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.
First they moved the auto industry to Southern states to avoid unions and for lower pay and benefits.
Next, they moved auto industry to Mexico and China for even lower pay and benefits. But they still sell the autos in the US at the same high prices lol.
And where the auto industry is making a comeback (paying multiple times the minimum wage) today, they are choosing overwhelmingly to set up shop in Southern and Western states with low union influence. There's no secret as to why that is. As a result, we are seeing automakers (both American and foreign automakers) set up shop in Texas, Tennessee, NC, etc. See, for instance: http://www.areadevelopment.com/Regio...t-161511.shtml
That probably would've done Detroit/Michigan a lot of good re the auto industry. Excessive union contracts are a huge part of the reason why the auto industry was less competitive with foreign companies and why Detroit and other cities in the region now sit in financial ruin.
Maybe, but I'm 63 years old. I remember when the first imported cars started showing up in America. They had a lot going for them. They were cheap and fuel-efficient.
While the gas crisis was going on in the 70s, people started buying these fuel-efficient foreign cars. Detroit just didn't get the message; they did not change with the times. They were still pumping out iron sleds that got crappy gas mileage. That was not the fault of the workers, that was the fault of management.
I guess they just thought ... check that. I have no idea WHAT they thought!
And those dues support union causes that the employee may not agree with. How is that fair?
Irrelevant, one can vote in new leadership, get your fellow union brothers and sisters to agree with you about not spending money on certain causes, but if you work in a unionized workplace while in the same job classification as union workers, you are getting the pay and benefits of the union without the contributing to the union.
To me the answer is simply they take that non unionized pay and benefits for that job category for that local area(this will be up for defining what is a local area), and pay people who opt out of the union those non union wages and benefits which will be lower.
Very true. But, on the flip side, public opinion polls consistently show that a solid majority of the public support right to work laws, so I'd say that the GOP has a message that is more in line with the public (just not with unions and the Democrat Party) on this issue. Of course, this isn't the primary issue in elections, or else we'd see drastically different outcomes. But, where it is a stand alone issue (see the 2012 Michigan vote where the public voted by double digits to reject a proposal aimed at eliminating the state's right to work law by enshrining certain positions in the Michigan Constitution . . . Proposal 2: Unions lose big-money, high-profile effort to restore clout in Michigan | MLive.com), the GOP position wins, even during presidential election years and even in states that lean left.
Well public polls quickly changed from against gay marriage to for it. Thanks to a progressive brainwashing media that is pro-gay and mostly not pro-union among other things. The brainwashing and biased media is another matter. But I didn't like how they pushed the gay agenda and I don't like how they push a mostly anti-union agenda. You'll notice public opinion tends to align with media's opinion today.
Well public polls quickly changed from against gay marriage to for it. Thanks to a progressive brainwashing media that is pro-gay and mostly not pro-union among other things. The brainwashing and biased media is another matter. But I didn't like how they pushed the gay agenda and I don't like how they push a mostly anti-union agenda. You'll notice public opinion tends to align with media's opinion today.
The media narrative is definitely not anti-union. And, while I support same sex marriage, I did/do not like how the media was not objective on the issue.
Maybe, but I'm 63 years old. I remember when the first imported cars started showing up in America. They had a lot going for them. They were cheap and fuel-efficient.
While the gas crisis was going on in the 70s, people started buying these fuel-efficient foreign cars. Detroit just didn't get the message; they did not change with the times. They were still pumping out iron sleds that got crappy gas mileage. That was not the fault of the workers, that was the fault of management.
I guess they just thought ... check that. I have no idea WHAT they thought!
I do agree that unions get too much blame and automotive company management
deserves a lot of blame. Also our trade policies deserve a lot of blame. Japan was allowed to quickly change the playing field and to some degree on an unfair playing field. Japan blocked our autos from importing while we allowed theirs. Also the media owners being anti-union and seeing a big money making opportunity with foreign cars, resorted to brainwashing and propaganda to push and hype foreign cars over American. The media's involvement is a revolving theme.
Maybe, but I'm 63 years old. I remember when the first imported cars started showing up in America. They had a lot going for them. They were cheap and fuel-efficient.
While the gas crisis was going on in the 70s, people started buying these fuel-efficient foreign cars. Detroit just didn't get the message; they did not change with the times. They were still pumping out iron sleds that got crappy gas mileage. That was not the fault of the workers, that was the fault of management.
I guess they just thought ... check that. I have no idea WHAT they thought!
Yes, and to be fair, I should not have put the blame solidly on unions; management was to blame as well. But, even when management did wake up (it wasn't too late) and tried to make changes, unions fought back like hell and sued the hell out of management to protect their sweet deals, even as their industry was disappearing right before their eyes. There was not serious effort made to meet management half way to work out fairer benefits and compensation deals, etc. That was major.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 06-30-2015 at 02:02 PM..
The media narrative is definitely not anti-union. And, while I support same sex marriage, I did/do not like how the media was not objective on the issue.
The media is owned and controlled by wealthy elites. I never see them give fair coverage let alone support to unions or the middle and working class. The media, liberal or not, is on the open trade, open borders agenda.
Every state ought to be a Right to Work state. Equal protection under the law, right?
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.
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.
