4 ms·

This might sound crass, but companies who knowingly and actively pay people to do nothing on a perpetual basis deserve to die: http://www.detnews.com/2005/auto

This might sound crass, but companies who knowingly and actively pay people to do nothing on a perpetual basis deserve to die: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179....

antidaily 18y ago
Ok, but how about the hundreds of small businesses and suppliers that depend on the Big 3 for work?
- fallentimes 18y ago
  In short; they're in trouble. That's why you should never ever put all your eggs in one basket. As I noted in this post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=369994 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=369994 my family has already been hurt by this. My Dad was laid off, my Grandpa was forced in to retirement. My other Grandpa lost his job. One of my Uncles who did supplies sales was laid off. Only one of the above actually worked at one of the US car companies - the rest were part of the supplies/small businesses.
- chaostheory 18y ago
  smart businesses (especially small ones) change and adapt. if not they fail. why subsidize bad practices and decisions?
  - lutorm 18y ago
    The aim of government is not to support businesses but to support the citizenry. The relevant question is not whether businesses will be better off, it's whether people will be better off.
- ars 18y ago
  They'll be better off in the long run. Let GM, etc fail, and get rid of the crippling unions. Then come back with normal hiring practices and they'll buy from suppliers again.
- ckinnan 18y ago
  What about the hundreds of small businesses and startups that are paying the taxes to subsidize the Detroit Three's failure?
- chaostheory 18y ago
  forgot to mention this but most of the Big 3's parts aren't even American: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/18/what-is-an-american-car/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/18/what-is-an-america... Not to mention: "Cars.com found only four cars and six light trucks with a domestic content (meaning US or Canadian) above 75%. That list includes the Toyota Tundra and Sienna and the Honda Odyssey. Other Honda’s have a 60-70% domestic content, barely missing the cut"
dionidium 18y ago
We can probably all agree that's it's silly to require that workers play dress-up and come to a non-existent job every morning. But, assuming that requirement were dropped, you haven't exactly explained why it was wrong of the workers to ask for a piece of the (extraordinarily high [0]) earnings the company enjoyed at that time, or why it was wrong of the company to pay it. Am I wrong to assume that the company thought it to be the best terms they could negotiate at that time? What should the union have done? Accept less than they could negotiate for? What should the company have done? Insist on more favorable terms even if the cost of a protracted labor dispute were actually more expensive? I keep hearing people refer to outcomes that appear to be the natural result of difficult negotiations in strictly moral terms. This seems silly. Help me understand why I'm wrong. [0] http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/09/a_brief_history_of_general_mot.html http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/09/a_brief_hist...
- fallentimes 18y ago
  That's a strawman; I never said it was wrong to ask. Anyways... The company should have invested more of their marketing budget in R&D and produced quality cars. Empirically (consumer reports, Car & Driver, et al) U.S. cars have been subpar compared to their foreign counterparts for many years. Though some of my friends & family insist they're rapidly catching up nowadays. In the present, I don't know one way or the other. In the States' current system, the company doesn't have any obligation to share high earnings with their employees. They have an obligation to deliver profits to shareholders - that's it. If the employees don't like it, they can get another job that pays them market wages or treats them better. In short, that's the best part & worst part of the system. Paying employees above market wages is not sustainable. In the short term, companies can unfortunately deliver profits to their shareholders with shady tactics, breaking the law, gray area revenue recognition, poor employee treatment and "earnings management". In the long-term, that doesn't work and is stupid. And many times it's against the law. It's not a coincidence that the companies that treat their employees the best outperform the market. [1] [1] http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php
  - dionidium 18y ago

antidaily 18y ago

Ok, but how about the hundreds of small businesses and suppliers that depend on the Big 3 for work?

fallentimes 18y ago
In short; they're in trouble. That's why you should never ever put all your eggs in one basket. As I noted in this post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=369994 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=369994 my family has already been hurt by this. My Dad was laid off, my Grandpa was forced in to retirement. My other Grandpa lost his job. One of my Uncles who did supplies sales was laid off. Only one of the above actually worked at one of the US car companies - the rest were part of the supplies/small businesses.
chaostheory 18y ago
smart businesses (especially small ones) change and adapt. if not they fail. why subsidize bad practices and decisions?
- lutorm 18y ago
  The aim of government is not to support businesses but to support the citizenry. The relevant question is not whether businesses will be better off, it's whether people will be better off.
ars 18y ago
They'll be better off in the long run. Let GM, etc fail, and get rid of the crippling unions. Then come back with normal hiring practices and they'll buy from suppliers again.
ckinnan 18y ago
What about the hundreds of small businesses and startups that are paying the taxes to subsidize the Detroit Three's failure?
chaostheory 18y ago
forgot to mention this but most of the Big 3's parts aren't even American: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/18/what-is-an-american-car/ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/18/what-is-an-america... Not to mention: "Cars.com found only four cars and six light trucks with a domestic content (meaning US or Canadian) above 75%. That list includes the Toyota Tundra and Sienna and the Honda Odyssey. Other Honda’s have a 60-70% domestic content, barely missing the cut"

dionidium 18y ago

We can probably all agree that's it's silly to require that workers play dress-up and come to a non-existent job every morning. But, assuming that requirement were dropped, you haven't exactly explained why it was wrong of the workers to ask for a piece of the (extraordinarily high [0]) earnings the company enjoyed at that time, or why it was wrong of the company to pay it. Am I wrong to assume that the company thought it to be the best terms they could negotiate at that time? What should the union have done? Accept less than they could negotiate for? What should the company have done? Insist on more favorable terms even if the cost of a protracted labor dispute were actually more expensive? I keep hearing people refer to outcomes that appear to be the natural result of difficult negotiations in strictly moral terms. This seems silly. Help me understand why I'm wrong. [0] http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/09/a_brief_history_of_general_mot.html http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/09/a_brief_hist...

fallentimes 18y ago
That's a strawman; I never said it was wrong to ask. Anyways... The company should have invested more of their marketing budget in R&D and produced quality cars. Empirically (consumer reports, Car & Driver, et al) U.S. cars have been subpar compared to their foreign counterparts for many years. Though some of my friends & family insist they're rapidly catching up nowadays. In the present, I don't know one way or the other. In the States' current system, the company doesn't have any obligation to share high earnings with their employees. They have an obligation to deliver profits to shareholders - that's it. If the employees don't like it, they can get another job that pays them market wages or treats them better. In short, that's the best part & worst part of the system. Paying employees above market wages is not sustainable. In the short term, companies can unfortunately deliver profits to their shareholders with shady tactics, breaking the law, gray area revenue recognition, poor employee treatment and "earnings management". In the long-term, that doesn't work and is stupid. And many times it's against the law. It's not a coincidence that the companies that treat their employees the best outperform the market. [1] [1] http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php http://www.greatplacetowork.com/great/graphs.php
- dionidium 18y ago