Union Democrats

Tagged:  

I am amazed at the union democrat. They think by votiing in people who will raise taxes it will help the working class. Their blind and unfounded hatred toward "the rich man" really clouds any common sense that could possibly enter their brain.

Now, the unions, after spending $60.7 million to get Barak Obama elected wanting his national healthcare program...finally realize that it has to be paid for somehow.

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx/politics/0/APNews/General-Politics/2009...

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I worked in a union shop 40+years, and for the life of me still can't figure out why so many 'good union members 'didn't get it' then, and don't get it now! They would beech-beech-beech when they saw the amount stolen from their checks in taxes, union dues, etc.-and vote the union directed slate each and every election. And not only that, but so many have this blind and utter hatred of "big business", and don't seem to comprehend that they work for "big business'. Although more people don't follow the unions advice in the voting booth than did years ago, far too many still do. When someone figures out this foolishness, please let me know, I've been waiting 40 years for an answer.

Congressman Ryan Leads the Fight for Delphi Salaried Employee Pensions on the Floor.
http://www.wytv.com/content/news/local/story/Delphi-Salaried-Retirees-to...
The average age of the retirees we met Wednesday is in the mid-to-late 50's. Most of them devoting thirty years or more of their lives to both General Motors and Delphi Packard, some winning patents for their ideas or successfully selling the company's products all around the world. And when they left, it was with the thought that even in bankruptcy, their retirements would be secure. Wednesday, one of those retirees, Bruce Gump, who spent more than 32 years with the company, says, "This contract of trust that we had with them, they just have thrown under the wheels of the bus."

For these salaried retirees, and thousands more like them, the latest news from Delphi only adds more insult to injury. The bankrupt parts-maker now wants to get rid of its under-funded pension plan for former white-collar workers, meaning the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation will take it over.

This comes after the retirees had already lost their company health care and life insurance, benefits they were now having to pay for using those soon-to-be-shrinking pensions. But what has them even more upset, the notion tax dollars are bailing out GM and its workers and retirees, as well as helping the automaker take over some of Delphi's assets. Retiree Charles Cunningham of Howland claims collusion is taking place, telling us, "It's because of the UAW relationship with the current Administration in Washington."

Some believe the President is now reneging on a promise to protect auto worker pensions. Retiree John Sandberg says, "We're all auto workers. We all sacrificed along side the hourly workers and the unions to build this company up."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

That link doesn't say anything about "the union democrat".

Pink Slip

It doesn't have to, we all k now a union democrat when we see one. It's a different side of the same coin.

I worked for 4 unions and can honestly say they've done NOTHING to help increase my standard of living.

My father has worked for a union for over 37 years and when he needed them the most they wouldn't return his phone calls.

If Healthcare passes with the tax I will celebrate because unions are only out for unions and not their members. They pushed health care takeover because it's one less thing they have to negiotiate and can instead get more $$ in which to raise their dues.

They have overserved their purpose and now are trying to dictate the lives of those who are nonmembers.

MikeyA

"I worked for 4 unions and can honestly say they've done NOTHING to help increase my standard of living."

Did you get weekends off?

Did you have 8-hour work days?

Did you have safe working conditions?

Did you make more money than non-union employees?

"My father has worked for a union for over 37 years"

37 years!! Wow!! You don't often see that kind of job security. And he was able to raise an intelligent productive member of society on a union salary on top of that. Good for him.

Pink Slip

Did I get weekends off? hmmm is this 1912 and was I in an Upton Sinclair novel? No again reread the quote. Increase my standard of living. The 5 day work week was well established before my father was even born.

8 hour work days? Nope. Every single one was part-time. it seems I had to wait to be interviewed for full time after they hired all the people who didn't work as hard but had worked part-time for longer. Note: I never had a bad review until the last one and when the union steward didn't stand up for me is when I quit and vowed to never again work for a union. A guy who got a better review was one who would leave for lunch early so he could roll a doobie in the bathroom.

Did I have safe working conditions? Yes, thank you OSHA.

Did i make more money than non union employees? No, those were supervisors. Did I make more money than my roommates (similar ages and working situations)? Nope. Hence why I quit and became a waiter before I left college and enlisted.

Job security. Well he was almost fired because he had a heart attack. That was after having worked for 30 years. I wouldn't consider that secure. Add in he almost lost his home which he had already owned for 12 years.

BTW he now advises every intelligent member of society including this one to never EVER work for a union.

MikeyA

Sounds like you and Gman, having been there and worked under unions are getting the P*ssy speak from someone who hasnt.

Now aint THAT typical! My folks both worked under union rule, and would agree with you wholeheartedly.

like most of your 'beefs' should be with the companies you were employed with, not the unions you were a member of.

If those unions were weak and ineffective, that could be situation those companies helped create and took advantage of.

The 'unions' didn't pay ineffective workers compared to you higher salaries or almost fire your father after his heart attack, or make him almost lose his home, did they?

This reads as though you're bitter your unions didn't stand up stronger for you when you felt they were needed. And if they had, can I surmise you'd be a stronger advocate of unions today?

I thought all along with you (and others on here) it was more a philosophical debate on union/management issues.

This sounds very personal.

"like most of your 'beefs' should be with the companies you were employed with, not the unions you were a member of."

Actually you're quite wrong.

In the case of my father the company told him they would love to do something to help however if they did they would be breaking the contract and open themselves up to future possible legal recourse by the union or another member.

As for him almost losing his home I can most certainly blame the union. They fought for driver's who had received DUI's to be put at home on full pay until their legal matter was settled. Normally not a big deal but when you consider these are truck driver's who have CDL's a DUI is a very big deal. Instead of fighting for people with medical conditions they chose to fight for the irresponsible.

Oh yeah and the 10% of his normal pay had FULL union dues taken out of it. At least the company was willing to toss him a bone be it a small one. The union wasn't willing to take any cut.

As for me, two of the unions are considered strong and two you could say was weak. The last one where I had the most problems was a "strong" union.

For me it is very personal. And for that I have made it personal. I used to view unions as a necessary evil. However I no longer take that view. I believe they are a defunct section of culture that now only hopes to control the lives of others for their own gain.

MikeyA

your father became sick and thus could not work? Do i have this right?

And the company wanted to pay him while he was recuperating but the union 'setup' made it too difficult for the company to buck the established 'guidlines' in place for someone off sick? It was expressly the union contract with the company that made it o.k. to pay drivers off on DUIs but not drivers who were ill and unable to work?

In other words, this is what your father's union bargained for in contract negociations with the company he worked for as per paid sick time?

