Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

 

2008-06-08 15:40:28
Karbin
Member
+42|6584
Interesting.......
With the C.A.W, trades make more and have SOME different language.
As well, we elect our reps on the floor up to and including unit Chairs and local Presidents.

The Trades have their own Reps and Chair so what is happening to you won't happen.
2008-06-08 16:51:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Karbin wrote:

Interesting.......
With the C.A.W, trades make more and have SOME different language.
As well, we elect our reps on the floor up to and including unit Chairs and local Presidents.

The Trades have their own Reps and Chair so what is happening to you won't happen.
Well, that is not how it works in the US, so maybe you can see why I am so anti-union? Have you ever wondered why union labor has a stereotype as being lazy and corrupt?
2008-06-08 17:57:15
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

I guess this is what happens when you build an inferior product with over paid union labor..........No one buys it.
And yet one of this countries most successful companies has been union for over 100 years.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su … 698840_ITM

In fact that whole industry revolves around service. I company employing 215,00 lazy people ..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-08 18:37:08
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6669|MN
Picking one company that has done well with unions is easy. 

I have to agree with Lowing, that in the case of GM and the other big 2, they have done poorly in negotiating for the long haul.  It is a simple matter of the cost of supporting their workforce has caused them to sacrifice something to maintain a profitable business. 

For many years they were the big dogs that dictated what the consumer would buy.  They had an arogance about their business that translated into poorer made vehicles.  Meanwhile the unions kept negotiating for decent contracts and GM didn't fight much because they could afford it.  In the 90's people started realizing that some foreign cars were made to a higher standard.  They started switching.  GM tried to play catch-up.  They would go out and get a Honda Accord and set that as the standard.  Problem was, they were getting a car that was allready designed and produced.  Honda was years ahead of them because of this. 

They say they are making cars that are as good as Toyota and Honda now, that they have learned their lesson, but a lot of people, including myself, are waitng for a few years to see how well these new cars hold up.

I don't hate GM or the other 2, but I sure love my 2 Honda's and Toyota.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2008-06-08 19:14:52
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

LividBovine wrote:

Picking one company that has done well with unions is easy. 

I have to agree with Lowing, that in the case of GM and the other big 2, they have done poorly in negotiating for the long haul.  It is a simple matter of the cost of supporting their workforce has caused them to sacrifice something to maintain a profitable business. 

For many years they were the big dogs that dictated what the consumer would buy.  They had an arogance about their business that translated into poorer made vehicles.  Meanwhile the unions kept negotiating for decent contracts and GM didn't fight much because they could afford it.  In the 90's people started realizing that some foreign cars were made to a higher standard.  They started switching.  GM tried to play catch-up.  They would go out and get a Honda Accord and set that as the standard.  Problem was, they were getting a car that was allready designed and produced.  Honda was years ahead of them because of this. 

They say they are making cars that are as good as Toyota and Honda now, that they have learned their lesson, but a lot of people, including myself, are waitng for a few years to see how well these new cars hold up.

I don't hate GM or the other 2, but I sure love my 2 Honda's and Toyota.
I picked UPS because that company has been doing it for decades. There are many successful unionized companies. You don't here about the smooth running ones. The logic behind his conclusion is extremely shallow. Shall I begin to list the non union companies that have gone belly up? People only want to look at things that fit in their stereotypical notion of "what is". Most lack any real experience in those conditions and sit on their pedestal showing off their deficiency of in depth intellectual analysis. It's easy to dumb down an issue. The plants shutting down was a result of poor company direction. The whole economy is slowing, find a better more accurate villain.

Meanwhile the unions kept negotiating for decent contracts and GM didn't fight much because they could afford it.
How dare they not fight against decent contracts..lol. I find it curious that people have come to this idea that unions want to destroy their future (not to mention they don't collect any dues from the unemployed). It really shows their inability to accept common sense. Newsflash: Unions can not stop layoffs! When I first started at UPS I was layed off twice before I gained my seniority. Unions can not interfere with the profitability of the company. If a company needs to cutback to survive Unions can not interfere. Guess who loses their jobs?

PS. I love my Jeep.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-08 19:22:58
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6669|MN
Jeep   Sorry couldn't resist.

You have to admit, GM has planned poorly for the future. 

Where did I say that unions were bad?  You work for a great company, I have a daily pick-up at my house and I think the world of the drivers that show up, they are always kind and are willing to do their job.  Ok, enough ass kissing!

My point is that GM is at fault.  They were ignorant.  Plain and simple.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2008-06-08 19:25:10
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

LividBovine wrote:

Jeep   Sorry couldn't resist.

