LOL! GM stops paying for striking UAW workers healthcare insurance - Page 5

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - LOL! GM stops paying for striking UAW workers healthcare insurance (Page 5 of 16)

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:56:46 PM EDT

[#1]

These threads are always good for exposing the folks getting paid $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:57:31 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

This

View Quote

But they gave the salary workers raises and increased benefits.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:58:04 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
companies shouldn't be able to negotiate with other companies?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not while trying to hold a company hostage

companies shouldn't be able to negotiate with other companies?

We're not talking about legitimate negotiations. We're talking about the UAW, which has a government behind it saying "Do business with my friends here or I'll send men with guns to force you."

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:58:25 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
Typical car maker has 30-60 day supply of vehicles on hand. Combine that with dealers having roughly the same in inventory, GM can hold out until after Christmas before it will affect them.

The unions are what crippled GM. Super sweet pensions that normal people don't have and more pensioners than employees were crippling them. They dumped the pensions on our back.

Union auto assembly "workers" make almost double what a technician fixing them makes.

Edited 1387Delta

View Quote

Good post.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:58:32 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
A dangerous game, but they’ve played it before.

Hopefully that would be enough to get a decent number of members to jump ship, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

So people shouldn't be able to associate with other people or groups freely?

Not while trying to hold a company hostage

What is wrong with contract negotiations?

Unions going on strike as a negotiation tactic is like having your femoral artery cut then negotiating the price of a tourniquet with a gun to your head.

Then I guess GM should have invested into hiring and filling all those jobs on their own. They still can but it would stop production and take time/money. With that said, the union has stopped production and it is costing GM time/money. GM is in a position to give the union a few options:

1. Accept the terms we are giving
2. Counter with terms that are acceptable to GM
3. Pack your bags we will hire outside of the union.

Pretty much.

It's probably too early to know what either side is planning to do. Strikes can and have last(ed) days, months, or years.

Yes, the UAW, has enough $$ to carry out a strike for the near term. Probably not for months or years though. And GM has just taken the first of its contigency planning steps - by pulling the UAWs healthcare funding. My money is on GM to win this one, but who knows?

UAW can last for 22.7 weeks, assuming GM's publicly disclosed insurance costs are accurate and taking into account the $250 per member per week strike pay.

How long the UAW members can survive on $250 per week (which they will owe taxes on!) is another story. I'd be surprised if the UAW could make it more than 7 weeks (which would be two mortgage payments for most members).

Doesn’t the strike fund cover GM, Ford, and FCA?

If so, they can’t burn it all on GM.

Sure they can....

Then they'll just increase the dues to make it all back.

A dangerous game, but they’ve played it before.

Hopefully that would be enough to get a decent number of members to jump ship, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.

Hopefully the Ford (~60k UAW members) and FCA (~50k UAW members) folks strike as well.

That would more than triple UAW's strike fund burn rate, dropping UAW down to less than 8 weeks of funding.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:58:37 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

GM cannot do that, it’s is deemed by the federal gov’t to be an unfair labor practice and a violation of good faith negotiations.

View Quote

I'm not sure where the federal government (NLRB and Department of Labor) derive their powers over this. These are publicly traded companies who should set wages. If an employee doesn't like it, they're free to go somewhere else.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:58:43 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

Under what other circumstances can a person, or an entire group of people, cease working until their contract is renegotiated to their liking? Under what other circumstances could a person do this and not only retain their job, but somehow get paid for the time they weren't working, as well?

Do you honestly consider this a fair example of "contract negotiations"?

View Quote

Well, to be fair, ANY group of employees is free to stop working at any time. If all of the employees of a restaurant wanted to walk out in the middle of a busy Friday night, there is nothing stopping them from doing so...

Now, would they keep their jobs? Probably not, since those workers are very easy to replace.

To your point: no, it's not fair contract negotiations at all. It's government-enabled extortion where the government gets to hold a gun to the businesses head to the benefit of the employees.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:58:49 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
What federal law?

Nothing prevents GM from hiring a bunch of temps, sending salaried employees to the production line, and resuming operations as normal. Union gets locked out, strike goes on for years, and the UAW runs out of money. The few remaining picketers can either retire or go back to work at 1/2 pay.

Cat defeated the UAW in the late 90s this way, and so could GM - if only it had the balls. Without a contract in place, GM has no obligation to use union labor.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I wish they would just hold a hiring conference in another city to replace all these greedy bastards

They can’t under federal law

What federal law?

Nothing prevents GM from hiring a bunch of temps, sending salaried employees to the production line, and resuming operations as normal. Union gets locked out, strike goes on for years, and the UAW runs out of money. The few remaining picketers can either retire or go back to work at 1/2 pay.

