Ed Huntress wrote:

But those products are not actually traded that way, partly because there
would be trans-Pacific shipping costs at every step, and it is prohibitive
on low-value products, such as pig iron, for example.
--
Ed Huntress

Wait a minute Ed. If that is the case how come all the shipment
of scrap metals to China? That "should" be the "lowest value"
material going.
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

But those products are not actually traded that way, partly because there
would be trans-Pacific shipping costs at every step, and it is
prohibitive on low-value products, such as pig iron, for example.
--
Ed Huntress

Wait a minute Ed. If that is the case how come all the shipment
of scrap metals to China? That "should" be the "lowest value"
material going.
...lew...

That's a good question, Lew, and it has an answer that's not obvious. It's
because shipping scrap to China is highly discounted -- in order to get
those bottoms and shipping containers back to China, so they can be reloaded
with finished goods and sent back here.

If they charged the full amount to ship scrap to China, it wouldn't be
economical for anyone.

--
Ed Huntress

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...



Workers need a
fair slice of the profits no more and no less.

I agree. And for that, they should put every cent they own into stock,
machinery, and operating costs of the company so they have a REAL slice.

Of reality, that is.

No more and no less.

Steve

Yeah, those people holding GM stock now are a lot smarter than those
deadhead workers, aren't they?

Are those stockholders the ones who are lining up to sell apples on Wall
Street? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Workers need a
fair slice of the profits no more and no less.

I agree. And for that, they should put every cent they own into stock,
machinery, and operating costs of the company so they have a REAL slice.

Of reality, that is.

No more and no less.

Steve

On Dec 14, 9:26*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

However, those labor costs in Ford's supply chain are not Ford's labor
costs, they're the vendors' costs. And most of them are not based on UAW
labor. So who do you blame now?

--
Ed Huntress

Whoa! I thought a few months back you were saying that non-union
wages were greatly a result of union wages. Are you now saying that
is not true?


Dan

wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 9:26 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

However, those labor costs in Ford's supply chain are not Ford's labor
costs, they're the vendors' costs. And most of them are not based on UAW
labor. So who do you blame now?

--
Ed Huntress

Whoa! I thought a few months back you were saying that non-union
wages were greatly a result of union wages. Are you now saying that
is not true?

No. But if those non-union wages can be sustained even without a union
applying pressure to that individual manufacturer, what does that tell you
about the "correct" equilibrium wage rate? The first thing it should tell
anyone is that those high wages must be the result of some forces other than
union coercion. If the company is non-union, then paying high wages must be
the result of external market forces, correct?

Of course, you may say that the union wage rate paid by the customer sets
the bar higher, that it is that high bar that is the "external market
force," but there's no reason that should be unless there is a labor
shortage. No organized force stronger than the employer is setting the wage.
So it must be something else that's determining the equilibrium. (By
"equilibrium" I'm not suggesting a static condition of the economy, but
rather an approximate numerical relationship between wages and earnings on
capital, one around which the relationship hovers as an economy grows or
contracts.)

Here's the something else that I concluded a long time ago, and which seems
to be as true today as it was 40 years ago: There is no natural equilibrium
wage rate, despite Harold's assurance that there is a correct rate and an
incorrect one. g There are many possible equilibria. In general, higher
wages mean less profit *margin on sales* for the manufacturer, but higher
wages also means greater demand, so the manufacturer (in general, all
manufacturers in that economy) are benefiting from the higher wages all the
other manufacturers are paying -- even the ones they're paying themselves.
Their total profit may indeed wind up being higher if they pay higher wages,
or at least if all employers pay higher wages, in a sort of reverse twist on
supply-side theory. Thus, Henry Ford and his doubling of wages, to help turn
his employees into customers.

What I said about non-union wages being the result of union wages means
this: Without a union, the equilibrium point will be set as low as the
employer can get away with. But the employer is playing a Prisoner's Dilemma
game. He's benefiting from the customers he has as a result of *other*
employers paying high rates. If a broadly effective coercive force, such as
a big union, forces wages up to a new equilibrium state, everyone may
benefit. In any case, non-union companies soon will have to pay higher wages
because that's where the new economic equilibrium lies, and the whole
economy has adjusted to accommodate it. Even if there isn't a labor
shortage, paying lower wages will attract lower-quality employees, and
they'll be poorly motivated. That's how unions help drive up wages in
non-union companies. Except in times of real labor shortages, it's all
indirect.

