Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BM OUT on November 18, 2009, 08:53:17 AM
-
The decision announced late Wednesday by Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA) to locate its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in Charleston, S.C., instead of the Seattle region, was followed by the expected cries and finger-pointing in Washington state. But the really interesting question for Boeing in announcing its first new final assembly line outside of the Puget Sound region is, what took so long?
The announcement is a reminder that the Dreamliner, for all of its delays and problems, remains a highly sought-after jet that should be a hot seller if and when Boeing works out its issues and gets the plane airborne. Boeing is late on deliveries, but it hopes that by investing now in the second line it will be able to speed production of the more than 800 airframes already on order.
But the plan to move to South Carolina is also another milestone in Boeing's slow move to spread itself outside of its traditional home base. Boeing, despite warnings from the likes of Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that leaving Seattle and its expert workforce was risky, made the obvious choice. The company jumped at a chance to establish a base in an area with lower costs than Seattle in almost every category, in a right-to-work state where aerospace workers just voted to decertify a union.
Boeing will be leaving behind a workforce and union that has been at odds with the company on numerous occasions in recent years, culminating with a 57-day machinist strike last year that delayed deliveries and angered key customers like Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson.
The local media and politicians in and around Seattle are calling the decision "a wake-up call," but as aerospace consultant Scott Hamilton notes the move is just another step in Boeing's long journey away from its parochial roots and toward becoming a more global enterprise. The company moved its global headquarters to Chicago in 2001, and it has used the 787 program to spread its supplier base from China to Italy.
The worry for Seattle is that now that Boeing has taken the dramatic step of moving one assembly line away from the region, what incentive does it have not to further diversify in the future? Boeing in the years to come will likely need to launch successors to its 737 and 777 jets, and if South Carolina still offers the same lower costs and easier work environment that influenced the 787 decision, Boeing seems likely to make a similar choice then. Execs say they remain committed to Washington state, but reading between the lines the aerospace firm will likely require concessions from its workers and support from the state before it considers further expansion there.
The commercial aerospace industry is global in nature, and Boeing needs to focus on driving down its assembly costs if it is to compete not just against archrival Airbus SAS but against new emerging world threats as well. In that regard the South Carolina line is good news for the company and its stakeholders. What it means in the long-term for the Puget Sound remains to be seen. - Lou Whiteman
Way to go,the unions at work.They are the death of any company and eventually every state.
-
Most union members I have met and talk to are almost out and out communists in their mentality towards business and the economy.
-
Unions are great when they stick with what they should do.
Protect the laborers rights, drive up wages(which eliminates businesses that isn't effective), and help the workers in transition between jobs.
But a union should NEVER try to save a corporation, or prevent it from moving. That will just make things worse in the end.
I believe in the idea of unions though. It can't be wrong that workers organize.
-
Great post Hedge. I'm behind that belief as well. Unions are a necessity of working for a big company. But they shouldn't restrict the companies ability to move, restructure etc. Unfortunately as 333 said there are some union members who are far too hard core in their beliefs and take things too far (or wish to). These people give unions a bad name.
-
Great post Hedge. I'm behind that belief as well. Unions are a necessity of working for a big company. But they shouldn't restrict the companies ability to move, restructure etc. Unfortunately as 333 said there are some union members who are far too hard core in their beliefs and take things too far (or wish to). These people give unions a bad name.
They not only give unions a bad name, their stupidity costs many fellow members their jobs.
-
They not only give unions a bad name, their stupidity costs many fellow members their jobs.
Exactly. I never liked those people. To me a union offers protection and bargaining power for the good workers. Not the sh*tty ones. It also involves give and take. Too often though members on both sides of the line aren't willing to do so.
-
Exactly. I never liked those people. To me a union offers protection and bargaining power for the good workers. Not the sh*tty ones. It also involves give and take. Too often though members on both sides of the line aren't willing to do so.
There is a time for everything. When a company is making record profits and the economy is great, sure you can ask and make demands for better wages etc. But doing it now seems very counterproductive to me.
-
Exactly. I never liked those people. To me a union offers protection and bargaining power for the good workers. Not the sh*tty ones. It also involves give and take. Too often though members on both sides of the line aren't willing to do so.
The very nature of unions does not reward good workers.It rewards those who can stick around and build seniority.Thats the problem.They save crappy ass workers for seniorities sake and let productive workers fall to the wayside.Its a socialist system,where everyone is paid the same regardless of productivity.
Here was a case where the union refused to sign for a provision to not strike for 10 years.Well,they stuck together,and the company said "fuck you" and the union now has no jobs in Seattle.THATS what unions do.
-
With legal protections surrounding work, the type of union that was needed in the 40s and 50s are no longer needed.
I have no problem with a group that collectively bargains with company execs for increased worker privilages, income, etc....but strong arm unions need to be disbanded. It also seems that it is the nature of unions to become strong so I don't know how to stop that from happening. In general, unions are too overbearing and certainly now too much of an obstruction to business.
-
The very nature of unions does not reward good workers.It rewards those who can stick around and build seniority.Thats the problem.They save crappy ass workers for seniorities sake and let productive workers fall to the wayside.Its a socialist system,where everyone is paid the same regardless of productivity.
Here was a case where the union refused to sign for a provision to not strike for 10 years.Well,they stuck together,and the company said "fuck you" and the union now has no jobs in Seattle.THATS what unions do.
Spot on Billy.
Unions out here are designed to protect the shitty members from losing their jobs. I had a relative in the transportation industry who had 3 decades of seniority, and was only working 4 days a month, and hauling in about 85K/yr for it. Totally working the system.
The company went bankrupt of course... and was bailed out by the govt. Go figure.
-
Another thing...
I never have understood why any industry or company would allow unions anywhere near their operations. That is asking for nothing but problems. If I hire you, I don't give a shit if you are in a union or not... If you go on strike or don't show up for work because you think you are getting a bad deal, your ass is fired on the spot. Don't like the job? leave.
Of course, if the left in the govt didn't back them against industry and business with the threat of lawsuits and such, I think you would see them dropped on their collective ass in a heartbeat.
Unions have killed EVERY industry they have gotten into in this country. Every single one... except government, which is a model of inefficiency...
-
Even if that's not what they are designed to do, that's the reality of the situation Hereford.
-
Another thing...
I never have understood why any industry or company would allow unions anywhere near their operations. That is asking for nothing but problems. If I hire you, I don't give a shit if you are in a union or not... If you go on strike or don't show up for work because you think you are getting a bad deal, your ass is fired on the spot. Don't like the job? leave.
Of course, if the left in the govt didn't back them against industry and business with the threat of lawsuits and such, I think you would see them dropped on their collective ass in a heartbeat.
Unions have killed EVERY industry they have gotten into in this country. Every single one... except government, which is a model of inefficiency...
Herefore that is not true!
Govt workers are unionized via CSEA and other unions like that and are killing us via pensions, overtime etc. you are in CA and I am in NY. The govt unions are absolutely devastating the taxpayer.
-
What's not true?
It would blow your mind what union gvt workers are getting here in CA. If you can get a full time position in gvt here, you are set... and unfirable. I know a guy who worked for the federal gvt in OR who didn't even show up for work for a little over 3 months, and still got paid... then right before he was out he filed for disability... ::) Total playing the system.
Out here in CA you will hear the teachers unions bitching and moaning because they think the teachers are getting screwed because they only make 65K/yr. (average income is about 33K/yr last I checked).
They are even trying to unionize mexicans here now.
-
Unions have killed EVERY industry they have gotten into in this country. Every single one... except government, which is a model of inefficiency...
________________________ ________________________ ___________
That is what you wrote. you are understating your case. THEY HAVE HELPED KILL THE GOVT.
Govt unions are a disaster.
-
I believe I meant it to be 'tongue-in-cheek'....
Gvt can't be killed the way private industry has been. Gvt can just jack up taxes to pay for union contracts that pay 3X+ the going rate for a job position.
Think if GM could MAKE you buy a car, the way government MAKES you support their organized crime labor...
-
I believe I meant it to be 'tongue-in-cheek'....
Gvt can't be killed the way private industry has been. Gvt can just jack up taxes to pay for union contracts that pay 3X+ the going rate for a job position.
Think if GM could MAKE you buy a car, the way government MAKES you support their organized crime labor...
I know, since you live in CA and I live in NY, you and i have a unique view into this chaos.
When people get on me for my views, they dont see what I see, or what you see.
-
What's not true?
It would blow your mind what union gvt workers are getting here in CA. If you can get a full time position in gvt here, you are set... and unfirable. I know a guy who worked for the federal gvt in OR who didn't even show up for work for a little over 3 months, and still got paid... then right before he was out he filed for disability... ::) Total playing the system.
Out here in CA you will hear the teachers unions bitching and moaning because they think the teachers are getting screwed because they only make 65K/yr. (average income is about 33K/yr last I checked).
They are even trying to unionize mexicans here now.
I don't know about State government, but the Federal government isn't so simple. First, only employees hired before 1980 get the cushy pension. Employees hired after 1980 are on a program called FERS which operates the same as a 401K. (There may be some exceptions for people who left and came back, etc.)
As for the union, it currently only represents about 30% of the workforce where I'm at. It's very weak and it's bargaining powers are limited and it's because of all the reasons listed - corruption, defending worthless employees, etc...who the hell would want to belong...
Also, there's no real point in belonging as many Federal employees are considered essential and can't strike. If you can't strike, you really have no power. Reagan basically put that issue to rest with the air traffic controllers. It's a wonder to me that teachers are allowed to strike given that I would consider education essential.
-
Skip - in Yonkers, we have cops retiring on pensions of over 100k for life plus benes and no state income tax.
-
Skip - in Yonkers, we have cops retiring on pensions of over 100k for life plus benes and no state income tax.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Unions...don't care for them myself and I don't belong. Just setting the record straight on Federal pensions.
I don't know about NY, but I have a family member who is a cop in Dallas, TX. They have it set up that he too will get a huge pension upon retirement, and the way it's set up, he can actually have a penision bigger than his current salary. But, the pension is mostly funded by investments and it's got billions of dollars. Apparently, years ago, the city gave up managing the pension and the cops took it over themselves. Prudent investing has since grown the fund to huge amounts.
I don't really have a problem with that type of set up as I don't think the tax payers are getting the shaft. Maybe different in NY.
-
I don't know about State government, but the Federal government isn't so simple. First, only employees hired before 1980 get the cushy pension. Employees hired after 1980 are on a program called FERS which operates the same as a 401K. (There may be some exceptions for people who left and came back, etc.)
As for the union, it currently only represents about 30% of the workforce where I'm at. It's very weak and it's bargaining powers are limited and it's because of all the reasons listed - corruption, defending worthless employees, etc...who the hell would want to belong...
Also, there's no real point in belonging as many Federal employees are considered essential and can't strike. If you can't strike, you really have no power. Reagan basically put that issue to rest with the air traffic controllers. It's a wonder to me that teachers are allowed to strike given that I would consider education essential.
30%??? From what I have seen if you are a government employee, state or federal, you are automatically enrolled in the union. I have a buddy that works for the BLM, and he says accepting union representation was a condition of employment for him. There was an option to not be in the union, but he still had to pay the dues.
-
30%??? From what I have seen if you are a government employee, state or federal, you are automatically enrolled in the union. I have a buddy that works for the BLM, and he says accepting union representation was a condition of employment for him. There was an option to not be in the union, but he still had to pay the dues.
Nope. We don't have to be in, nor do I have to pay any dues. Sorry, don't know what BLM is.
-
Nope. We don't have to be in, nor do I have to pay any dues. Sorry, don't know what BLM is.
I have a friend who makes 185k a year as a cop a nd will retire at 40 y/o w a pension of 100 k for life plus health and other goodies. Also his pension is not subject to NYS tax.
-
I have a friend who makes 185k a year as a cop a nd will retire at 40 y/o w a pension of 100 k for life plus health and other goodies. Also his pension is not subject to NYS tax.
And as I noted a couple of posts ago, whether that's good or bad depends on who's funding the pension. If the cops own the pension and it's being funded through prudent investment, I don't have much of a problem. If the NY taxpayers are funding the majority of that pension, then you all are getting fucked.......hard.
-
And as I noted a couple of posts ago, whether that's good or bad depends on who's funding the pension. If the cops own the pension and it's being funded through prudent investment, I don't have much of a problem. If the NY taxpayers are funding the majority of that pension, then you all are getting fucked.......hard.
We have the highest taxes in the nation. What do you think?
-
We have the highest taxes in the nation. What do you think?
I think NY could probably use more individuals such as yourself calling the legislators out on these matters.
Speaking of powerful, abusive unions...you and I are not far from Jersey. When driving through that State, you get on a toll road and there is a person whose sole job is to hand you your ticket. WTF is that? No machine? An actual person who just sits there, grabs a ticket, and hands it to you.
-
A Labor Strike Against Economic Reality
Townhall.com ^ | May 15, 2011 | Steve Chapman
In 1977, Boeing was the target of a strike by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents its workers in Puget Sound, Wash. and Portland, Ore. The aircraft manufacturer had another strike in 1989. In 1995, workers went out for 69 days. In 2005, they struck again. In 2008 ... well, you see the pattern.
Strikes are an expensive luxury. The last one, which went on for nearly two months, was estimated to cost Boeing more than $2 billion. "Based on previous strike experience," reported The Seattle Times, "Boeing will not recoup that money for many years."
At some point, a light bulb went on in the heads of those running the company: If we can't avoid union walkouts, we can't make aircraft deliveries. If we can't make aircraft deliveries, we don't get paid, we alienate customers and we endanger our livelihood.
After the 2008 walkout, Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson voiced exasperation. "If union leaders and management can't get their act together to avoid strikes," he said, "we're not going to come back here again. We're already thinking, 'Would we ever risk putting another order with Boeing?' It's that serious."
Something had to be done. Boeing tried to address the problem with the machinists, asking for a long-term no-strike agreement, but the union showed no interest, and the idea died.
End of story? Not quite. In 2009, the company had to decide where to open a second production line for its 787 Dreamliner. It could have put it where labor troubles were practically guaranteed. Instead, it built a plant in South Carolina, which is scheduled to go on line this summer with 1,000 non-union workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...