lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Karbin wrote:

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:

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.
GM was saying they built quality cars in the 70's and 80's 90's didn't they? We all knew better. Using GM standards as a yardstick for quality is highly questionable.
GM in house on cost and quality is what is used to gage plant vs. plant.
North American Car and Truck is from JD Powers.

And WHAT..... NO comment and the percentages?????????
I already posted an article saying where GM falls as far as quality and some of the causes for their problems, back on page 2 or 3.

Percentages? What do you want me to say? I never claimed GM was a model corporation. It is fucked up. But it theirs to fuck up, and if they need to close plants and send 30 year 30 dollar an hour bolt installers home, there isn't much that can be done about it.

However, my whole argument is that the union artifically enhanced these workers worth and essentially took away any reason for them to improve their education and marketablity. I do not blame the union for it, because I feel we are all responsbable for our own marketablity. It is exactly what happened though, IMO
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

Do you not find it ironic that the guy with Down Syndrome, is working harder with his disadvantage than most of the people you are endorsing protection?
The number of people you are talking about - the wasters - is negligibly small and the target of government coercion into seeking employment for the extension of those benefits. The cost of these people to me numbers in the cents. The benefits outweigh this small flaw (no system is 100% efficient remember?). Human nature is overwhelmingly a nature of self improvement and a desire to have a more comfortable life. You can't have a comfortable life on benefits. It just ain't possible.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do you not find it ironic that the guy with Down Syndrome, is working harder with his disadvantage than most of the people you are endorsing protection?
The number of people you are talking about - the wasters - is negligibly small and the target of government coercion into seeking employment for the extension of those benefits. The cost of these people to me numbers in the cents. The benefits outweigh this small flaw (no system is 100% efficient remember?). Human nature is overwhelmingly a nature of self improvement and a desire to have a more comfortable life. You can't have a comfortable life on benefits. It just ain't possible.
Basically, I feel it is up to you to provide your comfortable life, and you think it is all of our responsbility to do so. We will agree to disagree.

I think you are way off base with the percentages of people who are able bodied and of sound mind that are in debt and broke, and do not want to help themselves and those that generally have done all the right things and can not get ahead.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do you not find it ironic that the guy with Down Syndrome, is working harder with his disadvantage than most of the people you are endorsing protection?
The number of people you are talking about - the wasters - is negligibly small and the target of government coercion into seeking employment for the extension of those benefits. The cost of these people to me numbers in the cents. The benefits outweigh this small flaw (no system is 100% efficient remember?). Human nature is overwhelmingly a nature of self improvement and a desire to have a more comfortable life. You can't have a comfortable life on benefits. It just ain't possible.
Basically, I feel it is up to you to provide your comfortable life, and you think it is all of our responsbility to do so. We will agree to disagree.

I think you are way off base with the percentages of people who are able bodied and of sound mind that are in debt and broke, and do not want to help themselves and those that generally have done all the right things and can not get ahead.
Well, an external factor to this discussion is the predatory nature of the credit industry.  Since a lot of people aren't particularly wise about finances, they often end up with a lot of debt despite working their asses off.

So, poverty is certainly not a simple matter of laziness.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

Turquoise wrote:

Well, an external factor to this discussion is the predatory nature of the credit industry.  Since a lot of people aren't particularly wise about finances, they often end up with a lot of debt despite working their asses off.

So, poverty is certainly not a simple matter of laziness.
This goes back to the 'not everyone is an ideal equally capable human being' idea. Some people are not as intelligent as others, and it doesn't matter how hard they try. Some people will also be prisoners of their birth, in which their intelligence was not allowed to flourish given their circumstances.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


The number of people you are talking about - the wasters - is negligibly small and the target of government coercion into seeking employment for the extension of those benefits. The cost of these people to me numbers in the cents. The benefits outweigh this small flaw (no system is 100% efficient remember?). Human nature is overwhelmingly a nature of self improvement and a desire to have a more comfortable life. You can't have a comfortable life on benefits. It just ain't possible.
Basically, I feel it is up to you to provide your comfortable life, and you think it is all of our responsbility to do so. We will agree to disagree.