You have to admit, GM has planned poorly for the future. 

Where did I say that unions were bad?  You work for a great company, I have a daily pick-up at my house and I think the world of the drivers that show up, they are always kind and are willing to do their job.  Ok, enough ass kissing!

My point is that GM is at fault.  They were ignorant.  Plain and simple.
Say what you will about my Jeep. It's an 02 and I've only replaced tires and brakes . It always works like that when you get the extended warranty..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-08 19:27:41
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6669|MN
They have vehicles they sell with the extended warranties, and the ones they don't.  Conspiracy theory. 

Did you have your eyes on the vehicle the whole time you were doing the paperwork?
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2008-06-08 19:36:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

LividBovine wrote:

They have vehicles they sell with the extended warranties, and the ones they don't.  Conspiracy theory. 

Did you have your eyes on the vehicle the whole time you were doing the paperwork?
No.. uh oh.

You work for a great company, I have a daily pick-up at my house and I think the world of the drivers that show up, they are always kind and are willing to do their job.
I drove for 7 years at UPS... yes my customers loved me. I used to get all kinds of hookups... I miss that part of the job. Sweating my ass off in the non AC truck till I threw up..not so much.

I used to get "route pity". People were always offering me water, food, etc. ..lol. Most drivers that have a regular route bust their ass. The slackers are usually the ones who come in trying to cover. They aren't disciplined when they "run over". We had people come out and count every single step we took to get to the front doors, every stop sign on our route, how many back door deliveries, etc. Drivers only get alloted a certain amount of time for each one of these events. Management will discipline drivers that run over.

I'm actually in Real Estate now. I ruptured two disc in my back doing my route two years ago.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-09 01:27:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Kmarion wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Picking one company that has done well with unions is easy. 

I have to agree with Lowing, that in the case of GM and the other big 2, they have done poorly in negotiating for the long haul.  It is a simple matter of the cost of supporting their workforce has caused them to sacrifice something to maintain a profitable business. 

For many years they were the big dogs that dictated what the consumer would buy.  They had an arogance about their business that translated into poorer made vehicles.  Meanwhile the unions kept negotiating for decent contracts and GM didn't fight much because they could afford it.  In the 90's people started realizing that some foreign cars were made to a higher standard.  They started switching.  GM tried to play catch-up.  They would go out and get a Honda Accord and set that as the standard.  Problem was, they were getting a car that was allready designed and produced.  Honda was years ahead of them because of this. 

They say they are making cars that are as good as Toyota and Honda now, that they have learned their lesson, but a lot of people, including myself, are waitng for a few years to see how well these new cars hold up.

I don't hate GM or the other 2, but I sure love my 2 Honda's and Toyota.
I picked UPS because that company has been doing it for decades. There are many successful unionized companies. You don't here about the smooth running ones. The logic behind his conclusion is extremely shallow. Shall I begin to list the non union companies that have gone belly up? People only want to look at things that fit in their stereotypical notion of "what is". Most lack any real experience in those conditions and sit on their pedestal showing off their deficiency of in depth intellectual analysis. It's easy to dumb down an issue. The plants shutting down was a result of poor company direction. The whole economy is slowing, find a better more accurate villain.

Meanwhile the unions kept negotiating for decent contracts and GM didn't fight much because they could afford it.
How dare they not fight against decent contracts..lol. I find it curious that people have come to this idea that unions want to destroy their future (not to mention they don't collect any dues from the unemployed). It really shows their inability to accept common sense. Newsflash: Unions can not stop layoffs! When I first started at UPS I was layed off twice before I gained my seniority. Unions can not interfere with the profitability of the company. If a company needs to cutback to survive Unions can not interfere. Guess who loses their jobs?

PS. I love my Jeep.
A union is a business, just like any corporation, it is in business to make money for big union bosses, NOT to take care of you. Or do the union leadership go on strike and not collect a paycheck with you? At least a corporation does not lie about why it is in business.

The difference between UPS and GM is this, UPS can actually afford to pay its non-skilled labor force what it does. GM can not, yet there the union is demanding fat contracts for people that could be replaced by non-English speaking non-educated immigrants. Oh wait! they ARE being replaced by non-English speaking non-educated immigrants. See what I meanabout artifically raising your worth? The fact is, the people that are benifiting from these contracts ARE NOT worth it in regards to training, and education, or skill. So GM will use a work force more in line with the skill set.

