Do you agree with the UAW?

[The_Stache]

But You must take into account the standard of living issue. Toyota can't be calculated into the equation, nor can Honda or any other automaker who has their majority factory-base in a "lower than the US" country.

You have to if your going to compete in the same business environment and survive.

Life and business isn't fair but if you want to still compete you must add in all the facts even if you don't like them. Ultimately its the consumer that dictates what is acceptable.. and so far in the USA its the dollar over American jobs.


Yes, I agree its wrong what other countries are doing by paying outrageously low wages, but again.. the populace supports that action by staying and/or not acting against it..(again different topic)

[Mr. Wyndham]

I guess so. It's just difficult to measure a standard like this(what to pay), on so many different levels, you know? Going Global was both the best, and worst thing that could have happened to this country.

An you misunderstand me. It's not wrong. It's just where their economies are in relation to us. They require less value (forget numbers) to sustain themselves than us, so it's parasitic for us to pay them to make things for us.

Given time, I truly believe that the economical gap between the US and other countries that promotes outsourcing with shrink...and outsourcing won't be as much of an advantage - so to save on shipping/whatnot, US companies will just stay in the US, and Chinese companies will just stay in China... Only time will tell that.


EDIT: You know...I have to say to everybody who posted here...I mean past the 1st page, I didn't read one insult/derogatory comment thrown around. Plus a really intelligent conversation is/was being held here. Unlike some other places I've been sufing today - can't tell you how many arguments are taking place right now all over on this very subject. Getting nothing done, but pissing each other off. I love this site.

[Pencil.Fight]

I agree with just about everything that everyone's been saying, just not with how it's being said.

If we take a step back and look at the big picture, we all share the same goal (the consumers, the UAW, and GM). That goal is for GM to be in business and profitable for as long as possible.

Over the last 10 years, this has looked less and less like an attainable goal. However, GM is a business and they are trying to restructure and retain that profit and market share that they once enjoyed.

It's not a question of whose fault it is that GM was losing money (foreign automakers, GM's poor design choices, or the Union's demands). The only way for this to be worked out for everyone is for the UAW and GM to come together and work for the long-term benefit of the American Auto Industry. The word Union is based on the word "Unity", and that's what it seems like we need a whole lot more of right now.

I'm not going to pretend to know what's going on in the minds of the union negotiators, but it seems to me that the clash is a result of GM's long-term approach and the Union's short term approach. After all, the laborers only real concern is that GM stay in business long enough to support them through retirement, while the GM execs (who don't have to worry about their own pay) are looking much farther to keeping the company in business long past their own time on this earth.

Both sides need to better understand the other. This argument would be over much quicker if each side would stop holding onto their own points so tightly and just try to see it from another point of view. I'm not taking any side in this debate. In my opinion, they're both wrong.

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

EDIT: You know...I have to say to everybody who posted here...I mean past the 1st page, I didn't read one insult/derogatory comment thrown around. Plus a really intelligent conversation is/was being held here. Unlike some other places I've been sufing today - can't tell you how many arguments are taking place right now all over on this very subject. Getting nothing done, but pissing each other off. I love this site.

Hear, Hear!

[Eisenhower]

Car plant 1 is where they're supposed to build the new Camaro

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Car plant 1 is where they're supposed to build the new Camaro

GM Canada closed its Car Plant 1 in Oshawa, Ontario, at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, the second day of the U.S. strike, said Stew Low, public relations director at GM Canada.

...

Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said on Monday that up to 100,000 Canadian workers could be laid off if the U.S. strike drags on.

General Motors itself employs 17,000 workers in Canada who could face layoffs if the strike is prolonged.

In addition, the Canadian autoparts industry employs about 80,000 people and GM buys about half of all the automotive parts manufactured in Canada, Hargrove said.

As many as 40,000 of those autoparts workers could be laid off by Wednesday, he said.

Does Canada have a different meaning for the phrase "lay off", or are they really firing all of the workers?

At first read, it seems that they're just temporarily closing the plants until the strike is settled, but the way this article was written, it almost sounds permanent.

[Eisenhower]

Well, based on what was said, "workers in Canada who could face layoffs if the strike is prolonged". I take that to mean that they wont have a job if the strike continues. Could mean just that. GM may call them back after talks have settled. Maybe a Canadian worker could shed some light the issue.

[unkbd]

Not Canadian but I thought lay off meant you just arent working and could collect unemployment benefits. Then when the company goes back to work you were called back in to resume business as usual.

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by unkbd

Not Canadian but I thought lay off meant you just arent working and could collect unemployment benefits. Then when the company goes back to work you were called back in to resume business as usual.

I'm sure that's what the author of the article meant. He should have said "temporarily laid off". If I heard someone say "I got laid off when the plant closed", I would assume it's time for them to look for a new job. I'd always thought of "laid off" as a nice way of saying "fired".

[TAG UR IT]

IMO, laying off means laying off....FIRED. I doubt they would refer to laying off as a mini-vacation w/out pay.

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

IMO, laying off means laying off....FIRED. I doubt they would refer to laying off as a mini-vacation w/out pay.

That was my thought as well, but there's no way 40,000 people are going to be fired by Wednesday over this... is there?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Hope to hell not!

[TAG UR IT]

I hope not too. But that would be a major typo that more than one person would have to overlook.

[z28camaro2471]

Looks like we can end this. Agreement reached early this morning!