| Jump to bottom |
Entitlement mentality, lack of job skills is losing proposition
First of all, please learn to read. I didn't bash you for being unskilled, I bashed you for your entitlement attitude in light of your lack of job skills.
You spent a lot of time researching, maybe you don't work very much or very hard. But your sloppy research, self-aggrandizing and chest-thumping only underscores my point...
I'm familiar with what it takes to be a union electrician (I know two former union electricians)and [in] journeyman programs. I consider an electrician "semi-skilled" at best. So did they, that's why they went back to school got "real" credentials (college degrees) and got out of Michigan. They saw the future for semi-skilled laborers, leaving the rest of their counterparts to fight over scraps from dismembered industries.
Let's face it, in today's job world, you're not competing with with people who have HS degrees or six to 12 months of electrician's training (which you got paid for, by the way). You're competing with people who have 4-, 6- and 8- years worth of college education. They paid their dues putting themselves through school and working in a job with no union protection or "due process". Let's also not forget the obvious, they are MUCH harder to replace than you are...
What have you done? What choices did you make to put you where you are today? Why should you be entitled to the same perks that that those with "in demand" skills receive?
You were paid for training and now work in a "protected" and "structured" union environment. So stop your sniveling because you can't compete outside the UAW without a significant cut to your bloated lifestyle...
Your list of companies is impressive. But you didn't bother to mention which of those companies provides those services to their manufactuing employees company-wide on a global basis. Oh, most of these companies aren't manufacturers. How naive of you trying to compare them.
With your list of McDonald's benefits, you also assume that those services are absolutely free and are as robust as your UAW benefits. Nice try. Anyone with half a brain knows that is not the case....
By the way, I find your snobbish inference about people who work McDonald's -- ("Talk to your employer, even Mickey D's has employee benefits they offer.") -- ironic coming from a UAW member who's skills aren't much higher.
Maybe you should take advantage of the "educational assistance" you've had access to for years (but clearly haven't used), to educate yourself and better your career. Nah, that's too much work. Crying about conditions is much easier than adapting to them...
In summary, your limp attempts to research and unseat my argument have failed because you have only done the job halfway. But that's the kind of job we've come to expect from UAW members. Thanks again for validating my points...
CD:
Might quibble with your delivery, but not the content of your argument. What you're positing here -- and the reaction it elicits -- is a perfectly rational economic argument joined with an equally predictable response: Change the terms of the debate, weight it with sarcasm and a dollop of entitlement and attack the messenger. Welcome to my word. Ain't it fun?
-- DCH
Entitlement sentiment 'makes people hate the UAW ...'
Quote from UAW member:"We gave back our hard earned programs such as Education reimbursement, child care centers and fitness centers design to help us reduce stress and injuries on the job. So who is actually doing something to help out their industry? Surely Daniel Howes isn't."
This quote speaks volumes about how over-compensated these non-skilled workers really are...
Can this worker point to any other industry in the US that provides these kinds of benefits to non-skilled workers?
I'm tired of hearing the UAW members belly-ache about "givebacks" and other "benefits" they are entitled to. I think they should all go out and find non-union jobs to find out what the REST of us get...
This is just the kind of "entitlement" sentiment that makes people hate the UAW...
CD:
You're absolutely right: That quote does speak volumes. So loudly, in fact, that the speaker has been deafened by it. Three generations inside the echo chamber called Detroit Auto can to that to a guy.
-- DCH
Buy from Government Motors, Comrade? No, buy a Ford
Why is it that people here in the Big Mitten use it cover their eyes. How could anyone NOT expect the US Govt to not interfere in the daily operations of GM?
We've had a similar instance where the government has run a company based on political agendas: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Remember what a great success those were?
Guess what! Building cars in China may have been the best business decision. Instead, we're going to get cars built by the UAW that cost more than competitors, but satisfy a political agenda. See the pattern...
Those who think GM will be competitive are either short-sighted or just plain delusional. And those who don't think that Obama just hurt Ford, well, you aren't paying attention....
My advice: Skip the GM and Chrysler vehicles, they've already taken your money for the bailout. Buy a Ford! If Ford takes government (your) money, enjoy your new Toyota or Honda.
CD:
Fan and Fred ain't the same thing as General Motors ... or, at least they weren't before this sorry spectacle started playing itself out. The issue here is that the president and his people are saying one thing -- "I don't want to run GM" -- and then doing just that. Firing the CEO. Reconstituting the board of directors. Reversing the decision to build a small car in China. Hell, the president's task force even is talking to GM's new CEO about "culture change" -- about as deep as you can get when it comes to the fabric and everyday operations of a company.
No, the issue is candor. And the issue is acknowledging that people, even people in Michigan and the Midwest, have eyes to see and read. Yes, even here.
-- DCH
'Fabulous entry!' makes another 'solid point'
Mr. Howes never fails to entertain and make a solid point. I especially enjoyed the dialog towards the end!
| Jump to top |
