GM bankruptcy.

Originally posted by spruce112358
It's not a question of more or less power. It's whether a union that makes unresonable demands that leave a company less competitive is a union working in the best interests of the workers. The German unions are looking to the long-term, not for short term 'gotchas'.

It's whether a union that makes unresonable demands that leave a company less competitive is a union working in the best interests of the workers.

What do you personally believe, regarding the unions?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yeah, I've heard the system in Germany works much better, the unions there are more powerful, and so is the government by the the way.

Perhaps an interesting read on this topic:

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

(unions supporting wage cuts!)

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps an interesting read on this topic:

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

(unions supporting wage cuts!)

thanks for the link.

Originally posted by generalissimo
thanks for the link.

I suggest both you and scherzy read that article very well. You both need it.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]It's whether a union that makes unresonable demands that leave a company less competitive is a union working in the best interests of the workers.

What do you personally believe, regarding the unions?[/b]

Let's face it -- the management structure of most companies is an authoritarian hierarchy which has more in common with the army or a feudal fiefdom than a democracy. A union is a first step towards a more democratic form of company goverment.

The problem is that: a) the hierarchical government is still in place -- which leads to conflicts, and b) the union accepts responsibility only over a very thin slice of the company's affairs.

So it would be like a US Congressmen saying that he could care less about the United States -- that he worked uniquely for higher salaries for his consitutents.

This recent GM agreement where the union accepted company stock to fund their benefits plan was really interesting. It means the union now has a direct stake in the company -- which may force them to accept more responsibility for the company as a whole -- a good thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
According to the documentary "Who killed the electric car", government policy combined with Automakers desire to cheat the system was partly responsible for that bad move by US automakers. The government demanded more fuel efficient vehicles and zero emission vehicles and the automakers decided that the best solution was to claim that buyers didn't want t ...[text shortened]... the electric car.
If the documentary was wrong, I would be interested in alternative views.

If that doco was accurate then the US industry deserves everything it gets coming to it. The thing I found most shocking was that they would not even allow anyone to buy the vehicles, and when they had helped defeat the clean air bill in Cali which would have guaranteed a roll out of electric vehicles, they then went around systematically collecting and destroying said vehicles. Here's one for regression!

Originally posted by kmax87
If that doco was accurate then the US industry deserves everything it gets coming to it. The thing I found most shocking was that they would not even allow anyone to buy the vehicles, and when they had helped defeat the clean air bill in Cali which would have guaranteed a roll out of electric vehicles, they then went around systematically collecting and destroying said vehicles. Here's one for regression!

You found the electric car documentary shocking? 🙂

Originally posted by spruce112358
Let's face it -- the management structure of most companies is an authoritarian hierarchy which has more in common with the army or a feudal fiefdom than a democracy. A union is a first step towards a more democratic form of company goverment.

The problem is that: a) the hierarchical government is still in place -- which leads to conflicts, and b) th ...[text shortened]... which may force them to accept more responsibility for the company as a whole -- a good thing.

Do you think a company has to be democratic?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Do you think a company has to be democratic?

It's funny we accept and expect companies to be undemocratic because we believe that a strong leader making the decisions for everyone is the best way to run a successful company, yet.....

we don't believe a strong leader making the decisions for everyone is the best way to run a successful country.


Ever wonder why businesses function better than governments???

Originally posted by uzless
It's funny we accept and expect companies to be undemocratic because we believe that a strong leader making the decisions for everyone is the best way to run a successful company, yet.....

we don't believe a strong leader making the decisions for everyone is the best way to run a successful country.


Ever wonder why businesses function better than governments???

They don't; most fail within the first couple of years of their existence.

Originally posted by uzless
It's funny we accept and expect companies to be undemocratic because we believe that a strong leader making the decisions for everyone is the best way to run a successful company, yet.....

we don't believe a strong leader making the decisions for everyone is the best way to run a successful country.


Ever wonder why businesses function better than governments???

Countries are not companies, you can't have the same system (democracy), a government is supposed to represent the people, a company is supposed to make profit for its shareholders, not represent its workers.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Countries are not companies, you can't have the same system (democracy), a government is supposed to represent the people, .

Don't kid yourself.

Governments are the biggest business in the world. They just can't function because they have to adhere to what their shareholders say or else the board of directors gets fired every 4 years. So they do what they have to to appease the shareholders even if it is to the detriment of the country.

Originally posted by uzless
Don't kid yourself.

Governments are the biggest business in the world. They just can't function because they have to adhere to what their shareholders say or else the board of directors gets fired every 4 years. So they do what they have to to appease the shareholders even if it is to the detriment of the country.

Governments have to answer to the people.

Companies don't have to answer to their workers, paying them is enough, you don't have to have them owning the business as well.

Originally posted by uzless
Don't kid yourself.

Governments are the biggest business in the world. They just can't function because they have to adhere to what their shareholders say or else the board of directors gets fired every 4 years. So they do what they have to to appease the shareholders even if it is to the detriment of the country.

The important difference (which cuts both ways) is that governments are not under pressure to generate net profits.

Originally posted by generalissimo

Companies don't have to answer to their workers, paying them is enough, you don't have to have them owning the business as well.

Companies have to answer to their voting shareholders. The shareholders heavily influence the direction of the company.

Workers at companies are the same as the public service is to a government. The shareholders of government are the voter citizens. Governments have to answer to their voting citizens.