View Full Version : Another nail in the coffin for the US auto industry...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/obama.emissions/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fourteen states will be able to mandate greater auto fuel efficiency than the federal government requires under a plan that President Obama will announce on Monday, a senior administration official said.
California and 13 other states would be permitted to set their emission standards under President Obama's plan.
Obama will do so by directing the Environmental Protection Agency to grant a waiver for the states to allow them to set their own standards for emissions, the official said.
The waiver was denied under former President George W. Bush.
Automakers agreed with Bush and vehemently opposed the waivers, saying creating another set of rules regarding pollution standards for some states would be confusing and unenforceable.
Besides the EPA waivers, Obama also will call for automakers to increase their fuel efficiency standards nationwide, the official said.
The president also will direct the federal government to make its buildings more energy efficient and to find new ways for federal agencies to save energy.
The problem with this approach is that California and other states will be allowed to set unreasonable limits that can't be met. And the auto companies will have to proliferate even more models (at higher cost) to have enough that meet the standards of the 14 states in question, while still providing vehicles that the people in the other 36 states want to buy. Besides Prius and other hybrid sales have fallen dramatically with the decline in gas prices. People don't want to pay more for better economy if it doesn't save them money in the long run.
But I will bet California will make exceptions for the rich people that drive Luxury and Exotic cars that get terrible mileage...
Business_Casual
01-26-09, 09:33
Businesses are free to not sell to those states. If they had a plan to focus on states where they can make money they might survive.
Just a thought.
M_P
variablebinary
01-26-09, 09:39
Dont deal with those states. Problem solved.
Dont deal with those states. Problem solved.
Except that will further erode sales, causing the need for more layoffs and plant closings, resulting in more losses and the need for more bailout money. Not to mention the dealers that will go out of business and all the people they employ.
This will deepen the recession, just as FDR's actions in the 1930's deepened the great depression.
Except that will further erode sales, causing the need for more layoffs and plant closings, resulting in more losses and the need for more bailout money. Not to mention the dealers that will go out of business and all the people they employ.
This will deepen the recession, just as FDR's actions in the 1930's deepened the great depression.
And someone else will fill that gap..they'll build factories, hire people, start dealerships, etc. Any void in the market will be filled.
Business_Casual
01-26-09, 09:50
Ronnie Barrett didn't go out of business.
M_P
Gutshot John
01-26-09, 09:52
Too much dead wood clogging the system. The auto industry has A LOT of problems that will never be solved by bailouts. They've offered so many cars at cheap credit for so long, underselling themselves, that they've flooded the market with ever cheaper automobiles. Have you noticed how prices are dropping on new autos compared to 5 years ago?
At least one of the big three needs to go. The current market can't support three manufacturers. I'd vote for GM as the most bloated "child" whose poor practices now threatens its siblings. Let one die so that the others may live.
What ever happened to the free market?
If these expectations are unrealistic, then NONE of the auto makers will be providing cars that are eligible to be sold in these states.
If ANY of the auto makers CAN meet these standards with cars people are willing to buy, then there is little excuse for the other auto makers to not be able meet these standards as well.
I for one get a little tired of hearing that US auto makers can't do this, can't do that, can't compete with this or that, etc. They need to compete - period. If they can't then we know what needs to happen.
I don't know enough about it - but if the UAW really is part of the problem, then we should have let the automakers re-organize under bankrupcy into non-union shops. Again, I have NO IDEA if that really is an issue or not, but if it IS then it needs to be dealt with.
The alternative is this:
http://www.brilliance-motors.eu/
Stop making cars, go back to this (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=24895). The demand is certainly there. :p
I think some of you are missing the point. This is a regulatory end-run around Congress which establishes the CAFE fuel economy regulations.
Do you realize how much it will cost to certify a manufacturer's entire fleet of vehicles for 14 different state level requirements on top of the existing federal requirements? How much you want to bet that each state will have a different testing method, so test results can't be shared among different states?
This will hurt ALL auto manufacturers by raising costs at a time when they are almost all losing money. The Japanese companies will survive, but the added costs may kill the more troubled US manufacturers. Whether or not you think they should be allowed to die (I do, and I opposed the bailout), we should not be increasing the regulatory cost burden right now, just as we should not raise corporate tax rates during a recession. Raising costs after spending bailout money ensures that taxpayer dollars will be washed down the drain.
The whole thing is based on a lie anyway. The EPA has reclassified a relatively inert gas - carbon dioxide - as a pollutant, which flies in the face of all scientific knowledge about chemistry. The ideal products of perfect combustion are carbon dioxide and water, and carbon dioxide has almost zero low atmosphere reactivity that would lead to pollution. This decision reclassifies all animal life on the planet as polluters. And the reason for the re-classification? Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and is causing global warming! Frauds built on lies...
Pollutants are the reactive compounds you don't intend to get from perfect combustion - nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, ozone, etc. They cause smog, dirty air, acid rain, and other problems.
So now that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it's emission can be regulated by the EPA and now by individual states. This is nothing more than a power grab by the executive branch which controls the EPA, and an effort to appease environmentalists at the expense of business and jobs.
Spot on Left Sig.
I don't know enough about it - but if the UAW really is part of the problem, then we should have let the automakers re-organize under bankrupcy into non-union shops. Again, I have NO IDEA if that really is an issue or not, but if it IS then it needs to be dealt with.
The UAW is more than just a part of the problem, they are a major contributing factor. If you look to the example of Caterpilar Tractor Company, you can see in the 70's there were more than 25,000 hourly workers being compensated above national average. . . the UAW, to flex its muscle did strike after strike in the late 70's early 80's . . . now there are around 2,000 hourly workers at CAT. Most of the work is outsourced to small non-union shops, and parts are brought together like a giant snap tite model . . . very little of the work is done by those UAW hourly workers that remain. Did the UAW help or hurt? I know Peoria has a lot of jobs in the service industry now and not a lot in union manufacturing. Who won? The UAW was using CAT to leverage Detroit . . . that was the goal, if they could get CAT to bend they could get the U.S. automakers to match. They sacrificed the jobs in Peoria to get more above the national average for workers in other companies. The end result though is those companies had to go begging to Congress for a bailout. They should have followed CAT's lead. $14 (no bennies) an hour at a non-union shop beats the unemployment line every day of the week . . . yeah it sucks when you had been making $55 (40 cash and 15 in bennies) for the same job. . . . but it was more than the market could bear. Thing is, the workers aren't going to see a dime of the corporate bailouts. The bailouts just buy more time to sustain the dysfunction.
biggest concern here, is that there will be multiple sets of emission regulations, making it very difficult for the auto manufactorers to economically build money making vehicles. Did the car makers cause some of this problem....yes. but so did the average American.
it's unfortunate that the car companies can't come up with 1 model, plain jane that meets the standards, comes in one color, choice of 2 or 4 doors.....and we can send them all to CA and let them enjoy their choices.
he has also raised the CAFE standards once again. which will inevitably make the cars that the automakers are trying to make even more expensive. thats the right thing to do, take an industry that already failing and saddle it with even more expense than it already has to deal with, yeah that will help a lot. not to mention when that do fail because that cant afford to meet the standard, where are they gonna come?? the government asking for another bailout, which will require us to spend more money, me to pay more taxes and slip the country further into recession than it already is. there has to be a point where the economy comes before the environment. the dems must not feel where there yet.
The thing that gets old for me is that every time we do this(emmisions standards and fuel economy) people that use their vehicles for work(ranching here) seem to really take a hit. In an effort to make things more efficient, the auto companies make things more complicated or lighter weight(though this is sometime related to cost), two things that don't belong on a vehicle that gets used hard. A good example would be the diesel regs a few years back. When the big 3 had to have cleaner diesels, the fuel economy went to hell and at first at least they didn't seem to be relaible. My dad picked up the last dodge ram with a 5.9 cummins(didn't have the new emmisions control system) and it can get 18-19 if you beleive the computer. We have talked to people with the new 6.7 cummins and they can't get anywere near that. I guess that I'm just worried that in a few years we won't have any trucks that will either be affordable or tough enough to get the job done. Of course is the EPA ever tries that cow emmisions tax it won't matter whether or not we can get new ranch trucks since I doubt we'll still be rnaching.
rush linbaugh said it right. I listened to him talk about cars on the radio one day. He said he used to have a chev chevette that got 40 mpg. Now comparable cars that suposidly polute less get 30mpg. How can a vehicle that burns 25 percent more gas polute less and what if we went back to cars like that there would be alot less of a need to buy imported oil and alot less of a need to run our own countrys oil refinerys that do polute. I can also remember one of the guys at work that had a suzuki car that got over 50 mpg. Where are those cars now. You have to go with a hybrid to even come close to that and i dont know of one that really does it. they this hybrid thing is a joke as it may not polute going down the road on batterys but how much polution is being created when he plugs it in to charge it or how much is made producing and disposing of batterys.
rush linbaugh said it right. I listened to him talk about cars on the radio one day. He said he used to have a chev chevette that got 40 mpg. Now comparable cars that suposidly polute less get 30mpg. How can a vehicle that burns 25 percent more gas polute less and what if we went back to cars like that there would be alot less of a need to buy imported oil and alot less of a need to run our own countrys oil refinerys that do polute. I can also remember one of the guys at work that had a suzuki car that got over 50 mpg. Where are those cars now. You have to go with a hybrid to even come close to that and i dont know of one that really does it. they this hybrid thing is a joke as it may not polute going down the road on batterys but how much polution is being created when he plugs it in to charge it or how much is made producing and disposing of batterys.
Those older cars were lighter. All those new safety regulations add extra weight - stuff like dual airbags, side airbags, side door reinforcement beams, and all the other stuff that goes into passing the crash tests. Also adding weight are all the features people want now that used to be optional. Then factor in how much less power those old economy cars made versus today. For many years, people have preferred features and performance over fuel economy, and economy cars have grown into what used to be midsize cars. That's what cheap gas does. People started changing their tune when gas hit $4 a gallon, but now that it is back below $2, it will be interesting to see what they choose to buy...
Littlelebowski
01-27-09, 20:51
Couple this with the union's increased power and goodbye US auto industry.
Americans would riot if they knew what these same manufacturers were selling in Europe. I'd love an imported diesel Golf as an around-town car.
-B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY
:D:D:D:D
Littlelebowski
01-28-09, 05:46
Screw the Golf, how does say...a mid sized or small diesel truck sound?
how can you blame the unions. There guys like you and me that are middle class people making under a 100 thousand a year when the big wigs are making 6 figure and even 7 figure wages. To me that is what killed the car industry. Greed. then you want to go and buy a vw! thats the attitude that caused this trouble in the american auto industry to begin with.
Couple this with the union's increased power and goodbye US auto industry. then someone is going to go buy a vw gulf!!! Now thats the attitude that is sure to kill them and take jobs away from americans.
Littlelebowski
01-28-09, 06:41
how can you blame the unions. There guys like you and me that are middle class people making under a 100 thousand a year when the big wigs are making 6 figure and even 7 figure wages. To me that is what killed the car industry. Greed. then you want to go and buy a vw! thats the attitude that caused this trouble in the american auto industry to begin with.
Negative. Do you really think the Toyota and Honda execs got paid that much less than their Big Three counterparts? Or could it just maybe, perhaps be that union workers cost on average $30 more an hour?
So here's your choice: eithermake more an hour and get laid off while praying for a bailout from the gov't OR work for a stable, non-union shop.
You just let me know if you require facts to back my statements, winky.
Screw the Golf, how does say...a mid sized or small diesel truck sound?
Hey, you get my point though. 50+ MPG in a car, easily 25+ city for a medium sized truck... yeah, like I said, if the average American knew that this is what foreigners were getting from these same manufacturers, they'd revolt. That I would want a foreign-made version of the same car over the domestic version is telling more of the company's choice of offerings than anything else.
how can you blame the unions.
You know, we played this game recently on these forums, and Unions lost that argument too. ;)
-B
how can you blame the unions. There guys like you and me that are middle class people making under a 100 thousand a year . . .. They're guys like you and me who are getting raked over the coals by the unions. Union gets a cut from the worker, union gets a cut ftom the company .. . union has a good racket going. When the mafia got out of illegal booze and into the unions .. . . hey, they recognize a good deal when they see it. The unions are a leg shackle passed through a cinder block with a cuff on the worker and a cuff on the company .. . . re-read my story about CAT tractor above, they threw those guys over a bridge to make a point unfortunately it cost the jobs it did and that "protection" customer washed up. Only the company made it to shore still breathing (working a job). . . the 23,000 hourly workers not so much.
The last union discussion started to get personal and got shut down. My only response is that all of the unionized auto plants and companies in this country are dying, and the non-union ones are doing OK. Blame whoever you want, but those are the facts. Do you think this is just a coincidence?
Now, we do have to admit that one of the big problems with the (former) Big-3 is their lack of truly compelling products compared to the Japanese and the Germans. Quality has lagged, but Volkswagen has proven in the last 10 years that consumers will look past quality issues if they really like the car. If you look at the numbers, VW historically is pretty bad on quality. "German Engineering" doesn't run downhill from Mercedes and BWM, who have even had significant quality issues of their own. The US manufacturers made a succession of bland cars that were mostly forgettable and not enough people bought them. Get it right, like with the neo-retro Mustang, and you'll sell a bunch.
As for preferring the overseas models - I felt the same when I worked for Ford in Detroit in the mid 90's. The Euro-market Modeo was better than the Contour/Mystique and should have been sold in the US relatively unchanged. The American marketing pukes decided Americans don't want Euro cars and redesigned them into bland rental fleet vehicles. The Australian market Falcon 4DR sedan with RWD and a Mustang drivetrain was a blast. I got to drive one with the steering on the other side in Dearborn and I'd have killed to have one of those.
