After 107 years in Milwaukee, Harley could leave

Damn I'm a city boy. Except for my uncle who lives on a farm in Ohio I don't know one person who owns a motorcycle.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hey if Harley is in that deep of financial straights then ultimately the'll show the books to the union reps and they'll have no choice but to grant concessions. More then likely though Harley is under intense pressure to transfer production operations over seas where labor is dirt cheap and safety and environmental laws are more lax.

There's two problems for Harley if they cave into that pressure. If they move their operations over seas then they will alienate a huge segment of their market. It would be the same sort of dim witted short sightedness that nearly bankrupted them during their AMF years. I know a whole hell of a lot of bikers who would just give up riding if it means buying a Harley that is "Made in China". So I suspect that Harley is bluffing for concessions. The fact that they have consistently paid dividends over the last 10 or more years tells me they aint hurting that bad.
Click to expand...

So, even though bikers may be retarded proles, the lesson from this story is that they at least have principles? :cof1:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You can be such a partisan idiot. Will you be happy when everyone is making less then a $1/day? Like it's the fuckin uninons fault for fighting for a living wage.

Well I'll tell you this right now Yurtsie. I bet I know one hell of a lot more Harley riders then you do and if they remove their operations over seas or to a right to work state Harley Davidson can kiss it's ass good bye cause it will kill sales. They would be lucky to sell 5 bikes in the US if they do something stupid like that.
Click to expand...
Yeah right 15ppMoot Harley owners hate freedom. How retarded.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I couldn't disagree with you more Socr. Why? Because it's a double standard. Let me ask you this. Do you have the right, as a profesional, to charge what the market will bear for your services? I'll assume your answer is yes and I would agree with you that you do have that right.

Well why do you have this right and corporations have that right but working class people don't? That is hypocritical as hell. I mean what you are essentially saying is that an employee has a responsiblilty to help their company maximise that companies profits (which they do) but that they don't have the right to negotiate the highest wages that same market can bear for their services. That they don't have the same right to their fair share of the economic pie they work so hard to help produce. That's not only wrong and hypocritical, it's unethical as hell.
Click to expand...

Read the BOLD and underlined.... They do have a right to ask for what the market will bare.

The company is telling them that the market will NOT bare their current compensation packages and thus they have stated they may move to another STATE (note... they did not say they were going to manufacture in China)

Keep in mind Mott... when you have a very loose labor market (meaning higher unemployment)... you are going to have people who are willing to work those same jobs for less. THAT means the market no longer bares the current compensation those workers are getting.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So whose fault is it that some corporation made a bad deal with their union employees 50 years ago?

Who should pay?

Is it the 85 year old man who bargained in good faith with the corporation and now enjoys a nice retirement?

Should he have his benefits yanked because Management's overly optimistic business model for the 21st century didn't pan out as expected?

Maybe the contracts and golden parachutes of the corporate big-shots who helped drive these companies into the ground while padding their own 401k's should be reduced to pay for some concessions?

Why is it always the contracts of the WORKERS that has to be reworked for concessions?
Click to expand...
Because if a company doesn't make a profit it goes out of business. Why is it lefties all think the ONLY reason for a company to exist is to take care of workers? To make workers wealthy and to hell with the bottom line? It tough times EVERYONE has to tighten their belts, also the law that makes Harley report all their income from out of state as in state is STUPID. They should relocate for JUST THAT REASON. Hell there are a lot of people here in NM that would gladly work for Harley.
 
Socrtease said:
Because if a company doesn't make a profit it goes out of business. Why is it lefties all think the ONLY reason for a company to exist is to take care of workers? To make workers wealthy and to hell with the bottom line? It tough times EVERYONE has to tighten their belts, also the law that makes Harley report all their income from out of state as in state is STUPID. They should relocate for JUST THAT REASON. Hell there are a lot of people here in NM that would gladly work for Harley.
Click to expand...
That's a strawman Socr. Why is there a double standard? How comes other people can negotiate to maximize what is in their best interest or for the most the market can bear for their services? You do that. I do that. Why can't working class people and skilled tradesmen do that for theirs? If they charge more then the market will bear, the market simply won't pay them. Why is it wrong for them to organize and negotiate to claim their fair share of the economic pie but it's ok for you and I and corporations to do that?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hey if Harley is in that deep of financial straights then ultimately the'll show the books to the union reps and they'll have no choice but to grant concessions. More then likely though Harley is under intense pressure to transfer production operations over seas where labor is dirt cheap and safety and environmental laws are more lax.

There's two problems for Harley if they cave into that pressure. If they move their operations over seas then they will alienate a huge segment of their market. It would be the same sort of dim witted short sightedness that nearly bankrupted them during their AMF years. I know a whole hell of a lot of bikers who would just give up riding if it means buying a Harley that is "Made in China". So I suspect that Harley is bluffing for concessions. The fact that they have consistently paid dividends over the last 10 or more years tells me they aint hurting that bad.
Click to expand...

While I agree that moving manufacturing over seas would be a horrendous mistake.... again... they are talking about moving manufacturing to another STATE. NOT country.
 
Socrtease said:
Because if a company doesn't make a profit it goes out of business. Why is it lefties all think the ONLY reason for a company to exist is to take care of workers? To make workers wealthy and to hell with the bottom line? It tough times EVERYONE has to tighten their belts, also the law that makes Harley report all their income from out of state as in state is STUPID. They should relocate for JUST THAT REASON. Hell there are a lot of people here in NM that would gladly work for Harley.
Click to expand...


What lefties believe that the only reason for a company to exist is to take care of the workers and to make workers wealthy? You might make a more compelling case if you didn't use such nonsensical hyperbolic horseshit. (As an aside, according to the AFL-CIO database, in 2009 Harley's CEO made 198 times the average worker's salary of $32,000 per year). It seems to me that Harley and its union workforce have peacefully coexisted for quite some time and Harley has presumably earned profits during that time.

As for the tax laws of Wisconsin, that's probably a large reason Harley is threatening to leave the state more so that the union aspect.
 
Superfreak said:
While I agree that moving manufacturing over seas would be a horrendous mistake.... again... they are talking about moving manufacturing to another STATE. NOT country.
Click to expand...
I wish they'd bring them to CO, but they won't. Not after all the tax hikes Ritter gave us...
 
Superfreak said:
Read the BOLD and underlined.... They do have a right to ask for what the market will bare.

The company is telling them that the market will NOT bare their current compensation packages and thus they have stated they may move to another STATE (note... they did not say they were going to manufacture in China)

Keep in mind Mott... when you have a very loose labor market (meaning higher unemployment)... you are going to have people who are willing to work those same jobs for less. THAT means the market no longer bares the current compensation those workers are getting.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that. If the market cant' bear what these workers wish to charge then so be it but they have every right in the world to organize and negotiate for their fair share of the economic pie.

Keep in mind, just cause the company is saying that they can't sustain current wages and benefits doesn't neccessarily meant that this is true. If I was a union worker there I'd say "Fine, show us the books. If your losing money and can't sustain business we'll make concessions." If they won't show them the books, well, you know what that means.
 
NigelTufnel said:
What lefties believe that the only reason for a company to exist is to take care of the workers and to make workers wealthy? You might make a more compelling case if you didn't use such nonsensical hyperbolic horseshit. (As an aside, according to the AFL-CIO database, in 2009 Harley's CEO made 198 times the average worker's salary of $32,000 per year). It seems to me that Harley and its union workforce have peacefully coexisted for quite some time and Harley has presumably earned profits during that time.

As for the tax laws of Wisconsin, that's probably a large reason Harley is threatening to leave the state more so that the union aspect.
Click to expand...

Try hiring a CEO for $32K and see how far that gets the company.
 
Superfreak said:
While I agree that moving manufacturing over seas would be a horrendous mistake.... again... they are talking about moving manufacturing to another STATE. NOT country.
Click to expand...
I don't think that would hurt Harley nearly as badly as moving over seas. Personally, I think Harley is bluffing to a degree. This all sounds like pretty standard negotiating tactics to me. It's pretty common for a profitable company to use poor economic condidtions, even though they are profitable, to negotiate concessions from their Union. My guess, considering Harley relies upon a large number of skilled laborers at their plants that they are in a large degree bluffing. Harley probably will get concession. The sales figures and financials I've seen show that Harley is still generating profits but that due to the recession sales and profits are down. As a counterpoint though, when sales go up the Union will probably negotiate for wage and benefit increases.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I couldn't disagree with you more Socr. Why? Because it's a double standard. Let me ask you this. Do you have the right, as a profesional, to charge what the market will bear for your services? I'll assume your answer is yes and I would agree with you that you do have that right.

Well why do you have this right and corporations have that right but working class people don't? That is hypocritical as hell. I mean what you are essentially saying is that an employee has a responsiblilty to help their company maximise that companies profits (which they do) but that they don't have the right to negotiate the highest wages that same market can bear for their services. That they don't have the same right to their fair share of the economic pie they work so hard to help produce. That's not only wrong and hypocritical, it's unethical as hell.
Click to expand...
Bad comparison. If I charge too much people hire other attorneys. If all attorneys charge too much then you see more pro se litigants. Right now with the economy in the shape it is in that is exactly what has happened in the family law arena. Pro se litigants are on the rise. Pro Se clinics are full. Most attorneys I know have either dropped their initial retainer amount, or are offering flat rate divorces where there is no disagreement and parties just want to be divorced. So why is it in a bad economy everyone BUT unions have to tighten their belts? Why is it you think worker wages have priority of corporate profits? Tell you what, why don't all those wonderfully skilled laborers start their own motorcycle company? I mean anyone in the US is free to start their own company right? They can even advertise that everyone that works at their plant used to work for Harley. They can make bikes that are just the same. They can put their own V-Twins in them, they can claim same great quality. The reason they don't is because the motorcycles they build are sold to people based on BRAND. Harley Davidson, not Harley Davidson workers. Given time, you can teach people anywhere to build them. So long as Harley remains a US company, there will be 18 month waiting lists to get new bikes.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Oh, I see it's time to throw out some non sequiturs. Cucumbers taste better pickled.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There's a market for CEOs just like there's a market for assembly line workers, and the law of supply and demand works for both. If there were 100,000 qualified applicants for the single CEO position, then he could be hired on the cheap.

Do I have to explain basic economics to you?
 
Socrtease said:
Bad comparison. If I charge too much people hire other attorneys. If all attorneys charge too much then you see more pro se litigants. Right now with the economy in the shape it is in that is exactly what has happened in the family law arena. Pro se litigants are on the rise. Pro Se clinics are full. Most attorneys I know have either dropped their initial retainer amount, or are offering flat rate divorces where there is no disagreement and parties just want to be divorced. So why is it in a bad economy everyone BUT unions have to tighten their belts? Why is it you think worker wages have priority of corporate profits?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that. I'm saying they have the same right to organize and negotiate a price for their services that we do. If they try to charge more then the market will bear, the market won't bear it. Isn't that how a free market capitalism works?
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. There's a market for CEOs just like there's a market for assembly line workers, and the law of supply and demand works for both. If there were 100,000 qualified applicants for the single CEO position, then he could be hired on the cheap.

Do I have to explain basic economics to you?
Click to expand...


Who gives a fuck? I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top