Cat defeated the UAW in the late 90s this way, and so could GM - if only it had the balls. Without a contract in place, GM has no obligation to use union labor.

The railroad that used to serve my town did that and was beating the strike, moving more freight than at any other time in their history. So the unions got their buddies in the government to shut the railroad down.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:59:01 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

I know nothing about whats going on. From my no info point of view I see nothing funny of mocking men fighting for a better work environment and wage.

should they just shut up taking less? Everything you dont like is a socialist right? The rights socalist is the lefts nazis. Shits old.

View Quote

Cry me a fucking river. They are spoiled. They refuse to adapt during downturns and nearly drive companies to ruin but still expect to rise up during the boom times.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:59:05 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
Apparently, the UAW folks there want to strike as well.

Ford, Fiat-Chrysler workers call for all-out strike alongside GM workers

Do it!!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

So people shouldn't be able to associate with other people or groups freely?

Not while trying to hold a company hostage

What is wrong with contract negotiations?

Unions going on strike as a negotiation tactic is like having your femoral artery cut then negotiating the price of a tourniquet with a gun to your head.

Then I guess GM should have invested into hiring and filling all those jobs on their own. They still can but it would stop production and take time/money. With that said, the union has stopped production and it is costing GM time/money. GM is in a position to give the union a few options:

1. Accept the terms we are giving
2. Counter with terms that are acceptable to GM
3. Pack your bags we will hire outside of the union.

Pretty much.

It's probably too early to know what either side is planning to do. Strikes can and have last(ed) days, months, or years.

Yes, the UAW, has enough $$ to carry out a strike for the near term. Probably not for months or years though. And GM has just taken the first of its contigency planning steps - by pulling the UAWs healthcare funding. My money is on GM to win this one, but who knows?

UAW can last for 22.7 weeks, assuming GM's publicly disclosed insurance costs are accurate and taking into account the $250 per member per week strike pay.

How long the UAW members can survive on $250 per week (which they will owe taxes on!) is another story. I'd be surprised if the UAW could make it more than 7 weeks (which would be two mortgage payments for most members).

Doesn’t the strike fund cover GM, Ford, and FCA?

If so, they can’t burn it all on GM.

Aren't Ford and FCA on indefinite contracts now? (Not being snarky. I don't know the answer 100%.)

Apparently, the UAW folks there want to strike as well.

Ford, Fiat-Chrysler workers call for all-out strike alongside GM workers

Do it!!

From what I can tell, only the true believers, and the idiots that want time off.

I can’t speak for FCA, because I don’t know any, but most Ford employees aren’t so excited. I know many, and know of two that support such a move. One guy likes to virtue signal, and make sure everyone sees what he’s doing even though he’s a nobody, and the other is one of the idiots I was talking about.

Ford employs about 11,000 people here, so the community is somewhat tied to them.

Posted: 9/17/2019 9:59:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
@40xb

I have a serious question for you, and I hope this doesn't get passed over too quickly, considering how fast the thread is moving.

Do you truly support modern unions and all that they stand for (including all of the bad things, such as Democratic donations, bribery, theft, embezzlement, threats, violence, vandalism, assault, etc...), or do you support the idea of unions as they once were, as seen through nostalgia-tinted glasses?

You have been very staunch in your support of unions, but I've noticed an interesting similarity in your support of unions when compared to SWIRE's unwavering support from the NRA.

In both examples, it seems to me that the idea of a union (or the NRA, in SWIRE's example) somehow means more to you than what the union actually accomplishes. More importantly, this nostalgic idea of what unions mean is somehow able to completely overshadow all of the horrible things they have done in recent history, things that are blatantly obvious to those not blinded by nostalgia.

Just as WLP's rampant abuse of NRA funding was often overlooked, ignored, or even excused by the most staunch NRA supporters, the UAW's blatant history of wrongdoing by management (embezzlement, theft, fraud, etc...) never seems to get addressed by you.

I understand completely if you truly support the idea of unions, and the ideals that they were intended to represent, but how can you in good conscience support the current UAW, given it's extensive and well-documented history of crooked union bosses, scams, and schemes? How do you justify supporting what is now essentially a criminal organization, and one that goes against our very constitutional rights?

To me, the cancer at the top of the UAW is almost identical to the cancer that has consumed the NRA. How anyone can continue to support these organizations while they are rotten to the core is completely beyond me. I support the idea behind both, but only if they are completely purged of the rot and the filth that now consumes them, and then rebuilt to their once proud ideals.

Even if the original cause was just, how can one continue to support an organization that is now ran almost entirely by criminals?

View Quote

You are making a lot of assumptions about me that just are not factual. I have not supported the UAW's anything. I have actually brought up varying points about unions and private businesses in general. I don't support them and their shady practices just like I don't support the NRA's shady practices. IMHO if you enter into an agreement you follow the terms you agreed to. Once the agreement terms have been met or the time frame runs out you go through the proper channels, that you agreed to in the first place, to either extend or end appropriately and move on. I don't support the governments involvement in the bailout either just in case you were wondering. IMHO there are two sides to the coin and you have to look at each of them.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:00:02 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

View Quote

You are naive, gov’t union labor regs are designed to allow unions to all but extort dues from members so unions can fund democrat coffers.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:00:07 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

Apparently, the UAW folks there want to strike as well.

Ford, Fiat-Chrysler workers call for all-out strike alongside GM workers

Do it!!

View Quote

A wildcat strike. That would be a bad move on the workers part. Past wildcat strikes have not turned out well for the UAW or its employees...

Yeah... I say go for gold guys!

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:01:12 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
Henry Ford implementing all the things unions take credit for?

View Quote

I don’t believe Henery Ford was the problem.

Would you like to talk about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire possibly?

That would be a better example of how employers treated employees at the turn of the century.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:01:57 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
GM cannot do that, it’s is deemed by the federal gov’t to be an unfair labor practice and a violation of good faith negotiations.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Yep. Pretty soon, it's rank and file will run out of money. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. As weeks go by, people will need to cross the picket line and go back to work. GM might offer a little bonus or pay raise for those that chose to do so early.

GM cannot do that, it’s is deemed by the federal gov’t to be an unfair labor practice and a violation of good faith negotiations.

Precedent case?

It's been done by many companies successfully in the past...

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:02:04 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
Is GM firing them? I thought GM was attempting to negotiate a contract now that the last one is expired.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

What are the parameters in which a company is forced to hire union workers?

Quoted:

Explain to me how a company is forced to employ union workers.

enjoy

Can you point out the forced part to me please.

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
——————————————

Apparently striking is covered under " other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection", so firing them en masse is considered "unfair labor practices" under section 8.

Also under section 8, if the employees vote to unionize, then they get to unionize and tough shit if the employer doesn't like it. Your only other option at that point is to close up shop.

but you probably knew all this already.

Is GM firing them? I thought GM was attempting to negotiate a contract now that the last one is expired.

I answered you specific question. GM isn't firing anyone because they can't. That's the forced part. Can't refuse to let employees unionize, can't replace union workers with temps except under certain conditions, and can't permanently replace striking union workers.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:03:39 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Boomer spotted!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

I know nothing about whats going on. From my no info point of view I see nothing funny of mocking men fighting for a better work environment and wage.

should they just shut up taking less? Everything you dont like is a socialist right? The rights socalist is the lefts nazis. Shits old.

Boomer spotted!

Actually most of the boomers are the ones complaining about the union/gm etc from what I can tell

Yet they're all very pro police...which if I'm correct has one of the largest union presences?

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:03:49 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
Y'all can banter about the pros and cons of the UAW and unions ad infinitum.

In my mind it comes down to the simple fact that I never needed anyone to negotiate my remuneration for me, nor was I willing to tie my potential for advancement - and earnings potential - to people with less motivation, skills, drive, and potential than me. Be a lazy dumbass if you want...just don't limit me with your bullshit.

In other words, I'm not willing to sacrifice my potential and be satisfied with earning what the lowest common denominator working for a company earns. Wages should reflect production, not longevity.

Why should I have to do my job and pick up the slack for some schmoe while he earns the same 'scale' as me? Why should I work hard if I can ghost and make the same 'scale'?

Anyone who thinks that shit is rational or fair is a socialist.

View Quote

As with any socialist system, you will eventually end up with a large group of people trying to outdo each other at doing absolutely nothing.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:04:26 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
They never do, negotiations are behind closed doors, and unless the union agrees to put it to a vote, the workers will never know what’s discussed.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was thinking about this earlier, and have a theory on how this whole deal could play out.

GM makes quite a few of their vehicles outside of the US, and since those plants are unaffected, they should have a pretty decent cash flow. If they hold out until mortgages start coming due, the paycheck to paycheck workers will be begging to come back, and will sign whatever GM offers them.

Geez, the average UAW GM worker doesn’t even know the details of GM’s last offer.

They never do, negotiations are behind closed doors, and unless the union agrees to put it to a vote, the workers will never know what’s discussed.

Right, for example, membership voted on a recommendation by union leaders to strike, not to reject the actual terms of the offer and to strike.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:05:00 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
A wildcat strike. That would be a bad move on the workers part. Past wildcat strikes have not turned out well for the UAW or its employees...

Yeah... I say go for gold guys!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Apparently, the UAW folks there want to strike as well.

Ford, Fiat-Chrysler workers call for all-out strike alongside GM workers

Do it!!

A wildcat strike. That would be a bad move on the workers part. Past wildcat strikes have not turned out well for the UAW or its employees...

Yeah... I say go for gold guys!

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:05:34 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

Doesn't the strike fund cover GM, Ford, and FCA?

If so, they can't burn it all on GM.

View Quote

They can't burn all those hard earned union dues building remote luxury hunting lodges in Alaska that the union proles can never use either. Right?

The union bosses can do damned near whatever they druther. Who's gonna complain? You forget who runs the big labor unions in this country? I'd remind you, but Omerta.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:06:23 PM EDT

[#22]

Not a @rogueboss thread?

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:06:29 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
That is not even remotely close to how it works. I don't know from what reality you are pulling that fantasy, but it is not the reality we both inhabit.

It's more like you spend the $500,000,000, then a union comes in and convinces your employees to unionize, they then 'bargain' a rate of $750,000,000 but produce only 40% of the previous productivity levels. And now you can't get rid of them, or the union, because the US government will stop you from doing so. All the while, a significant part of that extra $250,000,000 you are paying is going to politicians that hate your business and want to see you fail, but also want to see you pay $1,250,000,000 for labor while you fail.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

That is not even remotely close to how it works. I don't know from what reality you are pulling that fantasy, but it is not the reality we both inhabit.

It's more like you spend the $500,000,000, then a union comes in and convinces your employees to unionize, they then 'bargain' a rate of $750,000,000 but produce only 40% of the previous productivity levels. And now you can't get rid of them, or the union, because the US government will stop you from doing so. All the while, a significant part of that extra $250,000,000 you are paying is going to politicians that hate your business and want to see you fail, but also want to see you pay $1,250,000,000 for labor while you fail.

A remarkably succinct and accurate summary.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:07:21 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Actually most of the boomers are the ones complaining about the union/gm etc from what I can tell

Yet they're all very pro police...which if I'm correct has one of the largest union presences?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

I know nothing about whats going on. From my no info point of view I see nothing funny of mocking men fighting for a better work environment and wage.

should they just shut up taking less? Everything you dont like is a socialist right? The rights socalist is the lefts nazis. Shits old.

Boomer spotted!

Actually most of the boomers are the ones complaining about the union/gm etc from what I can tell

Yet they're all very pro police...which if I'm correct has one of the largest union presences?

Attached File

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:07:25 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
That is not even remotely close to how it works. I don't know from what reality you are pulling that fantasy, but it is not the reality we both inhabit.

It's more like you spend the $500,000,000, then a union comes in and convinces your employees to unionize, they then 'bargain' a rate of $750,000,000 but produce only 40% of the previous productivity levels. And now you can't get rid of them, or the union, because the US government will stop you from doing so. All the while, a significant part of that extra $250,000,000 you are paying is going to politicians that hate your business and want to see you fail, but also want to see you pay $1,250,000,000 for labor while you fail.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

That is not even remotely close to how it works. I don't know from what reality you are pulling that fantasy, but it is not the reality we both inhabit.

It's more like you spend the $500,000,000, then a union comes in and convinces your employees to unionize, they then 'bargain' a rate of $750,000,000 but produce only 40% of the previous productivity levels. And now you can't get rid of them, or the union, because the US government will stop you from doing so. All the while, a significant part of that extra $250,000,000 you are paying is going to politicians that hate your business and want to see you fail, but also want to see you pay $1,250,000,000 for labor while you fail.

It was just a hypothetical example. I didn't say anything about the production, quality, politicians. If the company actually cared about quality and production don't you think they would put standards within the contract? If the union doesn't want to abide by those standards then they can go elsewhere and kick bricks IMO. If I were a business owner I would rather have a successful company built by good people making good products or providing good service. If GM doesn't want that then that is on them for not implementing those standards and or facilitating a union that won't complete those standards and it would seem like they were complicit in supporting the unions negative associations. So then it comes down to the consumer to say well screw you both, GM/Union, I won't support either one of you and I won't buy GM products.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:08:31 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
Is GM firing them? I thought GM was attempting to negotiate a contract now that the last one is expired.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

What are the parameters in which a company is forced to hire union workers?

Quoted:

Explain to me how a company is forced to employ union workers.

enjoy

Can you point out the forced part to me please.

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
——————————————

Apparently striking is covered under " other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection", so firing them en masse is considered "unfair labor practices" under section 8.

Also under section 8, if the employees vote to unionize, then they get to unionize and tough shit if the employer doesn't like it. Your only other option at that point is to close up shop.

but you probably knew all this already.

Is GM firing them? I thought GM was attempting to negotiate a contract now that the last one is expired.

NLRB regs extend beyond the expiration of contracts.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:09:42 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

UAW can last for 22.7 weeks, assuming GM's publicly disclosed insurance costs are accurate and taking into account the $250 per member per week strike pay.

How long the UAW members can survive on $250 per week (which they will owe taxes on!) is another story. I'd be surprised if the UAW could make it more than 7 weeks (which would be two mortgage payments for most members).

View Quote

I would bet a dollar that the banks in those towns are terrified of a mass default like that. The bank is built on a small ratio of their loans defaulting each month say 2%, , if 20% of their mortgauges suddenly are in default they CANT reposess them, they literally would depreciate the other homes they own, so the 100k house they reposed on Monday is now worth 80k, ALL their loans in that town would be underwater./ What would stop people from saying "i owe 100k on a 80k house, here are the keys, BYE" because that didn't happen back in 08... I wouldn't be surprised that the banks do some sort of sweet heart deal for up to several months of doing some sort of "you work for UAW, we will let you make 100 bucks a month payments for the up to 6 months if you sign this I wont abandon my house" document or some such simply to prevent such an issue.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:10:00 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Right, for example, membership voted on a recommendation by union leaders to strike, not to reject the actual terms of the offer and to strike.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was thinking about this earlier, and have a theory on how this whole deal could play out.

GM makes quite a few of their vehicles outside of the US, and since those plants are unaffected, they should have a pretty decent cash flow. If they hold out until mortgages start coming due, the paycheck to paycheck workers will be begging to come back, and will sign whatever GM offers them.

Geez, the average UAW GM worker doesn’t even know the details of GM’s last offer.

They never do, negotiations are behind closed doors, and unless the union agrees to put it to a vote, the workers will never know what’s discussed.

Right, for example, membership voted on a recommendation by union leaders to strike, not to reject the actual terms of the offer and to strike.

Correct.

Two points on that:

1. The UAW is going to do whatever they want regardless of how a vote goes.

2. Most people view it as a bad negotiation tactic to refuse a strike before negotiations even begin. Even those that don’t wish to strike often vote to authorize, because they don’t think it will happen anyway.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:10:52 PM EDT

[#29]

Awesome!

...

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:12:08 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
You are naive, gov’t union labor regs are designed to allow unions to all but extort dues from members so unions can fund democrat coffers.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

You are naive, gov’t union labor regs are designed to allow unions to all but extort dues from members so unions can fund democrat coffers.

Well I guess the union members could elect to put in better leadership or those people could chose not to associate with that union at all, or you could live in a state where you are not forced to join a union or pay union dues.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:12:14 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

1. They are not forced. The employee is forced to join the union or not be allowed to work by the Unions employees.

2. They agree to allow the union to operate as long as they supply a reliable work force.

3. Ask caterpillar union clowns what happens if you f around too much. They are not forced to play ball with the unions but they can’t stop employees from joining a union.

IMO they should show UAW workers the door. They can go work somewhere else. Oh wait, making cars is pretty specialized, not sure there is much out there along those lines for them.

Seems to me it would be in everybody’s interest to ditch the union/commie scammers and build the best product possible.

JMO though

View Quote

Obama changed NLRB regs to prevent another Cat like breakout.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:12:30 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:

If I open a company I don't have to employ union workers.

View Quote

Once you've done your hiring and have all your employees in place, union organizers can court your employees until the convence 51% of them to hold a vote on going union.

'Poof', baby, your workforce just went union...and there ain't shit you can do about it -other than close down the company.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:12:38 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
It was just a hypothetical example. I didn't say anything about the production, quality, politicians. If the company actually cared about quality and production don't you think they would put standards within the contract? If the union doesn't want to abide by those standards then they can go elsewhere and kick bricks IMO. If I were a business owner I would rather have a successful company built by good people making good products or providing good service. If GM doesn't want that then that is on them for not implementing those standards and or facilitating a union that won't complete those standards and it would seem like they were complicit in supporting the unions negative associations. So then it comes down to the consumer to say well screw you both, GM/Union, I won't support either one of you and I won't buy GM products.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

That is not even remotely close to how it works. I don't know from what reality you are pulling that fantasy, but it is not the reality we both inhabit.

It's more like you spend the $500,000,000, then a union comes in and convinces your employees to unionize, they then 'bargain' a rate of $750,000,000 but produce only 40% of the previous productivity levels. And now you can't get rid of them, or the union, because the US government will stop you from doing so. All the while, a significant part of that extra $250,000,000 you are paying is going to politicians that hate your business and want to see you fail, but also want to see you pay $1,250,000,000 for labor while you fail.

It was just a hypothetical example. I didn't say anything about the production, quality, politicians. If the company actually cared about quality and production don't you think they would put standards within the contract? If the union doesn't want to abide by those standards then they can go elsewhere and kick bricks IMO. If I were a business owner I would rather have a successful company built by good people making good products or providing good service. If GM doesn't want that then that is on them for not implementing those standards and or facilitating a union that won't complete those standards and it would seem like they were complicit in supporting the unions negative associations. So then it comes down to the consumer to say well screw you both, GM/Union, I won't support either one of you and I won't buy GM products.

At the risk of being punished for hurting your feelings, I will keep my response brief. You have a very optimistic and idealistic view of the world that is not supported by history or the reality of the present.

Think of employees unionizing like finding out after you are married that your bride is a red headed, horse loving, nurse that used to be a cop. Sure... you can try to establish standards, but that's how you wake up one morning in a bathtub full of ice with no kidneys or penis.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:13:19 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
Apparently, the UAW folks there want to strike as well.

Ford, Fiat-Chrysler workers call for all-out strike alongside GM workers

Do it!!

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

So people shouldn't be able to associate with other people or groups freely?

Not while trying to hold a company hostage

What is wrong with contract negotiations?

Unions going on strike as a negotiation tactic is like having your femoral artery cut then negotiating the price of a tourniquet with a gun to your head.

Then I guess GM should have invested into hiring and filling all those jobs on their own. They still can but it would stop production and take time/money. With that said, the union has stopped production and it is costing GM time/money. GM is in a position to give the union a few options:

1. Accept the terms we are giving
2. Counter with terms that are acceptable to GM
3. Pack your bags we will hire outside of the union.

Pretty much.

It's probably too early to know what either side is planning to do. Strikes can and have last(ed) days, months, or years.

Yes, the UAW, has enough $$ to carry out a strike for the near term. Probably not for months or years though. And GM has just taken the first of its contigency planning steps - by pulling the UAWs healthcare funding. My money is on GM to win this one, but who knows?

UAW can last for 22.7 weeks, assuming GM's publicly disclosed insurance costs are accurate and taking into account the $250 per member per week strike pay.

How long the UAW members can survive on $250 per week (which they will owe taxes on!) is another story. I'd be surprised if the UAW could make it more than 7 weeks (which would be two mortgage payments for most members).

Doesn’t the strike fund cover GM, Ford, and FCA?

If so, they can’t burn it all on GM.

Aren't Ford and FCA on indefinite contracts now? (Not being snarky. I don't know the answer 100%.)

Apparently, the UAW folks there want to strike as well.

Ford, Fiat-Chrysler workers call for all-out strike alongside GM workers

Do it!!

I believe that is in "support " of them. I think k they already finished / extended their own contracts and it was only GM that is the problem for some reason.

(Seems like is always GM more so than the other 2 for some reason )

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:13:22 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
These threads are always good for exposing the folks getting paid $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts.

View Quote

Damn, who's paying $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts?

That sounds like a sweet gig! They hiring?

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:14:38 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
I answered you specific question. GM isn't firing anyone because they can't. That's the forced part. Can't refuse to let employees unionize, can't replace union workers with temps except under certain conditions, and can't permanently replace striking union workers.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

What are the parameters in which a company is forced to hire union workers?

Quoted:

Explain to me how a company is forced to employ union workers.

enjoy

Can you point out the forced part to me please.

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
——————————————

Apparently striking is covered under " other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection", so firing them en masse is considered "unfair labor practices" under section 8.

Also under section 8, if the employees vote to unionize, then they get to unionize and tough shit if the employer doesn't like it. Your only other option at that point is to close up shop.

but you probably knew all this already.

Is GM firing them? I thought GM was attempting to negotiate a contract now that the last one is expired.

I answered you specific question. GM isn't firing anyone because they can't. That's the forced part. Can't refuse to let employees unionize, can't replace union workers with temps except under certain conditions, and can't permanently replace striking union workers.

But GM can negotiate and if a negotiation cannot be completed they can claim an impasse and move forward. If GM didn't want these problems then they should have hired the UAW and hired people who would do the work on their own.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:15:02 PM EDT

[#37]

Hoping for piece of shit unions and union thugs to lose is like hoping for Democrats to lose...the lose a few small battles but eventually win the war.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:15:35 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
a while back an exec at GM admitted (paraphrased) - we're not a car company, we're a health insurance company who makes cars

View Quote

Actually I believe she said -a software company that makes cars.

GM a tech company

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:15:41 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
NLRB regs extend beyond the expiration of contracts.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

What are the parameters in which a company is forced to hire union workers?

Quoted:

Explain to me how a company is forced to employ union workers.

enjoy

Can you point out the forced part to me please.

Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
——————————————

Apparently striking is covered under " other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection", so firing them en masse is considered "unfair labor practices" under section 8.

Also under section 8, if the employees vote to unionize, then they get to unionize and tough shit if the employer doesn't like it. Your only other option at that point is to close up shop.

but you probably knew all this already.

Is GM firing them? I thought GM was attempting to negotiate a contract now that the last one is expired.

NLRB regs extend beyond the expiration of contracts.

Correct but they are not indefinite.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:15:48 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
These threads are always good for exposing the folks getting paid $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts.

View Quote

Exposing the boomers*

None of that shit exists for millenials

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:15:55 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well I guess the union members could elect to put in better leadership or those people could chose not to associate with that union at all, or you could live in a state where you are not forced to join a union or pay union dues.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

You are naive, gov’t union labor regs are designed to allow unions to all but extort dues from members so unions can fund democrat coffers.

Well I guess the union members could elect to put in better leadership or those people could chose not to associate with that union at all, or you could live in a state where you are not forced to join a union or pay union dues.

And us gun folks can fix the NRA...

The bold section.... you're onto something. Auto makers and other manufacturing firms have been moving en masse to right to work states that do not favor unions. That's why the south is growing at a record breaking pace and the north and midwest look like ghost towns. Manufacturing didn't all go overseas, it just had to flee the state to get away from its crazy ~~ex girlfriend~~ union.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:16:13 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:
The railroad that used to serve my town did that and was beating the strike, moving more freight than at any other time in their history. So the unions got their buddies in the government to shut the railroad down.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I wish they would just hold a hiring conference in another city to replace all these greedy bastards

They can’t under federal law

What federal law?

Nothing prevents GM from hiring a bunch of temps, sending salaried employees to the production line, and resuming operations as normal. Union gets locked out, strike goes on for years, and the UAW runs out of money. The few remaining picketers can either retire or go back to work at 1/2 pay.

Cat defeated the UAW in the late 90s this way, and so could GM - if only it had the balls. Without a contract in place, GM has no obligation to use union labor.

The railroad that used to serve my town did that and was beating the strike, moving more freight than at any other time in their history. So the unions got their buddies in the government to shut the railroad down.

Might have, I'm not familiar with the railroad industry. I know it's quasi-government owned, so it could be a different beast.

My example above is how things have worked out for the UAW in the past 20 years or so.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:17:48 PM EDT

[#43]

Imagine if your job was to sit on a hard stool in front of a conveyor line that moved parts by in front of you.

Your job was to run an air powered automatically fed screw gun and install 20 000 screws each day.

You are not getting $20 an hour because you are a rocket surgeon, you are getting it because of the repetitive movement stress damage you are inflicting on your fingers, wrist, elbow.

No way I would want that job.

Yet that is exactly what my buddy did at Ford.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:18:09 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
Once you've done your hiring and have all your employees in place, union organizers can court your employees until the convence 51% of them to hold a vote on going union.

'Poof', baby, your workforce just went union...and there ain't shit you can do about it -other than close down the company.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

If I open a company I don't have to employ union workers.

Once you've done your hiring and have all your employees in place, union organizers can court your employees until the convence 51% of them to hold a vote on going union.

'Poof', baby, your workforce just went union...and there ain't shit you can do about it -other than close down the company.

Mercury boat motors did that here in WI a few years a go. The union tried to call their bluff so Mercury announced they were moving to Stillwater OK or someplace like that. Then miraculously the union revoted and accepted the terms so they could all stay employed. That's business, if you can't handle it or the risk then don't get into it guess.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:18:18 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
And us gun folks can fix the NRA...

The bold section.... you're onto something. Auto makers and other manufacturing firms have been moving en masse to right to work states that do not favor unions. That's why the south is growing at a record breaking pace and the north and midwest look like ghost towns. Manufacturing didn't all go overseas, it just had to flee the state to get away from its crazy ~~ex girlfriend~~ union.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

You are naive, gov’t union labor regs are designed to allow unions to all but extort dues from members so unions can fund democrat coffers.

