Roger and You

[SilverNRed]

There comes a limit, though. That 50 bucks per hour in wages translates to about a hundred, for the company. Times how many workers? As shiddy as this will sound, a lot of people do more imortant work, and get paid far less. People should get paid on their individual merit.

511678[/snapback]

Insane! Individual merit? Why?

[SilverNRed]

And I expect any UAW (or any other union) member to defend this to death. Shidd, If I could make $50 per hour, plus benefits, plus pension knowing I'm going to get overtime - for pointing a spray gun, I'd leave what I'm doing in a fuggin heartbeat. And, I mean that very seriously.

511678[/snapback]

Which is exactly why pointing a spray gun shouldn't be a high paying job. I'd love to do the most low-stress job in the universe and get 100K a year in the process. But so would everyone else and almost everyone is qualified for such a job. So why pay one guy 100K a year to do it when the next guy would take 90K a year? And the guy after him would take 80K? Etc. There are enough people around that you shouldn't have to pay that much to get someone to paint.

 

Meanwhile, if you want a high paying job, attain some skills where you would be extremely valuable to employers. Learn how to do something that not everyone else can do.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I can answer that. The days of the $75.00 water pump are over. Repair costs are SO high that they drive people toward new cars (btw who do we blame for this)?

 

The worst car I ever had was a 1995 Dodge Intrepid. It was strikingly attractive; white with grey leather interior. First, the timing belt went. The water pump was next to it so I switched that too. It cost me close to $600 or more.

 

Next, the AC compressor imploded and of course sent metal shavings throughout the system. An AC compressor can cost $1,500 - $2,000 because the entire system must be changed for the job to be done right. It is easier to plunk down the $1,500 on a new car, which is what people do.

 

In any event, it is fun to talk about this stuff.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all, and your families and loved ones.

511806[/snapback]

 

I drive to this day a 1994 New Yorker (first year with the LHS platform... and same platform as your 1995 Intrepid) with over 1/4 of a million miles on it.

 

I changed the water pump when I switched out the timing belt. With those six's they are real pain to get to the front part of the engine... Everything has to be taken off.

 

The timing belt should never go... If it does, it is your fault for not preventing it and replacing every 75k to 100k... I have a 1998 Rodeo with well over 100K on it and never changed it... I will soon, because I am nervous... If it goes before I do it, I have nobody to blame but myself... The Isuzus have "interference" engines so valve damage is almost a sure thing. I know the risk and accept it.

 

On the Chyrsler... The parts ran me 45 for the H2O pump... another 35 for the belt and I tossed in new camshaft seals (7.50 a piece) for good measure because they were leaky. Actually, guy at work helped me along with the Haynes Manual... The only problem I had was that the Harmonic balance was damaged upon removal... Replace that too. So the whole job cost about 200 bucks including manual.

 

A/C compressor is right up front... 1.5k sounds excessive!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Oh... Happy T-Day to all and your familes!

 

[IowaBill]

>>>Unions are not needed for fair wages , good benefits, and safe working conditions.<<<

 

This is what he said. I am saying that sometimes this is true, and sometimes it isn't.

Don't you think that there are ANY companies/municipalities that would mistreat and/or underpay their workers were it not for unions?

 

I don't see why you can't get this Ken. I am not absolving every union of any and all featherbedding/corruption. I am saying that the above quoted sentence (or at least the way I am reading it) creates an absolute which is simply not always true.

511914[/snapback]

 

That sentence wasn't intended, nor should it be read as an absolute. If we were all to qualify each statement we made here at TBD, most of the posts would be lengthy and unreadable, more so thanthey are now.

 

The fact is, however, is that workers at non union auto plants, mostly operated by Japanese parent companies are paid very similar to those at UAW plants. Given todays problems, those benefits at UAW plants (pensions, medical benefits) may soon be a thing of the past. My brother just retired from Ford (non union position), he is well aware that his pension is bo means certain for the rest of his life, given the problems Ford has. I am not certain, but I am inclined to think the people working at non union auto plants don't worry that much about the fiscal health of their pension plans. When I hear union reps complaining about the long term viability of pensions and retirement health benefits, they spend a lot of time pointing fingers at the mananagement of the company. Unions don't appear to be very pro active these days in looking out for their members. Maybe they did at one time, but that doesn't seem to be what they do these days. I'll re state my position using different terms, having a union position doens't mean you will receive good pay and benefits, nor does it guarantee job security. If a union can't do that, what can it do for its members?????

[colin]

GM's number one problem is their labour agreement.

 

they are in the hole over 10 billion dollars a year vs toyota in wages, health care and pensions.

 

that means that they pay 10 yards MORE than what toyota pays, and people who work at toyota auto plants make a hell of a lot more than typical unskilled labours.

