English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Even if it means some of their "union brothers and sisters lose their jobs?"
http://usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-10-01-gm

Todays article in USA Today states GM may close 2 more plants under deal.
If the Democrats want to run the country this way then would we all lose in the long run. 2 less factories to pay people, jobs lost, less tax revenue.........

2007-10-01 00:28:59 · 21 answers · asked by Moody Red 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Libsticker: You tell the truth very well. We need to hold Michigan up as an example in the state and national elections.

2007-10-01 03:18:54 · update #1

Plezurqui and Tap 158: Good Points, It does boil down to the buck, eh?

2007-10-01 03:23:46 · update #2

A lot of great answers!

2007-10-01 03:24:18 · update #3

Quest_for_truth_gal: Of course corporations will go oversea, I would if I had a corp., and we get another Liberal in office! I would not be able to hire, expand or make profits with increased tax burden. Make sense?

2007-10-02 00:00:15 · update #4

21 answers

Unions see the hand writing on the wall with a shrinking membership and lost of jobs. Because of their heavy handed tactic's by demanding more money more benefits and guaranteed job security or they would strike has come back to bite them in the butt. I will admit that at one time there was a real need for unions to get the workers fair wages and a safer workplace the problem is that once this was accomplished the Unions realized that they had an upper hand in Dealing with big business by going on strike until they got what they wanted knowing full well that the Big Company's would not be paying for it but would pass it along to the Consumer's [That's us People] but now that it has gotten to the point where they can't pass it on the Large Corporations started moving the jobs overseas where they could pay lower wages for labor and get away from the Union tactic's and the Democrat's are in the same position for years their mantra has been tax the rich to pay for programs for the poor of course to them anyone making over 80,000 bucks is rich. What they can't or won't get thru their heads is that taxes kill jobs. As proven by the Bush tax cuts People and company's with more money because of the tax cuts expanded their businesses creating more jobs that in turn provided more tax revenue thru income and payroll taxes. Now if the taxes are raised like the Democrats want then there won't be any money to expand company's and hire new workers so there won't be more taxes paid in while their welfare programs will need more money because of higher unemployment which means they will have to raise taxes again it is a vicious circle that can not have a good out come

2007-10-01 03:05:03 · answer #1 · answered by tap158 4 · 4 0

It is not as simple as going for the almighty dollar. But it sure looks like that.
Being in Michigan, you have probably seen a lot of this, since I know several Michigan stories about Unions. I knew a fellow at work whose father was a Union Baker at the A&P Bakery in Pittsburgh. Just a short while before he would be eligible to retire, the Union went on strike despite the company telling the Union that they were paying as much as they could pay and remain making any money. They would have to close the Bakery if they went on strike. The Union did. The A&P closed the Bakery and my friend's Dad lost his retirement.
There was an aircraft manufacturer based in Michigan. They built single engine airplanes. The company was called Maul Aircraft. The unionized company insisted on more money. Mr. Maul could NOT continue to build airplanes at that price. So, his solution was one of the early forms of out sourcing. He moved his factory to south Georgia and the workers in Michigan lost their jobs.
The high cost of building cars in the USA has caused manufacturers to open plants in Canada, Mexico, and in the southern states where people are NOT locked into a Union mentality. Several foreign manufacturers have built factories in the US. Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, and Honda are some. They make money and their employees make money. The companies who have to deal with the UAW are the only ones having financial problems. I know why. My brother recently retired from Ford. He had worked there over 45 years. His salary with overtime was over $80k a year. What do you reckon he did to earn that money? That is right, he was a janitor. His job was so demanding that he and his fellow janitors formed a book club. He reported sleeping on the job when he got the trash cans emptied and the floor swept.
What is wrong with this picture?

2007-10-01 02:52:12 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 3 0

It took both the Unions and a ridiculously harmful foreign policy (begining in the mid 40's) to create the problems that GM faces today.

Yes, Unions are a huge part of the problem, but the gov't is eating away at the industry from the other side. Added to that, the profit losses have given the accountants too much power causing most GM vehicles to be the same thing with a different shell on top (ie. Ion/Cobalt/G5; Malibu, G6, Aura; Monte Carlo/Grant Prix; Sky/Solstice; Torrent/Vue...you get the point)
__

The real problem is that instead of having a balance of power, like capitalism needs to thrive, we have a constant shift in power. Sometimes business is essentially unrestrained and labor cant fight back, then the tides will change and business is forced to conceded to labor on all fronts. For a business to stay sucessful, you need gradual changes, not constant huge shifts. The problem has three causes; business, labor, and gov't. The only viable solutions will have to come from all three---two working together against the third is what put us where we are today.

2007-10-01 01:01:33 · answer #3 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 3 0

At the end of the day, it's your decision and all people can do is offer their opinion and experience in this situation. Personally, I wouldn't abort as I don't see Down's syndrome as a severe enough disability to justify it. In another two weeks, your baby is viable and stands a good chance of survival outside of the womb. Several babies have survived in neonatal intensive care units from 22 weeks gestation onwards. Whilst there are some health complications sometimes associated with the syndrome, a lot of Downs children live extremely happy lives. I've known several in my life and I can honestly say that they were a lot happier than most of the unaffected children I know. They are also very loving. My mum knows a Downs lady in her late twenties who is actually an actress and has her own home. I would suggest you talk to a counsellor before doing anything drastic as they are impartial and can offer some really good advice. In addition to this, you could go and see your doctor and find out what caring for a child with Downs actually involves. At the end of the day, this is still your baby. Abortion is not something to be taken lightly and can cause you permanent psychological damage. If you decide to continue with your pregnancy, whether it is difficult or not, you will adjust to having a child who needs a little extra care. I hope you manage to reach a decision that you are happy with and wish you all the best for the future.

2016-04-06 22:15:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The best thing that GM could have done for itself was to fire each and every person that walked out on strike. See how well the union gets things done after that LOL!!

Right now the wages being paid by GM are way out of line. From the $6+ million for the axehole in the top slot to the $45 an hour they pay for the idiot that sweeps the floor.

A simple solution for GM would be to fire the entire lot of workers. Hire in individuals and provide them with a contract. Completely remove the union from the picture. Then force the people in the top jobs to work for no more than $250,000 excluding the CEO who would get $750,000. VP positions could pay up to $500,000.

I guarantee you that the price of a GM vehicle would fall by $5000 - $15000 depending on what model it is of course. Not to mention the fact that the company would make a hell of a lot more money.

2007-10-01 00:44:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7 2

There has to be a balance in the Union!
I work in a industry that until the pilots went union, our pay was crap!
The Top dogs made ALL the money! In 5 years of the union coming in..our pay doubled!!!!!!!!!
BTW, I am not a pilot!
Our company is setting the pace for doubling in size and being the best in the business!
The CEO and VP's took advantage of us prior to the union.
But the union needs to know when enough is enough!
The more the company makes, the more for all of us!
Unions can be a positive support for workers, but if they get greedy..(workers) it can destroy all of it!

2007-10-01 00:57:17 · answer #6 · answered by Cajun_Hunter67 2 · 4 2

I think that the Unions are destroying themselves. The times are changing. The issue is that stockholders in publically traded companies start hounding about over comp executives too.

It seems that both unions and upper managements are raiding companies.

2007-10-01 01:53:15 · answer #7 · answered by David_the_Great 7 · 6 0

Outsourcing is easy now that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. Any company that wants to head down to Mexico and hire people at low wages, no benefits, no pollution guidelines, no workmans comp, no OSHA, no employment guidelines and lawsuits and little to no taxes is encouraged to go. In Oakdale California Hershey is closing their plant that employed 500+ people. It is moving to Mexico. Now the Hersheys Chocolate you will eat in the future not only won't come from Pennsylvania, it won't even be made in the U.S.A. Milton Hershey would be rolling in his grave.

2007-10-01 06:12:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I think Unions are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee, or go the way of the dinosaurs. Unions choke the life out of our economy almost as bad as liberal politicians

2007-10-01 01:36:10 · answer #9 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 5 1

Well the Unions certainly have chased the jobs out of Michigan. Here is what Jen (Governor Granholm) did to "solve" the crisis in Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_re_us/michigan_budget

Tax and spend Democrats+ Unions= Economic Disaster. Michigan is dead last in unemployment, and the highest taxed state in America. Think about your vote now Democrats, is this what you want for the rest of America.

2007-10-01 00:45:05 · answer #10 · answered by libsticker 7 · 7 2

fedest.com, questions and answers