It sounds like the 35.00 dollar and hour, round peg installer, is gunna find out EXACTLY what his skill brings to the market. I wonder if he coulda went to school and REALLY got trained or educated with all the union dues he paid a union to "protect his job". It is sad really
2008-06-09 02:18:53
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6669|MN
Lowing, you are right, a union is in the business of getting more money for it's members.  The problem isn't that the union is asking for more money, the problem is that GM won't/can't pay them more, or their current wage/benifits.

Is it the unions fault that they asked for more money or GM's for giving it to them?

BTW I hate unions.  Mainly because I am in management.  Also, many years ago I worked for a company that was union.  At first I liked the idea of getting into the union because my pay jumped.  Then I realized it didn't matter how much better I was as an employee than the next guy, we got the same pay.  I was unable get rewarded for my talents and skills.  So I joined the Navy .
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2008-06-09 02:27:57
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845
I don't know why this thread has degenerated into a discussion of the merits of unions when the primary reason for GM's failure is that it failed to adapt quickly enough to changing global views on the enviroment and the fact that peak oil approacheth. Highly unionised car manufacturers in vastly more socialist countries all across the world have been able to adapt without significant job losses, but not GM.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-09 02:28:58)

2008-06-09 02:46:47
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

The reason American cars are not profitable is that they are often inferior, many, many models have little export demand (primarily because they are too big and people in most countries don't want stupidly sized cars) and management costs are way too high. Crap management and crap management decisions are to blame here.
2008-06-09 03:21:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

The reason American cars are not profitable is that they are often inferior, many, many models have little export demand (primarily because they are too big and people in most countries don't want stupidly sized cars) and management costs are way too high. Crap management and crap management decisions are to blame here.
Yeah and you guys do not think that the "crappy management decision" to pay exuberant salaries for mindless work has no effect on the bottom line? Yeah ok
2008-06-09 03:31:38
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6971|Disaster Free Zone

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The reason American cars are not profitable is that they are often inferior, many, many models have little export demand (primarily because they are too big and people in most countries don't want stupidly sized cars) and management costs are way too high. Crap management and crap management decisions are to blame here.
Yeah and you guys do not think that the "crappy management decision" to pay exuberant salaries for mindless work has no effect on the bottom line? Yeah ok
Yes it does, but it has nothing to do with it's market share or sales figures which are far far more important.
2008-06-09 03:42:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The reason American cars are not profitable is that they are often inferior, many, many models have little export demand (primarily because they are too big and people in most countries don't want stupidly sized cars) and management costs are way too high. Crap management and crap management decisions are to blame here.
Yeah and you guys do not think that the "crappy management decision" to pay exuberant salaries for mindless work has no effect on the bottom line? Yeah ok
Yes it does, but it has nothing to do with it's market share or sales figures which are far far more important.
Both of which is a direct result of quality and craftsmanship.
2008-06-09 03:54:32
PureFodder
Member
+225|6575

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yeah and you guys do not think that the "crappy management decision" to pay exuberant salaries for mindless work has no effect on the bottom line? Yeah ok
Yes it does, but it has nothing to do with it's market share or sales figures which are far far more important.
Both of which is a direct result of quality and craftsmanship.
also car design, advertising strategy, business plan etc. etc. all of which have bugger all to do with the people that actually make the car.
2008-06-09 04:06:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The reason American cars are not profitable is that they are often inferior, many, many models have little export demand (primarily because they are too big and people in most countries don't want stupidly sized cars) and management costs are way too high. Crap management and crap management decisions are to blame here.
Yeah and you guys do not think that the "crappy management decision" to pay exuberant salaries for mindless work has no effect on the bottom line? Yeah ok
I'm not disputing that. If the company makes very little money because they're crap, the workers should be laid off. I wouldn't say they should be paid substandard salaries, because it's not the guys on the production line that are the ones causing the products to be uncompetitive - if the work they do is of the same quality of the guys working for more successful companies, that is (which it does seem to be - American cars seem to be built relatively well, just badly designed and targeting the wrong markets (or rather not targeting wide enough markets)).
2008-06-09 04:24:17
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6971|Disaster Free Zone

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yeah and you guys do not think that the "crappy management decision" to pay exuberant salaries for mindless work has no effect on the bottom line? Yeah ok
Yes it does, but it has nothing to do with it's market share or sales figures which are far far more important.
Both of which is a direct result of quality and craftsmanship.
It starts with engineering and Design. There is no point to having top quality craftsmanship, if your going to use cheap materials and design a car no one wants.
2008-06-09 04:28:25
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6395|eXtreme to the maX
It starts with engineering and Design. There is no point to having top quality craftsmanship, if your going to use cheap materials and design a car no one wants.
It starts with management and marketing.
Not much point in engineering the perfect car if no-one buys it because it does not meet their needs.
Fuck Israel
2008-06-09 04:29:50
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:

