Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/22/2006 12:04:11 PM EDT
Partially to blame? Discuss.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:07:05 PM EDT
Partially to blame.

Less than inspired designs (Design Teams / Management) + Less than quality workmanship (Unions) = Declining market share of US automakers
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:08:57 PM EDT
Yep, unions have fought for lower production levels so their people didn't have to work as hard, and higher wages that are high enough that the big companies have to find other ways to save money (quality!) to keep their shareholders happy.

union=commie
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:11:08 PM EDT
Not all of their problems, but a decent sized chunk of them.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:13:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 12:13:42 PM EDT by anjan9]
No, they are making vehicles that people don't want and pricing them too high.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:13:32 PM EDT
Part of the problem, but the problem grows daily.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:14:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
Not all of their problems, but a decent sized chunk of them.



+1

Unions = practical Marxism at work

Uhmmm, perhaps the phrase "at work" and "unions" don't really belong together.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:14:50 PM EDT
they and management both deserve blame.

the UAW 'job bank' is the biggest joke around.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:19:48 PM EDT
Toyota's US plants are non-union, and they seem to be doing just fine. What would happen if the big three closed up shop in Michigan and moved to at-will states? Relocating factories sure won't be cheap, and Detroit will become even more of a ghetto because of it, but that may be what they need to survive.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:20:42 PM EDT
Partially.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:23:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:25:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:58:00 PM EDT
Both Management and Unions are to blame. Whenever you hear that it costs GM $1350.00 in retirement and healthcare costs per vehicle remember this. Years ago both GM and Ford were putting aside adequate amounts of money to meet these expenses. Well after awhile they had billions of dollars on the balance sheet that they could not touch becuase it was set aside for retirement funding. Well what did they do? They and a few other companies lobied congress to change the rules on how companies have to save for retirement. They then took this money and invested it in the shitty run of mergers and partnerships in the 90's. GM bought SAAB, and interests in Suzuki, Isuzu and Subaru and a few others. Ford brilliantly bought Jaquar, Volvo, landrover and others spending up all that saved up money plus some.

At the same time, unions, seeing that loads of blue collar jobs are going overseas, brilliantly manuever for higher pay, less hours, kick ass health care driving up the costs and insuring that one day they will price themselves out of work.

Not to be outdone with union stupidity, management keeps spitting out cars that look like shit that no one realy wants to buy. And deciding that sense they can't sell a lot of cars they can build these giant SUVs that drink up gas. Now that is what people wanted to buy but if you are a manufacturer with any kind of sense you could look into the future and see that gas prices are going to rise so instead of plowing money into alternative fuels reseasrch and fuel efficient engines they continue to ignore that trend and build bigger machines.

The one good thing I give to all three of the US manufacturers is that they have shortend the quality gap. In that respect they have done great. The other thing to keep in mind that among all other industries the auto industry has had a host of comebacks in the past. Nissan, Chrysler (twice), volkswaggon and even though they are not in the US Peugot and Renault have been gaining huge marketshares in Europe and have been eying a comeback into the US market. If they do, it will be their third time trying.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:49:04 PM EDT
It's everybody, the union, the management, the purchasers. Think about this: Think about how many good, usable fully functional cars there are in this country sitting on used car lots. Millions. I am not talking about old clunkers. The number would probably stagger the imagination. Yet the car makers keep pumping out new ones like there is no tomorrow. Well guess what. It's tomorrow.

Remember back in the 70's and 80's when you had to get on a waiting list to get a Honda car ? Was that smart growth or lack of planning ? I'm not smart enough to know. Honda is now doing great though. No more waiting lists but still high demand.

rj
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:55:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
www.refugepics.com/members/Pennswoods/aw_jeez.gif


www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=428063

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=431064

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=430639





I'm waiting on the ultimate ARFCOM thread.

"Unions demand Management provide Colt .45's instead of Bushmaster 9mm's".
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:55:49 PM EDT
I've been inside the Ford and GM, and while I can tell you that unions are part of the problem they are not the entire problem.

