Posts: 15,842
Threads: 95
Joined: May 2025
swampy, those jobs left the "industrial North" years ago in most cases to go to the South. We made our adjustments years ago in most cases and areas. My hometown used to have a population of nearly 60K, 40 years later it is closer to 45K. Now the jobs are leaving the South, right to work state or not. You can continue living with your delusion that it means anything to the companies if you want, but it doesn't. The companies that left my area even took large cuts in productivity moving operations out chasing the lower labor cost, but in many cases the clincher was local and state tax and other incentives to locate there. Eventually they regained the productivity, but by automating processes that used to require skilled operators. Now they pay someone $10-12 an hour where they used to pay a more skilled person the equivalent of $18-20.
Posts: 7,411
Threads: 545
Joined: Aug 2022
Joe, I rather have a job paying $10-12 an hour than not have a job at all. It sure beats the heck out of UAW wages of $60-$75 an hour that will be lost altogether when the Auto's go belly up.
Posts: 15,842
Threads: 95
Joined: May 2025
swampy wrote:
Joe, I rather have a job paying $10-12 an hour than not have a job at all. It sure beats the heck out of UAW wages of $60-$75 an hour that will be lost altogether when the Auto's go belly up.
Still repeating that nonsense swampy, UAW wages are more in the range of $20-25 an hour, less for many less skilled jobs covered by the contract. But it made a great talking point for the union bashers to misrepresent that figure. As for those $10-12 an hour jobs, those are also going away, or did you not get the point as usual. The corporations would be happy for them to all go away and just leave behind the $8 an hour jobs flipping burgers (lower wages will apply in your area where just the federal minimum wage applies).
Posts: 2,460
Threads: 142
Joined: Jan 2021
swampy wrote:
Let the Detroit auto industries go belly up. The union bosses are no less greedy than the CEOs on Wall Street. Of course Obama's so in bed with the unions that he'd never consider capping their pay now, would he?
Again I am going to repeat. The unions are not taking loans or bailouts from the government. Union salaries are paid for by the members. Why should Obama cap their salaries? That is union business.
Unions are not the cause of all the problems in this country although you seem to think so. I belong to a union and am proud of it. I get rotten raises but I have good benefits. With all my ailments, I need good health insurance so I accept the rotten raises. :-)
Posts: 14,987
Threads: 1,340
Joined: May 2025
Heh! Another daily dose of Repugnant-Con hilarity! Rush should really do his homework before giving you folks your marching orders. He's making you look rather silly.
BTW, you should try some Gold Bond medicated powder for your chapped thighs when you run around here whining and screaming like crazy people. (
Posts: 7,411
Threads: 545
Joined: Aug 2022
kanesa wrote:
Again I am going to repeat. The unions are not taking loans or bailouts from the government. Union salaries are paid for by the members. Why should Obama cap their salaries? That is union business.
Unions are not the cause of all the problems in this country although you seem to think so. I belong to a union and am proud of it. I get rotten raises but I have good benefits. With all my ailments, I need good health insurance so I accept the rotten raises. :-)
Domino theory, Kanesa. If the auto's take the bailouts the Unions benefit. Workers will keep jobs, workers will keep paying dues. Union bosses will keep their high flying salaries and benefits. I have got to believe that the Unions are scared sh*tless that the companies will fail, and the jobs will be gone and the workers won't be paying dues and all the bosses lose.
And of course the Unions know if they did take bailout money, they would fall subject to the "trace the money" accountability that the corporations have to face and salary caps. Wouldn't that be the last thing in the world they would want? They ain't gonna take the stinking money. And Congress won't foist it off on them like they made profitable banks take TARP money so Congress could gain control of stable banks along with failing banks.
Posts: 2,460
Threads: 142
Joined: Jan 2021
swampy wrote:
And of course the Unions know if they did take bailout money, they would fall subject to the "trace the money" accountability that the corporations have to face and salary caps. Wouldn't that be the last thing in the world they would want? They ain't gonna take the stinking money. And Congress won't foist it off on them like they made profitable banks take TARP money so Congress could gain control of stable banks along with failing banks.
Why would the unions be offered bailout money? For what purpose?
Posts: 46,542
Threads: 2,629
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Unions wouldn't be offered a bailout. It is just a tangent to nowhere.
Posts: 481
Threads: 18
Joined: Mar 2010
davester wrote:
they have gone overseas as a result of the last decade of outsourcing.
Agreed. It's interesting. In another thread Swampy complains the the government is now micro-managing GM. We tried the free market and look where it got us, all the righties do is whine now. It's pathetic. They just want more of the same old stuff.
