The Big 3 Are Fucked

They are just fucked, a bail out from the government isn't even going to help them. They should have all developed hybrid technology and started to dump SUVs 6 years ago when gas started going up. They should have also developed cars that got better mileage back then too. If they would have started this back then, they wouldn't probably be where they're at now. They should have also slowed production of everything several years ago, I know dealers that still have brand new '07s on the lot.

GM- Is introducing the Volt, plus many hybrids within the next year or so.

Ford- Already has the Escape/Mariner and Fusion/Milan hybrid, but should introduce them in other models as well.

Chrysler- What hybrids? They introduced the Durango Hybrid, are you kidding me? Supposedly they developed other models as well but are extremely slow at introducing them to the masses.

GM and Ford have both introduced High Efficiency pickup trucks (wtf?) and have several models that get good gas mileage.

I also know that hybrids aren't the answer to everything, but my point is that they should have taken key notes from Toyota and Honda, it was like they knew what was coming. It may have helped them in this particular situation. Oh and diesels, they should developed diesel technology a long time ago, they should have developed small displacement diesels for trucks and offered diesels in their cars but only special order to keep overproduction down.

That's the other thing, what happened to special order? It seems either not available or very rare. My dad and relatives would tell me stories about how they would special order cars from the dealer and it would have everything they wanted. Now, it seems like you can't get one thing without another and if you do want a particular vehicle with certain options, all dealers do is look for something near what you want but not exactly what you want. For Example, when LX-R got his Ranger, he wanted it in a charcoal color with a 5-speed, 4x4, LSD, Trailering Package, opening doors on the extended cab and a sliding rear window. They found what he wanted but Blue, 4x4, 5-Speed, LSD, and Trailering Package. He didn't want to wait any longer, so he settled for that one. So, I don't know when that stopped.

Point-at-hand, the big 3 are fucked.

I read a comment from the head of our reserve bank the other day saying that bailouts, takeovers and mergers were probably not the best thing for the consumer or overall commercial sector. The best thing is generally for a struggling company to die a natural death and let the surviving competitors all vie for their share of the newly available customers.

I suspect that if one of the Big Three had gone bankrupt 20 years ago, the other two would be in far better shape.

I can't blame them too much for focusing on SUVs and trucks; those are what fat fuck Aahmurcahns wanted.

Number 6 wrote:I can't blame them too much for focusing on SUVs and trucks; those are what fat fuck Aahmurcahns wanted

See but 90% of Americans are stupid when it comes to automotive purchases. Soccer moms needed to feel safe so the need sit high and be surrounded by 5000 lbs of steel was necessary for them instead of a caravan or camry and men have to be "manly" and there's nothing manlier than a pickup truck so every douchebag in the suburbs needed to go buy a quadcab 4x4 to carry groceries and to drive 60 miles round trip to work everyday.

Swerve wrote:I read a comment from the head of our reserve bank the other day saying that bailouts, takeovers and mergers were probably not the best thing for the consumer or overall commercial sector. The best thing is generally for a struggling company to die a natural death and let the surviving competitors all vie for their share of the newly available customers.

I suspect that if one of the Big Three had gone bankrupt 20 years ago, the other two would be in far better shape.

In this case though, there are some hitches to that. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all share the same suppliers. Ford has said that they think they can survive without government intervention. But if GM goes under, most of the suppliers they work with will tank also...and since Ford uses them too, that will fuck Ford over and they'll go down too even though they're in better shape.

SBF wrote:

Number 6 wrote:I can't blame them too much for focusing on SUVs and trucks; those are what fat fuck Aahmurcahns wanted

See but 90% of Americans are stupid when it comes to automotive purchases. Soccer moms needed to feel safe so the need sit high and be surrounded by 5000 lbs of steel was necessary for them instead of a caravan or camry and men have to be "manly" and there's nothing manlier than a pickup truck so every douchebag in the suburbs needed to go buy a quadcab 4x4 to carry groceries and to drive 60 miles round trip to work everyday.

Yeah, but Americans have the right to be dumb fat fucks, so you can't do anything there until the government institutes murder squads that wipe out all of the dumb fat fucks.

