UAW On Strike

These are Democrat employees and unions that support politicians that advocate the elimination of the very product they manufacture. There is no wheat there. I call it stupidity of the highest magnitude.
Again, I am not defending the UAW or their tactics. You won't find me disagreeing with you on a lot of this.

I'm speaking in general... there seems to be a genuine and visceral disdain for workers (exclusive of the UAW) wanting hire wages.

The workers, in general, are not the issue. There are pizz poor decisions made by people above them in management, in DC and on Wall Street that are far more detrimental.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbovol
Again, I am not defending the UAW or their tactics. You won't find me disagreeing with you on a lot of this.

I'm speaking in general... there seems to be a genuine and visceral disdain for workers (exclusive of the UAW) wanting hire wages.

The workers, in general, are not the issue. There are pizz poor decisions made by people above them in management, in DC and on Wall Street that are far more detrimental.

I'm 100% in favor of workers earning higher wages when they deserve them and awarded on an individual basis, I despise collective bargaining.
 
I'm 100% in favor of workers earning higher wages when they deserve them and awarded on an individual basis, I despise collective bargaining.

Your comment is not based in reality. If you are a worker in the retail industry--which notoriously underpays and overworks its workers--you get a crappy starting wage---maybe $12/15 an hour now after being stuck around $8/10 an hour for many years. If you a good, dependable employee, you'll get a end-of-year wage--but it will be a paltry one of, say, .30 cents more an hour or somesuch. This is what makes so many wage jobs in America so very crappy. Many big American corporations would rather deal with constant turnover from employees quitting than pay their employees sufficient wages to keep them with the company. Keeping wages and labor costs low is a big feature of corporate capitalism in America: It helps with the stock price, and the stock price helps add millions to executive pay packages. American wage workers have been treated badly for decades--fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
Your comment is not based in reality. If you are a worker in the retail industry--which notoriously underpays and overworks its workers--you get a crappy starting wage---maybe $12/15 an hour now after being stuck around $8/10 an hour for many years. If you a good, dependable employee, you'll get a end-of-year wage--but it will be a paltry one of, say, .30 cents more an hour or somesuch. This is what makes so many wage jobs in America so very crappy. Many big American corporations would rather deal with constant turnover from employees quitting than pay their employees sufficient wages to keep them with the company. Keeping wages and labor costs low is a big feature of corporate capitalism in America: It helps with the stock price, and the stock price helps add millions to executive pay packages. American wage workers have been treated badly for decades--fact.

IMO retail jobs should be a starter job and not a career. Get a useful degree or trade while working that retail job.
 
Your comment is not based in reality. If you are a worker in the retail industry--which notoriously underpays and overworks its workers--you get a crappy starting wage---maybe $12/15 an hour now after being stuck around $8/10 an hour for many years. If you a good, dependable employee, you'll get a end-of-year wage--but it will be a paltry one of, say, .30 cents more an hour or somesuch. This is what makes so many wage jobs in America so very crappy. Many big American corporations would rather deal with constant turnover from employees quitting than pay their employees sufficient wages to keep them with the company. Keeping wages and labor costs low is a big feature of corporate capitalism in America: It helps with the stock price, and the stock price helps add millions to executive pay packages. American wage workers have been treated badly for decades--fact.
They aren't underpaid Chief. If they were there would be tons of job openings. And the current generation would rather be portable so they aren't stuck at a given company. So what's good for goose is good for gander. Why should a company show loyalty to workers that show none toward them? And starting wage is a STARTING wage.

Your "fact" is nothing but opinion
 
Which economics are you referring to, Earl?

This economics, from the Pew Research Institute:

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades​

By Drew DeSilver



On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.
But despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.

-------
Or This Economics?

How much have wages gone up in the last 50 years?

A startling fact is that average real wages have grown by only 0.7 percent over the half century beginning in February 1973. In February 2022 dollars, wages have grown over this period by $0.18.Jun 27, 2022

----------

OR MAYBE THIS ECONOMICS, from the Economics Policy Institute:

The cost of inequality to middle-class households​


The cost of unequal growth to middle-income households​


This figure shows that the stakes of rising inequality for the broad American middle class are enormous. The figure compares the income growth of the middle three-fifths of American households since 1979 to their income growth had there been no growth in inequality. In 2007, the last year before the Great Recession, the average income of the middle 60 percent of American households was $76,443. It would have been $94,310, roughly 23 percent (nearly $18,000) higher had inequality not widened (i.e., had their incomes grown at the overall average rate—an overall average buoyed by stratospheric growth at the very top). The temporary dip in top incomes during the Great Recession did little to shrink that inequality tax, which stood at 16 percent (nearly $12,000) in 2011.