I think you are way off base with the percentages of people who are able bodied and of sound mind that are in debt and broke, and do not want to help themselves and those that generally have done all the right things and can not get ahead.
Well, an external factor to this discussion is the predatory nature of the credit industry.  Since a lot of people aren't particularly wise about finances, they often end up with a lot of debt despite working their asses off.

So, poverty is certainly not a simple matter of laziness.
Nope it is however 100% a personal responsibility issue.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Basically, I feel it is up to you to provide your comfortable life, and you think it is all of our responsbility to do so. We will agree to disagree.

I think you are way off base with the percentages of people who are able bodied and of sound mind that are in debt and broke, and do not want to help themselves and those that generally have done all the right things and can not get ahead.
Well, an external factor to this discussion is the predatory nature of the credit industry.  Since a lot of people aren't particularly wise about finances, they often end up with a lot of debt despite working their asses off.

So, poverty is certainly not a simple matter of laziness.
Nope it is however 100% a personal responsibility issue.
Personal responsibility is one thing, but I often get the impression you'd prefer a Social Darwinist society.  I'd rather not have that myself.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, an external factor to this discussion is the predatory nature of the credit industry.  Since a lot of people aren't particularly wise about finances, they often end up with a lot of debt despite working their asses off.

So, poverty is certainly not a simple matter of laziness.
This goes back to the 'not everyone is an ideal equally capable human being' idea. Some people are not as intelligent as others, and it doesn't matter how hard they try. Some people will also be prisoners of their birth, in which their intelligence was not allowed to flourish given their circumstances.
Do you hold anything as a responsibility to ones self, or do you plan on excusing everyone from taking care of themselves?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

Do you hold anything as a responsibility to ones self, or do you plan on excusing everyone from taking care of themselves?
No, I'm just capable of understanding that we don't live in an equal opportunity, equal ability world, unlike you it would seem.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, an external factor to this discussion is the predatory nature of the credit industry.  Since a lot of people aren't particularly wise about finances, they often end up with a lot of debt despite working their asses off.

So, poverty is certainly not a simple matter of laziness.
Nope it is however 100% a personal responsibility issue.
Personal responsibility is one thing, but I often get the impression you'd prefer a Social Darwinist society.  I'd rather not have that myself.
Nope, all I ask is that I not be punished for your ( generally speaking of course) stupidity. You live the life you CHOOSE and I will live the one I choose, and I will even take on the added responsibility of taking care of those that CAN NOT.

What the hell is so sinister about that?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do you hold anything as a responsibility to ones self, or do you plan on excusing everyone from taking care of themselves?
No, I'm just capable of understanding that we don't live in an equal opportunity, equal ability world, unlike you it would seem.
Cam, again I know we do not, and I have already addressed the disadvantaged. The problem is, you think stupidity,laziness and a lack of ambition, as a disadvantage. I will reserve my sympathies for the handicapped, children, single mothers, etc.......
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Nope it is however 100% a personal responsibility issue.
Personal responsibility is one thing, but I often get the impression you'd prefer a Social Darwinist society.  I'd rather not have that myself.
Nope, all I ask is that I not be punished for your ( generally speaking of course) stupidity. You live the life you CHOOSE and I will live the one I choose, and I will even take on the added responsibility of taking care of those that CAN NOT.

What the hell is so sinister about that?
It's not sinister...  just lacking foresight.  There's a good reason why most countries with large social safety nets only have a fraction of our violent crime rates.

Poverty (regardless of its origin) = Crime.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Personal responsibility is one thing, but I often get the impression you'd prefer a Social Darwinist society.  I'd rather not have that myself.
Nope, all I ask is that I not be punished for your ( generally speaking of course) stupidity. You live the life you CHOOSE and I will live the one I choose, and I will even take on the added responsibility of taking care of those that CAN NOT.

What the hell is so sinister about that?
It's not sinister...  just lacking foresight.  There's a good reason why most countries with large social safety nets only have a fraction of our violent crime rates.

Poverty (regardless of its origin) = Crime.
Not buying it, during Katrina, people generally were not stealing food, or any other survival goods they were stealing plasma TV's.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Nope, all I ask is that I not be punished for your ( generally speaking of course) stupidity. You live the life you CHOOSE and I will live the one I choose, and I will even take on the added responsibility of taking care of those that CAN NOT.

