Strike hits Lansing GM plant

[mike]

THE LARGEST UAW ONLINE BLOG & NEWS ARCHIVE
http://www.futureoftheunion.com

What Is Future Of The Union?

Future Of The Union currently acts as the largest online news archive and resource center for the automotive industry. It serves as the main document and network center for thousands of auto workers around the world. We work in complete conjunction with The Soldiers Of Solidarity UAW Rank-N-File Movement.

History Of Future Of The Union

Future of the Union was originally started in August 2004 soon after the United Auto Workers leaders bargained for two-tier wages for the rank-n-file members. Its sole purpose is not just to educate and inform rank-n-file auto workers about their union’s activities, but a means to build real solidarity at the bottom. There are thousands of workers across the country represented by the UAW that would not normally have access to the resources and communication that Future of the Union provides.

We are not simply just a resource and news center though. We are a movement for serious and immediate change in our union. We often expose and take a hard line stance on the decisions that our leadership make. For this stance we have made a few enemies but, this does not divert our goals. We are determined to continue asking the questions that nobody asks. We are committed to exposing any and all corruption with our leadership when it is found. Our leadership council at UAW New Directions and Soldiers Of Solidarity consists of many ex-uaw presidents, directors, and other officials who analyze the industry and the direction we are heading.

The original base and foundation however of the Future of the Union movement was directed by a rank-n-file workers’ council out of Kokomo, Indiana. We work in unwavering conjunction and unity with both the Solidarity Now movement and the rebirth of the United Auto Workers New Directions Movement started by Victor Reuther brother of Walter Reuther.

This stance and determination has resulted in many UAW officials to resort to calling us anti-union. Those who call us radicals fail to understand the rapid decline of union membership in the United States is a direct effect of business unionism and corporate unions. They call us communists for denouncing the Democratic Party and the corrupt two party system in America. In fact we are not communists, but a movement calling for a real working-class party to be built. A labor party that represents the values and beliefs of working families in America. A true party of labor who understands the reality of the class struggle we face.

http://www.futureoftheunion.com

[Steelie]

Good Day,

While I sincerely do feel bad for those who will be losing their jobs... I think this may very well be only the tip of the iceberg. Or - the begining of the end. I think this agreement, if accurate as reported, will set a precendence for other companies to stand hard and do the same as American Axel.

But here is my most curious of questions. If these reports are acurate - why did the Union make these conscessions? Why did they accept these pay cuts and plant closings?

Look - it does not take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall with regard to the "Big Three". Ford reported losses of 12 billion last year and GM has reported losses of 3.3 billion in the first quarter!(GM blames the American Axel strike for the majority their losses...) As I have said more than once, I believe the entire "American" auto industry and the unions that represent their employees is a broken and possibly outdated machine. All sides are responsible for the demise of companies like Ford and GM. The pompous and holier than thou attitudes of all parties has brought about their current state of affairs. Toyota figured it out. The others have not and therefore are suffering the consequences of their arrogance.

Mike - the last paragraph of you prior post is very interesting. I think you and your fellow members who think the same may very well have hit it on the head. Particualrly if these unions wish to continue to exist into the future they have to change from the inside out.

Steelie

[Seenitbefore]

Steelie wrote:

Good Day,
While I sincerely do feel bad for those who will be losing their jobs... I think this may very well be only the tip of the iceberg. Or - the begining of the end. I think this agreement, if accurate as reported, will set a precendence for other companies to stand hard and do the same as American Axel.
But here is my most curious of questions. If these reports are acurate - why did the Union make these conscessions? Why did they accept these pay cuts and plant closings?
Look - it does not take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall with regard to the "Big Three". Ford reported losses of 12 billion last year and GM has reported losses of 3.3 billion in the first quarter!(GM blames the American Axel strike for the majority their losses...) As I have said more than once, I believe the entire "American" auto industry and the unions that represent their employees is a broken and possibly outdated machine. All sides are responsible for the demise of companies like Ford and GM. The pompous and holier than thou attitudes of all parties has brought about their current state of affairs. Toyota figured it out. The others have not and therefore are suffering the consequences of their arrogance.
Mike - the last paragraph of you prior post is very interesting. I think you and your fellow members who think the same may very well have hit it on the head. Particualrly if these unions wish to continue to exist into the future they have to change from the inside out.
Steelie

Let's not forget Chrysler. They consistently lag behind Ford and GM.

Well at least the unions are trying to change their method of operation to get rid of the internal problems. I'm taking book on not seeing the same with the corporate management.

[Union All The Way]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's not forget Chrysler. They consistently lag behind Ford and GM.
Well at least the unions are trying to change their method of operation to get rid of the internal problems. I'm taking book on not seeing the same with the corporate management.

Unions have been going down hill..giving in..now non union shops will drop too..but everything else goes up..Greed.

[Seenitbefore]

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Unions have been going down hill..giving in..now non union shops will drop too..but everything else goes up..Greed.

Yeeup!

[ford sucks]

WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT HELP AND OUR TAX MONEY GM AND FORD WILL BANCRUPT IN 1 YEAR ... F---K ALL UNION...