---------------------
Or How About This Economics, from the World Economic Forum:


-----------------------

Or How About this Economics Nugget, also from the non-partisan Pew Research Institute:

The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades. The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

-------------------

OR MAYBE YOU ARE THINKING OF WAL-MART ECONOMICS: YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMICS OF A COMPANY THAT GREW HUGE SELLING CHEAP, CHINESE-MADE MERCHANDISE TO AMERICANS WHO /NEEDED/ TO BUY CHEAP PRODUCTS BECAUSE THEIR WAGES WERE CRAP, AND WHOSE OWNERS BECAME BILLIONAIRES ON THE BACKS OF NOTORIOUSLY BADLY PAID WORKERS WITH LOUSY BENEFITS. The Wal-Mart Economy.


IF YOU /ACTUALLY/ KNEW ANYTHING, EARL, YOU'D KNOW THAT WAGES IN AMERICA BARELY GREW FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS, STARTING IN THE MID/LATE 1980s, when cutthroat/stock-price capitalism began to emerge. which is precisely why the U.S. middle class has shrunk and why American are poorer, in terms of purchasing power, than they were 40 years ago.

Thanks for playing, Earl.
Yet the Democrat party will raise taxes and institute inflationary policy. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and AM64
Again, I am not defending the UAW or their tactics. You won't find me disagreeing with you on a lot of this.

I'm speaking in general... there seems to be a genuine and visceral disdain for workers (exclusive of the UAW) wanting hire wages.

The workers, in general, are not the issue. There are pizz poor decisions made by people above them in management, in DC and on Wall Street that are far more detrimental.
The union is a union because of the workers. They are one and the same
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Good job on the Copy & Paste, Cletus. My 6 year old granddaughter knows how to do that too. Sounds like you support Socialism? I hear Venezuela is lovely this time of year. Before you move though, be sure to cast your mail-in ballot for Joe & Kamala. Please log-in to VolNation from time to time and let us know how Venezuela is....we understand you may have sporadic internet connections but at least everyone is the same. Goodbye Cletus. Bon Voyage.

Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. Advocating for higher wages and better purchasing power has nothing to do with socialism, in principle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
Wage earners/labor did not start the inflationary fire we are seeing right now.

And why are you disproportionately blaming unions for what is going on right now (UAW aside)? The overwhelming majority of the workforce in America today is non-union.

And lastly, your rant about American workers pricing themselves out of the market misses the boat completely. The issue is diminishing purchasing power, and the wage earners have been loosing purchasing power for 4 decades. It isn't the workers that eroded the purchasing power (which motivates them to push for more money)... it is bankers and bureaucrats and pseudo-altruists that we call politicians that have helped to do that.

First. I'm not at all against workers earning higher wages provided they add benefit in the process by increased productivity, taking on additional duties, or moving to a job that provides higher compensation. Pretty much any increase that falls outside that is inflationary because it adds to the cost of the product or service sold ... which in turn is paid in higher prices by the consumer/worker. That spiral is self defeating, and puts us where we are as an uncompetitive workforce on the world market.

You are right that most jobs are or are no longer union jobs. Some unions virtually destroyed their industry and their jobs - think garment workers; all you have to do is look at the label in any piece of apparel to see that. Between regulatory acts and union price gouging, our steel industry is a fraction of what it used to be - same with aluminum. When you force the loss of production of raw materials to other countries, then it makes sense that a lot of the finished goods manufacturing will follow. There's a reason we have a Rust Belt where manufacturing used to be plentiful.

In the '70s when I graduated with a MS in engineering, my starting salary as I recall was between $17 and $18K. You could buy a new car for $3K, and our first house - new 3BR, split foyer, about 2K sq ft was just under $50K. We did fine. Now all the numbers are multiples of those, and people are probably worse off. The country is certainly worse off. You can't play the globalization game with our cost of living and cost of manufacturing. You are right we were sold out by politicians and corporate and financial leaders.

Some lessons learned that nobody is taking to heart. You can't have the highest cost of living and manufacturing and survive in a global economy. Corporate leaders should not have investments in the company; that leads to short term thinking for immediate gain to the detriment of the company, country, and workers. The stock and other investment markets have turned evil; some of that is probably do to the huge influx of retirement investments, and even more to the demand for quick return on investments. You can't finance long term projects like nuclear power or oil refining plants on a market biased by short term performance. The markets also are responsible for causing destructive bubbles in markets - see housing and fuel costs as great examples.

Government leadership has failed miserably; there is no rational guidance at all. Government policies do create and do perpetuate inflation that undermine our existence. That was set in motion by any number of things - one being that power and wealth are simply two sides of the same equation and politicians have a lust for both. The other (fed by the lust to stay in power) is that politicians discovered you can buy votes by what government "gives away". Once that became a practice, any financial conservatism was dead because all other politicians have to follow suit or find themselves out of office.

The thing is you have to break the inflationary spiral, and recognize inflation for what it is - a monster and not a sign of a healthy economy. You also have to look at the whole cycle to analyze the issue; if you don't take the systemic approach, then you only come up with a set of victims and villains without seeing the reverse when looking into the cycle at a different point.
 
you do by separating auto workers from the UAW and asking for sympathy for them.
I never did that and you know it. I singled out the UAW in partricular as being the worst of organized labor... that would obviously include the workers within that union. Not all of them, but collectively, they are just as culpable.

I really don't think that can be disputed.

But what I have clearly and painstakingly done is zoomed out and look at the total workforce (not just the UAW or organized labor) and made simple, general observations.
 
First. I'm not at all against workers earning higher wages provided they add benefit in the process by increased productivity, taking on additional duties, or moving to a job that provides higher compensation. Pretty much any increase that falls outside that is inflationary because it adds to the cost of the product or service sold ... which in turn is paid in higher prices by the consumer/worker. That spiral is self defeating, and puts us where we are as an uncompetitive workforce on the world market.
I don't have an issue with anything you said except for the last sentence. We no longer compete with the world with regards to labor. It's not as though we are making widgets here in the US and trying to sell a significant amount of them overseas to compete with China, Japan, etc.. We (mostly) produce now for domestic consumption, meaning that the majority of what we make domestically stays here domestically. 50-60 years ago, that was a different story. But today, we produce goods mostly for our own consumption and have to rely on imports to cover the rest. That is why we have maintained a trade deficit for so many years.

The widget maker in Peoria isn't having to compete with the widget maker in Hanoi... they are competing with the labor in that area or in that sector.

You are right that most jobs are or are no longer union jobs. Some unions virtually destroyed their industry and their jobs - think garment workers; all you have to do is look at the label in any piece of apparel to see that. Between regulatory acts and union price gouging, our steel industry is a fraction of what it used to be - same with aluminum. When you force the loss of production of raw materials to other countries, then it makes sense that a lot of the finished goods manufacturing will follow. There's a reason we have a Rust Belt where manufacturing used to be plentiful.
Think of it as a national security issue. Knowing how you are with regards to military spending, I'm sure you would spare no expense in spending for the sake of national security when it comes to paying Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc. But when it comes to maintaining our own domestic steel and aluminum production, now you get those Boomer alligator arms and want to penny-pinch when it comes to domestic labor. and industry.

In the '70s when I graduated with a MS in engineering, my starting salary as I recall was between $17 and $18K. You could buy a new car for $3K, and our first house - new 3BR, split foyer, about 2K sq ft was just under $50K. We did fine. Now all the numbers are multiples of those, and people are probably worse off. The country is certainly worse off. You can't play the globalization game with our cost of living and cost of manufacturing. You are right we were sold out by politicians and corporate and financial leaders.
We don't need to be playing the globalization game. That model has shown to be a complete failure. There is no reason why we should not be as self-sufficient as we were after WWII, with a few exceptions. And in those cases, we should engage in mutually beneficial trade with whoever to receive those needed commodities and be able to turn those commodities into finished products domestically. 2020 should have been a wake up call to some of you when we didn't even have the industrial capability to make toilet paper.

Also, I love how you precisely reminisce about the good ole days and the cost of living, but I bet a $100 to doughnuts that you would turn around and then pop all kinds of s^^t to an engineer coming out of school today and having far more diminished purchasing power on a starting salary that is nominally probably 3-4 times that in 2023.

