Government should put a cap on auto worker wages !!

[Cannuck]

A balanced "system" would have meant even better opportunities for both the corporate body as well as the labour force.... But then again, if you believe that the status quo is preferred, you might think about talking to the (former) union members that worked for Canadian Airlines International, they might disagree with your ideology.

Since my "ideology" is that government should stay out of the way of business as much as possible, I'm sure just about everybody in the airline industry disagrees with my "ideology". For the life of me, though, I can't understand what CA has to do with this discussion (unless you are foolish enough to believe that the union was somehow responsible for CA's problems.

As for the status quo, I have no preference. I only evaluate what works and what doesn't. The labour history at GM has benefited both the worker and the company. It seems to me that it has worked quite well. I'm not sure why you seem to have a problem with that.

 

[JLM]

Has a union ever invested into an industry during hard times to help keep a business or an industry it's self alive?

Only to benefit themselves! :lol:

 

[Cannuck]

Only to benefit themselves! :lol:

As it should be. Likewise, a BoD should be responsible for the needs of shareholders and not labour. If the two can benefit mutually, then all the better.

 

[TenPenny]

Only to benefit themselves! :lol:

Does anyone invest in something for any other reason?

 

[captain morgan]

Since my "ideology" is that government should stay out of the way of business as much as possible,

Except for the premise that the union can effectually hold GM (et al) hostage for months while the "system" plays out, and that deferral in time and inability for GM to recruit new hires during the strike is how the gvt involves itself.... I kinda noticed that you didn't have much to offer in response to that issue.

For the life of me, though, I can't understand what CA has to do with this discussion (unless you are foolish enough to believe that the union was somehow responsible for CA's problems.

You must be right. The union had no effect, nothing, nada, zip. Hell, ole Buzz Hargrove was probably so uber cooperative that as the last piece in the puzzle to secure the financing, he probably scared-off the 9-10 figure capital injection 'cause they thought that the union deal was too good to be true.

As for the status quo, I have no preference. I only evaluate what works and what doesn't. The labour history at GM has benefited both the worker and the company. It seems to me that it has worked quite well. I'm not sure why you seem to have a problem with that.

You only evaluate what works for you and dismiss all other scenarios... That is clear.

Has a union ever invested into an industry during hard times to help keep a business or an industry it's self alive?

Only as a last resort.

 

[Cannuck]

Except for the premise that the union can effectually hold GM (et al) hostage for months while the "system" plays out, and that deferral in time and inability for GM to recruit new hires during the strike is how the gvt involves itself.... I kinda noticed that you didn't have much to offer in response to that issue.

It is simply a fallacious argument to suggest that GM was held hostage. As has been pointed out GM (like all other corporations) was and is free to go build plants where they get a better labour deal.

You must be right. The union had no effect, nothing, nada, zip. Hell, ole Buzz Hargrove was probably so uber cooperative that as the last piece in the puzzle to secure the financing, he probably scared-off the 9-10 figure capital injection 'cause they thought that the union deal was too good to be true.

How many air lines have come and gone in Canada. The simple fact of the matter is that a population of 30 million can not support one airline let alone 2 or three. CA failed because of the the economic realities of an over regulated system. Air Canada should not exist either but not for the political desire to have a "national carrier".

You only evaluate what works for you and dismiss all other scenarios... That is clear.

Hardly. The car industry, as it works today, does not benefit me at all. If anything, it costs me due to the extra duties on vehicles if I choose to buy one. I guess that is the big difference between you and me. For me, GM and the unions business dealings are between them and how it does or doesn't impact me personally is irrelevant. Since both GM and the unions have benefited from their relationship over the last few decades, all in all, I think it has been a good thing. The current issues involving the collapse of GM (and the Canadian manufacturing industry as a whole) have everything to do with mis-management by the corporation (and the increasing ability to move production off shore).

Perhaps you could explain to me how you think the relationship between GM and the union benefits me.

 

[captain morgan]

C'mon Cannuck... All you have done is dodge the specific points that I have brought up.

Suggesting that GM (et al) pick-up and build another multi billion dollar plant elsewhere at the drop of a hat is ridiculous. Do we really need to review the reality that the unions know this and work it to their advantage?... On that note though; there are examples where companies have done exactly that when the conditions allow (ie need new plant or significant upgrades anyways), you can look into New Holland and the decision that they made to move from Manitoba to the Dakotas (I believe) due to egregious demands from the union.

As far as your comments about "how many airlines have come and gone"... I referred specifically to CAI and the results borne due to the union queeering the deal. Fact is 10's of thousands of workers forfeited their jobs/livelihoods because the union took a hard-line stance.

Lastly, your final comment about GM and the auto industry says a great deal.... While you claim that the relationship between GM and the union has been positive and you are open to any/all suggestions, you have ignored my earlier comment that it could have been more productive and more profitable under different circumstances. You personally don't see a problem, therefore there is none.

 

[Cannuck]

C'mon Cannuck... All you have done is dodge the specific points that I have brought up.

I don't dodge your points. Most of them are so laughable I just assume you are joking. For example...

Suggesting that GM (et al) pick-up and build another multi billion dollar plant elsewhere at the drop of a hat is ridiculous. Do we really need to review the reality that the unions know this and work it to their advantage?...

Who said anything about "the drop of a hat"? The UAW first started unionizing GM in 1936. It took 60 years to build their first plant in China and along the way, they shut down their operations in Egypt (I guess those particular non-union guys weren't up to the task)

On that note though; there are examples where companies have done exactly that when the conditions allow (ie need new plant or significant upgrades anyways), you can look into New Holland and the decision that they made to move from Manitoba to the Dakotas (I believe) due to egregious demands from the union.

Yup, if you ask for too much, the jobs will go elsewhere....pretty much what I've been saying. That said, not every company that moves their operation to another location does it because they are unionized and the unions are asking for too much. Lots of non-union jobs have beean sent over seas as well.

As far as your comments about "how many airlines have come and gone"... I referred specifically to CAI and the results borne due to the union queeering the deal. Fact is 10's of thousands of workers forfeited their jobs/livelihoods because the union took a hard-line stance.

You are in error. The union had nothing to do with the demise of the airline. The writing was on the wall. If your job is going to be gone in 2 years there is no incentive to take a pay cut for those remaining years. CA was done like dinner and everybody on the inside knew it.

Lastly, your final comment about GM and the auto industry says a great deal.... While you claim that the relationship between GM and the union has been positive and you are open to any/all suggestions, you have ignored my earlier comment that it could have been more productive and more profitable under different circumstances. You personally don't see a problem, therefore there is none.

I don't see a problem because GM has not been trying to get rid of the union which I'm sure they would have done if they too saw a problem...or are you suggesting that they would simply ignore a problem and take no action until it buried the company? Are you suggesting that GM and the UAW haven't been successful over the last 70 years? Is that really the magic beans you are trying to sell people.

I get it! You don't like unions but you really have to do a better job at explaining why you think they are the boogieman.

 

[cranky]

I don't see a problem with capping the autoworkers wages, so long as the company puts a cap on their profits, too.

 

[captain morgan]

I don't dodge your points. Most of them are so laughable I just assume you are joking. For example...

That's funny and a response mired in pathos all itself... I can see why CdnBear has no use to waste time with you.

Who said anything about "the drop of a hat"? The UAW first started unionizing GM in 1936. It took 60 years to build their first plant in China and along the way, they shut down their operations in Egypt (I guess those particular non-union guys weren't up to the task)

... And? I made it perfectly clear that there are/were a variety of reasons, but if we are focusing on North America and the labour issue here, then I think that you won't be able to point to any examples where a multi-national shut down ops in China and moved them to N.America specifically to use union labour.

Yup, if you ask for too much, the jobs will go elsewhere....pretty much what I've been saying. That said, not every company that moves their operation to another location does it because they are unionized and the unions are asking for too much. Lots of non-union jobs have beean sent over seas as well.

