oxlongm wrote:I won't go into the reasons why cordial management-labor relations would improve build quality, because I think they're self-evident. I'd argue that establishing this type of relationship is at least half management's responsibility, and probably much more.

So would W Edwards Deming, the guy who coached post-war Japan on rebuilding their industrial capacity and management style.

= Justin

enframed wrote:a poorly made machine is poorly made either because it's parts are poorly made or the labor building them is sub-par. i can't see any other possible reasons.

- the work culture at the manufacturing facility is the outmoded traditional American hierarchical system that doesn't promote efficiency

- the physical plant and infrastructure is 40 years old rather than 8

- Management sees no incentive to modernize a functioning plant, particularly when modernization involves production downtime and capital expenditure on infrastructure that may be rationalized (fancy B-school term for "shut down") soon



There's 3 more reasons just off the top of my head. I could probably come up with a few more reasons a poorly made machine may exist, and they wouldn't have any more to do with the presence or absence of a union than those three do. The big one in my mind is the age of the transplants relative to some of the older Big 3 facilities. Having worked in both modern and ancient (like WWII vintage) factories I can assure you that quality work out of an older shop is very much more difficult to achieve.



[edit] I see that oxlongm has basically supported some of this mumbo-jumbo I spouted above. Salut! oxlongm! Also in the interest of full disclosure, the factory I currently toil in is a Japanese/American joint venture that is unionized, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass...

djimbe wrote:

enframed wrote:a poorly made machine is poorly made either because it's parts are poorly made or the labor building them is sub-par. i can't see any other possible reasons.

- the work culture at the manufacturing facility is the outmoded traditional American hierarchical system that doesn't promote efficiency

- the physical plant and infrastructure is 40 years old rather than 8

- Management sees no incentive to modernize a functioning plant, particularly when modernization involves production downtime and capital expenditure on infrastructure that may be rationalized (fancy B-school term for "shut down") soon



There's 3 more reasons just off the top of my head. I could probably come up with a few more reasons a poorly made machine may exist, and they wouldn't have any more to do with the presence or absence of a union than those three do. The big one in my mind is the age of the transplants relative to some of the older Big 3 facilities. Having worked in both modern and ancient (like WWII vintage) factories I can assure you that quality work out of an older shop is very much more difficult to achieve.

Wow! Do you work in my plant?

This is the best post yet. Salut!

Marsupialized wrote:How could someone be anti-union is well beyond me....they are corrupt? What, MORE corrupt than the CEO of your company?
I doubt that very much.

Well said sir.Screw the bosses, trade unions are the good guys.

Marsupialized wrote:Right to a job means right to be paid and treated fairly and keep the job even if some halfway qualified asshole comes and says he will do it for 5 bucks less an hour. That's what right to a job means.

Okay, in your mind there's no difference between a "right to a job" and a "right to negotiate and enforce fair terms of a job". That's forcing one idea into the phrase for another, but okay.

So when you (or Venkman's) band plays live in some bar that once had to pay AFM union musicians a scale rate, who is the "halfway qualified asshole" now? Wouldn't that be...you?

If someone with Venkman's idea of "vigorously defending" his "right to a job" happened to be an AFM member getting in your face, I'd like to hear how exactly would you challenge the guy's ridiculous idea that he and not you had a "right" to that stage at scale pay.

My dad is AFM; I'm not anti-union, but I know the difference between shit and Olive Garden breadsticks.

-r

warmowski wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Right to a job means right to be paid and treated fairly and keep the job even if some halfway qualified asshole comes and says he will do it for 5 bucks less an hour. That's what right to a job means.

Okay, in your mind there's no difference between a "right to a job" and a "right to negotiate and enforce fair terms of a job". That's forcing one idea into the phrase for another, but okay.

So when you (or Venkman's) band plays live in some bar that once had to pay AFM union musicians a scale rate, who is the "halfway qualified asshole" now? Wouldn't that be...you?

If someone with Venkman's idea of "vigorously defending" his "right to a job" happened to be an AFM member getting in your face, I'd like to hear how exactly would you challenge the guy's ridiculous idea that he and not you had a "right" to that stage at scale pay.

My dad is AFM; I'm not anti-union, but I know the difference between shit and Olive Garden breadsticks.

-r

I would go see a band called "The Halfway Qualified Assholes". And I'm pretty sure that if your dad got in my face, he'd be leaving the shitty bar I get paid no money to play in with his flugal horn up his ass.

In all seriousness, you are comparing apples to fucking oranges, here. It's a different animal entirely and your analogy is quite extreme. If your dad had steady paying job, I believe he's got a reasonable expectation of keeping it. He's got a right to it as long as he's performing up to management's standards.

Dr. Venkman wrote:I believe he's got a reasonable expectation of keeping it. He's got a right to it as long as he's performing up to management's standards.

Okay! So it turns out this "right to a job" is really not a right to a job, as you've been saying again and again. Instead, it's a "reasonable expectation" to a job as long as management says so and as long as the people involved aren't musicians.

Hey, thanks for showing me the light!

warmowski wrote:Seriously, if your local tells you that you have a right to a job, do you really believe that? I couldn't.

warmowski wrote:I'm sure some unionists take issue, and use the notion of a "right to a job" as a rhetorical point...[but]...The fighting is over terms of that work, not over the demand "you must employ us."

-r

If there are jobs available which fall into the scope of your union's trade, the union collectively has a right to those jobs. You're splitting hairs.

There's a musicians union?
That's so gay

Justin from Queens wrote:Also – Galanter: be careful here. You’ve got a reputation as a right wing malcontent and you’re damaging it.

As Lee Harvey Oswald said "I'm just a patsy."