Of course, they can do so more directly if there is a labor shortage and
employees will just take the higher-paying jobs, leaving the non-union
company short of employees. But true labor shortages are few in the
industrial and post-industrial economies around the world.

There is a balance that must exist between enabling consumption and
retaining earnings for investment -- or for paying off debt acquired to make
investments -- but it's much higher, in terms of wages paid, than the system
settles into without unions. Economists have known this for over 100 years.
Some people just haven't gotten it yet. And global competition keeps setting
it back, forcing us to learn those things all over again.

We can settle ourselves into many possible equilibrium states. But
individual businesses, each playing the Prisoner's Dilemma game for its own
benefit, force the equilibrium to a very low state. They need a balancing
force with real coercive power to raise wages, reduce wage spreads, and
drive consumption. Otherwise, there's no reason for anyone to invest more
than a bare minimum above maintenance. Entrepreneurship dies on the vine if
there isn't sufficient consumption potential to make the entrepreneurs'
ideas thrive.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:26:26 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:26:26 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


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

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip--------


That's typical. Even when everyone knows that the reason the "Big 3"
are
losing money is because of the horrible way the management has run the
companies and the lousy decisions they made over the years some people
still
think it's the fault of the people who work for them. Blame the
victims.
Even today I heard right winger Bill Krystol say on Fox News that the
workers only account for ten percent of auto costs. So, the fact is
it's
not
the workers who brought down the auto companies it's their management.
But
the knee jerk reaction to blame unions by right wingers never goes away
despite the facts that say otherwise. I think they would still blame
unions
for things going wrong if they didn't exist.

Hawke


Are you implying that unions have played no role in the decline of our
way
of life in recent times? You think it's perfectly fine for people
making a decent salary to picket their place of employment, demanding
yet
more money, when if they are successful you will pay more for their
goods
and services? Think of workers at unionized grocery stores. If
their
demands are met and they get yet more unearned money, who do you suppose
is going to pick up the tab? Seems to me, it's the customer. Screw
unions, and union members. These are the very people that are
dragging
is further into the abyss.

Can I safely assume that you think a guy with no qualifications of any
kind, no education, possibly unable to sign his name, is worth more than
$30/hour? Where does it end? Everything for everybody, even those that
haven't earned it?

Where do you suppose the money comes from that pays these unworthy
people
their unearned salaries?

I don't give a damn if it's only 10% of the cost of an automobile-----I
don't enjoy paying that amount over real value, let alone the money
stolen
*legally by upper management through totally unreasonable salaries and
bonuses. Fire the entire lot of these *******s and let them grovel in
the real world, where they can't hold anyone hostage.

Harold



But, the basic laws of supply and demand are so inconvenient to some.
Unfortunately those laws ALWAYS apply sooner or (too) later. Maybe
Americans will be forced to buy a "Big-3".


Whoever says labour is only 10% of the cost of a vehicle has NOT done
their homework.
What portion of the cost of steel is labour? Go back one step farther
- what percentage of the cost of coal/coke and iron ore is labour?
What portion of the cost of tooling is labour? How about the cost of
building/maintaining the plant?

I MIGHT believe the "direct" cost of UAW worker's wages/benefits at
the big three themselves MIGHT be as low as 10% at the plant level -
but the plant does not start with iron ore, bauxite, and coal to build
a car. (unless, perhaps, you are Ford Brazil)

Yes, it's around 10% direct labor. And it's true that total labor becomes a
larger part of the total as you move back along the supply chain. Ford Motor
company used to smelt its own ore -- ore boats pulled right up to the Rouge
iron smelter on Ford's property -- and total labor then was most of the cost
of a car.

But once the parts are farmed out and you're looking at three tiers
(sometimes four) of supply in the chain, how much do you blame Ford or GM
for what the shops and plants are paying their workers? This isn't a simple
question. I've spent hundreds of hours on it, up until six or seven years
ago.

This is the basic problem we encounter when we compare our manufacturing
costs with those of China, and you run into that same issue of labor costs
being added to each stage of supply. They're called "embedded costs." If all
of the intermediate products, such as steel strip, glass, and so on were
traded freely on the world market, those costs would be competitive and
comparable right up to the stage of final assembly, at which point US
manufacturing costs would be so close to those of China that our savings in
shipping would actually make our products cheaper.