Management is an enormous part of the problem as well. Both ineptitude and turnover. Management is wasting TONS of money. These companies are constantly changing VPs and Directors and so forth. Every one of them comes in with a strategy to start saving the company a shitload of money and a 5 year plan to do it. Well, two years later that guy is out the door and the jackass replacing him shitcan's the former strategy in favor of his own strategy before any savings can be realized. The result: wasted money on new projects and programs that never get off the ground. Happens all the time and it's cost them MILLIONS!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:01:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Toyota's US plants are non-union, and they seem to be doing just fine. What would happen if the big three closed up shop in Michigan and moved to at-will states? Relocating factories sure won't be cheap, and Detroit will become even more of a ghetto because of it, but that may be what they need to survive.



GM and Ford have plants all over the U.S.. Last night they were talking about closing one in Oklahoma.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:05:44 PM EDT
Oh, yeah.

Did you see the article the other day about the union work pool?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:07:35 PM EDT
yes 1000 times yes!!!!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:09:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Toyota's US plants are non-union, and they seem to be doing just fine. What would happen if the big three closed up shop in Michigan and moved to at-will states? Relocating factories sure won't be cheap, and Detroit will become even more of a ghetto because of it, but that may be what they need to survive.




They have been doing that for decades now.

That "state" is called Mexico.


Unions are a part of the explanation, but the bigger part is inept management at the Big Three over the past 20-30 yearss
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:16:10 PM EDT
My goal in life is to be the 40 yr union Ford worker at the truck plant down the road. 100K/yr to ride around in a golf cart all day, drink coffee, and shoot the shit.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:16:19 PM EDT
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:17:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:18:13 PM EDT
Yep.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:19:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 2:20:05 PM EDT by Will-Rogers]
Management deserves as much blame as the unions. The government also deserves blame for coddling the organized crime families unions. If the mafia unions had to abide by the same laws as the organizations they hate the companies they try to destroy work for, then things would be better.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:28:05 PM EDT
Nope. And I'm not a fan of the 21st century union and am self employed.

Blame the boards of the American car companies that put accountants in leadership roles instead of engineers & marketing people. Accountants can't engineer and don't create product or markets. Think back to when American cars ruled the road, they were run by "car guys" not bean counters. They asked what the market wanted, built it and watched it sell. Do you really think the same guys that brought you the Pony cars and Camaros would have brought us the Citation?

The unions great value then was that they provided a ready and willing work force of trained workers. Unions actually ran schools that provided the company with great employees. Now the only union that I'm aware of that does that is the electrical workers.

The "big 3" gave the market away to the Japanese and are now blaming the unions for their mis-fortune. They should be looking to the suits in the boardrooms for responsibility.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:30:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:14:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



Quality is an assembly issue.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:33:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
People no more don't buy a car cause its union made than they don't buy one because its foreign owned anymore. Despite the BS from bias people most cars these days have about the same total operation and maintence cost so that's really not the problem either.



I don't know anyone who thinks Big Three cars are as reliable as Toyota or Honda (there are exceptions for some things such as Cummins in Dodge trucks).

Now, with respect to design American cars are often better: my Jeep Cherokee is a case in point (although it reflects '88 tech). AMC & MOPAR may have iffy QA, but the 4.0L and the XJ Cherokee were in most respects excellent designs. Mine has 320k and is still running strong. But someone in '88 would have had a better chance of a problem free vehicle if they bought a Toy 4Runner with the 22RE engine. At least for the first 200k. At some point the 22RE overheats and then the aluminum head warps. The Jeep 4.0L will often survive an overheating. Frankly, for my needs the Jeep is the better design, but I lucked out with respect to QA.

I know quite a few people who have had trouble with Ford, and most of them gave up on GM a while ago. I don't know anyone who has bad luck with Toyota or Honda, and more to the point the general opinion is to buy Toy or Honda and "not worry".

Unions are basically efforts to create a labor cartel. They attempt to drive up prices while driving down demands on workers--demands like good QA. Further, the union is interested in rewarding senior union members, not the best workers, who are bucking "the union trend". The results are hardly surprising.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:44:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I've been inside the Ford and GM, and while I can tell you that unions are part of the problem they are not the entire problem.

