Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2014, 10:52 AM
 
5,064 posts, read 5,734,486 times
Reputation: 4775

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
And they can thank the UAW for this being true. Being competitive with what other manufacturers are paying their employees is no coincidence, it's how these companies do business. There are "pay evaluations" done every year at many businesses, mine included, that survey competitors wages and adjust the pay for their employees accordingly.

Even voting down the UAW, the impact on these employees wages is self evident. Were it not the vote may have turned out different.

The rest of your anecdotal story I won't comment on, as the veracity of it cannot be confirmed.
Under your theory, the luckiest workers are the non-unionized ones. They get better pay and benefits since the company is "competing with the unions." But they don't have to pay union dues.

The UAW workers appear to be in the worst shape. Lower salaries and they have to pay 5% union dues. Sounds like a smart UAW worker would look at relocating to non-union companies.

And they may already be doing that, the UAW has gone from 1.5 million members to less than 400,000.

 
Old 02-16-2014, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,541,148 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
My first post notes that what happened at GM was hardly all the fault of the union. I noted earlier where my son has a great benefit package in his union job. He just hopes that they can keep the Obama administration from ruining it for them.

He went Friday to interview with another company. He has been traveling a lot out of state and was told that with this company he could stay local. Non union. Less pay and no benefits. (unless you pay extra for them). He turned them down.

So what is my point? The same as I make in many. Generalizations make for poor arguments.

So you (or your son) think that the Obama Admin. will be the one "ruining" union benefits in this country?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you or your son voted for Romney, thinking he would be better.

SMH.....
 
Old 02-16-2014, 10:57 AM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,963,327 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
So you (or your son) think that the Obama Admin. will be the one "ruining" union benefits in this country?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you or your son voted for Romney, thinking he would be better.

SMH.....
Because your hero Obama has done SUCH a bang-up job.
 
Old 02-16-2014, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,541,148 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by brentwoodgirl View Post
Under your theory, the luckiest workers are the non-unionized ones. They get better pay and benefits since the company is "competing with the unions." But they don't have to pay union dues.

The UAW workers appear to be in the worst shape. Lower salaries and they have to pay 5% union dues. Sounds like a smart UAW worker would look at relocating to non-union companies.

And they may already be doing that, the UAW has gone from 1.5 million members to less than 400,000.
You act like "union dues" of 5% of your pay is somehow the deciding factor in belonging to a union while ignoring the reason they are not making $8.00 an hour and working without vacation pay or healthcare benefits.

*sigh*.........
 
Old 02-16-2014, 10:59 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,256,917 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
So you (or your son) think that the Obama Admin. will be the one "ruining" union benefits in this country?
"The" one? No but he is attacking union benefits to the detriment of union workers.
 
Old 02-16-2014, 11:00 AM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,433,497 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bee Rye View Post
Why did VW want the plant unionized?
Maybe they're going to go out of business and they want a union they can blame it all on
 
Old 02-16-2014, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,541,148 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
"The" one? No but he is attacking union benefits to the detriment of union workers.
Of course he is.
 
Old 02-16-2014, 11:04 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,256,917 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
Of course he is.
It's good to see you agree.

Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout - The Washington Post
 
Old 02-16-2014, 11:07 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,983,283 times
Reputation: 7315
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post

As far as Boeing, workers were given a choice: Accept our terms or lose your job when we leave the state.

.
So? Boeing created the jobs; the jobs belong to the entity who created them. In corps which have been around for decades, many people held that same job. It belonged to none of them, they were just temporarily doing them. The jobs belonged to the corp.

So if they wish to move when you demand too much, there is nothing wrong with that. If they wish to propose new terms, nothing wrong with that. All terms die with the end of each contract, the new one should be drawn up from a blank sheet of paper.
 
Old 02-16-2014, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,541,148 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
So? Boeing created the jobs; the jobs belong to the entity who created them. In corps which have been around for decades, many people held that same job. It belonged to none of them, they were just temporarily doing them. The jobs belonged to the corp.

So if they wish to move when you demand too much, there is nothing wrong with that. If they wish to propose new terms, nothing wrong with that. All terms die with the end of each contract, the new one should be drawn up from a blank sheet of paper.
Okay, great. I only hope that you are on the other end of the ledger someday, and your employer cuts your pay and your healthcare and says "You don't like it? Quit."

That would be karma, and sometimes, karma happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top