But those products are not actually traded that way, partly because there
would be trans-Pacific shipping costs at every step, and it is prohibitive
on low-value products, such as pig iron, for example.

However, those labor costs in Ford's supply chain are not Ford's labor
costs, they're the vendors' costs. And most of them are not based on UAW
labor. So who do you blame now?


Just like back in the early days of Ford - where ford MANUFACTURED
NOTHING - just assembled. The Dodge Brothers were building engines and
transmissions for old Henry - and Henry specified the exact dimensions
of the packing crates and how they were made - because the Dodge
Brothers were also supplying the floor-boards of the car.

And that is FACT.

Then Ford integrated - even generating their own electricty to run the
plants.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:13:42 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


"JohnB" wrote in message
...

"SteveB" toquervilla@zionvistas wrote in message
...
Sorry to give you this dose of reality,

but unions are already busted.

And they got busted from the inside out.

And it looks like they are going to take the automotive manufacturers down
with them.....

That's typical. Even when everyone knows that the reason the "Big 3" are
losing money is because of the horrible way the management has run the
companies and the lousy decisions they made over the years some people still
think it's the fault of the people who work for them. Blame the victims.
Even today I heard right winger Bill Krystol say on Fox News that the
workers only account for ten percent of auto costs. So, the fact is it's not
the workers who brought down the auto companies it's their management. But
the knee jerk reaction to blame unions by right wingers never goes away
despite the facts that say otherwise.

==I think they would still blame unions
for things going wrong if they didn't exist.== {emphasis added}

Hawke
============
You are 101% right on this point.

It is correctly said that a company generally gets the union they
deserve, and if they don't deserve one, they won't get one.

FWIW -- it is well worthwhile reviewing the managerial
actions/policies that existed at the car companies prior to the
establishment of the unions to put things in context.

Many companies would be lost without their union as a reliable
excuse for failure and rationale for managerial inaction, and
would have to fall back on blaming the environmentalists, the tax
code or the schools for turning out unqualified workers.

While bad management relations with their unions are indeed a
significant symptom of organizational problems, they are exactly
that, symptoms and not causes. The huge majority of hourly
employees want to punch in, do their jobs in reasonable safety
and comfort, punch out and go home, periodically getting an
honest paycheck and have no interest in playing "grab-ass" with
management over work rules, seniority, or anything else.

Many years ago, a division of a Fortune 500 company that I worked
for bought a rust-belt company that produced OEM air brakes and
compressors, which had fallen on hard times, and we had some of
their executives/managers "parachute" in to tell us how to run
things. [Actually more like migrating seagulls -- they flew in
-- squawked a lot -- s**t on everything and made a big mess --
and flew out leaving someone else to clean up their mess].

They were against anything and everything that was not the way it
was done before, regardless of the fact that this did not work
well [was slow], that considerable progress had been made in
manufacturing techniques since the 1940s-50s when much of their
product line had been designed, and this was one of the major
reasons the company was sold out from under them.

Several times the excuse was given when a required processing
change was suggested "but the union won't let us," the problem
being we were a non-union shop.

As much as anything else this explained to me why their company
was sold. This got to be a standing joke at management meetings
where every proposal/suggestion was greeted with a chorus of "but
the union won't let us."

The group VP issued a memo forbidding its use, as it was
"antagonizing" the people that were there from the acquired
division to "help us."

I found out later that the executives/managers/supervisors from
the acquired rust-belt company had also received a stiff
memo/directive from the group VP instructing them to minimize
their contacts with the hourly employees at our location, and to
limit their "suggestions" to technical/production issues and
avoid advice on labor/management relations issues.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:22:43 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
No organized force stronger than the employer is setting the wage.
So it must be something else that's determining the equilibrium. (By
"equilibrium" I'm not suggesting a static condition of the economy, but
rather an approximate numerical relationship between wages and earnings on
capital, one around which the relationship hovers as an economy grows or
contracts.)
snip
Good discussion.

Another factor is the amount of money that the employer wishes,
is willing to invest, or has invested in machines and tooling.

