Auto unions to own part of GM

[mcwoodduck]

When the President gave part of the ownership of GM to the UAW did he break anti trust laws? or did he make the unions now want more productive work forces?

If the labor providers are now part of managemnet is that anti trust?  The Union as an owner wants to see profits and will the requirments of ownership out weight the duty to the membership of the union? 
Those of you that are union members, would you like to see the Union leadership being an owner in the company you work for?
Could you see a conflict between the ownership of the company and the same people representing your interests in pay and benefits.
After all the lower the pay and benefits the more profit the company will make and as the Union takes about 20% of the $ it earns on behalf of the union as opperation and bonus money.... Can you see coruption?

[LabRat2k3]

I could see how it could be a conflict of interest.

[crustylicious]

Having been a stockholder and employee in an employee owned company I think it is a great idea. Everyone knew that performance was directly proportional to stock dividends. Everyone paid attention to costs, were willing to help each other and not afraid to give you a nudge if you were slacking. It was truly impressive and profitable.

[williamlayton]

That was the results of a large employee owned Chemical plant in Houston. It kept the plant from being sold and closed and was very/is profitable too the employees.
Now, I am concerned about Unions being the owners--more than employees being the owners.
Blessings

[magooch]

I also owned stock in the company I worked for and that was alright for a while, but that's a whole lot different than the union, or it's representative having anything to say about how a company is run.  That's not to say that I think it is necessarily a bad idea, but I've seen the types of people who often times get into union leadership and that would not be a good thing to be on any board of directors.

There really is a conflict of interests between managing a business and representing the interests of the employees.  Ultimately these interest should be served by a successful company, but by their nature, they have to get there in somewhat of an adversarial relationship.  Union members will never abide by their representative getting too cozy with company management and no company could ever be successful if they give in to everything that labor wants.  It's just the way things are.

[victorcharlie]

So, if the health bill stands a constitutional test, can the government force us to buy a gooberment motors car?

[magooch]

You have to look at the big picture and the way I see it is the government we have now could care less if any of us even has a car--much less make us buy one.  Keeping GM alive was just a way of keeping perceived supporters (auto workers) alive to keep money flowing to Osama's continuing campaign to bring total change (communism).  That's not to say that I believe that the auto workers themselves support this regime--some do, so don't, but I'm guessing that their union does.

[Dee]

That was the results of a large employee owned Chemical plant in Houston. It kept the plant from being sold and closed and was very/is profitable too the employees.
Now, I am concerned about Unions being the owners--more than employees being the owners.
Blessings

I agree with William here. Big difference between "employees" own a business and a "union" owning one. The UAW STILL HAS IT'S HAND OUT TO THE TAX PAYER. If they want to OWN GM, the let them take the financial risk of ownership, and stop gouging the taxpayer for their benefits.

[jimster]

In the case of GM, the unions have another edge, tax payer money was/is flowing in to the company, this makes things a bit more complicated than normal.  Tax payer money is a good way to secure votes it seems. 

I agree with William here. Big difference between "employees" own a business and a "union" owning one. The UAW STILL HAS IT'S HAND OUT TO THE TAX PAYER.

That's just what I was thinking. GM and the unions have a whole other deal going on than anyone else.  Company I work for does not have any deal like that, they run in the red too long, they go under like everyone else.  We can own stock in our company too, it's just more of a risk than the unions. What are the unions risking with tax payer money? 

[jimster]

The question one has to ask himself is if GM went down the tubes and 350,000 unemployment checks became necessary, with extensions, and further brought down another 1 million jobs did the taxpayer get the better cheaper end of the corrupt deal anyway,

The answer is of course...NO...we should have let them file bankruptsy right away anyways...I say this because we were told we bailed them out to KEEP them from going bankrupt...so we did...they went bankrupt anyways, if you remember I was one who was saying a bailout would not keep them from going bankrupt...they layed off workers anyways too...they scaled back as well...
they could have done all this without taking our money with them on the way down of course. So NO...bailing them out did nothing at all...everything would have been the SAME if they would have went bankrupt right away.  Things would have worked out even better if they would have filed right away instead of waiting just long enough to spend billions..(that took about 90 days, I guessed right on how long on that too)

Never...bail out a private company with tax payer dollars under any circumstances. There are no special circumstances for that to happen. Period.  It is not the rest of the countries concern to pick out a private company and hold them up, and let all others fail....I do not work for GM, I have never worked for GM.

GM is still runninng in the red by the way...no private company can do that for long either...but these guys will do it forever now...with my money.

It ain't right...

[mcwoodduck]

That was the results of a large employee owned Chemical plant in Houston. It kept the plant from being sold and closed and was very/is profitable too the employees.
Now, I am concerned about Unions being the owners--more than employees being the owners.
Blessings

I agree with William here. Big difference between "employees" own a business and a "union" owning one. The UAW STILL HAS IT'S HAND OUT TO THE TAX PAYER. If they want to OWN GM, the let them take the financial risk of ownership, and stop gouging the taxpayer for their benefits.

I was not going to go in to the is it legal to give away tax payer $?  After all the bail out was done with tax payer $ and in stead of doing what Reagan did with chryster and buy future cars this moron took ownership and GAVE away US Government assests.
But My question is can you have an owner of the company then negotiate in good faith for the benefits and well being of the union members.
I am sure you would not want the VP of a company to negotiate your pay with the President of the company over your pay and benefits and that is what he has done.  Did he do it as collective ism, ignorance, or to kill the unions.