subsidies the foreign automakers got while still in the shadow of the recent GM and Chrysler bailout packages.
That's what makes him look two-faced.
Somebody needs to cry out about it.
It's absurd to turn a blind eye to the land giveaways, property and income tax waivers, employment incentives, and the myriad other taxpayer giveaways that go, predominantly it seems to me, to foreign national corporations to induce them to locate manufacturing facilities here, and then feign outrage when established corporations that are placed at a competitive disadvantage by this fiscal insanity have to be bailed out or go belly up in the face of this unfair trade practice.
I don't see any material difference between a giveaway on the front end, or a giveaway on the back end. Both are wrong. Some taxpayer still has to pay for it.
Communities want jobs. I don't see GM, Ford or Chrysler going down south and opening up new plants.
I'm sure that same money would be given to them if they made such moves. But they don't.
Other companies are building plants in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, etc.
Plus, I really doubt GM got nothing when it built Saturn plants.
I know both Chrysler and Ford were offered incentives NOT TO CLOSE their respective plants in St. Louis, but chose to close them anyway.
So it's disingenuous to claim the incentives are only offered to "foreign" car makers. Incentives are offered to the domestic makers as well, in addition to any federal funds they recently obtained from the public.
So unless he's willing to decry the incentives the Big3 have obtained either from state and local governments, in addition to any federal dollars, he really has no standing to complain about others getting what the Big3 are also getting.
I'm sure that same money would be given to them if they made such moves. But they don't.
Other companies are building plants in Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, etc.
Plus, I really doubt GM got nothing when it built Saturn plants.
I know both Chrysler and Ford were offered incentives NOT TO CLOSE their respective plants in St. Louis, but chose to close them anyway.
So it's disingenuous to claim the incentives are only offered to "foreign" car makers. Incentives are offered to the domestic makers as well, in addition to any federal funds they recently obtained from the public.
So unless he's willing to decry the incentives the Big3 have obtained either from state and local governments, in addition to any federal dollars, he really has no standing to complain about others getting what the Big3 are also getting.
The messenger doesn't interest me much.
I don't see any distinction between a front end giveaway or a back end bailout. A subsidy is a subsidy. Someone else still has to pay for it.
Unless one is willing to decry the incentives foreign automakers have obtained from our taxpayers, they really have no standing to complain about old GM having their hand out as I see it.
I don't see any distinction between a front end giveaway or a back end bailout. A subsidy is a subsidy. Someone else still has to pay for it.
Unless one is willing to decry the incentives foreign automakers have obtained from our taxpayers, they really have no standing to complain about old GM having their hand out as I see it.
I tend to agree with you. Yet local communities are free to offer incentives to lure business.
They do it with tax rates anyway. Some states have no income tax, that has to lure some folks. Other have modest tax rates, still others have high tax rates.
So even if the obvious incentives are done away with, there will always be the not so obvious incentives.
Where I draw the line is FEDERAL incentives. I think constitutionally, the states are free to entice business.
Where I think it's wrong is for the federal government to start handing out incentives. If the citizens of Kentucky want to lure a plant, they can offer incentives. If the community of Georgetown, KY wants to offer incentives, they are free to do so. It's their community, and if they want to give up current tax money for jobs, that's a decision they are free to make.
Where it's not so clear is when the federal government start picking winners and losers for the bailout lottery.
So I'm all for states and local governments doing what it takes to win business. I'm against federal bailouts. It doesn't matter who the carmaker is, in either case. To me, it's not a nationality of the carmaker as it's the appropriateness for a particular government organization to offer the incentives.
States and Local=OK in my book. Federal=NOGO in that same book.
They do it with tax rates anyway. Some states have no income tax, that has to lure some folks. Other have modest tax rates, still others have high tax rates.
So even if the obvious incentives are done away with, there will always be the not so obvious incentives.
Where I draw the line is FEDERAL incentives. I think constitutionally, the states are free to entice business.
Where I think it's wrong is for the federal government to start handing out incentives. If the citizens of Kentucky want to lure a plant, they can offer incentives. If the community of Georgetown, KY wants to offer incentives, they are free to do so. It's their community, and if they want to give up current tax money for jobs, that's a decision they are free to make.
