quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: I can't stand to watch ANY of the cable news programming anymore...it does nothing but piss me off to watch these suited up morons spew their lies and rhetoric...The last time I watched one of the "alphabet" channels, Kudlow was on literally screaming that GM should be forced into bankruptcy and that he didn't give a damn what the repercussions were for the retirees and the workers...
Seriously...I would biotch slap that little prick, from here to Dallas, if I ever came face to face with him...
I am fed up with the whole phucking upper class and their "out of touch" mentality...
You definetly see the world my way or more then usual... and even though you are not one you do see some of Karl Marx's views much like i do...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
heck it's OK to pad the accounts of the rich and steal fromt he pension funds but don't you dare take fromt he rich so the poor won't starve without giving them a tax deduction
----------------------------------------------
ain't that the truth
The old phrase of the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules LOL
Posts: 316 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You definitley see the world my way or more then usual... and even though you are not one you do see some of Karl Marx's views much like i do...
Mach, i beleive that most people who take the time to assemble a coherant picture of the society they live in SEE the problems for what they are. the disagreements are usually in how to approach the solutions.
go back 500 years to when the Americas were discovered. What drove the Spaniards to come and steal everything not nailed down?
Gold God and Glory. a conquistador was as "famous" as any media star today. of course alot more was at stake in those days. you had a much higher likelihood of killing or being killed to become rich. most Americans of 500 yrs ago died by accident. they got sick because the spaniards brought several diseases with them that the Indigenous Americans had no resistance to.
There was nothing glorious about what the bloodthirsty *******s did tho. Except in the Royal Courts of Europe, which was all that mattered at the time. As for God? they were worshipping the Popes wish to spread his influence as far as he could.
Some of the societies they met were probably more "civilized" than any culture in Europe. Others like the Aztecca were practicing religious sacrificial rites that no "civilised" person can begin to philosophically justify. It takes generations of mega-depravity to figure out how to get a whole society to participate in skin dancing and extracting living hearts from people in religious exersizes. The whole blood sacrifice thing probably started because they noticed that blood is a good fertilizer for crop plants. It is.
It is always the same in human society. It stratifies. Then the stratification gets "mixed up" usually by violence, but not always. Most education is specifically geared to make people accept rules without question. When people actually begin to accept rules without question? They then accept rulers without question. Marx didn't found any of the modern societies in practice, only in theory and his form of utopia is just as impractical as any other utopia.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
they are just angry cuz they lost political power AND the credit card bill is due at the same time...
the stupidest part of their teaparties is that the tax dollars are at least being spent on regular people now... the teaparty punks are afraid some little old lady might get to eat human food instead of canned dog food... the last ten years the tax moneys have been going into ---well we don't even know where they went because the Pentagon can't account for most of it anyway.. no-bid contracts? they're illegal. and if they are/were "technically" legal now? they are immoral and anti-freemarket, yet the "freemarketeers" never raised peep over them...
i've known for fifteen years that i would see Social Security run out of money just as i will hit retirement age. i was actually surprised two years ago when they said it would last as long as they claimed. now we know that it will run out much sooner.
-------------------- he who laughs, lasts
Great post Glass
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: You definitley see the world my way or more then usual... and even though you are not one you do see some of Karl Marx's views much like i do...
Mach, i beleive that most people who take the time to assemble a coherant picture of the society they live in SEE the problems for what they are. the disagreements are usually in how to approach the solutions.
go back 500 years to when the Americas were discovered. What drove the Spaniards to come and steal everything not nailed down?
Gold God and Glory. a conquistador was as "famous" as any media star today. of course alot more was at stake in those days. you had a much higher likelihood of killing or being killed to become rich. most Americans of 500 yrs ago died by accident. they got sick because the spaniards brought several diseases with them that the Indigenous Americans had no resistance to.
There was nothing glorious about what the bloodthirsty *******s did tho. Except in the Royal Courts of Europe, which was all that mattered at the time. As for God? they were worshipping the Popes wish to spread his influence as far as he could.
Some of the societies they met were probably more "civilized" than any culture in Europe. Others like the Aztecca were practicing religious sacrificial rites that no "civilised" person can begin to philosophically justify. It takes generations of mega-depravity to figure out how to get a whole society to participate in skin dancing and extracting living hearts from people in religious exersizes. The whole blood sacrifice thing probably started because they noticed that blood is a good fertilizer for crop plants. It is.
It is always the same in human society. It stratifies. Then the stratification gets "mixed up" usually by violence, but not always. Most education is specifically geared to make people accept rules without question. When people actually begin to accept rules without question? They then accept rulers without question. Marx didn't found any of the modern societies in practice, only in theory and his form of utopia is just as impractical as any other utopia.
I'm quite aware of Spaniard history in the New World Glass lol Especially pertaining to Costa Rica , since it's discovery by Chris Colombus, or lack of since CR was in such isolation there was almost no interference from Spain in CR throughout it's history... and not much indegenious people in CR as well...
As for Utopias, it goes without saying that they are not perfect whether they be socialist, communist, capitalist etc. Nothing is perfect in this world with the exception of D-Flawless diamonds and Monica Bellucci/Salma Hayek/Catherine Zeta Jones/Russian women and other lovelies around the world lol
But that does not mean the Marx was not correct in his economic & political theories between the bourgeois and proletariats. Class struggles or class warfare if you must.
The only thing I didn't agree with him is violent revolution to achieve his views. I still cannot define my political views, though they are definetly to the Left. But if I had to pick a political view that is defined then I would probably say I am a Social Democrat in my views.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: greed is NEVER good. greed is not the kind of motivation we need to make the world a place fit for decent civilised humans to live in. civilisation is a very thin veneer and the veneer seems to be getting aloto cracks in it
Greed for lack of a better word is what made this country superwealthy as well as any other country in this world with superwealth. Whether you like to admit it or not my friend, Greed can be viewed as both bad and good. Bad for some and Good for others. If it were not for Greed, in it's classic sense, this country would not be where it is today (economic crisis excluded, but you know what i mean). The world has always viewed the U.S. as a money culture. Why do you think that is? It's definetly not because were not viewed as "non Greedy". Afterall we do not get involved in any country that does not benefit us financially. As they say, Money talks and BS walks. We don't do things because of human rights or any other reason when we are in another country. The bottom line is money. Simple as that. All else is a afterthought. And what drives money is Greed, period.