What the hell is so sinister about that?
It's not sinister...  just lacking foresight.  There's a good reason why most countries with large social safety nets only have a fraction of our violent crime rates.

Poverty (regardless of its origin) = Crime.
Not buying it, during Katrina, people generally were not stealing food, or any other survival goods they were stealing plasma TV's.
*shakes head*  Do you not understand that the exact behavior you're fixating on is a result of cultural decline due to poverty and a lack of family values?

The point is this -- What happened during Katrina was both characteristic of poverty and of cultural problems relating to it.  You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm not suggesting that social safety nets alone will fix the problems of poverty in this country.  I'm suggesting that a combination of social safety nets and the same personal responsibility you support will be needed.

To put it into political terms, we need liberal social programs and conservative values (at least the ones relating to keeping families together).
Karbin
Member
+42|6584

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:

lowing wrote:


GM was saying they built quality cars in the 70's and 80's 90's didn't they? We all knew better. Using GM standards as a yardstick for quality is highly questionable.
GM in house on cost and quality is what is used to gage plant vs. plant.
North American Car and Truck is from JD Powers.

And WHAT..... NO comment and the percentages?????????
I already posted an article saying where GM falls as far as quality and some of the causes for their problems, back on page 2 or 3.

Percentages? What do you want me to say? I never claimed GM was a model corporation. It is fucked up. But it theirs to fuck up, and if they need to close plants and send 30 year 30 dollar an hour bolt installers home, there isn't much that can be done about it.

However, my whole argument is that the union artifically enhanced these workers worth and essentially took away any reason for them to improve their education and marketablity. I do not blame the union for it, because I feel we are all responsible for our own marketability. It is exactly what happened though, IMO
So you think the people responsible for fucking up the corporation are the 30 buck an hour bolt installers and there fore too bad?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

Cam, again I know we do not, and I have already addressed the disadvantaged. The problem is, you think stupidity,laziness and a lack of ambition, as a disadvantage. I will reserve my sympathies for the handicapped, children, single mothers, etc.......
'you think stupidity,laziness and a lack of ambition, as a disadvantage' - Where did I say laziness or lack of ambition deserved to be rewarded. I stated that it was an unfortunate unavoidable flaw of the system that such types might benefit. I'm not talking about handicapped people either. There aren't two types of people in the world: equally capable physically/mentally people and disabled people - it's a full spectrum of varying abilities and aptitudes both mental and physical. Not everybody can be an achiever, no matter how much effort they put in.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-09 16:36:50)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Karbin wrote:

lowing wrote:

Karbin wrote:


GM in house on cost and quality is what is used to gage plant vs. plant.
North American Car and Truck is from JD Powers.

And WHAT..... NO comment and the percentages?????????
I already posted an article saying where GM falls as far as quality and some of the causes for their problems, back on page 2 or 3.

Percentages? What do you want me to say? I never claimed GM was a model corporation. It is fucked up. But it theirs to fuck up, and if they need to close plants and send 30 year 30 dollar an hour bolt installers home, there isn't much that can be done about it.

However, my whole argument is that the union artifically enhanced these workers worth and essentially took away any reason for them to improve their education and marketablity. I do not blame the union for it, because I feel we are all responsible for our own marketability. It is exactly what happened though, IMO
So you think the people responsible for fucking up the corporation are the 30 buck an hour bolt installers and there fore too bad?
Nope, I think the combined burdon of forced payments to such groups coupled with the ineptness of these companies in other areas of business, is the problem, affecting the bottom line.

The "too bad" comes in when your ( generally speaking) artifically inflated worth by the unions, gave you a false sense of that worth, and there fore you chose not to better yourself and make yourself marketable, only to realize too late, that you are not worth a damn in the marketplace.

