Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UAW, Inc.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 11:53 PM
Original message
UAW, Inc.
The United Auto Workers reached an agreement with General Motors and the US Treasury yesterday to impose a new round of concessions on GM workers while sanctioning the shutdown of a third of the automaker’s US plants and the wiping out of 23,000 of the company’s remaining 62,000 UAW workers’ jobs.

The deal is expected to reduce labor costs by $1 billion by freezing wages, cutting holidays and break time and ending income protections for laid-off workers. It will put UAW workers at or below the wage and benefit rates of non-union workers at US plants operated by Toyota and other Japanese-owned companies.

The UAW also agreed to let GM forgo $10 billion of the $20 billion it owes to a union-controlled retiree healthcare trust fund, known as a VEBA. It will pay the rest in virtually worthless shares, making it all but certain that the UAW will sharply reduce benefits to hundreds of thousands of retirees and dependents.

The deal clears the way for the Obama administration to throw the century-old industrial giant into bankruptcy—just at it did Chrysler—in order to spin off undesirable factories, brands and dealerships. A “new,” much smaller GM is expected to emerge from the bankruptcy courts, which, freed of “legacy costs,” will be a lucrative source of profits for Wall Street investors...In return for its collaboration, Obama is handing the UAW a 39 percent ownership stake in GM, 55 percent of Chrysler and seats on the boards of directors of both companies.

From this position, UAW executives will have a direct financial incentive to impose ever more brutal conditions in the factories in order to boost the value of their shareholdings. As the Wall Street Journal noted Thursday, the UAW-appointed member on Chrysler’s board of directors will have “a duty to protect the fund’s financial interests,” not defend workers.

The transformation of the UAW into a business entity—which will derive a significant portion of its income from the extraction of surplus value from the labor of auto workers—is the culmination of decades of betrayals and degeneration in which the UAW apparatus developed material interests separate from, and hostile to, the “members” it claimed to represent.

Over the last 30 years, the UAW apparatus systematically insulated itself from the disastrous impact its corporatist policies have had on rank-and-file auto workers and actually increased its revenues and assets, even as membership of the UAW plummeted from a peak of 1.5 million in 1979 to 431,000 in 2008.

In an article entitled “Union’s Rich Assets Recall the Glory Days,” the Wall Street Journal noted Thursday that the UAW “is sitting on $1.2 billion in assets, making it, by that measure, the richest union in the country by far.”

Most of the assets—$871 million at the end of 2007—are held in the UAW strike fund. But little has been touched because the UAW has all but abolished strikes in the auto industry. In the latest deals with GM and Chrysler, for example, the UAW agreed to a no-strike clause until 2015.

Citing the Department of Labor reports, he continued, “The international headquarters of the United Auto Workers employs more than 2,000 people.... Approximately one quarter of the staff is paid over $110,000 per year. Most of the several hundred “servicing representatives” receive salaries and additional cash subsidies that run between $120,000 and $140,000 per year.... A large number of UAW International staff members share blood ties, so it is not unusual to find families that are collectively receiving more than $200,000 annually in union payments.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/pers-m23.shtml

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Those golden parachutes cost so much doncha know.
Not enough left over for the serfs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. As usual, the "World Socialists" whine and complain, and propose no solutions
and these people on the far, far, extreme left don't care about the auto industry or the workers.

If they had their druthers we'd all be forced to ride bicycles to work while eating granola and organic food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vadawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. lol truest words ever written and gotta love the use of druthers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. as usual, those who don't like the facts tar the messenger, believing it constitutes
rebuttal.

but it doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. ooooh far left mixed in with granola....did you forgot to accuse them of drinking lattes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
70. Yup, a good analogy of the DU attitude towards the blue collar guy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
74. Damn straight
Them World Socialists are in cahoots with the Illuminati to bring about the NEW WORLD ORDER.

If they had their way, we'd all be slaving away in factories wearing Birkenstocks and driving electric scooters in the winter!

It's time for a REAL leader, one who will put those evil World Socialist workers in their place!