Obama did not shake Chavez's hand because the foremost on his mind is human rights in Venezuela. He shook his hand because of what's in it for us financially down the road. An oil rich country as well as export/import potentional. Human rights when it is spewed by our leaders is a smokescreen. Some are sincere about it but it's really in the backburner compared to making $$ for this country. So let's at least be honest about that. You can say Greed is never good and this or that but the bottom line is for the financial welfare of any country , especially ours, Greed is Good.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: lol, you're still confusing greed with ambition or ... something. We already been through this--greed is bad by definition.
You think the USA conquering the world economically is ambition and not Greed? ... Do you really think the USA does no wrong when it enters another country's economy?. I did say the "classic sense or definition" of Greed when it comes to the U.S. and it's quest for money.
Here's the definition of Greed as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary so I am not accused of using an unreliable source like dictionary.com:
"a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed"
I would say that accurately describes the U.S. as a whole when it pertains to it's economic policies. We may not say it publicly but it definetly is what the U.S. built it's power on more then anything else. Money. And it's not ambition.
Sure how we obtain the wealth through the exploitation of other countries resources and such is bad but the U.S.'s ultimately obtaining wealth from such actions is what is the good part. Bad for the exploited countries but good for the U.S. Sort of a ying/yang you might say. For every good there is bad and for every bad there is good. We may not admit honestly how this country had obtained it's wealth but Machiavelli was right when he said the Ends justify the Means. At least when it comes to this countries own self interest and wealth it does.
You may not like it but that is just the way it is and always will be. This country can't get ahead in this world by being totally moral and honest. It has to cut corners, privately at least, or else.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i wasn't suggesting you didn't know about he Conquistadors, that's why i chose that example. within the Americas it is likely there was much more social diverstiy than there was in Europe or Asia.
The only thing I didn't agree with him is violent revolution to achieve his views.
violence is, in the end, the only power that is recognised by the animals.
to expect all of humanity to be "civilised" is totally unrealistic.
even at the cellular level, violence is the ultimate tool. you get sick because some "dis-ease" is attcking cells in your body and your body produces cells that attack them.
in reproduction? some sperms go for the egg, and others attack other sperms... "proof" that monogomy is biologically "unnatural"
you MUST be prepared for violence to keep violence from happening. that is the only true enlightenment of the modern age. the only reason we have not had a full blown WW3 similar to WWs 1&2 is because of the nuclear "doomsday" capability that we hold. will it eventually destroy the world? most likely. it is the new slective environmental stress. If nuclear war is unthinkable? then petty warmongers will use the "unthinkability" of it to wage the kind of wars we saw in Iraq and Iran or Kuwait.
no matter how mentally illuminated any animal, human or otherwise, becomes? avoiding violence entirely is the highest form personal safety, but avoiding violence entirely is to become ethereal not corporeal.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that accurately describes the U.S. as a whole when it pertains to it's economic policies. We may not say it publicly but it definetly is what the U.S. built it's power on more then anything else. Money. And it's not ambition.
there are two sides to it and the greed side of it represents the part that you openly express dislike for this country over.
most of the exploitation has HISTORICALLY been over natural resources.
currently the exploitation has moved to become of human labour. this exploitation of human labour will destroy (if it hasn't already) destroy our economy completely. that is because we have to keep our labour force fully employed with a resaonble amopunt of disparity between the upper and lower classes. when the disparity becomes too great/ the upper classes will be decimated by the larger numbers of lower classes. it has always been that way, and always will be that way. people will only put up with a certain amount of disparity before they decide to do something about it.
to expect no disparity at all is also unreasonable.
this is why the "teaparties" we are seeing today are so laughable. to complain that half the people do not pay enough taxes is ludicrous and actually shows how stupid the protestors are. every penny that poor have is gone at the end of the year. the money they spent went to pay taxes and to the huge slaries of the people who are paying the taxes. the fact that the rich want the poor to pay more is about as dumb a concept as i've ever heard.
the strangest part of all is how these people calim to be followers of Reaganism. they once again prove their inability to even understadn Reaganism. Reaganism may have been flawed, but Reagan himself specifically recomended progressive taxes in recognition that the poor will always remain poor with a high tax burden and are the least capable of paying the taxes anyway. th eideal of America is to elevate as many peopl to high productivity as possible (even in other countires) that is the IDEAL... we don't come close to reaching that. that is not the "greed" side. that is the Ambition side. ambition can be good or bad. greed is always bad.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think the USA conquering the world economically is ambition and not Greed? ... Do you really think the USA does no wrong when it enters another country's economy?. I did say the "classic sense or definition" of Greed when it comes to the U.S. and it's quest for money.
No, I didn't address the U.S. Was merely following up on the greed debate.
The U.S. has done lottsa bad stuff not only to foreign countries and their people but also to our country and our people, mostly from greed but sometimes from colossal blunders.
"Entering" other economies is certainly not limited to the U.S., though. Of course, in one very practical sense, intertwined economies have a wonderful benefit: governments are less likely to bomb places where they have significant investments in infrastructure and real property.
This latest crisis is all about greed: CDOs, CDSs and the ilk don't "produce" (as in, manufacture) anything. In real estate, for instance, the houses were built. Sure, some developments were spec plays fueled by easy money, just as "flippers" were lured in via greed/easy money.
