Another Anti-Union Talking point debunked

[bozack]

I fail to see the point of this thread, as if this is something of "new" information...we all knew this already, the point was that the spend on pensions and benefits for workers who contribute nothing add to the operating expenses of the big three and put them at a competitive disadvantage to others in the market.

The fact is that when one adds it all up the 70/hr figure average is accurate and just that an "average" on what these companies spend...and while the new concession made by the UAW is a good thing, the reality is that all the existing beneficiaries will continue to be a drain on the system until they die, continuing to be a burden on the finances of these already crippled companies.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Zebo
UHC won't save Big 3's hide. It's a fundamental problem of inferior products no one in their right mind is buying.

This is another myth that is perpetuated here ad-nauseam. If you don't like or want their products, don't buy them. Plenty of people are buying their products and the figures below are current as of October 1 of this year.

9.3 million people worldwide bought GM vehicles last year. That?s more vehicles than any other automaker in the world sold. And in the U.S., which is the world?s largest market, GM sold more vehicles than any other manufacturer in 2007, and it has sold more than any other automaker to date in 2008.

In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, and the Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend?s 2008 Car of the Year. In 2007, the Saturn Aura and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year. Those awards are given and judged by automotive journalists.

Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Although total U.S. vehicle sales are down almost 15% so far this year (through October), a number of GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases:

Chevy Malibu +39%
Pontiac Vibe +36%
Pontiac G6 + 4%
Cadillac CTS +15%
Saturn Aura +7%
GMC Acadia +2%
Buick Enclave +88%
October 1, 2008

I only buy American cars for myself. I like them but I love high gas prices too since the higher they get the more I can afford to drive them.

You're cherry picking does not belay the fact Big 3 percentages continue to shrink. Will take more than one car to change this. The NA titles are little league which they win every year.

I hope they have a string of CTS' successes though then these labor problems will cease and my $1 per share investments in Ford will pay off.

What really worries me is not the Nissans or Toyotas though but Koreans and eventually Chinese which will commoditize automobiles bankrupting all.

The investment should still be good since we can count on our idiot congress to temporarily bail out their union constituents visa vi a cash injection into the big 3 raising stock price long enough to sell.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Svnla
much other benefits (job bank, pension, retirees and dependents benefits) cost GM?

No one is saying GM employee salary/wage is 7x.xx per hour. It is the total "overall cost". Someone from accounting probably can explain better than I can.

I got you there, that was not what I was saying either, I was speaking of in the OP how much in real life those benefits + their 20 something an hour actually come out to, and it is nowhere near 70, actually it is a bit lower then what the foreign companies employees make. (in 2010)

Which is why I am saying that 70 is bunk.

With 1/2 (90,000) of the big 3 uaw workers eligible for retirement in the next 3 years, it is going to cost the big 3 way more than 70.00 per hour to pay everything agreed to. Maybe the big 3 want bankruptcy, want to pass the legacy costs onto the taxpayer, via the governments pension protection program. Not sure how this would affect those that have not retired yet.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Zebo
UHC won't save Big 3's hide. It's a fundamental problem of inferior products no one in their right mind is buying.

This is another myth that is perpetuated here ad-nauseam. If you don't like or want their products, don't buy them. Plenty of people are buying their products and the figures below are current as of October 1 of this year.

9.3 million people worldwide bought GM vehicles last year. That?s more vehicles than any other automaker in the world sold. And in the U.S., which is the world?s largest market, GM sold more vehicles than any other manufacturer in 2007, and it has sold more than any other automaker to date in 2008.

In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, and the Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend?s 2008 Car of the Year. In 2007, the Saturn Aura and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year. Those awards are given and judged by automotive journalists.

Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Although total U.S. vehicle sales are down almost 15% so far this year (through October), a number of GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases:

Chevy Malibu +39%
Pontiac Vibe +36%
Pontiac G6 + 4%
Cadillac CTS +15%
Saturn Aura +7%
GMC Acadia +2%
Buick Enclave +88%
October 1, 2008

I only buy American cars for myself. I like them but I love high gas prices too since the higher they get the more I can afford to drive them.