Very true. As was mentioned earlier, there are a variety of reasons, we can easily include tax rates as among the important elements.

You are in error. The union had nothing to do with the demise of the airline. The writing was on the wall. If your job is going to be gone in 2 years there is no incentive to take a pay cut for those remaining years. CA was done like dinner and everybody on the inside knew it.

I never said that teh union was the reason for the demise of the corp.. They were the reason that the refinancing fell through.

We can assume that CAI went titters 'cause the costs were more than the revenues, but that is not what I was driving at in the later part of my discussion. When a capital fund agreed to inject the cash to keep CAI moving, the last piece of the puzzle was that the union (CUPE I believe) got on board in agreeing to specific employee-related concessions (I don't know the specifics). It was made clear that the money would flee if the union wasn't on board.... Buzz Hargrove played the union solidarity card and would not comply... The deal died as did the 10's of thousands of union jobs.

I don't see a problem because GM has not been trying to get rid of the union which I'm sure they would have done if they too saw a problem...or are you suggesting that they would simply ignore a problem and take no action until it buried the company? Are you suggesting that GM and the UAW haven't been successful over the last 70 years? Is that really the magic beans you are trying to sell people.

It became quite clear that GM's potential insolvency was highly impacted by the labour/pension component, but that is an aside. If you wish to pretend that GM had a love affair with the CAW/UAW, then that's your business, but the rest of us remember that an impasse in the contract process at one plant was often met with wildcat strikes throughout the entire plant system of that manufacturer.

Yeah, what bliss between the corp and the unions; it's a real love affair. But to once again, to address your comment about the success of the 70 year relationship is that it could have been much better and that would have translated into a stronger overall sector for both parties involved.

Fact is; the number of union jobs (actual #'s AND ratios) continue to decline year after year in North America. The only writing on the wall is that unions will be extinct in relatively short order. Gvt unions will be the last hold-out but the private sector has spoken.

I get it! You don't like unions but you really have to do a better job at explaining why you think they are the boogieman.

Puhlease... The mere existence of organized labour is a joke in today's global world, but I can say that the unions are extraordinarily effective in driving business into the hands of private contractors. That said, the union does have some use.

Don't take offense to my position Cannuck. I understand that you are a union guy and don't like hearing these comments from people, but it is no reason to rewrite history or depend on the rose colour glasses you need to look at the usefulness of unions.

 

[petros]

Unions are worldwide so the bull**** of running away from them are insane. They own voting shares in more companies working offshore than you can shake a stick at.

Next I'm going to hear the the Maple Leafs suck ass so badly because they are owned by a union.

 

[Machjo]

I have nothing against unions per se, but would have an issue with being forced to join one. That's why I like right-to-work laws.

Now I've never had to join a union yet, though some people may have found themselves in such a situation, and that's where I think right-to-work laws could help.

 

[captain morgan]

Unions are worldwide so the bull**** of running away from them are insane. They own voting shares in more companies working offshore than you can shake a stick at.

Next I'm going to hear the the Maple Leafs suck ass so badly because they are owned by a union.

How does that explain the shrinking #'s of the unions?

 

[JLM]

I have nothing against unions per se, but would have an issue with being forced to join one. That's why I like right-to-work laws.

Now I've never had to join a union yet, though some people may have found themselves in such a situation, and that's where I think right-to-work laws could help.

Yep, they are a Dictatorship.

 

[Cannuck]

... And? I made it perfectly clear that there are/were a variety of reasons, but if we are focusing on North America and the labour issue here, then I think that you won't be able to point to any examples where a multi-national shut down ops in China and moved them to N.America specifically to use union labour.

You keep getting hung up on union vs non union. Nobody would want to specifically use union labour. There are a number of reasons why a company would move operations. Resources and a higher educated workforce is the main reason for the move from (for example) China to Canada. I seriously doubt union vs non union would even be a consideration.

Very true. As was mentioned earlier, there are a variety of reasons, we can easily include tax rates as among the important elements.

Probably not as important as you would think. Canada has had consistently higher tax rates than the US. If one was to accept the direct link between economic productivity and tax rates that some people want us to, it should mean that Canada should be lagging behind the US which, of course it isn't.

Don't take offense to my position Cannuck. I understand that you are a union guy and don't like hearing these comments from people, but it is no reason to rewrite history or depend on the rose colour glasses you need to look at the usefulness of unions.

Yet again you are in error. While I am a union member, I have no particular use (from a personal perspective) for the union and would be quite happy if my position was non union. My position is unique and, in trying to include me in the current contract, it has been a little like pounding a square peg into a round hole. Looking at some of my coworkers, I see a benefit to the union and I see a benefit to the taxpayers in having a unionized workforce. The union, much like groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, provide a counter balance to incompetent politicians. They foster stability in a system that loses it's so-called head every few years due to elections. Far from taking offense from your position, I find it rather entertaining. Especially when you make so many assumptions about how I think. As I said, you've made it pretty clear that you don't like unions. It really is unfortunate that you know so little about the day to day workings of them. It makes an intelligent discussion rather difficult.

I have nothing against unions per se, but would have an issue with being forced to join one. That's why I like right-to-work laws.

Now I've never had to join a union yet, though some people may have found themselves in such a situation, and that's where I think right-to-work laws could help.

I was force to join one for my current position. I would rather not be in one but it isn't the end of the world. I could think of a lot worse things to put up with. I once had a job where I was supposed to work overtime and, because I was on salary, I could take time off when things were slow. That works if things get slow but it never did. I loved the job so I put up with it. Once my kids came along the demands of the job weren't worth it.

The only real problem I have with the current union I belong to is that they take the money off my cheque but don't do much for me but the positives of the job far outweigh that aspect.

 

[Machjo]

Just a correction. As China's population becomes ever more educated (and beleive me, many Chinese parents are prepared to spend their livelihoods on their children's education), China will become incresingly competitive not only on the price front, but also on the skills fron if Canada's not careful.

 

[TenPenny]

You keep getting hung up on union vs non union. Nobody would want to specifically use union labour.

I remember when I worked in a mine, in the engineering dept. I used to have long chats at lunch with the HR manager and the mine manager. They agreed that it was easier to run a unionized mine (at the time, this mine was not unionized), because the rules and codes of conduct were explicitly laid out, and the workers couldn't whine that they didn't know or didn't understand or that they needed special treatment. The pay wasn't any different, because of the competitive nature of the workforce.

 

[cranky]

I remember when I worked in a mine, in the engineering dept. I used to have long chats at lunch with the HR manager and the mine manager. They agreed that it was easier to run a unionized mine (at the time, this mine was not unionized), because the rules and codes of conduct were explicitly laid out, and the workers couldn't whine that they didn't know or didn't understand or that they needed special treatment. The pay wasn't any different, because of the competitive nature of the workforce.

I agree. Unions are like Quality Management Systems because they both seek to replace arbitrary decisions and discriminatory practises with policy and proceedure. The only managers that hate policy and proceedures are the lazy uneducated kind that wants to be able to control things in ways that go beyond rational and reasonable behavior.

 

[petros]

Just a correction. As China's population becomes ever more educated (and beleive me, many Chinese parents are prepared to spend their livelihoods on their children's education), China will become incresingly competitive not only on the price front, but also on the skills fron if Canada's not careful.

There are more geniuses in China than there is people in the USA and Canada combined.....we're ****ed.

 

[cranky]

Just a correction. As China's population becomes ever more educated (and beleive me, many Chinese parents are prepared to spend their livelihoods on their children's education), China will become incresingly competitive not only on the price front, but also on the skills fron if Canada's not careful.

if you have a son in grade school, you might want to enroll him in CSL(dhinese as a second language) classes right away. I predict that a cacasian that speaks chinese can make more that an MBA in the years to come.