Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Nik said
Sure, from a certain POV that is one problem. The other POV is that the unions were guaranteed benefits and certain other terms by their contracts and they should not be obligated to concede them because of a corporation's failure to make a profit.
I can see both sides on this.
But there is the old saying about killing the golden goose. The other old saying is hindsight is 20/20. Both sayings are appropriate here.
In hindsight, corporations simply cant compete on a global scale and give lucrative pensions, high hourly wages, pay for job banks, and deliver to their employees many of the excesses that union employees have come to rely on. Consider me biased (or not), but I feel that's a simple economical fact.
Yes, when times are good, corporations can be strong-armed into giving these things to their union employees. And, in the past few decades even when times were NOT good, the same corporations got strong-armed into continuing to deliver the goods. Thats where the killing of the golden goose comes in.
So, now we have the UAW with a controlling interest in Chrysler. The same organization that shares in the blame for its downfall will be more in control. Is that really a good thing?
I may be completely ignorant of the situation, but isnt part of the problem the UAW and other unions not making consessions and giving up some of what they currently have to help out?
Sure, from a certain POV that is one problem. The other POV is that the unions were guaranteed benefits and certain other terms by their contracts and they should not be obligated to concede them because of a corporation's failure to make a profit.
I can see both sides on this.
But there is the old saying about killing the golden goose. The other old saying is hindsight is 20/20. Both sayings are appropriate here.
In hindsight, corporations simply cant compete on a global scale and give lucrative pensions, high hourly wages, pay for job banks, and deliver to their employees many of the excesses that union employees have come to rely on. Consider me biased (or not), but I feel that's a simple economical fact.
Yes, when times are good, corporations can be strong-armed into giving these things to their union employees. And, in the past few decades even when times were NOT good, the same corporations got strong-armed into continuing to deliver the goods. Thats where the killing of the golden goose comes in.
So, now we have the UAW with a controlling interest in Chrysler. The same organization that shares in the blame for its downfall will be more in control. Is that really a good thing?