Low class wellfare scum - Page 3

john70t · 01-13-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
On top of that, one has to figure that if they ARE sued, the insurer will probably try and weasel out of paying and even if they do, will probably drop the physician.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6254141.stm
Mabye we can add insurance coverage reform to the very long list. I've driven for over 20 years and never caused an accident, yet I pay over $100/month subsidizing expensive plastic bumpers and bad/agressive drivers.

I'm starting to think the public at large has been desensitized to scandal/etc. to the point that a catastrophy has to happen before that "common sense" community thing kicks in.

turbo6bar · 01-13-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john70t
I'm starting to think the public at large has been desensitized to scandal/etc. to the point that a catastrophy has to happen before that "common sense" community thing kicks in.

Keep the public enthralled with sports and plasma screens, and one need not worry about the real issues.

I shouldn't be one to talk, though. I can't remember the last time I went to a city council meeting. We're all guilty to some extent.

I am not ashamed to admit I hold stock in big healthcare. If my pocket is filled with profits, I can ignore the downsides.

HardDrive · 01-13-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john70t
The state of Michigan needs nothing.
If the company defaults its state taxes or loans and folds, then the factories can be leased out to other companies which are run competantly enough to make a profit on the merits of it's own labor.

My taxes and yours, in entirety, are going to a single private individual(s) who haven't even begun representing a failed company.

Spoken like a man who truely knows nothing about the Michigan economy.

john70t · 01-13-2007, 10:27 AM

Yup HD, very little about macroeconomics I'll admit thx. French was a required course back in high school, economics was not.

The orgin of the argument was from the point of political stance, and who would sway back towards the realitys of the situation.
The reality is that states have to open their beaks up the widest so they will get the treat from the ever-consolidating corporations that are allowed to pick and choose. And not by chance. This has been embeded in US economic law since the robber barrons.
Not a bad thing in terms of efficiency, but it kills the diversity of small business and history has shown big companys fall harder.

This is still a fine example of corporate corruption, though, with taxpayer money going strait into the hands of private business execs, and if Granholm had direct personal or business ties to Ford it would closely mirror the Haliburton situation at the federal level.

I'll be around april 15th, but I think the US in general is in for some long-term hardships with the out of control Heloc's, retraining other countries in our business practices, and a multitude of other planning factors.

john70t · 01-16-2007, 01:19 PM

For those interested, here is an example of Fords customer relations and quality. I'm sure there are plenty of other similar sites that can be found: http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/litigation/ford-story

Joeaksa · 01-16-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
John:

Respectfully:

Go to Cities like Buffalo, Rochester, Schenectady to name a few and see just how quickly manufacturing facilities that have been abandoned are snapped up........

Not.......

Correct and its really sad to see all the empty buildings in this area. Agree with Tim's comments as well and their is no easy answer.

One thing is that we need the big 3 to start building better products, not the replace yearly crap that they have been making the last 30 years.

Superman · 01-17-2007, 07:29 AM

Didn't we just have a conversation about how VW is paying its workers $80K to work 28-hour work weeks? Didn't we notice that VW is kicking Ford and GM's ass up one side of the planet and down the other? Sounds like VW's labor costs are WAY WAY higher than GM's.

Well, ummmmm.....does anyone suspect that maybe, perhaps, there is a thin outside chance that management actually does something in an organization. That perhaps there are variables in play other than those evil workers and their exhorbitant earnings? Heck, if Labor is to blame for the failure of these companies, then I guess two other things must be true. First, Management must have been absent from the bargaining table? Second, Management doesn't do anything (since the failure of a company is dependent on what Labor earns). I'm guessing that if one of these companies does very well, Management gets the credit.

So, let me get this straight. Management earns millions of dollars per year and that is well-earned when the company has good earnings, and well-earned when Management is backed into a corner and must lay off tens of thousands of workers but.....

If the company does poorly then Labor is to blame?

You guys are so smart.

