PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
bluehdmc;
A couple of quick responses to some of your points, although albeit far from complete.
(1) I *DO* consider it the case that the UAW virtually "twisted" the automakers arms to produce "gas guzzlers". Nor am I alone in that consideration. The fact is, the companies were essentially forced to by an inefficient, cost-ineffective, inflexible union work force to manufacture the most costly type of car in order to simply break even. There wasn't money left over for essential design programs. Nor was there enough efficiency in the work force to make the production of more gas-stingy cars profitable. In essence, the company was left no choice.
(2) As for $4.00/gallon gasoline, I don't really ascribe that to either "gas speculators" or "Wall St". Oh, I guess "speculators" (like UPS, which hedged fuel prices) could be said to contribute to it somewhat...although the general consensus, I believe, is that such "speculation" actually smoothed price variables. However, by far the largest part of the price increase was simple market forces...and that primarily was a function of developing countries - particularly China - diving into the market on their own hook. And there, the unions AGAIN have some responsibility; i.e. - China wouldn't have prospered so quickly, nor have been so rapidly placed in the oil market if Unions hadn't driven the productive JOBS of this country into Chinese hands. I will give the unions credit for helping bring DOWN the price of fuel as well, however...since the deep, DEEP recession they [at least] helped create depressed the market for oil [gasoline] as well, and with it the price.
(3) As far what the Teamsters did in the way of "arm twisting"....again, just what choice did YRCW have? I wrote a little exposition on that topic back a couple of years or so ago when YRCW's stock was at $44 or so, and a Teamster in a another forum was blowing about how such a well-run Teamster organize company was tearing up the world.....pointing out that, with the tremendous pension liability burden resting on YRCW, the ONLY chance they had of making it was by expanding rapidly in order to disperse that liability. Heck, the price of YRCW's trucking company purchases - all of them combined - pales in comparison with the liability imposed up on it by the Teamsters CSPF ALONE...and that's not one bit YRCW's fault; until a couple of months ago, it was ENTIRELY current on it's pension payments. The liability was entirely brought about by the Teamsters.
(4) You mention industries that have gone out of business, and represent [I believe] as a somewhat natural phenomena. However, you mentioned a couple of areas in which I have a particular interest....and peeve. For example, you mentioned the dairy industry. No it just so happens that I followed rather closely a Teamsters strike against a dairy cooperative in the Pacific northwest a few years back....a cooperative composed of family dairy farms. During that strike, I read remark by remark by Teamster after Teamster that, if they didn't get what they wanted, they were going to "shut down" the cooperative owners and deprive them of their farms. And, in truth, several DID go bankrupt. Give me time, I think I could point out industry after industry where the same pattern has been followed.
(5) As for your question of....
"Would you like one of those plants in your neighborhood? Or would you want the govt to clean them up so your children would grow up in a safe area?"
....I think it goes without saying that, if there's no plant in the first place there [or it's equivalent] for "my children" to work in when they grow up, talk about uncertain "safety" considerations is rather a moot plant. Yep, no doubt the SAFEST type of facility is one that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, such a facility offers NO JOBS as well. Got to be a middle ground there. But when unions drive those facilities overseas - as has happened time and time again - you've gone well beyond any "middle ground"; you've destroyed peoples means of making a living.
(6) As for Argentina, "yep", it *IS* the "union's fault". Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but there's been a union movement there over the last few years in which they've expropriated private property and "operated" it for the union's benefit. Of course, even with property they've stolen, the unions have had absolutely no capability in running a profitable operation. Meanwhile, those that DO have such a capability aren't about to invest in a situation where these bozos can steal their investment in a heartbeat. Result? No capital. Yes, high inflation....so the unions enact legislation saying that prices for food are too high, and that farmer are now not allowed to export what they produce, but rather "sell" it locally at far below market prices. What happens then? Why, of course the farmers revolt, and now you've got them standing at the crossroads, guns in hand, fighting off industrial unionists who are trying to steal directly what they produce. Meanwhile, capital has fled the country, as is going to take a LOT of sweet-talking before it's coaxed back. Great situation. And "yes", it *IS* the unions fault.
No, it's not a new mantra. And "no", it's not "all the union's fault". But a damned large part of it is....and I haven't seen a hard-core unionist yet accept ANY responsibility for it.
Have you? *IS* there such a thing as a "responsible unionist" today? My contention is that, until there are, (a) assuming they aren't dealt with more directly, this country is in deep doo-doo, and (b) the so-called "labor movement" will move constantly closer to complete disintergartion.
Essay over!
A couple of quick responses to some of your points, although albeit far from complete.
(1) I *DO* consider it the case that the UAW virtually "twisted" the automakers arms to produce "gas guzzlers". Nor am I alone in that consideration. The fact is, the companies were essentially forced to by an inefficient, cost-ineffective, inflexible union work force to manufacture the most costly type of car in order to simply break even. There wasn't money left over for essential design programs. Nor was there enough efficiency in the work force to make the production of more gas-stingy cars profitable. In essence, the company was left no choice.
(2) As for $4.00/gallon gasoline, I don't really ascribe that to either "gas speculators" or "Wall St". Oh, I guess "speculators" (like UPS, which hedged fuel prices) could be said to contribute to it somewhat...although the general consensus, I believe, is that such "speculation" actually smoothed price variables. However, by far the largest part of the price increase was simple market forces...and that primarily was a function of developing countries - particularly China - diving into the market on their own hook. And there, the unions AGAIN have some responsibility; i.e. - China wouldn't have prospered so quickly, nor have been so rapidly placed in the oil market if Unions hadn't driven the productive JOBS of this country into Chinese hands. I will give the unions credit for helping bring DOWN the price of fuel as well, however...since the deep, DEEP recession they [at least] helped create depressed the market for oil [gasoline] as well, and with it the price.
(3) As far what the Teamsters did in the way of "arm twisting"....again, just what choice did YRCW have? I wrote a little exposition on that topic back a couple of years or so ago when YRCW's stock was at $44 or so, and a Teamster in a another forum was blowing about how such a well-run Teamster organize company was tearing up the world.....pointing out that, with the tremendous pension liability burden resting on YRCW, the ONLY chance they had of making it was by expanding rapidly in order to disperse that liability. Heck, the price of YRCW's trucking company purchases - all of them combined - pales in comparison with the liability imposed up on it by the Teamsters CSPF ALONE...and that's not one bit YRCW's fault; until a couple of months ago, it was ENTIRELY current on it's pension payments. The liability was entirely brought about by the Teamsters.
(4) You mention industries that have gone out of business, and represent [I believe] as a somewhat natural phenomena. However, you mentioned a couple of areas in which I have a particular interest....and peeve. For example, you mentioned the dairy industry. No it just so happens that I followed rather closely a Teamsters strike against a dairy cooperative in the Pacific northwest a few years back....a cooperative composed of family dairy farms. During that strike, I read remark by remark by Teamster after Teamster that, if they didn't get what they wanted, they were going to "shut down" the cooperative owners and deprive them of their farms. And, in truth, several DID go bankrupt. Give me time, I think I could point out industry after industry where the same pattern has been followed.
(5) As for your question of....
"Would you like one of those plants in your neighborhood? Or would you want the govt to clean them up so your children would grow up in a safe area?"
....I think it goes without saying that, if there's no plant in the first place there [or it's equivalent] for "my children" to work in when they grow up, talk about uncertain "safety" considerations is rather a moot plant. Yep, no doubt the SAFEST type of facility is one that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, such a facility offers NO JOBS as well. Got to be a middle ground there. But when unions drive those facilities overseas - as has happened time and time again - you've gone well beyond any "middle ground"; you've destroyed peoples means of making a living.
(6) As for Argentina, "yep", it *IS* the "union's fault". Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but there's been a union movement there over the last few years in which they've expropriated private property and "operated" it for the union's benefit. Of course, even with property they've stolen, the unions have had absolutely no capability in running a profitable operation. Meanwhile, those that DO have such a capability aren't about to invest in a situation where these bozos can steal their investment in a heartbeat. Result? No capital. Yes, high inflation....so the unions enact legislation saying that prices for food are too high, and that farmer are now not allowed to export what they produce, but rather "sell" it locally at far below market prices. What happens then? Why, of course the farmers revolt, and now you've got them standing at the crossroads, guns in hand, fighting off industrial unionists who are trying to steal directly what they produce. Meanwhile, capital has fled the country, as is going to take a LOT of sweet-talking before it's coaxed back. Great situation. And "yes", it *IS* the unions fault.
No, it's not a new mantra. And "no", it's not "all the union's fault". But a damned large part of it is....and I haven't seen a hard-core unionist yet accept ANY responsibility for it.
Have you? *IS* there such a thing as a "responsible unionist" today? My contention is that, until there are, (a) assuming they aren't dealt with more directly, this country is in deep doo-doo, and (b) the so-called "labor movement" will move constantly closer to complete disintergartion.
Essay over!