metalpeter - 05/12/08 19:44
I have to add a couple things First (e:imk2) you make a lot of great points and think I agreed with everything or mostly everything you said.

I think one of the problems with both unions and the places the people work for is that they use contracts. My understanding is that the contracts determine everything. So then what happens is instead of a company having certain policies and procedures that the union overseas and makes sure aren't violated then every time a contract ends both sides have to agree on terms and they both really just want more. That works a lot less efficently then just having a system of raises and benifits at a place. What gets really weird in some places like if you work for the city and you are grandfathered in. So that what ever contract you where hired under if it changes then the rules on yours still apply and the new contract is just for new hires or wait maybe that is the county.

I think that US companies can make cars and make a profit. Maybe they are not as good as Japanese cars but they are trying and I think they will get better.

Out sourcing is great for other countries but not to good for us. What it does is lay off workers make the rich/middle class poor and make the higher ups richer and richer and richer, since it knocks down costs. If people where resposible they then wouldn't buy a cars anymore since they don't have a job. Eventully outsourcing will turn the USA into a 3rd world country and we will go to mexico to get jobs. If you don't have money to buy a car or or other products then that company may go out of Business if they only sell stuff here. It seems like Coropate responsiblity is a thing of the past. That being said people in unions can't be greedy either. Right now it has become cheeper for American Axle to close and move their plants someplace else. But see if they don't learn the next time there is a strike then it will become cheeper to move those plants some place else and it will never stop.

tiburon1724 - 05/12/08 00:03
There will always be new lower tier jobs for people, it's just that...say, in 2 generations they will be significantly more advanced as they are today, as everything is relative. However, this has not happened in a long time. I think we're all playing devil's advocate, something I love to do. I was taught hardcore economic principle is correct, don't worry about the people as they will eventually be taken care of (even if it's the next generation but a generation must suffer first)

Buffalo's big problem is when the economy started to change, nobody here did anything to adapt. Those $20/hr factory jobs started dissapearing and those people had no other skills, said "there are no jobs!" and moved. A huge part was more local government in not adapting and chasing after the next big thing too. I used to run a gaming website when I was in high school during the dot com boom...had an advertising contract and everything. I didn't continue to learn and adapt and therefore I can't do any of the fancy things websites do today. I only know basic html. So now I wouldn't be able to get a job in that area. Had I pursued and kept up with it I'dbe ok. Not saying it's the same situation but it touches upon the underlying principle.

tinypliny - 05/11/08 23:52
I was about to go off but I could not help coming back at this one: "So we give up 10 minimum wage jobs for 3 jobs that pay 10x more - net gain for the economy. Over time, this forces the nation's population to grow more intelligent."

In an ideal world, Tib!!!
But, we as flawed humans, will continue to reproduce like crazy without thinking about consequences.
We will reject every family planning/control measure there is because we are too ignorant to care!
That is the real world.

In the real world those three high paying jobs will take us back to the feudal land-owning ages with the wealth concentrated among a few. Because let's not forget that money beget power and power begets corruption!

tiburon1724 - 05/11/08 23:43
You're looking at it on a personal, individual level, which can't be done.

If an industry cannot support itself in this country, it should not exist in this country - Comparative Advantage. There are a limited number of resources available in the world be it land, labor, or capital. The entire world would be better off if everyone made what they held a comparative advantage in. For example, all American automobile manufacturing should be shutdown (that is, no longer proped up by the government which will result in them all failing). We cannot make them as efficiently as the Asians, union or no. The Middle East is ripe with oil, we are ripe with wheat, etc. The whole argument against free trade is silly from an economic standpoint.

Of course if all the countries could get along (ie The US minds it's own business and stays out of the rest of the world) it would help open this up completely as it should be, and if governments would stop interfering, like by bailing out industries (again, auto industry comes to mind) and just leave the economy alone, everyone would be better off for it in the long run. Certainly not short term as the economy would have to adjust...those people jobless because auto manufacturing is shutdown must adapt...or we wait for them to die off, before the benefits are realized. Another example is when people say they hate self-checkout lanes because it costs someone a job. No, it may cost people jobs that require no education, but it creates jobs in more advanced areas - people design the software and maintain them. These are higher paying jobs which require education/specialized training. So we give up 10 minimum wage jobs for 3 jobs that pay 10x more - net gain for the economy. Over time, this forces the nation's population to grow more intelligent. Otherwise, we continue to fall behind the rest of the world, which is what has been happening, because everyone's afraid to do what's right for the many instead of the few. You can't look at individual cases if you're running things, just the big picture. But our uneducated population doesn't understand this and therefore won't vote for it, so it doesn't get done...it'll take someone strong in office to get a turnaround rolling.

tinypliny - 05/11/08 23:16
Nice comment, imk2. I agree, wholeheartedly. I read all of your comments and I have a couple of my own to add to the mileau.