You're cherry picking does not belay the fact Big 3 percentages continue to shrink. Will take more than one car to change this. The NA titles are little league which they win every year.

I hope they have a string of CTS' successes though then these labor problems will cease and my $1 per share investments in Ford will pay off.

What really worries me is not the Nissans or Toyotas though but Koreans and eventually Chinese which will commoditize automobiles bankrupting all.

I wouldn't really worry about the Koreans or Chinese. While Hyundai is still able to provide a pretty good deal, even they've admitted they can't keep it up indefinitely. They price difference is slowly disappearing between their cars and their competitors. The Chinese will have the same issue if they can ever get a car that can be sold in a country that has even a slight concern for safety.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Zebo
UHC won't save Big 3's hide. It's a fundamental problem of inferior products no one in their right mind is buying.

This is another myth that is perpetuated here ad-nauseam. If you don't like or want their products, don't buy them. Plenty of people are buying their products and the figures below are current as of October 1 of this year.

9.3 million people worldwide bought GM vehicles last year. That?s more vehicles than any other automaker in the world sold. And in the U.S., which is the world?s largest market, GM sold more vehicles than any other manufacturer in 2007, and it has sold more than any other automaker to date in 2008.

In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, and the Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend?s 2008 Car of the Year. In 2007, the Saturn Aura and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year. Those awards are given and judged by automotive journalists.

Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Although total U.S. vehicle sales are down almost 15% so far this year (through October), a number of GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases:

Chevy Malibu +39%
Pontiac Vibe +36%
Pontiac G6 + 4%
Cadillac CTS +15%
Saturn Aura +7%
GMC Acadia +2%
Buick Enclave +88%
October 1, 2008

I only buy American cars for myself. I like them but I love high gas prices too since the higher they get the more I can afford to drive them.

You're cherry picking does not belay the fact Big 3 percentages continue to shrink. Will take more than one car to change this. The NA titles are little league which they win every year.

I hope they have a string of CTS' successes though then these labor problems will cease and my $1 per share investments in Ford will pay off.

What really worries me is not the Nissans or Toyotas though but Koreans and eventually Chinese which will commoditize automobiles bankrupting all.

I wouldn't really worry about the Koreans or Chinese. While Hyundai is still able to provide a pretty good deal, even they've admitted they can't keep it up indefinitely. They price difference is slowly disappearing between their cars and their competitors. The Chinese will have the same issue if they can ever get a car that can be sold in a country that has even a slight concern for safety.

I'm old enough to remember cheap unsafe Japanese junk too and for that matter the 80's early 90's Hyundais. China IMO will follow same trend of sub-par products initially and better cheaper products over time.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

I'm never buying a new American car. Maybe if those filthy executives get fired and a new team gets in place.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett
$70 or even $30 an hour is too much for putting a bolt into a chasis for 8 hours a day.

That's not what they do...

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Corbett
$70 or even $30 an hour is too much for putting a bolt into a chasis for 8 hours a day.

That type of work has been mainly automated for a long time there sparky.

I know that. Its an exageration. In any case, $30 per hour is too much for an assembly line worker.

The OP got the line wrong. The argument is that workers cost $72 per hour of labor including wages and benefits, not $72 an hour for an individual worker in salary.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
We figured this out a long time ago.

$60k/yr is still good money for unskilled labor, though. And I'm sure the work is tough, but there are plenty of people out there working physically demanding jobs that don't get paid $60k/yr.

But I think it's great that the UAW has made concessions, the new contracts should allow the domestic auto industry to be more competitive with non-union labor working for foreign automakers.

Why do you say the work is unskilled? If that were the case wouldn't all cars be built in Mexico or Chad instead of places like Korea, Japan, Germany and USA?

It is insulting that working with your hands is unskilled, while sitting on your ass at a desk is skilled... give me a fucking break.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The article sort of glances over and dismisses the very source of additional cost shouldered by the Big Three:

Of course, the cost of benefits for those retirees--you may have heard people refer to them as "legacy costs"--do represent an extra cost burden that only the Big Three shoulder. And, yes, it makes it difficult for the Big Three to compete with foreign-owned automakers that don't have to pay the same costs. But don't forget why those costs are so high. While the transplants don't offer the same kind of benefits that the Big Three do, the main reason for their present cost advantage is that they just don't have many retirees.

The first foreign-owned plants didn't start up here until the 1980s; many of the existing ones came well after that. As of a year ago, Toyota's entire U.S. operation had less than 1,000 retirees. Compare that to a company like General Motors, which has been around for more than a century and which supports literally hundreds of thousands of former workers and spouses. As you might expect, many of these have the sorts of advanced medical problems you expect from people to develop in old age. And, it should go without saying, those conditions cost a ton of money to treat.

Sure, foreign owned car companies don't have a large retiree footprint in America, but what about in Japan...how is it that Honda and Japan are able to compete, when the life expectancy of their retired workforce is higher than that of America's.

The article makes a point that the $70/hr figure is a bit misleading, but totally misses the boat on where it came from.

 

[Double Trouble]

More pointless drivel based on political ideology instead of factual analysis. The bottom line is that these people make more money than they should given their education (because of the union) than they would otherwise. They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour. They get health care benefits that the rest of us can't even dream of. Until recently the workers for GM didn't pay anything towards their health care. How many of you, working in the private sector can say that? This situation is fine if the business continues to make money (like Major League Baseball or something), but when the big three are sinking fast, it's pretty obvious they cannot continue to overpay for resources.

GM and the big 3 need to go bankrupt, get rid of the union and current executive management altogether, and be reborn as more efficient companies. That's the only way they can be competitive in the long run. A bailout or cash infusion won't change the fundamental problems that are killing the companies, especially if the bailout comes with strings attached that force the companies to continue to squander money because of unions.

I'm also not arguing that the problems for the big 3 are exclusively the fault of union workers, it's just one factor. Idiotic management and squandering of resources are major components as well. There are plenty of other workers out there who work jobs just as hard or harder than working for an auto manufacturer, but they don't get paid the same salaries. Their jobs often require more skill and education as well (teachers, policemen, etc etc), but they still don't make as much as the auto workers.

The need to go broke and start over without the weight of decades of stupidity (by management as well as the unions) dragging them down.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
More pointless drivel based on political ideology instead of factual analysis. The bottom line is that these people make more money than they should given their education (because of the union) than they would otherwise. They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour. They get health care benefits that the rest of us can't even dream of. Until recently the workers for GM didn't pay anything towards their health care. How many of you, working in the private sector can say that? This situation is fine if the business continues to make money (like Major League Baseball or something), but when the big three are sinking fast, it's pretty obvious they cannot continue to overpay for resources.

GM and the big 3 need to go bankrupt, get rid of the union and current executive management altogether, and be reborn as more efficient companies. That's the only way they can be competitive in the long run. A bailout or cash infusion won't change the fundamental problems that are killing the companies, especially if the bailout comes with strings attached that force the companies to continue to squander money because of unions.

I'm also not arguing that the problems for the big 3 are exclusively the fault of union workers, it's just one factor. Idiotic management and squandering of resources are major components as well. There are plenty of other workers out there who work jobs just as hard or harder than working for an auto manufacturer, but they don't get paid the same salaries. Their jobs often require more skill and education as well (teachers, policemen, etc etc), but they still don't make as much as the auto workers.

The need to go broke and start over without the weight of decades of stupidity (by management as well as the unions) dragging them down.

me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
More pointless drivel based on political ideology instead of factual analysis. The bottom line is that these people make more money than they should given their education (because of the union) than they would otherwise. They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour. They get health care benefits that the rest of us can't even dream of. Until recently the workers for GM didn't pay anything towards their health care. How many of you, working in the private sector can say that? This situation is fine if the business continues to make money (like Major League Baseball or something), but when the big three are sinking fast, it's pretty obvious they cannot continue to overpay for resources.