I also don't really blame the Big 3 for focusing on highly-profitable SUVs when they were in such high demand, but I do blame them for never ever taking American small cars seriously...the Focus is about the only small car they sold in the US that seemed to be well-thought out and engineered, and it was a transplant and has long outlived its lifecycle. As a result, they weren't ready for the gas crunch, and they weren't building customer loyalty from the ground up with good entry level cars.

It's not really too much about the cars though the Big three were too slow to introduce a change in types sold even if only by perception I mean Cadillac hybrid of an Escalade. At first thought it may sound good but its total environmental footprint from production to shipping to selling to use in life and then destruction is still way too much of a cost for what 9/10 drivers truly need a vehicle for.

But its the fact that the American market is tapped out, credit is hard to get, most consumers are at credit limits, home equity has crashed and workers have not had real wage increase since 1973-74. There is nothing much that can be done in the short term. Time will be an asset and it's not just Big three cars not selling well in the US but even the Japanese brand cars.

We can all say Thank you to St. Ronnie for the fine mess we are all in especially the USA.

the unions need to be broken.

gov't is going to give them a bridge loan right now, but what really needs to happen is for chrysler to die; ford and gm to merge; and the unions to die.

if this congress has any backbone, they'll break the UAW.

either way, the us govt is on the hook for the pensions, because there's a govt guarantee.

but let's be honest: gm, ford, and chrysler have fucking job banks, and that's fucking ridiculous. paying unemployed people full salaries and benefits? uhh...no, that's not exactly competitive.

Yeah, the UAW said they'd be suspending the job bank program, though I haven't heard details on it. That alone is killing the Big 3. It's one thing to want to keep laid-off skilled workers around in case they're needed again, but not at full salary and not for years on end.

their current problems have very little to do with the UAW, they don't have the products, they they can barely sell the cars they have that are supposed to fit the market now, Malibu and Cobalt plants are getting the layoffs now.

The reason why GM doesn't have the right products is because of Poor Management

Ford is a little late to the market but i think they are doing okayish.

Chrysler has nothing, they have no research and development, the Germans took it all with them. Not that chrysler had a lot in r&d before the germans. But the Germans aren't hybrid people, they invest their technology in Diesel and Hydrogen. Chrysler is fucked.

What Congress wanted to here is how they are going to go to the next generation of automobiles. Hybrids are good but they aren't it, they are the 8 tracks of the auto industry, a false pretender. They need to figure out how to get around hybrids. I'm not sure there is enough capacity worldwide available to support all the batteries needed for hyrbids and pure electric cars.

hybrids arent the answer. noone wants to buy something overpriced and ugly for the sake of fashion anymore. toyota cashed in with the prius but notice how noone else has really bothered with it....super-efficient diesels use less fuel for the short term solution, and hydrogen looks to be the long term answer...and thats what everyone is concentrating on. the big 3 should have started shrinking their cars years ago just like everyone else did.

the 'we're just doing what sells' argument holds no water. the germans/japs started dictating what the market wants years ago and its stood them in good stead, whereas the big 3 have simply left the market to dictate to them.

1300ZUK wrote:their current problems have very little to do with the UAW, they don't have the products, they they can barely sell the cars they have that are supposed to fit the market now, Malibu and Cobalt plants are getting the layoffs now.

The reason why GM doesn't have the right products is because of Poor Management

Ford is a little late to the market but i think they are doing okayish.

Chrysler has nothing, they have no research and development, the Germans took it all with them. Not that chrysler had a lot in r&d before the germans. But the Germans aren't hybrid people, they invest their technology in Diesel and Hydrogen. Chrysler is fucked.

