NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not contracts. It's extortion of benefits.

You do know that they count benefits and retirement?
The calculation relies on a distortion: taking the total they spend on retirees, who worked for them years ago, divided by the number of employees they have now (which is considerably less). Thus, every time they lay off more employees, the "cost per employee" goes up and they can rail about how it's all the union's fault.
Before you start assuming I don't know all about this crap, look at my location. It's all I hear about in the local news.

The calculation relies on a distortion: taking the total they spend on retirees, who worked for them years ago, divided by the number of employees they have now (which is considerably less). Thus, every time they lay off more employees, the "cost per employee" goes up and they can rail about how it's all the union's fault.
Before you start assuming I don't know all about this crap, look at my location. It's all I hear about in the local news.

It is indicative of a fundamental flaw in the current UAW retiree benefits. They are dependent on the the current employees payment into the plan. The UAW retirement benefit plan will fail for the same reason that Social Security is destined to fail. They are both reliant on an ever-increasing payer base, which is at odds with reality.

It's not contracts. It's extortion of benefits.Given that there are usually more workers than employers, it is an attempt to even out the bargaining ability between the two parties. How is the evening out of bargaining ability equal to extortion?

Or bring them under government management until they can pay their debts off, during which time you get their engineers to design something genuinely interesting. With decent miles per gallon.

I'd also nationalise select factories to implement 'spearhead' technologies in vehicles (viable systems could then be implemented by the main group).

It's not contracts. It's extortion of benefits.

So companies don't use the collective power of the company to force the best deal for themselves?

Not even though they employ millions around the world? Don't be stupid.

Or bring them under government management until they can pay their debts off, during which time you get their engineers to design something genuinely interesting. With decent miles per gallon.

Now theres a bailout I'd support. None of this free money carry on doing things as usual, but with lower pay rubbish

It's not contracts. It's extortion of benefits.
You obviously don't understand the collective bargaining process? Extortion.....give me a break!!!

So companies don't use the collective power of the company to force the best deal for themselves?
No. The power of the company is its individual power. There are other companies with other offers.

The companies' equivalent to collective bargaining is price-fixing or wage-fixing agreements.

"None of us will work for any company for less than $35/hr" is just the same as "None of our companies will sell any car for less than $10,000" or "None of our companies will offer workers more than $25/hr". All three these agreements are ways to eliminate the competition.



You obviously don't understand the collective bargaining process?
I just understand it too well. It's based on creating a monopoly, i.e. "You can't fire us, because 1) it's illegal, 2) since all auto workers are in the union, you won't find a replacement".

No. The power of the company is its individual power. There are other companies with other offers.

The companies' equivalent to collective bargaining is price-fixing or wage-fixing agreements.

"None of us will work for any company for less than $35/hr" is just the same as "None of our companies will sell any car for less than $10,000" or "None of our companies will offer workers more than $25/hr". All three these agreements are ways to eliminate the competition.

I just understand it too well. It's based on creating a monopoly, i.e. "You can't fire us, because 1) it's illegal, 2) since all auto workers are in the union, you won't find a replacement".
No, I really don't think you do know "too well":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

A number of theories – from the fields of industrial relations, economics, political science, history and sociology (as well as the writings of activists, workers and labor organizations) – have attempted to define and explain collective bargaining.

One theory suggests that collective bargaining is a human right and thus deserving of legal protection. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) identifies the ability to organise trade unions as a fundamental human right.[1] Item 2(a) of the International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.[2]

In June 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada extensively reviewed the rationale for considering collective bargaining to be a human right. In the case of Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, the Court made the following observations:

The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work.

Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends…rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government.
Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.[3]
You would rather call it "extortion".

No. The power of the company is its individual power. There are other companies with other offers.
The problem with that is no company's power is equal.

A company is a collective of individuals either working as equals or as part of a strict authority structure, with varying levels between. Unions act in similar functions.

The companies' equivalent to collective bargaining is price-fixing or wage-fixing agreements.

"None of us will work for any company for less than $35/hr" is just the same as "None of our companies will sell any car for less than $10,000" or "None of our companies will offer workers more than $25/hr". All three these agreements are ways to eliminate the competition.
How is that eliminating competition?

