Strike!!!!

[garyd]

Companies move off shore because they can no longer compete with overseas markets because union contracts and government regulations create a climate where in they simply are priced out of the market. I think it was 2004 in which GM and Tyota sold the eact same number of vehicles. GM lost money Toyota made money and you wonder why the government is now running GM? And likely into the ground. The worst Jaguars ever made were made when the British government was running the company pre Thatcher. GM is going from the largest car company ever towards a company in which leftist twits will dictate the product line and sales will continue to dwindle. Until GM is little more than a shadow of it's former self with a huge bloated payroll and a penchant for trying to sell over priced crap that no one wants any way.

By the way I'm still looking for evidence that americans actually want smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. Maybe the latter but not necessarily the former. Out in this part of the world I still see as many pick up trucks and SUV as anything else and a whole lot more of them than the so caled smart cars - Electric and hybrids.

 

[Diuretic]

Companies move off shore because they can no longer compete with overseas markets because union contracts and government regulations create a climate where in they simply are priced out of the market. I think it was 2004 in which GM and Tyota sold the eact same number of vehicles. GM lost money Toyota made money and you wonder why the government is now running GM? And likely into the ground. The worst Jaguars ever made were made when the British government was running the company pre Thatcher. GM is going from the largest car company ever towards a company in which leftist twits will dictate the product line and sales will continue to dwindle. Until GM is little more than a shadow of it's former self with a huge bloated payroll and a penchant for trying to sell over priced crap that no one wants any way.

By the way I'm still looking for evidence that americans actually want smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. Maybe the latter but not necessarily the former. Out in this part of the world I still see as many pick up trucks and SUV as anything else and a whole lot more of them than the so caled smart cars - Electric and hybrids.

GM was mismanaged. A company which believes it creates its own demand for its product is deluded.

Companies go offshore because they can. You know we are now in a global economy. Guess who benefits from that? Yes, companies which can move production facilities to another country (because doing so has been rendered much easier due to globalisation) do so because they can take advantage of lower wage rates but keep their domestic pricing so that they maximise profit. This repeated assertion that companies are “priced out of the market” is wrong.

 

[garyd]

And your problem with what will be in the long run a temporary situation is what? Like it or not globalization has been underway for the last 2000 years. To pretend you can prevent it from happening is tantamount to covering your eyes with your hands and claiming that you are now invisible.

American workers are among the most productive in the world. Why? Because we have the best equipment in the world with which to work. Unfortunately outside of set up and programing a lot of that equipment could be run safely by a well trained chimpanzee, hence the increasing use of robotics in the manufacturing biz.

 

[Diuretic]

And your problem with what will be in the long run a temporary situation is what? Like it or not globalization has been underway for the last 2000 years. To pretend you can prevent it from happening is tantamount to covering your eyes with your hands and claiming that you are now invisible.

American workers are among the most productive in the world. Why? Because we have the best equipment in the world with which to work. Unfortunately outside of set up and programing a lot of that equipment could be run safely by a well trained chimpanzee, hence the increasing use of robotics in the manufacturing biz.

There's a lot of confusion in your first paragraph. You've assumed that I have a certain view of globalisation. In my post I simply pointed to the effect of globalisation on the movement of jobs around the world, I didn't make any judgements on globalisation itself.

But I do think that globalisation will eventually result in the end of nations as geographical entities, but that's another issue.

Productivity depends on many factors, skills are important, so is good equipment. In a globalised world low-skill jobs will migrate to regions where there is a lot of unused labour which can be purchased at a low cost. Globalisation facilitates that.

I would suggest that the jobs being offshored from westernised industrialised nations are low-skill jobs.

The quandary for the policy-makers is that while the jobs are moved offshore, the workers who were carrying out those jobs remain behind and may join the ranks of the unemployed.

Now, rather than rail against globalisation the pragmatic thing to do would be to pursue upskilling policies so that those unemployed workers who saw their jobs go offshore could get domestically located jobs that require higher skills so that those jobs are temporarily protected.