Blame yourself, not the company.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.
If it sounds like I am running a commercial it's only because I am speaking of things I have been through. If you want I can speculate with you in our own preconcieved world when it comes to the automotive industry. UPS is a great example because it employs a quarter of a million union employees. I was hoping to give you a little personal insight.  I don't think that the unskilled package car unloader being paid 8.50 an hour to bust their ass is overpaid neither. UPS has something called MAR (Minimal Acceptable Rate). There is still something to be said for out an out hard work. I know you never said skilled labor shouldn't be paid well. But the point I was trying to get across to you was that the company turns their unskilled labor into skilled. The pay is reflective of their training. The training is also custom tailored to fit the actual work they will be doing. It's a partnership that works well for both the company and the employee. It's like this with a lot of companies.. Union and non-union alike. So I don't see your beef here.

I was offering my personal perspective. If you think I am disagreeing with you when it comes to overpaying under qualified labor then you missed the part where I said I tried to get rid of those people. If they didn't show any progress within the first 30 days I sent them home with a coke and a smile. The Union didn't have any problem with those types getting fired. It's in their intrest to protect the longevity of the company as well.
.......and I think you mised the part where I was saying, regardless if you are bag smasher, or a janitor or a bolt installer, and regardless how long youhave been doing those things, they are still unskilled labor and companies should not be held hostage by unions to pay saleries that are over and beyond the skill required to do the job. A 30 year bolt installer is still a bolt installer. Why pay 35.00 bucks an hour to a person when in 1 day, you can have someone "trained" to do the same thing for a quarter of the amount. I am talking about business here, and what makes good business sense.
Your argument is based on inaccurate presumptions. These skilled position are not learned in one day. Some of the worlds most succesful companies are unionized. They work well in tandem with the unions. I happy worker is productive. It's win win.
Or do think a company that takes their work to Mexico does so because they like the weather?
Taking your labor force to third world countries because you can pay slave wages and ignore the little things like safety only strengthens the need for an organized labor force. So I guess I should be thanking you for raising that point.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

If it sounds like I am running a commercial it's only because I am speaking of things I have been through. If you want I can speculate with you in our own preconcieved world when it comes to the automotive industry. UPS is a great example because it employs a quarter of a million union employees. I was hoping to give you a little personal insight.  I don't think that the unskilled package car unloader being paid 8.50 an hour to bust their ass is overpaid neither. UPS has something called MAR (Minimal Acceptable Rate). There is still something to be said for out an out hard work. I know you never said skilled labor shouldn't be paid well. But the point I was trying to get across to you was that the company turns their unskilled labor into skilled. The pay is reflective of their training. The training is also custom tailored to fit the actual work they will be doing. It's a partnership that works well for both the company and the employee. It's like this with a lot of companies.. Union and non-union alike. So I don't see your beef here.

I was offering my personal perspective. If you think I am disagreeing with you when it comes to overpaying under qualified labor then you missed the part where I said I tried to get rid of those people. If they didn't show any progress within the first 30 days I sent them home with a coke and a smile. The Union didn't have any problem with those types getting fired. It's in their intrest to protect the longevity of the company as well.
.......and I think you mised the part where I was saying, regardless if you are bag smasher, or a janitor or a bolt installer, and regardless how long youhave been doing those things, they are still unskilled labor and companies should not be held hostage by unions to pay saleries that are over and beyond the skill required to do the job. A 30 year bolt installer is still a bolt installer. Why pay 35.00 bucks an hour to a person when in 1 day, you can have someone "trained" to do the same thing for a quarter of the amount. I am talking about business here, and what makes good business sense.
Your argument is based on inaccurate presumptions. These skilled position are not learned in one day. Some of the worlds most succesful companies are unionized. They work well in tandem with the unions. I happy worker is productive. It's win win.
Or do think a company that takes their work to Mexico does so because they like the weather?
Taking your labor force to third world countries because you can pay slave wages and ignore the little things like safety only strengthens the need for an organized labor force. So I guess I should be thanking you for raising that point.
What skilled postions? installing a bolt in a hole? How long is that school anyway? If it were so "skilled", you should not have a problem taking your "skill" anywhere as a marketable resource. I think it has been proven that this is not the case.

Safety?  Yeah American companies are going to Mexico to by pass safety...........You are in denial. No not slave wages, only what the job is REALLY worth.