I'm hardly a union 'expert', but I have never heard of any union/management setup where the employee's union did not at least fight for a certain amount of paid sick time during contract talks.

There has to be more to this story.

Yes he does get sick time. 7 days. He also gets 14 days vacation. All were used up in the first month he was unable to drive.

He was able to work but was not allowed to for 6 months. This is because his doctor had to clear him to drive. The doctor did clear him to work but not to drive. But again due to the contract he was not allowed to temporarily work another job, even a part-time job where there is high turnover.

MikeyA

He worked at the same job for 37 years and had less then 3 weeks of vacation? Wow...

Because I went to college and got a degree, applied myself and studied, paid for an education:

Did you get weekends off?

Yes. and all holidays paid also. Including Healthcare, immediate 2 weeks vacation (up to 4 weeks now), dental insurance, eyeglass insurance, retirement etc. etc.  All because educated people are in demand. While a person who can be replaced by a ROBOT is expendable.

Did you have 8-hour work days?

8-hour work days, overtime if I CHOOSE to work on off-business hours whe asked politely by management, respect by my superiors because of my knowledge, bonuses because I sometimes outperform others in my department, consistant raises because of my outstanding performance etc etc.

Did you have safe working conditions?

Yep, air-conditioning, nice office, get to wear nice clothes, get to take coffee breaks whenever I want, smoke breaks whenever I want, can talk to others in my quiet office whenever I want.....

Did you make more money than non-union employees?

Almost all of the people in my profession, except those who work for the City of Toledo and Lucas County are non-union.  Those who work for the city and county do NOT make more than I do because those in my profession who work for the government belong to the  IBEW and CANNOT ask for a raise even if they deserve it.

Therefore, YES i do make much more than those union employees and as an added plus, I can walk into my bosses office and ask for more. Sometimes I get it, sometimes I don't.

Those union people who work for the city do not do more than they have to. They tell me that there is no incentive to work harder, faster, or smarter than the others in their department beucause there is no reason to.

They KNOW they will only get a raise when the slackers also get a raise. The producers KNOW that they can goof off because it is almost impossible to fire them.

From what my friends in the IBEW for Government tell me, the union has turned the performers into slackers since the union caters to the lowest common denominator.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Wow, it sounds like you owe a lot of gratitude to organized labor.

Pink Slip

you would not be employable.

The difference between You (a union member) and me (an educated person)  I can watch what you do for about 5 minutes and do your job. There is no way you can do what I do just because you and your commie buddies threaten to strike.

What I do takes talent, thought, education and critical thinking. What you do can be done by anyone and probably can be done better and faster by an educated person.  And, like anything else, doing something better and faster SHOULD equate to more money. It is cheaper for a busines to pay one person more than to pay two people less.

Now it's my turn:

1) what has a Union done for you. Not your grandpappy, not for the people who play Uchre while the rest of you work, not for your commie buddies who show up drunk or stoned, but for YOU. In other words, what has a Union done IN THIS CENTURY?

2) If you work your ass off, do you get more money than the slackers?

3) If you are so damn good at what you do, if you are so smart, if you perform, why do you have to rely on a union? Can't you make it on your own? Can't you stand on your own two feet? Can't you prove your own worth by out-shining the others?

Aren't you better than everyone else? Or is there no reason to be?

 

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Listen dummy, if you read your history you'd realize that all American workers have benefited from organized labor for the reasons I listed above (40-hour work week, safe working conditions, 5 day work week, higher wages, etc). It doesn't matter if you work in a union now or not. Non-union employees often benefit from unions, and what they fought for.

I'm in management now, and I still support organized labor, because union members are often more productive and better trained.

Pink Slip

Then maybe you wouldn't be WRONG AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. You pathetic, brainwashed, uneducated Union parrots make me laugh.

HERE is the truth about 40 hour work weeks and how BUSINESS OWNERS like Henry Ford insisted on them.

"The automobile manufacturer, Henry Ford, was an ardent proponent of shorter work hours which he introduced unilaterally in his own factories. Ford stated that he pursued this policy for business rather than humanitarian reasons. He believed that workers (who were also the main consumers of products) needed adequate leisure time to consume products and thus perceive a need to purchase them. Over the long term, consumer markets needed to be grown. This view of the economy never gained widespread hold."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

If you care to READ THE HEADLINES, here is a link to a genuine copy of THE NEW YORK TIMES, September 26, 1926 with the article about Henry Ford creating the 40 hour, 5 day work week. SO, unlike the lie you are trying to pass off as some great Union Win, the FACT is that business owners established the 40 hour, 5 day work week. Not your precious Unions.

http://cgi.ebay.com/HENRY-FORD-40-Hour-5-Day-Work-Week-Est-1926-Newspaper_W0QQitemZ370293300762QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5637335e1a

Don't worry, I'll prove most of the rest of your Great Union Hack lies are all B.S.

 (EDIT) I almost forgot. This same article about Ford Motor Company Management creating the 40 hour, 5 day work week says that Ford STARTED PAYING HIS 5 DAY WORKERS FOR 6 DAYS WORK.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

LibsCanBlowMe must be Latin for always wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

Look at how the movement precedes Ford by decades.

But, please--continue your display of ignorance. It pleases me...

Pink Slip

The "hero" your link talks about, Robert Owen, was a SOCIALIST. And your article says that Owens ONLY ALLOWED FOR A 10 HOUR DAY in the factories he owned.

"Robert Owen had raised the demand for a ten-hour day in 1810, and instituted it in his socialist enterprise at New Lanark."

Also, THIS LINK AND ROBERT OWEN LIVED BEFORE TRADE UNIONS EXISTED.  "...Women and children in England were granted the ten-hour day in 1847. French workers won the 12-hour day after the February revolution of 1848. A shorter working day and improved working conditions were part of the general protests and agitation for Chartist reforms and the early organization of trade unions.

Also from the article you post: "Robert Owen's work had been that of a philanthropist. His first departure in socialism took place in 1817, and was embodied in a report communicated to the committee of the House of Commons on the Poor Law."

The general misery and stagnation of trade consequent on the termination of the Napoleonic Wars was engrossing the attention of the country. After tracing the special causes connected with the wars which had led to such a deplorable state of things, Owen pointed out that the permanent cause of distress was to be found in the competition of human labor with machinery, and that the only effective remedy was the united action of men, and the subordination of machinery.

His proposals for the treatment of poverty were based on these principles. Communities of about twelve hundred persons each should be settled on quantities of land from 1000 to 1500 acres (4 to 6 km²), all living in one large building in the form of a square, with public kitchen and mess-rooms. Each family should have its own private apartments, and the entire care of the children till the age of three, after which they should be brought up by the community, their parents having access to them at meals and all other proper times.