I say "temporarily protected" because eventually the low-skill regions will also upskill their own workers and will bid for those jobs as well. And they will get them.

The upshot of all of this is that globalisation will eventually render a world of uniformity in economic conditions around the world. I suppose that's one of the reasons they call it "globalisation".

 

[garyd]

Most jobs that go off shore are low skill but not all, not by any means. Almost all castings are going overseas. Some of that is low skill but investment casting aren't neither is making the forms for such. However it cost so much to meet the regulations here for that industry that it's slowly disapearing simply because of cost issues.

Now what I meant by temporary was that inequities in labor cost will eventually disappear and from my perspective that is a good thing. And please note that we will not be going down much if any to meet them they will be coming up toward us because workers in every other country in the world want the same things those in Western countries want.

 

[rhodescholar]

Workers act in their own interest as workers, they seek to maximise their economic interest. Where they have rare skills they can take advantage of the scarcity of their skills by charging a high rate for their labour. Where they have no skills to speak of or very low level skills at least, they are at the mercy of the employer who may only pay a rate which has been mandated by legislation. The only way that low skill or unskilled workers are going to increase their economic situation is by organising to present the employer with a quandary, basically a threat to stop working.

I cut this section out as it really troubled me, becuase in essence you are saying that the employer basically owes the low-skilled worker a job, and if he doesn't give him a good-paying one with nice benefits, everyone else will go out on strike.

But where is the responsibility of the worker to better their skillset, in the same vein you mention initially about the leverage of empowered high-skill workers?

 

[rhodescholar]

Most jobs that go off shore are low skill but not all, not by any means. Almost all castings are going overseas. Some of that is low skill but investment casting aren't neither is making the forms for such. However it cost so much to meet the regulations here for that industry that it's slowly disapearing simply because of cost issues.

Now what I meant by temporary was that inequities in labor cost will eventually disappear and from my perspective that is a good thing. And please note that we will not be going down much if any to meet them they will be coming up toward us because workers in every other country in the world want the same things those in Western countries want.

The offshored jobs now include legal work and reviews of x-rays, the work level is being upsized constantly.

This is why public unions are an even larger cancer, because at least in your example before, I can choose to shop from a non-union firm, but cannot with a government-monopolist providing schools, road-building, etc.

Eventually the private sector will shrink in the US to the point where it can no longer sustain the city, state and federal employees and their obscene benefits, and the country will convulse upon itself.

 

[Diuretic]

Most jobs that go off shore are low skill but not all, not by any means. Almost all castings are going overseas. Some of that is low skill but investment casting aren't neither is making the forms for such. However it cost so much to meet the regulations here for that industry that it's slowly disapearing simply because of cost issues.

Now what I meant by temporary was that inequities in labor cost will eventually disappear and from my perspective that is a good thing. And please note that we will not be going down much if any to meet them they will be coming up toward us because workers in every other country in the world want the same things those in Western countries want.

Yes, about the castings, I remember going to a lecture and the speaker mentioned that small electric (??) blast furnaces in South Korea had caused problems for the big steelmakers in the east of the United States. That will do it for sure.

Again yes, we all want much the same for ourselves and the raising of living standards all over the world would be a good thing. Of course the corporations that enjoy purchasing cheap labour to manufacture goods to sell into the domestic markets might be a bit cranky about that.

 

[garyd]

Labor is affected by the law od supply and demand like everything else.

By the way low skill workers don't have to stay that way. Get training learn to do something that makes your services more valuable. Most low skill jobs are entry level jobs.

 

[Diuretic]

Workers act in their own interest as workers, they seek to maximise their economic interest. Where they have rare skills they can take advantage of the scarcity of their skills by charging a high rate for their labour. Where they have no skills to speak of or very low level skills at least, they are at the mercy of the employer who may only pay a rate which has been mandated by legislation. The only way that low skill or unskilled workers are going to increase their economic situation is by organising to present the employer with a quandary, basically a threat to stop working.

