Another Anti-Union Talking point debunked

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: bamx2
No sympathy for the Big 3 or UAW from me .

Writing your congress people might help stop (or at least add strings) the loans.


http://globaleconomicanalysis....stop-auto-bailout.html

Fixed it for you.

Yea right that's like 'loaning' $1000 to your crack addicted brother-in-law. Big 3 has no intention or ability to pay it back. Call it what it is a gift.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: NeoV
on average, UAW workers are paid a lot of money, in salary and benefits, for jobs that - for the most part - aren't particularly difficult or physically demanding

usually people with college degrees have jobs that are higher paying than people that don't have degrees - this doesn't make one 'better' than anyone, it just makes them higher-paid.

While that is sometimes the case, it's not always true...and far too often, people flaunt the college degree like it makes them better than some mook digging a ditch...and makes $60K or more doing it.

As they should get 60K (or more as I wouldn't do it for that) - construction is hell on your body. My dad used to have an expression about education and manual labor "pay now or pay later but you HAVE to pay" meaning one can work hard as a youngster and get good grades suffer those 20's with sub-par salaries and coast the rest of their life or they can take the good money young e.g. teamster truck driver, heavy equipment operator, etc and can't get out of bed at 40 without popping 20 pills - paying the price then.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: boomerang

Let me explain to you how that works. Part of that pay comes from unemployment benefits from the state. The remaining pay is from the UAW - that's right, the union makes up the difference. The money comes from dues the union members paid.

Sorry, but that stretches the truth beyond comprehension as the automakers pay billions of dollars into the jobs bank fund.

According to those documents, GM agreed to contribute up to $2.1 billion over four years. DaimlerChrysler set aside $451 million for its program, along with another $50 million for salaried employees covered under the contract. Ford, which also maintained responsibility for Visteon Corp.'s UAW employees, agreed to contribute $944 million.

Source.

Your assumption that my statement is wrong is a mistake on your part. You are mixing up the jobs bank with layoffs. They are two completely different entities.

The jobs bank (which is soon to be history) was dreamed up by the Union (and agreed to by management) during the era of Roger Smiths tenure as CEO of GM. Mr. Smiths idea was that he could use robots to do the majority of the work on the assembly line and replace workers in the process. The jobs bank was created to ensure that workers that were displaced by technology would not lose their jobs. The corporation agreed to this, thinking that the productivity gains would offset the losses. It was failure then and it's a failure now. Anyone keeping up with the news is aware of the fact that the jobs bank is history.

zerocool84's post specifically stated "layoffs". I responded to that statement. You did not quote that, either by mistake or by convenience. I will stand by my statement 100% of how laid off autoworkers get 95% of their pay. Be aware that when their unemployment benefits run out, they are thrown to the lions the same as the average Joe.

Quoting articles from 2005 is good for stirring up the unwashed masses, but is not at all relevant to what is happening today.

BTW, your second quote specifically states salaried employees, UAW represented workers at Ford and GM are hourly. I'm not willing to search out where in your outdated link that paragraph exists so I will leave it up to you to defend its true meaning.

The UAW contributes nothing to a laid off employee's income, whether its during the period an employee is eligible for unemployment or beyond that when the laid off employee is participating in the jobs bank. If you want something more recent, how about this piece in the Detroit Free Press published a few weeks ago.

When UAW autoworkers are laid off, they receive a combination of unemployment benefits and supplemental pay from their employer for 48 weeks. If they remain laid off beyond that, they move to the jobs bank, where the company provides about 95% of their pay and benefits. Until the most recent contract, people could remain in the jobs bank for years.

Pay particular attention to the bolding and italics. Nowhere does it state the union pays any wages, it specifically states "employer" and "company".

More here, and published today:

....thousands more workers who are temporarily out of a job receive supplementary unemployment benefits, or SUB pay, from the auto makers under a separate fund.

I don't see any mention of the union subsidising wages for laid off employees, but I do see the auto companies mentioned...........I wonder why.

That article is incorrect. It's not the first time the media has been wrong and it won't be the last. I get either upset or irate at the mistakes made by the media on a daily basis. Which is why I get so upset when I hear them repeated at Forums like these. I understand that there is no way I will convince you of their mistake.

I know that what I have said is the truth. I understand why you would not believe it. There's nothing more I can do.

You've got to let the jobs bank go. It's history.

Edit: As I said, I have no way to prove what I'm saying is the truth. However, I want to run this by you for your consideration. If a worker is drawing a check from their employer, how can that employer then claim that that same worker is laid off and therefore is entitled to unemployment benefits? How could the company pay an employee sub pay and then justify to the state that he's entitled to unemployment too?

If I had a contract book I'd scan the pertinent pages and link to them, but I don't have one.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: bamx2
No sympathy for the Big 3 or UAW from me .

Writing your congress people might help stop (or at least add strings) the loans.


http://globaleconomicanalysis....stop-auto-bailout.html

Fixed it for you.