What Congress wanted to here is how they are going to go to the next generation of automobiles. Hybrids are good but they aren't it, they are the 8 tracks of the auto industry, a false pretender. They need to figure out how to get around hybrids. I'm not sure there is enough capacity worldwide available to support all the batteries needed for hyrbids and pure electric cars.

management isn't great, but they can all be fired by the BOD at any moment. the fact that they weren't shows that the boards are irresponsible.

and the UAW accounts for a $2,000 premium in every car they build. they admitted it in the congressional testimony this week. toyota and honda use that 2k to build a better car that's sold at the same price. the american car companies use it to pay the salaries of people that don't even work.

gm and ford know how to build good cars, as evidenced by their successes in ROW.

also:

avg UAW salary is 28/hr.

avg toyota employee salary is 16/hr.

also, behavioral economics has shown that people won't buy cars from companies they believe are going bankrupt, hence the steepening problems for the big 3.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:hybrids arent the answer. noone wants to buy something overpriced and ugly for the sake of fashion anymore. toyota cashed in with the prius but notice how noone else has really bothered with it....super-efficient diesels use less fuel for the short term solution, and hydrogen looks to be the long term answer...and thats what everyone is concentrating on. the big 3 should have started shrinking their cars years ago just like everyone else did.

I agree that hybrids aren't the answer...they're a good bridge to another technology, but I think the money could be better spent fleshing out something else, such as hydrogen. But in this country, diesels still have a ways to go. I don't know what the price of diesel fuel is there, but the other day I saw it nearly double what unleaded gasoline is, which pretty much offsets any cost savings for consumers. I'm impressed by the fuel economy diesel cars are getting in Europe and if the price of fuel were more reasonable, I think they'd catch on here.

nat gas is the answer. we're the fucking saudi arabia of nat gas, and it's dirt cheap. it's just a matter of getting the infrastructure, so people can nat gas up their cars at costco.

also, there are no batteries strong enough to run commercial-sized vehicles for anything close to a decent mileage, so hybrid is out for them.

I think there should actually be different ways to to get a car to move

Propane, Natural Gas, Electric, Diesel, Hybrids, Hyrdrogen.


Who says all cars have to be the same. Natural gas you could fill at your home, as long as everybody didn't have a natural gas car. Propane burns very clean and efficient.

There seems to be a big push on diesel cars here. But LPG conversions are subsidised by the government and it's freely available - not to mention a great use of waste product. I have an issue of Evo where an LPG powered Megane beats all the diesels in terms of economy, which is amazing considering the cheaper comparitive price of diesel in the UK.
Only downside is less boot space due to the second tank. But Ford did (and possibly still do) sell a dedicated LPG Falcon, so even that isn't an issue when the factories are on board.

LPG has a lower specific energy content than unleaded, bit ot's also around 130RON. So I guess more cars designed around this fuel would result in positive outcomes for engine technology.

JaysonAych wrote:

Swerve wrote:I read a comment from the head of our reserve bank the other day saying that bailouts, takeovers and mergers were probably not the best thing for the consumer or overall commercial sector. The best thing is generally for a struggling company to die a natural death and let the surviving competitors all vie for their share of the newly available customers.

I suspect that if one of the Big Three had gone bankrupt 20 years ago, the other two would be in far better shape.

In this case though, there are some hitches to that. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all share the same suppliers. Ford has said that they think they can survive without government intervention. But if GM goes under, most of the suppliers they work with will tank also...and since Ford uses them too, that will fuck Ford over and they'll go down too even though they're in better shape.

If the supply companies are any good then they would prepare for that scenario. THe idea is that Ford gain some of the sales that a departing GM opens, therefore requiring more supply. Ford is also a big enough company that other suppliers should be after their business, so the death of the universal source for parts is not a bad thing in this model. But obviously the hard part (and probably the reason for constant govt handouts) would be keeping those new jobs onshore.

i'm with swerve. fuck those dudes. it would be less costly for the us govt to let them all fail and pay the line workers' unemployment for a year.

Aristotle wrote:

1300ZUK wrote:their current problems have very little to do with the UAW, they don't have the products, they they can barely sell the cars they have that are supposed to fit the market now, Malibu and Cobalt plants are getting the layoffs now.

The reason why GM doesn't have the right products is because of Poor Management

Ford is a little late to the market but i think they are doing okayish.

Chrysler has nothing, they have no research and development, the Germans took it all with them. Not that chrysler had a lot in r&d before the germans. But the Germans aren't hybrid people, they invest their technology in Diesel and Hydrogen. Chrysler is fucked.

What Congress wanted to here is how they are going to go to the next generation of automobiles. Hybrids are good but they aren't it, they are the 8 tracks of the auto industry, a false pretender. They need to figure out how to get around hybrids. I'm not sure there is enough capacity worldwide available to support all the batteries needed for hyrbids and pure electric cars.

management isn't great, but they can all be fired by the BOD at any moment. the fact that they weren't shows that the boards are irresponsible.

and the UAW accounts for a $2,000 premium in every car they build. they admitted it in the congressional testimony this week. toyota and honda use that 2k to build a better car that's sold at the same price. the american car companies use it to pay the salaries of people that don't even work.

gm and ford know how to build good cars, as evidenced by their successes in ROW.

also:

avg UAW salary is 28/hr.

avg toyota employee salary is 16/hr.

So why are good wages a bad thing? Maybe Toyota workers should try to get to $28/hr. instead of the other way around. I just don't get it why so many avg. Joe Q. Public want to piss on good wages, good benefits, good safety rules etc. and the union movement which has been the reason why a country like the USA has or had a middle class. I understand though they are 100% wrong why rich, greedy fuckers hate unions but everyone else should be supportive of the union movement. By all means hold them to account to but to be against good wages is simply stupid.

Without 100+years of unions and collective bargaining the USA and Canada would never have become as rich as they have as societies and never would have had the middle class they have. Go look at any nations which outlaw unions and see how shitty their workforce is paid and treated and that they have no real middle class.

If avg. Joe's are waiting for the elite, corporate world to treat them kindly and pay them well out of some goodness of heart then avg. Joe's will be waiting for a long time. Even if you are not unionized your employment has benefitted from the struggles, effort of collective bargaining. Unions are far from perfect but without them life for the majority would be worse off.

why should a guy standing on an assembly line all day make 60k a year? arent most of those jobs mindless unskilled labor?

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Aristotle wrote:

1300ZUK wrote:their current problems have very little to do with the UAW, they don't have the products, they they can barely sell the cars they have that are supposed to fit the market now, Malibu and Cobalt plants are getting the layoffs now.

The reason why GM doesn't have the right products is because of Poor Management

Ford is a little late to the market but i think they are doing okayish.

Chrysler has nothing, they have no research and development, the Germans took it all with them. Not that chrysler had a lot in r&d before the germans. But the Germans aren't hybrid people, they invest their technology in Diesel and Hydrogen. Chrysler is fucked.

What Congress wanted to here is how they are going to go to the next generation of automobiles. Hybrids are good but they aren't it, they are the 8 tracks of the auto industry, a false pretender. They need to figure out how to get around hybrids. I'm not sure there is enough capacity worldwide available to support all the batteries needed for hyrbids and pure electric cars.

management isn't great, but they can all be fired by the BOD at any moment. the fact that they weren't shows that the boards are irresponsible.

and the UAW accounts for a $2,000 premium in every car they build. they admitted it in the congressional testimony this week. toyota and honda use that 2k to build a better car that's sold at the same price. the american car companies use it to pay the salaries of people that don't even work.

gm and ford know how to build good cars, as evidenced by their successes in ROW.

also:

avg UAW salary is 28/hr.

avg toyota employee salary is 16/hr.

So why are good wages a bad thing? Maybe Toyota workers should try to get to $28/hr. instead of the other way around. I just don't get it why so many avg. Joe Q. Public want to piss on good wages, good benefits, good safety rules etc. and the union movement which has been the reason why a country like the USA has or had a middle class. I understand though they are 100% wrong why rich, greedy fuckers hate unions but everyone else should be supportive of the union movement. By all means hold them to account to but to be against good wages is simply stupid.

Without 100+years of unions and collective bargaining the USA and Canada would never have become as rich as they have as societies and never would have had the middle class they have. Go look at any nations which outlaw unions and see how shitty their workforce is paid and treated and that they have no real middle class.

If avg. Joe's are waiting for the elite, corporate world to treat them kindly and pay them well out of some goodness of heart then avg. Joe's will be waiting for a long time. Even if you are not unionized your employment has benefitted from the struggles, effort of collective bargaining. Unions are far from perfect but without them life for the majority would be worse off.