I cut this section out as it really troubled me, becuase in essence you are saying that the employer basically owes the low-skilled worker a job, and if he doesn't give him a good-paying one with nice benefits, everyone else will go out on strike.

But where is the responsibility of the worker to better their skillset, in the same vein you mention initially about the leverage of empowered high-skill workers?

No, there's no obligation on an employer to provide work to anyone. The employer is in the market to purchase labour not to provide jobs. Where a workforce for an employer is unionised the employer will have to deal with a bargaining agent rather than unilaterally setting out what the price of labour will be. I hope that clarifies my point.

The responsibility of the worker to increase their skills is a bit complex. I could say it's up to every worker to do so because it's in their own economic interests to do so. But there's also the interest of society to bear in mind. A general increase in the skills of the workforce is beneficial to society as well as those individuals who can upskill.

 

[Diuretic]

Labor is affected by the law od supply and demand like everything else.

By the way low skill workers don't have to stay that way. Get training learn to do something that makes your services more valuable. Most low skill jobs are entry level jobs.

Yes indeed supply and demand has operated for many hundreds of years, hence the secrecy of the mediaeval craft guilds. And that was inherent in my earlier point, scarce skills will demand a higher price than skills which just about any individual has.

Upskilling has been part of the last few posts, yes.

 

[garyd]

But you are missing the point about lowskill jobs being entry level jobs and at entry level wages.

 

[Diuretic]

But you are missing the point about lowskill jobs being entry level jobs and at entry level wages.

I'm sorry if I was, I wasn't trying to miss the point.

I accept your point about "entry level" jobs and the associated low level of wages. I accept that some people will enter the workforce at this level and will move up. But plenty of other people will enter the workforce at a far higher level than the "entry level" we may be referring to and will climb into higher an higher levels of the workforce during their working lives. These are the people with the scarce skills. A medical graduate, for example.

But some people who enter at the "entry level" to which we're referring, for various reasons, won't be able to move off that very bottom rung on the employment ladder. It's these people who need a union, not the medical graduate, although he or she will quickly join their own union because they will be expected to, perhaps even be forced to join. Even though they are able to exercise scarce skills and enter the workforce far above our "entry level" they will still be able to join their union which will work assiduously to defend and extend the economic and other interests of its members. And I don't think we'll be hearing about or reading about complaints that the doctors union are going to push their members jobs out of existence because they insist on high payments for their socially useful (the most socially useful) knowledge and skills.

Not all low level jobs will be offshored. Someone has to be the janitor or the maid. Even in the grand scheme of globalisation someone has to be paid to clean the toilets in the domestic economy. And as I stated, they may be unable to upskill from cleaning toilets to waiting tables, which is a considerable upgrade in skills required. So these people will always be with us and they can be replaced with a snap of the fingers. The only protection they have will be legislated and will be from their union. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, losing one toilet cleaner isn't a problem for the employer, losing thousands of toilet cleaners is a crisis.

 

[editec]

Those of you that hate unions?

You must also hate Americans.

Before unions, working Americans were as dirt poor as the third world workers are today.

But I know that's what a LOT of you would like to see happen to American, now, too, isn't it?

You don't have the balls to say it honestly, but you got yours, and you don't really give a fuck about your neighbors or this nation, either.

You'll wave flags and put on patriotic bumper stickers but really when push comes to shove?

Really, all you care about is your own damned selves.

Hey, that's how you were raised.

I can't blame you for hating Americans ad the American goverment.

You just can't help yourselves.