Someone like THIS:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. the UAW could buy these companies for two cents
and then pay themselves anything they want.

because they don't, I assume they are getting
a fabulous deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. If UAW owns 55% of Chrysler, then it shouldn't just have members on the board, it should dominate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. but uaw doesn't get to vote the shares they supposedly "own".
nor does it get a voting seat on the chrysler board.


potemkin village.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yeah, this is troubling. Every other corporate entity is a free person, so to speak. UAW...
should have the same rights as any other person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. the reason is: so they can plead their hands are tied to their membership
Edited on Sun May-24-09 07:04 AM by Hannah Bell
as anti-worker policies are put into effect. it's no accident they get "ownership" without policy-making power. it gives them an excuse.

the stock $$ will go to the leadership as salaries & perks.

the layoffs & cutbacks to the workers & pensioners.

the whole deal is a serious fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
8. An interesting idea to ponder. Where would these assets go if UAW employees voted to decertify...
the UAW, or if they were to decertify and then certify another bargaining agent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #8
79. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. Replace the elected leadership of the union with
a new political party not elected by the members. I don't think it is time to use labor as the stepping stone to a new ideological party that is only interested in national political power at the expense of the worker. In other words, get elected by a majority of the members. The WSP has tried for the 37 years I've been in the union and has been rejected. We see them as political opportunist that always, and only, show up in times of turmoil. As always they make a pretty good bitch about a problem, but never come up with a practical solution. The parking lots of U.S. auto plants have been littered with their literature, mostly unread, for years.






"These struggles will erupt in direct opposition to the UAW and other trade unions and will necessitate the formation of new organizations, controlled by the working class and based on a thorough-going rejection of the pro-capitalist and nationalist outlook of the labor apparatus. Above all, this means the building of the Socialist Equality Party as the new, revolutionary leadership of the working class."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. i'm not a trot. i post their articles because their website has good reporting on labor
Edited on Sun May-24-09 07:23 AM by Hannah Bell
(aside from the overblown rhetoric).

& the focus on the messengers rather than the facts highlighted in the reporting is tiresome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I focus on the messengers because
I've spent a good part of my lifetime on the factory floor and have only seen these folks in the parking lots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EPIC1934 Donating Member (172 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. k,r
I am a Union member who has never seen my 800,000 a year union leader. Shes busy in Bocca eating whatever Mayor Bloomberg eats. Crticizing corrupt union leaders is not the same thing as criticizing Unions. Its the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. that may well be. in fact, there's some speculation the trots are a front
org designed to bleed off & control legitimate protest. (kind of like the latter-day uaw).

nevertheless, they were the first source i found listing problems with the chrysler deal, such as the fact the uaw can't vote their shares, in one article rather than in fragments.

facts that i was the only person at DU to note - even those who spent "a lifetime on the factory floor".

everyone else was too busy cheering how great it was that the "workers owned the company".

which, of course, they don't. they own the sack & the give-back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Marxism-Leninism has done far more to advance the interests of workers than trade unionism.
As can be seen by how the unions have been having their asses busted since the decline of communism.

Unions rode the red tide up and have ridden it right back down. There were only a few good decades where capital was willing to make concessions to labor because of they needed to have PR that made them look better than the USSR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. Agreed. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. No, both red scares drove Labor unions into hiding and
made the general public incredibly hostile towards organized labor. Also Leninism was stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #28
42. reds built the unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Of course. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
62. That's not exactly right. Unions were not driven into hiding They were offered a place at the...
table on the condition that they purge themselves of communists/socialists. Once the red menace was perceived as being past, management stopped making concessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. yep, that's more true to the facts. reds & dissidents were deliberately purged.
the same thing happened in the japanese industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. Spot on! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
17. Oh gee what a surprise, an anti-UAW thread from you.
In other news, the sky is blue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. yes, because uaw has done such a stellar job of defending their workers' interests
these past 30-odd years.

that must be why they lost 2/3 of their membership 1980-2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. Membership has gone down as people became complacent.
My family has had good wages and benefits over the course of those years you deride so much. They were hard fought, as hundreds of pounds of union documents in my basement attest, fought for by the UAW and its members. Even the RW slobs who put us down all the time benefited from the precedents set in these union halls and factories.