It is possible for very accurate and intricate products to be
made on crude low investment machines and equipment, if highly
skilled/paid employees are available and low production rates are
acceptable. An example is the Swiss wrist watch with
"complications." Minimal supervision/quality control is
required. Unit price is high to very high.

At the other end of the scale it is possible to produce highly
complex and accurate products with minimally skilled employees,
with adequate [high] investment in machines, equipment and
automation. This is particularly true when high production
volumes of standard/commodity products are required/desired.
Greatly increased supervision/quality control is generally
required.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:22:43 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
No organized force stronger than the employer is setting the wage.
So it must be something else that's determining the equilibrium. (By
"equilibrium" I'm not suggesting a static condition of the economy, but
rather an approximate numerical relationship between wages and earnings on
capital, one around which the relationship hovers as an economy grows or
contracts.)
snip
Good discussion.

Another factor is the amount of money that the employer wishes,
is willing to invest, or has invested in machines and tooling.

It is possible for very accurate and intricate products to be
made on crude low investment machines and equipment, if highly
skilled/paid employees are available and low production rates are
acceptable. An example is the Swiss wrist watch with
"complications." Minimal supervision/quality control is
required. Unit price is high to very high.

Another example was Smith & Wesson, back when I was an editor at _AM_. I was
still in my '20s and I had never seen leather-belt-driven machine tools in
production. I thought I'd entered a manufacturing museum by mistake. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

But those products are not actually traded that way, partly because there
would be trans-Pacific shipping costs at every step, and it is
prohibitive on low-value products, such as pig iron, for example.
--
Ed Huntress

Wait a minute Ed. If that is the case how come all the shipment
of scrap metals to China? That "should" be the "lowest value"
material going.
...lew...


That's a good question, Lew, and it has an answer that's not obvious. It's
because shipping scrap to China is highly discounted -- in order to get
those bottoms and shipping containers back to China, so they can be reloaded
with finished goods and sent back here.

If they charged the full amount to ship scrap to China, it wouldn't be
economical for anyone.

--
Ed Huntress


AH! SO. That is something I overlooked. Better than empty.
...lew...

Steve Ackman wrote:
How
would it work if a union member went to management and
asked for a raise based on his superlative performance
and quality improving innovations?


That is one of the funniest things I've read today on the
news group. :-)
...lew...

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:41:57
-0800, Hawke, wrote:

The truth is without unions workers have no
chance at bargaining with corporations for anything.

It may be your "truth" but it's not THE TRUTH.

When I'd been working for a coffee roasting
corporation for a few months, I decided I was doing
more than my pay grade, so I asked for a raise. The
corporation agreed that I was worth more to them than
they were paying me, so I got the raise. Lather,
rinse, repeat. I worked there for 2 years and a few
months (in retrospect, it seems like a LOT longer).
When I quit, I was making 50% more than when I started...
without a union in sight... and when I told them I was
leaving, they tried to give me another raise.

The very existence of a union at a shop pretty much
precludes that kind of "merit raise," doesn't it? How
would it work if a union member went to management and
asked for a raise based on his superlative performance
and quality improving innovations?

Uh. Pssssssssst. Buddy................ please refer to the chapter in your
union handbook there called "Superior Workman Clause." It pretty much
covers it. No workman can do any better than any other. The result is,
though, that the good workers slow down to match the pace and output of the
slowest rather than the other way around. And no repercussions or
penalties. So most work proceeds at the pace of the slowest man.

HTH

Steve ;-)

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:41:57
-0800, Hawke, wrote:

The truth is without unions workers have no
chance at bargaining with corporations for anything.

It may be your "truth" but it's not THE TRUTH.

When I'd been working for a coffee roasting
corporation for a few months, I decided I was doing
more than my pay grade, so I asked for a raise. The
corporation agreed that I was worth more to them than
they were paying me, so I got the raise. Lather,
rinse, repeat. I worked there for 2 years and a few
months (in retrospect, it seems like a LOT longer).
When I quit, I was making 50% more than when I started...
without a union in sight... and when I told them I was
leaving, they tried to give me another raise.

The very existence of a union at a shop pretty much
precludes that kind of "merit raise," doesn't it? How
would it work if a union member went to management and
asked for a raise based on his superlative performance
and quality improving innovations?

