|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 19, 2010 22:42:13 GMT -8
Oh, please. Every widow and orphan should have been out of GM years ago. The demise of GM had been a long time coming. Far more speculators got wiped out than widows and orphans. Let's not make it government policy to protect speculators. Oh, wait. We already have. Damn Republicans. But, I digress.  That is another way of admitting that you are wrong on the facts. Weak. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 20, 2010 8:26:44 GMT -8
That is another way of admitting that you are wrong on the facts. Weak. Now we are hearing on CNBC that government paid near $50 bucks a share for the shares that are in this IPO and were given to UAW. The IPO is gambling that the cost will rise to over $55 so the government will be able to break even by slowly selling the remainder of its shares. This further strengthens the view that UAW profited on the backs of not only the original GM shareholders and bondholders, but also the tax payer is now at risk in providing UAW their piece of flesh. This issue is so complicated that we will most likely never understand all of the dirty dealing that has gone on between the Obama government and the UAW at the expense of just about everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 21, 2010 8:02:01 GMT -8
Now we are hearing on CNBC that government paid near $50 bucks a share for the shares that are in this IPO and were given to UAW. The IPO is gambling that the cost will rise to over $55 so the government will be able to break even by slowly selling the remainder of its shares. This further strengthens the view that UAW profited on the backs of not only the original GM shareholders and bondholders, but also the tax payer is now at risk in providing UAW their piece of flesh. This issue is so complicated that we will most likely never understand all of the dirty dealing that has gone on between the Obama government and the UAW at the expense of just about everyone else. Win, you very nearly have your wish. The unions are almost dead. The UAW took it in the back passage on their negotiations with GM. Two tier agreements are becoming the norm. I just read about another example yesterday. Our (Seattle) grocery unions agreed this morning not to strike. Boeing has SPEA on the ropes with its continuing move to right to work states. Soon each employee will be free to negotiate with management on their own. I can see the 55 year old engineer in the corporate board room, making his case now. His unemployment will begin five minutes after he asks for anything more than what management demands. One engineer, more or less will make no difference. The engineer? He will be economically dead. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 21, 2010 8:17:07 GMT -8
Now we are hearing on CNBC that government paid near $50 bucks a share for the shares that are in this IPO and were given to UAW. The IPO is gambling that the cost will rise to over $55 so the government will be able to break even by slowly selling the remainder of its shares. This further strengthens the view that UAW profited on the backs of not only the original GM shareholders and bondholders, but also the tax payer is now at risk in providing UAW their piece of flesh. This issue is so complicated that we will most likely never understand all of the dirty dealing that has gone on between the Obama government and the UAW at the expense of just about everyone else. Win, you very nearly have your wish. The unions are almost dead. The UAW took it in the back passage on their negotiations with GM. Two tier agreements are becoming the norm. I just read about another example yesterday. Our (Seattle) grocery unions agreed this morning not to strike. Boeing has SPEA on the ropes with its continuing move to right to work states. Soon each employee will be free to negotiate with management on their own. I can see the 55 year old engineer in the corporate board room, making his case now. His unemployment will begin five minutes after he asks for anything more than what management demands. One engineer, more or less will make no difference. The engineer? He will be economically dead. Do you think there is middle ground? I do! Part of it is in common sense action by people who unite to bargain. Do not let political action by your union leadership galvanize the people who provide the capital to have to move to find a level playing field. The entire issue is very complicated and interrelated with land mines. I would think a first step would be to ban any political activity by unions. I bet there are ideas that I could float that you would agree with. How about employee direct input to corporate boards right along with owners and shareholders? Do you think that employees interest is expressed clearly after it is filtered through their union representatives? |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 21, 2010 8:18:07 GMT -8
Waztec, if that engineer is really any good he won't be fired just for asking for a raise.
You act as though companies are suicidal. Giving up good, experienced people sets them back. Breaking in new employees and finding out if they're actually any good is a lengthy and expensive proposition.
Hell, where I work training a new employee costs more than giving 100 people a big raise for a year. It's stupid (and extremely costly) to allow turnover if it can be avoided.
Don't forget, too, that unions basically killed the steel industry in America. The union model has become one of get everything you can and then some despite the financial strength (or lack thereof) of the company. The union members don't benefit nearly as much as the union leaders do. They enrich themselves and raise union dues at the same time. Nice.
In the past unions were VERY necessary, but the current model (from the last 40 years) has been one that has crippled U.S. companies (see the steel and auto industries as examples).
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 21, 2010 8:23:19 GMT -8
Win, you very nearly have your wish. The unions are almost dead. The UAW took it in the back passage on their negotiations with GM. Two tier agreements are becoming the norm. I just read about another example yesterday. Our (Seattle) grocery unions agreed this morning not to strike. Boeing has SPEA on the ropes with its continuing move to right to work states. Soon each employee will be free to negotiate with management on their own. I can see the 55 year old engineer in the corporate board room, making his case now. His unemployment will begin five minutes after he asks for anything more than what management demands. One engineer, more or less will make no difference. The engineer? He will be economically dead. Do you think there is middle ground? I do! Part of it is in common sense action by people who unite to bargain. Do not let political action by your union leadership galvanize the people who provide the capital to have to move to find a level playing field. The entire issue is very complicated and interrelated with land mines. I would think a first step would be to ban any political activity by unions. I bet there are ideas that I could float that you would agree with. How about employee direct input to corporate boards right along with owners and shareholders? Do you think that employees interest is expressed clearly after it is filtered through their union representatives? I disagree. There is no middle ground. There is no incentive for management to meet the demands of a single employee. Boards will never allow employee committees. I wouldn't if I were an officer. Barring the unions from political activity while allowing corporations that right further unbalances the playing field. Nope, my friend, the point is already moot. Business has won. Unions will be essentially gone before I am dead. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 21, 2010 8:50:28 GMT -8
Do you think there is middle ground? I do! Part of it is in common sense action by people who unite to bargain. Do not let political action by your union leadership galvanize the people who provide the capital to have to move to find a level playing field. The entire issue is very complicated and interrelated with land mines. I would think a first step would be to ban any political activity by unions. I bet there are ideas that I could float that you would agree with. How about employee direct input to corporate boards right along with owners and shareholders? Do you think that employees interest is expressed clearly after it is filtered through their union representatives? I disagree. There is no middle ground. There is no incentive for management to meet the demands of a single employee. Boards will never allow employee committees. I wouldn't if I were an officer. Barring the unions from political activity while allowing corporations that right further unbalances the playing field. Nope, my friend, the point is already moot. Business has won. Unions will be essentially gone before I am dead. I am afraid you respond to something that I did not say. I suggest ways to make unions more effective for the employee and less destructive to the business and you do not seem to want to search for a way to make things better. I do expect people to organize to lobby for their interest, but not to the detriment of the company or the shareholders. When talking about this union issue, I always think of what an uncle told me when I was quite young. He worked as a welder in the San Pedro shipyards in the 40's and 50's. His union went on strike for a few cents in wages and improved benefits. He said that even hough they won the concessions, he would not recover from the economic damage to his family in his lifetime. There has to be a better way. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 21, 2010 8:55:45 GMT -8
Waztec, if that engineer is really any good he won't be fired just for asking for a raise. You act as though companies are suicidal. Giving up good, experienced people sets them back. Breaking in new employees and finding out if they're actually any good is a lengthy and expensive proposition. Hell, where I work training a new employee costs more than giving 100 people a big raise for a year. It's stupid (and extremely costly) to allow turnover if it can be avoided. Don't forget, too, that unions basically killed the steel industry in America. The union model has become one of get everything you can and then some despite the financial strength (or lack thereof) of the company. The union members don't benefit nearly as much as the union leaders do. They enrich themselves and raise union dues at the same time. Nice. In the past unions were VERY necessary, but the current model (from the last 40 years) has been one that has crippled U.S. companies (see the steel and auto industries as examples). This brings up another issue that we seldom talk about except about teachers and teachers unions. Having unions makes if very hard to give individual raises based on merit. If you are a highly skilled employee who has good work ethic, you are held back by the union that represents you. At the same time, the marginal performer gets the same as the go-getter. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 21, 2010 8:58:37 GMT -8
Waztec, if that engineer is really any good he won't be fired just for asking for a raise. You act as though companies are suicidal. Giving up good, experienced people sets them back. Breaking in new employees and finding out if they're actually any good is a lengthy and expensive proposition. Hell, where I work training a new employee costs more than giving 100 people a big raise for a year. It's stupid (and extremely costly) to allow turnover if it can be avoided. Don't forget, too, that unions basically killed the steel industry in America. The union model has become one of get everything you can and then some despite the financial strength (or lack thereof) of the company. The union members don't benefit nearly as much as the union leaders do. They enrich themselves and raise union dues at the same time. Nice. In the past unions were VERY necessary, but the current model (from the last 40 years) has been one that has crippled U.S. companies (see the steel and auto industries as examples). This brings up another issue that we seldom talk about except about teachers and teachers unions. Having unions makes if very hard to give individual raises based on merit. If you are a highly skilled employee who has good work ethic, you are held back by the union that represents you. At the same time, the marginal performer gets the same as the go-getter. I predict those unions are dead too. You will win very soon. Whether that will improve education is an open question. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 21, 2010 9:01:37 GMT -8
I disagree. There is no middle ground. There is no incentive for management to meet the demands of a single employee. Boards will never allow employee committees. I wouldn't if I were an officer. Barring the unions from political activity while allowing corporations that right further unbalances the playing field. Nope, my friend, the point is already moot. Business has won. Unions will be essentially gone before I am dead. I am afraid you respond to something that I did not say. I suggest ways to make unions more effective for the employee and less destructive to the business and you do not seem to want to search for a way to make things better. I do expect people to organize to lobby for their interest, but not to the detriment of the company or the shareholders. When talking about this union issue, I always think of what an uncle told me when I was quite young. He worked as a welder in the San Pedro shipyards in the 40's and 50's. His union went on strike for a few cents in wages and improved benefits. He said that even hough they won the concessions, he would not recover from the economic damage to his family in his lifetime. There has to be a better way. It does not matter. I believe unions are dead. There is no middle ground. They have been demonized for too long. There will be no accommodation. Too many people hate unions. They have inculcated people with the belief system that business will act fairly on their own and will do whats right for employees. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 21, 2010 9:04:08 GMT -8
This brings up another issue that we seldom talk about except about teachers and teachers unions. Having unions makes if very hard to give individual raises based on merit. If you are a highly skilled employee who has good work ethic, you are held back by the union that represents you. At the same time, the marginal performer gets the same as the go-getter. I predict those unions are dead too. What are you smoking? In California the teachers' union is one of the unions that OWNS the Democrats in Sacramento (and the Democrats own the Assembly and State Senate). The Democrats are bought and paid for. Anything that those unions ask for is given a rubber stamp. That's the main problem iwith the California budget. The employees salaries and benefits (including exorbitant retirement pensions that are choking the state) will drive the state into the ground financially. Hell, we're already 4 feet under... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 21, 2010 10:35:57 GMT -8
I predict those unions are dead too. What are you smoking? In California the teachers' union is one of the unions that OWNS the Democrats in Sacramento (and the Democrats own the Assembly and State Senate). The Democrats are bought and paid for. Anything that those unions ask for is given a rubber stamp. That's the main problem with the California budget. The employees salaries and benefits (including exorbitant retirement pensions that are choking the state) will drive the state into the ground financially. Hell, we're already 4 feet under... This is one of the reasons that I predict that California will go belly up in the not to distant future. I also predict that the other 49 will not allow a bailout at their expense. Hope I am wrong and California voters and taxpayers will demand better and more responsible State Government. I do not have much trust in Gov Moonbeam, but lets give him a chance. What choice do we have but to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 22, 2010 5:58:34 GMT -8
When talking about this union issue, I always think of what an uncle told me when I was quite young. He worked as a welder in the San Pedro shipyards in the 40's and 50's. His union went on strike for a few cents in wages and improved benefits. He said that even hough they won the concessions, he would not recover from the economic damage to his family in his lifetime. There has to be a better way. Of course there is a better way. It is state mandates for salaries and wages. Of course that is an abridgment of freedom but it actually provides better security for employees. They do not have to go out on costly strikes, and the company does not have to endure foolish strikes for excessive benefits. When the benefits are not paid for by the company then you eliminate a lot of strife. We have finally seen that our present system is seriously faulty. When it comes to health coverage thirty percent of Americans did not have coverage in the past. That is the reason why Obama is pushing for full Socialized Medicine. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 22, 2010 8:30:04 GMT -8
This brings up another issue that we seldom talk about except about teachers and teachers unions. Having unions makes if very hard to give individual raises based on merit. If you are a highly skilled employee who has good work ethic, you are held back by the union that represents you. At the same time, the marginal performer gets the same as the go-getter. I predict those unions are dead too. You will win very soon. Whether that will improve education is an open question. What the unions in education HAVE prevented is the school administration touching student's grades. I was quite common years ago for administrators to change a kid's grade due to influence from the outside. Could be a star athlete or some big-wigs kid. Happened all of the time 30-40 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 22, 2010 8:35:52 GMT -8
I predict those unions are dead too. What are you smoking? In California the teachers' union is one of the unions that OWNS the Democrats in Sacramento (and the Democrats own the Assembly and State Senate). The Democrats are bought and paid for. Anything that those unions ask for is given a rubber stamp. That's the main problem iwith the California budget. The employees salaries and benefits (including exorbitant retirement pensions that are choking the state) will drive the state into the ground financially. Hell, we're already 4 feet under... So, it is OK that business and special interests OWN the Republican and Tea parties but God forbid if the worker has any say. Give me a break. I am continually amazed that, supposedly, intelligent people fall hook line and sinker for the propaganda put forth by the 'Conservative think tanks'.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 22, 2010 22:06:30 GMT -8
What are you smoking? In California the teachers' union is one of the unions that OWNS the Democrats in Sacramento (and the Democrats own the Assembly and State Senate). The Democrats are bought and paid for. Anything that those unions ask for is given a rubber stamp. That's the main problem iwith the California budget. The employees salaries and benefits (including exorbitant retirement pensions that are choking the state) will drive the state into the ground financially. Hell, we're already 4 feet under... So, it is OK that business and special interests OWN the Republican and Tea parties but God forbid if the worker has any say. Give me a break. I am continually amazed that, supposedly, intelligent people fall hook line and sinker for the propaganda put forth by the 'Conservative think tanks'. You DO understand that most of California's budget crisis can be attributed to the State Workers' Unions, don't you? The trade off was always job security for a little less money. Now, instead of a little less money the State employees make more money than private sector workers doing the same jobs, and State workers have to practically commit murder to get fired. AND their pensions are much higher than anyone in the private sector can get. That's not right. It's bankrupting our state. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 23, 2010 7:26:38 GMT -8
So, it is OK that business and special interests OWN the Republican and Tea parties but God forbid if the worker has any say. Give me a break. I am continually amazed that, supposedly, intelligent people fall hook line and sinker for the propaganda put forth by the 'Conservative think tanks'. You DO understand that most of California's budget crisis can be attributed to the State Workers' Unions, don't you? The trade off was always job security for a little less money. Now, instead of a little less money the State employees make more money than private sector workers doing the same jobs, and State workers have to practically commit murder to get fired. AND their pensions are much higher than anyone in the private sector can get. That's not right. It's bankrupting our state. You've just proven my point. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 23, 2010 7:46:26 GMT -8
You DO understand that most of California's budget crisis can be attributed to the State Workers' Unions, don't you? The trade off was always job security for a little less money. Now, instead of a little less money the State employees make more money than private sector workers doing the same jobs, and State workers have to practically commit murder to get fired. AND their pensions are much higher than anyone in the private sector can get. That's not right. It's bankrupting our state. You've just proven my point. What? That the state workers' unions are destroying California? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 23, 2010 10:53:33 GMT -8
You've just proven my point. What? That the state workers' unions are destroying California? Another conservative rant un connected to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 23, 2010 17:28:35 GMT -8
What? That the state workers' unions are destroying California? Another conservative rant un connected to reality. Head under the covers? Just how does California survive under the present leadership? |
|
