Obama '08?

Yaknow, Okie, it was unions who won you the rights that you have enjoyed your whole life while working. Unions who brought you the 40-hour week and things like overtime and disability and other work insurances. You might want to be a little more grateful for their sacrifice, because you would not enjoy a world in which they had not put themselves on the line for your and my rights.

Cycloptichorn

butrfly, I have no objection to any union, whatsoever. But your right to belong to a union and do what unions do, your rights end at the tip of my nose, where my rights also exist. I should also have a right to work for whomever I wish without belonging to a union.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Even as Detroit's Big Three teeter on collapse, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Saturday that the problem is not the union's contract with the automakers and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy.

"The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract," Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

"We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that," he said.

Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control -- the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.

"We're here not because of what the auto industry has done," he said. "We're here because of what has happened to the economy."

Gettelfinger also called on Congress to act quickly on a bailout plan for the auto industry, saying action is necessary before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.

He said if one automaker were to file for bankruptcy, the others may follow. He said the automakers would find it difficult to restructure under bankruptcy laws and instead could end up out of business. "Would you buy a car from a bankrupt automaker?" he asked.

The Center for Automotive Research, which receives funding from the auto industry, has warned that the collapse of the Big Three could set off a catastrophic chain reaction in the economy, eliminating up to 3 million jobs and more than $150 billion in tax revenue over the next three years.

Gettelfinger called on Congress to act quickly to provide loans to help the automakers until the economy improves and the automakers can move ahead with their plans to become more competitive.

"We cannot afford to allow to see this industry collapse. There is a real concern that could happen."

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are seeking $25 billion from the government to get them through the economic crisis and the worst sales slump in more than 25 years. GM appears to be in the worst shape, warning that it can't borrow from normal sources.

The nation's largest automaker said it had $16.2 billion in cash at the end of September, raising the possibility that GM will fall below the minimum of $11 billion to $14 billion needed for day-to-day operations by the end of the year.

Democrats in the lame-duck Congress are pressing for a bailout of Detroit's Big Three with money from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package. But President George W. Bush and many Republicans have come out against the idea, arguing that the financial rescue package was not intended for such uses, and that a bailout would reward poor management and lead other industries to demand government handouts.

In a statement Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic proposal gives automakers time to develop plans to assure their long-term viability, including meeting new fuel-efficiency standards and developing new technology.

"A restructured, competitive American automobile industry will continue to play a crucial role in our national economy and in the global marketplace," she said.

Sorry to disappoint you, but much of my working life was on a salary basis, in which I put in many 7 day weeks, even 16 hour days or more. The company did give me comp time sometimes, but on a very limited basis [...]

And for the job that was not salaried while I was in college, that job I did quit, I in fact worked 6 days per week more than 8 hours per day, on a daily rate, not hourly, and since I was not under the rules of 40 hours or overtime, I never received any overtime pay. [..]

I am not sure I follow your meaning.

okie wrote:

butrfly, I have no objection to any union, whatsoever. But your right to belong to a union and do what unions do, your rights end at the tip of my nose, where my rights also exist. I should also have a right to work for whomever I wish without belonging to a union.

Does this mean you are giving up membership in the anti-choice and anti-marriage rights movements or does the tip of your nose become conveniently non-existent in those cases?

If the unions were never created then working conditions never would have improved nor would wages have increased.

It was the work of unions which influenced even companies which did not have unions because they knew if they did not keep up with the demands of unions then their workers would either form a union or work for others who have unions. So yes you do owe your good fortune to unions who have worked for decades for better working conditions and pay.

okie wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you, but much of my working life was on a salary basis, in which I put in many 7 day weeks, even 16 hour days or more. The company did give me comp time sometimes, but on a very limited basis [...]

And for the job that was not salaried while I was in college, that job I did quit, I in fact worked 6 days per week more than 8 hours per day, on a daily rate, not hourly, and since I was not under the rules of 40 hours or overtime, I never received any overtime pay. [..]

I dont get how people tout how they were forced to work draconic hours just to get by and have a worthwhile job, and then use that experience to agitate against the unions that would try to curb such practices. Is it the "I had to go through it all, so don't you dare want to have it any easier" thing? Or is it just a far advanced stage of the Stockholm Syndrom?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yaknow, Okie, it was unions who won you the rights that you have enjoyed your whole life while working. Unions who brought you the 40-hour week and things like overtime and disability and other work insurances. You might want to be a little more grateful for their sacrifice, because you would not enjoy a world in which they had not put themselves on the line for your and my rights.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry to disappoint you, but much of my working life was on a salary basis, in which I put in many 7 day weeks, even 16 hour days or more. The company did give me comp time sometimes, but on a very limited basis, and frankly I did not demand all of the things like that because I loved my job. I cannot think of one thing the unions ever did for me, cyclops, that could not have been done without them or were not done without them.

And for the job that was not salaried while I was in college, that job I did quit, I in fact worked 6 days per week more than 8 hours per day, on a daily rate, not hourly, and since I was not under the rules of 40 hours or overtime, I never received any overtime pay. So, you are wrong again, cyclops, about how unions affected me. I quit the job not due to the hours, but because I found a better job with higher pay, all without any union, thank you.

Total nonsense, cyclops, and under the model you champion, your model is going broke.

You are so full of it, full of buzzwords, full of slogans, you would be lost in a hayfield. I think you need to grow up again, on a farm, and maybe you would learn something, instead of learning all of your mindset in a college classroom. A good dose of reality would help you.

the unions have been so arrogant that they thought the golden goose could keep laying bigger and bigger golden eggs until the goose got very sick and is now on the edge of death.

I think that statement is wrong. Obviously wrong. Working conditions would have improved and so do wages where the market dictates them to increase. Supply and demand. Believe it.

And now we have situations where manufacturing has gone overseas, simply because the demands of unions have been one large part of the reason. I would rather have a job that pays market rate than no job at all because the union demanded a pay scale that was not competitive, thus driving the businesses into bankruptcy.

Manufacturing companies have gone overseas to get out of paying taxes (deferals)and to get away with paying slave wages. I am glad we have unions where companies can't work you to death for pennies like before unions.

The Detroit auto industry financial problems are because of the credit crunch, past high gas prices and bad economy. People are simply buying less cars and other products all around.