Management is an enormous part of the problem as well. Both ineptitude and turnover. Management is wasting TONS of money. These companies are constantly changing VPs and Directors and so forth. Every one of them comes in with a strategy to start saving the company a shitload of money and a 5 year plan to do it. Well, two years later that guy is out the door and the jackass replacing him shitcan's the former strategy in favor of his own strategy before any savings can be realized. The result: wasted money on new projects and programs that never get off the ground. Happens all the time and it's cost them MILLIONS!



BINGO!

Toyota has been following the same strategy for over 50 years: Relentlessly drive out waste; build quality in; strive for operational perfection. There is a reason companies the world over try to emulate the Toyota Production System, and not the Ford or GM Production System.

Unions haven't helped, but it is horrible management that got Ford and GM where they are today.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:46:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
BINGO!

Toyota has been following the same strategy for over 50 years: Relentlessly drive out waste; build quality in; strive for operational perfection. There is a reason companies the world over try to emulate the Toyota Production System, and not the Ford or GM Production System.

Unions haven't helped, but it is horrible management that got Ford and GM where they are today.



When Ford, GM, or Chrysler try to drive out waste, they are stonewalled by the unions.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:47:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 5:26:25 PM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



JD Powers surveys consistently ranks most European car makers far behind most US makers in both initial and long term quality. Only Porsche, Mercedes and BMW have quality that ranks above the industry median.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:52:05 PM EDT
Maybe the unions caused hurricane Katrina to hit the Gulf coast. Geez!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 4:59:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
BINGO!

Toyota has been following the same strategy for over 50 years: Relentlessly drive out waste; build quality in; strive for operational perfection. There is a reason companies the world over try to emulate the Toyota Production System, and not the Ford or GM Production System.

Unions haven't helped, but it is horrible management that got Ford and GM where they are today.



When Ford, GM, or Chrysler try to drive out waste, they are stonewalled by the unions.



Plenty of large, unionized companies have succeeded in implementing Lean Manufacturing. Of course, these were companies that stuck with the strategy.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:01:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



JD Powers surveys consistently ranks most European car makers far behind most US makers in both initial and long term quality. Only Mercedes and BMW have quality that ranks above the industry median.



+1 There seems to be a lot of perceptions around here, but not a lot of fact. However perception is what sells.

It looks like more ratings need to be gathered when spewing out opinions as fact.
I have owned 4 different fords and 2 chevys and really haven't had a complaint about any. My neighbors Toyota seems to spend a lot of time in the shop. go figure.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:05:01 PM EDT
Partially to blame. The company is also to blame for not being more profitable. If they would quit looking at short term goals, and looking at the long term. People want a high quality car that lasts a while and is easy to work on. Ford and GM are doing better in the quality department, but their new cars are about impossible to work on without spending a fortune on parts that only come in kits (so that you can't work on it.....you have to take it to the dealer). If they would bring out cars that people will buy the compaines would do better. Ford and GM are loosing ground to the imports because their product sucks in comparison.

Look at toyota. Ford can't compete with toyota in the compact truck department, or the small/midsize sedan department. Toyota has a long history of very reliable cars. Therefore, toyota can charge more per car than ford can, and people will be happy to do it, because they know that in the long run, if they keep that car and pay it off, it will be cheaper than if they buy domestic. The only real market that domestic makers are doing well in is full size trucks, and only really Ford is doing well with the F150. I have one, and it's a well built, good riding, quiet, and well thoughtout truck. I don't know how long it will last (its a 2005).

In short, their models are outdated, but that's not the problem. Their current image is thus:

Cheaper car, built to less exacting standards that doesn't last as long, and is cheaper to fix, but requires more fixing. They have lower resale values and get poorer gas mileage.

