damn autoworkers
 

that's just plain old stupid. Even if it was the other way around (not allowing pro-kerry people in) it would be retarded.

why does everyone hate me ?

That made me laugh. biggrin:

biggrin:

my post wasn't meant as a negative towards you. I meant that what the autoworkers were doing was stupid. Sorry for the confusion there. beer:

lol it was just a question , have i came off as an asshole towards you guys ? dance:

That is some stupid shit there. I have seen toyotas with more american parts in them than fords, chevys, gmcs, and dodges. Hell ive seen more "foreign" cars made in america than I have domestics. God that guy is a prick. He is basically saying go BUY one of OUR cars so you can park here. He needs 5 across the eyes

UAW = Union. Bringing a import into the lot = massive sin.

[quote="Short Hand":247b2]UAW = Union. Bringing a import into the lot = massive sin.[/quote:247b2]

Yup, UAW owns Detroit. It really sucks... loney:

When I found out that you moved to Alaska, away from your child, I lost any respect I had for you. Being there for you child is way more important that your happiness, any day.

annoy:

If it didn't bother them before the election, it shouldn't bother them now.

I used to call on the GM plant here in Atlanta. They had a rule that if you were in a foreign car you could not park in the vistor lot in the from of the building, which could be seen from the highway. Foreign cars parked in the lost on the side of the building. This was perfectly understandable. But to not let the Marines park there at all, and to add the thing about Pro-Bush stickers, is just stupid.

It is yet another example of the irrational behavior of unions.

I have lived in the Dteroit area for over 40 years and they have NEVER allowed foreign cars in thier lots. It was understandable in the old days before alot of the forien cars were assembled here and before so many foreign parts ended up in the big 3s cars. The Pro-Bush bumper sticker is a complete different thing. I would expect you will see Geofery Feiger on this (big time Detroit lawyer) That would be a freedom of choice. A company cannot punnish you for your politacal views. But the bottom line is it is thier parking lot and they can have who they want in there. Parking is at a premium in Detroit.

Well it is like advertising the competition.

And they don't want mroons parking there, so they deny bush supporters.

Why would they try and recruit there anyways ? If your a "autoworker" and youy actaully have a job in the auto industry....... well chances are if you give that up, your never coming back in... SO why go and sign up for the army ?

[quote="Short Hand":40f8f]Why would they try and recruit there anyways ? If your a "autoworker" and youy actaully have a job in the auto industry....... well chances are if you give that up, your never coming back in... SO why go and sign up for the army ?[/quote:40f8f]


the two building are next to eachother and they shared the parking

I know this all sounds stupid...but I could see how they might be mad at the import vehicles being parked there.

the bush stickers is a little out of line...since america is a free country and all and you should be entitled to your opinion...but hey people got in shit for bashing bush...so why not get bush supporters in shit too.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":c5996]I have lived in the Dteroit area for over 40 years and they have NEVER allowed foreign cars in thier lots.[/quote:c5996]

Fuckin retards oOo:

no actually my son lives in anchorage and i do see him, so i dont were you got that information.

Oh I'm sorry. I read one of your [url=http://www.groundforce1.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1006551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&s tart=30:f6d63]posts[/url:f6d63] where you said you were bummed to pay for a child you don't see. I assumed that ment you had moved away for your x-wife and child. If in fact you moved to Alaska to be near to your son then I think that is cool and I now have more respect for you that the avarage Joe. Like Arkan says, get some legal console and go back to court for visitation.

I think its retarded since the big3 get most of there parts from another country *cough*china*cough*. i will never buy another car from the big3 again, american made my ass, its funny how gm puts out this american revolution ad campange and most most of the cars are made in china.

take note that im in the CAW (canadian auto workers union) and my last day of employment is april 22 2005, because of china.

MOST of GMs cars are made in THe US, Canada & Mexico. most in mexico though.

we have an update, gotta love the Marines!!!!!
"However, I've made my decision -- either you support the Marines or you don't."



http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinside ... 117640.htm

Marines snub UAW olive branch

Reservists will park elsewhere, although union admits mistake banning nonunion cars, Bush stickers.

