Unions killing Detroit

Topspin

Topspin

Verified User
When Ford CEO Alan Mulally sat down with me and the anchors of "Squawk Box" this morning, his candid comments about federal loans to automakers show congress is likely to lend the money. As I've said before, I think it's money well spent.

Yes, I know some of you are rolling your eyes and saying, "Give me a break! Why should we bail out these guys? They got into this mess, they can themselves out of it."

Funny, I asked Mulally that question and he admitted Ford [F 4.81 0.13 (+2.78%) ]was truck and SUV focused because THAT is what the customer wanted. Now that the market has shifted, Ford has to try and shift with them. Unfortunately, getting the money to re-tool the assembly plants is not easy when the credit rating is in the tank. Hence, the automakers are turning to Washington for help.

Mulally is encouraged the money will be approved, and that Ford will be able to use some of those funds to get its plants and portfolio of vehicles positioned to thrive. Even if gas prices fall, Mulally says Ford will continue with it's plan to build and sell more cars and crossovers.



When I asked him if Ford can make a profit off of small cars, he was adamant in saying it could happen. How? By building world cars and lowering the costs by using the economy of scale Ford will get with sales around the world. You may not believe it, but Mulally is not discouraged.

Turning around Ford won't happen overnight, but with the federal loans Mulally is encouraged the transformation will take place.

Ford's Volvo Car says to cut more staff
 
Dunshit, have you EVER taken a business class.
Legacy medical and retirement cost are 99% of what's killing detroit.
 
Topspin said:
Dunshit, have you EVER taken a business class.
Legacy medical and retirement cost are 99% of what's killing detroit.
Click to expand...


And it's the UAW's fault that management signed on for that? Fuck you. The unions are a convenient scapegoat for horrific management over the past two decades.
 
Dungheap said:
And it's the UAW's fault that management signed on for that? Fuck you. The unions are a convenient scapegoat for horrific management over the past two decades.
Click to expand...

what a tool, you'd fail if you ever bother to take a business class
 
I read an interesting article about unions yesterday.

It showed a letter written in 2000 by 16 democrats in the House of Representatives. It was encouraging Mexico to allow secret ballots where unions are concerned because it is vital to the process.

Then there is a bill to make the secret ballot illegal when voting for whether or not unionize. Of those 16 who signed the letter in 2000, only 11 are left in the House. All 11 are sponsers of H.R. 800, which removes the secret ballot.


Funny how the secret ballot is good for Mexico and has been used since the 1920s in the USA, but should now be banned?
 
Topspin said:
what a tool, you'd fail if you ever bother to take a business class
Click to expand...


Where is business class do they teach you to sign long-term deals with labor that you cannot afford over the long-term while seeing a huge reduction in market share because no one wants the product you make?
 
Solitary said:
I read an interesting article about unions yesterday.

It showed a letter written in 2000 by 16 democrats in the House of Representatives. It was encouraging Mexico to allow secret ballots where unions are concerned because it is vital to the process.

Then there is a bill to make the secret ballot illegal when voting for whether or not unionize. Of those 16 who signed the letter in 2000, only 11 are left in the House. All 11 are sponsers of H.R. 800, which removes the secret ballot.


Funny how the secret ballot is good for Mexico and has been used since the 1920s in the USA, but should now be banned?
Click to expand...


Funny how you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a link to the Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800. Please highlight the language in the bill that would "make the secret ballot illegal when voting for whether or not to unionize."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110sv9Vp2::
 
Management should do like the airlines did with the retard union air controllers.
Fire them all and start ununionized.
You must have failed math dungtool.
Everyone is talking about exploding medical care, big 3 are saddled with it.
GED morons snapping on tail lights making 100,000 is comical.
 
Topspin said:
Management should do like the airlines did with the retard union air controllers.
Fire them all and start ununionized.
You must have failed math dungtool.
Everyone is talking about exploding medical care, big 3 are saddled with it.
GED morons snapping on tail lights making 100,000 is comical.
Click to expand...