It starts with engineering and Design. There is no point to having top quality craftsmanship, if your going to use cheap materials and design a car no one wants.
It starts with management and marketing.
Not much point in engineering the perfect car if no-one buys it because it does not meet their needs.
Yup. Then design. Then finally the build quality. Which really doesn't seem to be the problem with American cars.
2008-06-09 06:25:30
JahManRed
wank
+646|6917|IRELAND

Better letting the Japanese make them anyway, best all round cars in the world. Bullet proof engines and tuned to do the max MPG possible per engine CC. Something the average American is going to have to think about real soon if oil continues to rise.
2008-06-09 09:07:56
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

A union is a business, just like any corporation, it is in business to make money for big union bosses, NOT to take care of you. Or do the union leadership go on strike and not collect a paycheck with you? At least a corporation does not lie about why it is in business.

The difference between UPS and GM is this, UPS can actually afford to pay its non-skilled labor force what it does. GM can not, yet there the union is demanding fat contracts for people that could be replaced by non-English speaking non-educated immigrants. Oh wait! they ARE being replaced by non-English speaking non-educated immigrants. See what I meanabout artifically raising your worth? The fact is, the people that are benifiting from these contracts ARE NOT worth it in regards to training, and education, or skill. So GM will use a work force more in line with the skill set.
So if the big union bosses are only out to get rich and don't care about it's members why are you making the argument for under skilled employees getting paid more than they should? I've gotten help from them before when the company was unresponsive. I had issues with payroll, moving my stock, and insurance problems. I don't regret a single dollar I paid in dues.

Non skilled and skilled employees are on different pay levels. A new employee walking through the doors of could not run a route. Training is a huge part of UPS and the pay reflects it. When I started at UPS it was a seven year wait to go full time.  I'd love to see you attempt to do a route with no training. It wouldn't be long before we had you in the back of a truck "breaking you in" at $8.50 an hour . At least that's the way I always got rid of the people I knew weren't going to make it (I was a training supervisor for years) . There are some people like you that actually believe that the lazy are untouchable in a union company. We sent them home limping out within the first week. When I was in management I had a hard time keeping recruits. It's a long road to get to top pay. I had to explain to them that over the long term it might be worth it. You need to be trained and put in your time first.

Actually HR used to get mad at us and tell us that we didn't do enough to keep them. It cost the company thousands just to get people started. Even the Union stewards would encourage us to kick the slackers out. A weak link in the chain just meant longer hours for them also.
It sounds like the 35.00 dollar and hour, round peg installer, is gunna find out EXACTLY what his skill brings to the market. I wonder if he coulda went to school and REALLY got trained or educated with all the union dues he paid a union to "protect his job". It is sad really
UPS sends it's employees to school. They encourage it and pay for a portion of it. It benefits the company in the long run. Like everything in life a union job is reflective of what kind of effort you put into it. I am speaking from direct experience, over a long period of time, and from both sides of the debate (Management/Union). Maybe UPS is the exception. But I still feel GM is simply a failure to react to drastic changes in market conditions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-09 10:48:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

A union is a business, just like any corporation, it is in business to make money for big union bosses, NOT to take care of you. Or do the union leadership go on strike and not collect a paycheck with you? At least a corporation does not lie about why it is in business.

The difference between UPS and GM is this, UPS can actually afford to pay its non-skilled labor force what it does. GM can not, yet there the union is demanding fat contracts for people that could be replaced by non-English speaking non-educated immigrants. Oh wait! they ARE being replaced by non-English speaking non-educated immigrants. See what I meanabout artifically raising your worth? The fact is, the people that are benifiting from these contracts ARE NOT worth it in regards to training, and education, or skill. So GM will use a work force more in line with the skill set.
So if the big union bosses are only out to get rich and don't care about it's members why are you making the argument for under skilled employees getting paid more than they should? I've gotten help from them before when the company was unresponsive. I had issues with payroll, moving my stock, and insurance problems. I don't regret a single dollar I paid in dues.

