09-23-2007, 01:21 PM
My comments should not be taken as pro or anti union - pro or anti corporation. It was nothing but a spoof on this notion that a single entity (unions, government, environmentalist, etc) are the sole cause of the problems with American economic development and that if we emulate India, China or some other foreign country everything will be peachy-keen. Truth is nobody is responsible but the people. Many simply do not care how things happen or to whom, so long as it is not happening to them.
I'm glad someone did bring up Toyota because they are a good example.
"Toyota now has several plants here. Building cars and trucks and making a profit. The people that work there are very happy and well paid."
Yes, the workers do make a nice wage, have good benefits, have mandatory safety standards, and are employed. But, they are also unionized in those decent jobs. Yep, Toyota is and is continuing to become a unionized company. Just look at the door stickers. Their distribution network has asked for union representation. I also understand the administrative and facilities staff has also voted for unionization. So I had to wonder, if they are being treated well, why unionization. I didn't read anything about wages being bad (Toyota had a binding wage requirement as part f their government incentives to build in a certain area). Medical insurance wasn’t it (although there was several HIPPA issues). Nothing related to violation of worker benefit package that was part of their tax incentives and subsidies. It was all about deplorable and unsafe working condition. I read about injuries that the company forced workers to claim occurred off work or be fired. I read about safety features that are removed from equipment to increase productivity and when inspectors show up, employees are threaten with their jobs if they tell the inspectors they are missing during production operation. I read about forced overtime at regular pay.
I'm not saying that a union is the salvation, and it may be bringing in a cobra to kill the rattlesnake, but I wonder, if not for the representation the workers asked for, how far would Toyota go in the name of global commerce? So, I assume the majority of global economist also believes that Hawaii should repeal it’s mandatory heath insurance laws so local companies can compete internationally, or is there a difference?
I'm glad someone did bring up Toyota because they are a good example.
"Toyota now has several plants here. Building cars and trucks and making a profit. The people that work there are very happy and well paid."
Yes, the workers do make a nice wage, have good benefits, have mandatory safety standards, and are employed. But, they are also unionized in those decent jobs. Yep, Toyota is and is continuing to become a unionized company. Just look at the door stickers. Their distribution network has asked for union representation. I also understand the administrative and facilities staff has also voted for unionization. So I had to wonder, if they are being treated well, why unionization. I didn't read anything about wages being bad (Toyota had a binding wage requirement as part f their government incentives to build in a certain area). Medical insurance wasn’t it (although there was several HIPPA issues). Nothing related to violation of worker benefit package that was part of their tax incentives and subsidies. It was all about deplorable and unsafe working condition. I read about injuries that the company forced workers to claim occurred off work or be fired. I read about safety features that are removed from equipment to increase productivity and when inspectors show up, employees are threaten with their jobs if they tell the inspectors they are missing during production operation. I read about forced overtime at regular pay.
I'm not saying that a union is the salvation, and it may be bringing in a cobra to kill the rattlesnake, but I wonder, if not for the representation the workers asked for, how far would Toyota go in the name of global commerce? So, I assume the majority of global economist also believes that Hawaii should repeal it’s mandatory heath insurance laws so local companies can compete internationally, or is there a difference?