Some lessons learned that nobody is taking to heart. You can't have the highest cost of living and manufacturing and survive in a global economy. Corporate leaders should not have investments in the company; that leads to short term thinking for immediate gain to the detriment of the company, country, and workers. The stock and other investment markets have turned evil; some of that is probably do to the huge influx of retirement investments, and even more to the demand for quick return on investments. You can't finance long term projects like nuclear power or oil refining plants on a market biased by short term performance. The markets also are responsible for causing destructive bubbles in markets - see housing and fuel costs as great examples.
I agree with most of this.

The thing is you have to break the inflationary spiral, and recognize inflation for what it is - a monster and not a sign of a healthy economy. You also have to look at the whole cycle to analyze the issue; if you don't take the systemic approach, then you only come up with a set of victims and villains without seeing the reverse when looking into the cycle at a different point.
My only response to that is that you are correct... the entire system has to be looked at. But my point remains the same. The first thing attacked and scrutinized is usually always labor/wages. There is no way you are going to convince me that labor/wages are the biggest issue in our economy when you clearly spelled out the other more destructive events that are going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Always an interesting thread . From personal experiences working on , with and being on both sides of the fence here as union rep. helping to negotiating contracts for 15 years , a supervisor in other companies and business owner , there’s a lot of room on both sides of the argument for points to be made . It’s hard to not to bring up shady , underhanded management/ owners without also being able to bring up the same kinds of workers getting paid a wage they aren’t giving a fair days work for . Like everything , the truth is somewhere in the middle but there’s a lot of BS and propaganda on both sides of it .
 
I don't have an issue with anything you said except for the last sentence. We no longer compete with the world with regards to labor. It's not as though we are making widgets here in the US and trying to sell a significant amount of them overseas to compete with China, Japan, etc.. We (mostly) produce now for domestic consumption, meaning that the majority of what we make domestically stays here domestically. 50-60 years ago, that was a different story. But today, we produce goods mostly for our own consumption and have to rely on imports to cover the rest. That is why we have maintained a trade deficit for so many years.

The widget maker in Peoria isn't having to compete with the widget maker in Hanoi... they are competing with the labor in that area or in that sector.


Think of it as a national security issue. Knowing how you are with regards to military spending, I'm sure you would spare no expense in spending for the sake of national security when it comes to paying Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc. But when it comes to maintaining our own domestic steel and aluminum production, now you get those Boomer alligator arms and want to penny-pinch when it comes to domestic labor. and industry.


We don't need to be playing the globalization game. That model has shown to be a complete failure. There is no reason why we should not be as self-sufficient as we were after WWII, with a few exceptions. And in those cases, we should engage in mutually beneficial trade with whoever to receive those needed commodities and be able to turn those commodities into finished products domestically. 2020 should have been a wake up call to some of you when we didn't even have the industrial capability to make toilet paper.

Also, I love how you precisely reminisce about the good ole days and the cost of living, but I bet a $100 to doughnuts that you would turn around and then pop all kinds of s^^t to an engineer coming out of school today and having far more diminished purchasing power on a starting salary that is nominally probably 3-4 times that in 2023.


I agree with most of this.


My only response to that is that you are correct... the entire system has to be looked at. But my point remains the same. The first thing attacked and scrutinized is usually always labor/wages. There is no way you are going to convince me that labor/wages are the biggest issue in our economy when you clearly spelled out the other more destructive events that are going on.

Finally a lot of things we agree on. By being competitive in the world labor market, I don't literally mean that we should be at a point of competing with companies like China for world markets. We should have labor rates that favor domestically made products vs those built overseas and shipped here. Transoceanic shipping costs give us a buffer; we could still manufacture here and maintain a higher standard of living and cost of labor and not actually be dollar for dollar competitive with Chinese or other labor rates. Manufacturing here is strategically essential - a lesson we should have learned and taken to heart from WW2, and that we should have made a cornerstone of policies - including labor and other production costs and maintaining sanity in that respect.

I'd be perfectly happy if costs and salaries were rolled back to my younger days. We'd all be better off.
 
Which economics are you referring to, Earl?