So, sorry, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. membership has gone down as plants were closed & members lost their jobs.
i know very well what i'm talking about, & uaw's "fighting" period ended in the 70s. & that was mostly uaw shutting down wildcat strikes anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Same lies over and over, I'm done with your BS
You just keep repeating lies that demean the many hardworking union reps that have fought for workers and their families. Your agenda reeks and is probably rooted in one of the other tinfoil-based worldviews that you incessantly espouse. I'm absolutely done with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. How dare she demean the UAW and its DOZENS of members!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. if they're lies, show me where i'm wrong instead of throwing down your toys & stomping off.
Edited on Mon May-25-09 12:47 AM by Hannah Bell
you can't, that's the real problem.


seems like if you're so well-versed on labor history, you should be able to at least nibble around the edges a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
46. Complacent? Is that what you call having your plant shut down and no longer being an auto worker?
Great for you and your family for being able to enjoy those wages, but I have a hard time seeing how the people laid off in droves are supposed to remain members of a union that they're no longer qualified for. I guess they're just RW slobs. And from what I understand another round of "complacency" is due to hit the industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. Nice straw man
Our power waned because participation waned, which had a much greater impact on numbers than closures until recently. And as for anti-union RW slobs, I'm seeing a lot of their "arguments" about unions in this thread, including blaming the UAW for businesses failing. You've made it clear where you stand, as have I, and I don't want to talk to you any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. How are people supposed to participate when they don't have the jobs?
I don't blame the UAW for business failings, I blame the UAW for standing back and priding itself on how well its members live while doing nothing about the fact that the number of former auto workers was increasing rapidly and their new lines of work sucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. bullshit. 1979-1989 alone, the entire industry lost over 100,000 jobs.
20% total loss. that's including japanese producers in the us.

1987-1990 7 assembly plants were closed, & only one opened (saturn).

outsourcing only got worse in the 90s.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1992/02/art2full.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
21. What's the problem with the UAW? Read this thread.
The few that are members (or claim to be) are somehow able to ignore the betrayal of their own while desperately hoping they will keep their jobs with no consideration of the millions of others that didn't.

Union leadership are now the same class that run the corporation and neither could care less about their workers, yet those same workers couldn't care less about their fellows.

Again, it appears that nothing will change until there is nothing left to fight for. Unions that cannot or will not strike are useless and the UAW members have been living off the dead carcass of their former strength. Now there is little left and that is turning green and getting fuzzy.

"Woe to me, you people just don't understand", it's the consumers fault, it's the Asian manufacturer's fault, it's the EPA's fault, it's anybody's but mine.:cry:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Yeah 'cause you'd know, being in the UAW hub of Nevada and all.
Edited on Mon May-25-09 12:06 AM by spoony
You lot eat lies and shit anti-union propaganda, as is evident by your last line, ripped right from the right wing's playbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. the right is against unions, period. the real left is only against company unions.
(you know, like company stores.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Message forum elitists are not the "real left"
And, again, that "company union" has provided generations of workers their only voice and often their only friend. That's reality. Your rhetoric is cheap pablum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. which is why membership went down 2/3 in twenty-five years, wages
& benefits were cut drastically, half the jobs offshored, & new workers now hire in (if there were any hiring) at the equivalent of 70s-era inflation-adjusted minimum wage. Because of the "good friend" that hasn't called a serious action since the 70s & has shut down anything the rank & file tried to organize themselves - as they raised their own salaries & bennies.

that's why the rank & file were given less than 24 hours to read the chrysler deal before voting on it - their "good friend" fought hard for that 24 hours.

that's why the "good friend" exchanged the 5 billion or so chrysler owed to the workers' health care fund for stock certificates without even the right to vote the shares.

that's why the bleeding will continue for the next two years at least.

what a GOOD FRIEND!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #41
58. An ever-shrinking "Labor Aristocracy" is not the real face of workers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #31
71. Not the reich wing, from those you all chose to sacrifice for your own petty interests.
You elected your "leadership", you remained at work while your brothers and sisters got fucked over, and you sat on your fat asses while the parasites that matter chose to flog over-priced pieces of shit onto the public, earning record profits, and didn't even get a piece of the action for yourselves.

