Those plants have not been in operation near long enough to be supporting the level of retirees as the Big 3 are doing.

I don’t know this factually, but I bet they are offering ‘defined contribution’ and not ‘defined benefit’. If so, it will not be an issue.

So the Big 3 is working from an automatic disadvantage just for having been successful previously.

If the Toyota, Hyundai, Mercedes, BMW, and Nissan had not been subsidized, wouldn’t things look a lot more competitive?

And the Unions in Detroit had already gone a long way in give backs and implementing two tier wage systems.

How many represent states that gave the hand-outs to get the companies to show up in the first place?

Hand-outs are hand-outs, whether provided up front (subsidizing Japanese or Korean or German auto companies) or used to help US auto companies that helped us win wars against the Japanese and Germans and helped to build the middle class. Personally, I’d rather help the US companies, US workers, and US retirees and keep the US middle class viable with decent salaries.

Yes, handouts are handouts but I think there is a difference between money to start a plant, company, etc. and money to keep one if business who is failing due to poor performance. Either way, I’m not against the Big 3 getting their handout to stay upside right. I’ll be curious if they can stay there.

Btw, those senators you reference – how many represent states with companies with their hand out because they are on the verge of bankruptcy?

How many represent states that gave the hand-outs to get the companies to show up in the first place?

Hand-outs are hand-outs, whether provided up front (subsidizing Japanese or Korean or German auto companies) or used to help US auto companies that helped us win wars against the Japanese and Germans and helped to build the middle class. Personally, I’d rather help the US companies, US workers, and US retirees and keep the US middle class viable with decent salaries.

Otherwise, who will be able to afford the products by any company?

Or is “right-to-work” just another slogan to force people into drudge jobs without actually paying the wages to the workers but assuring that the corporate grifters get their piece of the action?

Right-to-work is not a slogan it’s a policy and it works very well. Not sure how you equate it into forcing people into ‘drudge’ jobs. I worked in VA, a right-to-work state, and I don’t recall anyone being forced into anything other than being bound by the union contract. What I do recall is that about 30% of union workers in my workplace paid their dues… they had ‘free choice’.

Btw, those senators you reference – how many represent states with companies with their hand out because they are on the verge of bankruptcy?

shouldn’t those US Senators be more concerned with raising wages and benefits for workers in their states than in interfering with worker in other states?

Or is “right-to-work” just another slogan to force people into drudge jobs without actually paying the wages to the workers but assuring that the corporate grifters get their piece of the action?

I assume if they don’t want to pay for the union support, that those same individuals will forego any representation and benefit from the union as well? If that’s the case, they will have made their choice.

That is called a ‘right-to-work’ state, just ask the unions if they are in favor of that kind of employee choice. It works very well from may point of view.

I’ll ask my question again – if you are really for employee free choice then you’ll be in favor of leaving it up to each employee whether their dues are automatically deducted, right?

I assume if they don’t want to pay for the union support, that those same individuals will forego any representation and benefit from the union as well? If that’s the case, they will have made their choice.

Or if they don’t want to work a union shop, they will elect to find other employment in the same field at a non-union shop? (most likely getting similar benefits due to the management trying to avoid having a union come in).

Either way works for me.

But don’t complain about the union while receiving the union benefits.

Unions are the very thing they rail against – big business. They have done many wonderful things but they are not without their warts and problems.

I’ll ask my question again – if you are really for employee free choice then you’ll be in favor of leaving it up to each employee whether their dues are automatically deducted, right?

I don’t watch ‘Faux’ find it creepy quite frankly.