This economics, from the Pew Research Institute:

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades​

By Drew DeSilver



On the face of it, these should be heady times for American workers. U.S. unemployment is as low as it’s been in nearly two decades (3.9% as of July) and the nation’s private-sector employers have been adding jobs for 101 straight months – 19.5 million since the Great Recession-related cuts finally abated in early 2010, and 1.5 million just since the beginning of the year.
But despite the strong labor market, wage growth has lagged economists’ expectations. In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers.

-------
Or This Economics?

How much have wages gone up in the last 50 years?

A startling fact is that average real wages have grown by only 0.7 percent over the half century beginning in February 1973. In February 2022 dollars, wages have grown over this period by $0.18.Jun 27, 2022

----------

OR MAYBE THIS ECONOMICS, from the Economics Policy Institute:

The cost of inequality to middle-class households​


The cost of unequal growth to middle-income households​


This figure shows that the stakes of rising inequality for the broad American middle class are enormous. The figure compares the income growth of the middle three-fifths of American households since 1979 to their income growth had there been no growth in inequality. In 2007, the last year before the Great Recession, the average income of the middle 60 percent of American households was $76,443. It would have been $94,310, roughly 23 percent (nearly $18,000) higher had inequality not widened (i.e., had their incomes grown at the overall average rate—an overall average buoyed by stratospheric growth at the very top). The temporary dip in top incomes during the Great Recession did little to shrink that inequality tax, which stood at 16 percent (nearly $12,000) in 2011.

---------------------
Or How About This Economics, from the World Economic Forum:


-----------------------

Or How About this Economics Nugget, also from the non-partisan Pew Research Institute:

The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades. The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.

-------------------

OR MAYBE YOU ARE THINKING OF WAL-MART ECONOMICS: YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMICS OF A COMPANY THAT GREW HUGE SELLING CHEAP, CHINESE-MADE MERCHANDISE TO AMERICANS WHO /NEEDED/ TO BUY CHEAP PRODUCTS BECAUSE THEIR WAGES WERE CRAP, AND WHOSE OWNERS BECAME BILLIONAIRES ON THE BACKS OF NOTORIOUSLY BADLY PAID WORKERS WITH LOUSY BENEFITS. The Wal-Mart Economy.


IF YOU /ACTUALLY/ KNEW ANYTHING, EARL, YOU'D KNOW THAT WAGES IN AMERICA BARELY GREW FOR ABOUT 30 YEARS, STARTING IN THE MID/LATE 1980s, when cutthroat/stock-price capitalism began to emerge. which is precisely why the U.S. middle class has shrunk and why American are poorer, in terms of purchasing power, than they were 40 years ago.

Thanks for playing, Earl.
Or maybe if you understood the term “real wages” you would understand that is determined as it relates to inflation. Since 2000, the dollar has lost about 40% of its value. What’s one of the biggest drivers of inflation and the erosion of the dollar? Debt. So, talk to your politicians and your presidents (all of them since Clinton) first about their hand in the destruction of purchasing power and real wages. The lazy argument is blaming it on all capitalism and businesses. But you keep rooting for that next debt ceiling increase instead of bringing any sanity to the unconscionable, runaway spending in DC that’s smoking the middle class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
Always an interesting thread . From personal experiences working on , with and being on both sides of the fence here as union rep. helping to negotiating contracts for 15 years , a supervisor in other companies and business owner , there’s a lot of room on both sides of the argument for points to be made . It’s hard to not to bring up shady , underhanded management/ owners without also being able to bring up the same kinds of workers getting paid a wage they aren’t giving a fair days work for . Like everything , the truth is somewhere in the middle but there’s a lot of BS and propaganda on both sides of it .

Yep. I've seen very conscientious union workers do some almost artful work, and I've seen other use work rules to do almost nothing. We delivered system components that only had to be installed in a electronic cabinet at one plant. I bought an identical cabinet and we had installed and tested everything in our shop even down to making the interconnecting wiring harness. The system installation was simple. At the end of the first shift, three rack mounted components were in place with almost no wiring done. The second shift basically let us finish the job which from start to finish was at most a three hour job.

On another test we had to install instrumentation inside the reactor to monitor vibration, temperature, and flow during hot functional testing (without real fuel). That turned into a work stoppage because the unions argued that our engineers shouldn't be installing instrumentation ... of course, none of the unions had any experience and it crossed craft boundaries. The solution: our guy did the work while at least one of each trade watched - boilermaker, electrician, instrument tech, welder, and two or three more. They didn't assist ... just observed.

On the management side there are the bonuses that not infrequently lead to blunders just to meet deadlines or costs. There that old saying about "There not being enough time or funding to do it right, but there's always time and money to fix the screwup." I still think the undeserved executive salaries drive much of the animosity that unions hold.
 
Or maybe if you understood the term “real wages” you would understand that is determined as it relates to inflation. Since 2000, the dollar has lost about 40% of its value. What’s one of the biggest drivers of inflation and the erosion of the dollar? Debt. So, talk to your politicians and your presidents (all of them since Clinton) first about their hand in the destruction of purchasing power and real wages. The lazy argument is blaming it on all capitalism and businesses. But you keep rooting for that next debt ceiling increase instead of bringing any sanity to the unconscionable, runaway spending in DC that’s smoking the middle class.

A lot of that debt was spent in competition with consumer spending which drove prices higher also. Government policy which covers taxes and spending and the making of the debt and dollar valuation are one of the wildcards in inflation. Energy because of the way a lot of fuels are priced and manipulated is another wildcard. It would be far simpler if wages and prices were a matter of simple supply and demand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737

‘Trump Scooped Us’: Dems Sound Alarm on Biden’s handling of the auto worker strike​

Donald Trump’s decision to head to Detroit for a speech next week is setting off alarms among some Joe Biden allies.

Some Joe Biden allies fear that Donald Trump is outmaneuvering them on the auto workers’ strike with his decision to head to Detroit for a speech next week.

Democrats close to the White House said they saw Trump’s trip as a plainly cynical ploy to gain political advantage from the current United Auto Workers strike at three plants. But they also worry it is a sign that the ex-president had a more sophisticated campaign than in previous cycles — and that Biden’s operation needs to step it up.


 
Yep. I've seen very conscientious union workers do some almost artful work, and I've seen other use work rules to do almost nothing. We delivered system components that only had to be installed in a electronic cabinet at one plant. I bought an identical cabinet and we had installed and tested everything in our shop even down to making the interconnecting wiring harness. The system installation was simple. At the end of the first shift, three rack mounted components were in place with almost no wiring done. The second shift basically let us finish the job which from start to finish was at most a three hour job.

On another test we had to install instrumentation inside the reactor to monitor vibration, temperature, and flow during hot functional testing (without real fuel). That turned into a work stoppage because the unions argued that our engineers shouldn't be installing instrumentation ... of course, none of the unions had any experience and it crossed craft boundaries. The solution: our guy did the work while at least one of each trade watched - boilermaker, electrician, instrument tech, welder, and two or three more. They didn't assist ... just observed.

On the management side there are the bonuses that not infrequently lead to blunders just to meet deadlines or costs. There that old saying about "There not being enough time or funding to do it right, but there's always time and money to fix the screwup." I still think the undeserved executive salaries drive much of the animosity that unions hold.

Im guilty several times over of saying “there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians “ lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and AM64
When all is said and done CEO compensation generally doesn't have a tremendous effect on the bottom line (or it hasn't in the past), but it's a huge distraction and causes enormous friction. For that reason alone (being completely self absorbed, ego centric, narcissistic, totally tone deaf fools) CEOs as a group should just be rounded up and shot then replaced with reasonable people.
Especially when you consider a great many of them make a great many dumbass decisions
 
Your comment is not based in reality. If you are a worker in the retail industry--which notoriously underpays and overworks its workers--you get a crappy starting wage---maybe $12/15 an hour now after being stuck around $8/10 an hour for many years. If you a good, dependable employee, you'll get a end-of-year wage--but it will be a paltry one of, say, .30 cents more an hour or somesuch. This is what makes so many wage jobs in America so very crappy. Many big American corporations would rather deal with constant turnover from employees quitting than pay their employees sufficient wages to keep them with the company. Keeping wages and labor costs low is a big feature of corporate capitalism in America: It helps with the stock price, and the stock price helps add millions to executive pay packages. American wage workers have been treated badly for decades--fact.
Learn a skill that demands higher pay.

I know for a fact that Buc-ees in Sevierville pays $20+ an hour and they still have trouble filling jobs, people calling in sick, etc.

If you want higher paying jobs, quit trying to kill industry in this country. That's where the blue collar class could make a decent living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and AM64

VN Store



Back
Top