I came to the conclusion that the marketing people were doing all of their customer clinics with Detroit area retirees and housewives who had the free time to attend. If they were from the Detroit area they were already programmed from birth to hate foreign cars, so they always led the marketing pukes down the wrong path.
But here's the rub:
At that time, cars sold for a lot more in Western Europe than in the US because they are more of a luxury. The V-6 Contour that was hard to give away at $20K sold for the equivalent of $37K in Europe. So they can afford to make them cooler and still make money.
And all those high mileage diesels they have over there that make plenty of torque to satisfy American driving styles cannot pass the new US diesel emissions regulations. With common rail injection pressures already at 26,000 psi, you still have to inject urea into the exhaust to bond with the nitrogen oxides to meet the requirements. Nobody wants to do that with a passenger vehicle, so the next step is another steep rise in injection pressures to previously unheard of levels.
Littlelebowski
01-28-09, 16:24
Good knowledge on the diesel stuff, Left Sig. Now what's the environmental impact on buying a clean gas engine that might last say 200K miles versus a 300-400K mile diesel engine?
how can you blame the unions. There guys like you and me that are middle class people making under a 100 thousand a year when the big wigs are making 6 figure and even 7 figure wages. To me that is what killed the car industry. Greed. then you want to go and buy a vw! thats the attitude that caused this trouble in the american auto industry to begin with.
All the execs in the top 10 tiers of an auto company all making high 6 figures would not put a dent in the companies problems. That amount of money is insignificant.
The unions drove up costs and lowered quality through work rules. Unions forced through compensation packages that are totally unrealistic. Maybe some exec is getting more than he really should -- no arguments there -- his pay and all his other co-exec pay added together is merely a footnote in the balance statement of an auto company.
As an example, say the top 100 execs at ford each get paid 1 million (this is obviously way too many execs getting paid a too high average). That is 100 million. These car companies are BILLIONS of dollars in the hole, mostly due to high labor expenses and high and stupid labor regulation by the gov (a mix of both). That is at least one order of magnitude more and could be more than my overly simplistic and overly high example of executive compensation
And all those high mileage diesels they have over there that make plenty of torque to satisfy American driving styles cannot pass the new US diesel emissions regulations. With common rail injection pressures already at 26,000 psi, you still have to inject urea into the exhaust to bond with the nitrogen oxides to meet the requirements. Nobody wants to do that with a passenger vehicle, so the next step is another steep rise in injection pressures to previously unheard of levels.
VW claims theirs passes without Urea. Mercedes and BWM are going the Urea route...
Littlelebowski
01-28-09, 16:47
Here's a typical story of what my wife as a Director of HR has to deal with on a daily basis. A supervisor needed to get a critical job done. He asked for a volunteer to take some overtime. A volunteer was found and the job got done. The union is now grieving said action because the senior person on the job was not offered the over time. Now the company has to pay the overtime to the senior person on the job though he did not work for it. This is at a company that has already conducted layoffs and is contemplating more. It doesn't take much imagination to envision how thousands of these actions can bleed a company to death.
Nathan_Bell
01-28-09, 17:19
VW claims theirs passes without Urea. Mercedes and BWM are going the Urea route...
You should see the CF that the new system that some of the MFG are using for school buses so that they can pass 2010 (2011?) rules.
They have soot burners and urea injection. One tank of gas one tank of urea!
Good knowledge on the diesel stuff, Left Sig. Now what's the environmental impact on buying a clean gas engine that might last say 200K miles versus a 300-400K mile diesel engine?
Thanks. I don't design the things, but I've spent 5 years supporting their manufacture. Until recently, one of my (many) responsibilities was ensuring the process that torques all those 26K psi injector fuel fittings produced zero leaks, but still provided acceptable production yields.
To answer your question, if the diesel engine lasts twice as long, then you save all the energy involved in manufacturing the second gasoline engine that would need to go as far. That includes everything from mining the ore, extracting the iron, pouring the block and head, and all the machining & assembly - for every single component. That's a lot of power that has to be generated somewhere usually by burning something. But diesels are most costly to build in the first place so it's not like it would save you half the money and energy.
This kind of cradle-to-grave approach to energy conservation has shown that hybrids consume more total energy over the entire life cycle even though they burn less gas during operation.
As far as emissions goes, the move to low-sulfur diesel fuel (500 to 15 ppm) in the beginning of 2007 was a huge step forward in reducing diesel emissions. In addition to removing the stink and acid rain potential of sulfur emissions, it also allowed the addition of catalytic controls for NOx and particulates that would have been ruined by sulfur. But the problem with NOx emissions is that they are proportional to heat. Running a diesel hotter at higher compression ratios improves its efficiency, but creates more NOx. So to reduce NOx to gas engine levels you either sacrifice fuel economy or you add after treatment (urea injection) on top of all the other emissions controls. The higher injection pressures being looked at now atomize the fuel even finer to improve the burn. The particulate traps can catch most of the soot, but they do have to be burned off now and then.
As far as I understand it, the US emissions standards are now set by the type of vehicle without regard to the type of fuel. Everything a manufacturer sells in that class (light duty vehicle, light truck, medium duty, based on GVWR) has to average out to meet the overall standard.
So that means that any diesel vehicle you buy starting with the 2007 model year will meet the same emissions standards as any gasoline vehicle. The 2010 standards are even tighter, but still the same regardless of fuel type. So again, there is no real difference. The problem is all the tricks you have to do with the diesels to get them to meet the standards makes them more expensive, heavier, and less efficient. The addition of urea injection (instead of stupid high injection pressures) is just another thing that will add cost and drive customers away. Who wants another fluid level that has to be monitored and filled?
I should add that diesel fuel has more energy content per unit volume, hence the better fuel economy, but it take more oil and more energy at the refinery to make a gallon of diesel versus a gallon of gas, so the two factors basically wash out.
Still, many diesel car owners love that they can go 600+ between fill ups.
Now, we do have to admit that one of the big problems with the (former) Big-3 is their lack of truly compelling products compared to the Japanese and the Germans. Quality has lagged, but Volkswagen has proven in the last 10 years that consumers will look past quality issues if they really like the car. If you look at the numbers, VW historically is pretty bad on quality.
I don't know. My VWs since the late 80s have all been no maintenance except the normal wear and tear stuff. And the various reports etc don't rate VW down any more on quality.
As for preferring the overseas models - I felt the same when I worked for Ford in Detroit in the mid 90's. The Euro-market Modeo was better than the Contour/Mystique and should have been sold in the US relatively unchanged. The American marketing pukes decided Americans don't want Euro cars and redesigned them into bland rental fleet vehicles. The Australian market Falcon 4DR sedan with RWD and a Mustang drivetrain was a blast. I got to drive one with the steering on the other side in Dearborn and I'd have killed to have one of those.
I came to the conclusion that the marketing people were doing all of their customer clinics with Detroit area retirees and housewives who had the free time to attend. If they were from the Detroit area they were already programmed from birth to hate foreign cars, so they always led the marketing pukes down the wrong path.
VW unfortunately does the same crap. They have awesome cars in Germany and all we get is americanized crap.
Jay Cunningham
01-28-09, 17:34
Here's a typical story of what my wife as a Director of HR has to deal with on a daily basis. A supervisor needed to get a critical job done. He asked for a volunteer to take some overtime. A volunteer was found and the job got done. The union is now grieving said action because the senior person on the job was not offered the over time. Now the company has to pay the overtime to the senior person on the job though he did not work for it. This is at a company that has already conducted layoffs and is contemplating more. It doesn't take much imagination to envision how thousands of these actions can bleed a company to death.
That's exactly the union's job. The supervisor violated the contract and the union grieved it. That's how it works - the company and the union both signed that piece of paper. The supervisor could have played by the rules but he didn't want to because the job was "critical" so he went the convenient route.
CarlosDJackal
01-28-09, 17:40
Dont deal with those states. Problem solved.
Abandoning a market segment is never a good idea for any business that can still experience a positive cash flow from that market. A reduced profit is a heck of a lot better than no profit whatsoever.
If any of the auto companies were to withdraw from a State like California which has one of the highest number of cars per capita in the US and maybe the world; the effect not only to that manufacturer, but also to the smaller businesses supporting that manufacturer would be catastrophic.
Within the state alone the number of dealers that would have to close their doors would result a huge loss of jobs for salesmen, mechanics, truck drivers, auto parts specialists. Not to mention the other businesses that support them like car washes, gas stations, shipping companies, auto parts distributors, tire manufacturers, auto accessory manufacturers, facility security providers, warehouse workers, tow truck companies, junk yards, Used Car Sellers, recyclers, etc. Then there are the "other" smaller businesses like auto detailing, Custom Shops, paint, body and fender shops, third-party maintenance facilities, etc. Plus, this would put an additional burden on the Unemployment Insurance and Welfare Funding for that state.
Add to that the jobs that will be affected outside that state such as the auto factory workers, supporting parts manufacturers, inter-state auto transport companies, and the additional burden an action like this would put on whichever state these jobs might be located in.
What you consider as "problem solved" is not really such if you were to start peeling that onion that is Free Enterprise. In the end, we will all have to bear the burden of such a failure whether we like it or not.
The answer is not to bow out, the answer is to fight these ridiculous laws at the local level but at the same time work on a contingency to meet the new "standards" they may set. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
01-28-09, 17:45
...VW unfortunately does the same crap. They have awesome cars in Germany and all we get is americanized crap.
This happens with high-end products as well. Just ask the USCG how their Dauphin Rescue helicopters fared when they had to "Americanize" them as dictated by procurement regulations. Compare their aircraft's performance and safety record to that of the MD State Police, who did not have to replace anything to meet import and procurement requirements.
For those that didn't know, urea is the primary component in urine. So if you can't get it to meet emissions standards, PISS ON IT!
Here's a typical story of what my wife as a Director of HR has to deal with on a daily basis. A supervisor needed to get a critical job done. He asked for a volunteer to take some overtime. A volunteer was found and the job got done. The union is now grieving said action because the senior person on the job was not offered the over time. Now the company has to pay the overtime to the senior person on the job though he did not work for it. This is at a company that has already conducted layoffs and is contemplating more. It doesn't take much imagination to envision how thousands of these actions can bleed a company to death.
The unworked overtime scam has been present in every union plant I've worked in (4 so far). Overtime "rights" are usually spelled out in the contract, whether by seniority, equalized by lowest hours, job classification, etc. So it is up to management to follow the contract. But there are also a lot of people who play the game. They hide so they don't get asked, they tell the boss not to bother asking them for overtime and then when he doesn't they claim they would have worked THIS time, they fail to notify the boss that they still hold a qualification for overtime on a particular job even though they don't currently hold the job, etc. Low hour equalized usually generate tons of errors because of record keeping errors about who had the lowest hours, and when the list was updated, etc.
The whole idea is to get paid for not working. And lots of people get paid a lot. This has been the practice for decades. I once had to approve pay for a guy that wasn't asked for weekend overtime by one of the supervisors that worked for me - two full days 16 hours each, Saturday @ 1.5x time, Sunday @ 2x time. That's more than a week's pay. The guy knew full well what was being offered, he just knew if he didn't get asked directly, he could get paid for not working. And it's always the supervisor who has to find and ask each employee. It's never the employee's responsibility to go to the supervisor and inquire about overtime and volunteer.
My company ended this practice more than a year ago. If someone is missed for overtime because management makes an error, that person is offered a "makeup" overtime session so they can work the hours they were "unfairly" denied. The union said "You can't do that!", and we said "Oh, yes we can!"
Would you care to take a guess how many people accepted the "makeup" sessions when they knew they would actually have to work?
That's exactly the union's job. The supervisor violated the contract and the union grieved it. That's how it works - the company and the union both signed that piece of paper. The supervisor could have played by the rules but he didn't want to because the job was "critical" so he went the convenient route.
Lebowski was not saying the union was doing other than. He was saying that this is the sort if crap that unions foist on businesses in the contract negotiations and the inefficiencies that they introduce in the market
Jay Cunningham
01-28-09, 18:06
Our company had record profits last year and just received the highest possible industry rating after a recent outside evaluation - the highest rating in 33 years.
Afterward the CEO sent out an email letting all the salaried employees know that they will not be getting any raises and that they can no longer count on bonuses nor can they bank their vacation. Of course the represented employees are unaffected - such is life. Our engineers tried to unionize last year but just barely got shot down. I make about twice as much as our typical engineer, and I don't even have a four year degree.
I know I should feel very guilty about this and give it up on principle, but I'll take a pass and keep collecting that nice paycheck. You know - the one I don't really earn simply because I happen to be a union member in a non "right to work" state.
:rolleyes:
Littlelebowski
01-28-09, 18:56
And I'll go on collecting my paycheck from my union free company that isn't cutting wages or bonuses.
I see what the union (in this case the Teamsters) does firsthand through my wife. They make it impossible to discipline any of the workers and promote through longevity, not competence. If any of you think what the union negotiated regarding overtime for the senior person is right, well I don't understand you and never will. You don't have a "right" to more money, you earn it in my world. Other nonunion workers having to pay for the union's ridiculous demands is unsat in my book. UAW is reaping what they sowed (of course they'll get their Democratic buddies to bail them out) and I'll be damned if I buy another union made vehicle. Now if Toyota would just make a diesel pickup......