GM and the big 3 need to go bankrupt, get rid of the union and current executive management altogether, and be reborn as more efficient companies. That's the only way they can be competitive in the long run. A bailout or cash infusion won't change the fundamental problems that are killing the companies, especially if the bailout comes with strings attached that force the companies to continue to squander money because of unions.

I'm also not arguing that the problems for the big 3 are exclusively the fault of union workers, it's just one factor. Idiotic management and squandering of resources are major components as well. There are plenty of other workers out there who work jobs just as hard or harder than working for an auto manufacturer, but they don't get paid the same salaries. Their jobs often require more skill and education as well (teachers, policemen, etc etc), but they still don't make as much as the auto workers.

The need to go broke and start over without the weight of decades of stupidity (by management as well as the unions) dragging them down.

Honda, Toyota pay similar, in some cases more, and they seem to be doing fine. Don't get me wrong, the legacy costs are still dragging on GM. But as I said earlier, GM has managed to bring their cost down to about $60, which is pretty good. That's still higher than Toyota ($48, last I saw), but it takes time. A lot of what GM and Ford are doing now should have been done years ago. In the past year, the two companies each have reduced their workforce by 40,000, yet their production is about the same, which is pretty bad when you think about it. The union wasn't telling them to hire people, nor was it saying not to use attrition to reduce their workforce. It took some pretty dire circumstances for them to kick it into gear.

And it's been said, with some exceptions, the top rate is around $24, which is industry standard (Nissan is close to $25, for example). Anything above that is for a very specific job and, of course, cost of benefits.

 

[Darwin333]

Both sides are throwing around bogus numbers. The CEO didn't make $20M last year either. He was still overpaid, imo, but not by as much as the other side states.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
me.

Congratulations, that makes you one of a very small group of people. The vast majority of those working in the private sector have seen their health care costs skyrocket. The only groups that for the most part have not felt this is those working for the government or working under powerful unions.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

You think negotiation shouldn't be a part of capitalism? You just "get another job"? Wow....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

You think negotiation shouldn't be a part of capitalism? You just "get another job"? Wow....

What does negotiation have to do with what he stated?

What part of performance based pay do some of you not understand? If person A can do a job better than person B then why should person A and B be paid the same?

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
More pointless drivel based on political ideology instead of factual analysis. The bottom line is that these people make more money than they should given their education (because of the union) than they would otherwise. They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour. They get health care benefits that the rest of us can't even dream of. Until recently the workers for GM didn't pay anything towards their health care. How many of you, working in the private sector can say that? This situation is fine if the business continues to make money (like Major League Baseball or something), but when the big three are sinking fast, it's pretty obvious they cannot continue to overpay for resources.

GM and the big 3 need to go bankrupt, get rid of the union and current executive management altogether, and be reborn as more efficient companies. That's the only way they can be competitive in the long run. A bailout or cash infusion won't change the fundamental problems that are killing the companies, especially if the bailout comes with strings attached that force the companies to continue to squander money because of unions.

I'm also not arguing that the problems for the big 3 are exclusively the fault of union workers, it's just one factor. Idiotic management and squandering of resources are major components as well. There are plenty of other workers out there who work jobs just as hard or harder than working for an auto manufacturer, but they don't get paid the same salaries. Their jobs often require more skill and education as well (teachers, policemen, etc etc), but they still don't make as much as the auto workers.

The need to go broke and start over without the weight of decades of stupidity (by management as well as the unions) dragging them down.

Honda, Toyota pay similar, in some cases more, and they seem to be doing fine. Don't get me wrong, the legacy costs are still dragging on GM. But as I said earlier, GM has managed to bring their cost down to about $60, which is pretty good. That's still higher than Toyota ($48, last I saw), but it takes time. A lot of what GM and Ford are doing now should have been done years ago. In the past year, the two companies each have reduced their workforce by 40,000, yet their production is about the same, which is pretty bad when you think about it. The union wasn't telling them to hire people, nor was it saying not to use attrition to reduce their workforce. It took some pretty dire circumstances for them to kick it into gear.