The problem is the "illusion" of a free market that turns out to be an Oz-like situation, with a relative few behind the curtain, flipping switches and making thunderous proclamations...when all they're really doing is staying a jump or two ahead of "the rules." Kinda like criminals in any other field... it's greed, and it's wrong.
posted
the whole world has been robbed. these derivatives were predicted to be bad when they were being created in the 90's and the predictions came true.
the lobbyists bought the politicians off. the politicians pretend to be surprised today about what happened and the CDO's and CDS'es were 'repackaged" as something other than derivatives, but only the names were changed. the politicians not only refused to regulate the market in them? they passed legislation stating they can't be regulated.
a purely freemarket is just anarchy. and th eonly people that want anarchy are weapons dealers.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to reply to you guys tonight because right now me late for work... have to be a slave like the majority of people when you don't run your own outfit... anyways hopefully i won't be tired tonight to reply...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The economics, and politics, of auto workers' wages JIM STANFORD April 20, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT Globe and Mail newspaper http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090420.COSTANFORD20ART1347/TP Story/TPComment The auto industry is in crisis around the world, due to an unprecedented collapse in sales. And governments around the world (from Europe to Asia to the Americas) have moved quickly to keep the industry in business. Only in North America, however, has this restructuring been sidetracked by an ultimately phony confrontation over auto worker wages. Auto workers are well paid everywhere - after all, that's a key reason governments chase auto investments in the first place. But only in Canada and the United States have governments made auto assistance contingent on union concessions. That's not the case in Germany or Japan (where auto workers make more than they do in Canada), nor in Brazil or Korea (where they make less). Only here has the future of the industry been linked to a frontal attack on unions. This union-bashing took a dangerous turn last week. Successive business and political leaders stepped up to point a gun at the head of the Canadian Auto Workers union. Fiat's chief executive Sergio Marchionne, Industry Minister Tony Clement and Chrysler chief executive Robert Nardelli all threatened to pull the plug on Chrysler without CAW concessions of up to $19 per hour. Their argument is dressed up in the language of "competitiveness," "viability," and "realism." But ultimately it's about politics, not economics. Economically, wage cuts are irrelevant to the future of Chrysler and any other auto maker. Whether these companies live or die depends on bondholders, on government, and - most importantly - on consumers. Direct labour accounts for 7 per cent of total auto costs: less than capital, less than materials, less than dealer margins. Cutting that to 6 per cent won't sell a single car or truck. Indeed, the demand flies completely in the face of Fiat's own successful restructuring. Fiat went from basket case in 2004 to success story by 2007. Was that because of wage cuts? No ... because there weren't any. Rather, Fiat's turnaround reflected successful efforts to develop new products (like its trendy Cinquecento), to rebuild domestic market share, to boost foreign sales through exports and joint ventures and to implement leaner, dynamic management. That's what we need in North America - not wage cuts, which will only undermine auto sales as other employers follow the lead. The true economic constraint on wages is that they be validated by productivity, and remain broadly competitive with competing locations. Canadian auto workers meet both tests: productivity (averaging $300,000 value-added per worker per year) is the world's best, far exceeding compensation, and labour costs are below-average among the various suppliers feeding the North American market. So the attack on auto workers isn't about economics. It's about politics. How else to explain the arbitrary hook on which Clement and Co. have hung their hats? They're demanding that CAW costs be cut to match non-union plants in Canada. (By the way, accounting for demographics and capacity utilization, the true difference between union and non-union auto plants in Canada is more like $5 per hour, not $19.) Canadian non-union plants account for just 4 per cent of North American sales. What about the other 96 per cent of the competition? Why not demand that CAW costs be cut to the level of unionized auto workers in Korea, say, or unionized workers in Mexico - both of which pose greater competitive threats than non-union Canadian plants? Because the demand is not about being competitive. It is about challenging the legitimacy and survival of unions. It aims to exploit the wedge, in an anti-union political culture, between workers who've managed to win a little more - and those who have yet to do so. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tried a similar stunt last November, in his infamous economic update. He tried to capitalize on fears of recession to snatch away the legal right to strike from federal employees (who also enjoy good wages and pensions). It was an opportunistic, mean-spirited act, driven by politics, not economics. It was defeated by the united opposition parties. The same government is now trying the same thing with auto workers: capitalizing on economic fear to challenge the fundamental right of unions to exist and to bargain.
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Direct labour accounts for 7 per cent of total auto costs: less than capital, less than materials, less than dealer margins. Cutting that to 6 per cent won't sell a single car or truck.
now that's interesting fact that i didn't know.
i assume that is factory line labor and not "white collar" "labour" and then i also assume that doesn't inc;ude labor at parts suppliers...
however, it is a very good illustration of what America has ATTEMPTED (and failed) to make itself into which is a nation of "thinkers" and not a nation of DOer's...
doesn't it seem odd that a CEO would go jump on a treadmill to keep his heart healthy?
maybe he should go down to the assembly plant floor and push a friggin broom for an hour instead? he'd get his heart rate up and his head would slowly be excized from his ass.
i am serious.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I have always ssid it was the investors looking out for themselves asthe number one reason for being pro bk they get paid and make money thank you american tax payer. As far as Union busting the ruling class just looks at that as a good side side dish. So when they pick up the pieces after the bk, because there pockests will be flush with there bonds paid in full ,every body eles will be in the scrap pile, and they won't have to deal with the union.They get cheap labor to boot and people will be standing in line to get a job 401 trashed underwater in there homes and no job.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd rather see him load parts on the line, to see if he could keep up. Either way he would have to bring along his "people" to help him wipe his azz.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robot: I'd rather see him load parts on the line, to see if he could keep up. Either way he would have to bring along his "people" to help him wipe his azz.
i'm not sure i'd trust 'em with complex machinery, somebody might get hurt... (JK)
it would increase moral and it would bring them closer to where the "rubber meets the road"
sadly? it would be considered an insult to set them "to" with broom. however, i am one of those craftsmaen that gets really discouraged about a workplace that is is dirty. a little messy i can take, but dirty bothers me. the people who keep things clean really are very important. i'm not saying they are as valuable monetarily as the CEO or anybody in particular, i'm just pointing out that a clean safe workplace is an absolute requirement, and even those workers need to be valued as an important part of the team....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robot: I'd rather see him load parts on the line, to see if he could keep up. Either way he would have to bring along his "people" to help him wipe his azz.
i'm not sure i'd trust 'em with complex machinery, somebody might get hurt... (JK)
it would increase moral and it would bring them closer to where the "rubber meets the road"
sadly? it would be considered an insult to set them "to" with broom. however, i am one of those craftsmaen that gets really discouraged about a workplace that is is dirty. a little messy i can take, but dirty bothers me. the people who keep things clean really are very important. i'm not saying they are as valuable monetarily as the CEO or anybody in particular, i'm just pointing out that a clean safe workplace is an absolute requirement, and even those workers need to be valued as an important part of the team....
Ya but working shoulder to shoulder on the same tool and being able to do the same quality job at the same pace as a regular operator is the best way to gain respect.
Union and non union companies should have it as requirement that office staff (policy makers) spend a few hours a month "working" on the shop floor.
Keeping the working area clean and painted? I agree 1000%. To bad that's not the case.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: The economics, and politics, of auto workers' wages JIM STANFORD April 20, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT Globe and Mail newspaper http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090420.COSTANFORD20ART1347/TP Story/TPComment The auto industry is in crisis around the world, due to an unprecedented collapse in sales. And governments around the world (from Europe to Asia to the Americas) have moved quickly to keep the industry in business. Only in North America, however, has this restructuring been sidetracked by an ultimately phony confrontation over auto worker wages. Auto workers are well paid everywhere - after all, that's a key reason governments chase auto investments in the first place. But only in Canada and the United States have governments made auto assistance contingent on union concessions. That's not the case in Germany or Japan (where auto workers make more than they do in Canada), nor in Brazil or Korea (where they make less). Only here has the future of the industry been linked to a frontal attack on unions. This union-bashing took a dangerous turn last week. Successive business and political leaders stepped up to point a gun at the head of the Canadian Auto Workers union. Fiat's chief executive Sergio Marchionne, Industry Minister Tony Clement and Chrysler chief executive Robert Nardelli all threatened to pull the plug on Chrysler without CAW concessions of up to $19 per hour. Their argument is dressed up in the language of "competitiveness," "viability," and "realism." But ultimately it's about politics, not economics. Economically, wage cuts are irrelevant to the future of Chrysler and any other auto maker. Whether these companies live or die depends on bondholders, on government, and - most importantly - on consumers. Direct labour accounts for 7 per cent of total auto costs: less than capital, less than materials, less than dealer margins. Cutting that to 6 per cent won't sell a single car or truck. Indeed, the demand flies completely in the face of Fiat's own successful restructuring. Fiat went from basket case in 2004 to success story by 2007. Was that because of wage cuts? No ... because there weren't any. Rather, Fiat's turnaround reflected successful efforts to develop new products (like its trendy Cinquecento), to rebuild domestic market share, to boost foreign sales through exports and joint ventures and to implement leaner, dynamic management. That's what we need in North America - not wage cuts, which will only undermine auto sales as other employers follow the lead. The true economic constraint on wages is that they be validated by productivity, and remain broadly competitive with competing locations. Canadian auto workers meet both tests: productivity (averaging $300,000 value-added per worker per year) is the world's best, far exceeding compensation, and labour costs are below-average among the various suppliers feeding the North American market. So the attack on auto workers isn't about economics. It's about politics. How else to explain the arbitrary hook on which Clement and Co. have hung their hats? They're demanding that CAW costs be cut to match non-union plants in Canada. (By the way, accounting for demographics and capacity utilization, the true difference between union and non-union auto plants in Canada is more like $5 per hour, not $19.) Canadian non-union plants account for just 4 per cent of North American sales. What about the other 96 per cent of the competition? Why not demand that CAW costs be cut to the level of unionized auto workers in Korea, say, or unionized workers in Mexico - both of which pose greater competitive threats than non-union Canadian plants? Because the demand is not about being competitive. It is about challenging the legitimacy and survival of unions. It aims to exploit the wedge, in an anti-union political culture, between workers who've managed to win a little more - and those who have yet to do so. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tried a similar stunt last November, in his infamous economic update. He tried to capitalize on fears of recession to snatch away the legal right to strike from federal employees (who also enjoy good wages and pensions). It was an opportunistic, mean-spirited act, driven by politics, not economics. It was defeated by the united opposition parties. The same government is now trying the same thing with auto workers: capitalizing on economic fear to challenge the fundamental right of unions to exist and to bargain.
Good article retired.
This is what will save the big three:
"to rebuild domestic market share, to boost foreign sales through exports and joint ventures and to implement leaner, dynamic management."
Fiat also had the help of a booming economy. The big three have an uphill battle to do the same.
The $19 gap is what I have been hearing for a long time. But I do not think it matters much compared to the waist in the middle and upper management by the big three. We need to get back to the days when a bonus was given for a proportionate amount of positive effort and RESULTS.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: ya, I doubt anybody would begrudge 6-7 % for workers, if that's true.
What I wonder is...if somebody can get these data, then where is the waste?
waste? there's no customers. they all borrowed too much money over the last five years.
the newer cars last longer and don't need to be replaced as often..
the corporate money bleed is legacy costs-- contracts they made and entered into willingly that oblige them to pay retirement health costs... you know? that antiquated idea that working your whole life entitles you to be taken care of when you are too old to work anymore?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have said it here time and time again...union pay scale is NOT the problem...Total labor costs are less than 10% of the cost to BUILD cars and trucks.
Note: less than 10% of the cost to BUILD...not the price they are sold for...
GM has made HUGE strides in reducing waste and costs over the last 10 years...
The problem is the economy, the lack of credit, and the HUGE fixed costs that go into making automobiles...the fixed costs don't go away when the revenue stream dries up.
That is why ALL car companies are hurting right now, and ALL governments EXCEPT OURS are providing assistance without demanding concessions from the workers...
Get it! Our government has made it political...it's simply called UNION BUSTING...nothing more...nothing less!
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is long but it's a post about the advantages Toyota enjoys over GM.
It also talks about the wage package for each company. How accurate the info is I can not say but if half of it is true, it shows how hard it is for GM, and Ford and Chrysler for that matter, to compete against outsiders when they get all the incentives to set up shop and sell their cars.
GM vs. Toyota: A Tale Of Two Auto Plants Link: wsj.com
This is an amazing article - I provide the full text below. Moderator - If you object, please feel free to edit.
