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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2009, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,483 posts, read 11,280,665 times
Reputation: 9002

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
The industry didn't just "move out"... they got chased out by the unions... they couldn't compete because of the unions... what did you think they were going to do? Oh, that's right... bailout... from the government...
It was high taxes too, evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2009, 08:13 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,952 posts, read 49,183,047 times
Reputation: 55008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
Maybe you can explain why my city (Boston) is going broke. Hint: The biggest expenditure for the city, by far, is education and the average salary for teachers is over 70,000/year. The teachers can retire after 23 years with 80% of their final year's payrate plus full benefits. Imagine retiring at age 46.

You now have a situation where you have two teachers who filled the same position in the school system who retired early, plus you have to hire a teacher to take their place. The city of Boston is now in the position of paying the salary and full benefits of three different people for one single position in the school system. This is the Teacher's Union in Massachusetts.

Guess who the management is? The taxpayer who doesn't even have a voice in the whole process.
The city of Boston sounds like they are headed down the same path as GM with all their benefits for early retirees.

My FIL retired from GM at the age of 55 with great benefits. Twenty three years later he is still sucking the company dry on what they give him. They did cut back on his life insurance but at age 78 that is not a factor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,483 posts, read 11,280,665 times
Reputation: 9002
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1 View Post
Actually as someone who grew up in the metro detroit area, the unions brought prosperity to the area. It died because of inept, greedy management shipping jobs overseas and stagnation in product development. Thats all management not unions. As usual evilnewbie, you need to wake up and face reality.
Exactly how do unions bring prosperity?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 08:18 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,311,700 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
People want to think it's still the times where child labor laws need to be enacted. You have a massive amount of Federal Protections that make unions obsolete now. Competition and an ability to innovate and mainstream is what makes companies able to stay afloat. That's just the way business works now. That policy of being able to innovate is what pushes people to stay educated and keep them on a continual self improvement plan. There is no stagnation that is rewarding anymore. The status quo is not the future.
We wouldn't have those "massive amounts of Federal Protections" if not for the unions. Let's not forget to give credit where it's due. Also, there isn't an industry in the U.S.---union shop or not---that can compete with the $3 and $4 an hour that foreign companies pay their workers which is the real reason why companies are moving off shore. American's can't live on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 08:23 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,311,700 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
My FIL retired from GM at the age of 55 with great benefits. Twenty three years later he is still sucking the company dry on what they give him. They did cut back on his life insurance but at age 78 that is not a factor.
Your father-in-law also just lost a lot of his health care coverage---dental, vision and higher deductibles and co-pays. And as of the last few U.A.W. contracts, new hire-ins don't have pension rights with GM and the union covers the cost of health care for their workers and retirees.

Last edited by Wayland Woman; 12-22-2009 at 08:28 AM.. Reason: add last line
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 08:34 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,461,121 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
We wouldn't have those "massive amounts of Federal Protections" if not for the unions. Let's not forget to give credit where it's due. Also, there isn't an industry in the U.S.---union shop or not---that can compete with the $3 and $4 an hour that foreign companies pay their workers which is the real reason why companies are moving off shore. American's can't live on that.
Yes, back in the day unions were important in bring industry up to par with human suffering. Now not so much, over compensating human suffering sounds fine and dandy till you're out of a job.

Unions these days are the equivalent of ball and chain hooked on the ankle of a runner. The leg/s of the runner might be strong as an ox but what does it matter if you lose the race?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 09:02 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,311,700 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Yes, back in the day unions were important in bring industry up to par with human suffering. Now not so much, over compensating human suffering sounds fine and dandy till you're out of a job.

Unions these days are the equivalent of ball and chain hooked on the ankle of a runner. The leg/s of the runner might be strong as an ox but what does it matter if you lose the race?
The cost of UAW workers had little to do with the industry's failure. Managements failure to design more energy efficient vehicles at a time with sky rocketing foreign fuel did. The 2003 - 2008 oil crisis took them down because GM had neglected their development of energy efficient passenger cars in favor of their SUVs and light trucks which people quit buying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 09:19 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,461,121 times
Reputation: 4799
GM had more energy efficient vehicles than just about any other car manufacturer. So that only leaves management not being able to change its policies and structure. Now why would that be?

Top 10 Best Selling Cars of 2007 | Best Selling Cars (http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Top_10_Best_Selling_Cars_for_2007 - broken link)
Best Selling Cars of 2008
Top 10 best–selling cars and pickups for 2009

GM's Most Fuel-Efficient Cars - BusinessWeek
Quote:
General Motors has more than a dozen models on the market or in development that get 30 mpg on the highway or better
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,971 posts, read 22,147,086 times
Reputation: 13800
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
GM had more energy efficient vehicles than just about any other car manufacturer. So that only leaves management not being able to change its policies and structure. Now why would that be?

Top 10 Best Selling Cars of 2007 | Best Selling Cars (http://www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Top_10_Best_Selling_Cars_for_2007 - broken link)
Best Selling Cars of 2008
Top 10 best–selling cars and pickups for 2009

GM's Most Fuel-Efficient Cars - BusinessWeek
GM had damn good vehicles, but the unions sucked them dry, to the point where they could no longer sell enough cars to fund all the benefits for the people who no longer even worked at GM, much less their productive employees. GM was the poster child for being anti-union.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 09:31 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,952 posts, read 49,183,047 times
Reputation: 55008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
GM had damn good vehicles, but the unions sucked them dry, to the point where they could no longer sell enough cars to fund all the benefits for the people who no longer even worked at GM, much less their productive employees. GM was the poster child for being anti-union.
This is why most new auto plants are being built in the right to work states. Those foreign guys know where to build.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58 PM.

© 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