I have long maintained that unions kill incentive. Why should anyone bust
their butt to improve anything when they can idle and get the same pay as
the guy that busts his hump? The lesson learned is that you can slow down
to a near stop and still "earn" your pay, so many do. I worked in a shop
where that occurred. Their reward was the shop going out of business. It
was common practice for union employees to tell non-union workers to "slow
down", something I know from personal experience.

My experiences in life parallel yours. If I excelled, I was acknowledged.
I learned to earn my way in life, something about which I am damned proud.

Harold

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
snip----

It is correctly said that a company generally gets the union they
deserve, and if they don't deserve one, they won't get one.

From personal experience, I agree. Sperry Utah was founded in 1956, a
direct result of union problems in New York. They purposely sought a
right-to-work state where they could engage in the research and development
stage of the Sergeant guided missile. When they opened the plant, they paid
wages in keeping with the high end of union scale, and discouraged unions
by treating employees fairly. They had learned the lesson the hard way.
They remain union-free, to this day, although the name has changed.

Harold

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

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:41:57
-0800, Hawke, wrote:

The truth is without unions workers have no
chance at bargaining with corporations for anything.

It may be your "truth" but it's not THE TRUTH.

When I'd been working for a coffee roasting
corporation for a few months, I decided I was doing
more than my pay grade, so I asked for a raise. The
corporation agreed that I was worth more to them than
they were paying me, so I got the raise. Lather,
rinse, repeat. I worked there for 2 years and a few
months (in retrospect, it seems like a LOT longer).
When I quit, I was making 50% more than when I started...
without a union in sight... and when I told them I was
leaving, they tried to give me another raise.

The very existence of a union at a shop pretty much
precludes that kind of "merit raise," doesn't it? How
would it work if a union member went to management and
asked for a raise based on his superlative performance
and quality improving innovations?

I have long maintained that unions kill incentive. Why should anyone bust
their butt to improve anything when they can idle and get the same pay as
the guy that busts his hump? The lesson learned is that you can slow
down to a near stop and still "earn" your pay, so many do. I worked in a
shop where that occurred. Their reward was the shop going out of business.
It was common practice for union employees to tell non-union workers to
"slow down", something I know from personal experience.

My experiences in life parallel yours. If I excelled, I was
acknowledged. I learned to earn my way in life, something about which I am
damned proud.

Harold

I worked the Teamsters convention business for a lot of years. In the
installation and dismantling work, if you were a good efficient employee,
you were sent home first because the company wanted to take as many hours as
they could to put up or dismantle a booth. I did gravitate to a good
company where I attained supervisor status. But after about four years of
mind games, I gave it up and went on to the freight department. One that
was performance based, and where I excelled. It was different in all
departments as to whether you could take your time or if you had a deadline.
The slugs would always gravitate to the jobs where they could do the
Teamster shuffle, and anyone who had any get up and go could seek those
other better positions.

Big difference was the amount of work. Freight works from bare floor to
bare floor. First in, last out, and work during the conventions. All the
slugs would ask, "How do you get so much work?"

"Just lucky, I guess."

Steve

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:36:08 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
. org...
In , on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:41:57
-0800, Hawke, wrote:

The truth is without unions workers have no
chance at bargaining with corporations for anything.

It may be your "truth" but it's not THE TRUTH.

When I'd been working for a coffee roasting
corporation for a few months, I decided I was doing
more than my pay grade, so I asked for a raise. The
corporation agreed that I was worth more to them than
they were paying me, so I got the raise. Lather,
rinse, repeat. I worked there for 2 years and a few
months (in retrospect, it seems like a LOT longer).
When I quit, I was making 50% more than when I started...
without a union in sight... and when I told them I was
leaving, they tried to give me another raise.

The very existence of a union at a shop pretty much
precludes that kind of "merit raise," doesn't it? How
would it work if a union member went to management and
asked for a raise based on his superlative performance
and quality improving innovations?

I have long maintained that unions kill incentive. Why should anyone bust
their butt to improve anything when they can idle and get the same pay as
the guy that busts his hump? The lesson learned is that you can slow down
to a near stop and still "earn" your pay, so many do. I worked in a shop
where that occurred. Their reward was the shop going out of business. It
was common practice for union employees to tell non-union workers to "slow
down", something I know from personal experience.

My experiences in life parallel yours. If I excelled, I was acknowledged.
I learned to earn my way in life, something about which I am damned proud.

Harold


Wasn't there a case, in New England somewhere, maybe at a
Pratt&Whitney engine factory, where the union stopped a guy from
producing more then the "norm" while he was working piece-work? I
don't remember the details but I do remember reading about it and
thinking I'd never join a union.The stated reason was that he'd "make
the other guys look bad".
Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:08:47 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok
wrote:
snip
Wasn't there a case, in New England somewhere, maybe at a
Pratt&Whitney engine factory, where the union stopped a guy from
producing more then the "norm" while he was working piece-work? I
don't remember the details but I do remember reading about it and
thinking I'd never join a union.The stated reason was that he'd "make
the other guys look bad".
Cheers,
snip
-------------
Magic phrase is "piece work."

The downside is far more than making someone "look bad," as in
money out of everyone's pocket. Any place that is on piecework
is always looking for an excuse to up the pcs/hr and cut the pay.

There are good days and bad days on every job, and when
everything goes right, and the workers produce a lot, the next
day the "rate setter" will be down to cut the piece rate, and the
Foreman will bitch-bitch-bitch because every day is not a good
day.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:20:28 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Millwright Ron wrote:

Its all those damn workers fault for trying to get pay raises and
this
crazy thing called "health care.

Just invest some of the pension funds your union controls in GM and bail them out your
self.

Bwahahahahahaha! 2 points, Wes. But giving them what they deserve is
not politically correct.

--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:34:10 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"JohnB" wrote:

And it looks like they are going to take the automotive manufacturers down
with them.....


Nah, it just will be in the southern states.

No, the southern states all have _foreign_ car makers, not US car
makers, employing tens of thousands of their workers.

P.S: Aren't most of them not unionized?

--
It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness;
poverty and wealth have both failed.
-- Kin Hubbard

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:54:25 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


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

"Millwright Ron" wrote in message
...


UNION BUSTING

Damned good idea.

Harold


But the Democrats are so beholden to unions that the unions will be
protected.

One of the largest unions in the US is the Service Workers Union,
IRRC..the union most government employees belong to. Liberal operated.
Which is why most government is overbudget, behind schedule and
incompetent.

The largest is the Teachers union, another Liberal operated
cluster****, which has resulted in several generations of kids unable to
read their diploma or balance a checkbook.

The third largest is the Trial Lawyers...whoops..not the third
largest..just the largest contributor to the Democrat Party...the same
people that have made the cost of doing business nearly impossible to
handle..and when coupled with Union #1.....

Unions in U.S. With More Than 100,000 Members (2002)

Union
Members
NEA - National Education Association 2,679,396
SEIU - Service Employees International Union 1,464,007
UFCW - United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
1,380,507
IBT - International Brotherhood of Teamsters 1,350,000
AFSCME - American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
1,350,000
LIUNA - Laborers' International Union of North America 840,180
AFT - American Federation of Teachers 770,090
IBEW - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 700,548
IAM - International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
673,095
UAW - United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America 638,722
CWA - Communications Workers of America 557,136
USWA - United Steelworkers of America 532,234
UBC - United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 531,839
IUOE - International Union of Operating Engineers 390,388
NPMHU - National Postal Mailhandlers Union 388,480
UA - United Association of the Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada
325,914
NALC - National Association of Letter Carriers 294,315
APWU - American Postal Workers Union 292,901
PACE - Papter, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Engineering Workers
International Union 274,464
IAFF - International Association of Fire Fighers 261,551
HERE - Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union
249,151
UNITE - Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees 209,876
AFGE - American Federation of Government Employees 200,600
AGVA - American Guild of Variety Artists 182,597
UAN - United American Nurses 152,000
OPEIU - Office and Professional Employees International Union 150,882
SMW - Sheet Metal Workers International Association 148,378
BSORIW - International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforcing Iron Workers 130,928
IUPAT - International Union of Painters and Allied Trades 115,511
BCTGM - Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers
International Union 114,618
TWU - Transportation Workers Union of America 110,000
AACSE - American Association of Classified School Employees 109,188
IATSE - International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving
Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and
Canada 104,102
AFM - American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada
102,000
NRLCA - National Rural Letter Carriers' Association 101,810
BAC - International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
101,499
TCU - Transportation Communications International Union 101,228
UMWA - United Mineworkers of America


"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania