UAW Enlisting Activists To Assist In Protesting Non Union Plants

So the UAW is jealous that these auto manufacturers give their employees a better life that does not include getting paid to stand outside with a sign. Wait! You mean they actually DO WORK!

Great way to stimulate the economy you blow-hards. I'll laugh when they close shop, move out of the country, start making the cars in Canada or Mexico (some already do) and then charge us even less for the cars compared to the greed of GM and other UAW workers. Has anybody seen the actual employee cost of building say a GM car vs. a Toyota or something now UAW. It's ridiculous, no wonder companies like GM cannot get out of their own way.

We should have let them fail, then they could have filed bankruptcy, disbanded the union and had a fresh start without UAW BS.

The cost of building a UAW car VS Toyota is only a few dollars different, what car company do you know of that don't build cars in Mexico (none) also Toyota is by far the worst automaker to work for since they use the most temporary workers and dont offer many full time permanent jobs so your ideal of a better life is way off. The delusional Anti union trash on autospies is tiring.

no one pays me i own my own business. You need to stop making up your own friends on this site just to deboost comments you don't like.

The UAW is a parasite that can't help itself, and suck the host dry, until it's dead. We tax-payers need to keep our mind on the fact that it's our earnings (in the form of taxes) and our *future* earnings (in the form of government debt) that were so graciously bestowed upon the UAW so they could keep their jobs. I don't want to keep going this way, paying for something that I'm *not* buying.

If unions disappeared, then I would not miss them. These folks would have to earn a living like the rest of us folks folks (the majority), wealthy or not, do it: Through our own resources, persistence, and what the market has to offer, rather than ENTITLEMENT, the union way.

All workers are a parasite to the company unions a very useful in a manner to protect workers rights and wages if you don't like unions don't join one.

Back in the 70's weren't these "activists" also called "thugs"

Why do I have the feeling that Escalade1 blogger is merely UAW_(EX)LAX knuckle-head. MY duma@@ brother worked for Ford Motor Company for over 32 years. He couldn't crap without making it a big deal with the union.

Escalade1: Your uaw membership may have had some validity back in the 40's 50's, 60's because of the sweat shops. Now your UAW Kronies are nothing more than an old dinosaur, who thinks strike threats are still the best way to punish a car company. Your UAW members are a dying breed because nobody gives a sh*t about someone who puts nuts, bolts, plastic, rubber onto a slowing moving car and usually only has a high school diploma, but gets paid like someone with a Master's Degree ability.

Get real: You and my jacka@@ brother think you are entiled to more money, more benefits, more eveything while the average person is having to tighten their own belts. If I had my way, I'd push all of you UAW members into an ice pond. BTW: There is a significant difference in the cost of a non-union built car vs one built in a union plant. We have to pay for your health insurance premiums and pot smoking breaks.

Dude, Tell us how you really feel!

UAW = United Anti-Working Union

The status of the city of Detroit is enough for me to know that if a union doesn't work as a partner, everything goes to sh*t, whether with Fiat's unions in Italy or the UAW in America

The UAW has done for the American auto industry what the Public Employee Unions have done for the State and Federal Governments: That is to send them into BANKRUPTCY.

If you are a taxpayer or if you like nice cars these guys are not your friend.

I can see two perspectives to your truth:
(1) Workers are entitled to good income. This is the UAW thinking. Communism shares this sense of the state being responsible to workers, and needing to take care of them.
(2) Some people, those who are creative, resourceful and enterprising, will make big bucks. Some people will work for these guys, and make okay money. Some people have low skills, low initiative, and they choose to stay that way. They likely won't earn a good living. This is free enterprise and market demand at work.

I prefer knowing I got what it takes to get ahead. I resent having my taxes, and the government incurring debt on my behalf, so these funds can go to the lowest group. But that's just me. I understand you and I differ on this matter.

lots of fact-less rants if you don't like unions don't join them let them dig there own grave.

Paying people "good wages" has little to do with good "economy being good". That's the most ignorant statement I've read I this topic yet. I guess If that was the case, as soon as I paid A-Rod or Peyton Manning all those millions of dollars to play their repsective sports, then we should have been out of this economic slump long ago.

There are many factors that go into moving our economy in the wrong or right direction. Foreclosures, Wall Street, people borrowing more money than they could afford on their home mortgage, credit card indulgence of near or over the card limits, gas price hikes, health insurance premium increases and much more. You think because someone is paid more that AUTOMATICALLY causes the economy to grow. What rock are you hiding under. How about all those AIG folks that got bonuses and big paychecks. Oh I guess after we bailed them out too the economy started to grow.

It's like ansything else - "Supply vs Demand". Right now their is a GLUT of laid off autoworkers who have been downsized, let go or retired. That doesn't mean as soon as possible we start making crazy demands on these car companies that just came our of bankrupcy (GM/Chrysler); just so they can poney back up too the government for more bailout money. Do your job; make a quality product (instead of lip service commercial - "Chrysler - Imported from Detroit") and you'll get a bonuses (or profit sharing) when the time is right.

You need to prove *causality*, that is, that unionization is what made these countries prosperous. Otherwise, we're talking *correlation*, which means "when I see a prosperous country, I often see unions." Similarly, when I see wild animals, I often see ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes. Like unions, they are blook-sucking pests -- you see them where they can find food. When the unions kill off the auto industry in the continental US, then they will dissappear for lack of a suitable host.

Meanwhile, in California and Seattle where knowledge workers congregate, business is pretty good and there is no unionization amongst them. Database analysts, Java coders, PHP architects, all without interest of union representation. And doing quite nicely without it. Ditto with chartered accountants. And Realtors. And Lawyers. And MDs. Hmmm. So much for your belief that unions are responsible for prosperity.

BillFromBuckhead; You do not know what ayoua re talking about. I just got back from spending a year in Australia, am curently going through Immigration to live permanently in Australia, and my girls whole family own large businesses in Australia. They are not heavily unionized, are a very patriotic and free thinking society and are well off because they do ot go into debt more than they can afford. So when you are on here spouting about foriegn countries, know what you are talking about. Plus, isn't most of Europe in huge finacial trouble and their unions have been striking repeadely while their banks are failing there???

I'm just sick of the anti worker BS

Escalade1 says "I'm just sick of the anti worker BS."

You're mistaken. It's anti-UNION sentiments that flow like a river here, me inclusive. I'm mightily impressed by workers who become brilliantly successful by starting up their own businesses, or even by employees who do amazing things because they love what they do (e.g., CG artists). I admire workers who have a zest for life and an attitude that says "It's only a job, it's how I pay my bills... my *LIFE* is everything else I do."

Where I have a problem is in the union mentality of entitlement and thuggery: I am entitled to this job, and you, Mr. Employer, don't have the right to choose who you want to have working for you. I'll show up for work and do my job, while you, Mr. Employer, put you balls on the line and mortgage the farm to start this business, and when you're a success, I'll call you a greedy exploitive "suite", 'cuz I feel entitled to share in the benefits without having invested in the risks.

There is a BIG difference between anti-union and anti-worker. And you don't see it! Are you sure you're not the poster known as UAW_LAX (or something like that)? The resemblance, at least in text, is astounding.

"If I had my way, I'd push all of you UAW members into an ice pond."

Murder?? Who are the real THUGS now?????

And comments like:
"I'll call you a greedy exploitive "suite", 'cuz I feel entitled to share in the benefits without having invested in the risks"

They made your company, right?? Why not do it YOURSELF and take ALL the credit??

I am not a fan of "union mentality of entitlement and thuggery"
but don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

internationalmanofmystery writes: "They made your company, right??"

In the same capacity that a floor sweeper "made your company." Yes, they are needed and useful help, but hardly the reason for strong profits, healthy cash flow, penetrating foreign markets, keeping the competition in check, etc. For workers, we offer them a salary or wage, which they are free to decline. That's the agreement. Show up for work, do your job, and you get paid.

Meanwhile, the good folks who started the company mortgaged the farm, and ran it for ages with no income and no profit, drawing on their own resources to make sure the workers got paid. If the company collapses, which is more often the case than not, then the owners and investors have lost their huge investments. The workers, on the other hand, just stop getting income, and have lost zero investment (because they made none). This is the important stuff that you miss, because you weren't involved in this start-up process.

On the other hand, if the company is the exception, and manages to stay afloat and be sustainably profitable, then the folks who made huge investments in the beginning stand to get their money back, and maybe a nice profit. That's the rewards for being an entrepreneur (remember the risks in the previous paragraph). Meanwhile, there are workers, who made no investment (they just show up for work and get paid, as was the agreement) -- these folks, the UAW, feel entitled to share in the profits, because in their mind, they "made the company."

I am just presenting a different perspective than yours. I understand you don't agree. I'm hoping I may have shed some light on this to help you understand why others don't agree with you, or Escalade1, or the UAW.

Next time you seek out employment, consider instead to join the company as a partner or investor. Come to the table with $250K of your own money (it's a small company), and buy into the company. Be involved in the key decisions. Share in the profit (and the possibility of losing it all). And when the floor sweeper tells you that they want to share in the profits because they "made the company," do as you see fit.

And lastly,
Only morons would use a member or former member as a put down for those who might share parts of an opinion on a single topic. It is easier to label someone instead of having an intelligent discussion, I guess! How sad!!

Would calling someone a moron fall under the same category as "easier to label someone instead of having an intelligent discussion"?

That's because people are "tired" of the same old antics by union members. "If I don't get my raise, better benefits or a bonus, then I'm going to strike". Making an expression comment of "pushing someone into an ice pond" is hardly a "real" threat. Having some goon as a UAW member hold the auto companies hostage because they don't get their raises everytime a car company has a good month in sales, cripples the auto company's.

If your going to talk about quality cars like "Chrylser 200 - Imported from Detroit" commercial, than maybe the UAW members should work a tad harder on QUALITY at Chrysler; less on puffing those funny cigarettes and drinking booze on lunch breaks. That does a lot for the wonderful image of the UAW workers.

billfrombuckhead says "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

In the case of chains, you are correct. But this analogy does not apply well to non-chains. For example, in an organization that has a sales force, high-performers are compensated well (commission) while low performers have to make do with base salary (if any is offered at all). Eventually, the low performers decide to move on because they can't make a good living, or their manager has a heart-to-heart talk with them to "encourage" them to find a job for which they are better suited.

This works out well for both the high performers and the parent company. And ironically, for those who are in a job that's a poor fit for them (those who don't do well as salesmen). The parent company *wants* to weed out the poor performers. It makes sense.

If the UAW was pushing for a contract in which workers got a very low base salary, and mad bonuses based solely on company profitability, then the upside would be tremendous for the workers. But I speculate union thinking will never go there, because they wants to fill their pockets at their employer's expense, regardless of profitability and market conditions, and least of all, based on their own performance (or lack thereof).