Well I guess the union members could elect to put in better leadership or those people could chose not to associate with that union at all, or you could live in a state where you are not forced to join a union or pay union dues.

And us gun folks can fix the NRA...

The bold section.... you're onto something. Auto makers and other manufacturing firms have been moving en masse to right to work states that do not favor unions. That's why the south is growing at a record breaking pace and the north and midwest look like ghost towns. Manufacturing didn't all go overseas, it just had to flee the state to get away from its crazy ~~ex girlfriend~~ union.

Michigan is a right to work state.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:18:52 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Exposing the boomers*

None of that shit exists for millenials

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
These threads are always good for exposing the folks getting paid $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts.

Exposing the boomers*

None of that shit exists for millenials

Yup, that's what they did at Boeing.

Union was all like "uh oh, everyone is getting old and we can't afford it, new hires don't get what everyone else did!"

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:19:17 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
Damn, who's paying $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts?

That sounds like a sweet gig! They hiring?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
These threads are always good for exposing the folks getting paid $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts.

Damn, who's paying $40/hr with a pension and platinum health plan to install lug nuts?

That sounds like a sweet gig! They hiring?

Nobody.

Pay is somewhere around $30, and pensions have been gone for a decade or more. Health care has also diminished, but is still very good.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:19:39 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:

Thank you.

Neither party can be forced to accept terms.

Declared an impasse if they cannot agree

Company has to pay and the workers have to work during negotiations. Sounds like that isn't happening on either side of GM/Union.

View Quote

As I wrote, that’s the NLRB whitewash version.

GM might win an injunction forcing the UAW back to work since neither side has declared/agreed that there is an impass, but why? They’d be paying for a slowdown or sick out or other union bs.

And GM cannot fire UAW strikers.

For a true take, you need to read the actual regulations, and maybe some court decisions dealing with them. As I stow earlier, it would take all night to just hit highlights.

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:19:47 PM EDT

[#49]

China laughs during every strike.

How many US jobs have been lost to other countries due to businesses not wanting to deal with unions. Why pay people to do half the work, when you can set up a factory in china or Mexico doing 100% for cheaper than to pay a union and politicians. US unions have and continue to kill themselves and because of that it kills towns and entire industries.

It's not 1910 anymore and even back then, no one was forced to do the work, it was completely voluntary, unlike in communist countries...

Posted: 9/17/2019 10:20:08 PM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:
And us gun folks can fix the NRA...

The bold section.... you're onto something. Auto makers and other manufacturing firms have been moving en masse to right to work states that do not favor unions. That's why the south is growing at a record breaking pace and the north and midwest look like ghost towns. Manufacturing didn't all go overseas, it just had to flee the state to get away from its crazy ~~ex girlfriend~~ union.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Look at it from a logistical standpoint.

You have a large plant that plans on opening in the near future and employing 10,000 people. Project managers and HR managers estimate it will cost $1,750,000 dollars to advertise, interview, and process all the applicants to get to an acceptable staffing level. Then add on another $175,000 a year for employee loss and new hires and $500,000,000 for wages/benefits per year. A union comes to the company and offers its services to provide employees who are already familiar with that companies industry at $450,000,000 a year to do all the work/costs previously mentioned. The company runs the numbers the union presented and sees that it will save them approx $50,000,000 dollars a year. Any company would seriously take that option and consider it since companies are in the business of saving/making money.

Now you get the govt involved to some extent because once you get to the point of having 10,000 workers employed they govt wants to ensure, as best as they can, the stability of that economy. I think the intention is to prevent a economic catastrophe where all 10,000 workers lose their jobs turning that 10-15 year built up area into a 3rd world shit hole with 10,000 unemployed and a company that has a major effect on the economy unable to produce goods and damaging the market.

You are naive, gov’t union labor regs are designed to allow unions to all but extort dues from members so unions can fund democrat coffers.

Well I guess the union members could elect to put in better leadership or those people could chose not to associate with that union at all, or you could live in a state where you are not forced to join a union or pay union dues.

And us gun folks can fix the NRA...

The bold section.... you're onto something. Auto makers and other manufacturing firms have been moving en masse to right to work states that do not favor unions. That's why the south is growing at a record breaking pace and the north and midwest look like ghost towns. Manufacturing didn't all go overseas, it just had to flee the state to get away from its crazy ~~ex girlfriend~~ union.

I support businesses moving to free states and choosing not to be involved in unions.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - LOL! GM stops paying for striking UAW workers healthcare insurance (Page 5 of 16)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us