Yea right that's like 'loaning' $1000 to your crack addicted brother-in-law. Big 3 has no intention or ability to pay it back. Call it what it is a gift.

You know, I'm as much of a pessimist as the next guy - maybe more so. But you're making an assumption that, while it could come true, could just as easily not come true.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: bamx2
No sympathy for the Big 3 or UAW from me .

Writing your congress people might help stop (or at least add strings) the loans.


http://globaleconomicanalysis....stop-auto-bailout.html

Fixed it for you.

Yea right that's like 'loaning' $1000 to your crack addicted brother-in-law. Big 3 has no intention or ability to pay it back. Call it what it is a gift.

You know, I'm as much of a pessimist as the next guy - maybe more so. But you're making an assumption that, while it could come true, could just as easily not come true.

Look even in boom they wernt making money. They were sure, like a lot of businesses, to expense any profit on things like private jets, upper management retreats in Bahamas and around the world and executive compensation/bonuses among other things.

Then you have what I think are unrecoverable market realities. Americans won't work for peanuts, we are spoiled - China or other places will and that's where production, innovation and capital will move and are moving displacing Big 3 entirely eventually.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: bamx2
No sympathy for the Big 3 or UAW from me .

Writing your congress people might help stop (or at least add strings) the loans.


http://globaleconomicanalysis....stop-auto-bailout.html

Fixed it for you.

Yea right that's like 'loaning' $1000 to your crack addicted brother-in-law. Big 3 has no intention or ability to pay it back. Call it what it is a gift.

You know, I'm as much of a pessimist as the next guy - maybe more so. But you're making an assumption that, while it could come true, could just as easily not come true.

Look even in boom they wernt making money. They were sure, like a lot of businesses, to expense any profit on things like private jets, upper management retreats in Bahamas and around the world and executive compensation/bonuses among other things.

Then you have what I think are unrecoverable market realities. Americans won't work for peanuts, we are spoiled - China or other places will and that's where production, innovation and capital will move and are moving displacing Big 3 entirely eventually.

It's the race to the bottom. When the Chinese get tired of their way of life and start demanding an increase in their standard of living, the work will move again. There are many, many people in Africa that would be more than happy to work for less. The Aborigines are ripe for this too I would imagine as are other isolated tribes and peoples. I'm not a student of sociology, so fill in the blanks or correct my mistakes as needed.

I hear ya.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: bamx2
No sympathy for the Big 3 or UAW from me .

Writing your congress people might help stop (or at least add strings) the loans.


http://globaleconomicanalysis....stop-auto-bailout.html

Fixed it for you.

Yea right that's like 'loaning' $1000 to your crack addicted brother-in-law. Big 3 has no intention or ability to pay it back. Call it what it is a gift.

You know, I'm as much of a pessimist as the next guy - maybe more so. But you're making an assumption that, while it could come true, could just as easily not come true.

Look even in boom they wernt making money. They were sure, like a lot of businesses, to expense any profit on things like private jets, upper management retreats in Bahamas and around the world and executive compensation/bonuses among other things.

Then you have what I think are unrecoverable market realities. Americans won't work for peanuts, we are spoiled - China or other places will and that's where production, innovation and capital will move and are moving displacing Big 3 entirely eventually.

If the UAW had been willing to pony up with the deals they gave the automakers this last round of contracts 20 years ago, there is no doubt they wouldn't be in the trouble they are in now. If management had made the strides in designing cars with the reliability and that competed with foreign manufacturers like they do now 20 years ago they wouldn't be in the trouble they are in now.

There are reasons for us to all wag our fingers at both parties, but changes have taken place. I'm sure there is room to do more, but the playing field has changed drastically in the last 20 years.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: boomerang

That article is incorrect. It's not the first time the media has been wrong and it won't be the last. I get either upset or irate at the mistakes made by the media on a daily basis. Which is why I get so upset when I hear them repeated at Forums like these. I understand that there is no way I will convince you of their mistake.

I know that what I have said is the truth. I understand why you would not believe it. There's nothing more I can do.

You've got to let the jobs bank go. It's history.

Edit: As I said, I have no way to prove what I'm saying is the truth. However, I want to run this by you for your consideration. If a worker is drawing a check from their employer, how can that employer then claim that that same worker is laid off and therefore is entitled to unemployment benefits? How could the company pay an employee sub pay and then justify to the state that he's entitled to unemployment too?

If I had a contract book I'd scan the pertinent pages and link to them, but I don't have one.

Now this is why I come to P&N. Of course you can't prove what you say is the truth and I'm expected to believe the media is simply wrong and you are right.........because you say so. Sorry, but "that" article is actually 2 different articles published by 2 different sources, one being a highly respected motown newspaper whose editorial staff is no stranger to the big 3 and would never let pass such misinformation as you claim. But if that's not enough, how about from these sources:
GM is under the impression they are funding SUB pay for their employees.
The UAW states in this document to their membership that GM funds SUB pay.

You'll have to forgive me for not blindly accepting your version of the truth in the face of evidence to the contrary. :roll: