-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Interesting take on GM
- Thread starter HGM
- Start date
Quoting from the article,
However, that day is past. The unions accumulated too much power, and squandered it unwisely. They became shortsighted, closed minded and oblivious to all except their ever increasing greed. They regarded companies as never-ending founts from which they could grab as much as they could.
Today, the balance is too far the other way. The pendulum has swung too far. The unions are not only hurting the companies, they're ludicrously biting the hand that feeds them, and setting up conditions to make the entire nation worse. To a large degree, it is Union demands and featherbedding that has driven many jobs and manufacturing off shore.
I not advocate getting rid of unions; I believe there must be some other way to redress their demands and restore some sort of balance. I believe the union structure should remain, because it's entirely possible that the pendulum will swing too far back towards the companies, and the unions will have their time and place, again.
But, I believe it should be set up so that if a company can establish that union demands cannot be met, they should be allowed to seek alternatives. If it can be established that a company could afford to keep its jobs and manufacturing in the country if it could restructure, then they should be required to restructure and keep the jobs. At least somebody in the U.S. would get the job, that way, and we could keep the production capacity.
There are cracks in the Democratic support of Labor. One of the biggest was Bill Clinton's overwhelming support of NAFTA even those his Labor base was against it. This was one of the key indicators (along with reduction in the size of government and a budget surplus) that New Democrats had reached an ascendency in the party, and the old-fashioned "Liberals" were in the descendency.
Now, you might also be against NAFTA and other free trade agreements, but you can't have it both ways. They key to keeping jobs and production capacity is equalization between trading nations. When their wages and production match ours; when their standard of living is within reach of ours; that's when trade becomes a matter of who can do the job the best, not the cheapest. To achieve that equalization, we have to do do things -- help ascending countries raise their standard of living, and let ours slip a little so we're closer together. To do that requires scarifice on BOTH sides -- unions have to loosen their grip, and companies cannot reap obscene profits as a result -- they have to reinvest in innovation.
There was once a day when it was the company which brought labor to its knees by using coercion, violence and intimidation, at the same time allowing the owners to make mountainous profits and build excessive monuments to themselves. At that time, there was a definite place for the union movement. Something had to balance the scales or America would not be the nation it is, today.
However, that day is past. The unions accumulated too much power, and squandered it unwisely. They became shortsighted, closed minded and oblivious to all except their ever increasing greed. They regarded companies as never-ending founts from which they could grab as much as they could.
Today, the balance is too far the other way. The pendulum has swung too far. The unions are not only hurting the companies, they're ludicrously biting the hand that feeds them, and setting up conditions to make the entire nation worse. To a large degree, it is Union demands and featherbedding that has driven many jobs and manufacturing off shore.
I not advocate getting rid of unions; I believe there must be some other way to redress their demands and restore some sort of balance. I believe the union structure should remain, because it's entirely possible that the pendulum will swing too far back towards the companies, and the unions will have their time and place, again.
But, I believe it should be set up so that if a company can establish that union demands cannot be met, they should be allowed to seek alternatives. If it can be established that a company could afford to keep its jobs and manufacturing in the country if it could restructure, then they should be required to restructure and keep the jobs. At least somebody in the U.S. would get the job, that way, and we could keep the production capacity.
There are cracks in the Democratic support of Labor. One of the biggest was Bill Clinton's overwhelming support of NAFTA even those his Labor base was against it. This was one of the key indicators (along with reduction in the size of government and a budget surplus) that New Democrats had reached an ascendency in the party, and the old-fashioned "Liberals" were in the descendency.
Now, you might also be against NAFTA and other free trade agreements, but you can't have it both ways. They key to keeping jobs and production capacity is equalization between trading nations. When their wages and production match ours; when their standard of living is within reach of ours; that's when trade becomes a matter of who can do the job the best, not the cheapest. To achieve that equalization, we have to do do things -- help ascending countries raise their standard of living, and let ours slip a little so we're closer together. To do that requires scarifice on BOTH sides -- unions have to loosen their grip, and companies cannot reap obscene profits as a result -- they have to reinvest in innovation.
