shawn stonbraker 2
Well-Known Member
Agreed TJR (on both of your posts). I'm not a "Harley Nut". More of a Kawasaki fan myself as far as street bikes go. Could never figure out why someone would spend that much on a bike just because of a name.
More manufacturing jobs lost.
- Thread starter Gavin Allan
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
I love my Toyota.
shawn stonbraker 2
Well-Known Member
Don't start Mud Flap!!!!! I did like my '89 Toy P/U, but I like the ST better.
I did like my '89 Toy P/U, but I like the ST better.Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
:lol:
Chase Straw
Active Member
the sad thing is you just cant throw a union out henry ford tried to many year ago he had people hired to threaten the union organizers. it only a matter of time before toy and honda become unionized people always feel they are getting screwed no matter how much they are payed. if the uaw union doesnt pull its head out its butt it will bring down every company it is involved with
gary s
Well-Known Member
tjr, richard l. , i agree with you 100%. yes successful companies succeed and its difficult to be successful with a union enviorment weighing you down.
mud flap, i just picked up another 07 camry for one of our sales rep. before i gave it to her, i took it for a night and i am still amazed at the quality of this vehicle for a sticker price of 21k.
this model was a not even a 6 cyl but pretty much a basic camry. sorry fusion, you are nowhere near the quality of the camry.
toyota........moving foward
mud flap, i just picked up another 07 camry for one of our sales rep. before i gave it to her, i took it for a night and i am still amazed at the quality of this vehicle for a sticker price of 21k.
this model was a not even a 6 cyl but pretty much a basic camry. sorry fusion, you are nowhere near the quality of the camry.
toyota........moving foward
Terry Schultz
Active Member
"Get rid of OSHA, the Fair Labor Act, the EPA, and other government watch dogs.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Tom"
WOW, Tom who brought these agencies into being === Unions !!!
Who let these agencies get too powerful --------
Government begets Government
Terry
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Tom"
WOW, Tom who brought these agencies into being === Unions !!!
Who let these agencies get too powerful --------
Government begets Government
Terry
I was being sarcastic. China, India, and other "low wage" countries do not have those burdons to deal with. They do not have to deal with keeping the environment clean. They do not have to deal with keeping employees safe.
Things like that cost businesses money.
Is it a fair playing field? Can we actually compete with that?
Tom
Bill Ellis
Well-Known Member
A very complex issue here. Some blame unions, some blame government, some blame management; two out of three or all three. Well, it's all of them and it's not going to change any time soon. Many companies find that the only way to solve this type of problem is to move to a new location in a "friendlier state" with new buildings, bosses and workers. The UAW can try to organize Honda and Toyota as much as they like but will have no success as long as the companies pay a good wage, have decent benefits and treat the workforce with respect; and they do all three. Ya can piss and moan all you want, but things are the way they are. Only 12% of workforce now is unionized and that figure is declining. So tell me, someone out there, why in the world should 88% of the population be so concerned about them?
TSSS,
The EPA, OSHA, and Fair Labor laws is what is gradually making the unions obsolete. Yes, there are still some businesses that operate on the shady side of the laws and their workers need unions, especially jobs in mining, etc. They are dangerous jobs with a lot of helth risks to the workers and the management takes too many shortcuts on safety.
OSHA still tends to knit-pick small things with companies that are trying to comply while they seem to ignore companies that are trying to skirt the laws and only find minor infractions instead of the major safety issues. They can't see the forest for the trees because they are looking at the ground and saying someone needs to rake the leaves!
If the workers at Toyota and Honda are kept happy with a descent salary and benefits, they will have no need for a union. I think they will see what is happening to Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and they will know that the union will only bring their employers down.
...Rich
The EPA, OSHA, and Fair Labor laws is what is gradually making the unions obsolete. Yes, there are still some businesses that operate on the shady side of the laws and their workers need unions, especially jobs in mining, etc. They are dangerous jobs with a lot of helth risks to the workers and the management takes too many shortcuts on safety.
OSHA still tends to knit-pick small things with companies that are trying to comply while they seem to ignore companies that are trying to skirt the laws and only find minor infractions instead of the major safety issues. They can't see the forest for the trees because they are looking at the ground and saying someone needs to rake the leaves!
If the workers at Toyota and Honda are kept happy with a descent salary and benefits, they will have no need for a union. I think they will see what is happening to Ford, GM, and Chrysler, and they will know that the union will only bring their employers down.
...Rich
That is exactly the way it should be. I would be willing to bet they would not be treated the same if the threat of a union was not there.
Tom
That is because OSHA is self funded. The little guy can not afford to fight it while the big guy can. Olus you don't really know how many fines are "prepaid in advance".
I just read in the paper or magazine, that Toyota has notices they are not getting the return of labor vs wage and are looking for ways to bring it back the way it was.
What that is saying is if a company owner tells his/her employees they are unable to give them a raise, but the same doy goes out and buys a red Ferrari and a new multi-milion dollar house, the employees will start to question the employers intentions.
Toyota is making alot of money right now. Are they sharing that money with those people that are helping them make that money? If they arent, they may have problems jeeping the employees under control. That may bring a union in.
Remember, some Toyota's are built by a Union workforce.
Tom
Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
Toyota's doing something right.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen says:
Yes, I am sure for the ignorant (definition: not-knowing) employee they will look at their CEO with contempt if their pay increases are low, the corporate line is that money is tight, yet the CEO buys a new home or a yacht or something.
Like I said, the ignorant will think that. However, those that are not ignorant will understand that in good times and bad, a good CEO adds value to a company. Maybe with a lesser CEO the company would have lost (more) money, have gone under, etc, and they would be without jobs. But I suspect few think of that.
The reality is that the CEO has worked hard his or her whole life to optimize his or her value and to get paid for it, and that's what they do. They often have to make sacrifices and tough choices to do that.
The people that sit in the "cheap seats" and complain about the CEO typically don't have the drive, ambition, and talent to do what they do. More importantly, they often lack one specific attribute that the CEO has, and that is, that they can't seem to recognize that their own fortune and their own value is completely within their own hands to define, to change, to optimize; and that waiting for the good fortune of someone else to rain down on them is a losing proposition.
TJR
Yes, I am sure for the ignorant (definition: not-knowing) employee they will look at their CEO with contempt if their pay increases are low, the corporate line is that money is tight, yet the CEO buys a new home or a yacht or something.
Like I said, the ignorant will think that. However, those that are not ignorant will understand that in good times and bad, a good CEO adds value to a company. Maybe with a lesser CEO the company would have lost (more) money, have gone under, etc, and they would be without jobs. But I suspect few think of that.
The reality is that the CEO has worked hard his or her whole life to optimize his or her value and to get paid for it, and that's what they do. They often have to make sacrifices and tough choices to do that.
The people that sit in the "cheap seats" and complain about the CEO typically don't have the drive, ambition, and talent to do what they do. More importantly, they often lack one specific attribute that the CEO has, and that is, that they can't seem to recognize that their own fortune and their own value is completely within their own hands to define, to change, to optimize; and that waiting for the good fortune of someone else to rain down on them is a losing proposition.
TJR
I don't think what the CEO buys has as much to do with the fact that if you can not produce a profit and expect the employees to take a pay cut while the CEO gets a bonus has nothing to do with someone being ignorant.
That is plain logic. If you are not making money, you are not making money. If you are making money from sacrifices the employees, the ones that make the company money since they build the product the company sells to stay afloat, make why not reward them?
Don't ask for the sacrifices than give it to the guy up top as a reward.
If that makes me ignorant, so be it.
Tom
That is plain logic. If you are not making money, you are not making money. If you are making money from sacrifices the employees, the ones that make the company money since they build the product the company sells to stay afloat, make why not reward them?
Don't ask for the sacrifices than give it to the guy up top as a reward.
If that makes me ignorant, so be it.
Tom
TJR,
I think what Caymen is referrig to is when a company is in deep financial problems, people are getting laid-off, and the CEO is getting multi-$million bonuses, etc.
Yes, I agree that when times are good, nobody cares if the CEO buys a new mansion or gets the mega-buck$ bonuses. Unfortunately, that's when the unions dig in their heals and want more money and benefits for the workers. If management caves in to their demands they are setting themselves up for trouble. When the companies fortunes turn sour, the unions still want their higher salaries.
Many of the more progressive companies that do no employ union workers will usually offer some kind of profit sharing. If the company makes a big profit, the employees get more money. If the company makes a little profit the employees get less. If the company is in the red, the employees get nothing. That's probably about as fair as it can be.
I do think many CEO's are way over-paid. There are many Presidents and CEO's of smaller companies or corporations that have far more complex businesses that do a better job but are paid only a fraction of what these big celebrity CEO's make.
I personally would like to see some kind of law, similar to the one in Japan that states no president or CEO of a company can not be paid more than 10X what the lowest paid employee gets paid. I don't thin that should apply to privately owned companies, but it should apply to publicly traded stock companies. I think that would have done a lot to prevent the Enron and Tyson Foods scandals where the executive staff raided the companies money and doctor's the books to cover it up. I think that some of the obscene salaries of some CEO's triggers a greedy gene in them and they loose site of what they are there for.
...Rich
I think what Caymen is referrig to is when a company is in deep financial problems, people are getting laid-off, and the CEO is getting multi-$million bonuses, etc.
Yes, I agree that when times are good, nobody cares if the CEO buys a new mansion or gets the mega-buck$ bonuses. Unfortunately, that's when the unions dig in their heals and want more money and benefits for the workers. If management caves in to their demands they are setting themselves up for trouble. When the companies fortunes turn sour, the unions still want their higher salaries.
Many of the more progressive companies that do no employ union workers will usually offer some kind of profit sharing. If the company makes a big profit, the employees get more money. If the company makes a little profit the employees get less. If the company is in the red, the employees get nothing. That's probably about as fair as it can be.
I do think many CEO's are way over-paid. There are many Presidents and CEO's of smaller companies or corporations that have far more complex businesses that do a better job but are paid only a fraction of what these big celebrity CEO's make.
I personally would like to see some kind of law, similar to the one in Japan that states no president or CEO of a company can not be paid more than 10X what the lowest paid employee gets paid. I don't thin that should apply to privately owned companies, but it should apply to publicly traded stock companies. I think that would have done a lot to prevent the Enron and Tyson Foods scandals where the executive staff raided the companies money and doctor's the books to cover it up. I think that some of the obscene salaries of some CEO's triggers a greedy gene in them and they loose site of what they are there for.
...Rich
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Sorry, Caymen, it's ignorance...or more softly, naivety.
Maybe the CEO pocketed an increase and a bonus during a "restructuring" year and maybe the CEO was instrumental in making that happen. During such a year, maybe wages for the employees were stagnant or didn't increase much. Employees at the bottom rarely see that and look at things that way.
Employees should not expect pay increases each year...that's issue #1 right there. Issue #2 is that for a year that an employee doesn't get an increase (or gets a small increase) they shouldn't assume that the CEO or other management isn't entitled to an increase or a bonus.
Is it a hard pill for employees to swallow? Sure! But only an ignorant/naïve employee would assume without full understanding of all the facts that the CEO/management wasn't due the money.
TJR
Maybe the CEO pocketed an increase and a bonus during a "restructuring" year and maybe the CEO was instrumental in making that happen. During such a year, maybe wages for the employees were stagnant or didn't increase much. Employees at the bottom rarely see that and look at things that way.
Employees should not expect pay increases each year...that's issue #1 right there. Issue #2 is that for a year that an employee doesn't get an increase (or gets a small increase) they shouldn't assume that the CEO or other management isn't entitled to an increase or a bonus.
Is it a hard pill for employees to swallow? Sure! But only an ignorant/naïve employee would assume without full understanding of all the facts that the CEO/management wasn't due the money.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
The company I used to work for had a group of developers in India coding Records Management Software. Long story short, it had so many bugs and performance issues that they had to bring it back in-house to get it released. Plus, several US government agencies found it that it was being developed outside of the US and that didn't go over well at all.
Jose Santana
Active Member
Wow TJR should this apply to municple and government unions funded by taxpayers bottomless wallets? During the 2001-2004 lean times, whenstocks were down and money was tight most companies froze pay and stuff. Most employees understood that times were tough and this needed to happen... Oh all except the UNIONS, yea they just wait it out and then bargain in raises for those years or maybe an extra week vacation and get a whooping giant retro check!!!!! My tax dollars pay for too much bull!
Joseymack