Unions back home are a pain. Their ends (helping the worker) don't justify their means. Instead of reasonable table-discussions with the industry leaders, they resort to strikes. These affect economic growth, more workers are laid off and wages are lowered. So in the end, ill-advised and rather reactionary methods employed by the union come back and damage the worker's chances of getting proper work-related justice.

From all your arguments, it would seem that inappropriate use of union influence and power is what is tipping the balance here, as well. If so, writing off unions completely or giving them unlimited power is not the solution. Perhaps, unions should have a code of conduct as well. They are no doubt a necessity as is amply pointed out by (e:imk2), but they cannot run unregulated. I would favour a moderate middle path toward union practices. Keep 'em, empower 'em but don't let 'em run wild.

imk2 - 05/11/08 22:38
yeah, i think i have to agree with (e:paul) and (e:metalpeter) here. although, unions can often times be difficult and even sometimes obstructive, they do offer protections that you wouldn't have otherwise. as i'm sure you know, if you work for an employer without union representation, the employer can fire you for whatever reason he/she wants. if your boss doesn't like you, if they're not making as big of a profit as they like, if you're getting old or if you stir up trouble, etc....if you don't have union protection, you can get fired.

initially, unions were formed to protect workers from the horrible working conditions that arose during the industrial revolution. big corporations, at the turn of the century, had deplorable working conditions, that forced people to work ungodly amounts of hours in conditions that were inhumane. people were used and discarded like cattle while big business made enormous profits. they pocketed all of the money without regard as to how they treated their workers. an excellent book that depicts what was going on during that time is "the jungle" by upton sinclair. that book followed an immigrant family living in chicago at the beginning of the 20th century while working for the meatpacking industry. it showed the incredible corruption of the corporations and the mistreatment of its workers as "wage slavery". the book is credited as the catalyst for labor and food safety reform in america.

it's easy to say that unions drive business away, but imagine being an employee who has given 10, 20 or 30 years of their life to a company only to get fired over some frivolous or stupid disagreement or because you became injured and had to be out on sick leave for a month or two.

unions protect a worker from being fired from injury, old age, disagreements, personal issues, etc. in many counties, those portections are offered by the government, but since we pride ourselves on our capitalistic idealism, our government was not willing to interfere by means of regulations with big business since that would seem to go against what capitlism is all about. although times have changed a bit, and there are some federal regulations in place now to protect workers (such as having to inform you if you are working with hazardous materials or sexual harassment laws) from unfair treatment, unions often still remain the only form of protection a worker has against "THE MAN".

i'm not sure how you can say "if you don't like your job look for work somewhere else"? it's not as if manual jobs can be found on every street corner. you also say "get educated and find a new line of work". you do realize that not everyone is cut out for a university education, right? not everyone is the cerebral, intellectual type that can work in a office. the few manual jobs that we have left here (which are most often associated with union jobs) provide one of the last kinds of employment opportunities for people who, although diligent and hard working, could not manage to obtain a job that requires a college degree.

what about the guy (or girl) who comes from the wrong side of the tracks that would never get passed the first interview because of the way they speak or look? i mean seriously, think about the chances of country bumpkin or inner city kid who has been educated in substandard schools their entire lives trying to get an office job that requires them to speak and act in a way that is completely foreign to them. believe me, those subtle nuances that you and i take to be the norm, can seem completely foreign to someone who has never been exposed to them. the stupid bullshitting and ass kissing we all do on an everyday basis is not an ingrained behavior. we have to learn it from somewhere. many people will say that it is not our problem if there are people out there that don't want to conform to the expectations and standards that are required of people who want to work in main-stream, corporate america. but honestly, it is not a matter of not WANTING to conform, but the lack of know-how of how to do so.

there exists a whole other world of a subculture of american people who do not live in main stream, middle class, america. they come from communities that have different customs, different language and ways of speaking, different values and different beliefs that often often get labeled as ghetto or country or backward or ignorant. to believe that that life style and upbringing is completely by choice is ignorant in and of itself. and to try to kid ourselves into thinking that they should just clean up their act or get lost is over-simplistic and naive.

i honestly don't know how one might expect someone who has been raised in a low income home, attended crappy schools and surrounded by crappy parents, to act and behave in the same manner as a williamsville, tonawanda or kenmore resident who attended private schools and had a stay at home mom. i know that this is a grand generalization, but there is truth that lies in generalizations. and you can't deny that the kid that grows up in amherst has social advantages that the kid from the east side doesn't. (and i'm not talking about money)

and before people start chewing my head off, i am not saying that all manual job employees are country bumpkins or all come form the lower socio-economic spectrum of society. but i am saying, that often times, those are the only kinds of jobs that people, who come form those facets of life, can hope to get in order to have a chance at living a life that isn't spent on welfare or living from paycheck to paycheck. because there are people out there that didn't have the opportunity to develop themselves academically and there are people out there who were not motivated to become "professionals"

BELIEVE ME...wanting to be SOMEBODY does not necessarily come to people naturally. it is taught to you by the people around you. by your parents, mentors, siblings, teachers, community members and peers, and if you are surrounded by downtrodden, unmotivated and uneducated people all of your life, chances are your expectations in life will vary greatly from that of you or i and getting the american axle job is the the best you can expect professionally. and is it necessarily so bad to want to work a manual job? aren't there some people who get a whole lot more satisfaction from working a job that is physically challenging, that requires you to sweat, to use your hands and muscle? don't these people deserve to be able to have a job that will allow them to support themselves? don't people deserve the chance to earn a decent wage even if they are not academically inclined? does every decent paying job have to be behind a desk and computer?

we have to have jobs in this country that allow people to live above the poverty line that do not necessarily require a college degree. higher education is not for everyone, and for those people for whom it's not, there should be opportunities to support themselves and their families without living in poverty.

i think the real issue here would be to address NAFTA and globalization and the reasons WHY these jobs are permitted to go abroad. because as long as people in other countries are willing to cope with lower standards of living (which is not necessarily a bad thing, i mean, do we all have to have 5 TV's and a car for each member of the family?) then at some point our standard of living will have to decline as well to even out the playing field.

and by the way, this is not a personal attack on you, tiburon, or your beliefs; it's just an argument i thought i'd throw out there. i'm sure many people here will disagree with me.

tiburon1724 - 05/11/08 21:29
they go to mexico and the sunbelt because there are no unions there to make their business less profitable and less able to compete with foreign manufacturers! In that way it's directly the fault of the unions.

The American automakers can't make a car with nearly as many features for anywhere near the price of a good import. I refuse to buy a GM vehicle in fact because in my experience they're also of crap quality compared to Japanese. Now I don't know the ins and outs of the automobile business, but I suspect unions have torn them a new asshole here, playing a huge part in why they can't compete.

And unions in public sectors like schools, city government, etc. is ludicrous. Mayor Tiburon1724 will throw the union bosses in lake Erie!

libertad - 05/11/08 21:01
I don't think necessarily that the loss of jobs should be blamed on unionization. It is my thought that the loss of these jobs is related to the fact that there is little regulation in business. They are allowed to just pack their bags and go to Mexico and still are able to sell their products here in the US. I don't know that this is the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Even if it weren't they will move the plant to somewhere within the US were they are desperate and take much lower wages. With these options on the table unions lose. I would not expect my union to work if it were acceptable for my job to be outsourced or moved to another country less fortunate than ours.

joshua - 05/11/08 20:02
White collar unions are a fucking joke. I will never respect it, bottom line. Believe me, if our great-grandfathers could see it they'd be bewildered. I file teachers unions in the same category.

As far as manufacturing jobs go, that is a different story. At the turn of the century they were absolutely necessary - working conditions were deplorable and completely unsafe. In the end I think it was the only way that necessary labor laws would have ever been ratified. Counting on the private sector to reform those days would have been ludicrous. These days its beyond argument that union leaders, even locally in our area, are now directly responsible for the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Then everybody blames NAFTA after the union stops negotiating! Averages of $65 per hour compensation in a dying industry - those days are long gone.

People deserve fair wages for tough work - I'm all for that. My father is a blue collar guy, and I work in an industry that is hell-bent on directly protecting workers like that in all categories. I can tell you from personal experience, professionally and personally, that in a competitive world these days unions are doing more harm than good. In my view they've outlived their usefulness in many ways. The things that they've fought for are all now part of federal law, and we are now in a situation where union demands are literally bleeding companies dry. I have news - American Axle won't be the last in our area.

metalpeter - 05/11/08 17:10
I have to disagree kinda with two of you and think along Paul's line of thinking. I'm not saying that we think the same thing or that I know what he is thinking. Unions are not good or bad and Corporations are not good or bad, it isn't really that simple. Power often corrupts and when some guy working a line should be paid $12-14 dollars an hour (hello no degree needed) to start and they think they should start at $18 you all ready have a problem. Companies want to make a profit just like workers want to but if either side decides it wants to get greedy and take more then they deserve then the company falls apart. The real problem is that it doesn't matter what your job is if you make $10 or $50 an hour up to a certain point you live on the money you make. So you might say well so what if the guy who makes $35 dollars an hour has to go down to $30. He isn't poor but see they have a house, car, trips, maybe kids in school and an entire life style that is based on a certain income level now all of a sudden there check is $200 less a week assuming no Overtime and that is where the problem lies. But see if both sides would try to not be so greedy and work together maybe something could be worked out. I think another problem is that Unions work out contracts when you have a contract work conditions can change and that isn't right. I union should be there to protect you and make sure rules are followed and make sure there are not abuses but they shouldn't be the ones doing the abusing either. We shall see what happens if they really close places it might just be a bluff to stop the strike or they might say fuck america and move to Mexico. On a side note that entire playground thing is so stupid, if some company donates something let them put it up since they are the ones paying for it. If the union guys work on putting up and are paid then it really isn't a donation. I think the company I work for may have donatated it but I'm not sure since I have nothing to do with that kind of stuff.

james - 05/11/08 16:31
I love unions. The people who brought us the 8 hour work day, weekends, and retirement can't be all bad. Unions in manufacturing jobs are a bit bewildering. Factory jobs should be paying shit because it is a job that could very easily go overseas. Paying a guy in an axel plant more than a teacher is ridiculous and makes no sense in todays economy.

paul - 05/11/08 16:22
I totally love unions - when they don't abuse their power. Although, I am an extremely hard worker - dedicated to my job - I love the protections afforded by working in a union and the benefits I would most likely otherwise not have such as great health care and ample sick time/time off.

tiburon1724 - 05/10/08 22:43
lol well i have a LOT of really good porn on my desktop's hard drive...one day somehow I'll get it off and onto here!

carolinian - 05/10/08 22:28
The important thing is that it opens all your prOn.

tiburon1724 - 05/10/08 14:54
Got a Dell Vostro, only $400. I don't do anything really intense like gaming or anything on it so it suits my needs just fine.

james - 05/10/08 14:39
That is very exiting. Congrats

hodown - 05/10/08 13:56
yay! new laptops are exciting. what kind did you get?

joshua - 05/09/08 13:07
The only thing to do, if you were me anyway, is to feign bigotry and tell the person that Mormons aren't welcome in my home and usher them quickly off my steps. Whether or not they were Mormon is immaterial, as at that point you've confused your prey and by the time they process how awful that was, you've already locked your door and sat down for your nice cup of coffee.

paul - 05/08/08 23:07
That is creeptastic. I would have never let him in the house.

tiburon1724 - 05/02/08 20:37
yeah I took out the video card and put it back in, took out the new RAM and put the old one back where it was, still nothing. I don't get it! No logic. Paul, thanks for the offer.. The laptop should get me through until the new Dell I ordered gets here.

carolinian - 05/02/08 14:22
If the old ram that's sittng alongside the new ram got unseated and is imperceptibly loose, it might explain what's happening. You might want to try taking out the old ram and then putting it back in very firmly.

Also, when you work with RAM, always make sure that you've grounded yourself to eliminate state shocks. Try touching either the computer case or the metal on your kitchen/bathroom sink.

metalpeter - 05/01/08 17:41
I don't know anything but try taking out the new RAM and Putting the old RAM back in. If it works then you know that the new ram is the problem but if it doesn't work then you know that somehow you changed things. I'm not sure if that would really work but it might.

mrmike - 05/01/08 17:02
Video card may have loosened its grip killing the signal? just a thought.

paul - 05/01/08 14:13
Sorry, that is way out of my computer specialty - I am a software guy. I wish you the best of luck. I have a kind of good windows PC you can use if you need it.

chico - 04/21/08 21:16
Huh! That's funny. I try not to leave the city.

No offense to anyone who lives in or likes Amherst, it's just not for me. And it's a little scary too.

james - 04/21/08 11:40
Well, hopefully these security cameras will make Elmwood slightly safer...

drew - 04/21/08 11:09
Amherst is a far more dangerous place. I would hate to catch that fear.

tiburon1724 - 04/21/08 11:04
Actually she had an accent, I think she was Hispanic of some sort...which doesn't mean she's not American necessarily of course

zobar - 04/21/08 08:16
You sent her to TT?! Man, she's never going to make it back across Niagara Falls Blvd with all of her hubcaps.

- Z

paul - 04/21/08 00:41
Sounds like the world is a dangerous place for her. Maybe she is just urbanophobic, lol. Was she American or a foreigner living in Amherst?