By Eric Mayne / The Detroit News

DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers union waved a white flag Monday in its parking skirmish with neighboring reservists, but the 1st Battalion, 24th Marines are not accepting surrender.

Facing intense criticism, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger reversed his decision to ban Marine Corps reservists driving foreign cars or displaying pro-President Bush bumper stickers from parking at the union's Solidarity House headquarters in Detroit.

"I made the wrong call on the parking issue, and I have notified the Marine Corps that all reservists are welcome to park at Solidarity House as they have for the past 10 years," Gettelfinger said in a statement.

Wounded by what they consider an unpatriotic ambush, the Marines rejected the union's olive branch and secured an alternative parking lot.

"I talked to Ron; I let him know that I understand he has rescinded his decision," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, a top-ranking officer at the reserve infantry rifle battalion. "However, I've made my decision -- either you support the Marines or you don't."

The Detroit News reported the controversy Sunday.

The UAW has a longstanding policy prohibiting nonunion-made vehicles from the parking lots at its plants and meeting halls.

Until last week, the union made an exception for the Marines who parked at Solidarity House on the weekends. The battalion's headquarters is nearby on East Jefferson.

While both sides say the dispute has been overblown, it revealed the depths of the UAW's antipathy toward the Bush administration and its concern over the rise of foreign automakers in the U.S. market.

Gettelfinger and other top UAW International officials say Bush is blatantly anti-labor and has opposed measures that could have benefited working men and women.

UAW leaders backed Democratic challenger John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards in last year's election.

The UAW's reversal Monday followed a barrage of criticism from both union members and nonunion members. The dispute became instant fodder for such Web sites as The Drudge Report and various radio programs.

The News received hundreds of e-mails Sunday and Monday about the controversy, the majority criticizing the UAW's decision.

"I have never belonged to the unions, but I've always bought (domestic) brand cars," Jenny Pulcerm 74, of Harrison Township. "Right now, I'm driving a Chrysler. But the next car will definitely not be union-made."

Outside the Marine reservists headquarters, it wasn't hard to find signs of hard feelings. A Toyota pickup truck parked in front of a phalanx of military Humvees sported three bumper stickers. One touted Semper Fi, the Marines' motto, the second was a Bush/Cheney campaign sticker and the third an anti-UAW sign.

The UAW decision to ban Marines struck a nerve with many who say U.S. armed forces deserve more respect, especially during a time of war.

And certainly, some said, Marines should be able to support their commander in chief, President Bush, without facing repercussions.

"The Marines who fought at Iwo Jima -- including yours truly -- and those who are now in Iraq, took an oath to defend this country and its citizens," said Russ Paquette, an 87-year-old lawyer from St. Clair Shores and former commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 24th Marines. "There is nothing in the oath which indicates that we Marines will only fight for citizens who drive certain automobiles, or who voted in the last election for a certain president."

Gettelfinger, himself a former Marine Corps reservist, said his initial decision should not be looked on as a lack of support for the military.

"That certainly was not my intention. ... I fully appreciate the sacrifices and contributions made by America's reservists, National Guard members and active duty military personnel and their families," his statement said.

Gettelfinger also acknowledged the decision reflected poorly on the UAW, which has historically supported the U.S. military.

"The controversy over this decision has overshadowed the many good things the UAW and our members are doing to support and express our appreciation to America's servicemen and -women and veterans," he said.

Some supported Gettelfinger's call.

"It took a lot of guts," said Phil Davis, a 58-year-old realtor in Tampa, Fla. "It was based on principle."

Dominic Roti, a 64-year-old Farmington retiree who worked 37 years for Chrysler, credits the UAW with setting the benchmark for America's standard of living.

"They're the ones who are putting bread on the table," Roti said. "We're accustomed to live a certain way. ... You have a car to go from work, to home, to the stores -- not like in a lot of European countries. ... The UAW made it that way for us. We're thankful to them."

But many of those who weighed in said the episode changed their opinion of the UAW. Bill Reiber of Vista, Calif., whose son is serving in Iraq, is trading in his Chevrolet S-10 pickup for a vehicle made by a foreign automaker.

"I'm looking at the Toyota Tacoma," he said. "What (the UAW) did, it just wasn't right. These are Marines and they have a right, like anybody else in America, to express their First Amendment rights."

Lt. Col. Rutledge said he's anxious to get past the dispute and get back to business. Owners of a nearby apartment complex have agreed to allow reservists to park on their premises.

"I know people are incensed by this thing," Rutledge said, "but in the big scheme of things, what I do is train Marines and I'm preparing these guys to go overseas."

[quote="Short Hand":812dd]most in mexico though.[/quote:812dd]

Theres a suprise

/cracks whip and hands out the peanuts.

[img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/New%20Folder/stick_whip.gif[/img]

[quote=geRV]Theres a suprise

/cracks whip and hands out the peanuts.

[img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/New%20Folder/stick_whip.gif[/img][/quote:2f703]
That has to be the hottest stick figure gif I've ever seen.

[quote="Short Hand":fcd9f]MOST of GMs cars are made in THe US, Canada & Mexico. most in mexico though.[/quote:fcd9f]

yes the cars are made on this side, but the parts on the cars are another story.
the place that i work for is a parts supplier to the big3

What do you expect.... Outsourcing. Why would they do it here when they can save so m,uch by doing it in china. Sorry to see... but it is the truth.

where I live the big 3 is a major employer, I dont work for them or even the industry but many people do. This area (Detroit) lives off of cars. From suppliers to the auto factories. I dont see much outsourcing going on

Heres one thing I dont understand about the mojority or democrats:
they bash bush for hurting international ties, yet bash him for putting jobs over there as well. So, in their philosophy, screwing foreigners by taking away all over sees jobs would PLEASE the foreigners?

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":942d6]where I live the big 3 is a major employer, I dont work for them or even the industry but many people do. This area (Detroit) lives off of cars. From suppliers to the auto factories. I dont see much outsourcing going on[/quote:942d6]

Flint. ed:


Why do you think these company's leave America...... TO EXPLOIT CHEAP LABOR. It is not a matter of being nice to foreign people. These jobs were in America. They fired hard working average joe's.....To go and exploit Poor joe oversea, or south of the border... I am trying to be nice while explaining this to you......


Now I await for TGB or Drew to jump in and tell me how stupid I am. rolleyes:

[quote="Short Hand":fdc0e][quote="Sgt>Stackem":fdc0e]where I live the big 3 is a major employer, I dont work for them or even the industry but many people do. This area (Detroit) lives off of cars. From suppliers to the auto factories. I dont see much outsourcing going on[/quote:fdc0e]

Flint. ed:


Why do you think these company's leave America...... TO EXPLOIT CHEAP LABOR. It is not a matter of being nice to foreign people. These jobs were in America. They fired hard working average joe's.....To go and exploit Poor joe oversea, or south of the border... I am trying to be nice while explaining this to you......


Now I await for TGB or Drew to jump in and tell me how stupid I am. rolleyes:[/quote:fdc0e]
na, I'll do the honors. YOU'RE STUPID SHORT!!!! By taking away those overseas jobs, we're worsening unemployment in those areas, making them poorer. Plus, what is so hard about CoMaToSe? 1/3 of all internet morons think my name is camatose. wtf is camatose?

[quote=CoMaToSe][quote="Short Hand":6947c]Flint. ed: [/quote:6947c][/quote:6947c]


I just moved to the Flint area (company transfer) and most of my neighbors are auto workers and they are adding more to the Flint GM plant. So I dont understand your ed: unless you are a Fat Ass Flint Michael Moore fan

[quote="Short Hand":aadd2]Why do you think these company's leave America...... TO EXPLOIT CHEAP LABOR. It is not a matter of being nice to foreign people. These jobs were in America. They fired hard working average joe's.....To go and exploit Poor joe oversea, or south of the border... I am trying to be nice while explaining this to you......
[/quote:aadd2]

First of all, outsourcing and offshoring are not the same thing. What you are referring to is offshoring; or sending jobs overseas. Outsourcing is simply contracting another firm to handle a business or administrative function you are not capable of.

Second, why does sending work to China or Mexico or India mean that workers will be exploited? There are certainly extreme cases of sweatshops and child labor, but on the whole, American companies typically pay beyond competitive salaries to foreign workers.

Please, google "Maquiladoras" to learn more about Mexican border factories. Yes, there are problems in these factories with poor worker conditions. However, when companies like Ford & GM pay the Mexican workers 3 to 4 times the average local salary, is it really exploitation? “Poor Joe” is now upper-middle class Joe and can afford to take care of his family and send his kids to college. In addition, the Big 3 motor companies who have set up operations along the border have recently encouraged the Mexican workers to form a Union to protect themselves. Is that EXPLOITATION? You have to remember; a big American company comes into a depraved Mexican area and pours money into the local economy. Thousands of jobs are created and on a microeconomic scale, the area flourishes.

Finally, in addition to supporting foreign markets and economies, offshoring is actually beneficial domestically. Moving jobs offshore creates a temporary vacuum in the domestic market. However, the primary motivation for moving jobs offshore is to lower costs. If costs are actually lowered, what happens to the savings? An unethical CEO may pocket the extra money, however if the CEO is smart, he’ll reinvest the money locally. Whether it’s back into his own company or into domestic markets doesn’t matter. The fact remains that he is spending locally which increases the GDP.

Think of it this way: producing a product costs $1000/unit domestically. Producing the same item in Mexico costs $100/unit. If the corporation is smart, it will maintain its sale price for the item and take the $900 and reinvest it locally. Remember, investing produces a return (if you’re smart) so over a period of time, that $900 may become $1000 again. This $900+ spent domestically increases the economic well-being of a market. In this example, we take an industry, manufacturing, and assume that costs are drastically lower in a foreign country. The domestic manufacturing industry will ultimately suffer, however the capital savings passed on from foreign countries can be applied to other industries, which will ultimately see growth. Maybe the company that saved $900 on manufacturing decides to double the size of their IT department to increase ease of communications between their domestic and international business units. Manufacturing jobs were lost, but IT jobs were gained; see my point?

What we’re talking about here is globalization. Do you understand that? I think the eventual effect will be that the Mexican/Chinese/Indian/South American labor forces will eventually be on an even keel with those in the United States, salaries and standards of living will be similar across varying markets and the cycle of business will continue. Could it be that the globalization model would actually help third world countries? I don’t know if that will happen or not. What I do know is that you should study up on this before ranting about it with your buddies between bong hits.

Here are some supporting arguments:

[url:aadd2]http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3015027[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/quintero.html[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/myths.asp[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3014031[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%298%24%24P17%2B%21P %22P%0A[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_offshoring[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/essay.html[/url:aadd2]
[url:aadd2]http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/win_win_game.asp[/url:aadd2]

Thats bull shit, fuck half of the "forign cars" are made in the US now anyway.

you are correct. the rule they had dates way back when it was US v Imports. Thye were just looking to keep thier livelyhood. It is outdated today though

[quote=Bleuachdu][quote="Short Hand":cf072]Why do you think these company's leave America...... TO [b]EXPLOIT[/b] CHEAP LABOR. It is not a matter of being nice to foreign people. These jobs were in America. They fired hard working average joe's.....To go and exploit Poor joe oversea, or south of the border... I am trying to be nice while explaining this to you......
[/quote]

First of all, outsourcing and offshoring are not the same thing. What you are referring to is offshoring; or sending jobs overseas. Outsourcing is simply contracting another firm to handle a business or administrative function you are not capable of.

Second, why does sending work to China or Mexico or India mean that workers will be exploited? There are certainly extreme cases of sweatshops and child labor, but on the whole, American companies typically pay beyond competitive salaries to foreign workers.

Please, google "Maquiladoras" to learn more about Mexican border factories. Yes, there are problems in these factories with poor worker conditions. However, when companies like Ford & GM pay the Mexican workers 3 to 4 times the average local salary, is it really exploitation? “Poor Joe” is now upper-middle class Joe and can afford to take care of his family and send his kids to college. In addition, the Big 3 motor companies who have set up operations along the border have recently encouraged the Mexican workers to form a Union to protect themselves. Is that EXPLOITATION? You have to remember; a big American company comes into a depraved Mexican area and pours money into the local economy. Thousands of jobs are created and on a microeconomic scale, the area flourishes.

Finally, in addition to supporting foreign markets and economies, offshoring is actually beneficial domestically. Moving jobs offshore creates a temporary vacuum in the domestic market. However, the primary motivation for moving jobs offshore is to lower costs. If costs are actually lowered, what happens to the savings? An unethical CEO may pocket the extra money, however if the CEO is smart, he’ll reinvest the money locally. Whether it’s back into his own company or into domestic markets doesn’t matter. The fact remains that he is spending locally which increases the GDP.

Think of it this way: producing a product costs $1000/unit domestically. Producing the same item in Mexico costs $100/unit. If the corporation is smart, it will maintain its sale price for the item and take the $900 and reinvest it locally. Remember, investing produces a return (if you’re smart) so over a period of time, that $900 may become $1000 again. This $900+ spent domestically increases the economic well-being of a market. In this example, we take an industry, manufacturing, and assume that costs are drastically lower in a foreign country. The domestic manufacturing industry will ultimately suffer, however the capital savings passed on from foreign countries can be applied to other industries, which will ultimately see growth. Maybe the company that saved $900 on manufacturing decides to double the size of their IT department to increase ease of communications between their domestic and international business units. Manufacturing jobs were lost, but IT jobs were gained; see my point?

What we’re talking about here is globalization. Do you understand that? I think the eventual effect will be that the Mexican/Chinese/Indian/South American labor forces will eventually be on an even keel with those in the United States, salaries and standards of living will be similar across varying markets and the cycle of business will continue. Could it be that the globalization model would actually help third world countries? I don’t know if that will happen or not. What I do know is that you should study up on this before ranting about it with your buddies between bong hits.

Here are some supporting arguments:

[url:cf072]http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3015027[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/quintero.html[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/myths.asp[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3014031[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%298%24%24P17%2B%21P %22P%0A[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_offshoring[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/essay.html[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/win_win_game.asp[/url:cf072][/quote:cf072]


I am not argueing the economics of it. That was never my intention. YES it saves money... YES IT IS CHeaper. It is the [i]morality[/i] behind the concept. offshoring, outsourcing.. blah blah blah.. HAS been going on for YEARS.... Mexico is still in Poverty. Labor laws theri are no where near what they are hear. If offshoring in theiory is so beneficial, then why has it not shown itself yet ? where are these lush flourishing mexican communitys ?

WHy are they fleeing in record numbers to come here... ?

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/US/9604/13/mexican.border/"]http://edition.cnn.com/US/9604/13/mexican.border/[/url]

Why are alot of them living in shacks, in horrible conditions, if all these jobs are being created their ? Yes theri is some good in it, People getting great jobs etc etc....but cheap general labor is the name of the game. Why pay an American worker 30 an hour, when this Mexican, chinese, or Indian man will do it for 2 an hour.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072272/3072272

http://globalization.about.com/od/outso ... horing.htm


offshoring has good, and bad. We will never agree on the topic, THis is just my final setiment on the issue.

Are their not laws on why this is s ? if Honda can only import so many cars etc. So in the end, they are forced to open up here.