Now, if they were selling a car for 50% less than a competitor (undercutting the others) then I'd say they were trying to eliminate competitions. Simply saying "we feel X is worth $10k in this period" is utilising their current sales power. Serious undervaluing or overvaluing (assuming everyone originally sold equal numbers of cars) is needed to change power.

I just understand it too well. It's based on creating a monopoly, i.e. "You can't fire us, because 1) it's illegal, 2) since all auto workers are in the union, you won't find a replacement".
Yet the companies strive as much as possible to be a monopsony, either by being the only local company or by trying to get a government to eliminate the power of unions.

A company is a collective of individuals either working as equals or as part of a strict authority structure, with varying levels between. Unions act in similar functions.
Not exactly. A corporation is legally a separate, single body, not a collective of individuals. It may not have flesh and blood, and it may have its strings pulled by humans, but it's the corporation which is the employer, not a collective of managers.


How is that eliminating competition?
Eliminating competition, not competitors. There are even laws against this.

By agreeing not to offer a product cheaper than price X, companies stop competition between themselves, thus breaking the operation of free market which would lower the cost to customers.


Now, if they were selling a car for 50% less than a competitor (undercutting the others) then I'd say they were trying to eliminate competitions. That's a different offense, and it's attack to undermine the specific competitors. I'm talking about price-fixing.


Simply saying "we feel X is worth $10k in this period" is utilising their current sales power.
No, you're talking about a specific product pricing. I'm talking about price-fixing. When each of N companies can offer the same product cheaper, but they agree to keep the cost artificially higher to extract more money out of the customer.

In auto world, it's when several different companies come to a table and decide, "We can make a $7,000 car, but it will undercut the sales of more expensive ones. So let's make a deal, no one of us should ever offer any car for less than $10,000. And no mid-size saloons for less than $20,000."


Now, we all go enraged when we learn such behavior from companies, but for some reason believe that the individuals are, for some reason, inherently entitled to do this.

Now, we all go enraged when we learn such behavior from companies, but for some reason believe that the individuals are, for some reason, inherently entitled to do this.
I think the opposite is the case. People seem to get all enraged when the individuals try to do what companies do. Here are people in this thread, for example, first claiming that what the companies do is the same as what the employees do through their unions, and then arguing that it's bad when the employee unions do it, but okay when the companies do it.

I stand by my original statement on this: Turnabout is fair play. If it's okay for the companies to do this, then it's okay for the workers to do it, too. If it's okay for the companies to hold their workers over a barrel on issues of wages and benefits, then it's okay for the workers to hold their bosses over that same barrel if they can. I see no justification whatsoever for saying that it's good for business for one group to do it but not the other.

I think the opposite is the case. People seem to get all enraged when the individuals try to do what companies do. Here are people in this thread, for example, first claiming that what the companies do is the same as what the employees do through their unions, and then arguing that it's bad when the employee unions do it, but okay when the companies do it.
I'm not arguing this. Both are bad. Equally bad.

Yet one, by the companies, is highly illegal, while the other, by unions, not only remains legal, but some are arguing that once they have drained their employers dry, they should proceed to suck on the taxpayers.



I stand by my original statement on this: Turnabout is fair play. If it's okay for the companies to do this, then it's okay for the workers to do it, too.
Of course, if it were. But it's not OK for the companies to do it. It's a felony punished by up to 10 years in federal prison.

I'm not arguing this. Both are bad. Equally bad.

Yet one, by the companies, is highly illegal, while the other, by unions, not only remains legal, but some are arguing that once they have drained their employers dry, they should proceed to suck on the taxpayers.

Of course, if it were. But it's not OK for the companies to do it. It's a felony punished by up to 10 years in federal prison.

Yet again, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this absurd viewpoint.

EDIT: But I am curious, do you oppose the existence of corporations, partnerships, and other business organizations or is it just organization of the workers to which you object?

I'm not arguing this. Both are bad. Equally bad.

Yet one, by the companies, is highly illegal, while the other, by unions, not only remains legal, but some are arguing that once they have drained their employers dry, they should proceed to suck on the taxpayers.




Of course, if it were. But it's not OK for the companies to do it. It's a felony punished by up to 10 years in federal prison.
I'm just commenting on the discussion as a whole. Your remark brought that point to my mind in the context of the broader discussion.

Also, it's not illegal when it is done in the ways I have mentioned in this thread -- i.e. companies essentially bullying workers who have no protected means of bargaining into accepting abusive conditions or risk losing their livelihoods. That is perfectly legal. Yet when the workers try to turn the tables and do some strongarming of their own, some people yelp about how unfair that is.

Yet again, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this absurd viewpoint.
Laugh through your tears. It works for me.

But I am curious, do you oppose the existence of [...]
I oppose the existence of hypocrisy.

Why is price-fixing on goods a federal felony, but price-fixing on labor a protected right?

I oppose the existence of hypocrisy.

Why is price-fixing on goods a federal felony, but price-fixing on labor a protected right?

1. Nice job of not answering the question. This appears to be your modus operandi.

2. Because it is not "price-fixing" by any reasonable definition of the term. Regardless, we have a thing called history that teaches us certain things are good for society and certain things are bad for society. Labor unions are good, monopolies are bad. Easy, huh?

I oppose the existence of hypocrisy.

Why is price-fixing on goods a federal felony, but price-fixing on labor a protected right?
I also oppose hypocrisy, and that's why I detest those who claim it is unfair for workers to have the same powers to negotiate for their own interest as company owners do.

I also oppose bullshit, which is why I dismiss your evasion as being just that.

And how is negotiating a price "price fixing"?

2. Because it is not "price-fixing" by any reasonable definition of the term.
It is price-fixing.

Labor unions demand a certain wage to be paid, whether the worker's performance justifies it or not. Even if a worker would accept working at a lower wage, as an alternative to the firm going bust and everyone being fired, the union won't allow it.

They form intercorporate unions like UAW to spread this policy across multiple firms, or demand that all new workers unionize, to deprive companies of the alternatives.


Labor unions are good, monopolies are bad. Easy, huh?
Of course it's easy to operate under arbitrary unsubstantiated assumptions. "Apples are good, oranges are bad." While no one doubts that monopolies are bad, some doubt that unions should be considered an exception.

How come white-collar workers aren't in any union and still do fine?

It is price-fixing.

Labor unions demand a certain wage to be paid, whether the worker's performance justifies it or not. Even if a worker would accept working at a lower wage, as an alternative to the firm going bust and everyone being fired, the union won't allow it.

They form intercorporate unions like UAW to spread this policy across multiple firms, or demand that all new workers unionize, to deprive companies of the alternatives.
Nonsense. They are trade organizations of people in a certain line of work that negotiate on behalf of everyone in that line of work to set wage standards for that work. It's called negotiation. If you don't like the way they do it, either persuade them to use a different tactic or find some other way to cope.

Of course it's easy to operate under arbitrary unsubstantiated assumptions. "Apples are good, oranges are bad." While no one doubts that monopolies are bad, some doubt that unions should be considered an exception.

How come white-collar workers aren't in any union and still do fine?
What makes you think they do fine?

Also, I can't wait to be entertained by your explanation of how monopolies are good.

2 words: Fucking retarded.

From saving jobs point of view wouldn't founding and/or financing new, better run businesses be better in the long run than throwing money away on badly run businesses that will just keep loosing that money within foreseeable future?

Although, I suspect it is more a matter of pride than an actual attempt at salvation.

2 words: Fucking retarded.

From saving jobs point of view wouldn't founding and/or financing new, better run businesses be better in the long run than throwing money away on badly run businesses that will just keep loosing that money within foreseeable future?

Although, I suspect it is more a matter of pride than an actual attempt at salvation.
At this point, I think it is actually more a matter of keeping a sinking ship afloat just long enough to get back to port. The Big Three can't be saved and probably shouldn't be, as ongoing businesses. We just want to try to get to a slightly more stable economic place before they finally, blessedly, collapse under their own weight.

Nonsense. They are trade organizations of people in a certain line of work that negotiate on behalf of everyone in that line of work to set wage standards for that work. It's called negotiation.
When companies do the same - set price standards for some goods - it's called price-fixing.


If you don't like the way they do it, either persuade them to use a different tactic or find some other way to cope.
Fine. Just remove their special legal privileges.


What makes you think they do fine?
The noise of 911 Turbo.


Also, I can't wait to be entertained by your explanation of how monopolies are good.
They are bad.

And intercorporate unions are a kind of monopoly.

It is price-fixing.

Labor unions demand a certain wage to be paid, whether the worker's performance justifies it or not. Even if a worker would accept working at a lower wage, as an alternative to the firm going bust and everyone being fired, the union won't allow it.

They form intercorporate unions like UAW to spread this policy across multiple firms, or demand that all new workers unionize, to deprive companies of the alternatives.

You've built your argument on a house of cards.

Try defining "price-fixing," especially in relation to the relvant law the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Then look at the definiton of "collective bargaining", especially as contemplated by the National Labor Relations Act.

In addition to the wisdom behind these laws and their continued enforcement regarding monopolies and unions, you have a problem in using legal terms in ways they don't apply.


Of course it's easy to operate under arbitrary unsubstantiated assumptions. "Apples are good, oranges are bad." While no one doubts that monopolies are bad, some doubt that unions should be considered an exception.

My statements were not arbitrary, unsubstantiated, or assumptions. If you know the role that labor unions have played in the development of this country, you would know why labor unions are considered "good." Just like if you knew what a "monopoly" was, you'd know why a union isn't one.

How come white-collar workers aren't in any union and still do fine?

Many white-collar workers belong to unions or have union-like job protections. For those that don't, white-collar workers, by definition, have more independent bargaining power.

When companies do the same - set price standards for some goods - it's called price-fixing.
No, it isn't.

Fine. Just remove their special legal privileges.
You mean the special legal privileges that other posters have already shown do not exist? Okay, we'll do that.

The noise of 911 Turbo.
Another non-answer.

They are bad.

And intercorporate unions are a kind of monopoly.
And a third. Or fourth if we include your first line in this post.

You're good at making pronouncements that you don't even try to support with explanation. You're also good at misusing terms.

Unions are not a monopoly. They are trade organizations.

Setting standards is not price-fixing. There is more to it than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing Your argument, such as it is, depends on a gross over-simplification, to the point of obfuscation, of what price-fixing is.

Unions do not set wage standards. The government sets wage standards. Unions negotiate wages. Negotiating is not price-fixing.

The noise of 911 Turbo.What does a whining Porsche have to do with people doing fine?

What does a whining Porsche have to do with people doing fine?
Perhaps he is under the impression that every white collar worker owns one. I hope not, because if someone told him that was so, they were lying to him.

No, it isn't.
It is. Unions set the standards for every worker in them. Not just those really worth it.


You mean the special legal privileges that other posters have already shown do not exist? Okay, we'll do that.
AAMOF, they do exist. For instance, workers can't be fired for striking, for multiple days, to the point of destroying the company. WTF? I'd totally fire them for sabotage, if it wasn't illegal. Well, not that I wouldn't fire them later for another reason anyway. But still.


Another non-answer.
It's quite an answer. I'm not in any union and still doing fine.


Unions do not set wage standards. The government sets wage standards. Unions negotiate wages. Negotiating is not price-fixing.
It is when you have to negotiate with a body comprised of all the workers of the industry, without a competition. And without even a legal way to import competing alternative from China - unlike with manufactured goods.


What does a whining Porsche have to do with people doing fine?
Prove that you can be not in a union and still be decently compensated.

Perhaps he is under the impression that every white collar worker owns one. I hope not, because if someone told him that was so, they were lying to him.Exactly. I can't even think of a realistic scenario where a majority of white collar workers would own a Porsche 911 Turbo. They're ridiculously expensive, and not worth the money.

I'm not in any union and still doing fine.You actually own one? You have $126,000 (Base model, USD) to waste?

What a waste of council tax, we paid for your bailout.

It is. Unions set the standards for every worker in them. Not just those really worth it.
No, they don't. They negotiate contracts for their members. No matter how many times you repeat it, your argument will still be wrong on that point of fact.

Also, a good or service is worth what someone will pay for it, and if the unions can persuade companies to pay X amount for each union member, then that is what a union member is worth.

It's called negotiating a price.