I don't mind local unions. I do mind nationalized unions that cripple America and tell their people how to vote. I do mind closed shops. I do believe in the secret ballot; an American tradition the unions apparently aren't so keen on. I don't believe the unions serve any valid purpose in this day of OSHA and workplace laws, other than to promote a parasitic, self sustaining, self appointed guarantor of higher wages and less work for its members. I also won't be a member of an organization that supports the Democratic party.
Our company had record profits last year and just received the highest possible industry rating after a recent outside evaluation - the highest rating in 33 years.
Afterward the CEO sent out an email letting all the salaried employees know that they will not be getting any raises and that they can no longer count on bonuses nor can they bank their vacation. Of course the represented employees are unaffected - such is life. Our engineers tried to unionize last year but just barely got shot down. I make about twice as much as our typical engineer, and I don't even have a four year degree.
I know I should feel very guilty about this and give it up on principle, but I'll take a pass and keep collecting that nice paycheck. You know - the one I don't really earn simply because I happen to be a union member in a non "right to work" state.
:rolleyes:
So what job do you do?
Jay Cunningham
01-28-09, 19:22
So what job do you do?
Bus driver.
Now if Toyota would just make a diesel pickup....
It's coming, and Nissan will have a deisel power plant in the Titan before that. Once that happens, the Big Three can kiss goodbye one of the only two markets that they are still ahead (the other being muscle cars).
I know whole metric asstons of construction guys that are salivating at the prospect of getting rid of their domestic-made ramp queens for a platform with a power train that doesn't require a ridiculously long warranty because you know it's going to break. Hard to get decent jobsite use out of trucks that go to the dealer for non-routine maintenance 8 times within the first 3 years after their bought.
It's coming, and Nissan will have a deisel power plant in the Titan before that. Once that happens, the Big Three can kiss goodbye one of the only two markets that they are still ahead (the other being muscle cars).
I know whole metric asstons of construction guys that are salivating at the prospect of getting rid of their domestic-made ramp queens for a platform with a power train that doesn't require a ridiculously long warranty because you know it's going to break. Hard to get decent jobsite use out of trucks that go to the dealer for non-routine maintenance 8 times within the first 3 years after their bought.
So are they putting these diesels in 1/2 tons, or are they going to make 3/4 and 1 ton trucks as well?
CarlosDJackal
01-28-09, 22:38
FWIW, I used to belong to a Union (not by choice) that forced us to do things that was not only counter-productive, it was counter to customer service. I'm talking about absolutely ridiculous requirements that took all my effort to not break. And if I did do the right thing, I would get slammed by the union.
IMHO, Unions are just like any bureaucracy. If the people running the bureaucracy cared enough to do the right things (ie: take care of their members) then it can benefit all the parties involved.
Case in point: My brother-by-law's union tried to get their members better pay and benefits (just like any other union). They managed to succeed, sort of. They may have gotten better pay, but they also had to give up any Sick Leave!! As in none available. If they have to miss work for medical reasons they have to either use Vacation time or LWOP. But with the increase in pay, came an increase in Union Dues.
AS far as I'm concerned most current Unions are in the same category as the NAACP, ACLU, the Government and the KKK. They may have started off for the "greater good". But they are no better than any other bureaucracy. JM2CW.
So are they putting these diesels in 1/2 tons, or are they going to make 3/4 and 1 ton trucks as well?
Looks like half-tons at first, and they at least have plans for bigger. They tend to play for the long game, so it reads to me like they're testing the waters before committing fully.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9081104.026/toyota-tundra-diesel-dually-project-truck-at-sema-2008
Nissan's got their shtick going, too.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/FREE/60313009/1024/LATESTNEWS
While I generally think unions have way outlived any benefit they brought, I wish there was a fear of a union at my wife's work, a hospital (chain in the intermountain west). She is an RN. They will cancel you with 2 hours notice if there are not enough patients in. Now, they also are trying to do away with "on call" pay. Not that it was great -- just 12.5% of the pay for the on-call time. To do this they cancel you for the first 4 hours of your (8 hour) shift. You don't have to answer the phone in those first 4 hours. But you do have to answer the phone for the second half of your shift. They basically hold you hostage but claim you are not on call. BS.
"Part time" employees who are benefits eligible also do not get any paid holidays at all -- not even a pro rated amount. But they are expected to work the same holiday load as the full time employees (Christmas or New Years, Easter or Thanksgiving, Memorial Day or Labor Day, etc). (They basically give you so many hours a year of PTO (paid time off) to compensate for paid holidays but the benefits eligible part time people don't get a pro-rated amount of PTO. They get a lot less than what a pro-rated amount would be. (24 hours or more a week I think makes you benefits eligible).
This place basically gives the shaft to their nursing staff with the abuse -- hiring for X hours a week but canceling with basically no more than 2 hours notice or less, meager PTO for benefits eligible part time staff, and many other similar policies.
Eventually it will catch up with them as they lose staff due to mistreatment and the cost of doing business goes up because they have to hire contract staff to cover times when they are bursting at the seams and all the experienced nurses have gone and they are all new grad nurses or low experience nurses. But I admit that the threat of a union would help.
Littlelebowski
01-29-09, 05:27
1/2 ton diesels not made by union labor sound great!
There isn't a chance in hell I'd buy an "American" vehicle for the forseeable future. They're incompetent, their business model sucks, and my alternatives are put together here by U.S. workers. **** Detroit, they haven't had the balls to do what needed to be done for decades.
well i will continue to buy american made product and products that do the most to support american jobs. Ive been a union member for 30 years and believe me they do much more good for there members then bad. I hear all the time people bitching about the no good unions but it is about unheard of that one of them is a union member. The bitchers are 99 times out of a 100 non union people that are envious of union members and the fact that the unions insure there job security and insure they have a decent wage level. Some people may balk at the wage levels the american auto workers make but if you take into account the ammont there big wigs are making it is a pittance. the union members didnt screw up the auto industrys, the overpaid fat cat uppper supervision did. they raped the american people for years! Just like the oil industry is still doing. Dont badmount the middle class union man working the line or working the derek. Save you resentment for where it belongs. Anybody that thinks there doing any good to anyone but themselves by boycotting american cars is no better then the self centered upper management people. thats the big problem with most of ammerica. it thinks with its wallet. Why do you think obama is our president right now!!!!!
Looks like half-tons at first, and they at least have plans for bigger. They tend to play for the long game, so it reads to me like they're testing the waters before committing fully.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9081104.026/toyota-tundra-diesel-dually-project-truck-at-sema-2008
Nissan's got their shtick going, too.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/FREE/60313009/1024/LATESTNEWS
That Nissan article is a couple years old, and that was when they were negotiating with Navistar to purchase the 4.5L V-6 diesel that was developed for Ford and then cancelled by Ford. It was supposed to be for the F-150 so there would be a lower cost diesel option for people who didn't need a Super Duty truck, and would have been introduced in 2003 or so. How's that for more bad decision making by Ford?
Nissan ended up not buying the engine because it couldn't be built profitably at the price they wanted to pay for the volume they expected to buy. This isn't a union thing because the Navistar plant that builds it is non-Union. Also, Nissan would still have had to beef up the front and of the Titan to handle the extra weight. I haven't heard of any plans to fit a different diesel, but that does mean they aren't planning it.
Toyota had planned to build a 7.0L diesel in Texas go in a Super Duty chassis. They cancelled the engine last year, but the article mentions an 8.0L Hino which they would probably import from Japan. This seems plausible.
Overall, don't expect to see Japanese diesels any time soon. Ford has many months of inventory sitting on the lots not getting sold. Until the market recovers, I think the Japanese will hold off.
Nathan_Bell
01-29-09, 13:16
That Nissan article is a couple years old, and that was when they were negotiating with Navistar to purchase the 4.5L V-6 diesel that was developed for Ford and then cancelled by Ford. It was supposed to be for the F-150 so there would be a lower cost diesel option for people who didn't need a Super Duty truck, and would have been introduced in 2003 or so. How's that for more bad decision making by Ford?
Nissan ended up not buying the engine because it couldn't be built profitably at the price they wanted to pay for the volume they expected to buy. This isn't a union thing because the Navistar plant that builds it is non-Union. Also, Nissan would still have had to beef up the front and of the Titan to handle the extra weight. I haven't heard of any plans to fit a different diesel, but that does mean they aren't planning it.
Toyota had planned to build a 7.0L diesel in Texas go in a Super Duty chassis. They cancelled the engine last year, but the article mentions an 8.0L Hino which they would probably import from Japan. This seems plausible.
Overall, don't expect to see Japanese diesels any time soon. Ford has many months of inventory sitting on the lots not getting sold. Until the market recovers, I think the Japanese will hold off.
Another problem with the new EPA compliant diesels is that you really are not getting the added milage gains that the older oil burners would give you. The new Cummins in the Dodges are now giving you 14-18 MPG, '05s were getting 18-24. The emissions are putting a hurt on the utility of a diesel in a light duty truck.
Diesel has historically averaged out at the same price as gasoline, higher than gas in the winter lower in summer. The past 3-4 years this has ended in many parts of the country due to the added refining necessary to get the fuel to qualify as ULSD. Now you are getting diesle averaging $1 per gallon over that of gasoline with minimal milage gains.
Most current production diesels are not paying for the upgrade until beyond the expected life of the auto due to these factors. New Dodge trucks are not paying for the diesel upgrade until 225k last I read. IIRC the little VWs and Mercedes are the best for this with the payoff around 100k.
The morons in Washington can be thanked for all of these issues.
Good points Nathan. Getting NOx down to the new limits means running the engine cooler and less efficiently. Higher compression and hotter temps make diesels run more efficiently, but increase NOx. In order to get the 6.4L Navistar Power Stroke (as used in Ford pickups) to be compliant with the '07 regulations, dual water-to-exhaust EGR coolers were added. Customers like the engine better than the previous 6.0L, but they all say the same thing about the fuel economy being worse. Everyone was happy with the old 7.3L and many people wish it was still made.
The great contradiction is the government wants cleaner exhaust, better fuel efficiency, and greater safety all at the same time. These goals are often at odds with each other. If they are so worried about "greenhouse gas" emissions, why would they use emissions regulations to force lower fuel economy on diesels?
It's getting to the point that the only people that will benefit from diesel pickups are the people that absolutely need the torque for the towing capacity. Even though the MPG is lower on thew newer engines, it doesn't fall off as badly when towing as a gasoline engine does.
The only benefit I see in all this is forcing some of the OTR trucks off the road due to fuel costs and lower MPG and diverting shipping to rail, which is now somewhat more cost effective.
Nathan_Bell
01-29-09, 14:36
Good points Nathan. Getting NOx down to the new limits means running the engine cooler and less efficiently. Higher compression and hotter temps make diesels run more efficiently, but increase NOx. In order to get the 6.4L Navistar Power Stroke (as used in Ford pickups) to be compliant with the '07 regulations, dual water-to-exhaust EGR coolers were added. Customers like the engine better than the previous 6.0L, but they all say the same thing about the fuel economy being worse. Everyone was happy with the old 7.3L and many people wish it was still made.
The great contradiction is the government wants cleaner exhaust, better fuel efficiency, and greater safety all at the same time. These goals are often at odds with each other. If they are so worried about "greenhouse gas" emissions, why would they use emissions regulations to force lower fuel economy on diesels?
It's getting to the point that the only people that will benefit from diesel pickups are the people that absolutely need the torque for the towing capacity. Even though the MPG is lower on thew newer engines, it doesn't fall off as badly when towing as a gasoline engine does.
The only benefit I see in all this is forcing some of the OTR trucks off the road due to fuel costs and lower MPG and diverting shipping to rail, which is now somewhat more cost effective.
IMHO this is due to the fact that we have a political class that seems to feel that you should never speak to those in the industry they are regulating, unless of course they can get good TV rating sout of it.
Im in a union. I make close to $40 and hour. time and a half before 7am and time and half after 3:30. ..
when im working.....
this past year i took a job for $18 hour (doing something entirely different) just got axed:(
the only people getting paid in that union now are the officers of the union. crooked, crooked organization. priced themselves right out of the industry. doesn't listen to its members and is only there for its own benefit. union no!
Littlelebowski
01-29-09, 17:16
. Why do you think obama is our president right now!!!!!
Could it be in part due to......
-Barack Obama got a boost Wednesday when the state's largest labor union — the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — endorsed him for president over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
-On January 9, 2008, the United Association became the first International Union to endorse Senator Barack Obama as its candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This endorsement was discussed with the General Executive Board and they concurred.
-The Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 and the Service Employees International Union of Nevada both endorsed Obama on Wednesday.
-The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers has 65,000 members, and today, their executive council endorsed Barack Obama.
-Iowa Union Endorsement For Obama. While Sen. Barack Obama prepared for the Las Vegas debate, his campaign announced a key endorsement, from the United Auto Workers Region 4, which includes 30,000 members and retirees in Iowa.
Just maybe? Your precious unions played a huge part in electing Obama, winky. Care to argue the facts now or are you going to blather on about "buy American, buy union?"
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h251/baxshep/507e_2.jpg
[i]-Barack Obama got a boost Wednesday when the state's largest labor union — the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — endorsed him for president over Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And now Obama's White House Political Affairs Advisor is ... Patrick Gaspard, previously one of the SEIU's senior lobbyists.
Of course, that's not as bad as BHO's new Domestic Policy Council Director. She has, at various times in the past, lobbied for: American Civil Liberties Union, American Constitution Society, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
I thought that lobbyists were evil and not to be in the government? Special Interests?
Littlelebowski
01-29-09, 18:11
well i will continue to buy american made product and products that do the most to support american jobs. Ive been a union member for 30 years and believe me they do much more good for there members then bad. I hear all the time people bitching about the no good unions but it is about unheard of that one of them is a union member. The bitchers are 99 times out of a 100 non union people that are envious of union members and the fact that the unions insure there job security and insure they have a decent wage level. Some people may balk at the wage levels the american auto workers make but if you take into account the ammont there big wigs are making it is a pittance. the union members didnt screw up the auto industrys, the overpaid fat cat uppper supervision did. they raped the american people for years! Just like the oil industry is still doing. Dont badmount the middle class union man working the line or working the derek. Save you resentment for where it belongs. Anybody that thinks there doing any good to anyone but themselves by boycotting american cars is no better then the self centered upper management people. thats the big problem with most of ammerica. it thinks with its wallet. Why do you think obama is our president right now!!!!!
winky, in case you didn't know it, there's Japanese and European automotive manufacturing plants right here in the US turning out vehicles made by Americans. I'm spelling this stuff out for you because you seem to be oblivious to common, widely known knowledge but said foreign, union-free plants are doing a better job of supporting American jobs than the union riddled Big Three. OK, with me so far? To sum up what I just said in another way, foreign plants in the US emplying Americans that don't have unions are doing a better job of supporting American jobs than the domestic plants with unions. Do you understand that? Do you contest it?
Judging by your vocabulary and writing, I'm guessing that the union you belong to isn't a teacher's union is it?
I'm not jealous of any union job. I'm proud of the fact that I got my job and its generous salary on the sole virtue of being good at what I do. I didn't go to college, I joined the military and found a career I'm good at. I do see firsthand exactly how the union works through my wife dealing with them everyday at her work. That piqued my interest and I read up on the subject. The unions are lumbering, stupid dodo birds, artifacts from another day and age that have outlived their usefulness and deserve to go the way of the dodo bird.
Littlelebowski
01-29-09, 18:15
Afterward the CEO sent out an email letting all the salaried employees know that they will not be getting any raises and that they can no longer count on bonuses nor can they bank their vacation. Of course the represented employees are unaffected - such is life. Our engineers tried to unionize last year but just barely got shot down. I make about twice as much as our typical engineer, and I don't even have a four year degree.
I am not trying to be an ass. I know sooner or later I'll meet you and train with you, TK so please understand I ask the following questions because I am genuinely curious.
Do you think it's fair or right that the engineers make half as much as you? Do you feel that it's their fault for non unionizing? Do you think that the company is taking raises and bonuses away from non-union employees because they can or because the union's guaranteed high wages and benefits force them to cut spending somewhere?
The jealousy argument always seems to come up whenever criticism of unions is involved.
I am not jealous that I am not a union worker. I've been an engineer and manager in 4 union shops and I wouldn't give up my education and ability to advance based on my own merits rather than a seniority based system. I get paid better than the union does because my skills and performance have earned it.
I've just seen first hand how union behavior eventually shuts plants down as new ones are opened up in right to work states or outside the country. And even when 90% of the people have been laid off, many still try to "protect their jobs" by clinging to silly work rules that perpetuate inefficiency.
In many respects, I pity the union workers. Many at my plant have been laid off - even those with over 30 years seniority. Only those with 39 years or more made it past the last round of layoffs. Many good people with great work ethics are out on the street, along with a lot of deadbeats as well.
30 years of seniority in a union plant doing unskilled labor does not qualify you to do much in the greater job market. There is no other plant to go to, no other union job is available that pays as well. Another union job would mean starting at the bottom in pay and seniority. Those with enough time will retire and then maybe work another job to make ends meet. Those who aren't eligible to retire are in a world of hurt.
After placing their well being in the hands of the union for so long, now they are SOL. They basically have no where to go except for entry level employment in some menial service job. One of the best workers maintained a valid CDL after driving trucks when he was laid off years ago. He was ready to go back to driving at about the same pay level when the big layoff hit last May. But many others didn't have as much foresight. They spent their wages like they would continue on forever, but after the layoff the parking lot at the company credit union filled up with the cars and trucks they could no longer pay for.
And the latest news is the plant will close in a few months. My education and experience will allow me to find a new job. It might not pay as well, and I might have to move, but there will be something available and it will be enough to pay the bills.
Words of advice:
If your company offers tuition assistance, take advantage of it and get a degree. If you have a degree, get a master's, or a certificate in something. It won't hurt, and can only help if you need to find new employment.
Littlelebowski
01-29-09, 18:48
Very, very well put, Left Sig. In today's economy, you need more than union seniority to cut it.
Well pal i too learned my profession in the military. I spent 32 years as an electrical lineman when i got out. Im no wet behind the ear kid like some here. I dont argue that the democrats have union backing. As a matter of fact its been a sore point of mine for many years and im probably the only republican union steward you will even meet. As to my typing skills and my spelling ability and you critisizing it. that just goes to show you how childish you are as i have never saw anywhere in any of these conversations where that meant squat. It was just a childish poke at someone. Putting someone down to make yourself look big.
Unions have done enormous things for the electirical workers. They have pushed through just about every safety breakthrough in my profession and have saved countless lives because of it. At the same time theyve insured that i get a fair wage for the dangerous job i have. Im not blind to the fact there is many things that in these modern times need to be changed about unions. But the basic idea of them still works just fine. Its biggest flaw is it lets useless sobs ride the skirt tails of real workers. Men that should be fired arent. But to me thats a fair exchange for a non union job that a boss can fire you just because you dont kiss his ass.
winky, in case you didn't know it, there's Japanese and European automotive manufacturing plants right here in the US turning out vehicles made by Americans. I'm spelling this stuff out for you because you seem to be oblivious to common, widely known knowledge but said foreign, union-free plants are doing a better job of supporting American jobs than the union riddled Big Three. OK, with me so far? To sum up what I just said in another way, foreign plants in the US emplying Americans that don't have unions are doing a better job of supporting American jobs than the domestic plants with unions. Do you understand that? Do you contest it?
Judging by your vocabulary and writing, I'm guessing that the union you belong to isn't a teacher's union is it?
I'm not jealous of any union job. I'm proud of the fact that I got my job and its generous salary on the sole virtue of being good at what I do. I didn't go to college, I joined the military and found a career I'm good at. I do see firsthand exactly how the union works through my wife dealing with them everyday at her work. That piqued my interest and I read up on the subject. The unions are lumbering, stupid dodo birds, artifacts from another day and age that have outlived their usefulness and deserve to go the way of the dodo bird.
Jay Cunningham
01-30-09, 05:46
As a matter of fact its been a sore point of mine for many years and im probably the only republican union steward you will even meet.
There are more than you may think. ;)
As to my typing skills and my spelling ability and you critisizing it. that just goes to show you how childish you are as i have never saw anywhere in any of these conversations where that meant squat. It was just a childish poke at someone.
Agree - there's no call for this on our forum.
Littlelebowski
01-30-09, 06:05
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that was a childish poke. My apologies. It won't happen again.
Now, I've asked several questions in this thread. Are they not going to be answered?
Also, you seem to have a fear of having to kiss the boss's ass in the non-union world. It's not like that. Just do your job. I survived 8 years in an extremely dangerous non-union job - Marine Corps Infantry. Why don't we have unions in the military?
I to was a soldier in a war. Like i said im a tad older and the war was the viet nam war. That as you know is a totaly different thing that has no relevence to this argument what so ever. But id bet my ass on one thing. If there was a union our troops wouldnt be over there with insificiant body armor on none at all and they would be stuck shooting pee shooters or be riding in vehicles that have no armor. A crazy ass wet behind the year second leuy trying to make points with the captain by sarcraficing a few me would be told to go to hell without the sargent going to lebonworth. I enlisted and was not drafted but after i saw how things were run i got the hell out of there. Im sure you to saw it as you even reenlisted once and decided something there wasnt to your liking. Personaly im done with the pissing match and wont reply again. I will just agree to disagree.
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that was a childish poke. My apologies. It won't happen again.
Now, I've asked several questions in this thread. Are they not going to be answered?
Also, you seem to have a fear of having to kiss the boss's ass in the non-union world. It's not like that. Just do your job. I survived 8 years in an extremely dangerous non-union job - Marine Corps Infantry. Why don't we have unions in the military?
But id bet my ass on one thing. If there was a union our troops wouldnt be over there with insificiant body armor on none at all and they would be stuck shooting pee shooters or be riding in vehicles that have no armor.
He's absolutely right, because if there was a military union, nobody would fight until after the contract negotiations were finalized, and we'd be speaking German and/or Japanese, presuming we weren't successfully invaded by Mexico or Canada prior to the 40s. The union members of the former United States would bitch for years afterward that it was management's fault for forcing them to strike, and accept no blame for their part in the mess the former nation was in.
Ergo, on a linear timeline if there was a union, the question of body armor, vehicle armor, and "pea shooters" (an odd term to use on an AR forum board) would never come up.
cause ------> effect
Another thing that always comes up in these discussions is unskilled versus skilled work.
Skilled trades labor in a union shop can often paid close to what they are worth in the market. The job takes 4 years of training and requires a lot of specialized knowledge. Try to hire a good electrician for peanuts and see what you get. A licensed electrician doing work on your house is going to cost a LOT, as does a licensed plumber.
Trade hall unions can be effective at providing a qualified workforce to a contracting company that are certified via apprenticeship and journeyman's cards, drug checked, and otherwise insured against liability.
Unions have pushed ahead safety regulations, that's for sure. But when I lived in Chicago, the requirement for all residential wiring to go in conduit, and the complete ban on plastic piping were things the unions got pushed through for "safety" which were really intended to make the work more difficult for do-it-yourselfers. When I moved out of state I was surprised to see romex and PVC everywhere on our new-ish house.
Now, I agree that one of the biggest problems is that unions often protect the guys that can't do the work. I work with an Electrician that time has passed by. He's got 35 years in, and has never been able to learn much about logic controllers which now control everything. He also has difficulty physically performing the job. But he's a really nice guy and he will tell you he doesn't know what to do, and then let you show him, or do it for him, or let a controls engineer do it for him. Having him present when we do his job for him makes everything "legal" with the union.
But the big difference in these discussion is when we are talking about unskilled labor. While skilled labor may be worth the union wage, or close to it, it is difficult to justify a similar wage for jobs that just about anyone off the street can do.
Jay Cunningham
01-30-09, 08:42
If this thread continues in the absurd direction of "why isn't the military unionized" I will shut it down.
Nathan_Bell
01-30-09, 10:29
If this thread continues in the absurd direction of "why isn't the military unionized" I will shut it down.
The Union threads, pro and anti, are getting old folks as they seem to dive straight down towards "you're jealous" no "you're lazy"
The thread started being about how Obambi's decision to allow individual states to choose what pollution controls are to be used.
This thread could have gone a lot of interesting ways.
1. Is that if automobiles and their regulation does not fall under the commerce clause then how the hell can our guns?
2. California is blighted by 2 huge cities that will be the death of the car industry in the US.
3. All of the smog and safety mandates that the US giv't has passed over the last three decades have had the effect of hiding the inflation in the US due to the beancounters counting them as "added features" and ignoring the price increases caused by them. So the fact that your pickup is now 3x more expensive than one bought in the early 80's is not inflationary pressure, but added features and comfort items.
but no, we had to go down the GD union thread path. It is getting to be like TOS and M4 feedramp thrursday.
To answer #1 above:
Auto emission and fuel economy regulation certainly does fall under the commerce clause and the Federal government is the sole authority. This is the basis for the Bush administration's refusal to allow California to go it's own way.
Obama is shirking Federal responsibility by allowing CA and the other states to do as they please. He is going to let the states do something that might be politically harmful to him if he did it. There would be a lot of fallout if he just had the EPA mandate even tighter requirements for the whole country, above what Congress has already voted to do.
This is NOT the time to saddle the auto industry with ever higher regulatory hurdles and costs. Maybe after the industry recovers, but not now.
#2:
California has effectively driven away almost all manufacturing in the state with excessive regulation and taxes. They won't allow enough power plants to meet their needs, so they import power from other states. They seem to think everything is someone else's problem. We'll have to wait and see what they actually do, but it doesn't look very good.
#3:
I have advocated for years that the automakers add a window sticker indicating the "cost of government compliance". If consumers saw how much all those regulations cost them, they would start standing up and challenging things.
Nathan_Bell
01-31-09, 08:14
To answer #1 above:
Auto emission and fuel economy regulation certainly does fall under the commerce clause and the Federal government is the sole authority. This is the basis for the Bush administration's refusal to allow California to go it's own way.
Obama is shirking Federal responsibility by allowing CA and the other states to do as they please. He is going to let the states do something that might be politically harmful to him if he did it. There would be a lot of fallout if he just had the EPA mandate even tighter requirements for the whole country, above what Congress has already voted to do.
This is NOT the time to saddle the auto industry with ever higher regulatory hurdles and costs. Maybe after the industry recovers, but not now.
#2:
California has effectively driven away almost all manufacturing in the state with excessive regulation and taxes. They won't allow enough power plants to meet their needs, so they import power from other states. They seem to think everything is someone else's problem. We'll have to wait and see what they actually do, but it doesn't look very good.
#3:
I have advocated for years that the automakers add a window sticker indicating the "cost of government compliance". If consumers saw how much all those regulations cost them, they would start standing up and challenging things.
So Obambi is cool with states being more restrictive of freedoms than the federal gov't?
I think someone put something in the water supply of most of California's cities that eliminates the ability to think logically. "The weather is perfect" will only cover for so many faults and then businesses start to move.
Yeah that sticker would be great.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.