 

[Navy1960]

And make no mistake, GM is in a horrible bind. That $1.1 billion loss in the first quarter doesn't begin to tell the whole story. The carmaker is saddled with a $1,600-per-vehicle handicap in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits. Any day now, GM is likely to get slapped with a junk-bond rating. GM has lost a breathtaking 74% of its market value -- some $43 billion -- since spring of 2000, giving it a valuation of $15 billion. What really scares investors is that GM keeps losing ground in its core business of selling cars. Underinvestment has left it struggling to catch up in technology and design. Sales fell 5.2% on GM's home turf last quarter as Toyota Motor Corp. (TM ), Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY ), and other more nimble competitors ate GM's lunch. Last month, CEO G. Richard "Rick" Wagoner Jr. and his team gave up even guessing where they'll stand financially at the end of this year.
Why GM's Plan Won't Work

Just a little food for thought here, while not blaming this situation totally on the Union themselves, it did take GM to agree to all those contracts that put them into that situation in the first place.

I'll give you a little example, I do a little bit for the aviation industry, recently the machinist Union at Boeing demanded a new contract, they went back and forth on this contract with Boeing offering a 8 year no strike contract , then the machinist came back and demanded that all aircraft be built in Wa. with Union labor. So Boeing decided to build a new plant in S.C. without Union labor taking the new 3000 jobs with them. While I have nothing against a Union in general , to me it would seem that the first job of a Union should be the empolyment of it's members.

 

[rhodescholar]

Those of you that hate unions?

You must also hate Americans.

Before unions, working Americans were as dirt poor as the third world workers are today.

But I know that's what a LOT of you would like to see happen to American, now, too, isn't it?

You don't have the balls to say it honestly, but you got yours, and you don't really give a fuck about your neighbors or this nation, either.

You'll wave flags and put on patriotic bumper stickers but really when push comes to shove?

Really, all you care about is your own damned selves.

Hey, that's how you were raised.

I can't blame you for hating Americans ad the American goverment.

You just can't help yourselves.

Editec, you are sadly mistaken. Both of my parents were union workers, hell even I was for awhile - but no longer.

My hatred for unions is less so in the private sector, as I said earlier, as a consumer I can always choose to purchase goods/and-or services from a competitor who might be more inefficient, with or without unionized workers. The recent success of unions over the past 3 decades in destroying the steel and auto industries should prove to skeptics that even in the private sector, unions can be dreadful for the continued success of companies.

My real fury is reserved for the public sector unions, who believe the true purpose of government is not to provide services, but jobs for low-skilled, lazy individuals who seek ever higher salaries, free no-copay health coverage for life, and unlimited, ever increasing pensions earned after as little as 20 years of work.

These public unions, whether they be made up of teachers, firemen, civil service, sanitation, police, homeland security - don't we have enough federal agencies already for christ's sake? - etc., makes no difference to me; they are all parasites and all public unions should be IMMEDIATELY dissolved.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Those of you that hate unions?

You must also hate Americans.

Before unions, working Americans were as dirt poor as the third world workers are today.

But I know that's what a LOT of you would like to see happen to American, now, too, isn't it?

You don't have the balls to say it honestly, but you got yours, and you don't really give a fuck about your neighbors or this nation, either.

You'll wave flags and put on patriotic bumper stickers but really when push comes to shove?

Really, all you care about is your own damned selves.

Hey, that's how you were raised.

I can't blame you for hating Americans ad the American goverment.

You just can't help yourselves.

Editec, you are sadly mistaken. Both of my parents were union workers, hell even I was for awhile - but no longer.

My hatred for unions is less so in the private sector, as I said earlier, as a consumer I can always choose to purchase goods/and-or services from a competitor who might be more inefficient, with or without unionized workers. The recent success of unions over the past 3 decades in destroying the steel and auto industries should prove to skeptics that even in the private sector, unions can be dreadful for the continued success of companies.

My real fury is reserved for the public sector unions, who believe the true purpose of government is not to provide services, but jobs for low-skilled, lazy individuals who seek ever higher salaries, free no-copay health coverage for life, and unlimited, ever increasing pensions earned after as little as 20 years of work.

These public unions, whether they be made up of teachers, firemen, civil service, sanitation, police, homeland security - don't we have enough federal agencies already for christ's sake? - etc., makes no difference to me; they are all parasites and all public unions should be IMMEDIATELY dissolved.

The Big Unions did some really great things for the USA and the world. But the day of the Big Union is over, they hurt more than help now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

Kroeger now owns Fred Meyer. They have started a program of firing their most senior employees here in Oregon for even the smallest infraction. I think it is time for all the unions in our nation to start to use their muscle in cases like this.

 

[Old Rocks]

And make no mistake, GM is in a horrible bind. That $1.1 billion loss in the first quarter doesn't begin to tell the whole story. The carmaker is saddled with a $1,600-per-vehicle handicap in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits. Any day now, GM is likely to get slapped with a junk-bond rating. GM has lost a breathtaking 74% of its market value -- some $43 billion -- since spring of 2000, giving it a valuation of $15 billion. What really scares investors is that GM keeps losing ground in its core business of selling cars. Underinvestment has left it struggling to catch up in technology and design. Sales fell 5.2% on GM's home turf last quarter as Toyota Motor Corp. (TM ), Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY ), and other more nimble competitors ate GM's lunch. Last month, CEO G. Richard "Rick" Wagoner Jr. and his team gave up even guessing where they'll stand financially at the end of this year.
Why GM's Plan Won't Work

Just a little food for thought here, while not blaming this situation totally on the Union themselves, it did take GM to agree to all those contracts that put them into that situation in the first place.

I'll give you a little example, I do a little bit for the aviation industry, recently the machinist Union at Boeing demanded a new contract, they went back and forth on this contract with Boeing offering a 8 year no strike contract , then the machinist came back and demanded that all aircraft be built in Wa. with Union labor. So Boeing decided to build a new plant in S.C. without Union labor taking the new 3000 jobs with them. While I have nothing against a Union in general , to me it would seem that the first job of a Union should be the empolyment of it's members.

Yes, I know well about the Boeing situation. A close friend was a Metalurgical Engineer for Boeing when Boeing decided that they could screw over their engineers, since they did not have a real union. Enough engineers struck and walked the lines that Boeing finally had to give in. Then proceeded to outsource much of their engineering.

Now that has worked real well, hasn't it? The wonder company that produced the 737 and the 747 cannot seem to get it's act together for their Dreamliner. Their factory with non-union labor will turn out the same.

 

[Old Rocks]

Those of you that hate unions?

You must also hate Americans.

Before unions, working Americans were as dirt poor as the third world workers are today.

But I know that's what a LOT of you would like to see happen to American, now, too, isn't it?

You don't have the balls to say it honestly, but you got yours, and you don't really give a fuck about your neighbors or this nation, either.

You'll wave flags and put on patriotic bumper stickers but really when push comes to shove?

Really, all you care about is your own damned selves.

Hey, that's how you were raised.

I can't blame you for hating Americans ad the American goverment.

You just can't help yourselves.

Editec, you are sadly mistaken. Both of my parents were union workers, hell even I was for awhile - but no longer.

My hatred for unions is less so in the private sector, as I said earlier, as a consumer I can always choose to purchase goods/and-or services from a competitor who might be more inefficient, with or without unionized workers. The recent success of unions over the past 3 decades in destroying the steel and auto industries should prove to skeptics that even in the private sector, unions can be dreadful for the continued success of companies.

My real fury is reserved for the public sector unions, who believe the true purpose of government is not to provide services, but jobs for low-skilled, lazy individuals who seek ever higher salaries, free no-copay health coverage for life, and unlimited, ever increasing pensions earned after as little as 20 years of work.

These public unions, whether they be made up of teachers, firemen, civil service, sanitation, police, homeland security - don't we have enough federal agencies already for christ's sake? - etc., makes no difference to me; they are all parasites and all public unions should be IMMEDIATELY dissolved.

And I believe any Corperation that pays any of it's officers more than ten times what a skilled employee makes should be immediatly dissolved.