Last edited by lowing (2008-06-09 17:45:03)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Safety?  Yeah American companies are going to Mexico to by pass safety...........You are in denial. No not slave wages, only what the job is REALLY worth.
Does this mean that you believe that doctors are really only worth what they're paid in India as opposed to here?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Safety?  Yeah American companies are going to Mexico to by pass safety...........You are in denial. No not slave wages, only what the job is REALLY worth.
Does this mean that you believe that doctors are really only worth what they're paid in India as opposed to here?
A doctor is a skill that you will pay a million dollars for if you need him. If a doctor in India can only make x amount of dollars, and he does not like it, he is marketable enough to demand more anywhere he wants. The key word being............MARKETABLE.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Safety?  Yeah American companies are going to Mexico to by pass safety...........You are in denial. No not slave wages, only what the job is REALLY worth.
Does this mean that you believe that doctors are really only worth what they're paid in India as opposed to here?
A doctor is a skill that you will pay a million dollars for if you need him. If a doctor in India can only make x amount of dollars, and he does not like it, he is marketable enough to demand more anywhere he wants. The key word being............MARKETABLE.
Do you believe anyone can be a doctor?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Does this mean that you believe that doctors are really only worth what they're paid in India as opposed to here?
A doctor is a skill that you will pay a million dollars for if you need him. If a doctor in India can only make x amount of dollars, and he does not like it, he is marketable enough to demand more anywhere he wants. The key word being............MARKETABLE.
Do you believe anyone can be a doctor?
Nope, I don't.........Are you suggesting that the only way to contribute or become self reliant is be a doctor?

Like I said the key word is to become "marketable", in anything you choose. Unless of course you choose to be a fuckin' bum or a set your high ambitions on being a bolt installer for GM forever.

Last edited by lowing (2008-06-09 18:04:40)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


A doctor is a skill that you will pay a million dollars for if you need him. If a doctor in India can only make x amount of dollars, and he does not like it, he is marketable enough to demand more anywhere he wants. The key word being............MARKETABLE.
Do you believe anyone can be a doctor?
Nope, I don't.........Are you suggesting that the only way to contribute or become self reliant is be a doctor?

Like I said the key word is to become "marketable", in anything you choose. Unless of course you choose to be a fuckin' bum or a set your high ambitions on being a bolt installer for GM forever.
Not everyone has access to marketable skills.  Also, not all skilled labor is as safe as you seem to assume.  A lot of skilled professions are getting outsourced nowadays, and some of it is even farmed out to illegals.

Essentially, your argument would be much stronger if we had totally socialized education.  Since that's not the case, there are plenty of people stuck in unskilled jobs that are vulnerable to outsourcing and illegals.  There are also skilled workers left just as vulnerable.  Finding the money to earn the education necessary for more marketability is often out of the question.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

.......and I think you mised the part where I was saying, regardless if you are bag smasher, or a janitor or a bolt installer, and regardless how long youhave been doing those things, they are still unskilled labor and companies should not be held hostage by unions to pay saleries that are over and beyond the skill required to do the job. A 30 year bolt installer is still a bolt installer. Why pay 35.00 bucks an hour to a person when in 1 day, you can have someone "trained" to do the same thing for a quarter of the amount. I am talking about business here, and what makes good business sense.
Your argument is based on inaccurate presumptions. These skilled position are not learned in one day. Some of the worlds most succesful companies are unionized. They work well in tandem with the unions. I happy worker is productive. It's win win.
Or do think a company that takes their work to Mexico does so because they like the weather?
Taking your labor force to third world countries because you can pay slave wages and ignore the little things like safety only strengthens the need for an organized labor force. So I guess I should be thanking you for raising that point.
What skilled postions? installing a bolt in a hole? How long is that school anyway? If it were so "skilled", you should not have a problem taking your "skill" anywhere as a marketable resource. I think it has been proven that this is not the case.
Those aren't the skilled positions. Your inexperience in this type of work environment is really showing now.
Safety?  Yeah American companies are going to Mexico to by pass safety...........You are in denial. No not slave wages, only what the job is REALLY worth.
I'm not in denial. You are doing what you do with nearly every topic in this forum. You take the minority of people that make a bad name and assume that is the way it is for everything. It's a simple minded person answer to a complex problem.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard