All automakers do NOT have to be run by the UAW. I know that none of the import makers' plants are unionized. Those UAW rascal's have tried though. They already tried their crap on a Nissan plant. A certain american MNC engine maker has two plants that produce identical products. One is UAW run, the other isn't. Cost difference >$110mil/yr. That's a fact. Guess which one isn't going to survive.

It's too bad that the Big 3 continue to get raped. They're putting forth pretty good effort to make vehicles that are on par with the Japanese, Germans and Koreans.

:iagree:

V, no arm wrestle, but I'm pretty sure there are a few smallish output
and/or subassembly "import" plants that are UAW...
BR,mD

From my earlier ramble post, below; I'd search but I'm pretty certain there are
some NUMMI/Mitsubishi plants and there is some considerable "UAW
labor" mfg'd 'content' in some Toyotas. Not nitpicking, however.


"If memory serves, some NUMMI plants and a Mitsubishi sub ass'bly plant has some
UAW representation. The Toyota plants have thus far escaped the UAW's greedy tentacles,
but they have them in their sights, I'm sure."

Seems like everyone here's is dead set against unions. If that's the case then i can understand your position to some extent. But if you've have never been in a union it seems to me that your opinion in this matter is based on your limited understanding about the issue's.

No I'm not with the UAW but it only seems fair to me to find out why there is a strike from the unions perspective before taking a firm position pro or con.

No Quick, we're against the UAW union, not unions in general. I think this thread been very specific to union work as it pertains to automobile manufacturing. Why? Well..a plumbers union strike against a business in the US still leaves you with plenty of other US plumbers, however, a UAW strike leaves you nothing but imports.

It's very simple:

If you are in favor of free market capitalism, then you are in favor of allowing unions to exist and to negotiate whatever terms they want to try to negotiate. Nobody forces the corporations to agree to certain terms.

If the corporations want to hire workers outside the union, then they can. Likewise, if the unions want to demand that the corporations only hire union workers, then that is their right as well. If the corporations agree to such terms, then they do. If not, then they don't. If they want, they can tell the unions to get lost. And if the unions don't like it, then they can go on strike.

But if you are in favor of "right to work" laws which make it illegal for a union to negotiate those terms into their contract, then you are not in favor of a free market. That is called "fascism" or "corporatism".

But it's the profit motive that's ruining healthcare!

[/ericmode=off]

You're spot on MD! I should've read your post more thoroughly. Just checked the UAW site, and the import related terrorized plants are indeed all the Mitsubishi ones, the NUMMI ones and Lear plants that supply Nissan,Toyota and co.

:tsk: The first thing that caught my attention on the UAW home page of the site was some bs petition to unionize Toyota plants. :tsk:

I believe i understand the destinction. However the tone in posts 3#, #4, #7 were directed at unions generally. But that's ok no problem with that.

My position remains the same and that is no matter what union it is, it is important to have the facts from both side before one decides that the union is at fault for the strike. That's all i'm saying.

What's interesting is that the article from the Detroit paper didn't say what the walkout was based on.

The article in the CNN link didn't either. One even said that both sides were very close to reaching an agreement.

Very strange...