AAMOF, they do exist. For instance, workers can't be fired for striking, for multiple days, to the point of destroying the company. WTF? I'd totally fire them for sabotage, if it wasn't illegal. Well, not that I wouldn't fire them later for another reason anyway. But still.
Patently false. Under Reagan, when air traffic controllers struck, that strike was broken by the announcement that they would be fired if they did not go back to work. It has happened many times that strikers have lost their jobs as a result of a strike. This is why it is typically quite difficult to get the rank and file to agree to strike.


It's quite an answer. I'm not in any union and still doing fine.
Oh, right, and YOU set the standard.

Oh, wait, that would mean that you fix the price, and that's illegal. Turn yourself in, brother.

It is when you have to negotiate with a body comprised of all the workers of the industry, without a competition. And without even a legal way to import competing alternative from China - unlike with manufactured goods.
Right, and that's why there are no industries in the US overwhelmed by underpaid labor from Mexico. Oh, wait...

Seriously, do you make the slightest effort to learn what you're talking about, or do you just assume that if it pops into your head, it must be right?


Prove that you can be not in a union and still be living in a fantasy world.
Fixed.

Also, a good or service is worth what someone will pay for it, and if the unions can persuade companies to pay X amount for each union member, then that is what a union member is worth.
And if they can't, they go on strike, and you can't fire them for that, so you have to watch helplessly as your company is being destroyed.



I can't even think of a realistic scenario where a majority of white collar workers would own a Porsche 911 Turbo.
The only reason is that most people just don't want one. They want some ginormous SUV, only to never drive it over a single imperfection in tarmac.

Wages for white-collar workers are consistently way higher than anything blue-collar ones see. Without any unions involved.


They're ridiculously expensive, and not worth the money.
They're more than worth the money, some are worth twice it. Every Porsche is the fastest car in its price category, if you don't count tracksters, ricers and overboosted Evos that need service every next mile. Boxster, 911, Turbo, GT3, GT2. Even the abomination of Cayenne, it's ugly, it's against all Porsche traditions, and it's built by Volkswagen, but the damn thing still wins the rallies. And the real ones are way better. Plus, they're way more reliable and durable than any other sports car, and have a lifetime of a lifetime. There's just no alternative.


You actually own one? You have $126,000 (Base model, USD) to waste?
Well, caught me here, not right now. I expected I would by now, but it's too great a commitment to do overnight. I'm still in the process of choosing which one to go with. There's no doubt that 911 is the car to buy, but there are so many of them that perhaps the hardest decision every middle-aged man faces in his life is deciding which 911 does he want.

At this point, I think it is actually more a matter of keeping a sinking ship afloat just long enough to get back to port. The Big Three can't be saved and probably shouldn't be, as ongoing businesses. We just want to try to get to a slightly more stable economic place before they finally, blessedly, collapse under their own weight.
Wouldn't it have been better to tell them to lay off people as per necessary and give the 14 billion to the laid off workers?

Let's say they fire 250,000 people, 14 billion would have supported them - avg. 2.5k$/monthly per person - for 2 years.

That would have both solved the inefficiency of US car industry thus revitalizing it and eventually giving more people more stable jobs and would have bought 2 years for the quarter million of workers out of work to find a better job.

Now that 14 billion is indirectly given to executives who handled the businesses badly in the first place.

They're more than worth the money. Every Porsche is the fastest car in its price category, if you don't count tracksters, ricers and overboosted Evos that need service every next mile. Boxster, 911, Turbo, GT3, GT2. Even the abomination of Cayenne, it's ugly, it's against all Porsche traditions, and it's built by Volkswagen, but the damn thing still wins the rallies. And the real ones are way better. Plus, they're way more reliable and durable than any other sports car and have a lifetime of a lifetime. There's just no alternative. On the contrary, there are many alternatives. I would argue that nothing beats the feeling of riding around on two-wheels.



Well, caught me here, not right now, it always gets delayed. I'm still in the process of choosing which one to go with. There's no doubt that 911 is the car to buy, but there are so many of them that perhaps the hardest decision every middle-aged man faces in his life is deciding which 911 does he want.Are you a Porsche fan? Nothing offensive, or anything, because I'm sure the Audi guys would argue with you all day.

Wouldn't it have been better to tell them to lay off people as per necessary and give the 14 billion to the laid off workers?

Let's say they fire 250,000 people, 14 billion would have supported them - avg. 2.5k$/monthly per person - for 2 years.

That would have both solved the inefficiency of US car industry thus revitalizing it and eventually giving more people more stable jobs and would have bought 2 years for the quarter million of workers out of work to find a better job.

Now that 14 billion is indirectly given to executives who handled the businesses badly in the first place.
Possibly, but apparently some experts decided that wasn't a good way to do it. I'm not sure if it was the experts who had some real but very complicated reason why it wouldn't work, or the experts who don't believe workers should ever get anything, or the experts who facilitate corporate-sponsored government corruption. But whichever it was, at least two of those groups got what they wanted.

And if they can't, they go on strike, and you can't fire them for that, so you have to watch helplessly as your company is being destroyed.

Are you live, or are you Memorex?

You just keep repeating the same words over and over, no matter what you are responding to.

Possibly, but apparently some experts decided that wasn't a good way to do it. I'm not sure if it was the experts who had some real but very complicated reason why it wouldn't work, or the experts who don't believe workers should ever get anything, or the experts who facilitate corporate-sponsored government corruption. But whichever it was, at least two of those groups got what they wanted.Why is it that that particular phrase comes up when people generally don't believe a word coming out of the mouths of these supposed 'experts'? o_0;

Why is it that that particular phrase comes up when people generally don't believe a word coming out of the mouths of these supposed 'experts'? o_0;
Why, I don't know. ;)

On the contrary, there are man alternatives. I would argue that nothing beats the feeling of riding around on two-wheels.
Crashing on two wheels does. Although these always come in pairs.

Make no mistake, I do love bikes, but it's a relationship that's best kept platonic. You can not ride in the winter, you can not ride with cargo, you can not ride with music, you can not ride far, you can not... Too many "nots".

I have an intention of sometime soon having a good "Grand tour" all around the country, and bikes are not any better cut for that than the truck I have to put up with now.


Are you a Porsche fan? Nothing offensive, or anything, because I'm sure the Audi guys would argue with you all day.
Audi, The Front Wheel Drive Company.
Except for the A4Q, which is not bad, but in all essence just a glorified Evo.

Porsche is simply in a different league. No one ever chooses between an Audi and a Porsche, like people don't choose between a Pinto and a Lexus. Porsche is in the top league, together with manufacturers like Ferrari and Lamborghini, and performance-wise is the leader of that league.

Of course, Porsches never have a lot of horsepower, but they do it on purpose. Since they always win anyway, with the limited power they've got, they only put as much power as needed, to prevent a power race.

And a side effect is that they have massive potential for boosting, say, one can get extra 150-180 bhp on a 996 without even touching the turbo. Of these 60-80 come from a simple ECU tweak. That is, if one is either racing or eager to crash, because, seriously speaking, no road car needs 500 horsepower, it's just for penis comparisons.

Here's "A Modern Parable" - it's not completely accurate but it makes some good points:
A Modern Parable.

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River.

Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend
appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings,
dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next
year's racing team was out-sourced to India .

Sadly, the End.


Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results: TOYOTA made 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses... and now wants the Government to 'bail them out'.

IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY

Crashing on two wheels does. Although these always come in pairs.

Make no mistake, I do love bikes, but it's a relationship that's best kept platonic. You can not ride in the winter, you can not ride with cargo, you can not ride with music, you can not ride far, you can not... Too many "nots".

I have an intention of sometime soon having a good "Grand tour" all around the country, and bikes are not any better cut for that than the truck I have to put up with now. I see too many "I don't want to because it's a little bit uncomfortable"s. You can do all of those things with a bike. If you want a touring bike that's just ridiculously fast, try the Concours 14. (http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/product-specifications.aspx?id=345)



Audi, The Front Wheel Drive Company.
Except for the A4Q, which is not bad, but in all essence just a glorified Evo.

Porsche is simply in a different league. No one ever chooses between an Audi and a Porsche, like people don't choose between a Pinto and a Lexus. Porsche is in the top league, together with manufacturers like Ferrari and Lamborghini, and performance-wise is the leader of that league.

Of course, Porsches never have a lot of horsepower, but they do it on purpose. Since they always win anyway, with the limited power they've got, they only put as much power as needed, to prevent a power race.

And a side effect is that they have massive potential for boosting, say, one can get extra 150-180 bhp on a 996 without even touching the turbo. Of these 60-80 come from a simple ECU tweak. That is, if one is either racing or eager to crash, because, seriously speaking, no road car needs 500 horsepower, it's just for penis comparisons.The R8 is AWD, not FWD. o_o;
I also beg to differ on you with the Ferrari/Porsche comparison. I'd take an F430 any day over any Porsche, even if the Porsche was free.

And you are a Porsche fan. Don't deny it. Your word choice gives you away. :p

IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNYHell, it's still funny. :D

I see too many "I don't want to because it's a little bit uncomfortable"s. You can do all of those things with a bike. If you want a touring bike that's just ridiculously fast, try the Concours 14. (http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/product-specifications.aspx?id=345)
It's just not the same. Yes, bikes are fun, I like them a lot. But it's still a very uncomfortable experience to actually ride one somewhere rather than just for fun.
Plus, it's the single most dangerous mode of transportation, by a long shot. I personally prefer "scary but not deadly" to outright deadly.


The R8 is AWD, not FWD.
Some of the Audis are AWD. But they're still, in essence, their old selves. It's not a slight help from the front wheels in difficult situation, like in Porsches or Lambos, it's AWD all the way. R8 is a good car, but it's a show car, and way overpriced. I'm just not the Audi's target customer. I want the excitement, not the stylish body.


I also beg to differ on you with the Ferrari/Porsche comparison. I'd take an F430 any day over any Porsche, even if the Porsche was free.

And the reason is? The reason is the Ferrari badge and all the glory around it. Because on the track Porsche would dust it, and fun-wise, anything rear-engined is just one heck of an experience.
Of course, that's not a problem to Ferrari, because they have different priorities, different concepts even. Ferrari is the rich man's trophy wife driver, Porsche is the working man's sports car.


And you are a Porsche fan. Don't deny it. Your word choice gives you away. :p
Well, yes. Yes, I am. But I haven't always been. I too used to regard Porsches as overpriced, and worship the JDM with their Supras, Evos and :fapfapfap: Skylines. Even went as far as to get into the waiting line for the Nissan GT-R (proved a profitable decision, as soon JDM fanboys were ready to pay twenty, thirty and forty grand over the sticker price).
All until I took a number of test drives in Porsches. It's unforgettable. It's different, and it's all the essence of excitement. Not a car that drives itself or a "driver's car", but a car with a character of its own, which will help you or have to be fought. It's a challenge to drive it by itself, yet at a race it readily beats the competition. A ride at the wheel of a 911 is as sure a way to ruin your life as a shot of black. Afterwards, nothing else will do. You'll become a Porsche fan too if you try it once.

No. The power of the company is its individual power. There are other companies with other offers.And likewise, there are other workers with other offers.

2) since all auto workers are in the union, you won't find a replacement".If all auto workers were in the union, how could Honda and Toyota employ nonunion workers?

Wouldn't it have been better to tell them to lay off people as per necessary and give the 14 billion to the laid off workers?

Let's say they fire 250,000 people, 14 billion would have supported them - avg. 2.5k$/monthly per person - for 2 years.

That would have both solved the inefficiency of US car industry thus revitalizing it and eventually giving more people more stable jobs and would have bought 2 years for the quarter million of workers out of work to find a better job.

Now that 14 billion is indirectly given to executives who handled the businesses badly in the first place.

See that's a good idea. But too bad it'll be some 3 million people directly and indirectly affected. I'm talking about parts manufacturers, tire manufacturers, paint manufacturers, every part that goes on that car has to come from some where.

Now let's be nice and say that 2 million people were laid off by the closing of the manufacturing plants. 2m*1000 = 2bn dollars a month for supplying a $1000 a month wage (which is way too low).

7 months is not nearly enough time for 2 million jobs to be formed.

I mean you can't just give the union workers the money without giving the other employees that were indirectly laid off some money. I guess you could, but that isn't very nice. Besides they'd be going on unemployment anyway.

*EDIT* Chrysler shut down all manufacturing for a month, GM is idling 30% of its production and Ford is extending their Christmas break.

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4766648&fSectionId=753&fSetId=381