GM, UAW local reach contract agreement that could end strike

barney rubble wrote:

Skilled trades is why we are on strike, most do not wake up until punch-out time to go home. They just might have to work more than an hour or so every day, OMG, better take the buyout.

But then isn't that what they are entitled to because they are skilled? Don't they have the right to higher compensation and less "work" because they aren't "the grunts".

That's been the overall emphasis concerning this afterall. The more skilled, the right to higher compensation because THEY are the ones who have put forth the effort to become better than the unskilled.

Ya know, the few deserve the more because of the "law" of supply and demand.

That's what I've been hearing.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah, yeah..statement getting real old.

The truth hurts, did it ever cross your mind that you keep hearing it because it is true?

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
B.S.!! The hourly lot on 36th street is for G.M. brand only. Any other brand is towed..period!!

You are correct if you are speaking about the front lot. GM only is allowed to park there. Check the back lot on the north side of 36th ave that one is a free for all.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
But then isn't that what they are entitled to because they are skilled? Don't they have the right to higher compensation and less "work" because they aren't "the grunts".
That's been the overall emphasis concerning this afterall. The more skilled, the right to higher compensation because THEY are the ones who have put forth the effort to become better than the unskilled.
Ya know, the few deserve the more because of the "law" of supply and demand.
That's what I've been hearing.

If you actually believe that getting a education or a skill entitles you to not have to work you have been reading this stuff all wrong. It is not entitlement at least in the professional world. It is working towards a goal in life. If you have the crazy idea that professionals just sit in an office and do nothing you are very mistaken.

GM wants skilled trades to have more knowledge of the in plant operations of other skilled trades.
GM is trying to make them earn their pay. Dont get me wrong, they can be great workers, however many have 35+yrs with the company and need to retire. This is one way to get them to retire,or just lay em off if they do not want to learn another skill. Personally I would learn 2-3 trades if it meant $33 plus premiuma and 20-40 hours overtime a week. You do the math, since my calculater is extinct.

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
If you actually believe that getting a education or a skill entitles you to not have to work you have been reading this stuff all wrong. It is not entitlement at least in the professional world. It is working towards a goal in life. If you have the crazy idea that professionals just sit in an office and do nothing you are very mistaken.

That was sarcasm. And I haven't been reading it all wrong. What has been being said is everyone else believes they have the inalienable right to tell someone else what they have the right to be compensated based on the complainers personal perception. Remember that thing that has been raised onto an alter; The market place? Well the market place is in operation. People get paid whatever they can get paid, any way they can. THAT'S THE MARKET.

I didn't and never would say professionals just sit around the office and do nothing. Are they worth the money they are getting for what they do isn't any more invalid a question than it is for anyone else.

Is a lawyer worth the money their getting paid when they can't even guarantee the results they are being paid to pursue? And then have to pay again is they make a mistake...didn't do what they should have known how to do or did it right? Is a doctor worth the money they are making worth it under the same circumstances mentioned for a lawyer.

You are paying for too much attention to the education and skill(s) than you are the persons ability to perform them well. Because a person is capable of attending classes and passing tests should be no measure of what they are worth. And that's what all of you have wrong. There are a plethora of people out there who could perform circles around a great many of the professionals that are out there, except they didn't have the means to get that higher education.

Plus there is a plethora of people out there that could out perform them except they just can't pass tests for the grades to be considered the wonders of the world. They could perform circles around those who have the college educations just by their sheer beliefs in ethics and common sense.

Now we can argue till you know when about the why, and EVERYONE has the same opportunities in this country as everyone else, which is CRAP.

Just because someone has letters of the alphabet behind their name doesn't mean they didn't really know how to attend school and pass tests. And I've known a bunch of them. Out for the money first and fore most and incompetent toboot.

I just don't pray at the alter of the mighty market anymore. It's a false god.

Oh and, no, if they aren't any good they'll be eliminated by the "market place". A great many just move on to somewhere else where they can screw it up where no body knows who they are yet.

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
The truth hurts, did it ever cross your mind that you keep hearing it because it is true?

Karl Roves mantra is keep repeating the same thing over and over again and pretty soon people will believe it.
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." -
Adolf Hitler

The only ones that benefit from world trade is the government and big business. So many companies farm out their work overseas to virtual slave labor, which is big businesses dream. Americans cannot possibly pare down their life to compete with third world countries, and should not be expected to as long as there are others who feel that they deserve a better lifestyle then those they employ. The loss of jobs due to downsizing in larger companies is now effecting other jobs for those of middle class or below. The people we have elected to represent us must be made to realize that the destruction of America from within will not be tolerated. If it were not for the unions, we would all be slave labor, working for the priviledge to live another day to work ourselves into an early grave, easily replaced by our masters. Everyone has the supposed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only the rich can really live this dream. People, where is your passion?? I am disgusted that so few take an interest in the welfare of our nation and there are so many regulations in place to protect any decision that our elected officials make whether it is in our best interest or not.

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct if you are speaking about the front lot. GM only is allowed to park there. Check the back lot on the north side of 36th ave that one is a free for all.

That is correct. You are now right about ONE thing.

word in edgewise wrote:

<quoted text>
Loyalty?? Create??? Last fall when 36th was on strike for awhile I noticed that when they are striking the parking lot is full of other brand cars. When times are good for them it's full of GM's. They already own vehicles from the competition, they just keep them hid until they "have to get them out" My neighbor works for GM and the only GM product he owns is the one he drives to work--You guys are only loyal at times like this-but really-your "loyalty" is just a front

I dont know a single person that i work with that owns a foreign vehicle and can only think of one that owns a Dodge? GM workers are very loyal to their brands.

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
The truth hurts, did it ever cross your mind that you keep hearing it because it is true?

As many shots that you have taken at people here...well maybe you should change your name to Jack Meoff.

Union All The Way wrote:

The only ones that benefit from world trade is the government and big business. So many companies farm out their work overseas to virtual slave labor, which is big businesses dream. Americans cannot possibly pare down their life to compete with third world countries, and should not be expected to as long as there are others who feel that they deserve a better lifestyle then those they employ. The loss of jobs due to downsizing in larger companies is now effecting other jobs for those of middle class or below. The people we have elected to represent us must be made to realize that the destruction of America from within will not be tolerated. If it were not for the unions, we would all be slave labor, working for the priviledge to live another day to work ourselves into an early grave, easily replaced by our masters. Everyone has the supposed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only the rich can really live this dream. People, where is your passion?? I am disgusted that so few take an interest in the welfare of our nation and there are so many regulations in place to protect any decision that our elected officials make whether it is in our best interest or not.

Hey friend, you'd best learn a little more about that Free Trade Agreement before spouting off all that typical UAW propaganda.
The UAW (and CAW) consistently present a singularly one sided view of the whole thing, and it looks like you've dutifully memorized the script.
If one is objective and honest enough in developing a realistic understanding of the FACTS in the matter (conspicuously absent in your post!!), it becomes apparent that what you're telling us is mostly spin.

Union All The Way wrote:

The only ones that benefit from world trade is the government and big business. So many companies farm out their work overseas to virtual slave labor, which is big businesses dream. Americans cannot possibly pare down their life to compete with third world countries, and should not be expected to as long as there are others who feel that they deserve a better lifestyle then those they employ. The loss of jobs due to downsizing in larger companies is now effecting other jobs for those of middle class or below. The people we have elected to represent us must be made to realize that the destruction of America from within will not be tolerated. If it were not for the unions, we would all be slave labor, working for the priviledge to live another day to work ourselves into an early grave, easily replaced by our masters. Everyone has the supposed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only the rich can really live this dream. People, where is your passion?? I am disgusted that so few take an interest in the welfare of our nation and there are so many regulations in place to protect any decision that our elected officials make whether it is in our best interest or not.

Cafeful, NAFTA was put into effect by a President that the UAW supported and many of there members voted for.

NAFTA:

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

History of the implementation

NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[7] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[8]

It is worthy to note: "Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC."

Seenitbefore wrote:

NAFTA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F...
History of the implementation
NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[7] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[8]
It is worthy to note: "Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC."

Looks like a fairly close split of dumbocrats and republicans voting in favor. At the end of the day Clinton still signed the bill, saying he had nothing to do with it because he was to lazy to alter the agreement is not much of a valid argument.

Chip wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like a fairly close split of dumbocrats and republicans voting in favor. At the end of the day Clinton still signed the bill, saying he had nothing to do with it because he was to lazy to alter the agreement is not much of a valid argument.

Does everything have to mean an argument...as in right fighting, to you?

If you would bother to read it you would find that Clinton did make some provisions for it.

Again it seems necessary that I point those out.
"Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC."

Seeing as there is no provision for highlighting in some form on this forum I'm going to have to take the time to point them out.

1) G.H.W. BUSH signed NAFTA under his fast-track prerogative.

2) Clinton "COMPLEMENTED" it with the NAAEC and NAALC.

Now if only you would read what those were.

And, there is no indication that NAFTA has achieved the intent. NAFTA has NOT proceeded in the manor it was originally conceived to. Just as the "naysayers" speculated would happen. Just one more theory that does not translate into a positive reality.

Sure NAFTA has advantaged some. There is no doubt about that. The last time I looked though those who it has advantaged ARE NOT the only ones in this country.

Ergo one more of those "socialistic social programs" you are so agast over called the retraining programs caused by workers displaced by NAFTA.

As far as a close split of "dumpocrats" and RepibliCONS, that's just one more istance of what is tauted to be such a good thing necessarily is. Kinda like the Democrats voting in favor of the war in Iraq under false representations of the RepubliCONS. Which I will admit makes them dunbocrats to even think a RepubliCON could be telling the truth. You can tell they (RepubliCONS) are trying to pull off a con job by if their lips are moving and sound is coming out.

Ooops the need to clarify: "that's just one more iNstance of what is tauted to be such a good thing necessarily isN'T.

It's forgivable to be deceived into believing something, while it's not forgivable to deceive.