[Union All The Way]

ford sucks wrote:

WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT HELP AND OUR TAX MONEY GM AND FORD WILL BANCRUPT IN 1 YEAR ... F---K ALL UNION...

You seem to have a " Chip " on your shoulder...lighten up.

[ford sucks]

no union

[Steelie]

Good Day,

Interesting point with regard to bail outs. I do not like them. If a business fails, it fails. Why would anyone think a bail out is the answer? Not me...

Steelie

[Seenitbefore]

Steelie wrote:

Good Day,
Interesting point with regard to bail outs. I do not like them. If a business fails, it fails. Why would anyone think a bail out is the answer? Not me...
Steelie

Because they figure it's best to have people working maybe?

This is just the kind of paradox I can't wrap my mind around. Every body is complaining about the striking workers, excuse me, whiner cry babies, for wanting too much money for what they are worth and how it's putting so many other people out of work etc., etc., etc., and on and on. Yet when there is a step up to keep a business in business those same people, no offense meant, say let the business fail. And put more people out of work???

Don't get me wrong Steelie, you know what I've always said about this. Government paying out corporate welfare in quadruplicate to what the social welfare programs is one of the very reasons we are in the fiscal mess we are.

When something like this comes up I just can't figure out the duplicity of it.

[Steelie]

Good Day,

Seenit - indeed. The duplicity...

I am fairly certain that you and I most likely will never agree on tax breaks for business. However, bail outs I think are not the answer. If the business fails then the government is probably going to have to pay out the same amount anyway in unemployment and other social programs to help those who have lost their jobs. I mean, look, who thinks that giving a company a whole bunch of money in the form of a bail out is going to help when the company has shown that it cannot manage itself propperly in the first place which put them in the situation of requesting a bail out? They will just be in the same sad sorry state of affairs in heartbeat. We have seen it (no pun intended...) before. Bail outs don't work. They are simply a waste of the tax payers dollars that delays the inevitable. So now, you bail a company out, it fails anyway and now you also have the further incurred financial liability of helping those who lost their jobs. In essence paying for the same thing twice. That to me makes no sense what so ever.

Steelie

[Seenitbefore]

Steelie wrote:

Good Day,
Seenit - indeed. The duplicity...
I am fairly certain that you and I most likely will never agree on tax breaks for business. However, bail outs I think are not the answer. If the business fails then the government is probably going to have to pay out the same amount anyway in unemployment and other social programs to help those who have lost their jobs. I mean, look, who thinks that giving a company a whole bunch of money in the form of a bail out is going to help when the company has shown that it cannot manage itself propperly in the first place which put them in the situation of requesting a bail out? They will just be in the same sad sorry state of affairs in heartbeat. We have seen it (no pun intended...) before. Bail outs don't work. They are simply a waste of the tax payers dollars that delays the inevitable. So now, you bail a company out, it fails anyway and now you also have the further incurred financial liability of helping those who lost their jobs. In essence paying for the same thing twice. That to me makes no sense what so ever.
Steelie

Oh I so agree. We have been "bailing them out" long before they were even in a position of needing a bail out. I would sooner these businesses die from not getting any tax payer welfare in the first place.

These so called highly educated and experienced CEOs "that have a right to the exorbitant salaries and benefits they are paid for running these companies" are nothing more than highly educated and experienced leaches on the tax payers and the general economy.

I used to have respect for their "advanced" abilities. Until that is I found out what they are most experienced at. I certainly would not say all but I will go so far as to say a big share of them are nothing but legalized criminals. Legalized because they have bought the "laws" that allow them to continue to rape everyone else.

Harsh, yes. Inaccurate, no.

[Steelie]

Good Day,

I don't for a minute think all CEO's and or upper management is corrupt. There may be individuals to be certain, but I think for the most part they are honest folks. Dishonesty is part of society and it knows no boundaries. Rich or poor, young or old, male or female, dishonesty is found at all levels of society. It is not some phenomena that effects only those of means. I know lots of hardworking people. Some are wealthy while some do well enough to suit their needs. Some work in factories. Others have constructed their own successful businesses. Regardless of their level of wealth I would state that 99% of them are honest hard working folks.

Steelie

[Seenitbefore]

I so agree Steelie. I still have a huge problem with the notion that we should have a (bigger) class society. Why we feel we have the right to declare what someone should make based on a "prevailing wage" basis.

It's simply that the consumer feels they are being shafted because people who work for a living are causing it. Just not so.

Anyone who REALLY wants to know should study up on Warren Buffet. Except for those who feel they know more about economics than he does.

[Steelie]

Good Day,

Seenit - I honestly think thet the "prevailing wage" is just like supply and demand. That is what the market is willing to bear for that job. Does anyone think that an entry level job at McDonadls should begin at $15 an hour? Of course not. Because then how much more would their product cost in order to bear the wieght of such a wage? Would you be willing to pay $10 for a combo meal? Probably not. So to with any business, big or small. wages are generally set by what the market is willing to bear. Oh I know, there are a few exceptions here and there...

Steelie

[Batch 37 Pain is Good]

Sooooo, how's the strike going?