I think it's hilarious that you blame this all on the union when management signed the deals and they're the ones with the business degrees but not the foresight to realize that they were promising more than they could afford.
 
the largest unionized business in the US is failing on the vine.
Do you think your helping the union employees as a democrat by turning a blind/retarded eye?
 
Topspin said:
the largest unionized business in the US is failing on the vine.
Do you think your helping the union employees as a democrat by turning a blind/retarded eye?
Click to expand...



"Failing on the vine?" You're barely literate. You shouldn't even try to use metaphors. Ever.
 
SWEET, your clueless on economics
so what to do, ahh lefttool crutch
"your spellings not good"
that's gayer than balls on your chin
 
Dungheap said:
Funny how you have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a link to the Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800. Please highlight the language in the bill that would "make the secret ballot illegal when voting for whether or not to unionize."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110sv9Vp2::
Click to expand...

Rather than wade thru the legal jargon and references to other documents, how about I provide sources that make the same claims I do.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-28-2007/0004536695&EDATE=

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=18124BCE-762B-4F94-A65E-B5B78D84E545

http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=75502




HR800 allows union organizers to use a Card-Check instead of a secret ballot. This means that the union organizers can intimidate or persuade the employee to sign the card, and they get enough cards, the employer is forced to recognize and bargain with the union as the exclusive representative for all employees.

If the union gets enough cards signed, they DO NOT have to have a secret ballot to decide if the union gets in.

And add to this that the union can visit employees at their home in order to try and persuade them to sign the card.





I am quite aware of what I am talking about.
 
Solitary said:
Rather than wade thru the legal jargon and references to other documents, how about I provide sources that make the same claims I do.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-28-2007/0004536695&EDATE=

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=18124BCE-762B-4F94-A65E-B5B78D84E545

http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=75502




HR800 allows union organizers to use a Card-Check instead of a secret ballot. This means that the union organizers can intimidate or persuade the employee to sign the card, and they get enough cards, the employer is forced to recognize and bargain with the union as the exclusive representative for all employees.

If the union gets enough cards signed, they DO NOT have to have a secret ballot to decide if the union gets in.

And add to this that the union can visit employees at their home in order to try and persuade them to sign the card.





I am quite aware of what I am talking about.
Click to expand...


Front page mag is your news source? An article written by a Republican appointee to the NLRB and a career management side labor attorney? A press release from the National Retail Federation? Another press release from the Society for Human Resource Management?

It's all bullshit.

Look at the bill. Show me where it makes the secret ballot illegal. Show me where it bans the secret ballot. You claim it does this. I posted a link to the bill. Show me where. Show me the provision of the bill that does what you claim.
 
Dungheap said:
Front page mag is your news source? An article written by a Republican appointee to the NLRB and a career management side labor attorney? A press release from the National Retail Federation? Another press release from the Society for Human Resource Management?

It's all bullshit.

Look at the bill. Show me where it makes the secret ballot illegal. Show me where it bans the secret ballot. You claim it does this. I posted a link to the bill. Show me where. Show me the provision of the bill that does what you claim.
Click to expand...

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec9
tion, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an em10
ployee or group of employees or any individual or labor
11 organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority
12 of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of col13
lective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual
14 or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall
15 investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority
16 of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has
17 signed valid authorizations designating the individual or
18 labor organization specified in the petition as their bar19
gaining representative and that no other individual or
20 labor organization is currently certified or recognized as
21 the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the
22 unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify
23 the individual or labor organization as the representative
24 described in subsection (a)."



That clearly states that if they can show the majority that "the Board shall not direct an election ".

In other words, if they show enough signed cards they do not have an election, as was done in the past, but go directly to union representation.

Ok, now that I have shown you EXACTLY where in the legislation is says what I claimed, how about retracting your statements?

Or is that too much to ask?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top