There's nothing wrong with paying good wages and nothing wrong with unions per se, but in this case, the UAW has been extremely inflexible and unrealistic about the economic climate and the health of the companies the employees work for. When a company is suffering loss after loss after loss each quarter, belt-tightening is needed, and wages will have to come down, but only until sometime this year did the UAW really start granting any meaningful concessions. Up until then, I'd been reading about things such as GM wanting to save some money by hiring non-union workers to do things like cut the grass at their facilities, but the UAW said no...you have to pay union workers $80,000 a year to drive a lawnmower around. The job bank thing has been ridiculous and needed controls and paring down, but it's only been this year that the UAW finally agreed to do something about it. And I know of no other blue-collar jobs you can get, where if your employer really wants to get rid of you, he has to give you over $100,000 plus other benefits to leave. And I've seen in the past where an automaker had, say, 3 straight quarters of losses, then one quarter with a meager profit, and the UAW will refuse to bargain with them about anything anymore because they're doing "better!"

I have no problem with the unions fighting for fair wages and fair benefits, but the UAW has been fighting tooth-and-nail against the automakers to try to make things more appropriate for the state of the companies and the economy, even if it means these companies are going to totally collapse and then all of those workers will be left without any jobs at all. Maybe when the companies are stable again, and pulling in solid profits, then the UAW can go back to fighting for higher wages and benefits. But at this point in time, it's just not realistic when companies like Hyundai are spending $60 per car in labor costs, and GM spends over $2000.

Not all UAW workers make anywhere near that kind of money. The UAW needs to be accountable too but it seems as if many want to lay all on them. When US auto CEO's make 5-10 times more than non-US auto CEO's maybe they should lead by example. Of course they now state they will work for a $1.00 but we all know they will be back end loaded with golden handshakes and massive stock incentives. So it's all window dressing.

The UAW has already begun to take over part of the pension plans from the Big three.

The corporate handlers over the last 50-60 years have done more to create the toxic environment with the UAW than the other way around. It's time that the Big Three CEO's and their minions stop picking fights with the UAW and begin to act like grown ups and create a real partnership.

les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Also if an employee is a major fuckup and the company wants to fire him, there's too much bullshit for the company to go through to get rid of them and they have to pay out benefits and wages before that person ends up on the unemployment line, all for being a fuckup. I've heard this story too many times from autoworkers here in Illinois. Most times companies won't fire the fuckups just because it's a pain in the ass, they just transfer them around. It takes a month to fire a person.

Also when I say companies, I mean Ford.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

Find me ONE country that is modern and industrialized which outlaws or heavily curtails unions and their efforts and see if said country has better wages, benefits, social safety nets, safer work place conditions and a better overall working class (union and non-union) along with a more vibrant and just society especially with the middle class than countries like Canada and the USA to name just two that have free legal unionism and collective bargaining... I'll wait for you to produce said nation but will not hold my breath ok?

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

I'll trust a union before I trust a corproation. I have no problem saying that some unions - the UAW for one - go too far. They demand too much from their workers. But to write off organized labor entirely is ridiculous.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

Find me ONE country that is modern and industrialized which outlaws or heavily curtails unions and their efforts and see if said country has better wages, benefits, social safety nets, safer work place conditions and a better overall working class (union and non-union) along with a more vibrant and just society especially with the middle class than countries like Canada and the USA to name just two that have free legal unionism and collective bargaining... I'll wait for you to produce said nation but will not hold my breath ok?

Thats an easy one. I'll break down the industries for you too if you'd like:

Britain.

Car industry - we have no car industry anymore and thats because the unions crippled it, just as they are doing in the usa. they forced the companies to pay over the odds...and when they wouldnt spent most of their time striking rather than building cars. in the end the companies couldnt afford it, went bankrupt and everyone ended up getting screwed

Rail industry - crippled by strikes, delayed engineering work and cost overruns as the unions continually battle over pay and pensions that already beat the vast majority of the purely private sector. the uk railways are the joke of europe for this reason

Fire Brigade - the entire UK fire brigade was shut down in 2003 because their union voted to strike over pay. they wanted them to earn $60,000 for a 3/4 day working week. how many lives did that cost?

Government - our spending on public services has risen dramatically and our country's tax burden has gone from a small positive to a massive negative in the past decade. aside from gordon brown's flawed policies this has been in no small part due to an inability to get rid of inefficient staff/positions that plague the public sector. Who's fault is this....you guessed it

Mining - they went on strike for a whole year because the national coal board wanted to close mines that were losing money. net result? customers went elsewhere, the rest of the mines started losing money and eventually everyone else lost their jobs too.

need i go on? Unions were useful 50 years ago when corporations did pay shit wages....but theyre completely obsolete now...and often downright detrimental.

in this area britain is 50 years ahead of everyone else. the unions have crippled us, been abolished....the economy rocketed as a result and is now starting to slow as unions creep back

what pennz said. ^^

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

Find me ONE country that is modern and industrialized which outlaws or heavily curtails unions and their efforts and see if said country has better wages, benefits, social safety nets, safer work place conditions and a better overall working class (union and non-union) along with a more vibrant and just society especially with the middle class than countries like Canada and the USA to name just two that have free legal unionism and collective bargaining... I'll wait for you to produce said nation but will not hold my breath ok?

Thats an easy one. I'll break down the industries for you too if you'd like:

Britain.

Car industry - we have no car industry anymore and thats because the unions crippled it, just as they are doing in the usa. they forced the companies to pay over the odds...and when they wouldnt spent most of their time striking rather than building cars. in the end the companies couldnt afford it, went bankrupt and everyone ended up getting screwed

Rail industry - crippled by strikes, delayed engineering work and cost overruns as the unions continually battle over pay and pensions that already beat the vast majority of the purely private sector. the uk railways are the joke of europe for this reason

Fire Brigade - the entire UK fire brigade was shut down in 2003 because their union voted to strike over pay. they wanted them to earn $60,000 for a 3/4 day working week. how many lives did that cost?

Government - our spending on public services has risen dramatically and our country's tax burden has gone from a small positive to a massive negative in the past decade. aside from gordon brown's flawed policies this has been in no small part due to an inability to get rid of inefficient staff/positions that plague the public sector. Who's fault is this....you guessed it

Mining - they went on strike for a whole year because the national coal board wanted to close mines that were losing money. net result? customers went elsewhere, the rest of the mines started losing money and eventually everyone else lost their jobs too.

need i go on? Unions were useful 50 years ago when corporations did pay shit wages....but theyre completely obsolete now...and often downright detrimental.

in this area britain is 50 years ahead of everyone else. the unions have crippled us, been abolished....the economy rocketed as a result and is now starting to slow as unions creep back

You misunderstood my question. Show me one so called developed, peer country that does not allow unions or severely cripples/hampers them from doing anything to do with collective bargaining that has a better quality of life for not only all workers, union and non-union ( including wages, benefits, safety standards) but the society in general too?

Shut the fuck up already. Your actual question was far less relevant than pennz's answer.

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

Find me ONE country that is modern and industrialized which outlaws or heavily curtails unions and their efforts and see if said country has better wages, benefits, social safety nets, safer work place conditions and a better overall working class (union and non-union) along with a more vibrant and just society especially with the middle class than countries like Canada and the USA to name just two that have free legal unionism and collective bargaining... I'll wait for you to produce said nation but will not hold my breath ok?

Thats an easy one. I'll break down the industries for you too if you'd like:

Britain.

Car industry - we have no car industry anymore and thats because the unions crippled it, just as they are doing in the usa. they forced the companies to pay over the odds...and when they wouldnt spent most of their time striking rather than building cars. in the end the companies couldnt afford it, went bankrupt and everyone ended up getting screwed

Rail industry - crippled by strikes, delayed engineering work and cost overruns as the unions continually battle over pay and pensions that already beat the vast majority of the purely private sector. the uk railways are the joke of europe for this reason

Fire Brigade - the entire UK fire brigade was shut down in 2003 because their union voted to strike over pay. they wanted them to earn $60,000 for a 3/4 day working week. how many lives did that cost?

Government - our spending on public services has risen dramatically and our country's tax burden has gone from a small positive to a massive negative in the past decade. aside from gordon brown's flawed policies this has been in no small part due to an inability to get rid of inefficient staff/positions that plague the public sector. Who's fault is this....you guessed it

Mining - they went on strike for a whole year because the national coal board wanted to close mines that were losing money. net result? customers went elsewhere, the rest of the mines started losing money and eventually everyone else lost their jobs too.

need i go on? Unions were useful 50 years ago when corporations did pay shit wages....but theyre completely obsolete now...and often downright detrimental.

in this area britain is 50 years ahead of everyone else. the unions have crippled us, been abolished....the economy rocketed as a result and is now starting to slow as unions creep back

You misunderstood my question. Show me one so called developed, peer country that does not allow unions or severely cripples/hampers them from doing anything to do with collective bargaining that has a better quality of life for not only all workers, union and non-union ( including wages, benefits, safety standards) but the society in general too?

i have just shown you one you fool! when we all but banned the unions our economy skyrocketed....and with that so did our standard of life. and guess what?? the corporations never got round to opening those slave labour camps all the socialists expected them to.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:les, unions are NOT a good thing. britain had a world leading car industry 30 years ago. We also had unions. Now we have neither, and the latter is responsible for that. the best thing margaret thatcher ever did was get rid of the unions and free up our industries. they crippled us and they are crippling you.

only leftwing nutjobs are for them...which is obviously no surprise that you support them. in modern society they are not needed....market forces do the job for them. if an employer doesnt pay enough, then the employees will leave. the only ones that will get screwed are the ones who are incapable of doing anything else and therefore shouldnt be on such a high wage in the first place

Everything is black or white for you eh Pennz?

when it comes to unions its rather simple yes, and we're not living in the early 20th century anymore wally. they are effective to a point, but by human nature their leaders can never keep themselves within that point, and then without fail they will cripple the industry they are supposed to protect. but its ok, you keep the unions. look how well our other industries did with them....if you can still find any that didnt go under that is

Find me ONE country that is modern and industrialized which outlaws or heavily curtails unions and their efforts and see if said country has better wages, benefits, social safety nets, safer work place conditions and a better overall working class (union and non-union) along with a more vibrant and just society especially with the middle class than countries like Canada and the USA to name just two that have free legal unionism and collective bargaining... I'll wait for you to produce said nation but will not hold my breath ok?

Thats an easy one. I'll break down the industries for you too if you'd like:

Britain.

Car industry - we have no car industry anymore and thats because the unions crippled it, just as they are doing in the usa. they forced the companies to pay over the odds...and when they wouldnt spent most of their time striking rather than building cars. in the end the companies couldnt afford it, went bankrupt and everyone ended up getting screwed

Rail industry - crippled by strikes, delayed engineering work and cost overruns as the unions continually battle over pay and pensions that already beat the vast majority of the purely private sector. the uk railways are the joke of europe for this reason

Fire Brigade - the entire UK fire brigade was shut down in 2003 because their union voted to strike over pay. they wanted them to earn $60,000 for a 3/4 day working week. how many lives did that cost?

Government - our spending on public services has risen dramatically and our country's tax burden has gone from a small positive to a massive negative in the past decade. aside from gordon brown's flawed policies this has been in no small part due to an inability to get rid of inefficient staff/positions that plague the public sector. Who's fault is this....you guessed it

Mining - they went on strike for a whole year because the national coal board wanted to close mines that were losing money. net result? customers went elsewhere, the rest of the mines started losing money and eventually everyone else lost their jobs too.

need i go on? Unions were useful 50 years ago when corporations did pay shit wages....but theyre completely obsolete now...and often downright detrimental.

in this area britain is 50 years ahead of everyone else. the unions have crippled us, been abolished....the economy rocketed as a result and is now starting to slow as unions creep back

You misunderstood my question. Show me one so called developed, peer country that does not allow unions or severely cripples/hampers them from doing anything to do with collective bargaining that has a better quality of life for not only all workers, union and non-union ( including wages, benefits, safety standards) but the society in general too?

i have just shown you one you fool! when we all but banned the unions our economy skyrocketed....and with that so did our standard of life. and guess what?? the corporations never got round to opening those slave labour camps all the socialists expected them to.

Unions are not all but banned in Britain! Next your economy did not skyrocket as any result of interference on unions because Britain is suffering the economic meltdown of the failure of Reaganomics/Thatcheromics (two peas in the same pod) possibly even worse than in the USA. So any gains you saw over the last 25+ years were basically artificial and are now being corrected. The unions had no quantifiable part in such.

