What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.


Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The WRIGHT
WAY"


"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:28:52 -0700, Millwright Ron wrote:

What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.


Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The WRIGHT
WAY"


"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too hard.

I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a twisted
sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.

--
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:28:52 -0700, Millwright Ron wrote:

What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.


Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The WRIGHT
WAY"


"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too hard.

I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a twisted
sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.

You are not alone, and you can be proud for making your statement.

I've told this story before.

I worked in a shop in Utah that was unionized. Utah, being a right to work
state, didn't mandate that I join them, and I didn't. I wanted no part of
them. At every turn, the union workers admonished me to "slow
down"-----not to turn out much work for fear that you might have a bad day
in which you couldn't turn out the number of widgets that the company had
become accustomed to receiving daily-------which, to me, was appalling.
Said another way, put out a poor day's work every day, that way the company
won't have any expectations from you. What kind of moron slows down a
company such that it is in jeopardy of losing money?

I was with this company only five months. The union killed the job, so the
corporation sold the entire operation to Japan. This, by the way, was back
in the mid 60's, which it now appears to have been the beginning of US
employees demanding more money for less output, a negative aspect of unions,
which has been very instrumental in the loss of millions of jobs, all
shipped across the pond because we, in our apparently insatiable stupidity,
can't seem to grasp the concept of no free lunch, or unearned pay.

While I'm now retired, I don't recall ever having the need to have a corrupt
organization represent me. The work I turned out spoke volumes about me,
and my ability. Qualified people don't need a union, their performance
speaks for them.

Harold

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:05:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:28:52 -0700, Millwright Ron wrote:

What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.


Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The WRIGHT
WAY"


"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too hard.

I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a twisted
sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.


And not have to pay some fat rat ******* union knee breaker for the
prevlidge of union seniority when Im low man on the totom pole but
**** loads better then the weinie on top.

Gunner

On Oct 23, 5:21 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:05:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:



On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:28:52 -0700, Millwright Ron wrote:

What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.

Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The WRIGHT
WAY"

"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too hard.

I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a twisted
sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.

And not have to pay some fat rat ******* union knee breaker for the
prevlidge of union seniority when Im low man on the totom pole but
**** loads better then the weinie on top.

Gunner

Funny guys in my primary (non metal) job I'm required to be in the
union for them

I just finished off writing a letter because some dogger during the
day has been busy for two weeks making arragements to test omething i
did two weeks ago. I reamed the guy out for being illiterate then for
being a parrot then fro being "Clairvoyant" then for plain old being a
stupid dog FSCKER. with quotes to back up every accusation.

the Douche in question the company has been trying to fire for 15
years i have "ONLY" 6 years seniority guess who the union has been
crutching along for 20 years

I think Unions are obsolete because most of waht they were needed for
has since become government mandated; at least in my country

Brent
Ottawa Canada

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:28:52 -0700, Millwright Ron wrote:

What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or
benefit. Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The
WRIGHT WAY"


"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too
hard. I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a
twisted sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.

You are not alone, and you can be proud for making your statement.

I've told this story before.

I worked in a shop in Utah that was unionized. Utah, being a right
to work state, didn't mandate that I join them, and I didn't. I
wanted no part of them. At every turn, the union workers
admonished me to "slow down"-----not to turn out much work for fear
that you might have a bad day in which you couldn't turn out the
number of widgets that the company had become accustomed to receiving
daily-------which, to me, was appalling. Said another way, put out a
poor day's work every day, that way the company won't have any
expectations from you. What kind of moron slows down a company such
that it is in jeopardy of losing money?
I was with this company only five months. The union killed the job,
so the corporation sold the entire operation to Japan. This, by the
way, was back in the mid 60's, which it now appears to have been the
beginning of US employees demanding more money for less output, a
negative aspect of unions, which has been very instrumental in the
loss of millions of jobs, all shipped across the pond because we, in
our apparently insatiable stupidity, can't seem to grasp the concept
of no free lunch, or unearned pay.
While I'm now retired, I don't recall ever having the need to have a
corrupt organization represent me. The work I turned out spoke
volumes about me, and my ability. Qualified people don't need a
union, their performance speaks for them.

Harold

I believe there once was a time when unions were of benefit to the
American workforce . I also believe that day is long gone , for just the
reasons you have detailed .
I believe that the union's now are more closely akin to organized crime ,
and their actions no more or less than extortion .
--

Snag aka OSG #1
'90 Ultra , "Strider"
The road goes on forever ...
none to one to reply

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

What kind of moron slows down a
company such that it is in jeopardy of losing money?

Way too many sadly. I want the company I work for to make great gobs of
money, so damn much they don't have any excuses not to share.

Wes

Snag wrote in article
...


I believe that the union's now are more closely akin to organized crime
,
and their actions no more or less than extortion .
--



I just can't wait to see how things go when the UAW takes over the handling
of auto worker pension funds.......per the GM agreement.

Ought to make the whole Enron deal look like shoplifting penny candy.


From my POV, it appears that GM has found a way to finally rid itself of
the unions.......let them screw their members so badly that the membership
rejects unions.

The last time ol' "Millwright Wrong" brought the subject up, someone
pointed out that that union shops - in general - were much more angry
places to work than non-union shops.

My experience would be the same.

Plus, I've made MUCH more money being paid for what I know, and what I can
do, than for how long I've managed to tolerate the bullschidt....

Good luck to the UAW membership.......who will soon see how masterfully
union leadership can skim from retirement funds. Where do you suppose the
UAW president will be building his new retirement home?

Just ask the teamsters - known as the most crooked union in the world.

On Oct 23, 5:37 am, Wes wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:

What kind of moron slows down a
company such that it is in jeopardy of losing money?

Way too many sadly. I want the company I work for to make great gobs of
money, so damn much they don't have any excuses not to share.

Wes

In case you haven't noticed the hard work you're
doing is more likely to wind up as part of a multi-
million dollar bonus to the executive who figured
out how to screw you.

Are people so stupid that they can't see what's
going on around them? There's no reason to
think up elaborate reasons why jobs are going
overseas. Do you imagine some fictitious union
forced the jobs for computer (and etc.) support
to India??? You would have to be delusional to
believe this yet the same tired old canard is
pulled out every time the subject comes up: "It's
the unions that are forcing jobs overseas."

The unions may have caused plenty problems, but
today's business person needs no union to help
continue screwing people over ( ahh, maximizing
their stockholders "return-on-investment), except
as a scapegoat.

dennis
in nca

"*" wrote:

Good luck to the UAW membership.......who will soon see how masterfully
union leadership can skim from retirement funds. Where do you suppose the
UAW president will be building his new retirement home?

Where there is no extradition treaty?

Tim Wescott wrote:


Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too hard.

I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a twisted
sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.


Yeah, you should read "MIG Pilot" by Victor Belenko. Same thing
happened to him in Russia, and he found it extremely discouraging.
It was the beginning of him deciding he had to get out. This kind of
thinking, not by a small group, but by EVERYBODY in the entire country,
is what caused the collapse of the USSR. Oh well, no surprise, that U
in "USSR" stands for union!

Jon

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:28:52 -0700, Millwright Ron wrote:

What a idiot!

***** If brains were cotton. You would not have enough cotton in
your head to make a kotex for a gnats ass! *****

Union definition:
A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit.


Excellence Is A Process Not A Goal To Do Better ..." Do It The WRIGHT
WAY"


"SKILLED ON PRINCIPLE ----- UNION BY CHOICE"

Do you know why they hate Unions in the South? They hated to call a
Black Man Brother... Think about it?

Ron Oliver
Millwright Superintendent
Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It...... 35 years

Army Security Agency 1967 to 1971
Two tours of duty in Vietnam
MOS 33G40
DD214
Member of D.A.V.

Every really hard worker I know who was also once in a union was
threatened with violence by their (union) coworkers for working too hard.

I suppose that's something for a union guy to be proud of, in a twisted
sort of way.

Me? Well, I like to work hard and get rewarded for it.

--
Tim Wescott

That's not always the case. The carpenter's union on Long Island, for
example, worked guys pretty hard. If the contractor didn't like the
production, the carpenter didn't get called back. In addition they would
quite often get screwed by getting laid off before they had enough time in
that year for benefits- of course that meant someone in the union was
getting all the sweet jobs and the cream. But it wasn't such a sweet deal
for every rank and file guy.

Looks like there are a lot of disgrunteled Rooters, Rats, and Scabs
with too much time on their hands.

"Robb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Looks like there are a lot of disgrunteled Rooters, Rats, and Scabs
with too much time on their hands.


Rooter? I haven't heard that one before.

On Oct 23, 9:08 am, "*" wrote:
The last time ol' "Millwright Wrong" brought the subject up, someone
pointed out that that union shops - in general - were much more angry
places to work than non-union shops.

My experience would be the same.