 

gm's stupid management is to blame for getting into this agreement, and they are just bad at most things they do anyhow (costs them over $100 every time one department orders something from another, there are giant commitees of been counters messing with design and change implementation etc.).

 

that said, unions aren't some magical robin hood, they are a an attempt by labour to get paid more at the expense of the product producer. unions themselves are organizations with procedures and are as capable of Effing up like GM has.

 

unions end up costing the consumer, and as a consumer i don't want to pay more so some particular unskilled worker can make more while doing a bad job on a car. i'd rather see the product made better and cheaper oversees so i can get a better value than watch someone live high off the hog at my expense.

 

unions only service their members (and with corruption they don't always do that very well) so they don't keep the US from being a third world country or protect the "common man", they only protect their memebers, at the expense of their ultimate customers.

 

if you really want better wages and working conditions do some research and improve your job skills.

 

no one is owed a living

[RI Bills Fan]

Wow, I think every anti-union talking point ever promulgated by the Republican Party and/or Wal-Mart has been hit at least twice in this thread.

 

For Myself, I've worked for two non-union companies and one union company since retiring from the Navy.

 

When I first retired I was staunchly anti-union. Now that I've lived through it (on both sides Hourly and Management) I hope I never have to work in a non-union environment again.

 

But that's just me...

[Ghost of BiB]

Wow, I think every anti-union talking point ever promulgated by the Republican Party and/or Wal-Mart has been hit at least twice in this thread.

 

For Myself, I've worked for two non-union companies and one union company since retiring from the Navy.

 

When I first retired I was staunchly anti-union. Now that I've lived through it (on both sides Hourly and Management) I hope I never have to work in a non-union environment again.

 

But that's just me...

512515[/snapback]

 

Figures.

[ExiledInIllinois]

i'd rather see the product made better and cheaper oversees so i can get a better value than watch someone live high off the hog at my expense.

 

if you really want better wages and working conditions do some research and improve your job skills.

 

no one is owed a living

512500[/snapback]

 

Once again, we hit the crux of the issue. There is no "I" in team. I am not saying that anybody is owed a living. The world needs ditch-diggers too... They also need to prosper and get ahead for all of us to succeed.

 

[colin]

Once again, we hit the crux of the issue.  There is no "I" in team.  I am not saying that anybody is owed a living.  The world needs ditch-diggers too... They also need to prosper and get ahead for all of us to succeed.

 

 

512679[/snapback]

 

what does prosper and get ahead mean?

 

 

people deserve to get paid what they CAN get paid. unions have done a good job getting their members more money, but if you are the client you get left holding the bag.

 

i'd rather products get made in china for a better price with equal or better quality for my money, it's not like your ditch digger (or any labourer) in north america deserves my money anymore than one in china does.

[ExiledInIllinois]

what does prosper and get ahead mean?

people deserve to get paid what they CAN get paid.  unions have done a good job getting their members more money, but if you are the client you get left holding the bag.

 

i'd rather products get made in china for a better price with equal or better quality for my money, it's not like your ditch digger (or any labourer) in north america deserves my money anymore than one in china does.

512800[/snapback]

 

I guess not fall behind in regards to inflation, debt and how your job is perceived and valued in society.

 

If people deserve to get paid what they can, wouldn't slavery still exist? The absolute best is that they would work for free?

 

Yes they do (red part above). Because you will end up shelling more money into the tax system. Case impoint is Wal-Mart... Where the "working poor" have to supplement their income with goverment aid.

 

You can say educate, educate and move yourself up. True. Can the system really support itself with such a highly mobile, better off class that demand premium jobs? Who is left to do the basic work? And, if that basic work is mainly being done by a huge, poorly paid underclass... Is that good? It is a time-bomb ready to go off. Is that a good societal model?

[TPS]

Insane!  Individual merit?  Why? 

512076[/snapback]

 

So I suppose if you believe that people should get paid based upon their individual merit, that means you support taxing inheritances?

 

Or do the children merit their father's (mother's?) money?

[colin]

I guess not fall behind in regards to inflation, debt and how your job is perceived and valued in society.

 

If people deserve to get paid what they can, wouldn't slavery still exist?  The absolute best is that they would work for free?

 

Yes they do (red part above).  Because you will end up shelling more money into the tax system.  Case impoint is Wal-Mart... Where the "working poor" have to supplement their income with goverment aid.

 

You can say educate, educate and move yourself up.  True.  Can the system really support itself with such a highly mobile, better off class that demand premium jobs?  Who is left to do the basic work?  And, if that basic work is mainly being done by a huge, poorly paid underclass... Is that good?  It is a time-bomb ready to go off.  Is that a good societal model?

512826[/snapback]

 

Do you have any basic understanding of economics or markets?

 

It appears you don't, or if you do you ignore what you might have once learned for goofy rhetoric that matches some political beliefs you might have.

 

 

1. People deserve to get paid what they can-- what this means is that people want to get paid the most they can for what they do (including all the perks and comforts of working a job they like), and if they can get it they will. There is no set number that represents a "fair wage", if you are working for some amount of money, you have agreed to earn that much.

 

That doesn't mean that slavery should still exist. I hope you were drunk when you typed that because it is insane. Of course working for free isn't the best, do you work for free? Do you want to? Of course you don't, so NO working for free isn't the best.

 

 

2. You have government aid and the impact of wages and jobs backwards. A given labour market DOES NOT require government assistance, but government assistance changes the dynamics of the market. People work at Wal-Mart for less than they otherwise would BECAUSE they can also get government assistance. If they could not live on the wages provided by Wal-Mart they would not work there, they would seek better wages elsewhere. in order to avoid going out of business Wal-Mart would offer a higher wage to overcome labour shortfalls. Government subsidies in this case lower wages by shifting the burden from the employer to taxpayers, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

 

2a. as corollary, minimum wage laws limit the number of people who can can be employed because if an employer would only pay less than minimum wage to hire someone (say because it was a simple job or one that provided valuable training for the employee who would not be of real use till much further down the road) and if an employee were actually willing to work for less than minimum wage (say because it was a fun easy job and they didn't really need the money-- think kids, or because they have no skills or experience and need to develop some -- think the currently unemployable) that employer and employee could not enter into an employment agreement because of minimum wage laws.

 

 

You ended your above post with some hand waving about time bombs going off and societal models, please review the most basic material you can find on economics and then you will realize that the statement you made is a giant non sequitur.

 

Unions simply attempt to create a MONOPOLY for their members; this means that the employer(s) can no longer hire other able people in the market because they have an exclusive agreement with the union.

 

the way a monopoly works is to INCREASE THE PRICE by LIMITIING THE QUANTITIY SUPPLIED.

 

in other words, by having employers incapable of hiring other workers (and in practice not being able to fire substandard workers employed), union member can obtain greater pay by EXCLUDING NON UNION MEMBERS FROM WORK.

 

This costs:

-- Non union members looking for work

-- The corporation's (employer) shareholders

-- The corporation's management

-- MOST IMPORTANTLY THE CONSUMER.

 

This begs the question: why do unions exist? In North America and Europe they exist because of government fiat dictating how employees and employers are allowed to transact with each other.

 

This is not to say that employers are the innocent victims here. They have (as a group anyhow) agreed to government regulation and protection in the favour of their business and the cost of unions is just the cost of doing business. The government subsidies, pork, tariffs, and straight handouts that "offset" the impact of unions only act to ensure that large existing corporations are the only ones who can play the dirty game, deterring new entry into the market.

 

The lack of innovation, low quality of production, and direct costs are the burden of the consumer. For comparison please see examine how the perfectly unionized island of Cuba, (everyone has the same employer! Isn’t that grand, what a perfect societal mode) and the nearly perfectly non unionized island of Hong Kong have done. Please adjust your findings for the greater natural resources that Cuba has and its proximity the largest and riches market in the history of the planet.

 

Unions do not work to avoid this time bomb you girlishly pontificated about above, but simply attempt to earn more for their members, at any and everyone else's expense.

[colin]

So I suppose if you believe that people should get paid based upon their individual merit, that means you support taxing inheritances?   

 

Or do the children merit their father's (mother's?) money?

512944[/snapback]

 

if the parents earned the money they can give it to whomever they want, including their kids.

 

it isn't a question of the children's merit, but the parent's

[Ghost of BiB]

if the parents earned the money they can give it to whomever they want, including their kids.

 

it isn't a question of the children's merit, but the parent's

513302[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but he used a devil smiley. Have to watch out for devil smileys.

[X. Benedict]

 

Unions do not work to avoid this time bomb you girlishly pontificated about above, but simply attempt to earn more for their members, at any and everyone else's expense.

513301[/snapback]

Once you call someone a "girlish pontificator" you can't expect a a conversation to continue for long.

[Ghost of BiB]

Once you call someone a "girlish pontificator" you can't expect a a conversation  to continue for long.

513354[/snapback]

 

Hitler.

[X. Benedict]

Hitler.

513359[/snapback]

The guy could paint. People forget that.

[Ghost of BiB]

The guy could paint. People forget that.

513405[/snapback]

 

His perspectives were a bit skewed, but did some nice pen and ink, too.

[colin]

Once you call someone a "girlish pontificator" you can't expect a a conversation  to continue for long.

513354[/snapback]

 

true, but i was on a roll