Desperate for new members, UAW unsuccessful recruiting in South

[manimal]

have you done the math on how unsustainable the pernsions are?

have you seen how all of them are gaming the system by doing a shit ton of OT in their final year to up their payouts?

would you rather bankrupt the state and have everybody get nothing?

I dont disagree with about the pensions. I clearly see them as a problem. What you fail to realize is these pensions are for ALREADY performed services. You are literally taking wealth away from people who have already earned it.

Do you plan on taking peoples retirement assets to? How about taking peoples capital gains too because of the national debt?


Its easy to complain about others peoples assets but the second someone comes for yours the guns come out right?

 

[Mursilis]

Have you not seen peoples already agreed upon pensions that they have already EARNED being taken away?

And where was the union leadership when many of these companies were drastically underfunding these pension funds? I don't understand why unions negotiated so hard for these pension plans, and then failed to demand they actually be funded. Like I said above, union leadership over the years became increasingly focused only on the short-term, and in the long-term, this proved harmful for their membership.

I think unions perform a necessary function on behalf of workers, but they need to take a broader, longer-term focus. Until then, they're only making worse the problems (wage erosion, outsourcing, etc.) they claim to be fighting against.

 

[PingSpike]

I dont disagree with about the pensions. I clearly see them as a problem. What you fail to realize is these pensions are for ALREADY performed services. You are literally taking wealth away from people who have already earned it.

Do you plan on taking peoples retirement assets to? How about taking peoples capital gains too because of the national debt?


Its easy to complain about others peoples assets but the second someone comes for yours the guns come out right?

Regarding the pension thing I see it as thus:
Some moron at the top promises a pension or benefit package that just plain isn't sustainable, the union accepts it because its totally awesome and then the moron that OKed it retires or resigns or who cares what. The company then cannot afford the pension (of course, it never could) and its crippled against it's competitors that are either new on the scene or didn't agree to that setup and asks for concessions.

The union can then either accept the loss of some of their "earned" wealth to allow the company to become more competitive or they can dig in their heels. If they dig in their heels the company may cut costs to pay the obligations but their products will become stagnant and uncompetitive exacerbating the problem and eventually kill their golden goose. Of course this ignores the federal government coming along and bailing them out every 20 years, so the union can always just rely on the taxpayer as a backstop.

The same thing happens with public sector unions but its slower because people have a harder time moving to escape paying for that which wasn't sustainable in the first place. Eventually though the funding source starts to disappear. You might even cut services to pay the pension obligations...but again that will damage the quality of life for the tax payers and increase the rate of exodus. Unless the state or federal government comes along and bails them out of course.

I almost feel like if the new plants wanted a union they'd be better off forming a new one of their own. It seems like the old union comes with a lot of obligations for old members from other companies and you'd just end up being expected to do with less so that they wouldn't have to do without that which they feel they are due. I didn't think it was any secret that new younger members of any union were usually the first to be laid off or have their pay or benefits slashed when times got tough. Seniority rules and all those guys down south are pretty new to the game aren't they?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I dont disagree with about the pensions. I clearly see them as a problem. What you fail to realize is these pensions are for ALREADY performed services. You are literally taking wealth away from people who have already earned it.

Do you plan on taking peoples retirement assets to? How about taking peoples capital gains too because of the national debt?


Its easy to complain about others peoples assets but the second someone comes for yours the guns come out right?

i don't fail to realize anything
i'm sure it sucks to have my pension reduced if i've been paying into it and haven't been gaming the system, but what would i rather have? a reduced pension, or nothing?
nothing is what people are going to get if you allow the state to become insolvent, by not reforming the current system.

i'm paying into SS which i have zero expectations of collecting 30, 40 years from now so i have an idea of how it feels.
but given the option of nothing OR 75% reduction in promised benefits, i know which one i'll choose.

 

[manimal]

i don't fail to realize anything
i'm sure it sucks to have my pension reduced if i've been paying into it and haven't been gaming the system, but what would i rather have? a reduced pension, or nothing?
nothing is what people are going to get if you allow the state to become insolvent, by not reforming the current system.

i'm paying into SS which i have zero expectations of collecting 30, 40 years from now so i have an idea of how it feels.
but given the option of nothing OR 75% reduction in promised benefits, i know which one i'll choose.

Ok then you seem to advocate for government taking peoples money because the goverment or businesses need it. Check


Some pensions need to be adjusted for them to be solvent. I clearly see that. If all parties agree to a mediated settlement than its cool for all parties..

 

[cubby1223]

Have you not seen the erosion of wages in the last two decades? Have you not seen peoples already agreed upon pensions that they have already EARNED being taken away?


Its the exact same failed argument that I referenced in my earlier post about regulations..

Please define "earned".

And have you not seen what is happening in Greece?

 

[cubby1223]

I dont disagree with about the pensions. I clearly see them as a problem. What you fail to realize is these pensions are for ALREADY performed services. You are literally taking wealth away from people who have already earned it.

Do you plan on taking peoples retirement assets to? How about taking peoples capital gains too because of the national debt?


Its easy to complain about others peoples assets but the second someone comes for yours the guns come out right?

And what YOU fail to realize, the money for the pensions doesn't exist.

I'd love to see you explain how to give something that doesn't exist from one person to another.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Ok then you seem to advocate for government taking peoples money because the goverment or businesses need it. Check


Some pensions need to be adjusted for them to be solvent. I clearly see that. If all parties agree to a mediated settlement than its cool for all parties..

i don't see where i said that.
i understand that if my company, state, employer, etc. is in a tough financial situation, i would sacrifice for the greater good if it means keeping the entity afloat and me getting partial compensation instead of nothing.

anyway, back to the point of the article.
the workers already stated they don't want to unionize. why do unions keep sticking their noses where they're not welcome? this is just like the recent article about the target in NY.

 

[matt0611]

It never ceases to amaze me how people base their entire arguments on the worst of the inherent possibilities in any argument. Sure some unions have abused their power and many have made conditions worse for some workers. What the rigid ideologues have to understand is that many of the things we take for granted today like competitive wages, days off, clean working environs and many other things we depend on to have a civil society are because the unions of yesteryear fought for them...

Its like painting all regulations as evil when we come to depend on clean water, safe toys, and healthy lives...

oh wait....

If this were true how did real wages increase almost 50&#37; from 1860 and 1910 where the amount of the labor force that were in unions were basically nothing (< 5% if that).

I think unions are fine as long as there is no special government protection.

 

[ElFenix]

Ummm... I read the article. Sounds like the Hyundai workers have a good thing going at their plant. Why would they jeopardize that by bringing in the Union?

the "steak day" reminded me of the quarterly picnics.