4 ms·

> The article points out how union members are still affected by concessions they made in 2008 to help auto companies then. UAW were a huge reason Detroit was

> The article points out how union members are still affected by concessions they made in 2008 to help auto companies then. UAW were a huge reason Detroit was in such bad shape in 2008. I wouldn’t call those concessions.

eesmith 3y ago
Hmm, who to trust - an HN commenter or an NPR reporter. Or the NYT reporter at https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/04auto.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/04auto.html . Or the WSJ reporter at https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122832097499675993 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122832097499675993 . Would you prefer the term "sacrifice"? That's how GM described it. ("Importantly, the Plan requires considerable sacrifices from all stakeholders—unions, bondholders, dealers, suppliers, retirees, active employees and executives." - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000095015209001529/k47452ae425.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/00009501520900... ) Switching to GM's preferred term seems only a surface detail. Compare "Time to make up for 15 years of concessions" with "time to make up for 15 years of sacrifice". Given the decades of "it's your fault! no it's your fault!" in the antagonistic corporate/union relationship, do you really think it can be resolved in an HN comment? In any case, my point is the imposition of an arbitrary date means asserting without evidence that the relevant parties will accept that as a fair starting point.
- qeternity 3y ago
  You’re missing the point entirely. I said I wouldn’t call them that, and the reasoning behind that is the important part. Get your head out of the pedantic sand. No wonder you don’t understand.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    My point is that mjevans's proposal would not work. You jumped in with a personal opinion about one word choice, in what I believe is a tangential point making a jab at the union. That personal opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight as 1) many others refer to it as "concession", 2) using GM's term of "sacrifice" doesn't affect the logic behind my point, 3) you haven't explained your reasoning, making it hard for me to understand how it has anything to do with my point.

eesmith 3y ago

Hmm, who to trust - an HN commenter or an NPR reporter. Or the NYT reporter at https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/04auto.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/04auto.html . Or the WSJ reporter at https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122832097499675993 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122832097499675993 . Would you prefer the term "sacrifice"? That's how GM described it. ("Importantly, the Plan requires considerable sacrifices from all stakeholders—unions, bondholders, dealers, suppliers, retirees, active employees and executives." - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000095015209001529/k47452ae425.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/00009501520900... ) Switching to GM's preferred term seems only a surface detail. Compare "Time to make up for 15 years of concessions" with "time to make up for 15 years of sacrifice". Given the decades of "it's your fault! no it's your fault!" in the antagonistic corporate/union relationship, do you really think it can be resolved in an HN comment? In any case, my point is the imposition of an arbitrary date means asserting without evidence that the relevant parties will accept that as a fair starting point.

qeternity 3y ago
You’re missing the point entirely. I said I wouldn’t call them that, and the reasoning behind that is the important part. Get your head out of the pedantic sand. No wonder you don’t understand.
- eesmith 3y ago
  My point is that mjevans's proposal would not work. You jumped in with a personal opinion about one word choice, in what I believe is a tangential point making a jab at the union. That personal opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight as 1) many others refer to it as "concession", 2) using GM's term of "sacrifice" doesn't affect the logic behind my point, 3) you haven't explained your reasoning, making it hard for me to understand how it has anything to do with my point.