Where it's not so clear is when the federal government start picking winners and losers for the bailout lottery.
So I'm all for states and local governments doing what it takes to win business. I'm against federal bailouts. It doesn't matter who the carmaker is, in either case. To me, it's not a nationality of the carmaker as it's the appropriateness for a particular government organization to offer the incentives.
States and Local=OK in my book. Federal=NOGO in that same book.
Originally Posted By: Win
I don't see any distinction between a front end giveaway or a back end bailout. A subsidy is a subsidy. Someone else still has to pay for it.
Unless one is willing to decry the incentives foreign automakers have obtained from our taxpayers, they really have no standing to complain about old GM having their hand out as I see it.
I don't live in Alabama or Tennessee or South Carolina, and I don't pay taxes in those states. So no money of mine paid for subsidies to companies which located in those states.
I live in the US and so my money was taken and transferred to GM and Chrysler, but mainly to the UAW. GM and Chrysler shareholders did not get the money, Chrysler's bondholders were ripped off big-time in violation of bankruptcy laws in place for hundreds of years.
The government bailout was mainly a gift to the UAW, just as the $800 stimulus bill was almost entirely directed toward projects with union labor. Union members are a tiny percentage of the total labor force in the US, but the last couple years have seen a huge transfer of wealth from non-union workers to union members.
I don't see any distinction between a front end giveaway or a back end bailout. A subsidy is a subsidy. Someone else still has to pay for it.
Unless one is willing to decry the incentives foreign automakers have obtained from our taxpayers, they really have no standing to complain about old GM having their hand out as I see it.
I don't live in Alabama or Tennessee or South Carolina, and I don't pay taxes in those states. So no money of mine paid for subsidies to companies which located in those states.
I live in the US and so my money was taken and transferred to GM and Chrysler, but mainly to the UAW. GM and Chrysler shareholders did not get the money, Chrysler's bondholders were ripped off big-time in violation of bankruptcy laws in place for hundreds of years.
The government bailout was mainly a gift to the UAW, just as the $800 stimulus bill was almost entirely directed toward projects with union labor. Union members are a tiny percentage of the total labor force in the US, but the last couple years have seen a huge transfer of wealth from non-union workers to union members.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I tend to agree with you. Yet local communities are free to offer incentives to lure business.
They do it with tax rates anyway. Some states have no income tax, that has to lure some folks. Other have modest tax rates, still others have high tax rates.
So even if the obvious incentives are done away with, there will always be the not so obvious incentives.
Where I draw the line is FEDERAL incentives. I think constitutionally, the states are free to entice business.
Where I think it's wrong is for the federal government to start handing out incentives. If the citizens of Kentucky want to lure a plant, they can offer incentives. If the community of Georgetown, KY wants to offer incentives, they are free to do so. It's their community, and if they want to give up current tax money for jobs, that's a decision they are free to make.
Where it's not so clear is when the federal government start picking winners and losers for the bailout lottery.
So I'm all for states and local governments doing what it takes to win business. I'm against federal bailouts. It doesn't matter who the carmaker is, in either case. To me, it's not a nationality of the carmaker as it's the appropriateness for a particular government organization to offer the incentives.
States and Local=OK in my book. Federal=NOGO in that same book.
Good point. People may not like any form of government incentives, but I've seen them work here when our provincial government used them as a well implemented tool to turn our economy around. At the same time, I thought the give-a-ways to the banking sector by the feds, in the not so distant past, a complete misuse of tax payer money.
I think the main difference, and why I agree with one but not the other, is that at the provincial (or state level for you guys down south), its an incentive that's used to attract business. These businesses in turn create jobs and revenue is generated into the local economy through salaries and back into government coffers through other taxes. So nothing is really given away - its more an investment that, when done properly, pays long term dividends in the form of regional economic growth.
At the federal level its not so clear cut as to what exactly that we, the tax payer, are gaining (short or long term) and it tends to smack of an outright giveaway for no return. And worse, it too often seems to reward corporate mismanagement. At a minimum, any corporate giveaway at the federal level should be met with by a massive reduction in salaries by the executive and board members, and a freeze on any increases until the company is paying a decent dividend again to its shareholders.