These communities might be established by individuals, by parishes, by counties, or by the state; in every case there should be effective supervision by duly qualified persons. Work, and the enjoyment of its results, should be in common. The size of his community was no doubt partly suggested by his village of New Lanark; and he soon proceeded to advocate such a scheme as the best form for the re-organization of society in general.

In its fully developed form - and it cannot be said to have changed much during Owen's lifetime - it was as follows. He considered an association of from 500 to 3000 as the fit number for a good working community. While mainly agricultural, it should possess all the best machinery, should offer every variety of employment, and should, as far as possible, be self-contained. "As these townships" (as he also called them) "should increase in number, unions of them federatively united shall be formed in circles of tens, hundreds and thousands", till they should embrace the whole world in a common interest."

So we can conclude from your post and link:

1) You agree with socialists

2) Robert Owen lived BEFORE the formation of Unions and before Karl Marx predicted the existence of Unions. Therefore you cannot say that the 40 hour work week and 8 hour day are thanks to your precious "Unions".

3) Robert Owen preached about the 8 hour work day, but his own employees were forced to work 10 hour day.

 

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

that the roots of the concept of the 'eight-hour' work day had been established well before Henry Ford's decision in 1926 to implement it at his factories.

''At its convention in Chicago in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labour from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labour organizations throughout this jurisdiction that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution by the time named."

Your very-predictable knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the 'eight-hour' concept was initiated by a.....GASP!!! ....Socialist is beyond amusing.

What YOU wrote----

'If you care to READ THE HEADLINES, here is a link to a genuine copy of THE NEW YORK TIMES, September 26, 1926 with the article about Henry Ford creating the 40 hour, 5 day work week. SO, unlike the lie you are trying to pass off as some great Union Win, the FACT is that business owners established the 40 hour, 5 day work week.

The facts are that, per usual, you're wrong eight ways from Sunday.

Exactly McCaskey....on all counts.

Pink Slip

Show me a link to an article, a link to a Union Contract, a link to ANYTHING that says the 40 hour work week was created by Unions.

Not some BS discussion about how some socialist wanted to create an 8 hour workday BUT DIDN'T DO IT IN HIS OWN FACTORY.

Not some lame thoughts about how you think that someone said one time they thought a friend said it.

Put up or shut up. I gave you my sources. Now show me why I am wrong.

It should be a simple thing to do if it is such a "well know fact" that Unions created the 40 hour work week.

Otherwise I will accept your admission that you are brainwashed Union zelots who have no idea about history and just lap up the Union lies the way a dog eats it's own vomit.

 

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

StrawManCanBlowMe:

No where did anyone EVER say that the 40 hour work week was created by unions. What I said was that unions fought for these things well before Henry Ford. This is from the link I posted:

In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organized a general strike, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals. Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842.

In 1864, the eight-hour day quickly became a central demand of the Chicago labor movement. The Illinois legislature passed a law in early 1867 granting an eight-hour day but had so many loopholes that it was largely ineffective. A city-wide strike that began on May 1, 1867 shut down the city's economy for a week before collapsing. In 1868, Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees, which was also of limited effectiveness.

In August 1866 the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."

During the 1870s, eight hours became a central demand, especially among labor organizers, anarchists and socialists, with a network of Eight-Hour Leagues which held rallies and parades. A hundred thousand workers in New York City struck and won the eight-hour day in 1872, mostly for building trades workers. In Chicago, Albert Parsons became recording secretary of the Chicago Eight-Hour League in 1878, and was appointed a member of a national eight-hour committee in 1880.

At its convention in Chicago in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labour from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labour organizations throughout this jurisdiction that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution by the time named."

The leadership of the Knights of Labor, under Terence V. Powderly, rejected appeals to join the movement as a whole, but many local Knights assemblies joined the strike call including Chicago, Cincinnati and Milwaukee. On May 1, 1886, Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, with his wife Lucy Parsons and two children, led 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue, Chicago, in what is regarded as the first modern May Day Parade, in support of the eight-hour day. In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers who went on strike at 1,200 factories, including 70,000 in Chicago, 45,000 in New York, 32,000 in Cincinnati, and additional thousands in other cities. Some workers gained shorter hours (eight or nine) with no reduction in pay; others accepted pay cuts with the reduction in hours.

On May 3, 1886, August Spies, editor of the Arbeiter-Zeitung (Workers Newspaper), spoke at a meeting of 6,000 workers, and afterwards many of them moved down the street to harass strikebreakers at the McCormick plant in Chicago. The police arrived, opened fire, and killed four people, wounding many more. At a subsequent rally on May 4 to protest this violence, a bomb exploded at the Haymarket Square. Hundreds of labour activists were rounded up and the prominent labour leaders arrested, tried, convicted, and executed giving the movement its first martyrs. On June 26, 1893 Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld set the remaining leader free, and granted full pardons to all those tried claiming they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried and the hanged men had been the victims of "hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge".

The American Federation of Labor, meeting in St Louis in December 1888, set May 1, 1890 as the day that American workers should work no more than eight hours. The International Workingmen's Association (Second International), meeting in Paris in 1889, endorsed the date for international demonstrations, thus starting the international tradition of May Day.

The United Mine Workers won an eight-hour day in 1898.

The Building Trades Council (BTC) of San Francisco, under the leadership of P.H. McCarthy, won the eight-hour day in 1900 when the BTC unilaterally declared that its members would work only eight hours a day for $3 a day. When mill resisted, the BTC began organizing mill workers; the employers responded by locking out 8,000 employees throughout the Bay Area. The BTC, in return, established a union planing mill from which construction employers could obtain supplies — or face boycotts and sympathy strikes if they did not. The mill owners went to arbitration, where the union won the eight-hour day, a closed shop for all skilled workers, and an arbitration panel to resolve future disputes. In return, the union agreed to refuse to work with material produced by non-union planing mills or those that paid less than the Bay Area employers."

I realize you're all gung-ho about displaying your ignorance, but do us a favor and try to educate yourself about these things.

Pink Slip

Ford was the first to give the world the 8 hour work day.

Period.

Not the Unions, not some French guy who lived in the 1700s, not some shoemakers in the 1780s.

The ONLY thing Unions did regarding the 8 hour work day was their "me too" attitude. In the 1930's, the Union purchased some members of Congress to pass the 'Fair Labor Act' but that was 20 years after Ford Motor Company and others took it upon themselves to limit work days to 8 hours.

Like children, the Unions pointed to Ford Motor Company and told mommy gubberment, "But Johnnys employer lets them do it, we want it too."

