Posted on 09/24/2007 8:33:39 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Edited on 09/24/2007 8:57:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
“The union selects a limited number of facilities to strike.”
Those folks are the ones who will get $200/week, cheated out of earnings for striking. A strike that the UAW won’t fully support, already lowering the standards of living.
Given your scenario, why do you think the UAW chose to strike GM nationwide - every UAW employee at GM is now on strike. Is there something we can infer from this vs if they had struck the way you suggested, as they have done during all other recent strikes?
I fully support right to work. I also support laws that prohibit collective bargaining and strikes in the public sector as well as the repeal of laws that force companies to bargain collectively. I think that we are in agreement on these points.
I think it depends on what banning a union means. Employees can form associations if they want. In the private sector, these associations can try to bargain collectively. If a company does not want to negotiate, the company should not be compelled to bargain and recognize the union.
well, GM’s workforce used to be a lot larger..until they sold off Delphi and the other parts makers.
You’re dreaming. This strike is all about getting us (the US taxpayer) to bail out the UAW retiree plan. The problem is GM can’t afford to keep paying those benefits. They want the government to bail them out. This strike will last long enough for the hard luck stories to start showing up on the evening news, so when the media begins crying for the government to expand into the private retirement care business, there’ll be hardly a peep from the general public.
opps that’s 1,000 jobs
Hmm, very interesting. They still ended up with all of the retirees from those companies on their rolls?
I agree that both the company and union want a taxpayer bailout. I do not see a strike as achieving a bailout. I do not see any possibility of a bailout with Bush as president. However, if the dims control the federal government, a bailout will be made regardless of a strike.
A strike may be an effort by the union leaders not to appear weak. I do not think that GM will add much to the health care fund even after a bitter strike. Union leaders may be more concerned about their jobs and standing among union members than achieving anything at the bargaining table.
Most of their actions point to that very conclusion.
Simple: not every GM plant is UAW represented. Ripple effect impacts other operations as well as any other union or non-union operation that suffers as a result of the UAW represented plants going on strike.
End result: those choosing to strike do so without benefit of state ran workman’s comp support while employes laidoff as a result of lost demand for their services are eligible.
The impact can run very deep.
Big Money;
http://www.unionfacts.com/unions/unionOfficers.cfm?id=233&year=2006
American Nurses Association (ANA)
National Headquarters Officers & Employees
Name Title Total Compensation
Linda Stierle Ceo $ 471,049
Jeanne Floyd Exec $ 285,459
Really? Even with all the other things he's caved on? The guy doesn't seem to have a problem expanding government or spending money. I'm curious as to why you don't think Bush will spend a few billion to bail them out? Seriously, I'm not trying to be contentious. I hope you're right and I hope a conservative gets in in 2008.
Yes, UAW has struck GM nationwide but not all GM plants are UAW. Those plants and other operations, union and nonunion, will eventually feel the impact of this strike.
When impact hits a level resulting in loss of jobs, those individuals become eligible.
Oh how I wish GM would give them 24 hours to return to work or they’d start hiring new non-union employees. If they did that I’d have to go buy a new GM truck. C’mon GM, bust the union. Short term pain, long term gain.
In general I don’t like unions. But unions should not be outlawed, and workers should have the right to strike. Businesses should also have the right to replace them at will.
What you are advocating would lead to a slave class. I view strikes as part of the free market system. The fact that unions get greedy and stupid has no bearing.
When our company staffed 13 power generating plants in Illinois back in 2001 there were no “taco wagons” in hot pursuit. We were provided top notch security and we catered all meals for the employees. I should also note that we had staff from every part of the US, not just the SW. BTW...after 7 months the IBEW caved and took MWG’s original offer.
Bush has shown some strong signs of fiscal discipline. He is opposing SCHIPS and other spending increases. I have not seen any serious bills about a UAW bailout that are making progress in Congress. I have heard talk by dims but nothing that will lead to serious legislation while Bush is in office. In the short run, the UAW bailout demands will be overshadowed by the mortgage situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.