As it stands now its a total giveaway of taxpayer money to reward corporate mismanagement by those at the helm, and with no consequences - they get to continue on making their enormous salaries that are paid to them, indirectly, out of the pockets of the tax payer.
-Spyder
I tend to agree with you. Yet local communities are free to offer incentives to lure business.
They do it with tax rates anyway. Some states have no income tax, that has to lure some folks. Other have modest tax rates, still others have high tax rates.
So even if the obvious incentives are done away with, there will always be the not so obvious incentives.
Where I draw the line is FEDERAL incentives. I think constitutionally, the states are free to entice business.
Where I think it's wrong is for the federal government to start handing out incentives. If the citizens of Kentucky want to lure a plant, they can offer incentives. If the community of Georgetown, KY wants to offer incentives, they are free to do so. It's their community, and if they want to give up current tax money for jobs, that's a decision they are free to make.
Where it's not so clear is when the federal government start picking winners and losers for the bailout lottery.
So I'm all for states and local governments doing what it takes to win business. I'm against federal bailouts. It doesn't matter who the carmaker is, in either case. To me, it's not a nationality of the carmaker as it's the appropriateness for a particular government organization to offer the incentives.
States and Local=OK in my book. Federal=NOGO in that same book.
Good point. People may not like any form of government incentives, but I've seen them work here when our provincial government used them as a well implemented tool to turn our economy around. At the same time, I thought the give-a-ways to the banking sector by the feds, in the not so distant past, a complete misuse of tax payer money.
I think the main difference, and why I agree with one but not the other, is that at the provincial (or state level for you guys down south), its an incentive that's used to attract business. These businesses in turn create jobs and revenue is generated into the local economy through salaries and back into government coffers through other taxes. So nothing is really given away - its more an investment that, when done properly, pays long term dividends in the form of regional economic growth.
At the federal level its not so clear cut as to what exactly that we, the tax payer, are gaining (short or long term) and it tends to smack of an outright giveaway for no return. And worse, it too often seems to reward corporate mismanagement. At a minimum, any corporate giveaway at the federal level should be met with by a massive reduction in salaries by the executive and board members, and a freeze on any increases until the company is paying a decent dividend again to its shareholders.
As it stands now its a total giveaway of taxpayer money to reward corporate mismanagement by those at the helm, and with no consequences - they get to continue on making their enormous salaries that are paid to them, indirectly, out of the pockets of the tax payer.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: javacontour
... Yet local communities are free to offer incentives to lure business.
.....
To me, it's not a nationality of the carmaker as it's the appropriateness for a particular government organization to offer the incentives.
States and Local=OK in my book. Federal=NOGO in that same book.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to be terse, btw, I just should be working on other things.
The following is not so much an argument with any of the above as it is an observation.
A state or states, being free to offer whatever local incentives it wants, can have a pretty destructive effect on established industries in other states.
The pervasiveness of federal turn back funds to the states may (or may not, I don't know) in fact enable or subsidize some of these local subsidies. So I'm not entirely convinced that even a local subsidy is in reality a local subsidy.
I think these giveaways, be they front end loaded or back end loaded, are just a bad path to have headed down. And if we are going to head down that path, let other countries prop up their manufacturers, we have enough of our own to prop up without taking on theirs as well.
... Yet local communities are free to offer incentives to lure business.
.....
To me, it's not a nationality of the carmaker as it's the appropriateness for a particular government organization to offer the incentives.
States and Local=OK in my book. Federal=NOGO in that same book.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to be terse, btw, I just should be working on other things.
The following is not so much an argument with any of the above as it is an observation.
A state or states, being free to offer whatever local incentives it wants, can have a pretty destructive effect on established industries in other states.
The pervasiveness of federal turn back funds to the states may (or may not, I don't know) in fact enable or subsidize some of these local subsidies. So I'm not entirely convinced that even a local subsidy is in reality a local subsidy.
I think these giveaways, be they front end loaded or back end loaded, are just a bad path to have headed down. And if we are going to head down that path, let other countries prop up their manufacturers, we have enough of our own to prop up without taking on theirs as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