Superman · 01-17-2007, 07:30 AM

Oh, and I guess a minimum wage hike that always perpetually fails to keep up with inflation is bad policy, but throwing millions of dollars at companies to save Management and investors is good policy?

Like I say, you guys seem to have it all figured out. At least.....from the perspective of investors and management.

lendaddy · 01-17-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Didn't we just have a conversation about how VW is paying its workers $80K to work 28-hour work weeks? Didn't we notice that VW is kicking Ford and GM's ass up one side of the planet and down the other? Sounds like VW's labor costs are WAY WAY higher than GM's.

Well, ummmmm.....does anyone suspect that maybe, perhaps, there is a thin outside chance that management actually does something in an organization. That perhaps there are variables in play other than those evil workers and their exhorbitant earnings? Heck, if Labor is to blame for the failure of these companies, then I guess two other things must be true. First, Management must have been absent from the bargaining table? Second, Management doesn't do anything (since the failure of a company is dependent on what Labor earns). I'm guessing that if one of these companies does very well, Management gets the credit.

So, let me get this straight. Management earns millions of dollars per year and that is well-earned when the company has good earnings, and well-earned when Management is backed into a corner and must lay off tens of thousands of workers but.....

If the company does poorly then Labor is to blame?

You guys are so smart.

I'm curious what you think the average UAW worker makes including benefits per year.

After that, we can discuss "labor costs per vehicle", and I'll assume you think VW's is much higher?

Tim Hancock · 01-17-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
I'm curious what you think the average UAW worker makes including benefits per year.

After that, we can discuss "labor costs per vehicle", and I'll assume you think VW's is much higher?

I don't know if Supe's 80k figure at VW is correct or not, but a guy that used to work at my day job as a machinist, reportedly made 150k last year at Ford as a maintenance guy, he also claimed his job is much less stressful compared to when he made 50k working as a machinist at our shop. Union rules allow him to sit around doing nothing a good portion of his day while waiting around for a union electrician or a union controls guy or a union plumber, etc etc to come and remove simple items that the union forbids him to address himself.

Maybe VW can fire non-productive employees for being lazy? (unlike the union protected overpaid UAW guys) Doesn't suprise me that Supe supports a MW hike as it smells the same as overpaid union broom and button pushers at the big three.

While we may agree on several other issues, my idea of fair and Supe's will never coincide when it comes to mandated wages being forced upon businesses by govt or unions.

Unions may have been a good thing back in the child labor days, but now they are only good for driving companies out of business due to the economy being more and more global.

john70t · 01-17-2007, 08:35 AM

Remembering the '97 UPS strike, the Teamsters went "bankrupt" and did nothing for employees(some?). Nothing! We got $25/week from the afl-cio emergency funds.
Ron Carys corruption b.s was the straw in the hat for me.

And yes, there were some employees that sat around on their butt all day, but they were veterans of years of injury/discrimination/etc. legal sparring whom the company didn't want to touch. Everyone else was given 2-3 times the workload for a normal pace.

I thought that unionization was not voted in at some of the new US Honda/Toyota plants because the pay was relative, had health benefits, and managment was responsible and responsive.
No one was in constant fear of managment pulling any major b.s. policy swings on them... so they didn't need "protection". The big three could have learned a lot from that.

Superman · 01-17-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
While we may agree on several other issues, my idea of fair and Supe's will never coincide when it comes to mandated wages being forced upon businesses by govt or unions.

Unions may have been a good thing back in the child labor days, but now they are only good for driving companies out of business due to the economy being more and more global.

I suspect we both believe that our differences are not that great. On the issue of mandated wages such as minimum wage, I honestly have plenty of respect for "market" forces and avoidance of unnecessary regulation, yadda yadda. And frankly, with the exception of Fastpaste, we all know that markets need regulation. We accept that. I hope we don't have to go over it again. Environmental. Labor regs. Bear in mind that labor regs do much of what Labor representatives used to do. In the absence of labor regs, labor unions would be WAY more popular and widely accepted. There are some pretty nasty tricks that companies can play on each other, on labor markets and on consumers. Again, each of us here seems to accept the necessity of regulations, with very few exceptions. The question of whether there should be no wage floor in regulation is alive. I'm not sure you guys would prefer an absence of a regulated wage floor and the mechanisms that would step into that void if the regulation were repealed.

And as far as lazy union folks whose protections are so great that they can sit on their asses and make $150K per year while their employers lay off hundreds of thousands of workers.....well I hope you guys don't think I'm comfortable with that. That'd make me a ridiculous asshat. And maybe that's what I am. But at least I'm a ridiculous asshat who rejects workplace insanity. For the most part.

One more thing. John mentioned Honda and Toyota, and the absence of the union's ability to organize that workforce. Listen up. Quite frankly, my favorite companies are the ones whose regard for and communication with their workers is so good that the workers cannot be convinced that a labor union would be helpful. I think that's great. Again, those are my favorite companies. I smile at that idea. And here's another goofy idea. If I ran a company, this is how I would prefer to behave. And even though I would very likely have a workforce that is comfortable with my approach and disinterested in being in a union, I would still prefer that they be in a union. That way, they would not need to assume, or trust, and I would have a single point of contact. It would give both parties a kind of third-party administrator thing. It would formalize my relationship and dialogue with the workers and help protect both parties. Again, it would be my preference. That's assuming the union leader has integrity.

stevepaa · 01-17-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
I'm curious what you think the average UAW worker makes including benefits per year?

http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/budget/37%205hrUAW.pdf
Pay is 11 to 25 per hour.

and GM paid $3800 per health member.

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/workplace/300_wages/index.html

Superman · 01-17-2007, 10:59 AM

Thanks Steve, but these guys prefer made-up statistics over published facts.

stevepaa · 01-17-2007, 11:02 AM

Now I know an individual can make more by overtime, but I think 150K is not possible unless management has no clue as to how to manage their work load.

Superman · 01-17-2007, 11:11 AM

That's exactly right. If the lazy, freeloading coffee-drinking work avoider is given 40 hours of overtime each week by management, in addition to his regular 40 hours, and if OT is always double-time, then his earnings would be $150,000.

Im thinking about management when I imagine offering 40 overtime hours per week, all year, to the lazy freeloader. I'm thinking that's an interesting managerial decision. Of course, ultimately, it become the union's fault. Management does not control the destiny of companies. Silly.

lendaddy · 01-17-2007, 11:17 AM

Wages and benefits for the average GM worker is well over six figures a year. I believe it is close to $150k but I will get you stats later. Your UAW base sheet is worthless.

stevepaa · 12:02 PM

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aBZUjbUBbXkk&refer=home

GM's UAW workers earn total hourly pay, including benefits and pension, of about $73.73, Flores said. That includes an hourly wage of about $27, he said.

So that's about $150K. The actual pay is maxed at $50k/year w/o overtime. Their max actual take home pay w/o overtime is <$40K. Not highly paid workers.

I am not sure how they get that $73.73 number.

GM has said that pension costs are $38000 per employee and medical is $3800, so that might get you to $96K including all benefits.

lendaddy · 01-17-2007, 11:54 AM

Steve, that's because you don't understand the union black mailed style of stealth raises. These guys get an extra $1.25 an hour if they have proven to be an accomplished nut scratcher, another $2.30 an hour if they pass the test proving proficiency in ass hair braiding, etc.. etc.... I think these are called "certificates" and they are not considered in base wages.

The whole thing is a scam.

stevepaa · 12:03 PM

Well, I can't find any info on those, even from GM news sources, Surely they would use that information to inflate the max pay rate, but that $27 is a GM quote.

There are different pay steps on the wage scales in steps 1-10, I suspect those are for increasing skills.
http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/budget/37%205hrUAW.pdf