Idiot unions in Toronto

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure just like I've heard about CUPE, and CAW

Way to paint the wide brush and choose to ignore successful companies with very good executive teams. but people still choose to associate anyone in an executive position with scumbags like the ones above. Who in reality represent an extremely small percentage of white collar executive workers.

You're painting a wide brush with one union in Toronto.

But the funny thing is that the Unions don't produce revenue, they don't design and create products, they don't do anything but negatively influence a companies growth, they make products more expensive then they should be. They are the very definition of a parasite.

What products have unions made more expensive then they should be?

I would have no problems with the major unions if they lived in anytype of reality. But as much as you can blame executives and bad planning on the demise of the auto industry, the Unions have to take a big steaming spoonfull of poo on this.

Are the unions the ones responsible for making cars that people don't want to buy? I would think that the executive teams should be taking the fall for the issues that domestic car manufacturers are experiencing right now.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Are the unions the ones responsible for making cars that people don't want to buy? I would think that the executive teams should be taking the fall for the issues that domestic car manufacturers are experiencing right now.

Perhaps two of the reasons people don't want to buy those cars is because they are overpriced for what they are (company needs to recover the high labour overhead) and the build quality is laughable.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Are the unions the ones responsible for making cars that people don't want to buy?

Yes, they are.

If the total albour cost was lower, the price of the car would also be lower. So instead of saying "Should I buy a Chevy for $14K or a Honda for $15K", the price gap would be a lot more. And with American cars being cheaper, more people would buy them.

Don't get me wrong, I think management shoulders most of the blame. But the union also has its own share.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Are the unions the ones responsible for making cars that people don't want to buy? I would think that the executive teams should be taking the fall for the issues that domestic car manufacturers are experiencing right now.

No, but unions are responsible for a lot of the reasons that GM and the other car companies are going bankrupt.

Sure, the proper executive leadership was lacking, but the unions were sucking money out of those companies like crazy.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by ken0042

If the total albour cost was lower, the price of the car would also be lower. So instead of saying "Should I buy a Chevy for $14K or a Honda for $15K", the price gap would be a lot more. And with American cars being cheaper, more people would buy them.

Except that goods aren't priced based upon what they cost, they're priced based upon what people are willing to pay.

Does it really cost four times more to build a Cadillac then a Malibu? No.

Especially with car dealers when the "actual" price can be thousands less then what they claim it is when you walk into a showroom.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, but unions are responsible for a lot of the reasons that GM and the other car companies are going bankrupt.

Sure, the proper executive leadership was lacking, but the unions were sucking money out of those companies like crazy.

How much money did the unions suck out of those companies? And how does it compare to how much the executives were sucking out of those companies?

[Cowboy89]

There's also a huge reason why Fortune 500 executives get paid a lot. The type of work the typical union worker does can usually be performed by a broad spectrum of people in society, whereas being an executive takes talent and education that the average man is not even born with the capacity to attain. In other words scarcity rules the day on one level. Another level is a amount of personal sacrifice and large scrutiny the position entails. When executives were 25 they weren't punching the clock after 37.5 hour weeks and heading to the bar to get fata'ed every Friday and Saturday. They were working hard at graduate level programs and most likely working 60 - 70 hour weeks if not more at their real jobs. When an executive makes a stupid mistake it's public news, they get ostricized and they get sued by shareholders, etc. etc.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

How much money did the unions suck out of those companies? And how does it compare to how much the executives were sucking out of those companies?

You simply can't compare the two.

Executives make that much money because they are supposed to be capable of driving a corporation that has a multi-billion dollar income.

If they FAIL to run that company properly, they should be fired.

I honestly don't care if someone makes over a billion dollars salary each year. Most of those people had to work for what they have, or what they are getting.

Doesn't mean they are free from scrutiny. Like I said, if they can't preform, they should be fired.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

You're painting a wide brush with one union in Toronto.

Just as you were when you were bringing up your names.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

What products have unions made more expensive then they should be?

American Cars is a big one. Government Services and taxation rates is another one.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Are the unions the ones responsible for making cars that people don't want to buy? I would think that the executive teams should be taking the fall for the issues that domestic car manufacturers are experiencing right now.

Your right in a lot of ways, but both sides are soaking in that dishwater detergent. The Union workers were being massively overpaid and doing poor quality work while being protected for a long time and leaving the car companies little room to self correct until it was too late.

The automotive execs believed that they would always be able to sell cars and had no future vision that would help during the economic changes that occurred.

[Frequitude]

GreenTeaFrapp is right in saying that unions haven't driven up prices. Prices are set by supply and demand.

However, they have sucked the car companies dry to the point where price < cost.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Does it really cost four times more to build a Cadillac then a Malibu? No.

4 times as much? A comparable Cadillac to a Malibu would only cost twice as much to buy why would it cost 4 times as much to build?

And yes it probably costs close to, if not more than twice as much to build a Cadillac to a Chevy. It's called quality of product.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

GreenTeaFrapp is right in saying that unions haven't driven up prices. Prices are set by supply and demand.

However, they have sucked the car companies dry to the point where price < cost.

Labour costs are a huge factor in the prices. You can't sell a vehicle below cost if you expect to be in business for any period of time.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Dion

Labour costs are a huge factor in the prices.

No they aren't. If Ford suddenly had all it's workers work for free to save the company would the price go down? No, it wouldn't.

You can't sell a vehicle below cost if you expect to be in business for any period of time.

You can't price a vehicle for more then what the public is willing to pay for it and expect to be able to sell it.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

No they aren't. If Ford suddenly had all it's workers work for free to save the company would the price go down? No, it wouldn't.

You can't price a vehicle for more then what the public is willing to pay for it and expect to be able to sell it.

Yes they are. You can't sell a vehicle for less than what it cost to make it. Try running a business and selling your products below cost and see how long you'd last. You'd be bankrupt in no time at all.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

There's also a huge reason why Fortune 500 executives get paid a lot. The type of work the typical union worker does can usually be performed by a broad spectrum of people in society, whereas being an executive takes talent and education that the average man is not even born with the capacity to attain.

Don't forget the edge being a sociopath gives! The average man or woman prefers to treat people with at least a modicum of respect, and while there are certainly plenty of executives with admirable human qualities, there is also a disproportionate number of callous political animals who attain their positions by machievellian maneuver in preference to hard work and knowledge.

Salaries of executive-level workers have far outstripped both inflation and increases in productivity over the last 40 years. Much of this can be attributed to the myth that these people are indispensable and in high demand; the colleges and universities grind out hundreds of thousands of potential executives every year, and you could replace 80% of the top executives at the Fortune 500 with similarly experienced and deserving candidates and it would make no discernable difference.

The problem is that the people hiring and firing these executives are themselves executives in one huge old boys/girls network; the free market doesn't really apply. If it did, their compensation would not include huge payout packages when fired, the use of company assets as if personal property, and salaries that bear no relation to their actual effect on productivity.

[J pold]

If you think that consumer demand is the only driver of the consumption of vehicle's fine, but what are the factors that influence consumer demand?

Well let's take quality for example, why has consumer demand for domestic vehicles been decreasing steadily for the last decade? The quality of the vechiles being produced is poor, and where does the responsibility of quality come from? The manufacturer, and who manufactures there low quality vehicles...lazy, overpaid, union workers, who have little to no incentive to increase the quality of their work because their jobs are protected. When workers are not held responsible for the quality of work that they produce than inevitably your going to get low quality products, driving comsuer demand for those products down.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

No they aren't. If Ford suddenly had all it's workers work for free to save the company would the price go down? No, it wouldn't.

Your logic regarding the automotive industry confuses me.

When a car company launches a product line, they have a target price with which to sell at. If GM or Ford is making a midsize car, they know they need to be competitive with the Camry, Accord, etc.. and know what their pricepoint should be.

If their manufacturing costs are considerably higher than Honda and Toyota (which they are), then something has to take a hit. The profit on the vehicle sold, or the other money put into research/development, design, etc.

As someone who worked at an automotive design firm in Ontario, doing design work for Toyota, Ford, and GM, I can certainly tell you that the money allotted for a Toyota project is greater than corresponding projects for Ford/GM.

If labour costs are higher, the slack needs to be picked up somewhere. If its not, the company does not make money, plain and simple. If money is cut on the development of the car, of course demand is going to decrease, as Joe Public doesn't want to buy a poor quality car when he can get a good quality car in the same price range.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Dion

Yes they are. You can't sell a vehicle for less than what it cost to make it. Try running a business and selling your products below cost and see how long you'd last.
...

Sure you can. Which has led to...

Originally Posted by Dion

...
You'd be bankrupt in no time at all.

Which they are.



It's exactly like the false arguement that the salary cap was going to bring ticket prices down. Ticket prices are set by supply and demand in the market. The salary cap merely made the business more viable.

The unions have not driven up the price of vehicles, they have (among other things, of course), assisted in making the American auto industry unviable.

[mykalberta]

I just realized. 18 sick days is more than I get in paid vacation days in a year.

F%uck them - no sympathy whatsoever for them.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Sure you can. Which has led to...

Which they are.

No. Quality issues is what brought GM and Chrysler to it's knees. A recent Consumers Reports had GM and Chrysler rated as the worst for reliability. People won't buy vehicles with poor reliability records. Ford has done a better job with quality issues and surprisingly enough hasn't asked for a govt handout or protection from bankruptcy.