Mike, This is again a case of the 'Haves' vs the 'Have-nots'. Only a small portion of our population is unionized in the USA. The auto unions were the most effective for their members and extracted dream wages and benefits from management. People vied for jobs on the auto assembly line, mindless repetitive jobs. Their wage and benefits packages set the goal for everybody else to strive for. It was more financially rewarding than going to college and becoming a teacher or engineer. People waited to get on the job with a union in an auto plant. Now the 'Have-nots' are looking around saying 'Screw them!' I don't see it as opposition to improved wages and benefits for the working public. Rather, it is a backlash against those who hold the union jobs - thru luck or special circumstances or nepotism but not thru any skill or special merit. The unions restrict who the high paying jobs are open to. Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM, mike wilson <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 27/02/2011 17:51, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:37 AM, mike wilson wrote: >> >>> On 27/02/2011 17:28, frank theriault wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Bob Sullivan<rf.sulli...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And Frank, >>>>> I want to tell you something that will make you happy. >>>>> We visited rich friends in a gated community in Naples Florida. >>>>> 4 people on their block were early retirees from General Motors. >>>>> Their pension benefits were capped at $72K. >>>>> (I know that's a lot, but it's a lot less than they were getting.) >>>>> And the highest ranked among them has already sold and move back to >>>>> Michigan. >>>>> They were all drawing money from 'defered compensation plans', >>>>> where GM held back some salary to pay them later at a lower tax rate. >>>>> Guess what. In bankruptcy, all those funds go to the creditors. >>>>> It puts a 6 figure crimp in their lifestyles... >>>>> Regards, Bob S. >>>> >>>> That doesn't make me particularly happy, Bob. First of all, I'm sure >>>> these people worked hard for their money, often working long hours, >>>> weekends, with many business trips and lots of pressure. I may not >>>> agree that the work they did was for the betterment of all, but they >>>> had every right to rely on agreements made with their company and to >>>> pattern their life accordingly. >>>> >>>> The fact that due to GM making bad decisions they lost their pensions >>>> or a portion thereof only means that creditors got that money - and >>>> I'm sure that banks reaped most of that benefit. I'd rather see the >>>> money in the hands of an individual than a huge faceless corporation. >>>> >>>> I don't think there's anything happy about your story. >>> >>> Agreed. If they had been in a union, it would hopefully not have allowed >>> those funds to be kept in a place available to creditors. Did GM actually >>> go bankrupt? >>> >>> -- >> >> GM declared bankruptcy and was reorganized as two companies: one held the >> bad assets, and the new GM held the good assets. It was a necessary step due >> to way too many dealerships that had become non performers but had franchise >> agreements that compelled GM to continue to keep them in business. It was >> also necessary due to onerous obligations to the union. Many of those >> agreements were made at a time when the Detroit automakers monopolized the >> U.S. car market. The union would strike, and the automakers would give them >> whatever they wanted and roll it into the price of the cars. That usually >> meant taking quality out. > > So bad management practice, at least as much as greedy unions. > >> >> Now, many of GM's union obligations have been brought more in line with >> reality, although they are still more of a burden than other automakers have >> to contend with. Toyota, Honda and most other foreign automakers build cars >> in non-union U.S. factories, located in right-to-work states (states with >> laws barring compulsory union membership). The lack of union commitments on >> the part of other auto manufacturers made the Detroit automakers union >> contracts untenable if they were to compete. > > This is what I find hard to understand. Workers organise themselves to > improve their conditions. Weekends off, paid holidays, health benefits, > living wages. Management did its best to minimise those improvements and > continues to do so. Yet in the USA the very people who would benefit from > the organised effort are often, it seems, the ones who oppose it - the > working class. They seem to have a classic death wish in their urge to > participate in a race to the bottom and the people who are orchestrating the > race are held up as bastions of industry, opposing some kind of socialist > takeover of the American dream. Utterly bizarre to the outside, > dispassionate viewer. > > There also seems to be a more noticable corruption problem in US unions than > many other places, although the people that I talk to about it are equally > vehement about corruption in politics, media, police forces and business. > >> >> GM has already paid back a substantial amount of its government loans, and >> the government has been selling off its GM stock at a profit. The same is >> happening at Chrysler, although at a slower pace. The industry bailout was >> well planned and well executed. It saved a major U.S. industry and an entire >> region, and in the end, it will cost the taxpayers nothing. >> Paul > > It will be interesting to see how things work out for the big three over the > next decade or so. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