From The Wall Street Journal - 05/24/06
A Tale of Two Auto Plants: Pair of Texas Factories Shows How Starting Fresh Gives Toyota an Edge Over GM
By LEE HAWKINS JR. and NORIHIKO SHIROUZU
ARLINGTON, Texas -- For more than 50 years, General Motors Corp. has built cars and trucks here at Texas' only auto assembly plant, pumping billions of dollars a year into the state economy through taxes, purchases and paychecks.
The sprawling factory, one of GM's best, employs 3,000 people and buys myriad parts and services from local suppliers to build the big sport utility vehicles that have been among the company's most profitable -- including
Now, though, a rival has come deep into the heart of Texas to battle GM. At a 2,000-acre site in San Antonio, Toyota Motor Corp. is getting ready to start production later this year of the newest generation of Tundra pickup trucks in a plant that will use the Japanese car maker's most advanced machinery and methods.
Separated by 280 miles, these two factories bring into stark relief the competitive problems plaguing GM at home at a time when car-building in the U.S. is thriving, even though American car companies are faltering. In no small part, the world's largest auto maker's difficulties stem from the fact that its challengers can start fresh, unencumbered by old plants and old obligations that limit innovation and add hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle.
"GM has to stay within the box," says Michael Robinet, a vice president of Michigan-based research firm CSM Worldwide, which specializes in the auto industry. "Toyota was able to think outside the box."
In Texas, Toyota appears to be working aggressively to make the most of its advantages. The company has been able to deploy the latest know-how to fit various manufacturing processes -- from stamping to welding to painting to final assembly -- into a relatively compact space and make the plant more efficient.
On the other hand, even though Arlington is the country's most efficient large-SUV plant, GM can't maximize its success by adopting its newest, best methods there. "Arlington is doing a great job for GM, but they can't have an optimal layout, and their footprint is landlocked because a world with subdivisions and expressways has grown up around it, whereas Toyota was able to take out a clean sheet of paper," Mr. Robinet says.
For example, GM's body shop is housed in a separate building, which was built in 2000 to introduce new technology. The bodies are transported on an elaborate, enclosed conveyor to the final assembly area, where they are painted and stored before being bolted onto frames. GM managers say they would use a more modern layout that would help boost the plant's productivity even more, but GM can't afford to shut down operations and completely rebuild the plant.
Even so, Arlington ranked No. 1 among North American large-SUV factories last year, at 22.39 assembly labor hours per vehicle, according to Harbour Consulting, which functions as the North American auto industry's de facto productivity scorekeeper. Toyota's Princeton, Ind., SUV and pickup plant was well behind. Two decades ago, GM factories suffered from a sizable gap compared with similar Toyota factories, as measured in the number of hours it takes workers to build a vehicle. Recent Harbour surveys show that this gap has narrowed substantially. But GM's productivity gains are offset by higher hourly labor costs and the burden it carries for benefits owed to retirees.
In Arlington, GM pays union-scale wages of $26.50 to $30.50 an hour to its 2,800 hourly workers there. On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.
In San Antonio, Toyota will use non-union labor and will start its 1,600 hourly workers at $15.50 to $20.33 per hour, which will grow after three years to $21 to $25. Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour estimates Toyota's total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, at about $35 an hour -- less than half of GM's rates. The brand-new plant won't have any direct retiree costs for many years. So if the San Antonio factory does no better than match the Arlington plant in productivity, it could still enjoy a labor cost advantage of about $1,000 per vehicle, a substantial sum in industry terms. That's money Toyota could translate into extra standard features -- such as stability control -- that could make its trucks more appealing.
Being new means Toyota can use its most-efficient manufacturing technology, which the company has developed as part of a recent push to slash its production costs.
The San Antonio plant is installing smaller, lighter machinery with a simpler design that takes up less space than previous generations of equipment, an effort Toyota calls "simple and slim." Smaller machines mean Toyota can spend less on the building that houses them, while simpler design means those machines are cheaper to install, easier to maintain, much less likely to break down and simpler to fix if they do. The plant covers about 2.2 million square feet, including some metal-stamping operations, which are not done in Arlington. Still, the Toyota plant is roughly a third smaller than the 3.75 million-square-foot GM plant.
If Toyota had built the plant with the conventional technology, the plant would have been "30% to 40%" larger, says the plant's manager, Hidehiko "T.J." Tajima.
As his engineers haul in and test new stamping presses and other heavy equipment in San Antonio, what's equally important to Mr. Tajima is what's missing. Toyota's newest U.S. factory doesn't have shoulder-high shelves lining the assembly line to hold parts for workers. Instead, the parts for each vehicle are delivered in a small container inside each car, freeing workers from having to pick out the right parts from the shelves. The missing shelves coupled with the smaller machines turn what would ordinarily be a dark and noisy place into one that is airy and well lighted.
"We try to come up with break-through innovation in every major equipment and process," Mr. Tajima says, pointing to an example where engineers replaced heavy parts conveyer systems with lighter and more flexible robots.
Further, Toyota has arranged for 21 key Tundra suppliers to set up factories right on the same site, sandwiching the plant on the north and south sides. Engines still come from a Toyota plant in Alabama and axles from a supplier in Arkansas, but most other major parts, from instrument panels to seats to exhaust systems, are assembled at those on-site suppliers. That cuts the cost of transporting parts and storing large inventories on site as insurance against missed shipments. It also eliminates risks of having too many components en route to San Antonio -- a potential logistical nightmare that could cost Toyota dearly if a defect suddenly appears.
There are risks for the on-site suppliers, though. They cannot spread their costs over different products from multiple auto makers, which makes them vulnerable to a downshift in demand for Toyota's big trucks.
GM, in contrast, is restricted by space, existing deals with suppliers who are located elsewhere and its agreements with the United Auto Workers that prohibit it from using lower-wage, non-union workers on the same site. Of the total 3,330 different kinds of parts that are supplied to the Arlington facility, about 1,075 come from Michigan suppliers, while 739 come from Texas and the rest from Canada and Mexico.
Having suppliers located far away has a price tag. Shipping costs have increased in the wake of rising gas prices, GM says, but it is difficult to estimate how much compared with previous years, when Arlington was building older generations of SUVs that required fewer parts because they were available with fewer options.
Moreover, because the Tundra plant brings new jobs to San Antonio, Toyota, which chose the city over a rival site in Arkansas, has been able to bargain for a generous package of subsidies from various levels of government. The state gave a total of $133.25 million in direct incentives, including a reprieve from utility bills and a discount on property taxes, along with road improvements worth $57 million. The city, along with other agencies, spent $18 million screening 100,000 job applicants for the plant.
The direct incentives alone, averaged over roughly one year's production, amount to more than $600 per vehicle in savings for Toyota.
Even though it has made significant investments in Arlington in recent years, GM no longer gets the same pampering. Since 1996, GM has spent about $910 million on the plant and converted it from building cars to making SUVs. In 2000, GM installed more than 600 robots in an overhaul of the plant's body shop, where the frames and underbodies of trucks are fabricated.
Much of this new investment, however, is deemed by the state and other government agencies as job-retention rather than job-creation, meaning GM doesn't qualify for incentives similar to those offered Toyota.
"We spend $280 million in payroll in a year, $1.6 billion every year to suppliers in this state. I can give you data from here to the moon and back," said Mike Glinski, manager of the GM Arlington plant. "The appropriate word for how I feel," he added, "is 'disappointed.' "
Arlington's SUVs and San Antonio's Tundras won't directly compete, although both are designed to appeal to American consumers who like quintessentially American vehicles: big, V-8-powered, body-on-frame trucks. But Toyota is clearly sensitive about appeals to economic patriotism by GM, which calls itself the "global car company that's proud to be American." The Japanese auto maker has mounted an aggressive campaign to win over public opinion in Texas and elsewhere, by highlighting its U.S. investments.
About a third of all cars built in the U.S. last year were assembled in the 14 plants owned by foreign-based auto makers, according to CSM. Japanese car companies are the biggest investors, having spent $28 billion to build North American factories and as much as $45 billion a year on parts here. Japanese auto makers say two-thirds of the cars they sell in North America are made here.
Toyota executives routinely downplay the threat the company's growth poses to traditional American auto companies. But there's little doubt that Toyota has big plans for using the new San Antonio factory to grab a chunk of market share in the large pickup market, one of Detroit's last bastions of profit. The current Toyota Tundra has a 5.5% share of the full-size pickup market so far this year, compared with 35.9% for the Ford F-series, and 27.6% for the Chevy Silverado -- the two best selling big pickups in the U.S.
When San Antonio hits its full capacity of 200,000 vehicles a year, Toyota will be able to produce more than 300,000 Tundras a year in the U.S., counting capacity at an existing factory producing Tundras in Princeton, Ind. But the company is unlikely to stop there.
To explain the layout of the San Antonio plant, Mr. Tajima asks an assistant to bring him a blueprint of the complex. The blueprint shows a second plant next to the new Tundra factory. Mr. Tajima jokes that the space is just a golf driving range. But in the end he says it is "a possible future expansion area" for a second assembly line. A Toyota spokesman says no decisions have been made on the second plant.
If GM did go bankrupt, a contributing factor could have been when the union asked for TVs to be installed in view of the operator stations on the assembly line in the same plant in the above article. As it turns out, not enough people were returning from lunch on days the Rangers were playing. They got the TVs.
About four years ago when the Detroit area GM layoffs started and or they started offering packages for people to quite, GM started to change their attitude. Punctuality and productivity was pushed a little more.
This recent trouble and talk of bankruptcy did not just happen. GM and probably the others have seen this coming for five years. That is kinda sad when you think about it because outsiders have been setting up shop and getting incentives for about fifteen years.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is long but it's a post about the advantages Toyota enjoys over GM.
It also talks about the wage package for each company. How accurate the info is I can not say but if half of it is true, it shows how hard it is for GM, and Ford and Chrysler for that matter, to compete against outsiders when they get all the incentives to set up shop and sell their cars.
GM vs. Toyota: A Tale Of Two Auto Plants Link: wsj.com
This is an amazing article - I provide the full text below. Moderator - If you object, please feel free to edit.
From The Wall Street Journal - 05/24/06
A Tale of Two Auto Plants: Pair of Texas Factories Shows How Starting Fresh Gives Toyota an Edge Over GM
By LEE HAWKINS JR. and NORIHIKO SHIROUZU
ARLINGTON, Texas -- For more than 50 years, General Motors Corp. has built cars and trucks here at Texas' only auto assembly plant, pumping billions of dollars a year into the state economy through taxes, purchases and paychecks.
The sprawling factory, one of GM's best, employs 3,000 people and buys myriad parts and services from local suppliers to build the big sport utility vehicles that have been among the company's most profitable -- including
Now, though, a rival has come deep into the heart of Texas to battle GM. At a 2,000-acre site in San Antonio, Toyota Motor Corp. is getting ready to start production later this year of the newest generation of Tundra pickup trucks in a plant that will use the Japanese car maker's most advanced machinery and methods.
Separated by 280 miles, these two factories bring into stark relief the competitive problems plaguing GM at home at a time when car-building in the U.S. is thriving, even though American car companies are faltering. In no small part, the world's largest auto maker's difficulties stem from the fact that its challengers can start fresh, unencumbered by old plants and old obligations that limit innovation and add hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle.
"GM has to stay within the box," says Michael Robinet, a vice president of Michigan-based research firm CSM Worldwide, which specializes in the auto industry. "Toyota was able to think outside the box."
In Texas, Toyota appears to be working aggressively to make the most of its advantages. The company has been able to deploy the latest know-how to fit various manufacturing processes -- from stamping to welding to painting to final assembly -- into a relatively compact space and make the plant more efficient.
On the other hand, even though Arlington is the country's most efficient large-SUV plant, GM can't maximize its success by adopting its newest, best methods there. "Arlington is doing a great job for GM, but they can't have an optimal layout, and their footprint is landlocked because a world with subdivisions and expressways has grown up around it, whereas Toyota was able to take out a clean sheet of paper," Mr. Robinet says.