IF they can fix this, they might just do better. The unions are not the only ones to blame, the company is by not giving the consumer what they want.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:20:40 PM EDT
Anyone who believes that "all cars" have about the same issues/maintenance/life span, etc....has never spent anytime on AllData (database for car repair). I pulled up my '02 Toyota truck just to see what issues are being reported and maybe have a little insight to what I may have to look forward to. Then I pulled up my wife's '02 Tahoe. The Tahoe has some many F'n issues there were several pages of troubleshooting for frequent issues. While we have been real fortunate to have a Chevy Tahoe that has had very few problems, I have heard from several close friends/relatives that have had plenty of issue with Chevy/GM and Ford products. Its not just statistics. Its facts. US made auto products, in general, lack a certain quality that you get from a Jap or Eur car. I like to think I spend my money wisely.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:26:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



JD Powers surveys consistently ranks most European car makers far behind most US makers in both initial and long term quality. Only Porsche, Mercedes and BMW have quality that ranks above the industry median.


I really don't care what JD Powers says, reality says otherwise.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:03:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:10:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



JD Powers surveys consistently ranks most European car makers far behind most US makers in both initial and long term quality. Only Porsche, Mercedes and BMW have quality that ranks above the industry median.


I really don't care what JD Powers says, reality says otherwise.



Source please?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:43:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By poppinsexz:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



JD Powers surveys consistently ranks most European car makers far behind most US makers in both initial and long term quality. Only Mercedes and BMW have quality that ranks above the industry median.



+1 There seems to be a lot of perceptions around here, but not a lot of fact. However perception is what sells.

It looks like more ratings need to be gathered when spewing out opinions as fact.
I have owned 4 different fords and 2 chevys and really haven't had a complaint about any. My neighbors Toyota seems to spend a lot of time in the shop. go figure.



Your neighbor could have the rare Toyota lemon. Or the situation could be like my wife's parents; no matter the make of car, the vehicles rarely last past 100k. Why? They abuse the vehicles, little or no maintenance (because they "cant" afford it). They've had Toyotas, a Honda, a couple US makes. I doubt any car could survive the abuse they give it.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:01:23 AM EDT
I think that management also has a large part of the blame. Labor contracts are bilateral agreements. It is also managment who decideds what direction the company is to take. Senior management is the group that most opposes change in an organization. The false belief tha worker bees don't like change permeates managment culture. Worker bees just do what they are told to do. They get paid and then go home to their real life. That's the way they see it.

Management however, sees change as pure cost. What that cost will most affect is their bonuses so they take their quarterly bonuses at the cost of long term health of the company. Highly compensated management has no interest in the long term survival of a company. They got theirs and if the company goes under they can still live a comfortable life. Worker bees need the company to survive in order to insure their financial security so they tend to go withteh flow as long as it helps the company, and their jobs survive.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:32:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By poppinsexz:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By sigarkar:
and let's not forget crappy engineering. Most people have gone over to Jap/Euro cars due to quality issues, not assembly issues.

How come the Europeans and Japanese can pay their people very well and turn out a quality product, but the American companies seem to lack reliabilty???



JD Powers surveys consistently ranks most European car makers far behind most US makers in both initial and long term quality. Only Mercedes and BMW have quality that ranks above the industry median.



+1 There seems to be a lot of perceptions around here, but not a lot of fact. However perception is what sells.

It looks like more ratings need to be gathered when spewing out opinions as fact.
I have owned 4 different fords and 2 chevys and really haven't had a complaint about any. My neighbors Toyota seems to spend a lot of time in the shop. go figure.



JD Powers only gets a passing glance from me. Consumer Reports gets my attention. I haven't followed the car quality issue very closely for a few years. I switched to Toyota several years ago and every time i go to buy another vehicle, Toyota still rates at the top of the heap.

As far as some of the European cars go, I have understood that the ratings problems some of them have had is due to their willingness to use new technology which can be sometimes troubling. I have not been aware of any mechanical reliabilty issues.

It's funny how you mention perception vs. fact, then go on to say how you've not had any complaints about your american cars, but your neighbors car seems to spend a lot of time in the shop. Your drawing your opinion from a pretty limited pool of experiences, wouldn't you say?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:39:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 6:50:53 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Yep, unions have fought for lower production levels so their people didn't have to work as hard, and higher wages that are high enough that the big companies have to find other ways to save money (quality!) to keep their shareholders happy.

union=commie



I would love to see you back up even one word of this with facts.

How much experience to have with organized labor yourself?


In reality both management & the union are at fault. Both have become way to greedy and selfish.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:59:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
I think that management also has a large part of the blame. Labor contracts are bilateral agreements.



If you think that, you REALLY don't understand the process.

In ANY legal agreement, coercion makes the agreement null and void.

Management can say "You are fired" and then the employee goes and gets another job.

But when the union says "We're walking out" the management of the company CANNOT get another business.

Unions coerce management and impose their will on management with the threat of shutting down a business - which has IMMENSELY greater implications for often hundreds of thousands of people (i.e. suppliers, vendors, business partners, bankers, investors and all the extended families of people who would be negatively affected by a business shut down) than a union member being canned for his poor performance or blackmail tactics.

As I say, the union slug CAN find another job. Management CANNOT find another business. Labor contracts are ANYTHING but bilateral when a union is involved.

Unions = Marxism. That's the fact.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:01:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Yep, unions have fought for lower production levels so their people didn't have to work as hard, and higher wages that are high enough that the big companies have to find other ways to save money (quality!) to keep their shareholders happy.

union=commie



You are welcome to come work in my shoes for a day. I bet you'd change your mind about not working hard. Every car that runs down that line, I'm running to work on. I don't have time to take a drink of a soda.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:02:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
I think that management also has a large part of the blame. Labor contracts are bilateral agreements.



If you think that, you REALLY don't understand the process.

In ANY legal agreement, coercion makes the agreement null and void.

Management can say "You are fired" and then the employee goes and gets another job.

But when the union says "We're walking out" the management of the company CANNOT get another business.

Unions coerce management and impose their will on management with the threat of shutting down a business - which has IMMENSELY greater implications for often hundreds of thousands of people (i.e. suppliers, vendors, business partners, bankers, investors and all the extended families of people who would be negatively affected by a business shut down) than a union member being canned for his poor performance or blackmail tactics.

As I say, the union slug CAN find another job. Management CANNOT find another business. Labor contracts are ANYTHING but bilateral when a union is involved.

Unions = Marxism. That's the fact.





Get off the soap box and back to reality.

Do you have any expierence with organized labor yourself?

You should be ashamed to post such a BS opinion and stomp around like it's based on a single fact.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:03:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Yep, unions have fought for lower production levels so their people didn't have to work as hard, and higher wages that are high enough that the big companies have to find other ways to save money (quality!) to keep their shareholders happy.

union=commie



You are welcome to come work in my shoes for a day. I bet you'd change your mind about not working hard. Every car that runs down that line, I'm running to work on. I don't have time to take a drink of a soda.



Don't bother, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about in the first place. It's the GD forum for Gods sake.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:11:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 7:16:32 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
I think that management also has a large part of the blame. Labor contracts are bilateral agreements.



If you think that, you REALLY don't understand the process.

In ANY legal agreement, coercion makes the agreement null and void.

Management can say "You are fired" and then the employee goes and gets another job.

But when the union says "We're walking out" the management of the company CANNOT get another business.

Unions coerce management and impose their will on management with the threat of shutting down a business - which has IMMENSELY greater implications for often hundreds of thousands of people (i.e. suppliers, vendors, business partners, bankers, investors and all the extended families of people who would be negatively affected by a business shut down) than a union member being canned for his poor performance or blackmail tactics.

As I say, the union slug CAN find another job. Management CANNOT find another business. Labor contracts are ANYTHING but bilateral when a union is involved.

Unions = Marxism. That's the fact.





Get off the soap box and back to reality.

Do you have any expierence with organized labor yourself?

You should be ashamed to post such a BS opinion and stomp around like it's based on a single fact.



Then go ahead and dispute my points instead of just making assertions about ME, personally. Show where ANYTHING I have said is not factually true.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:12:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Yep, unions have fought for lower production levels so their people didn't have to work as hard, and higher wages that are high enough that the big companies have to find other ways to save money (quality!) to keep their shareholders happy.

union=commie



You are welcome to come work in my shoes for a day. I bet you'd change your mind about not working hard. Every car that runs down that line, I'm running to work on. I don't have time to take a drink of a soda.



Then your union sucks.



How much have you contributed to it?



Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:13:22 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top