And it's been said, with some exceptions, the top rate is around $24, which is industry standard (Nissan is close to $25, for example). Anything above that is for a very specific job and, of course, cost of benefits.

Ok, so it's true that the Honda's and Toyota's of the world pay similar amounts, then what's the reason to have the overhead of a union and it's dues? If workers make the same in salary and benefits, why do they need the union?

The union might not have been forcing them to hire people, but it sure as heck made it very difficult to shed workers to any significant degree. Why would the union want to reduce it's own numbers? That's another reason why unions make companies less competitive, they prevent them from quickly and efficiently making business decisions.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

You think negotiation shouldn't be a part of capitalism? You just "get another job"? Wow....

Where exactly did I say anything about negotiation not being part of it? You can negotiate whatever you want. I'm saying if the company is forced to pay too much for resources (labor or otherwise), by a union or by regulations, then the company will have trouble being competitive, and it will eventually go under.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
More pointless drivel based on political ideology instead of factual analysis. The bottom line is that these people make more money than they should given their education (because of the union) than they would otherwise. They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour. They get health care benefits that the rest of us can't even dream of. Until recently the workers for GM didn't pay anything towards their health care. How many of you, working in the private sector can say that? This situation is fine if the business continues to make money (like Major League Baseball or something), but when the big three are sinking fast, it's pretty obvious they cannot continue to overpay for resources.

GM and the big 3 need to go bankrupt, get rid of the union and current executive management altogether, and be reborn as more efficient companies. That's the only way they can be competitive in the long run. A bailout or cash infusion won't change the fundamental problems that are killing the companies, especially if the bailout comes with strings attached that force the companies to continue to squander money because of unions.

I'm also not arguing that the problems for the big 3 are exclusively the fault of union workers, it's just one factor. Idiotic management and squandering of resources are major components as well. There are plenty of other workers out there who work jobs just as hard or harder than working for an auto manufacturer, but they don't get paid the same salaries. Their jobs often require more skill and education as well (teachers, policemen, etc etc), but they still don't make as much as the auto workers.

The need to go broke and start over without the weight of decades of stupidity (by management as well as the unions) dragging them down.

Honda, Toyota pay similar, in some cases more, and they seem to be doing fine. Don't get me wrong, the legacy costs are still dragging on GM. But as I said earlier, GM has managed to bring their cost down to about $60, which is pretty good. That's still higher than Toyota ($48, last I saw), but it takes time. A lot of what GM and Ford are doing now should have been done years ago. In the past year, the two companies each have reduced their workforce by 40,000, yet their production is about the same, which is pretty bad when you think about it. The union wasn't telling them to hire people, nor was it saying not to use attrition to reduce their workforce. It took some pretty dire circumstances for them to kick it into gear.

And it's been said, with some exceptions, the top rate is around $24, which is industry standard (Nissan is close to $25, for example). Anything above that is for a very specific job and, of course, cost of benefits.

Have to wonder how much of this parity in pay is because the active union on the other side these companies fear if they don't remain wage competitive..

Anyway the only thing dragging down Big3 is crap products. Proof is Boeing and many others are part of the same union and have no problems and are raking in the cash for shareholders.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

You think negotiation shouldn't be a part of capitalism? You just "get another job"? Wow....

Where exactly did I say anything about negotiation not being part of it? You can negotiate whatever you want. I'm saying if the company is forced to pay too much for resources (labor or otherwise), by a union or by regulations, then the company will have trouble being competitive, and it will eventually go under.

The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

irrelevant? sure it is

Meanwhile, in the real world, people do notice things like disparity in pay between workers and management and will demand some semblance of parity hence the unions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

Then if there aren't enough people willing to work for those wages, a company is going to have to increase them to attract people. It has NOTHING to do with a worker's state in life - highschool vs married w/ kids. A wage a company wishes to pay is totally independent of a worker's situation. Yes, a worker can choose to work for offered wages or not depending on their situation, but the idea that some jobs SHOULD pay more because of the people taking them is absurd.