Car Buyers Spurn GM, Ford as Japan Brands Retain Aura (Update3)

Quotes would not be at the start of each line quoted and only around an entire section. That would make multiple quotes less clear in usenet and a quoted thread more difficult to read.

And e-mail.

Each level gets another bracket... unless one switches it off or uses rich text (which sometimes has vertical lines)...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Simple. The union existed PREVIOUSLY.

You see it works this way.

A company starts up operations and treats it's employees fairly. Union organizers attempt to unionize, but because the employer is treating the workers fairly, there is no support for unionization and the unionization effort fails.

Years pass. A new set of beancounters take over the company. Now, the company lets working conditions go to pot and the pay stagnate. Union organizers now find a receptive audience among the workers. The workers vote to unionize.

Once that happens, the game is entirely changed. The company is now subject to the NLRA. They can't just bust the union by allowing the workers to go on strike then hiring a bunch of scabs - if they could, there wouldn't be any point in unionizing in the first place.

If the company really and truly wants to get rid of the union then there is a simple, obvious, and easy way to do so. They simply start treating their employees fairly. After a number of years of doing this, the workers will then start regarding the union as useless and ineffective - and can then be persuaded to de-unionize.

It's happened plenty of times before. Many companies have had working units who successfully voted to de-unionize.

The striking workers aren't stupid. They know that if they make impossible demands that the company will go out of business and they will all lose their jobs. Keep in mind that when the automakers tanked, the unions several times voted in wage concessions. The fact of the matter is that BOTH Chrysler and GM got the wage concessions from their unions that they asked for. Neither of those companies went into bankruptcy as a result of the unions - both went into bankruptcy as a result of SMALL GROUPS of investors who wern't happy with what the MAJORITY of investors agreed to give up.

If you look at companies who have historically had a lot of problems with their unions you will, in fact, find a pattern. The pattern is that companies with corporate cultures of exploiting the non-management workers have the most problem with unions. This includes things like executive salaries that are beyond all reasonable belief, utter disinterest in employee suggestions on how to better run the company, outsourcing workers when it makes no economic or logical sense, etc.

It is ALSO because of how those companies WERE MANAGED. There have been an ENORMOUS NUMBER of auto industry observers over the years who have repeatedly said that Chrysler, Ford and GM absolutely must figure out how to profitably build and sell small economy cars. Toyota and Honda can do it - but of course, their workers health insurance has been paid for by their government. That's government subsidization of an industry in anyone's playbook. So, why wern't tariffs raised, as the law requires when it's clear that a foreign government is subsidizing a foreign competitor?

GM, Ford and Chrysler could have been beating the drum for the last 20 years in favor of nationalized healthcare the way that Honda and Toyota get it. But instead, the owners of those companies have been doing exactly the opposite - they fund as many Republicans as they can find who vote against it, as well as as many Republicans as they can find who delay and vote against punative tariffing.

No they won't because what is going to effectively happen is most of the people buying new cars who insist on buying domestics, rather than imports, are going to look at Ford vehicles first, precisely because they are concerned about longevity of the company. So, Ford will be OK. Chrysler will gradually end up becoming a vendor of Fiat vehicles, and what happens to GM is anyone's guess.

Ted

That makes little sense. If workers do not wish to work then any contract is null and void. A company should be free to find someone who will work. Companies most certainly can fire anyone who refuses to show up for work and hire non union workers especially in right to work states. Happens all the time where union workers who refuse to show up for work are fired and replaced.

Obviously. Since if the workers are under contract they are obligated to work, not showing up for work is a violation of the labor contract.

You are forgetting that the company is obligated under the labor contract that they signed to negotiate with the union on these sorts of matters. If an employee doesn't show up there's a grievance process the management must follow and if the employee refuses to participate then they will end up fired.

If the union is striking then it's a little different. For starters, how do you run the company when nobody shows up?

Companies most certainly can fire anyone who refuses to show

The NLRA trumps state law, as all federal law supersedes state law under the US Constitution. I know you feel that your right, but your quite wrong. Yes, an individual union member who doesn't show up when a strike is not in force can be disciplined. But the reality is that when business is booming, a company cannot replace it's entire workforce in one day, which is why the threat of a strike, and a strike, is effective.

In a down economy the dynamics are a lot different. But you will notice that in down economies, unions rarely strike, and those that do frequently lose.

Furthermore, it depends on what kind of strike is in force. If the strike is for a health issue - such as workers striking to protest unsafe working conditions - then it's not just a contract dispute, it's illegal for the employer to permanently replace them.

Essentially, the only way an employer can get rid of a striking union is if they fire every employee, all at the same time, who participates in the strike, and replace them. This is why you typically don't see unions get much foothold in industries where the workers are basically ignorant warm bodies, working at jobs that anyone could do. (ie: pumping gas, flipping burgers, etc.) It's also why you don't see unions calling for strikes where the majority of the workers in the union wouldn't support a strike.

Ted

It's not open ended as you seem to feel. A company has the right to hire workers and negotiate with the union at the same time. They can also choose to fire any worker who doesn't show up. You seem to imply a company must sit idle without workers indefiantly until a new contract is agreed upon. They do not. The power of the union comes from the belief that a company can't find enough non union workers during a walkout strike. Sometimes thats true, sometimes its not. A risk the union takes and sometimes fails at.

Phelps fired 100's of workers at it's mines when the union walked out in the 70's. They refused to give into the unions demands. The mines kept running using non union employees hired on during the failed negotiation talks.

Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if* you're going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these days).

Bill, Bill, Article VI:

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Supremacy Clause. Quite well known.

"...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.

Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence. Problems parsing?

OK - like, Wow! It wasn't a parsing problem. I actually thought the word "notwithstanding" meant the exact opposite of what it actually means. I admit I was wrong on this just like I would have expected you to if you had been wrong.

Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)

Frankly, it's nothing more than an academic exercise to discuss the US Constitution because the fact is that modern US law is based on the Constitution PLUS the 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that have modified..I-mean-clarified.. it's original meaning. ;-)

Such as for example the US Constitution permits states to succeed from the Union, did you know that? Nothing in it, or it's amendments, outright prohibits it. However we have the Civil War that tells us different ;-)

If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded as a terrorist document.

Ted

Only by around 50% of the population.

There are those that believe it is still the law of the land contrary to some who are sworn to uphold it abusing their power and violating it. And I know that some in power now admit publicly that they don't believe in the Constitution - yet they swore to uphold it. Maybe they are nihilists. But if they were honest, they would not have taken their oath.

...secede...

I was born, and presently live, 45 miles from Appomattox Court House (drove thru it about 2 hours ago as a matter of fact), and I do know a little about the thing that some call "the recent unpleasantless". Just because the Constitution has been grossly violated at times does not negate it. The fact is that it is the law of the land, whether it is followed or not (and I would agree that it is not followed in many areas) does not make it not the law of the land in principle. To believe otherwise would be anarchy.

The "precedence" thing is a crock. I wonder if I can get out of a speeding ticket by invoking precedence. Something tells me I wouldn't get away with it. Yet it is used to get away with how the entire country is run.

I also am aware that the intent of certain organizations and certain figures respected by the left have as their founding principles and advocate using the Constitution to systematically destroy and dismantle the Constitution itself. Yet they offer nothing that is better, and even if they did, their own contradictions would and could be used by their opposition to declare whatever it is that they declared as being the law of the land to also have no authority, and so they would likely eventually resort to totalitarianism or themselves be overthrown (IOW - continuing anarchy unless ruling with a dictatorial iron fist).

And therefore what...? You often sound like another disciple of Saul Alinsky.