UAW? Feh.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
22. I thought Socialists would be pleased if the workers owned some of the means of production.
Wow, I never knew the left hated the UAW so much.

No doubt, there is plenty of croynism in the Auto Workers Union, but I presume the "members" (the author's quotes, not mine) still get to vote on who their leaders are, and what proposals they bring to the table.

Union members get the shortcomings in their organization that they will tolerate.

I refuse to label the UAW as "running dogs". They were between a rock and annihilation. Sometimes it's smart to do what you have to do to ensure your survival.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Is it "ownership" when the supposed "owner" doesn't get to vote the shares
they supposedly own?

Is it "ownership" when the supposed owner of half the company gets only one seat on the board, & that a non-voting one?

Is it "ownership" when the working rank & file, the supposed "owners" the union bureaucrats represent, have no control whatsoever over either the shares or the degradation of the benefits & working conditions their predecessors fought & died for?

your post is a sick joke. uaw lost 2/3 of its membership since 1980, & members suffered takeback after takeback, while the bureaucrats got higher salaries & perks - & more layoffs, shutdowns & give-backs coming, more theft from pensioners.

the only survival the bureaucrats ensured is *their own*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. crickets. because ownership = control. & neither the rank & file nor even
Edited on Sun May-24-09 11:41 PM by Hannah Bell
the union bigshots are going to be running chryslers. the uaw bigshots will just take their cut, like every good comprador does - while enforcing discipline on those they supposedly represent.

the brits perfected the technique in their colonial period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. Oh Hannah, if nothing else I admire the tenacity in your efforts to demonstrate
why they will always end up with the gooey end of the stick.

What do you suppose would happen if all the homo sapiens (thinking people) just picked up and left these to their richly deserved fates? Would they even notice?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. who are the "these" you mean?
the people who think the chrysler deal = workers owning their workplace?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #34
65. "These" are those that turn their backs on you and yours, mock and deride your efforts,
when you point out the fact that they have no representation in their union nor in DC. Those that respond to your thread with such gems as;

"As usual, the "World Socialists" whine and complain, and propose no solutions and these people on the far, far, extreme left don't care about the auto industry or the workers. If they had their druthers we'd all be forced to ride bicycles to work while eating granola and organic food."

"Oh gee what a surprise, an anti-UAW thread from you."

Basically, the folks that can't/won't see that they are being screwed right, left, and center, and then turn on those that point it out and try to explain how it is happening and how to fight it.

You have far more patience with them than I, and I think that is admirable.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. i enjoy argument. and some of the people i argue against know the score
but pretend not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. Tell us more about the autoworkers' "richly deserved fates"
and I'd especially love to hear how you're saving them all from it, since you imply that it would surely happen if you bright bulbs left us lowly fuckers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #36
66. Where was UAW when PATCO went on strike? Where was UAW when the Steelworkers were
getting ass fucked? Where was UAW when it was the small farmers? The truckers? The textile workers? etc., ad infinitum...

As for my query to Hannah, nothing would be different at all, you would still happily sell each other out in the desperate hope that you would be picked as the parasite's favorite house n***** and get to keep your job and fuck everybody else.

You elect your representatives and when the parasites offer you a choice between a shit sandwich and a turd salad you just vote and pretend you enjoy the taste.

Ms. Greyhound's family is hard-core Teamsters since the earliest days and none of them would spit on you guys if you were on fire. You are up against the kind of scum that wouldn't think twice about selling their sisters into a brothel if it got them what they wanted and you guys send their own kind in to "negotiate" and then whine about how hard it is to get a fair deal.