They then stomped their feet, threw themselves to the ground and held their breath until mommy gubberment created the "Fair Labor Act".

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

It's like I'm talking to John the Savage. For the love of Ford, can't you read?

--Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836.

--In 1864, the eight-hour day quickly became a central demand of the Chicago labor movement.

--The Illinois legislature passed a law in early 1867 granting an eight-hour day

--In August 1866 the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union

--During the 1870s, eight hours became a central demand, especially among labor organizers

--At its convention in Chicago in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labour

--On May 1, 1886, Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, with his wife Lucy Parsons and two children, led 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue, Chicago, in what is regarded as the first modern May Day Parade, in support of the eight-hour day.

--The American Federation of Labor, meeting in St Louis in December 1888, set May 1, 1890 as the day that American workers should work no more than eight hours

--The United Mine Workers won an eight-hour day in 1898.

--The Building Trades Council (BTC) of San Francisco, under the leadership of P.H. McCarthy, won the eight-hour day in 1900 when the BTC unilaterally declared that its members would work only eight hours a day for $3 a day.

Pink Slip

all he has to do is re-read the 'eight-hour' link you provided early on and he could see that various organizations world-over not only strived for an 8-hour work day, they acheived successes...Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Europe, etc....all between the 1860s and 1920s.

why don't you google 'Fordism' yourself and then point out specifically where it says specifically what you claim here:

'Ford was the first to give the world the 8 hour work day. Period.'

I couldn't find it in this link:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-fordism.html

Good luck pally.

July 13, 1986
INTRIGUE AND TYRANNY IN MOTOR CITY
By TED MORGAN; TED MORGAN IS THE AUTHOR OF ''FDR: A BIOGRAPHY.''

FORD The Men and the Machine. By Robert Lacey. Illustrated. 778 pp. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. $24.95.

HENRY FORD was an authentic American folk hero, the humbly born son of Irish immigrants, self-taught and self-made, who struggled valiantly against adversity, like Ragged Dick or any other of Horatio Alger's characters. He didn't invent the car, as Edison invented the incandescent lamp, but he made it available to the masses, a fine and democratic (not to say profitable) thing to do.

What Henry Ford did invent was the notion that society could be bettered by running it along the lines of an industrial plant. In his soul he wasn't a businessman but a social engineer. Why couldn't people be more like Model A's, reliable, trustworthy, economical, good performers capable of improvement. His gospel was Emerson, whose oblique Darwinian message reconciled the idealist and the entrepreneur. Each man had to live up to his potential, said the sage of Concord, for each man had God in him. You could not be ''leaning willows.'' You had to cultivate self-reliance and be guided by your own light, however dim, and not that of others. Ford recognized himself in Emerson's description of ''a class of men . . . endowed with insight and virtue,'' ''usually received with ill-will because they are new.''

Emerson spoke directly to him when he said ''machinery and transcendentalism agree well.'' It was as if he were saying, ''Go ahead with the assembly line, God approves of efficiency.'' You also had to help others realize their potential. When Ford doubled the basic wage to $5 a day in 1914, it wasn't humanitarianism but ''efficiency engineering.''

The irony was that in trying to make over his workers in terms of ''Americanization'' and ''Fordliness,'' Ford created a form of Big Brotherism that was closer to the totalitarian model. At a time when 70 percent of his work force was foreign-born, Ford's Sociological Department was commissioned to intrude on the private lives of his employees. Inspectors were sent to their homes to question them about their marital life and their finances to see if they were worthy enough to work for Ford. It seems amazing that people would tolerate such interrogation, but their jobs depended on it. I

* HAVE before me a photograph of the graduation ceremony of Ford's English-language school, which I wish the author, Robert Lacey, had used in his book, ''Ford.'' On a stage, in front of the painted backdrop of an immigrant ship, stands a cauldron as big as a house - the melting pot. Down a gangplank come the members of the class dressed in their national garb and carrying their luggage. They seem to enter the cauldron, the contents of which are being stirred with long ladles by the teachers. As the pot boils over, the graduates emerge on the other side, dressed in their best American clothes and holding American flags.

In his haste to transform his immigrant employees through this classic exercise in American incongruity, Ford missed the true nature of the American experience, which lies halfway between complete assimilation and complete pluralism. Since everyone is more or less recently uprooted, accommodation is always being negotiated.

Ford's genius was for simplification. The same gift that made him cast a single engine block, with a separate, bolt-down cylinder head on top, rather than casting each cylinder separately, made him look for simple solutions to social problems. When he went on holiday in New England in 1919 with his pals Thomas Edison, Harvey Firestone and the naturalist John Burroughs, and they were sitting around the fire reminiscing, what was Henry talking about? The Jews, how they caused all the evil in the world and the thieving in the country. Anti-Semitism answered the need for a visible enemy and gave him someone to blame for all that went amiss. It was another example of his wrong-headedness outside the automotive arena, for in a society built upon successive waves of immigrants, there are always new culprits of change - the day before yesterday the Irish, yesterday the Jews and today the illegal aliens.

So on the one hand you had the man who championed social engineering and company spies, and who resisted profoundly the deep changes in American life, such as the coming of the unions. And on the other you had the man who put America on wheels, who reinforced individualism through greater mobility, who provided a cheap and dependable car in which to change jobs or rob banks (Bonnie and Clyde drove a Ford V-8).

The principal trouble with Henry Ford was that he had not applied social engineering to himself. Great and inventive, yes, but also a cold-hearted, rapacious bigot, who drove his only son, Edsel, to an early grave. It was, after all, a family business, in which the son was expected to succeed the father. But Ford turned the succession into a sort of ''King Lear'' in reverse. Instead of the children conspiring against their father, the father plotted against his son, and kept him an underling.

He brought in an alter ego, Harry Bennett, the unconditional loyalist, short and scrappy, a James Cagney type, a fixer, who got things done, whether it was taking care of the mother of Henry's illegitimate son, or hiring goons to beat up the union leader Walter Reuther. Ford, of course, was the last of the big automobile companies to accept unionization, and Harry Bennett was useful to him in trying to prevent this from happening. ''If Mr. Ford told me to blacken out the sun tomorrow,'' said Harry, ''I might have trouble fixing it. But you'd see a hundred thousand sons-of-bitches coming through the Rouge [ River plant ] gates in the morning all wearing dark glasses.''

Harry Bennett created a private police force called ''outside squads,'' which was closer to the brown-shirt and black-shirt model than to anything in a democratic state. Edsel, about the same age as Bennett, was repeatedly humiliated as his father backed Bennett in every dispute. The struggle between the dauphin and the eminence grise was played out like a drama of succession to the throne. Edsel became an illustration that frustration and stress, on a daily unrelenting level, can cause illness. He had the ultimate case of ''Ford Stomach,'' as the anxiety produced by assembly-line timetables was called. In America, the land of the permanent revolution, ulcers and cancer often become, for the men at the top, the contemporary equivalent of the guillotine. Edsel died in 1943, at the age of 49.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Well Mikey, those are all things that unions fought for and you sound pretty ungrateful to those that came before you.

Btw, "billi"---I worked for a union and I believe in the right to organize.

Pink Slip

I'm IN union ..and you are still full of it....

3/4 of the assclowns think like you do...and right now 25% of local is laid off...

But...Bush isnt around to blame anymore...so they try and pin it on republicans...who ofcorse havent had control of either house of congress for almost 4 years now...

Many union Members suffer from your menatality...that someone OWES you a job...that you can strong arm yourself into "job security"....when in fact all you are strong arming yourself into is the unemployment line...

They fail to make the connection between capital investment of property and WORK....

Now that the capital is being strangled to death, investment in property is way down...they sit and wonder why they are out of work...

And now Obama and his wizzards of smart want amnesty for 12 million illegals....oh yeah...with 10% unemployment...

Who is behind a major push for amnesty?

SEIU and the AFL-CIO....

Unions dont CARE if you arent working...so long as you keep paying your dues like a good little prole...

And if you step out of line and get too upity....you get a beat down...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

bringing up Bush yet again...why can't you just get over it?

LMAO...the only word you zoned in on....what a tool...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

with your expertise of Blanche Kelso Bruce some more:

http://swampbubbles.com/20091204/great-question-thomas-sowell

Next time you and Libsie are together sittin' around in your underwear watchin' the tube, give the History Channel a look-see.

McCaskey, It's cute the way you and your other liberal girlfriends feed off of eachother and attempt to make yourselves feel smart.

While you and your other Union brothers are sitting around in a typical circle-jerk patting each-other on the butts and congratulating yourselves for what Unions did 100 years ago, maybe you could watch PBS.

Or here > http://www.pbs.org/pov/film-files/pov_wagingaliving_lp_lesson_plan_0_1.pdf 

read it for yourselves (if your Union Puppetmasters allow you to read anything besides the Communist Manifesto). Read that PBS said Ford started the 8 hour work day.

And WHY Ford implemented the 8 hour work day TO KEEP YOU LAZY UNION HACKS OUT OF HIS COMPANY.

Henry Ford

On January 5, 1914, Henry Ford announced his $5/day program for autoworkers at his factory. In this program, which Ford called "profit sharing," workers over the age of 22 who had been at Ford for at least 6 months would be guaranteed a minimum of $5 for an 8 hour work day.

For many Ford workers, this policy more than doubled their pay and made them the highest paid workers in the industry.

At the time, there were no minimum wage laws in the U.S. Other industrialists scoffed at Ford for raising production costs unnecessarily.

The main purpose of Ford's policy was to reduce high turnover and the associated costs of having to constantly train new workers. It was so successful in addressing the turnover problem that the policy actually saved the company money. Those savings led others to follow Ford's lead.

Ford's policy was also likely motivated by a desire to discourage workers from organizing a union and to fend off government regulation (which Ford adamantly opposed).

One outcome often attributed to Ford's policy was the creation of the American middle class, because he was the first manufacturer of a "luxury" item to pay his workers enough to afford the product they built. Because Ford's high wage policy raised the standard of living for the working poor,his approach is sometimes labeled "welfare capitalism."

 

Make sure you re-read this sentence, McCaskey, because I am sure one of your other brainwashed Union hack "facts" is some crap about how Unions 'created the Middle Class'.

"One outcome often attributed to Ford's policy was the creation of the American middle class..."

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Your inability to read the things you post.

"Read that PBS said Ford started the 8 hour work day."

Nowhere in that PDF does it say Ford was the first to institute an 8 hour work day. Probably because he wasn't.

"One outcome often attributed to Ford's policy was the creation of the American middle class..."

Let's finish the quote you started:

"...because he was the first manufacturer of a "luxury"
item to pay his workers enough to afford the product they built."

In context, the quote you clipped is talking about the affect higher wages had in creating the American middle class.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

That is exactly what it said and exactly what I meant. I agree with the PBS assessment.

"In context, the quote you clipped is talking about the affect higher wages had in creating the American middle class".   Higher wages that Ford PAID VOLUNTARILY in order to keep people. 5 day work weeks and 8 hour days that Ford GAVE VOLUNTARILY because it was cheaper for him in the long run to keep his workers happy.

What you are having a hard time believing, like McCaskey and the other Union whores is that Ford gave his workers more money, the 5 day work week and the 8 hour work day without the Union holding it's breath and screeching.

 

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

the only possible conclusion is that you are brain dead and not worth the effort.

Henry Ford was an innovator in several ways--the automobile assembly line and employee profit sharing to name two. Yes, he paid his workers well, and they worked an eight-hour day.

But, your misguided contention that he 'gave the world' and initiated everything having to do with the '8-hour work day', that unions only came into the picture on the heels of Ford's 'great innovation' is not remotely close to being accurate and has been cited here ad nauseum.

I didn't think it was possible for you to be this stupid, but here we are...

In your own words, " employee profit sharing to name two. Yes, he paid his workers well, and they worked an eight-hour day" all BEFORE Union pinkos like you took over his company.

Yet, when given the facts, when given supporting documentation, when spoon-fed the truth, Liberals still choose to believe what their owners tell them.

No wonder you morons voted for "hope and change". You saps believe whatever you are told to believe by Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes and the rest of the mental midgets at Air America.

You are correct about one thing. You Union retards aren't worth trying to educate.

It's funny in a sad sort of way.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

So LibsYouLikeToBlow, in all seriousness---what do you make of the countless examples of union/labor activism to push for the 8-hour workday? We provided many historical accounts to back this up. Are you claiming that these things never happened? I know the wingnuts love their conspiracies. Is this a big conspiracy? Are the Dems in cahoots with Big History?

Pink Slip

lol

'Google 'Fordism' . Read. Educate yourself. Then try and argue.'

Exhibit A right here.

As I already explained to you Libsie, like several days ago, I took your grand advice and Googled 'Fordism' and nowhere does it say Ford 'created, 'invented', 'was the first', or anything like the sort when discussing 8-hour work days.

"Ford gave the world the eight-hour work day'

Oh really, Libsie?

When Googling 'Fordism' (thanks for the recommendation) I came across this nuggett:

http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism_&_Postfordism.html

'However, the ability of unskilled manufacturing employees to gain and hold supracompetitive wages ultimately depended upon their political power. By the 1950s, the rise of mass production had made them the largest single group in every developed country. Already organized by their employers, they were easily mobilized on behalf of their own interests. In every developed country, labor unions emerged as the best-organized and often the most powerful political force. Their preferences were reflected not only in labor laws, but in public policy generally. They were the architects and chief supporters of the postwar Keynesian welfare state, with its goals of full employment, social security, and income parity. Indeed, some refer to the welfare state as the Fordist state (see Albo, Langille, and Panitch, 1993; the complementarity between mass production, consumption, and politics is especially well developed by M. Aglietta in A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: the US Experience (1979); see, however, McDermott, 1991).'

Hmmm...still nothing about that 'eight-hour work day', though.

As you suggested, I read the entire article you posted a link to and I think I understand what you are saying.  http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism_&_Postfordism.html

Especially interesting was the sentence right before the one you posted out of context.

"Assembly line work is unpleasant in a mass production environment. It is physically demanding, requires high levels of concentration, and can be excruciatingly boring. As a consequence, Ford experienced very high labor turnover, 380 percent in 1913. (Even today, double-digit absenteeism is common in mass-production assembly plants, necessitating a buffer stock of utility workers, who fill in for the assemblers that fail to show up at the start of each shift). According to the somewhat stylized facts, Ford, believing "men work for only two reasons: one is for wages, and one is for fear of losing their jobs," dealt with labor turnover by doubling pay to $5 a day; that other manufacturer's emulated Ford's wage policies along with his production methods; and that eventually all employers were forced to bring wages into line with those offered unskilled labor in manufacturing. In other words: premium pay for putting up with what Gramsci described as mass production's "monotonous, degrading, and life draining work process."

Regardless of the means, unskilled assembly workers eventually reaped substantial gains from increased industrial productivity -- a forty percent reduction in working hours and a twenty-five-fold increase in wages. In the English speaking world, unions enforced artificial scarcity to win supracompetitive wages for their members -- sometimes on their own, sometimes in cooperation with other unions, and sometimes in collusion with specific firms. In the social-market economies of Northern Europe, workers did even better. Coordinated wage setting between national associations of employers and national labor organizations, usually led by blue-collar unions, achieved both high wages and considerable income equality, almost without strikes (Scharph, 1991)."

Followed by your sentence: "However, the ability of unskilled manufacturing employees to gain and hold supracompetitive wages ultimately depended upon their political power. By the 1950s, the rise... "

Now I understand what you mean by Unions creating the 8 hour work day.  Despite what the article you posted says about "a forty percent reduction in working hours and a twenty-five-fold increase in wages. " Ford could not have been the first company that implimented the 8 hour a day, 5 day a week work schedule in 1926 because Unions had political power in the 1950's  "However, the ability of unskilled manufacturing employees to gain and hold supracompetitive wages ultimately depended upon their political power. By the 1950s, the rise ..."

How the Unions were able to bargain in 1950 for the 8 hour work day, 5 days for the work week in 1926 when the Ford Motor Company first implimented the 40 hour work week is incredible.

Now I see where I went wrong. You are saying that Unions somehow were able to build a time machine in the 1950s and travel back to the Ford Motor Company BEFORE Ford Motor Company had Unions and negotiate the 40 hour work week and raises for everyone.

It's a frikin miracle that you Holy Union Leaders were able to negotiate that 40 hour work week 30 years after Ford Motor Company created it.

It's no wonder you worship such powerful, super-natural beings! To be able to travel back in time like that is approaching GOD-LIKE. You must keep worshiping the Union masters and continue to tithe 10% of your wages to the Church of the Holy Time-Traveling Unions.

It is now obvious to me that I am wrong. You're right. I'm sorry. Unions created the 40 hour work week through time-travel.

(NOTE: Normally, I would not feel like I needed to say this, but since you are obviously an ignorant troll, I feel I should point out that I have taken your words, thrown them back in your face and am laughing at your stupidity. For you and the other Union Hack retards, time-travel, even by your lords and masters in the Union, is not possible. Unless of course, your Union Masters tell you to think that time travel IS possible. Then by all means, believe what you are told to believe. How's that "Hope and Change" working out? HAHAHAHAHA!)

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

At the time of the 1930s Ford was not the only game in town. Just because Ford paid the 5 dollar day doesn't mean others did. Do some research on the Toledo Autolite strike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Lite_strike

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Direct from the link McCaskey convinently posted for everyone to read:

http://www.willamette.edu/~fthompso/MgmtCon/Fordism_&_Postfordism.html

Ford fought the high turnover rate by "...doubling pay to $5 a day; that other manufacturer's emulated Ford's wage policies along with his production methods; and that eventually all employers were forced to bring wages into line with those offered unskilled labor in manufacturing. "

Read it again retard. The Auto-Lite strike happened years after Ford Motor Company started paying their employees more for 40 hour work weeks and was probably a result of the Union's "Me Too" additude.

"that other manufacturer's emulated Ford's wage policies along with his production methods; and that eventually all employers were forced to bring wages into line with those offered unskilled labor in manufacturing. "

Get it? "eventually all employers were forced to bring wages into line "

"eventually all employers were forced to bring wages into line "

 

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

but I'm calling you out for what you are: a moron.

'Ford gave the world the eight-hour work day'---

You said this, right?

Per the U.S. alone, the federal government first passed hours-of-work legislation in 1868 and everything fell in line after that, at different stages for different workers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=n0yExlVN4nYC&pg=RA1-PA86&lpg=RA1-PA86&d...

(Don't get drawn in by the title, lol...for purposes of this argument it does not help your cause)

What you're looking for is Chapter 4, page 86, 'hours of work' section.

Of important note to you, if you can absorb it, is this passage: 'federal legislation set precedents for the private sector and helped create a more favorable enviornment for hours-of-work restrictions'

Do you think the authors might be talking about companies like Ford here, Libsie? Huh, what do ya think, genuis?

BTW Libsie, where are all your fellow right-wing brethern at this stage of this argument? Do you get the feeling you've been abandoned? I think they sawed off your limb from the tree quite some time ago.

First, unlike you, I don't need pats on the back from others in order to know I am right. Unlike you and the other Union Collective, I can think for myself.  I am educated and actually read. So get over it. The only people who seem to be defending you are other brainwashed Union Hack morons who, like you, CANNOT READ AND ONLY PARROT WHAT THE UNION HAS BRAINWASHED YOU WITH. Man, it's like you all are a bunch of Moonies, Hari-Krishnas or some other whacko religion worshipping at the alter of your Union Puppetmasters.

And really, you morons should READ what you think you are posting. I did. And your little link ALSO PROVES MY POINT. Had you taken the time to read PAGE 87 of your link, you would have seen that the ONE LAME-ASS POINT YOU MADE, only applied to PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES. Any laws trying to limit hours worked by the private sector were "often declared to be unconstitutional by state courts". That is WHAT YOUR LINK SAID. Go back and try to educate yourself by reading your link.

So, once again Ford Motor Company created the 8 hour workday a full 20 years before 'federal legislation set precedents for the private sector and helped create a more favorable enviornment for hours-of-work restrictions' in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act .

The Ford Motor Company DID IT VOLUNTARILY for business reasons AND DID IT BEFORE THE UNIONS EVER GOT A FOOTHOLD IN FORD and 20 years before it became law.

Once again, I take some Libtards words, throw them back in their faces and laugh at the ignorance of the typical Democrat.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Well, well, well, look at this...now the PUBLIC SECTOR SUDDENLY DOESN'T COUNT.

Since when, Libsie? You said 'business owners started the 8-hour work day.' You said 'Ford gave the world the 8-hour work day.'

Gee, Libsie, you never distinguished between private sector, public sector, any sector before this. Got your dancing shoes on?

If in 1898, the United Mine Workers and company operators reached an agreement on an 8-hour work day, well before Ford, is that the public sector too, Libsie?

'The Ford Motor Company DID IT VOLUNTARILY for business reasons AND DID IT BEFORE THE UNIONS EVER GOT A FOOTHOLD IN FORD and 20 years before it became law.'

Sorry now , Libsie, you're not going to be able to backtrack on your statements that easily and pretend you were only talking about Ford and 8-hour days in relation to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act . That would be convenient for you, now wouldn't it?

So, so, sorry.

All I can say is I sincerely hope your don't have offspring

Inappropriate comment. Large lump of coal coming my way from Santa.

Anyway, speaking of coal:

In January 1898, operators and UMWA representatives met in a joint conference and signed the first agreement; it included union recognition, wage increases, the check off system (operators' guarantee that union dues would be deducted from wages), uniform standards for weighing coal (which determined wage rates), and the eight-hour day for coal mine workers in the Central Competitive Field (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana).

I worked for a union and I believe in the right to organize.

so YOU are one of the ones who was actually paid by the union??

That answers a lot.

It should have read "was in a union". Not that it matters

Pink Slip

I retired after, not quite 32 years at Jeep.
I don't believe the "unions are no longer needed" talk because frankly I believe if they were gone it wouldn't take long for big business to wipe their feet on the working man.
Does that mean I think everything the unions do is right? Oh hell no. First, something needs to be done to weed out the lazy slackers that give the rest a bad name. In my time at Jeep I saw plenty of people who frankly, didn't deserve the job they had. I also saw and was happy to work with many folks who did their job to the best of their ability, were damn good at their jobs and really cared.
I STILL remember in my first years at the old plant, in the body shop. We'd get what they called a "VIP" car. Usually some company big shots car. It would get extra special treatment. That pissed me off. Shouldn't EVERY customer be a "VIP"? I wasn't alone feeling that way. The general public sees any quality problems as being the fault of the worker. I honestly saw more times where it was the companies fault. Honest, I personally heard statements like this happen. "Don't use those parts, they're rusty". "That's all we have, we'll have to shut down till we get more"........."Go ahead and use them they aren't that bad".

I'd like to see a board of some type put together made up of union and management to get rid of the habitual slackers and malcontents.
Union leadership needs to change their ways too. Some of the leadership makes so much money it's a joke.
As it is now, whenever union people are working, whether it be a normal full shift, or a handful of guys on a weekend maintenance project, their are a certain number of union representatives working to "cover" them. So they sit in an office with their feet up and rake in big dollars.
How can a committeeman who makes 200k a year identify with a line worker making 60k? They become just like the company big shots.

I've seen people fired for all sorts of legitimate reasons, most of them get their job back and don't even lose seniority! How is that fair?

Someone mentioned "not doing more than you're asked" . The sad fact about that is, if you DO more than you're asked, soon it will be required of you. The better you got at your job, the more extra time you have, so they give you more to do.
I saw it on a regular basis, jobs that were so tough, if the regular guy was gone they would have to put 2 replacements on them.

Lastly, I'd like to see the union get the hell out of politics! Do your job and represent your constituents.
Stop telling them who they should vote for. If Adolph Hitler were alive, running for office and had a "D" after his name, they would endorse him!
Not all union members are sheep willing to be lead around by the nose.

Rant over....../steps off soap box.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

JeepMaker I too remember the old days of the body shop. Management is much to blame of the ills in the Big Three. There was a collusion between union and management leaders to the benefit of those leaders. Most workers saw this on a daily basis but were powerless to change anything. Yes you are right about union leaders making huge sums, "Money for nothing and the chicks are free."

But you are wrong when you think that unions are not necessary in equity for workers. None of what we have today in worker rights and protections would be here if not for the unions. Politics are like making sausage but think if a Mitt Romney or a Nuet Gingrich were president. Think your pension would be here today?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

"Politics are like making sausage but think if a Mitt Romney or a Nuet Gingrich were president. Think your pension would be here today?"

You can't be serious can you? You HONESTLY think Mitt Romney and NEWT Gingrich want to take away people's pensions? Republicans have given wide support to retirement initiatives. Remember it's the Dems who've discussed taxing 401K's and even going so far as to roll them into social security going so far as to discuss the option in a subcommittee in October last year. http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obam...

Just because a private pension is private is it not still a pension?

MikeyA

Did you watch the TARP bailout this spring? Only reason the UAW retirees ended up with most of their pensions was the fact that failer to do so would have caused a depression in the heartland. The DEMS were not convinced that we deserved our pensions after 30+ years of toil. They only cared about the economic effect of huge losses to the Midwest. And if you recollect the rantings of Mitt Romney (son of the former Michigan governor) and John McCain saying no to the Big Three let-em sink too much spending.
http://www.boston.com/cars/news/articles/2008/11/20/romney_takes_auto_in...
Well if they had their way you house would now have a value of ZERO! BLATHERING IDIOTS no nothings of how the economy works as the infamous words of Phil Gramn McCain's short lived economic advisor pronounces from his ivory tower complaining in 2008 that the United States is a nation of whiners.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Your citation is a very far cry from what you said. Not bailing out the car companies doesn't necessarily mean that anyone would lose their pension. And now you're making a claim that they want to devalue homes as well. You are clearly a moron.

Oh I can make outrageous claims to try and strengthen our arguement as well:

Howard Dean wants all aborted babies eaten. See we all can do that.

MikeyA

I think you're a little green behind the ears! Do you not see the problems of lost revenue here in Northwest Ohio? Who for the last 60 years has supported Toledo? Manufacturing! Now the state of Ohio will be cutting school funding 25% over the next two years. Libraries cutting back on hours open. Food banks overwhelmed with laid off workers most in manufacturing. Why? No manufacturing jobs! When a city populous have lost their means of support they cut back, move away, or move into a relative's home if they're lucky. What does that do the the value of homes in a community? They drop! So if a bankruptcy of the Big Three would have played out like Mitt Romney would have had it, the pensioners would be dumped on PBGC at half the contract rate. Health care gone. 60 thousand retired and active auto worker live within a 30 mile radius of Toledo. So what would that do to your value to your home if suddenly all these people could no longer afford their homes? Exactly!

If you need an example of lost pensions look to the video I posted of salaried Delphi employees losing their pensions when Delphi went bankrupt the old fashion way. These workers are now trying to recoup their lost pensions through court claiming they were promised these benefits for a lifetime of hard work at Delphi. Union workers were given options that the unrepresented salary can only dream about. Now this is not an isolated case. Google the airline industry, the steel industry, all have been screwed out of what they were promised.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

First off, why is the rest of the country not hurting as much as Ohio and Michigan? Because they were smart enough to expand out of the manufacturing sector decades ago. Ohio and Michigan clung to the Industrial age while the rest of the country moved on. Look at Texas. They used to be farming and industrial just like Ohio. Why aren't they having the problems. Just because Ohio's leaders didn't have the foresight that the rest of the country had doesn't mean we should cling to a rapidly shrinking and soon possibly defunct industries.

Secondly, most of the GM and Chrysler brands could have been sold to other companies. The pension's didn't hold that off. In fact, the gov't and the unions could have moved the pensions to prevent them from being part of the bankruptcy settlement.

UPS and Teamsters had such a fight last year. UPS now controls part of their employee's pension because they proved to Congress that Teamsters mismanaged the pension. It was some Dems and Republicans aboard the subcommittee who led the fight to removed the pension from total union control. As a result UPS employees now get more money. http://www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090729/DAILYREG/907...

Under the old just Teamsters pension plan UPS workers recieved the same as every other teamster member despite UPS being the biggest contributor. I qualified for the UPS pension for my short time of working there but instead I rolled it over into my thrift savings plan which I can choose where the money goes.

Yet I notice you didn't mention anything of the pension plans who owned bonds in Chrysler and GM that recieved back only pennies on the dollar for their investment. Why isn't their pension valued the same?

MikeyA

UPS Won’t Guarantee Benefits After 2013
http://www.tdu.org/node/2962
April 10, 2009: On January 1, 2008, UPS transferred some 44,000 full-time Teamsters out of the Central States Pension Fund, and into a new UPS-only pension plan.
Q: How do the benefits under the new UPS plan compare to other Teamster plans?
They compare unfavorably, and that situation is going to get worse by 2013. Benefits in the UPS plan are frozen for the life of the contract, whereas those in most other plans are increasing. For more information, see The Teamster Pension Divide at www.tdu.org/pensiondivide.
The UPS Plan also has no reciprocity with other pension plans. This means if you transfer into the plan from the West or East, you cannot add your pension credits together from the UPS Plan and another plan. It also means if you leave UPS and take a job at another Teamster company, you cannot add your years together in the two plans.

The Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, Indiana State Police Pension Trust, and Indiana Major Movers Construction Fund sued Chrysler for losses to their Chrysler Bonds. I think TARP weighed all the factors and decided that because the hit to our economy caused by again casino banking and Wall Street they had to make a decision. Was it perfect? No, but it did save us from economic collapse. I think the loss to these pension funds was only a portion of their total exposure to the bond market thus not causing extreme harm to these pensions.

When Gangsters run the government and corporate board rooms their is no right or wrong only the interests of money.

Texas does well because of its proximity to Mexico. If not for NAFTA this gateway state would be marginalized. The state has huge water problems that will eventually control its prosperity. So I equate Texas as a temporary boom town that in time because of natural resource constraints and the Mexican time bomb will soon pass. Mexican time bomb? Yes when NAFTA either sucks all the jobs out of America or we as Americans run out of money from buying everything the world produces, Texas will become just a footnote in history.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

OMG! The UPS Plan is bad because you can't add to it from another plan nor can you switch jobs!

That's a horrible arguement. Especially since a career employee at UPS makes more under the UPS pension than they did under the Teamster's pension.

Besides why would an employee switch from one Teamster's company to another? Interesting question. I would bet it's because they are going to get fired from one but the union would again hook up a piece of shit employee just so they can keep getting those dues.

Ok, from what you're saying about TARP I can deduce that Repubs want to take your pension and devalue your home. Dems just want to take A PART of your pension. Well I don't know why people would even vote against Dems then.

So Texas does well because it shares a border with Mexico? Why is California failing? Does that not share a border with Mexico. Nevada has a comparable illegal immigrant population but shares no border with Mexico. Nevada is still doing WAAAAY better than Ohio and Michigan.

MikeyA

Wolfy, I think you read the first part of my post wrong.
I still feel unions are needed because without them big business would walk all over the working man.
But changes need to be made.
Much of what goes on now is proof of the old saying power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power and money, that's all it's about to some people.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

I wonder when wolfy is going to expose the rampant racism ingrained in the birth of American union labor or it's well documented ties to organised crime ,graft and corruption...the squandering or rip off of hard earned dues ...maybe history mike could enlighten you guys...as you surely wouldnt take my word for it...but in case you guys didnt notice..it's no longer the late 1800's...

Unions still serve a place....but many have killed the goose that gave them eggs....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Visteon moves to abandon pensions
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
http://detnews.com/article/20091218/AUTO01/912180430/Visteon-moves-to-ab...
Washington -- Visteon Corp. wants to terminate its pension plans covering more than 21,000 employees and retirees -- a move that would cost pension recipients nearly $100 million.

Under Van Buren Township-based Visteon's plan of reorganization filed late Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the company proposes to transfer to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. three of its pension plans, which cover more than 21,000 workers and retirees and have an aggregate shortfall of $544 million.

This is at least the sixth auto supplier to move to abandon its pension obligations this year, saddling the PBGC, which is the government's insurer of pension funds, with the bills.

Vince Snowbarger, acting director of the PBGC, noted that "when pension plans terminate, many retirees lose hard-earned benefits because of limits set by federal law."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.