True, I think the finger of blame can be pointed in about any direction and be accurate

 

A few facts for those not aware.

GM vehicles cost between 5-6000 before being assembled (Past retirement accounts and benefits must be paid for)

The unions have suppressed GM to the point where positions are not allowed to be replaced with automation (More robots=less jobs=lower costs)

The unions want control of the heath care plan, but are not satisfied with the amount of subsidy GM is willing to invest (Although the Steel workers union has made approximately 40 of these plans work across the nation at far lower capital investments than GM is offering) These are future retiree's plans. This only save GM approximately $200 per vehicle.

They also want to guarantee future jobs are placed in Union organized plants (Much Much higher costs)

Bottom line is that the union will cost more than a few retirees their retirement plans and the cost of executive has nothing to do with the union salaries. We can not compete in a free market if our companies are held hostage by the unions. Anyone care to guess why we're losing ground to the foreign companies? Less cost=more money to do r&d. That equates to more marketing and higher sales.

The executives that make high salaries don't compare to the sports figures we all so generously donate to. The sports players make millions, yet their industry is not in jeopardy of collapsing. If it were, do you think the NFL would cut the managers or the players first? How many are qualified to coach a team, and how many students out there are qualified to carry or throw a ball. We could be watching high-school football on Sunday's and be quite content, but make me drive a Sentra or a Corolla and we'll have a few words....

 

That's partially true. A chevy cobalt yes, chevy truck no.

 

Our union heads (IAM) do not make 7 digit salaries, they barely make 6. Too much still, but not overdone like GM's upper management, or should I say mis-management.

 

Not correct. This is what the company wants. You wouldn't take over a $200,000 loan from someone but they will only give you $125,000. You would negotiate up as much as you can, maybe threaten to walk away, then that person ups it to $175,000.

 

If I was not in a UNION, I would be bending over everyday I went to work, & makin peanuts every other Thursday................Union all the way BABY!!!

 

If your market value as a worker is close to what you make you wouldnt need the union. If they could pay someone else less to do your job is that wrong? I fail to see how controlling production cost is a negative thing

 

That is until *your* job is the cost being controlled. Americans buy things, not the very wealthy. When people under 100K/year start making less money, they buy less things. Bad for the economy.

 

I teach---and I am in a union (I was VP) it is not always about the $$$. In education, unlike business, there is a limited amount of income a school district can have (in Ohio, it is based on property taxes.) Our union has helped in many ways to protect rights for unfair labor practices and grievance issues.

I admit that I am not a HUGE union person, but our union where I teach has done a great deal in making sure tha t the administration follows proper procedure in meeting with, disciplining, nonrenewing, and hiring new educators.

As for the cost of "production"---here is another scenario. I do have several former students who are union plumbers. I use them, instead of a non-union compnay that may be less espesnive. Why? Very simple---you get what you pay for. A union plumber guarantees you that he/she has passed the required courses and is a licensed, bonded journeyman---can a non-union shop always do that? I feel that while it may be more expensive, the quality of the job is assured.

TSC

 

Not how I see it... Controlling the cost of products made here in the US keeps people from having to look to cheaper products from overseas. To me that is better for the US economy and the US worker

 

Just because a plumber is part of a union doesnt make him better. Any reputable plumber should be knowledgable in his field and fully insured. A quick call to the BBB will quickly find how reputable and effective companies and servicemen are.

 

It's funny that you would bring this up. I was about to mention that very thing yet with a different opinion. The Ford products that rank the highest in initial quality are built in non-union plants in Mexico. Toyota and Honda, both leaders in initial quality use non-union shops in the USA. So we know that the unioin built cars cost several thousand more to built yet the quality is less than the non-union plants. Why should I feel bad for overpaid workers that build an inferior product? To me it only seems like fair market practice for the higher cost, lower quality product (union workers) to lose market share to a lower cost better product. If I was the CEO of an auto maker, what do I get in return for my investing several thousand dollars more per unit? It certainly isn't a higher quality product.

 

If the unions were not driving the production costs sky high the finished product on the store shelves would be cheaper and you would not need to make 100k to buy things.

 

No, you simply revel in unjust union protectionism. Unions and their mouth breathing members are screwing this country and themselves and don't even realize it. Hyper inflated wages for grossly unskilled labor is no justification for extortion, but you people are salivating over the thought of higher wages and even more retirement benefits. Too myopic to realize that the parasite is killing the host. It's no wonder why Ford and GM have moved their plants to Mexico, they can't afford to keep the doors open in the US. Meanwhile Toyota, Honda, et al have become hugely profitable with their factories here in the US. They employ non union labor, have better products, and they last longer. Why should a company be forced to pay you, a union member, more for a product that is sub standard? This writing has been on the wall for a long long time and it's finally coming home to roost, big time. The market determines the wages and by last accounts Union members are paid $25 more an hour than non union labor. It is patently stupid for any company to pay $25 more and hour for substandard production. As for the CEO's, who cares? Any half trained monkey can assemble a part on a car, how many UAW members can run a multi-billion dollar corporation?

I've bled Ford blue for a long time, but I'm getting more and more fed up with the UAW and "American" car companies. I think I might buy a Toyota the next time around.

 

Go ahead. I abandoned the Big 3 this year for the first time and bought a Honda since the CEO's refuse to improve the quality of the domestics. Thus producing less profits for the company and causing everyone but themselves to take drastic wage and benefit cuts. Ford's quality is no comparison to Honda or Toy.