You won't stand up for your brothers and sisters, you won't stand up against leadership that sells you out time and again, and now that you're the last of your kind and the parasites are bleeding you dry, you want other people to stand up for you. Well, welcome to the world you made, hope you enjoy your stay.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #66
77. Hello? Don't feel like playing anymore? Off to promote your next strike?
Oh wait, I forgot, UAW doesn't strike anymore, you're into acquisition and strategic alliances now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. How come this thread got so quiet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
23. UAW should have struck before GM took the government money
They could have demanded whatever they wanted. All they had to do was tell GM it's what we want or we put you under before the government can do anything to save you. And if Bush or Obama declared the strike illegal, they should have told them to either come in and start crushing skulls or sit down and shut their fucking mouths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. Yeah then they enter bankruptcy outside the government structure
and the contracts go in the shredder. Great "plan" there. I love how people with NOTHING TO LOSE IN THE MATTER Monday-morning-quarterback this thing, saying they should have done this and that, with all the bravado that being a keyboard warrior entails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. which contracts are those?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. You have stated a rare truth, absolutely correct.
We may be heading toward a future where that kind of idea will receive the consideration it deserves.
:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. I take it you support the IWW model? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. how you reached that conclusion, i don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. So basically you just have an issue with the UAW buying into the company
rather than staying on the outside and bargaining with the bosses. Am I correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. No his problem with the UAW is it's existence
It's abundantly clear from his cheap shots at the UAW's history that it isn't recent events he has a problem with, it's the union itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. love the smell of straw in the morning. or evening, depending on your time zone. mmmmm!
when you can't make a counter-argument, straw is all you got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #43
52. i have a problem with more than that, but let's start there.
uaw let chrysler off the hook for 5 billion owed to the workers' health fund in exchange for an approximately 50% stake in the company. at the same time they agree to cut workers, wages, bennies.

now, if i as an individual bought 50% of the shares in the company, i'd be in a position to vote the shares, choose the management, kick out the people i didn't want, make production decisions, etc. i'd get to choose about half of the board, too, & my people would get to vote on board decisions.

but uaw gets one lousy non-voting seat on the board, & a court-appointed trustee will vote the uaw shares.

tell me, would you take that deal? management can run the corp into the ground if they want; uaw has *no* formal power to say boo.

what's the upside for the rank & file? what's the frigging upside, you *tell* me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. Oh I agree with you then.
What was the fuck was the UAW leadership thinking when they agreed to that deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. Well to be fair, their options were very limited.
Edited on Mon May-25-09 01:06 AM by JVS
The only way I can see this working out well for the UAW and their members is if it is being taken as some kind of endgame to the domestic production of US autos. The union having a significant portion of its assets tied to company stock creates a massive conflict of interests when it is time for the negotiation of a contract. Normally a strike or other negotiation processes are designed to make the company bleed (hence the term scabs) until it is willing to accept the union's conditions or at least improve the offer they're making. With UAW quasi-ownership of stock, the union itself will bleed from any such action as well, thus curbing its ability to take a stand. However when one looks at the last several decades, one sees that the auto companies have been shutting down and moving out their production. If the UAW thinks that the car companies will eventually terminate US production, which is not an unrealistic scenario given GM's recent talk about ramping up operations in China, then this conflict of interest will cease to exist because the UAW won't have any active workers to represent and will have essentially transformed itself into the manager of pension funds for the fully retired US workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. Next time there is a contract negotiation watch the management to dump stock in order to drive...
down the UAW's balance sheet and weaken them for an easier fight. This is going to be a farce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #57
61. he took his toys & left.
Edited on Mon May-25-09 01:16 AM by Hannah Bell
lil' uaw is good, i tell you! good! you're mean!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
64. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the SEP and Cde. White's run for President.
The SEP has always held trade unions in low regard, though, this is hardly anything specific to the UAW.
They still will work within such organizations, setting up factory and workplace committees to represent
the interests of the union members.

I hope that the SEP's attacks on union leaders won't be extended to an attack on the union members,
even when they reflexively defend who are,to them, the only people they have ever been able to look to
for help, such as it is. I know that is not the intention of the SEP, or you.

Please accept dear comrade Bell my fraternal salutations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. i'm not a trot. i do, however, agree with them that uaw has been
a company union for many long years, & that their top leadership basically works for the owners & their own perks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #64
72. SEP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Socialist Equality Party
Their disdain for all trade unions is absolute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
69. I will probably quit the Union when GM goes into bankruptcy
Edited on Mon May-25-09 02:51 AM by DainBramaged
betrayed by both my leadership and the Obama Administration, there is no point to continue as a member. It also means that GM will bring in more foreign built product (Mexico, Canada, and eventually China) to supplement the closing of so many plants in the US. Additionally, the UAW made concessions to GM to keep the Obama Administration happy and reduce the wages of their average line worker to less than $14 an hour for a highly skilled, dangerous, and productive craft. JUST to satisfy the Obama Administration. Over $41 BILLION dollars of new cars and parts are imported from Japan every year, and we export less than $600,000. And what has the Administration done to equalize that imbalance? Nothing, zip, zero.

The Administration has given the banks and Wall Street ( and the insurance companies) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS NO STRINGS ATTACHED. And the American manufacturing blue collar worker has had their hand shit in. No strings attached. The American Dream is dead. This Administration has made their bed with the banks and Wall Street. And they left us out to starve. So be it. Obama won't get my vote in 2012. And I'm not the only one who will be sitting out the election. Tens of thousands of displaced worker will probably sit out too. In the next three years, my Senators and Congressmen who stood with Obama will not get my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. I'm disappointed with the lack of work done on trade issues
Yes, GM will import more vehicles including from China. I find it hard to blame GM for that decision because they are doing exactly what our country (and the Obama administration) wants them to do. Becoming competitive with foreign automakers includes all the things people are angry about: cutting jobs, wages, and benefits and shipping production out of the US.

GM sells some of their small vehicles at a loss because they need to meet CAFE standards. We need to make it affordable for GM to build smaller vehicles here. If we gave GM the incentive to build ALL vehicles here, it would put many auto workers back to work. Increasing the import tax and universal health care would be important to achieving this goal.

While I'm disappointed with Obama's preferential treatment of Wall Street, I'm not going to write him off yet. Things would probably be even worse under McCain (GM and Chrysler probably wouldn't be around). Depending on how the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies work out, Michigan (as well as Ohio and Indiana) may be difficult for Obama to win in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. these foreign automakers we must become competitive with...who are they?
gm is the top-selling maker in china.

the only makers who sell a significant amount in the us are the japanese. who undersell us makers everywhere else but japan.

i don't believe there's any real competition, to tell you the truth. i think automanufacturing is a cartel, & divides the world market to play one workforce against another. looking at the connections between the makers (tech sharing, plant sharing, capital, joint ventures, etc.) they all seem to be tied to each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #76
81. Are you serious?
Obama wants GM and Chrysler to become competitive with the foreign automakers. Not just Japanese companies, but also Korean companies since they sell a good number of vehicles in the US too. The reason the US companies undersell in Japan is because of high import tariffs and the fact that they also don't allow US companies to build plants in their country. We, on the other hand, allow Japan to build plants here and have a low import tax for those vehicles they import. Korea limits the number of vehicles US companies sell in their country while we let them sell as many as possible. The US practices "free trade" while other countries work to protect their companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. yep, i'm serious. it's interesting the tariff barriers with japan aren't
reciprocal, isn't it?

hyundai had 3.3% of the us market in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
80. Shame I can't recommend. kick!
Kudos, Hanna, they can't stand the truth. The self-identification of the union brass with management is much like the liberals self-identification with the bourgeoisie. In both cases people choose to forget which side they're on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
82. sorry, but WSWS is a crap source...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. Not true.

It's actually a pretty good source for left labor information. Yeah, they're Trots, pretty lame commies, but I ignore Chairman Bob and his pathetic silliness. But they do serve good purpose in this instance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutbutr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
84. Unions have a time and place
once they have accomplished the initial goal they need to be disbanded or else they eventually lead to corruption like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Corporations have a time and place
once they have accomplished the initial goal they need to be disbanded or else they eventually lead to corruption like this.

You would not have a five-day workweek or overtime after forty if it wasn't for unions struggling for all workers.

Still bleating the right-wing talking points, I see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC