[Changleen]

****, for the third time, and as everyone in this thread has said, Unions - Good in principal, often bad in practice - because people suck.

 

[fluff]

Ah, it's good owning a small business - the unions can't get me and I can screw my workers every way I want. They're not worth 0.05 cents/hour, if they were they wouldn't work for me.

 

[Ciaran]

I saw that. Walmart is an example of a place that could use a union. The employees would make good money and have great benefits, right up until Walmart went bankrupt. Then there would be no Walmart, and LBS's everywhere would rejoice.

I am sure that Walmart could give it's employees their legally required breaks and still stay in business. it's not like walmart is exactly struggling to stay in business. Not that I think walmart staying in business is a good thing.

I think Chang summed it up nicely... people suck.

 

[ohio]

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps $5/hr is all that job is worth paying someone for?

I love the free market economists that don't actually understand free markets.

If you want to complain about anything it should be about the government bailing out companies like GM.

If a given union is actually bad for a given companies, the two will naturally self-destruct from an inability to compete in the marketplace. The gap created by their bankruptcy/liquidation/implosion will then be filled by a company that has hopefully learned from history and knows to treat it's workers well enough that a union never forms. If they fail at that, they too go bankrupt.

Similarly, it would be a nice wake up call to other unions that their companies' financial health is in their best interest, and they would figure out a way to function more productively and efficiently.

The best thing that could happen to the US auto industry is for GM to go bankrupt. Yes, I'm serious.

 

[ohio]

Agreed, sort of. I don't own one and wouldn't buy one right now, but they sell more cars than anyone else, so a lot of people must like them. Certainly there are other issues at play regarding the demise of the American automotive industry in the US. Like a lot of big American companies, there is probably a lot of fat in management.

Two things (and several sub-things):
1. They sell a lot of cars because:
a. they sell them at a loss.
b. some people are still "patriotic" and would rather buy an American car made in Mexico, than a Japanese car made in Ohio
c. Their commercial vehicles (C-trucks) don't yet have real competition from Japan. Honda doesn't make them, and Tacomas/Tundra are too pricey as they cater to things that consumers care about like drivability, fit, and finish.

2. Being able to compete isn't just about cutting fat. There are lots of very successful companies where the executives make boatloads by:
a. understanding the market and developing products that are desired
b. having a long-term vision and strategy and executing on it
c. doing a reasonable job of incenting and motivating employees

Since you made this partisan, I'll fire back: why are conservatives so quick to always blame the workers? Isn't it possible that the executives are the fat, dumb, lazy ones with a ridiculous sense of entitlement? I mean, I know that because "they're rich they must have worked hard...." but isn't it a possibility?

I do corporate turnarounds, and I can tell you this. We can make a successful venture out of a unionized company. We can make a successful venture out a non-unionized company. It is always ALWAYS ALWAYS a matter of working with middle management and above.

 

[pterodactyl]

Since you made this partisan, I'll fire back: why are conservatives so quick to always blame the workers? Isn't it possible that the executives are the fat, dumb, lazy ones with a ridiculous sense of entitlement? I mean, I know that because "they're rich they must have worked hard...." but isn't it a possibility?

I didn't really make it partisan, just commented that N8 is an obvious conservative and he always gets blasted by liberals for his comments, that's all.

Of course there are useless, lazy, fat losers from the janitor to the CEO.

Anyway, I don't think the transit workers are terrorists. No one died from the strike, did they?

 

[blue]

****, for the third time, and as everyone in this thread has said, Unions - Good in principal, often bad in practice - because people suck.

You really can't generalize..."All unions r dum becuz of NYC transit"

Look at one of the most respected and successful companies in the world, UPS. They have a huge union, and that union is a big reason they're the number one shipping company in the world. Ask me if Fedex workers are allowed to unionize.

Sometimes things get ****ed up. Big deal. The system may be perfect, but the people running it probably aren't. Sometimes you need to dissolve a union and rebuild it from the ground up. I personally don't know why the MTA workers struck, but that doesn't matter. What matters is blanket statements, condemning all such and suches as being such and suches. It's the American way, isn't it?

 

[Damn True]

So some of the gripes against the strike are that it
Disrupted commerce.
Prevented the free movement of the populace.

Sounds like a few of the key arguments that were made against hippie war protesters in the Bay Area, yet that was somehow ok?

Explain please Echo.

 

[ohio]

So some of the gripes against the strike are that it
Disrupted commerce.
Prevented the free movement of the populace.

Sounds like a few of the key arguments that were made against hippie war protesters in the Bay Area, yet that was somehow ok?

Yes, because both were okay. While you have a right to disagree with either or both of the parties, taking legislative or martial steps to prevent either is downright un-American.

 

[Damn True]

Well I agree that both groups have the right to air their grievance, but I draw the line at breaking the law to do it.

 

[ohio]

Well I agree that both groups have the right to air their grievance, but I draw the line at breaking the law to do it.

You would be breaking the law to prevent them from doing it. Which law is more important to you? Which act is more egregious? Which slippery slope is steeper?

 

[Damn True]

You would be breaking the law to prevent them from doing it. Which law is more important to you? Which act is more egregious? Which slippery slope is steeper?

By "I draw the line" I meant I condemn rather than condone the behavior. I no more support vigilantism than I do rioting. All I'm sayin is that if protestors, or strikers obey the law, no problem. If not they should be cited or arrested and tried depending on the nature of the crime commited.