UAW On Strike

[oze]

I see this as a golden opportunity for the Asian manufacturers to really dominate the American new car market.

 

[jamil]

There is a difference between cost and value

Obviously, but they are at least a little connected. If the price of everything were free then everything would be of no value until it becomes scarce.

 

[JCSR]

I see this as a golden opportunity for the Asian manufacturers to really dominate the American new car market.

I bought a new SUV this spring. There was not an American made SUV that I even considered.

 

[jamil]

I bought a new SUV this spring. There was not an American made SUV that I even considered.

I think the Grand Cherokees are nice. Expensive AF though.

 

[jamil]

The value of labor is different then cost. For example, I used to work in Columbus Ohio. The company paid a great salary for the area and they knew it. They also started losing labor because they did not see a need to compete nationally only locally. So I left. Now I have more ties locally. So although the value of my labor may be higher, I am not willing to move. Well I would but the pay would have to go up substantially.

It's a good point. But also, you're talking about a job market. Union employment isn't really a market.

In a real job market, the price of your labor is like any other product. Cost, supply/demand, competition, and perception/reputation determine what you're worth.

But, in a unionized world, it's not really a market driving the wages. It's how much leverage the union can use to negotiate wages. There isn't competition like in a real market, because the union has a monopoly on the labor in that sector.

I think the disconnect here is that the union guys in this thread aren't really thinking in terms of their real market value. They're talking in terms of what they think they should be paid relative to the profits the company is making. And in that respect profits do affect wages because high profits can be used as leverage during contract negotiations to get more out of employers.

Unions' goals aren't to get their members their fair market value. The goal is to get as much as possible even until the company can't possibly pay more. Companies play the same game. Their goal is to pay as little as possible. So then that might be why they would say profits of a company are relevant when talking about what they should get paid.

 

[KLB]

Profits can vary so much year to year it is hard to use that as a basis for an annual raise. That is why they have profit sharing bonuses.

 

[Creedmoor]

It's a good point. But also, you're talking about a job market. Union employment isn't really a market.

In a real job market, the price of your labor is like any other product. Cost, supply/demand, competition, and perception/reputation determine what you're worth.

But, in a unionized world, it's not really a market driving the wages. It's how much leverage the union can use to negotiate wages. There isn't competition like in a real market, because the union has a monopoly on the labor in that sector.

I think the disconnect here is that the union guys in this thread aren't really thinking in terms of their real market value. They're talking in terms of what they think they should be paid relative to the profits the company is making. And in that respect profits do affect wages because high profits can be used as leverage during contract negotiations to get more out of employers.

Unions' goals aren't to get their members their fair market value. The goal is to get as much as possible even until the company can't possibly pay more. Companies play the same game. Their goal is to pay as little as possible. So then that might be why they would say profits of a company are relevant when talking about what they should get paid.

LOL, At least two people here will agree with you.

 

[jamil]

LOL, At least two people here will agree with you.

Should I go back and quote all the posts where you guys use company profits as a basis for what you should be paid? It's not just one of you. If you disagree with what I said, make your case, or just whine about it.

 

[Creedmoor]

Should I go back and quote all the posts where you guys use company profits as a basis for what you should be paid? It's not just one of you. If you disagree with what I said, make your case, or just whine about it.

Whine, why would I whine. A few more days and my next Union pension check comes.

 

[firecadet613]

Whine, why would I whine. A few more days and my next Union pension check comes.

And according to you, if you're not in a union you're not successful...

 

[firecadet613]

Profits can vary so much year to year it is hard to use that as a basis for an annual raise. That is why they have profit sharing bonuses.

Exactly this, but if you've never run a business, you'd not understand this...

 

[Creedmoor]

And according to you, if you're not in a union you're not successful...

Please quote where I posted that?

 

[jamil]

Whine, why would I whine. A few more days and my next Union pension check comes.

Well good for you.

Anyway, I said you whined because you whined. You seem to get upset when people talk about the economics of unions, instead of just dealing with the points made.

 

[jamil]

Please quote where I posted that?

I think he's referring to the many times you posted that the people hurting because of the strike should have made better choices. Surely you can see how one might reasonably interpret it as that.

 

[Creedmoor]

Well good for you.

Anyway, I said you whined because you whined. You seem to get upset when people talk about the economics of unions, instead of just dealing with the points made.

The last thing you will see here with me, is me being upset.
Laughing at some perhaps. And You keep confusing me with bob.

 

[jamil]

The last thing you will see here with me, is me being upset.
Laughing at some perhaps. And You keep confusing me with bob.

Now that doesn't seem to work out with some of the spats you've had with posters in this thread. You seemed offended at me when I referred to union ho. No offense intended, but obviously offense taken.

 

[firecadet613]

Please quote where I posted that?

Oh, you have, just not in those exact words...

But it's to be expected, a union guy is going to support the union. That's all they know to do.

Just don't be surprised when your union pension check won't be enough for a union made automobile...

 

[Creedmoor]

Oh, you have, just not in those exact words...

But it's to be expected, a union guy is going to support the union. That's all they know to do.

Just don't be surprised when your union pension check won't be enough for a union made automobile...

Are we being telepathic here? Can you tell me what facial expressions I use a lot?

Not true, I've now worked over fifty years, only half of that was a Union gig.

I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

 

[jamil]

Oh, you have, just not in those exact words...

But it's to be expected, a union guy is going to support the union. That's all they know to do.

Just don't be surprised when your union pension check won't be enough for a union made automobile...

I mean to be fair, something you've invested in for a lifetime, it's gonna become an identity. Of course he's going to support it. And nothing wrong with it, as long as he can admit what's true and what's not. Therein lies the rub.

Also, a union made automobile won't necessarily make it more expensive than a non-union one. Companies have to compete. There's a limit to what customers will pay before moving on to a cheaper option.

 

[jamil]

Are we being telepathic here? Can you tell me what facial expressions I use a lot?

Not true, I've now worked over fifty years, only half of that was a Union gig.

I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

Eh, well, if you're retirement age, you probably don't have a lot of truck/car buying years left. Unless you buy new every 3 years or so. So you're probably correct on that.