Non skilled and skilled employees are on different pay levels. A new employee walking through the doors of could not run a route. Training is a huge part of UPS and the pay reflects it. When I started at UPS it was a seven year wait to go full time.  I'd love to see you attempt to do a route with no training. It wouldn't be long before we had you in the back of a truck "breaking you in" at $8.50 an hour . At least that's the way I always got rid of the people I knew weren't going to make it (I was a training supervisor for years) . There are some people like you that actually believe that the lazy are untouchable in a union company. We sent them home limping out within the first week. When I was in management I had a hard time keeping recruits. It's a long road to get to top pay. I had to explain to them that over the long term it might be worth it. You need to be trained and put in your time first.

Actually HR used to get mad at us and tell us that we didn't do enough to keep them. It cost the company thousands just to get people started. Even the Union stewards would encourage us to kick the slackers out. A weak link in the chain just meant longer hours for them also.
It sounds like the 35.00 dollar and hour, round peg installer, is gunna find out EXACTLY what his skill brings to the market. I wonder if he coulda went to school and REALLY got trained or educated with all the union dues he paid a union to "protect his job". It is sad really
UPS sends it's employees to school. They encourage it and pay for a portion of it. It benefits the company in the long run. Like everything in life a union job is reflective of what kind of effort you put into it. I am speaking from direct experience, over a long period of time, and from both sides of the debate (Management/Union). Maybe UPS is the exception. But I still feel GM is simply a failure to react to drastic changes in market conditions.
You are running a UPS commercial, and you are correct. I am talking about the automotive industry, it's unions, and its inept management.

Your job is fluid, it changes apparently, you need to be trained to deal with customers. Basically, driving yor own truch on a route is no different than operating your own business. It is up to you to deal with customer complaints and appeasement. I also would think you would be doing your part to bring in new business through your interations with people.


I am talking about workers who do nothing more than stick a bolt in a hole and get paid as much as you and I. I said unskilled labor on an assy line and its rediculous benefits is partly to blame for the company's demise, due to its affect on the companies bottom line and the continued threat of strike when they do not get what they want. Practially forcing a company to seek labor elsewhere.
I know UPS is a great company. The rewards for hard work are numerous, but if you read back, I never included skilled labor. A route driver and all of the dynamics that goes along with it, I would consider skilled. I do not have a problem with anything skilled labor makes. I do not beleive a company should be put into a position through threats to pay artifically inflated salaries and benefits to unskilled laborers.

Now, tell me again how and why you would disagree with me.
2008-06-09 11:17:02
Karbin
Member
+42|6584
And AGAIN, lowing, I'll tell you...........

Hourly costs per unit 5-7% of the Wholesale cost.
Management costs per unit 10-12% of the Wholesale cost.

I guess I will have to disagree with you.

OTHER NEWS

A protest against General Motors is entering its second week as hundreds of workers continued to form a blockade around the company's Oshawa, Ont. headquarters on Monday.
GM workers form a blockade around the company's Oshawa headquarters for the 6th day.

ctvtoronto.ca

However, a legal injunction is expected to take effect this week, forcing protesters to end the blockade. But workers say they're not giving up their fight to convince GM that the Oshawa plant is worth keeping open.

"If I lose my job, he may just lose his job, you never know," said one protester as she turned a GM employee away from headquarters Monday morning.

Workers began taking action against GM when the company announced it would close down Oshawa's truck plant in 2009, effectively laying off about 2,600 workers.

The announcement came just weeks after the company and the Canadian Auto Workers union reached a tentative agreement. GM has said rising fuel costs have forced them to downsize production on some of their gas-guzzling vehicles.

Despite the mounting frustration, the protest has been peaceful. On Monday, GM management tried to get into headquarters but when they were blocked, they shook hands with some of the protesters.

Chris Buckley, the CAW local union leader, said he's not surprised things have remained peaceful.

"This protest is not about violence and it will continue this way," he said. "It's just not what this union is all about."

However, the protesters will step up their action on Thursday as the union is planning a massive rally. Posters are going up throughout the Durham region in hopes of attracting 10,000 supporters to the rally.

Buckley did say the federal government should be mindful of the economic downfall that will hit Durham, should the plant close down.

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is the MP for the Oshawa region but has not attended the rally, Buckley said.

"Instead of petting the animals at the fair, Flaherty should have been here," he said.

Buckley said the union is not ruling out a wildcat strike but for now, union members are being urged to show up for work on time.

With a report from CTV Toronto's Dana Levenson


Now, there are two plants in Oshawa, one builds trucks the other builds cars
Both plants are classed, by GM, as cost efficient and build quality products.
Both have received either, North American car or truck of the year awards.
Both are being closed.

Last edited by Karbin (2008-06-09 11:18:17)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard