Ah, but see, this is what unions excel at in today's world: they take a small problem and turn it into a very large one.

↓↑report

If your average worker can't make a fair wage, shut it all down. Who is going to buy these cars when 95% of the population gets Wal-Marted into minimum wage. Go Teamsters!

↓↑report

@johneboy...

Get a clue. Buy one if you have to.

Your average worker is suffering because your average teamster, UAW worker, and other unionized workers are selfish, and costing the employer too much, sometimes to the point of bankruptcy.

Then those "average workers" *have* to shop at walmart to get low enough chinese-made prices to be able to afford what they need.

Then, when the employer goes under, everyone is out of work, and "it is all shut down", everyone is out of work, which is worse for the local economies, and contracted clients also suffer who relied on the now-bankrupt company's no-longer-offered services.

So I take it that you like rampant unemployment, and bankruptcy, and all sorts of negative economic ripple-effects. Yeah, go teamsters, put everyone out of business. Maybe walmart will hire the unemployed teamsters at minimum wage, when they are unemployed.

Get a damn clue, honestly. Selfishness and ignorance is a grotesque pair.

↓↑report

Unskilled laborers are not the target customer base.

Professionals with actual skills are the real middle class, and the real customer base in America.

Unskilled laborers should always be at the very bottom of any society.

↓↑report

"Your average worker is suffering because your average teamster, UAW worker, and other unionized workers are selfish, and costing the employer too much, sometimes to the point of bankruptcy."

Stop defending an industry that's accepted their ways in the first place. -_-

URRR THEY SELFISH, well f' they have right to be, wages only make a tiny bitsy portion of a car's MSRP. Unions aren't responsible for the automakers' ridiculous decisions and product planning over the last 2 decades, why should they have to pay for it? Because otherwise they'll lose their job? Why isn't the management losing their jobs then, since they're responsible for the situation the automaker's in?

Think outside the box, they might be selfish, but they have a God damn reason to be. We're not talking about the teachers' unions here, but auto workers who have no to little responsibility to take in what's happened over the last two decades (the so called 'shift').

That's like having the captain of a sinking ship eliminating its crewmen one by one because he decided to sail in troubled seas.

↓↑report

And even with all those concessions they make, their jobs aren't even guaranteed (even if GM said otherwise and is breaching the contract - resulting in future litigations, which aren't going to get GM anywhere - breach of contract cannot be justified by a changing market, they'll have to choke this one up - Wagoner sucks so hard). Made up example: You hand them your retiree plan in exchange for a guaranteed job and they just say 'well the market's changing so disregard the deal we've made... But I'm still taking your plan with me.

Things like this are a public relations disaster for GM, you have no idea what kind of hit they're going to take in Ontario. What feeling do you get when the US automaker bails out and the Japs come back in and save the day by building more NA plants and offering jobs? Yeah, what I thought.

You want to protect your economy but at the same time you refuse (I'm not saying that without unions you can't protect workers, but they still do a better job than singled out people who have no chance against a corp. when an injustice is made) to protect your workers, sweet mixed message you're giving there.

↓↑report

@APRIME,

READ THE ARTICLE.

They are striking against a shipping company, not GM.

I hardly think they are being mistreated.

Take your pick. Unions can take their lumps or lose ALL their jobs. Everyone else has to play by the rules.

The bullcrap argument about mis-management doesn't hold water. Management of this shipping company, GM, Ford, or whoever else, want to keep the doors open, not screw their workers.

It seems like unions, UAW and Teamsters, and whoever else, want to cut off their nose to spite their face, and want to amputate the hand that feeds them. That is not an understandable position, it is selfish, greedy, and will end up doing FAR more damage than anything else.

↓↑report

Without knowing too much of this strike action, it appears as though their employer ended their contract. You can't just walk out whenever you feel like it; there are specific legal obligations.

But I suppose it's different cultures, but when you can least afford a strike is exactly when you have to go out. You can't let your fears get the best of you, otherwise management will get too much.

But it doesn't matter: nobody gets something for nothing in this business. Wage concessions come with other benefits, just as those wage increases came with more managerial leeway.

↓↑report

"people today think they are entitled to a high paying job for life"

You mean a high paying, low skill job with frequent breaks.

↓↑report

Because everyone else probably has absorbed the cost already, and they are still not making ends meet.

Why should the teamster drivers be INSULATED from what everyone else has to deal with?

Union labor is MUCH more expensive than non-union labor.

Contracts have probably been signed in advance, with agreed price. Fuel costs, inflation in every other product required to perform that work has also increased, as well, and someone has to absorb that cost increase under the agreed contracted terms. Everyone BUT the Teamsters have probably already been hit by this.

Re-negotiating union contracts isn't exactly a walk in the park, as we can see. I am sure that it isn't a first-option. It is probably a hail-mary pass, last-ditch effort to stay above water, and continue doing business in any way, shape, or form.

They wouldn't have risked a strike like this on a whim, and they probably have no other recourse left.

↓↑report