Back to my point name one country that has unions being illegal or even crippled by govt. / corporate interference that as result of such being illegal or chopped off at the knees has better wages, better benefits, better health and safety regs in both union and non-union workplaces and a generally better middle class lifestyle than any nation that freely allows union movements and collective bargaining as a result? Fact is everything we as typical citizens who work for a living and appreciate such things as better wages, benefits, work place safety regs and other social safety nets came with unions at the sharp edge of the wedge. Eliminate unions or cripple them and most if not all these things will be taken away in due time. Corporate greed hands only see the bottom line of today, not the greater or further picture and they will use their money and power of access to influence the govt. to repeal such with no viable opposition to fight back which unions prove the best at doing.

i just gave you the perfect example les. you chose to bury your head in the sand

its not a matter of having 'better' anything. this is the fucking problem with the unions....they are constantly trying to get better deals for themselves. just fucking accept that what you've got is just fine and get on with the job you're being paid to do.

ps yes our economy did skyrocket after we got rid of the unions. between 1960 and 1980 it went up £200 billion. between 1980 and 200 it went up £800 billion. this outstrips the general economic upturn during this time period

pps thatcherite economics? the same policies that are the sole reason london is the finance capital of the world? the same policies that politicians across the world tried to copy? to bitch about thatcher is to basically admit you dont know jack shit about politics. conservatives and socialists alike ALL admit she did a fantastic job of running the UK

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:i just gave you the perfect example les. you chose to bury your head in the sand

its not a matter of having 'better' anything. this is the fucking problem with the unions....they are constantly trying to get better deals for themselves. just fucking accept that what you've got is just fine and get on with the job you're being paid to do.

ps yes our economy did skyrocket after we got rid of the unions. between 1960 and 1980 it went up £200 billion. between 1980 and 200 it went up £800 billion. this outstrips the general economic upturn during this time period

pps thatcherite economics? the same policies that are the sole reason london is the finance capital of the world? the same policies that politicians across the world tried to copy? to bitch about thatcher is to basically admit you dont know jack shit about politics. conservatives and socialists alike ALL admit she did a fantastic job of running the UK

Your example was BULL SHIT!!!!

The judgement of Reagan/Thatcheromics is being given today in front of our very eyes. The basic failure of the current economic /monetary system is apparent to those with eyes wide open but you bury your head in the sand.

Britain's growth though generally not outstanding to its other developed nation peers is one that was as phony as the US and many other peers economies have been and was not out of any result of action against the unions. It has been a 25+ year SHAM! and was based on money created via fiat, over-leveraged and irresponsible lending and untenable market investment schemes built on 100% pure myopic, greed and even criminal intent is to which Thatcher, Reagan, Friedmen and other misguided to pure whack job conservatives messed with the global economy to its near breaking point today.

Fact is Penz the quality of working persons' lives both union and non-union has been made generally better, not worse via the sharp edge of the wedge from the union movement over the last 100 years. Without this one need not look too far to see how generally worse off to even miserable it would be for the working/middle class (there would not be a middle class) look to nations which outlaw unions or so interfere with them via corporatocracy and blantent partisan govt. meddling.

so are there any actual facts/examples in that diatribe? thought not. just more socialist bollocks that you cant back up because lets face it you just read it on the web somewhere


judgement huh? its all going to come crashing to its feet hey? looks like its still doing ok to me....


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_ftse

IF in a couple of years time the FTSE is back to 1000 then you can come back spouting your socialist crap, and even though you still wont have a fucking clue what you're talking about but by sheer coincidence we might have to entertain your ranting. until that point, STFU

i understand that whilst i might spend my day looking at the ftse, most of you will be more familiar with the dow jones. so, here we see the disastrous effect 'reagonomics' had on the US economy in the 1980s. a huge increase. how god damned awful!! But its ok because as Les says its all coming crashing down......except its not. It had a blip. It had one in 2001 too. It can lose a good 90% of its value before it even begins to reach the heady heights of the pre-Reagan era.


http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_dji

how the fuck do you embed those charts?


ps note the scales are not completely linear