Skip to main content

118 replies

UAW question

JankinonyaJankinonyaOld Faithful
Originally Posted by direstraits:
 

 

Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.

 

The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922."

http://www.history.com/this-da...ers-get-40-hour-week

 

______________________

 

I would also like to point out that you just shot yourself in the foot on your argument against raising the minimum wage. 

 

The whole "why pay a higher wage when you can get someone to do the job for less? Its good business to pay what the market demands." Is obviously not the attitude of Henry Ford. One of the most successful business men in the history of our country. Today's corporations should "study a bit more" on how Mr. Ford did it. He understood that a well paid employee is a productive and loyal employee. 

 

Of course Cosco has been proving that for years.
 

 

 

Crash.OverrideCrash.OverrideOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
 

 

Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.

 

The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922."

http://www.history.com/this-da...ers-get-40-hour-week

 

______________________

 

I would also like to point out that you just shot yourself in the foot on your argument against raising the minimum wage. 

 

The whole "why pay a higher wage when you can get someone to do the job for less? Its good business to pay what the market demands." Is obviously not the attitude of Henry Ford. One of the most successful business men in the history of our country. Today's corporations should "study a bit more" on how Mr. Ford did it. He understood that a well paid employee is a productive and loyal employee. 

 

Of course Cosco has been proving that for years.
 

 

 

_________________

one of the most logical posts ever made on these forums...

now, lets see how the regressives respond.

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

there are unconfirmed reports of the VW plant pulling out of Chattanooga. the directors cite the plants vote last week as the main reason.

i wonder how the regressives will spin this so the 'vw plant doesn't want unions'.


Anyone want to take a guess at who is circulating these rumors????

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful

I have not seen Fox TV nor any of the other cable news networks in weeks.  I read the story and from my interpretation of it, and knowing what I know of my friends who live in Germany, what Crash is talking about is something entirely different.  He claims the VM plant wanted a union, but that is not entirely true. Reprensatives of the work council, who are union, wanted a simlar set-up in the US plants.  This was not entirely welcomed and was left up to the US plants to decide.  They decided they did not need it, thanks to actions by both the UAW and the state government, and now the UAW is crying because they lost.  they will continue until they get get 51% of the people to follow their lead.  Then the life will get sucked out of the factory and it will end up just like the northern auto plants.

I have no problem with your "shop" mentality jt. I saw my dad work at a factory when I was young and he complained all the time about the union floor bosses who did nothing. He gave a percentage of his pay every week to the union then came home and worked as hard at home until dark to make up for what he was not making.  however, he managed to make a living, raise two kids and send them to college, and pay his bills.

I then went to work for a similar factory for summer help and it convinced me that was not what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful

"source close to the discussion"

Like I said, I wonder who these sources "might" be???

If VW wants to close it because they did not get the union, then they truly are more stupid than anyone believes.  All they had to do was set ip to begin with.  TN is a right to work state, like most of the south. If VW wanted it in there, the UAW would not have to have spent millions of dollars in a concerted effort to get in.  I would sit back and watch and see what happens.  This is rhetoric from the union portion that runs VW.  Clearer heads will prevail.

 

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful

I have never seen so many lemmings that want to defend an organization that is of no current benefit to the average worker, and who wants to give their money to them.  If it were not so sad, it too would be pitiful.  I have some swamp land to sale if you are desperate to give away a portion of your earnings. 

JankinonyaJankinonyaOld Faithful
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Does any one want to define what "Educated Idiot" means?

___________________________________________
I would begin with anyone who confused US conservatives with National Socialism.

__________________

 

I didn't see Jt do that. However, YOU made the association between the statement made by Hitler and the US conservatives. I think that pretty much says it all.

HIFLYER2HIFLYER2Post Master
Originally Posted by teyates:

I have never seen so many lemmings that want to defend an organization that is of no current benefit to the average worker, and who wants to give their money to them.  If it were not so sad, it too would be pitiful.  I have some swamp land to sale if you are desperate to give away a portion of your earnings. 

 My 3% dues money gets me a 7% retirement B Fund that I could not have by law have unless I was unionized.  The B Fund is entirely funded by the company up to 255K so I always make 4% on my dues money until I go over 255k.  I also still have a normal A Fund that the company has already taken from the non unionized workers because of the same union.  Also my medical has not been cut like the other employees guess why.  I do not see how I give away anything and I also never forget its the company that signs my check.   Like I said not all unions are bad.  Its blanket statements like that from both sides that are crazy.

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful

Then that is a good investment.  But if the employees at the VW plant currently have good benefits and are happy, why should they do this?  The UAW does not have the same track record as your union evidently.

If the VW plant wanted a union shop why would they have invested so much money and build a plant in a "right to work" state?  Makes so common sense.

HIFLYER2HIFLYER2Post Master
Originally Posted by teyates:

Then that is a good investment.  But if the employees at the VW plant currently have good benefits and are happy, why should they do this?  The UAW does not have the same track record as your union evidently.

If the VW plant wanted a union shop why would they have invested so much money and build a plant in a "right to work" state?  Makes so common sense.

I agree they had the vote and it should stand like I said some good and some bad. I simply do not have first hand knowledge of the UAW good or bad.

JankinonyaJankinonyaOld Faithful
Originally Posted by teyates:

Then that is a good investment.  But if the employees at the VW plant currently have good benefits and are happy, why should they do this?  The UAW does not have the same track record as your union evidently.

If the VW plant wanted a union shop why would they have invested so much money and build a plant in a "right to work" state?  Makes so common sense.

______________

 

You know what strikes me in that sentence that I bolded? When unions fought against the" right to work" laws they said it would make it harder for the workers to unionize. The right said that was bs and that all it did was allow workers in union shops opt out of paying for and being in unions. Yet, even you recognize that right to work states make it nearly impossible for workers to unionize. We are seeing the reality of that now. When Governors and state Senators start getting involved in the unionization of a company, trying to effect the outcome of the votes,  it should be a huge red flag that something is terribly wrong.

teyatesteyatesOld Faithful

I don't think so Jank.  The RTW states can still have a union present, but at the same time it also protects the employer.  It should not be a one sided argument, where the union holds all the cards. As an employer I know if I want good people who are willing to work for me I have to treat them right, but I should not be held out to their demands if there are others who can do the same job for the money I am willing to pay.

The controversy comes when the unions will not allow a bad employee to be fired, and we can all admit that this is sometimes the case.  they will be protected by a fellow union buddy, and themployer is stuck with someone who is an obstacle to productivity.  you see it in the just about every union, and one bad apple can spoil the barrel, we all know all it takes is one bad example to ruin it for everyone.

Crash seems to think VW wanted this union, which is ridiculous.  I am sure there are elements of the corporation who want it, but lets look at it objectively.  If they wanted a union why not just create one, why hold a vote? Tell the employees to get together and vote for someone to represent them and sit them on the council.  Why go to all this trouble and create such a hellabaloo?  This is about the UAW trying to break into the south wehre the RTW laws are creating a more favorable environement for manufacturing and assembly. The local governments know that when a business comes to look fo a future site this is one of the things they look at.  It has helped to bring more business to the south.  Why ruin a good thing? 

JankinonyaJankinonyaOld Faithful

Its only a good thing for the employers. Take Caterpillar in Corinth MS. They are a non union shop. The workers on the shop floor make far less than their equals in the Illinois factory. Just as the VW workers in TN don't get paid as much as the VW factories that have unions. RTW states have higher poverty levels and wages are lower than free bargaining states.  

 

Here is a fairly good read on the subject.

http://umaine.edu/ble/files/20...RighttoWork_Laws.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

KP Kenny PowersPost Master
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
 

 

Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.

 

The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922."

http://www.history.com/this-da...ers-get-40-hour-week

 

______________________

 

I would also like to point out that you just shot yourself in the foot on your argument against raising the minimum wage. 

 

The whole "why pay a higher wage when you can get someone to do the job for less? Its good business to pay what the market demands." Is obviously not the attitude of Henry Ford. One of the most successful business men in the history of our country. Today's corporations should "study a bit more" on how Mr. Ford did it. He understood that a well paid employee is a productive and loyal employee. 

 

Of course Cosco has been proving that for years.
 

 

 

That is up for Costco to decide, not the gov't. 

J jtdavisOld Faithful

I worked with and around TVA for 39 years.  Before I got to them, I always heard that it was impossible to get fired from TVA.  In all those years of watching, every time a supervisor or manager had their paper trail correct, somebody got fired.  Every time.  The union wouldn't back them and the EEO couldn't save them.  

direstraitsdirestraitsOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
 

 

Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.

 

The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922."

http://www.history.com/this-da...ers-get-40-hour-week

 

______________________

 

I would also like to point out that you just shot yourself in the foot on your argument against raising the minimum wage. 

 

The whole "why pay a higher wage when you can get someone to do the job for less? Its good business to pay what the market demands." Is obviously not the attitude of Henry Ford. One of the most successful business men in the history of our country. Today's corporations should "study a bit more" on how Mr. Ford did it. He understood that a well paid employee is a productive and loyal employee. 

 

Of course Cosco has been proving that for years.
 

 

 

That is up for Costco to decide, not the gov't. 

_______________________________________________________

Nice try, but no cigar.  As I stated, Ford started the 40-hour work week, not the unions.

Crash.OverrideCrash.OverrideOld Faithful
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
 

 

Henry Ford's Detroit-based automobile company had broken ground in its labor policies before. In early 1914, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment and increasing labor unrest, Ford announced that it would pay its male factory workers a minimum wage of $5 per eight-hour day, upped from a previous rate of $2.34 for nine hours (the policy was adopted for female workers in 1916). The news shocked many in the industry--at the time, $5 per day was nearly double what the average auto worker made--but turned out to be a stroke of brilliance, immediately boosting productivity along the assembly line and building a sense of company loyalty and pride among Ford's workers.

 

The decision to reduce the workweek from six to five days had originally been made in 1922."

http://www.history.com/this-da...ers-get-40-hour-week

 

______________________

 

I would also like to point out that you just shot yourself in the foot on your argument against raising the minimum wage. 

 

The whole "why pay a higher wage when you can get someone to do the job for less? Its good business to pay what the market demands." Is obviously not the attitude of Henry Ford. One of the most successful business men in the history of our country. Today's corporations should "study a bit more" on how Mr. Ford did it. He understood that a well paid employee is a productive and loyal employee. 

 

Of course Cosco has been proving that for years.
 

 

 

That is up for Costco to decide, not the gov't. 

_______________________________________________________

Nice try, but no cigar.  As I stated, Ford started the 40-hour work week, not the unions.

___________________

as i showed with MY FIRST LINK.. the 40 hr work week as an issue across europe in 1866. the idea spread over the next decade.. in 1866 henry ford was 3. by the time the idea had settled, ford was about 13. at what point does it sound like 'ford started the 40 hr. work week'? sounds like ford adopted a successful european idea. STARTED BY THE FIRST UNION. shesh.. how many times do you people have to be shown facts, before they sink in?

direstraitsdirestraitsOld Faithful
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

America was smart enough to allow blue collar wages to stagnate or decrease and CEO pay rose to 400 times what the blue collar gets.  That's real smart isn't it.

_______________________________________

While reading about Switzerland's success, including no minimum wage, although there is a collective bargaining wage, I came across an interesting clue to French socialism.  An upscale, legal House (does that make it one of good repute) has undergone a sea change.  For decades only about 10 percent of the  girls were French. Now, about 70 percent are French, per the Madame (her profession, not her title)  -- another offshoot of President Hollande's socialist policies.

 

So, jtd, you prefer millions of dead?

direstraitsdirestraitsOld Faithful
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

So, jtd, you prefer millions of dead?

 

How in the world did you manage to turn a CEO making 400 times a blue collar worker into millions dead?  Is that right wing logic?  Please explain

________________________________________

My original post:

Started in the US as I said.  Europe has been host to a dozen economic and political belief systems that left misery and mountains of corpses in their wake.  America was smart enough to avoid those. 

 

 Jtd’s post:

America was smart enough to allow blue collar wages to stagnate or decrease and CEO pay rose

to 400 times what the blue collar gets.  That's real smart isn't it.

 

My post:

So, jtd, you prefer millions of dead?

 

 Jtd’s post:

How in the world did you manage to turn a CEO making 400 times a blue collar worker into millions dead?  Is that right wing logic?  Please explain

 

Jtd, it’s a simple progression from your statement.  I found the US’s solutions preferable to that of Europe’s.

 

You asked if the gap between CEO’s pay and worker’s pay was smart. 

 

Since you gave no alternate solution,  I asked if you preferred the traditional European solution.

 

direstraitsdirestraitsOld Faithful
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Both National Socialism and Communism are aberrant heresies of socialism.  Socialism, in turn, is an aberrant heresy of tribalism, with all its fear of those not of the group, passionately held beliefs -- despite facts to the contrary, and illogical taboos.

 

Did you make that up or copy it from something?

Expanded the statement from an old National Review article. 

Previous

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×