Bob Klahn -> John Massey wrote:

 BK>  ...

 JM>> Oh but there is one thing I forgot to tell you. This Ford
 JM>> plant is in Brazil.

 JM>> Yep. And do you know why it is in Brazil? Unions. The UAW
 JM>> is opposed to this type of innovative manufacturing. They
 JM>> are opposed to innovation that would actually help their
 JM>> employer because they stand the risk of losing jobs. And if
 JM>> they lose jobs, they lose power.

 BK>  Union workers decide if the Unions oppose something, and Union
 BK>  workers are worried about jobs, not because the union loses
 BK>  power, but because the jobs pay the worker's salaries.

 BK>  For decades the companies have proposed various "innovations",
 BK>  such as employee involvement etc. The unions went along with
 BK>  those changes, but managment sabatoged them. Managers don't want
 BK>  to give up any of their power. Remember the 'rope' in Saturn's
 BK>  plants? The one where any worker can stop a production line if
 BK>  he sees something wrong? The idea being do it right the first
 BK>  time. Well, they did away with the 'rope' years ago. Seems it
 BK>  did slow down production.

 BK>  And just how is it 'innovative' to put subcontractors in the
 BK>  factory? If it's that big a deal, build a subcontractor plant
 BK>  next door. The fact is, there is nothing the subcontractor can
 BK>  do inside the plant that union workers can't do. The only reason
 BK>  for subcontractors is to have low paid workers in the plant.

 BK>  Well, guess what. A $25/hr regular time wage is right on a
 BK>  middle class family wage. Just why do you object to hourly
 BK>  workers earning a middle class wage? Remember when, within the
 BK>  last couple years, an Asian auto company was opening a factory
 BK>  in Mississippi? Or Louisiana, it was a couple years ago. They
 BK>  were offering salaries in the $20-$25/hr range, and couldn't
 BK>  find enough takers. Of course they didn't want the low quality
 BK>  minimum wage earners you find at so many low paid jobs.

 BK>  So, how is it salaries that are Detroit's problem, when foreign
 BK>  car makers are salary competitive?

 BK>  It's pensions and medical care. Foreign car makers have zero
 BK>  pension liabilities. So, your only answer to that is American
 BK>  workers shouldn't get pensions. Considering that even 401K's
 BK>  have to cost in the range of pension investment in order to pay
 BK>  at that range, 401k's are not the answer. The only answer is
 BK>  nothing at all for worker's retirement, except social security
 BK>  which is the only thing they can really count on.

 BK>  Oh, and foreign makers don't have to provide medical insurance,
 BK>  or, if they do, not as good. So that leaves the American medical
 BK>  care industry out on a limb.

 BK>  There is no good answer on your side of this question, only a
 BK>  choice of disasters.

 JM>> Unions, gotta love 'um.

 BK>  Yup. Without em you would have few if any benefits, and lower
 BK>  wages.

You have been trained well young union man.  Defend the union at all cost.
You do know unions are dying for a reason don't you?
I doubt even the card check, intimidation act will help in the long run.

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)