That was me, and since the last time I've had the displeasure of
watching a fairly large factory go union.

It's a slow process once the contract is signed but it's showing,
people who seemed perfectly happy before are now starting to see
"management screwing me" in places that don't make sense.

I always ask my union employees "what would that get me" when they
claim I'm doing some nonsense to screw them. If it doesn't actually
get me anything then why would I take the time to do it?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 23, 9:08 am, "*" wrote:
The last time ol' "Millwright Wrong" brought the subject up, someone
pointed out that that union shops - in general - were much more angry
places to work than non-union shops.

My experience would be the same.

That was me, and since the last time I've had the displeasure of
watching a fairly large factory go union.

It's a slow process once the contract is signed but it's showing,
people who seemed perfectly happy before are now starting to see
"management screwing me" in places that don't make sense.

I always ask my union employees "what would that get me" when they
claim I'm doing some nonsense to screw them. If it doesn't actually
get me anything then why would I take the time to do it?


The very fact that these morons feel a need for a union is a strong enough
message that they "don't get it". My experience with union supporters
lends credence to the idea that they feel they are owed a living simply
because they exist, and are due their share of any and all profits that
might come from their contribution, in spite of the fact that they agreed to
sell their time to their employer for a given fee, their wages. Almost to
the man, none of them appear to make a connection between in earning their
pay, or in receiving pay in keeping with its value.

How is it that union people demand a share of the spoils, but are quick to
jump ship when a company falls on bad times, particularly at the hand of the
damned union(s), perhaps having to close the doors? Where are these people
that demanded unearned pay when the company might need a helping hand?
How many of them have you seen, voluntarily, put in time to save the
company? Their brains don't work like that. They're takers and users, and
will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of living off society.

Union machinists in the general Seattle area are slowly losing that fat cash
cow they've milked for years at Boeing. They've finally pushed management
to the point where they realize that they're far better off having
components made everywhere but here, than dealing with people that demand
money far beyond their value.

I worked as a machinist/toolmaker for most of my productive life, and
realize, all too well, the degree of skill and experience that one must have
to be qualified for the job. These people are worth money, but when they
demand wages in keeping with what a well educated doctor used to make, it's
time to get a reality check. That, or lose their jobs, as it turns out, is
how it's shaking out. Who's fault is it?

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

snip

I worked as a machinist/toolmaker for most of my productive life, and
realize, all too well, the degree of skill and experience that one must
have to be qualified for the job. These people are worth money, but
when they demand wages in keeping with what a well educated doctor used to
make, it's time to get a reality check. That, or lose their jobs, as it
turns out, is how it's shaking out. Who's fault is it?

Harold

Don't get too upset with them, Harold. It's because of them that you were
able to make a living. Unions pushed the whole scale up to new heights for
all people who work, except for white-collar workers, for nearly a century.
And probably for most white-collar workers, too, indirectly.

The trendline without them would have had you scratching for a living.
That's the way it was going before unions really caught hold and there
really is nothing in the historical record to suggest it would have changed.

Now, their work is mostly done, but not completely. I think of them as a
useful annoyance that tend to accelerate a lot of problems that were going
to hell anyway. They've been self-destructing in recent decades but what
they leave in their wake is an expectation that a good worker should be able
to live somewhere in the middle class. That wasn't the case early in the
last century.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

snip

I worked as a machinist/toolmaker for most of my productive life, and
realize, all too well, the degree of skill and experience that one must
have to be qualified for the job. These people are worth money, but
when they demand wages in keeping with what a well educated doctor used
to make, it's time to get a reality check. That, or lose their jobs, as
it turns out, is how it's shaking out. Who's fault is it?

Harold

Don't get too upset with them, Harold. It's because of them that you were
able to make a living. Unions pushed the whole scale up to new heights for
all people who work, except for white-collar workers, for nearly a
century. And probably for most white-collar workers, too, indirectly.

The trendline without them would have had you scratching for a living.
That's the way it was going before unions really caught hold and there
really is nothing in the historical record to suggest it would have
changed.

Now, their work is mostly done, but not completely. I think of them as a
useful annoyance that tend to accelerate a lot of problems that were going
to hell anyway. They've been self-destructing in recent decades but what
they leave in their wake is an expectation that a good worker should be
able to live somewhere in the middle class. That wasn't the case early in
the last century.

--
Ed Huntress


Thanks, Ed. I can always count on you to give me food for thought.

Truth is, I do realize how much good they did----it's just that the monkeys
are now running the zoo, with the real purpose being lost. Like any good
thing, once the crooks figure out there's a free ride, they're in on the
action, and those that still believe there's a free lunch are inclined to
follow.

It's a damned shame that what was once a noble thing has turned into a
dreadful anchor on humanity. As you suggested, however, it appears to be
resolving itself quite nicely.

My early years in the shop, in Utah, were a direct result of unions, or at
least their threat. Thanks to the horrible union problems of the mid
50's, at least on the east coast, Sperry sought a right to work state where
they might found a new business, for development and production of the
Sergeant Missile. They settled on Utah as their choice, and paid wages
that were no less than union scale, with great benefits. The only problems
I can recall, and I was there for 7-1/2 years, were those that you might
encounter anywhere----those with personalities. The company was more than
fair minded, and, as it turns out, was the best employer I was to have in my
limited time working for industry as an employee. It was clear to the vast
majority of workers that a union would serve no good purpose, and would
likely undermine the decent relationship we had with management.

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
et...

snip

I worked as a machinist/toolmaker for most of my productive life, and
realize, all too well, the degree of skill and experience that one must
have to be qualified for the job. These people are worth money, but
when they demand wages in keeping with what a well educated doctor used
to make, it's time to get a reality check. That, or lose their jobs,
as it turns out, is how it's shaking out. Who's fault is it?

Harold

Don't get too upset with them, Harold. It's because of them that you were
able to make a living. Unions pushed the whole scale up to new heights
for all people who work, except for white-collar workers, for nearly a
century. And probably for most white-collar workers, too, indirectly.

The trendline without them would have had you scratching for a living.
That's the way it was going before unions really caught hold and there
really is nothing in the historical record to suggest it would have
changed.

Now, their work is mostly done, but not completely. I think of them as a
useful annoyance that tend to accelerate a lot of problems that were
going to hell anyway. They've been self-destructing in recent decades but
what they leave in their wake is an expectation that a good worker should
be able to live somewhere in the middle class. That wasn't the case early
in the last century.

--
Ed Huntress


Thanks, Ed. I can always count on you to give me food for thought.

Truth is, I do realize how much good they did----it's just that the
monkeys are now running the zoo, with the real purpose being lost. Like
any good thing, once the crooks figure out there's a free ride, they're in
on the action, and those that still believe there's a free lunch are
inclined to follow.

It's a damned shame that what was once a noble thing has turned into a
dreadful anchor on humanity. As you suggested, however, it appears to be
resolving itself quite nicely.

My early years in the shop, in Utah, were a direct result of unions, or
at least their threat. Thanks to the horrible union problems of the mid
50's, at least on the east coast, Sperry sought a right to work state
where they might found a new business, for development and production of
the Sergeant Missile. They settled on Utah as their choice, and paid
wages that were no less than union scale, with great benefits. The only
problems I can recall, and I was there for 7-1/2 years, were those that
you might encounter anywhere----those with personalities. The company was
more than fair minded, and, as it turns out, was the best employer I was
to have in my limited time working for industry as an employee. It was
clear to the vast majority of workers that a union would serve no good
purpose, and would likely undermine the decent relationship we had with
management.

Harold

It looks to me like you recognize the ups and downs, 'though I hope you
realize that the reason Sperry was able to pay you good wages was because
the general wages of industry -- and particularly of their competitors, if
that applies in this case -- had been driven up to those levels by the
unions. They created the expectation, and they also created the competitive
situation in which a non-union employer could afford to pay good wages. This
effect was carried to extremes by the car industry. It had the added feature
of being an oligopoly, so the car makers almost didn't care what they paid
as long as their few competitors had to pay the same wages. Everybody got
loaded, both the companies and the workers.

Today, I think they're mostly an anachronism. But it remains to be seen if
they will play any role in driving up wages in low-wage countries, like
China. It appears to me they already have. If our dollar keeps declining and
Europe becomes a more important market for China, I'll bet that the effect
of Europe's unions will be much stronger than ours at indirectly driving up
Chinese wages. Then our conservative economists, such as Milton Friedman,
will finally be vindicated. We'll have something closer to cost equilibrium
and therefore something closer to fair trade.

Without unions we'd still wind up with cost equilibrium. But the equilibrium
would be just enough to keep you in steamed rice and bicycles.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. net...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
s.net...

snip

I worked as a machinist/toolmaker for most of my productive life, and
realize, all too well, the degree of skill and experience that one must
have to be qualified for the job. These people are worth money, but
when they demand wages in keeping with what a well educated doctor used
to make, it's time to get a reality check. That, or lose their jobs,
as it turns out, is how it's shaking out. Who's fault is it?

Harold

Don't get too upset with them, Harold. It's because of them that you were
able to make a living. Unions pushed the whole scale up to new heights
for all people who work, except for white-collar workers, for nearly a
century. And probably for most white-collar workers, too, indirectly.

The trendline without them would have had you scratching for a living.
That's the way it was going before unions really caught hold and there
really is nothing in the historical record to suggest it would have
changed.

Now, their work is mostly done, but not completely. I think of them as a
useful annoyance that tend to accelerate a lot of problems that were
going to hell anyway. They've been self-destructing in recent decades but
what they leave in their wake is an expectation that a good worker should
be able to live somewhere in the middle class. That wasn't the case early
in the last century.

--
Ed Huntress


Thanks, Ed. I can always count on you to give me food for thought.

Truth is, I do realize how much good they did----it's just that the
monkeys are now running the zoo, with the real purpose being lost. Like
any good thing, once the crooks figure out there's a free ride, they're in
on the action, and those that still believe there's a free lunch are
inclined to follow.

It's a damned shame that what was once a noble thing has turned into a
dreadful anchor on humanity. As you suggested, however, it appears to be
resolving itself quite nicely.

My early years in the shop, in Utah, were a direct result of unions, or
at least their threat. Thanks to the horrible union problems of the mid
50's, at least on the east coast, Sperry sought a right to work state
where they might found a new business, for development and production of
the Sergeant Missile. They settled on Utah as their choice, and paid
wages that were no less than union scale, with great benefits. The only
problems I can recall, and I was there for 7-1/2 years, were those that
you might encounter anywhere----those with personalities. The company was
more than fair minded, and, as it turns out, was the best employer I was
to have in my limited time working for industry as an employee. It was
clear to the vast majority of workers that a union would serve no good
purpose, and would likely undermine the decent relationship we had with
management.

Harold


It looks to me like you recognize the ups and downs, 'though I hope you
realize that the reason Sperry was able to pay you good wages was because
the general wages of industry -- and particularly of their competitors, if
that applies in this case -- had been driven up to those levels by the
unions. They created the expectation, and they also created the competitive
situation in which a non-union employer could afford to pay good wages. This
effect was carried to extremes by the car industry. It had the added feature
of being an oligopoly, so the car makers almost didn't care what they paid
as long as their few competitors had to pay the same wages. Everybody got
loaded, both the companies and the workers.

Today, I think they're mostly an anachronism. But it remains to be seen if
they will play any role in driving up wages in low-wage countries, like
China. It appears to me they already have. If our dollar keeps declining and
Europe becomes a more important market for China, I'll bet that the effect
of Europe's unions will be much stronger than ours at indirectly driving up
Chinese wages. Then our conservative economists, such as Milton Friedman,
will finally be vindicated. We'll have something closer to cost equilibrium
and therefore something closer to fair trade.

Without unions we'd still wind up with cost equilibrium. But the equilibrium
would be just enough to keep you in steamed rice and bicycles.

--
Ed Huntress



The unions just killed another one today. In Newton, Iowa (I think) the
Maytag plant that had been there forever and was the heart of the town,
colsed and moved to a non-union place in Ohio. The plant, according to
the news, employed one in four residents of the small town. Now they
have to scramble to find other employment.

Jim Chandler

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
newsryUi.2503$eD3.566@trnddc03...

snip


The unions just killed another one today. In Newton, Iowa (I think) the
Maytag plant that had been there forever and was the heart of the town,
colsed and moved to a non-union place in Ohio. The plant, according to
the news, employed one in four residents of the small town. Now they have
to scramble to find other employment.

How long do you think it will be before it moves to China? A lot of plants
have sort of hop-scotched to lower-wage areas in the US and then threw in
the towel completely, leaving the country for cheaper operating costs and
wages.

We could solve this problem easily. All we have to do is to eliminate the
minimum wage, outlaw unions, and then tell people they can accept $0.80/hour
(a sort of median wage in China) or suck wind. That's something like the way
things operated here before 1910 or so.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
newsryUi.2503$eD3.566@trnddc03...

snip

The unions just killed another one today. In Newton, Iowa (I think) the
Maytag plant that had been there forever and was the heart of the town,
colsed and moved to a non-union place in Ohio. The plant, according to
the news, employed one in four residents of the small town. Now they have
to scramble to find other employment.


How long do you think it will be before it moves to China? A lot of plants
have sort of hop-scotched to lower-wage areas in the US and then threw in
the towel completely, leaving the country for cheaper operating costs and
wages.

We could solve this problem easily. All we have to do is to eliminate the
minimum wage, outlaw unions, and then tell people they can accept $0.80/hour
(a sort of median wage in China) or suck wind. That's something like the way
things operated here before 1910 or so.

--
Ed Huntress



I made no statement one way or the other. I merely reported what I saw.
The company closed the plant and moved to escape the union. Though it
was not said in that manner, that is what was implied. U.S. companies
cannot continue to pay exhorbitant wages and benefits to people whose
skill is mediocre at best and remain competitive. It is a natural law
of economics. You have to keep your costs down to keep your prices
down. Overly high wages for basically unskilled labor and all the other
"benefits" of employment cost money (believe it or not) and have to be
recovered somehow. That somehow is in the price of the unit. If the
price is too high, the product will not sell and there will be no jobs,
wages or "benefits" for the union workers, or anyone else for that
matter. The unions did a good thing at one time but are now obsolete
and an anchor on American industry, like it or not.

Jim Chandler

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:KlJUi.304$%r.209@trnddc01...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
newsryUi.2503$eD3.566@trnddc03...

snip

The unions just killed another one today. In Newton, Iowa (I think) the
Maytag plant that had been there forever and was the heart of the town,
colsed and moved to a non-union place in Ohio. The plant, according to
the news, employed one in four residents of the small town. Now they
have to scramble to find other employment.


How long do you think it will be before it moves to China? A lot of
plants have sort of hop-scotched to lower-wage areas in the US and then
threw in the towel completely, leaving the country for cheaper operating
costs and wages.

We could solve this problem easily. All we have to do is to eliminate the
minimum wage, outlaw unions, and then tell people they can accept
$0.80/hour (a sort of median wage in China) or suck wind. That's
something like the way things operated here before 1910 or so.

--
Ed Huntress

I made no statement one way or the other. I merely reported what I saw.

Yeah, I realize that. I just posed a question and suggested a solution. d8-)

The company closed the plant and moved to escape the union. Though it was
not said in that manner, that is what was implied.

Sure, it happens a lot.

U.S. companies cannot continue to pay exhorbitant wages and benefits to
people whose skill is mediocre at best and remain competitive.

Here's another key point: If they find themselves in direct competition with
a low-wage overseas manufacturer, they can't remain competitive no matter
what they do. You can't compete with $0.80/hour wages. As GM demonstrated a
few years back, you can crate the technology and the management skills and
ship them to Shanghai, and then build engines for Chevy SUVs that you ship
back to the US. It all happens a lot quicker now.

If a company finds itself in the unfortunate position of competing
directly -- an apparel manufacturer, or a basic steel producer -- the best
thing to do is to get themselves *out* of direct competition, by finding a
niche or a collection of services that overseas competitors can't easily
duplicate. We do better now in steel mini-mill recycling and in specialty
steels than in basic steel. Apparel companies in the US, those few that are
left, specialize in things that move fast and that require acute sensitivity
to local tastes and fashions. And so on.

It is a natural law of economics. You have to keep your costs down to
keep your prices down. Overly high wages for basically unskilled labor
and all the other "benefits" of employment cost money (believe it or not)
and have to be recovered somehow. That somehow is in the price of the
unit. If the price is too high, the product will not sell and there will
be no jobs, wages or "benefits" for the union workers, or anyone else for
that matter.

You have two choices: Try to cut your costs to compete with subsidized
manufacturing and $0.80/hour wages, and watch your company go down the
toilet; or make a change in your business to get out of the line of fire.

Cutting wages isn't going to save your ass. You can't cut them enough to
make any long-term difference.

The unions did a good thing at one time but are now obsolete and an anchor
on American industry, like it or not.

That may be true, but all they're doing regarding trade with low-wage
countries is accelerating the process, as I said. They aren't changing the
nature of the problem.

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

We could solve this problem easily. All we have to do is to eliminate the
minimum wage, outlaw unions, and then tell people they can accept
$0.80/hour (a sort of median wage in China) or suck wind. That's
something like the way things operated here before 1910 or so.

--
Ed Huntress




Here's another key point: If they find themselves in direct competition with
a low-wage overseas manufacturer, they can't remain competitive no matter
what they do. You can't compete with $0.80/hour wages. As GM demonstrated a
few years back, you can crate the technology and the management skills and
ship them to Shanghai, and then build engines for Chevy SUVs that you ship
back to the US. It all happens a lot quicker now.

If a company finds itself in the unfortunate position of competing
directly -- an apparel manufacturer, or a basic steel producer -- the best
thing to do is to get themselves *out* of direct competition, by finding a
niche or a collection of services that overseas competitors can't easily
duplicate. We do better now in steel mini-mill recycling and in specialty
steels than in basic steel. Apparel companies in the US, those few that are
left, specialize in things that move fast and that require acute sensitivity
to local tastes and fashions. And so on.


You have two choices: Try to cut your costs to compete with subsidized
manufacturing and $0.80/hour wages, and watch your company go down the
toilet; or make a change in your business to get out of the line of fire.



--
Ed Huntress

I disagree. The US is manufacturing more than ever. Maybe not as
much as it would be if some industries had not moved to places with
lower costs, but still more than ever.

As far as things as basic steel producer, read " American Steel ". It
is about how Nucor installed the first continuous casting steel
plant. You say there are two choices. Actually there are at least
three. The one you did not mention is getting rid of unskilled
labor. A group of metalheads in Seattle recently toured the Nucor
plant is West Seattle. The plant is highly automated. I forget the
exact number, but I think they have about 18 people working per
shift. All well paid. I know you are going to say Nucor is in the
mini-mill business, but they are the second largest steel company in
America. And the day we toured the plant, they were producing rebar.
A pretty basic product.

Nucor has two plants the make fasteners. Nuts and Bolts. They run
three shifts, but the grave yard shift has zero people working in it.
Look up Nucors web site and see all the things they produce and how
much per employee.

You can compete with $ .80 wages , but only if you are about 25 times
more porductive. There are still a lot of machine shops in the US.
But they do not employ many machinists. They are automated.

What is going to the the real force is that the foreign plants are
eliminating the unskilled labor too. They are automating, educating
more engineers, more quality control people, educating more people in
manufacturing plant management.

I am also not sure how much difference the unions made in increasing
the standard of living in the US. Eli Whitney invented mass
production. Ford the assembly line.
It takes time for things to change, but I think that they would have
changed without the unions. Maybe not as fast, but the change would
have occurred never the less.

It was not the Unions that raised the standard of living. It was the
increased amount of goods manufactured per manhour. Unless more goods
were manufactured, the standard of living would have stayed the same.
Ford understood that the masses had to be able to afford a car in
order to sell millions of cars.


Dan

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

We could solve this problem easily. All we have to do is to eliminate
the
minimum wage, outlaw unions, and then tell people they can accept
$0.80/hour (a sort of median wage in China) or suck wind. That's
something like the way things operated here before 1910 or so.

--
Ed Huntress




Here's another key point: If they find themselves in direct competition
with
a low-wage overseas manufacturer, they can't remain competitive no matter
what they do. You can't compete with $0.80/hour wages. As GM demonstrated
a
few years back, you can crate the technology and the management skills
and
ship them to Shanghai, and then build engines for Chevy SUVs that you
ship
back to the US. It all happens a lot quicker now.

If a company finds itself in the unfortunate position of competing
directly -- an apparel manufacturer, or a basic steel producer -- the
best
thing to do is to get themselves *out* of direct competition, by finding
a
niche or a collection of services that overseas competitors can't easily
duplicate. We do better now in steel mini-mill recycling and in specialty
steels than in basic steel. Apparel companies in the US, those few that
are
left, specialize in things that move fast and that require acute
sensitivity
to local tastes and fashions. And so on.


You have two choices: Try to cut your costs to compete with subsidized
manufacturing and $0.80/hour wages, and watch your company go down the
toilet; or make a change in your business to get out of the line of fire.



--
Ed Huntress

I disagree. The US is manufacturing more than ever. Maybe not as
much as it would be if some industries had not moved to places with
lower costs, but still more than ever.

That's true, but it doesn't tell you anything about the competitiveness of
US manufacturing. The fact is that much of US manufacturing has no
significant competition from low-wage countries, which is the competition we
were talking about. There is no such competition in car assembly (yet),
aerospace (yet), a large part of construction materials, and a variety of
other fields that amount to well over 1/2 of US manufacturing. Where there
is direct competition with low-wage countries, many US manufacturing
industries have all but disappeared -- consumer electronics, textiles,
tabletop consumer appliances and lower-cost goods of many kinds, for
example.


As far as things as basic steel producer, read " American Steel ". It
is about how Nucor installed the first continuous casting steel
plant.

I saw and reported on the continuous casting steel operation at Bethlehem's
Burns Harbor plant almost exactly 30 years ago. Nucor was doing continuous
casting at its mini-mills back in the late '60s. By that time, Japanese
steel mills were using it for most of their production in their primary
steel plants.

I don't know what "American Steel" has to say about it, but that was my beat
in those days. Success in the primary steel industry depends on a lot more
than technology. Anybody can buy the technology today.

Nucor built its business on remelting scrap in mini-mills, which is the kind
of service-enhanced manufacturing I was talking about when I discussed ways
to get out of the line of competition with low-wage countries. The way
economics work in the electric-arc steelmaking business, the cost structure
is entirely different from that of primary (or "basic") steel. It favors
local production and the economies of scale are much smaller than in primary
metal production. Direct labor is a smaller issue compared to warehousing
and shipping costs on that low-value steel. At the high end of the scale,
another set of forces produce a similar result. Thus my mention of specialty
steels as a better target for high-wage, high-technology countries, as
opposed to the high-volume mass market of primary steel.

The trend in primary steel is toward cross-border ownership by a handful of
multinationals who play one country off against another. It's getting very
messy to follow and probably isn't a good example anymore of a given
country's true costs of production.

You say there are two choices. Actually there are at least
three. The one you did not mention is getting rid of unskilled
labor. A group of metalheads in Seattle recently toured the Nucor
plant is West Seattle. The plant is highly automated. I forget the
exact number, but I think they have about 18 people working per
shift. All well paid. I know you are going to say Nucor is in the
mini-mill business, but they are the second largest steel company in
America. And the day we toured the plant, they were producing rebar.
A pretty basic product.

First, I hope you're aware of the difference between a primary steel
producer, which makes basic steel, and an electric-arc-remelt operation like
Nucor. I made clear that I was talking about primary steel, and, if you
noticed, I said that the specialty steel producers (into which we can lump
remelt operations for the purpose of this superficial discussion) are the
more promising ones for the future of the US steel industry.

Nucor does not "make" steel. They remelt scrap, plus some basic ingot steel
they buy from the primary steel manufacturers. Most of what they make is
steel at the low-cost end of the business -- structural steel and the like
that isn't graded by alloy, but rather by a few performance parameters. It's
also true that some high-quality specialty steel is made in mini-mills, but
that's made from remelted primary steel ingots -- many of which come from
foreign primary steel producers.


Nucor has two plants the make fasteners. Nuts and Bolts. They run
three shifts, but the grave yard shift has zero people working in it.
Look up Nucors web site and see all the things they produce and how
much per employee.

Yes, I visited and covered Nucor when I was reporting on the
metals-producing industries. They've been very innovative from the start.


You can compete with $ .80 wages , but only if you are about 25 times
more porductive. There are still a lot of machine shops in the US.
But they do not employ many machinists. They are automated.

Again, you can't compete head-to-head against $0.80/hour wages. The example
I gave of the GM-Shanghai engine manufacturing operation, which makes
engines for the Chevy Equinox, is a good example of how quickly advanced
technology can be transplanted to a low-wage country. There are many other
such examples ranging from Volkswagen to Charmilles EDMs.

As I said, you either have to be in a niche that isn't attractive to
low-wage producers for some reason, or you have to offer some services they
can't. For example, delivery on JIT schedules and in-person engineering
consultations. Communications is a big advantage that US shops and plants
have over cheap competition located halfway around the world.


What is going to the the real force is that the foreign plants are
eliminating the unskilled labor too. They are automating, educating
more engineers, more quality control people, educating more people in
manufacturing plant management.

I am also not sure how much difference the unions made in increasing
the standard of living in the US. Eli Whitney invented mass
production. Ford the assembly line.
It takes time for things to change, but I think that they would have
changed without the unions. Maybe not as fast, but the change would
have occurred never the less.

Not likely. We were headed for a completely divided society and possibly for
the end of anything that resembled democracy. It was the unions that
arguably saved the US from going communist. Karl Marx despised trade unions
because they interfered with the conflict that he (and many other economists
and business leaders of the time) thought was going to build to a crisis
that would result in revolution. One of his mistakes was that he didn't
believe that unions would be successful in improving the lot of workers.


It was not the Unions that raised the standard of living. It was the
increased amount of goods manufactured per manhour. Unless more goods
were manufactured, the standard of living would have stayed the same.

The last part is true. As for the first part, it was unions that led to the
redistribution of wealth such that we wound up with a pretty well-off middle
class of workers. Prior to that time the middle class was a class of
merchants and professionals. If you study the history of the period, it's
pretty clear that nothing else was pushing in that direction.

Ford understood that the masses had to be able to afford a car in
order to sell millions of cars.

His personal effort in that direction actually was a kind of cockeyed idea
that probably added little or nothing to his bottom line, and it wasn't
contagious. g Ford was a very strange guy and an extremely successful one
for many reasons, but I doubt if his one-time doubling of workers' wages had
much to do with it. It's true, though, that he was making products for a
market that needed more money if he was going to be able to sell millions
more cars.

The bottom line on competitiveness with low-wage countries seems to be this:
Many people grossly overestimate how much of our manufacturing really is
vulnerable to low-wage competition, so they're surprised that manufacturing
as a whole actually is growing in the US, should they happen to hear about
it. I'm not surprised at all by it. But I did a lot of reporting on the ups
and downs of US industry and world trade over the years, so I've been close
to the actual numbers.

But it's also true that low-wage competition has wiped out entire segments
of US manufacturing. Our present status is that manufacturing as a whole is
stable or growing slightly, at the same time it's declining as a portion of
our GDP. It's also declining sharply as an employer. The parts of US
manufacturing that are growing most are ones that do not have direct,
head-to-head competition from low-wage countries, either because the US
companies are one step ahead, because they're in a niche that's hard to
attack from the outside, or because they are able to offer services that
only local suppliers can offer.

None of his is anything to get depressed about. Some of it is the result of
our country's industrial maturation. We're quite flexible and our economy is
doing quite well in the long term despite the nibbling away at the edges. We
could do a lot better at easing the hardship for people who get caught in a
trap by sudden influxes of low-cost goods, something for which even the IMF
is highly critical. But our economy as a whole will adjust.

I think it's important not to generalize and to conclude from this that we
can compete in every segment if we're only smart enough and innovative
enough to boost productivity by leaps and bounds. The GM example
demonstrates the fallacy with this argument. Technology can be transferred
in a relative blink of an eye today. In GM's case, it took just over two
years from the zero point to shipping Chevy engines back to us (to Canada,
actually, but the completed SUVs are then shipped to the US for final sale).

Looking at the segments that are successful, and why, has to be considered
at the same time we consider why some good companies have failed in the face
of low-wage competition. It isn't always, or even usually, because they did
something wrong. A lot of them just got stuck between a rock and a hard
place.

And then, from that study and consideration, we have to make smart decisions
about where the opportunities and the traps are in a globalizing economy.
The thing that would be deadly right now would be a lot of self-delusion
that we can compete in any product category if we just try harder. That
generalization isn't true.

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 26, 6:31 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 23, 9:08 am, "*" wrote:
The last time ol' "Millwright Wrong" brought the subject up, someone
pointed out that that union shops - in general - were much more angry
places to work than non-union shops.

My experience would be the same.

That was me, and since the last time I've had the displeasure of
watching a fairly large factory go union.

It's a slow process once the contract is signed but it's showing,
people who seemed perfectly happy before are now starting to see
"management screwing me" in places that don't make sense.

I always ask my union employees "what would that get me" when they
claim I'm doing some nonsense to screw them. If it doesn't actually
get me anything then why would I take the time to do it?

The very fact that these morons feel a need for a union is a strong enough
message that they "don't get it". My experience with union supporters
lends credence to the idea that they feel they are owed a living simply

In most peoples defense. Many people do not have a lot of experience
with Unions, and boy are they slick when selling themselves.

because they exist, and are due their share of any and all profits that
might come from their contribution, in spite of the fact that they agreed to
sell their time to their employer for a given fee, their wages. Almost to
the man, none of them appear to make a connection between in earning their
pay, or in receiving pay in keeping with its value.

I agree with you entirely with the end outcome. In all honesty a
revamp of the laws reguarding the pro/anti union communications
leading up to a vote would probably help fix a lot of things.

By law the company cannot lie to you about things during the run up,
where as the Union can (like in politics) promise anything, lie about
everything, and not follow through.

Unions are just another business, as long as they get their dues
they're happy.

On Oct 29, 6:22 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


I don't know what "American Steel" has to say about it, but that was my beat
in those days. Success in the primary steel industry depends on a lot more
than technology. Anybody can buy the technology today.

Read the book. Anyone can buy the technology today, but not only one
company did in the sixties. Of course if they do buy the technology
they have to pay Nucor for a license in the US.
Nucor built its business on being innovative in building bar joists.
They got into minimills to cut costs for making bar joists.

. Thus my mention of specialty
steels as a better target for high-wage, high-technology countries, as
opposed to the high-volume mass market of primary steel.

Nucor is in the mass market. Did you notice the production of wide
flange beams. 3.7 million tons annually.


First, I hope you're aware of the difference between a primary steel
producer, which makes basic steel, and an electric-arc-remelt operation like
Nucor. I made clear that I was talking about primary steel,

Nucor makes steels that compete with the companies you call primary
steel companies.
Your distinction is like saying that Ford is a primary company and GMC
is a secondary company when they both sell to the same market.




You can compete with $ .80 wages , but only if you are about 25 times
more porductive. There are still a lot of machine shops in the US.
But they do not employ many machinists. They are automated.

Again, you can't compete head-to-head against $0.80/hour wages. The example
I gave of the GM-Shanghai engine manufacturing operation, which makes
engines for the Chevy Equinox, is a good example of how quickly advanced
technology can be transplanted to a low-wage country. There are many other
such examples ranging from Volkswagen to Charmilles EDMs.

So does the GM-Shanghai plant pay $0.80/hour wages?
And why is the AMD Dresden Plant in a high labor cost area?



As I said, you either have to be in a niche that isn't attractive to
low-wage producers for some reason, or you have to offer some services they
can't. For example, delivery on JIT schedules and in-person engineering
consultations. Communications is a big advantage that US shops and plants
have over cheap competition located halfway around the world.

Or you have to figure out a way so that wages are not the major cost.
I wonder what Tom would say about his brush company. He seems to put
a lot of effort into building machines that eliminate labor costs.



What is going to the the real force is that the foreign plants are
eliminating the unskilled labor too. They are automating, educating
more engineers, more quality control people, educating more people in
manufacturing plant management.

I am also not sure how much difference the unions made in increasing
the standard of living in the US. Eli Whitney invented mass
production. Ford the assembly line.
It takes time for things to change, but I think that they would have
changed without the unions. Maybe not as fast, but the change would
have occurred never the less.

Not likely. We were headed for a completely divided society and possibly for
the end of anything that resembled democracy. It was the unions that
arguably saved the US from going communist. Karl Marx despised trade unions
because they interfered with the conflict that he (and many other economists
and business leaders of the time) thought was going to build to a crisis
that would result in revolution. One of his mistakes was that he didn't
believe that unions would be successful in improving the lot of workers.

We won't know where we are going until we get there. Russia and China
started out communistic. But have found that capitalism has some
virtues. I do not believe we are headed for a completely divided
society. There is way too much change in individuals fortunes. Rich
become poor, poor become rich. Intelligence does not exist only in the
rich. And intelligence is a big factor is where one ends up in
society.



It was not the Unions that raised the standard of living. It was the
increased amount of goods manufactured per manhour. Unless more goods
were manufactured, the standard of living would have stayed the same.

The last part is true. As for the first part, it was unions that led to the
redistribution of wealth such that we wound up with a pretty well-off middle
class of workers. Prior to that time the middle class was a class of
merchants and professionals. If you study the history of the period, it's
pretty clear that nothing else was pushing in that direction.

I disagree. Many things were at work. Lots of technical changes. I
mentioned mass production, and the assembly line. But there were so
many other things. Grinding as a way of producing precision parts, a
big change in communications with the telegraph, telephone,radio, then
television. Even things as motion pictures made a difference.
Big opportunities for change. Thousands of things pushing in that
direction. Vacuum tubes, transisters, computers, fiber optics, the
internet. Public schools. Airplanes. Even things as the Lincoln
HIghway going clear across the US.

Unions did not lead to the redistribution of wealth.


His personal effort in that direction actually was a kind of cockeyed idea
that probably added little or nothing to his bottom line, and it wasn't
contagious. g Ford was a very strange guy and an extremely successful one
for many reasons, but I doubt if his one-time doubling of workers' wages had
much to do with it. It's true, though, that he was making products for a
market that needed more money if he was going to be able to sell millions
more cars.

Actually his idea was contagious. That is not the same as saying that
it rapidly was adopted. But it was essentially the idea of a minimum
wage.


But it's also true that low-wage competition has wiped out entire segments
of US manufacturing.

Which payed low wages. Read the thread about doing welding in return
for getting a shed roof. You do not want to keep low wage jobs.



I think it's important not to generalize and to conclude from this that we
can compete in every segment if we're only smart enough and innovative
enough to boost productivity by leaps and bounds. The GM example
demonstrates the fallacy with this argument. Technology can be transferred
in a relative blink of an eye today. In GM's case, it took just over two
years from the zero point to shipping Chevy engines back to us (to Canada,
actually, but the completed SUVs are then shipped to the US for final sale).


So where were the machines made that GM shipped ? Who designed the
machines?
Which are the better things to produce? Engines or factories?


And then, from that study and consideration, we have to make smart decisions
about where the opportunities and the traps are in a globalizing economy.
The thing that would be deadly right now would be a lot of self-delusion
that we can compete in any product category if we just try harder. That
generalization isn't true.

And we should not try to compete is every product category. But we
should try to eliminate low wage jobs in every product category.



--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 29, 6:22 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


I don't know what "American Steel" has to say about it, but that was my
beat
in those days. Success in the primary steel industry depends on a lot
more
than technology. Anybody can buy the technology today.

Read the book. Anyone can buy the technology today, but not only one
company did in the sixties.

What does the 60s have to do with what we're talking about, Dan?

You're arguing for the sake of argument, not to clarify the state of
manufacturing in the US. Who did what first, and where their past glories
come from, is all about where it went. I thought we were talking about where
things are. And my point was that primary steel in the US is not competitive
on the world market. Nucor is a good example of a company that's doing well
because it's *not* competing directly with primary steel. Relative to other
producers, we have much less little basic steel capacity in the US than we
did. And no, rebar is not basic steel. It's a byproduct or a recycled
product. "Basic steel" has a specific meaning in the steel industry.

If you want to discuss that, I'll be glad to. There's nothing to be gained
by arguing about why AMD Dresden isn't competing against low-wage car
builders, or whether an advanced economy can get most of its steel from
scrap.

Just let us know where you're going. The state of US manufacturing is no
mystery if you spend some time watching the trends. As for the history of
it, enjoy your discussion.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
ups.com...
snip--

Unions are just another business, as long as they get their dues
they're happy.


Yes--------happy to live off the misery of others. Who, in their right
mind, would want to be associated with such slugs?

Harold

On Oct 29, 2:38 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...
snip--



Unions are just another business, as long as they get their dues
they're happy.

Yes--------happy to live off the misery of others. Who, in their right
mind, would want to be associated with such slugs?

Dunno, I tend to think of it more as brainwashing than anything.

On Oct 29, 6:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

On Oct 29, 6:22 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't know what "American Steel" has to say about it, but that was my
beat
in those days. Success in the primary steel industry depends on a lot
more
than technology. Anybody can buy the technology today.

Read the book. Anyone can buy the technology today, but not only one
company did in the sixties.

What does the 60s have to do with what we're talking about, Dan?

Hmmm. I thought we were talking about competing with low wage
countries. And my point is that one can not compete with low wage
countries by doing things the same way they do. One has to reduce the
amount of labor. Nucor did this by installing the first continuous
casting facility anywhere. So that is why the sixties have to do with
the discussion. Actually The first continuous casting mill was built
in the late eighties. At the time their goal was to produce a ton of
steel with one manhour of labor. At that rate low wages in some other
countries mean nothing.


You're arguing for the sake of argument, not to clarify the state of
manufacturing in the US. Who did what first, and where their past glories
come from, is all about where it went. I thought we were talking about where
things are. And my point was that primary steel in the US is not competitive
on the world market. Nucor is a good example of a company that's doing well
because it's *not* competing directly with primary steel. Relative to other
producers, we have much less little basic steel capacity in the US than we
did. And no, rebar is not basic steel. It's a byproduct or a recycled
product. "Basic steel" has a specific meaning in the steel industry.

You mean this?

Definition: Steel produced in a furnace in which the hearth consists
of a basic refractory such as dolomite or magnesite, as opposed to
steel melted in a furnace with an acid lining. The basic process
permits the removal of sulphur and phosphorous and in this respect is
superior. Present day BOS and electric arc furnaces use basic
linings.

Sounds like Nucor makes basic steel to me. And if you meant basic,
why did you use primary?

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing anymore than you are. And I
never set out to clarify the state of US manufactuing. I meant to say
that there are ways to compete with low wage companies. And one way
is to reduce the amount of labor to the point that it is
insignificant.


If you want to discuss that, I'll be glad to. There's nothing to be gained
by arguing about why AMD Dresden isn't competing against low-wage car
builders, or whether an advanced economy can get most of its steel from
scrap.

The point about AMD is that they produce microprocessors in one of the
highest pay scale countries. So low wages is not necessarily the most
important thing. But productivity is important.

Dan


Just let us know where you're going. The state of US manufacturing is no
mystery if you spend some time watching the trends. As for the history of
it, enjoy your discussion.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 29, 6:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

On Oct 29, 6:22 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't know what "American Steel" has to say about it, but that was
my
beat
in those days. Success in the primary steel industry depends on a lot
more
than technology. Anybody can buy the technology today.

Read the book. Anyone can buy the technology today, but not only one
company did in the sixties.

What does the 60s have to do with what we're talking about, Dan?

Hmmm. I thought we were talking about competing with low wage
countries. And my point is that one can not compete with low wage
countries by doing things the same way they do.

Well, I think that's what I said in the beginning, isn't it? You can't go
head-to-head against businesses that pay $0.80/hour, I said. And Nucor
doesn't go head-to-head with low-wage steel producers. They have a niche,
which is making steel from scrap in electric-arc furnaces. The US produces
around 55% of its steel that way. China produces 13% of its steel that way.

But the US produces around 95 million metric tons of steel/year, while it
consumes about 125 m tons. Nucor has a niche in which it produces 20 m tons.
It's a large niche, but Nucor and all of the other secondary steel producers
in the US put together only produce less than 45% of the steel we use. Note
that remelted scrap is not of high enough quality for use in car bodies, for
example. They aren't really in that big-volume market, except at the lower
end of the quality scale.

Most of the rest of the steel we use comes from primary producers here and
abroad. Those are the mainstay of the steel industry and those are the ones
from which US-based steelmakers have taken a beating, for decades, until
there are only a few of them left. If you could make all of your domestic
steel from recycled steel, the US primary producers probably wouldn't exist
at all. But you can't. It's a niche that's limited by the availability of
scrap and quality limitations.

However, as I also said, finding niches like that is one of the best ways
for US companies to succeed in a globalized economy. Nucor is a first-class
example of doing it right. If we want more steel production in the US,
however, the newcomers are going to have to find another niche, or new
services, or another way of avoiding head-to-head competition with low-wage
countries.

One has to reduce the
amount of labor. Nucor did this by installing the first continuous
casting facility anywhere.

That's far from being correct, being late by about 50 years, but we won't
quibble about history. d8-)

So that is why the sixties have to do with
the discussion. Actually The first continuous casting mill was built
in the late eighties.

That was the first *thin slab* continuous casting mill. The continuous
casting process was used in advanced countries world-wide by the '60s to
make everything from merchant bars to strip, from BOP furnaces, but again,
no quibbling.

At the time their goal was to produce a ton of
steel with one manhour of labor. At that rate low wages in some other
countries mean nothing.

That's almost twice what the cost models show for both major steelmaking
methods today.

And there's a bigger issue. I explained this better in some articles a few
years ago, but direct labor is a bit of a chimera when it comes to China and
other low-wage countries. (Watch Cliff chime in here, BTW; this is his cue).
The fact is that the whole supply chain is making $0.80/hour, or similarly
low wages, from the guy who loads ore into a freight car to the people who
build the steel mill. These are sometimes called "embedded" costs. Most of
the intermediate steps -- the services and products that contribute to the
final product -- either can't be traded on world markets or aren't, for some
political or economic reason. Thus, the whole cost of production is sharply
lower than that of the US.

It doesn't take long for them to adopt new technologies and they can eat up
your productivity advantage in a hurry, or enough of it that they're
competitive again.

In the case of steel, China may not want to. They need primary production
for their own consumption and they don't want to push for bigger market
shares in sensitive world markets, for fear of provoking protectionism.
Actually, if you remember the early days of the Bush administration, they
already have. We have sort of a Mexican standoff going on with China in
regard to steel right now. They're producing 400 m tons to our 100 m tons,
but they still need more. They're actually net importers of around 13 m
tons/year, but only 0.2 m tons comes from the US (plus Canada and Mexico; I
only have lumped figures for NAFTA.) Interestingly, NAFTA in total only
imports 2.6 m tons/year from China.


You're arguing for the sake of argument, not to clarify the state of
manufacturing in the US. Who did what first, and where their past glories
come from, is all about where it went. I thought we were talking about
where
things are. And my point was that primary steel in the US is not
competitive
on the world market. Nucor is a good example of a company that's doing
well
because it's *not* competing directly with primary steel. Relative to
other
producers, we have much less little basic steel capacity in the US than
we
did. And no, rebar is not basic steel. It's a byproduct or a recycled
product. "Basic steel" has a specific meaning in the steel industry.

You mean this?

Definition: Steel produced in a furnace in which the hearth consists
of a basic refractory such as dolomite or magnesite, as opposed to
steel melted in a furnace with an acid lining. The basic process
permits the removal of sulphur and phosphorous and in this respect is
superior. Present day BOS and electric arc furnaces use basic
linings.

Sounds like Nucor makes basic steel to me. And if you meant basic,
why did you use primary?

If electric-arc furnaces used for remelting cars and tin cans are using
basic refractories, I'm a bit behind. d8-). Junk steel is what used to be
made in the remelt furnaces, and a lot of that was with high-silica ("acid")
linings. When rebar was made from primary steel, it often wound up being
basic by default, because there was nothing much else to sell unless the
phosphorus and sulfur are controlled. So BOFs are lined with basic
refractory. That's how "basic steel" and "primary steel" became virtually
synonymous. But rebar could be pretty foul and still pass the limits on
tensile strength and elongation. There's no need for it to be basic steel.

Sorry about that. I'm out of date on this one.


I am not arguing for the sake of arguing anymore than you are. And I
never set out to clarify the state of US manufactuing. I meant to say
that there are ways to compete with low wage companies. And one way
is to reduce the amount of labor to the point that it is
insignificant.

But direct labor was insignificant to begin with. The Steelonthenet.com cost
model for BOF steelmaking shows $14.40 labor cost for a ton of steel made in
a BOF; $13.00 for one made in an electric-arc furnace. Direct labor runs
less than 5% of the cost of making steel either way.

The cost differences lie elsewhere. When you compare a low-wage country like
China with the US, the big thing is the embedded labor costs in materials
and services, as I described above. And you can't control them except at the
margins. But as I realize now, China is a bad example because we're not
trading much steel. I should have used Latin America, perhaps. If China
needed to export steel and if the US didn't jump back on the protectionist
bandwagon, they'd probably clean our clocks, Nucor or not. China sends us
their steel in the form of cheap finished products. d8-)



If you want to discuss that, I'll be glad to. There's nothing to be
gained
by arguing about why AMD Dresden isn't competing against low-wage car
builders, or whether an advanced economy can get most of its steel from
scrap.

The point about AMD is that they produce microprocessors in one of the
highest pay scale countries. So low wages is not necessarily the most
important thing. But productivity is important.

It's certainly true that low wages, at least as direct labor, is not much of
an issue in modern manufacturing. But embedded labor costs can be. Of
course, like Honda in the US or AMD in Dresden, there can be other economic
factors -- and big political ones -- that are more important.

I think we've come back around to the initial proposition: that in
head-to-head competition, you aren't going to compete with low-wage
countries. The trick is to find a way to avoid going head-to-head in direct
competition. Nucor found a niche and is staying ahead of US competitors with
technology. But it doesn't represent an approach that will satisfy either
the volume or the quality needs of the larger market.

As a sidenote, gathering the figures to clarify these points led me to some
articles on newer things Nucor is doing. They're a technological leader, and
they're taking some interesting angles, such as applying
basic-oxygen-furnace technology to iron carbide converted from iron ore.
What this means in the context of niches versus head-to-head competition
remains to be seen.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 29, 2:38 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...
snip--



Unions are just another business, as long as they get their dues
they're happy.

Yes--------happy to live off the misery of others. Who, in their right
mind, would want to be associated with such slugs?

Dunno, I tend to think of it more as brainwashing than anything.


To me, it appears much like following a religion. People tend to migrate
towards things they want to believe, regardless of how insane their beliefs
may be. Many have convoluted reasoning, and really do think there's a free
lunch, or that they're owed a living. I'd also suggest that many that
support the union do so from need, secure in the knowledge that they
couldn't stand on their own two feet and survive. Many are slackers that
go for the ride, and willingly pay the dues for the protection and wages
promised. I had a different approach. I learned my trade, then applied
it.

Harold

On Oct 30, 2:12 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Hmmm. I thought we were talking about competing with low wage
countries. And my point is that one can not compete with low wage
countries by doing things the same way they do.

Well, I think that's what I said in the beginning, isn't it? You can't go
head-to-head against businesses that pay $0.80/hour, I said. And Nucor
doesn't go head-to-head with low-wage steel producers. They have a niche,
which is making steel from scrap in electric-arc furnaces. The US produces
around 55% of its steel that way. China produces 13% of its steel that way.

But the US produces around 95 million metric tons of steel/year, while it
consumes about 125 m tons. Nucor has a niche in which it produces 20 m tons.
It's a large niche, but Nucor and all of the other secondary steel producers
in the US put together only produce less than 45% of the steel we use. Note
that remelted scrap is not of high enough quality for use in car bodies, for
example. They aren't really in that big-volume market, except at the lower
end of the quality scale.

--
Ed Huntress

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Got to be close if we are
using real facts. The only point I was trying to make is that we can
compete if we reduce the amount of labor so that it is insignificant.
And I agree with the embedded costs, but one has to also consider
shipping costs. So we can live with somewhat higher embedded costs as
they are offset by shipping costs. But we can not compete if we do
things the same way.

The only place where we differ much is that I do not consider Nucor as
operating in a Niche. While you say they are at the low end of the
quality scale, they probably don't agree. For instance they claim
that 10% of their sheet steel is used in automobiles including the
structure. They also sell cold drawn steel bars. As they keep
growing, they are competing more directly with companies that make
steel from ore.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 2:12 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Hmmm. I thought we were talking about competing with low wage
countries. And my point is that one can not compete with low wage
countries by doing things the same way they do.

Well, I think that's what I said in the beginning, isn't it? You can't go
head-to-head against businesses that pay $0.80/hour, I said. And Nucor
doesn't go head-to-head with low-wage steel producers. They have a niche,
which is making steel from scrap in electric-arc furnaces. The US
produces
around 55% of its steel that way. China produces 13% of its steel that
way.

But the US produces around 95 million metric tons of steel/year, while it
consumes about 125 m tons. Nucor has a niche in which it produces 20 m
tons.
It's a large niche, but Nucor and all of the other secondary steel
producers
in the US put together only produce less than 45% of the steel we use.
Note
that remelted scrap is not of high enough quality for use in car bodies,
for
example. They aren't really in that big-volume market, except at the
lower
end of the quality scale.

--
Ed Huntress

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Got to be close if we are
using real facts. The only point I was trying to make is that we can
compete if we reduce the amount of labor so that it is insignificant.
And I agree with the embedded costs, but one has to also consider
shipping costs. So we can live with somewhat higher embedded costs as
they are offset by shipping costs. But we can not compete if we do
things the same way.

The only place where we differ much is that I do not consider Nucor as
operating in a Niche. While you say they are at the low end of the
quality scale, they probably don't agree. For instance they claim
that 10% of their sheet steel is used in automobiles including the
structure.

Keep in mind that car structure doesn't require the same perfection as body
sheet, and, just a notch down, unibody stampings. The Japanese couldn't make
unibodies in high volume, for example, until around 1965 (Datsun 510 was the
first high-volume car they made with a unibody), because their domestic
steel wasn't good enough for it. They used a lot of imported steel for
exterior body panels.

From what I could see, Nucor is still not in the body sheet business. That's
the high end in high-volume steel. But many companies can and do make very
high quality steels in electric arc furnaces, using specially selected scrap
and ingots obtained from primary producers. Nucor may have an
all-liquid-steel operation somewhere, where they take liquid steel from a
BOF and feed it directly into an electric-arc furnace but I didn't check. I
did note that the financial analysts say that Nucor is not in the body-sheet
market at all.

You could argue the niche business either way. In terms of final product,
they are competing directly in the merchant bar and structural shape
markets. And they're beating US primary steel producers on price, which is
why Nucor is flying high. As you say, shipping costs are a big issue in that
segment and lower segments of the steel business, so they're selling well
against everyone in the US market -- for those products.

Electric-arc remelt is a niche that's grown very large, at least in highly
developed countries. Comparing US producers with European countries is tough
because the steel industry is so heavily subsidized, in many indirect as
well as direct ways. But for the short time that China was producing more
than it was consuming it was cleaning *everybody's* clock on prices of
structural shapes, merchant steel, and even on some appliance-quality strip.
The US then loaded on some tariffs, and then the Chinese needed all of their
steel, so we never got to see how that one would play out in the end.

They also sell cold drawn steel bars. As they keep
growing, they are competing more directly with companies that make
steel from ore.

Companies in the US and other advanced countries, yes. And with the Chinese
driving up world scrap prices the way they are, Nucor is more competitive
with companies from other countries, as well. Scrap is the biggest cost in
making remelt steel. And scrap also makes up 30% or more of the metal charge
in BOFs.

I don't know, Dan. Nucor is such an unusual example of several things that
maybe the conclusion is that it's the exception that tests the rule. In
general, it's very tough today to gain a sustainable edge in manufacturing
with technology alone, because technology has become a commodity in most
cases, as with the GM-Shanghai car engine plant, and the many other
multinational car plants, electronics plants, and even machine tool plants
operating there today. They aren't based on US technology, but they have
plenty of German and Japanese machine tool builders operating there,
building machines for Asian consumption.

Likewise, China has electric-arc furnaces making steel. It just doesn't have
enough scrap to use it for more than 13% of their total steel output -- yet.
g They can buy a thin-slab continuous-casting plant from the Germans just
as Nucor did, if they need it. And if they do, all of their embedded costs,
as well as direct labor, will be a fraction of that among most of their
worldwide competitors. That will be true even though their management and
operating efficiency are relatively poor. They make it up with very low
wages.

I meant those original comments as more of a positive thing than they now
sound, because there are many things that US companies can do to prosper. We
started with the fact that US manufacturing actually is growing, or is at
least stable, in terms of volume if not relative to the rest of the economy.
I pointed out that the good companies that have failed in the face of
low-wage competition have been ones that couldn't, or didn't, make changes
to get out of the direct, head-to-head competition with lower wages.
Knitting and weaving mills have a difficult time doing that. For a high-tech
company with a heavy service component to their business, it's much easier.

So the Nucors are welcome and need encouragement, but they aren't going to
do it alone. We've pushed productivity to extraordinary lengths and direct
labor is not much of an issue (7% right now in US car assembly, according to
industry statistics; labor + load is around 14%). But embedded labor costs
usually are a big issue. There are opportunities in some cases to cut costs
for direct competition but the greater opportunities, IMO, are in finding
profitable niches and in adding value through services.

--
Ed Huntress

rigger wrote:

Way too many sadly. I want the company I work for to make great gobs of
money, so damn much they don't have any excuses not to share.

Wes

In case you haven't noticed the hard work you're
doing is more likely to wind up as part of a multi-
million dollar bonus to the executive who figured
out how to screw you.


Actually it is being noticed. Not only am I an employee I'm one of the many
stock holders in both direct stock and in indexed funds.

Investment houses and stockholders have noticed how much of the bottom line
is going to the top line executives.

Wes

On Oct 28, 5:50 pm, " wrote:
On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





We could solve this problem easily. All we have to do is to eliminate the
minimum wage, outlaw unions, and then tell people they can accept
$0.80/hour (a sort of median wage in China) or suck wind. That's
something like the way things operated here before 1910 or so.

--
Ed Huntress

Here's another key point: If they find themselves in direct competition with
a low-wage overseas manufacturer, they can't remain competitive no matter
what they do. You can't compete with $0.80/hour wages. As GM demonstrated a
few years back, you can crate the technology and the management skills and
ship them to Shanghai, and then build engines for Chevy SUVs that you ship
back to the US. It all happens a lot quicker now.

If a company finds itself in the unfortunate position of competing
directly -- an apparel manufacturer, or a basic steel producer -- the best
thing to do is to get themselves *out* of direct competition, by finding a
niche or a collection of services that overseas competitors can't easily
duplicate. We do better now in steel mini-mill recycling and in specialty
steels than in basic steel. Apparel companies in the US, those few that are
left, specialize in things that move fast and that require acute sensitivity
to local tastes and fashions. And so on.

You have two choices: Try to cut your costs to compete with subsidized
manufacturing and $0.80/hour wages, and watch your company go down the
toilet; or make a change in your business to get out of the line of fire.

--
Ed Huntress

I disagree. The US is manufacturing more than ever. Maybe not as
much as it would be if some industries had not moved to places with
lower costs, but still more than ever.

As far as things as basic steel producer, read " American Steel ". It
is about how Nucor installed the first continuous casting steel
plant. You say there are two choices. Actually there are at least
three. The one you did not mention is getting rid of unskilled
labor. A group of metalheads in Seattle recently toured the Nucor
plant is West Seattle. The plant is highly automated. I forget the
exact number, but I think they have about 18 people working per
shift. All well paid. I know you are going to say Nucor is in the
mini-mill business, but they are the second largest steel company in
America. And the day we toured the plant, they were producing rebar.
A pretty basic product.

Nucor has two plants the make fasteners. Nuts and Bolts. They run
three shifts, but the grave yard shift has zero people working in it.
Look up Nucors web site and see all the things they produce and how
much per employee.

You can compete with $ .80 wages , but only if you are about 25 times
more porductive. There are still a lot of machine shops in the US.
But they do not employ many machinists. They are automated.

What is going to the the real force is that the foreign plants are
eliminating the unskilled labor too. They are automating, educating
more engineers, more quality control people, educating more people in
manufacturing plant management.

I am also not sure how much difference the unions made in increasing
the standard of living in the US. Eli Whitney invented mass
production. Ford the assembly line.
It takes time for things to change, but I think that they would have
changed without the unions. Maybe not as fast, but the change would
have occurred never the less.

It was not the Unions that raised the standard of living. It was the
increased amount of goods manufactured per manhour. Unless more goods
were manufactured, the standard of living would have stayed the same.
Ford understood that the masses had to be able to afford a car in
order to sell millions of cars.

Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -





I've seen several posts by certain people who say unions have outlived
their usefulness and are no longer needed.



If you feel this way you're in for a rude awakening some time in the
future. Once the unions are gone you'll see. There have been many
workers that are non-union that have ridden on the coattails of
unions.



Many times the benchmark for workers for wages and benefits have been
union workers, especially the UAW. There is also what is called the
prevailing wage. Many wages in a community are based on benchmarks and
prevailing wages.



Just wait. When all of this is gone we'll all be living in cardboard
boxes like they do in Mexico. If you're a professional person it can
happen to you, too.



This whole deal of illegal immigration, outsourcing - offshoring, H-1B
abuses, and other things will serve to lower everyones wages, even
among the professions. It's just a matter of time. In fact, it's
happening as I write this. Some bigshot somewhere is hatching a plan
to offshore your job or reduce your wages. You can take that one to
the bank!



When this happens who will stand up for you? The government? Hah, Hah.
You'll wish you had a union.

On Nov 3, 9:14 am, Wes wrote:
rigger wrote:
Way too many sadly. I want the company I work for to make great gobs of
money, so damn much they don't have any excuses not to share.

Wes

In case you haven't noticed the hard work you're
doing is more likely to wind up as part of a multi-
million dollar bonus to the executive who figured
out how to screw you.

Actually it is being noticed. Not only am I an employee I'm one of the many
stock holders in both direct stock and in indexed funds.

Investment houses and stockholders have noticed how much of the bottom line
is going to the top line executives.

Wes




It always seems strange why anyone would chose to make less money,less
benefits,less insurance,less retirement,less and less. Just how dumb
does it take... Not to be able to realize the benefits of belong to a
group that looks out for you and your family

Union definition:
"A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of
people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit"

Every doctor,every lawyer,every teacher,every realtor,every police
officer, every professional baseball payer,every professional football
player,every professional basketball player,every professional
umpire,every dentist belongs to a organization or association to that
offers help and support to that individual or group. Our country is
full of professional associations that take dues form their members.

But if a worker joins a group to help themselves.
That person becomes a low life dirty dog. This starts with industry
and people who are ignorant of Unions and of the real work place.

Jobs are moved over seas to the cheapest labor cost and less
government control..... Does that mean that we who work with our
hands,our brains and our hearts have to make third world wages? Does
this mean that we have to work in a unsafe environment? Do we have to
sacrifice our health, our bodies and our loved ones?
There is always someone who will work cheaper, with less safety
and less concern about our environment.
Just look at big business..... The owners of mines,factories and
companies who are fined or arrested each year for pollution,safety
violations,harassment,lying,endangering their employees.
The Coe's that steal hundreds of millions of dollars from their
companies and stock holders. If you think Unions are corrupted? You
hand better take a good look at big business. The IRS does?

Today we need organization of Labor more than ever.

Unions .... "The people who brought you the weekends"

Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It
Ron Oliver

On Nov 7, 4:11 pm, Millwright Ron
wrote:

It always seems strange why anyone would chose to make less money,less
benefits,less insurance,less retirement,less and less. Just how dumb
does it take...

Union Millwright and Damn Proud Of It
Ron Oliver

Exactly why I chose a profession that was not unionized. I wanted
more money, better benefits, and better retirement.

Dan