For example, GM's body shop is housed in a separate building, which was built in 2000 to introduce new technology. The bodies are transported on an elaborate, enclosed conveyor to the final assembly area, where they are painted and stored before being bolted onto frames. GM managers say they would use a more modern layout that would help boost the plant's productivity even more, but GM can't afford to shut down operations and completely rebuild the plant.
Even so, Arlington ranked No. 1 among North American large-SUV factories last year, at 22.39 assembly labor hours per vehicle, according to Harbour Consulting, which functions as the North American auto industry's de facto productivity scorekeeper. Toyota's Princeton, Ind., SUV and pickup plant was well behind. Two decades ago, GM factories suffered from a sizable gap compared with similar Toyota factories, as measured in the number of hours it takes workers to build a vehicle. Recent Harbour surveys show that this gap has narrowed substantially. But GM's productivity gains are offset by higher hourly labor costs and the burden it carries for benefits owed to retirees.
In Arlington, GM pays union-scale wages of $26.50 to $30.50 an hour to its 2,800 hourly workers there. On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.
In San Antonio, Toyota will use non-union labor and will start its 1,600 hourly workers at $15.50 to $20.33 per hour, which will grow after three years to $21 to $25. Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour estimates Toyota's total hourly U.S. labor costs, with benefits, at about $35 an hour -- less than half of GM's rates. The brand-new plant won't have any direct retiree costs for many years. So if the San Antonio factory does no better than match the Arlington plant in productivity, it could still enjoy a labor cost advantage of about $1,000 per vehicle, a substantial sum in industry terms. That's money Toyota could translate into extra standard features -- such as stability control -- that could make its trucks more appealing.
Being new means Toyota can use its most-efficient manufacturing technology, which the company has developed as part of a recent push to slash its production costs.
The San Antonio plant is installing smaller, lighter machinery with a simpler design that takes up less space than previous generations of equipment, an effort Toyota calls "simple and slim." Smaller machines mean Toyota can spend less on the building that houses them, while simpler design means those machines are cheaper to install, easier to maintain, much less likely to break down and simpler to fix if they do. The plant covers about 2.2 million square feet, including some metal-stamping operations, which are not done in Arlington. Still, the Toyota plant is roughly a third smaller than the 3.75 million-square-foot GM plant.
If Toyota had built the plant with the conventional technology, the plant would have been "30% to 40%" larger, says the plant's manager, Hidehiko "T.J." Tajima.
As his engineers haul in and test new stamping presses and other heavy equipment in San Antonio, what's equally important to Mr. Tajima is what's missing. Toyota's newest U.S. factory doesn't have shoulder-high shelves lining the assembly line to hold parts for workers. Instead, the parts for each vehicle are delivered in a small container inside each car, freeing workers from having to pick out the right parts from the shelves. The missing shelves coupled with the smaller machines turn what would ordinarily be a dark and noisy place into one that is airy and well lighted.
"We try to come up with break-through innovation in every major equipment and process," Mr. Tajima says, pointing to an example where engineers replaced heavy parts conveyer systems with lighter and more flexible robots.
Further, Toyota has arranged for 21 key Tundra suppliers to set up factories right on the same site, sandwiching the plant on the north and south sides. Engines still come from a Toyota plant in Alabama and axles from a supplier in Arkansas, but most other major parts, from instrument panels to seats to exhaust systems, are assembled at those on-site suppliers. That cuts the cost of transporting parts and storing large inventories on site as insurance against missed shipments. It also eliminates risks of having too many components en route to San Antonio -- a potential logistical nightmare that could cost Toyota dearly if a defect suddenly appears.
There are risks for the on-site suppliers, though. They cannot spread their costs over different products from multiple auto makers, which makes them vulnerable to a downshift in demand for Toyota's big trucks.
GM, in contrast, is restricted by space, existing deals with suppliers who are located elsewhere and its agreements with the United Auto Workers that prohibit it from using lower-wage, non-union workers on the same site. Of the total 3,330 different kinds of parts that are supplied to the Arlington facility, about 1,075 come from Michigan suppliers, while 739 come from Texas and the rest from Canada and Mexico.
Having suppliers located far away has a price tag. Shipping costs have increased in the wake of rising gas prices, GM says, but it is difficult to estimate how much compared with previous years, when Arlington was building older generations of SUVs that required fewer parts because they were available with fewer options.
Moreover, because the Tundra plant brings new jobs to San Antonio, Toyota, which chose the city over a rival site in Arkansas, has been able to bargain for a generous package of subsidies from various levels of government. The state gave a total of $133.25 million in direct incentives, including a reprieve from utility bills and a discount on property taxes, along with road improvements worth $57 million. The city, along with other agencies, spent $18 million screening 100,000 job applicants for the plant.
The direct incentives alone, averaged over roughly one year's production, amount to more than $600 per vehicle in savings for Toyota.
Even though it has made significant investments in Arlington in recent years, GM no longer gets the same pampering. Since 1996, GM has spent about $910 million on the plant and converted it from building cars to making SUVs. In 2000, GM installed more than 600 robots in an overhaul of the plant's body shop, where the frames and underbodies of trucks are fabricated.
Much of this new investment, however, is deemed by the state and other government agencies as job-retention rather than job-creation, meaning GM doesn't qualify for incentives similar to those offered Toyota.
"We spend $280 million in payroll in a year, $1.6 billion every year to suppliers in this state. I can give you data from here to the moon and back," said Mike Glinski, manager of the GM Arlington plant. "The appropriate word for how I feel," he added, "is 'disappointed.' "
Arlington's SUVs and San Antonio's Tundras won't directly compete, although both are designed to appeal to American consumers who like quintessentially American vehicles: big, V-8-powered, body-on-frame trucks. But Toyota is clearly sensitive about appeals to economic patriotism by GM, which calls itself the "global car company that's proud to be American." The Japanese auto maker has mounted an aggressive campaign to win over public opinion in Texas and elsewhere, by highlighting its U.S. investments.
About a third of all cars built in the U.S. last year were assembled in the 14 plants owned by foreign-based auto makers, according to CSM. Japanese car companies are the biggest investors, having spent $28 billion to build North American factories and as much as $45 billion a year on parts here. Japanese auto makers say two-thirds of the cars they sell in North America are made here.
Toyota executives routinely downplay the threat the company's growth poses to traditional American auto companies. But there's little doubt that Toyota has big plans for using the new San Antonio factory to grab a chunk of market share in the large pickup market, one of Detroit's last bastions of profit. The current Toyota Tundra has a 5.5% share of the full-size pickup market so far this year, compared with 35.9% for the Ford F-series, and 27.6% for the Chevy Silverado -- the two best selling big pickups in the U.S.
When San Antonio hits its full capacity of 200,000 vehicles a year, Toyota will be able to produce more than 300,000 Tundras a year in the U.S., counting capacity at an existing factory producing Tundras in Princeton, Ind. But the company is unlikely to stop there.
To explain the layout of the San Antonio plant, Mr. Tajima asks an assistant to bring him a blueprint of the complex. The blueprint shows a second plant next to the new Tundra factory. Mr. Tajima jokes that the space is just a golf driving range. But in the end he says it is "a possible future expansion area" for a second assembly line. A Toyota spokesman says no decisions have been made on the second plant.
If GM did go bankrupt, a contributing factor could have been when the union asked for TVs to be installed in view of the operator stations on the assembly line in the same plant in the above article. As it turns out, not enough people were returning from lunch on days the Rangers were playing. They got the TVs.
About four years ago when the Detroit area GM layoffs started and or they started offering packages for people to quite, GM started to change their attitude. Punctuality and productivity was pushed a little more.
This recent trouble and talk of bankruptcy did not just happen. GM and probably the others have seen this coming for five years. That is kinda sad when you think about it because outsiders have been setting up shop and getting incentives for about fifteen years.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article is full of union busting rhetoric... TV's within sight of an operator...LMAO Where I cam from, operators didn't have time to sneeze let alone watch TV...
Punctuality and productivity...again LMAO If you came to work late or came back from lunch late...you were disciplined...PERIOD
and...the assembly line operators jobs are so "loaded up" that if you sneezed you would be "in the hole"
$81.00 an hour...that is just blatant horse****. My wages and benefits never came remotely close to $81.00 phucking dollars an hour...
You can't lump retiree benefits into those wage categories...those monies are (or should have been) put aside while that retiree was working...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: That article is full of union busting rhetoric... TV's within sight of an operator...LMAO Where I cam from, operators didn't have time to sneeze let alone watch TV...
Punctuality and productivity...again LMAO If you came to work late or came back from lunch late...you were disciplined...PERIOD
and...the assembly line operators jobs are so "loaded up" that if you sneezed you would be "in the hole"
$81.00 an hour...that is just blatant horse****. My wages and benefits never came remotely close to $81.00 phucking dollars an hour...
You can't lump retiree benefits into those wage categories...those monies are (or should have been) put aside while that retiree was working...
TVs? you can LYAO all you want I saw them.
As far as wages go I do not care how much of little you make as long as if you get fired or laid off or quite, you can go to any other industry and do basically the same job and get the same pay. Period. If you can't do that then someone is blowing smoke up your azz and leading you down a dead end road. IF you enjoy more than you should for the job you are doing then that is fine with me. I like the free market also. Just be ready for the slow times. I hate to see people sell cars and houses cause the lost a job.
And where do retire benefits come from? They have to be accounted for at some point. They have to be paid. It is a cost and it has to be factored in as such. To much BS with the numbers and look what happens. Maybe some rules and regulations would help.
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tex, the 7% has been around for a long time. I agree the blue collar wages are not the problem, but maybe a small part. Very small.
Glass, the waist is still in the whole company. They have too many dealerships, the top management gets too much of everything and there is to many of them in the million dollar club and they are just now (2 years) adopting lean manufacturing habits which is basically rules and regulations which everybody keeps screaming "not in my life time".
Posts: 105 | From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: That article is full of union busting rhetoric... TV's within sight of an operator...LMAO Where I cam from, operators didn't have time to sneeze let alone watch TV...
Punctuality and productivity...again LMAO If you came to work late or came back from lunch late...you were disciplined...PERIOD
and...the assembly line operators jobs are so "loaded up" that if you sneezed you would be "in the hole"
$81.00 an hour...that is just blatant horse****. My wages and benefits never came remotely close to $81.00 phucking dollars an hour...
You can't lump retiree benefits into those wage categories...those monies are (or should have been) put aside while that retiree was working...
TVs? you can LYAO all you want I saw them.
As far as wages go I do not care how much of little you make as long as if you get fired or laid off or quite, you can go to any other industry and do basically the same job and get the same pay. Period. If you can't do that then someone is blowing smoke up your azz and leading you down a dead end road. IF you enjoy more than you should for the job you are doing then that is fine with me. I like the free market also. Just be ready for the slow times. I hate to see people sell cars and houses cause the lost a job.
And where do retire benefits come from? They have to be accounted for at some point. They have to be paid. It is a cost and it has to be factored in as such. To much BS with the numbers and look what happens. Maybe some rules and regulations would help.
The TV's that you saw were most likely closed circuit sets and were controlled by the communications department...they are used primarily for weekly team meetings and corporate messages... and could not be watched freely by line workers or anyone else...
I'll tell you where the retirement benefits come from...they come from the astronomical profits that were being made for the 30 years we worked there...NOT from the current employees...In fact the new hires now make HALF the wages we made and get ZERO retirement benefits...
So again I will state that the $81.00 an hour is pure horse****...
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The workers are not to blame with GM'S problems but they will be victimized and scapegoated as is the usual case.
management made terrible mistakes and the big boys at the top of the food chain are licking there chops over the soon to be ruins of one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world.
I hate to say this but the best we can do on the left is to make public who made out why and who got screwed unless a merical happens at this point. Good luck to all of you who work in this industry my heart goes out to you.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't have a choice unless GM can figure its own way out
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
