Once again Imidozal97, you aren't doing your homework and making erronious conculusions, based on a personal bias perhaps? Responding to your 'wink wink' remark "And Unions are totally responsible for this no doubt", I suggest to you that responsibility lies on both sides. The UAW isn't blameless by any means. Their part in the equation lies mostly in their determined, almost militant resistance to any changes in work practices over the years--a philosophy to which they still subscribe to for the most part. Things haven't changed all that much on the shop floor these days--it's a painfully slow process, and probably one of the major stumbling blocks to significant efficiency improvements for the Big3. The Big3 employers have made efforts to change things, but (in a sense shame on them) only token progress has been made so far. They have historically been unwilling to push too hard because the UAW has been a force to be reckoned with when they really wanted to buck efforts to change things.(Wildcats, work stoppages, calling any changes a strike issue at negotiations, etc.) There are sill a great many Big3 work practices etched in stone for years that have to change in order for real improvements in cost/efficiency to happen. The big advantage offshore automakers had when they set up their shops here was their plants were greenfield sites, and they were able to establish more realistic and sensible work practices from the git go. In fairness to your alledged 'tour' of a GM plant, the General has done a fair bit of work making change on the shop floor, but still lags behind Chrysler.(Now if Chrysler can come up with a more saleable product line!!) Ford, on the other hand, has a long way to go to catch up with the other guys. The thing that I see happening though, and it concerns me greatly, is a tendency of all of them to close plants--perhaps they see this as the quick and dirty/less painful way to gain efficiencies in their overall operations.
Many analysts suggest the UAW came out the clear winners in the GM negotiations. (Also to a degree Chrysler--it follows the 'pattern') The VEBA plan (effective 2010 BTW) calls for a $30 Billion down payment by GM, plus a $165 Million 'top up' to cover fund shortfalls, every year for 20 years. I don't think there's much of a chance for a 'Caterpillar' situation for the GM folks.
"While half the state's employees earn less than $29,738 a year, the unions were successful in pushing salaries upwards, and in one year some workers received raises as much as 20 percent. Daniels’ order made all of this subject to unilateral decision by state bureaucrats. In place of grievance procedures, he gave state workers the right to appeal discipline decisions to the State Employees Appeals Commission, which has a record of reversing only 2 percent of managerial decisions."
"The assault on Midwest public workers, says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, “echoes a message coming from the White House down to men and women on the front lines of our struggles against poverty, disease, crime and terrorism all across our country: ‘We expect first-class devotion, service and sacrifice, but we will treat you like second-class citizens,’"
" Officials of the Honda plant that recently located in Indiana have stated that Indiana residents living outside of a 100-mile radius of the plant would not be considered for employment. This policy excludes areas in the state that have been particularly hard hit by downsizings, plant closings and plant relocations. We question the motives of Honda as well as that of Gov. Daniels, who was in favor of this policy. Indiana taxpayers pay into the general fund that supported the programs and tax abatements allowing Honda to locate here. Therefore, everyone should have an equal opportunity to apply for positions with that company. Selective hiring practices such as this are usually designed to exclude some faction of the population and seek to circumvent equal opportunity statutes and guidelines. This opens the door to worker exploitation and sets a dangerous precedent for other companies planning to locate here. These practices are also a veiled attempt to exclude those individuals who might have belonged to a union at previous workplaces. Union members stay informed and know their rights under the law. A company that wants employees who do not know their rights is looking to exploit those workers. Unions have advanced workers’ rights and safety, and workers have a growing desire to know their rights. Some believe a unionized work force was one of the main reasons jobs left Indiana, and Madison County in particular. "
First of all, it's only the salary that's higher. when you add in bennies (pension, healthcare, etc.) the big 3 still pays more.
Second of all, as far as the "free market" concept goes, do you think if you went to one of these big box stores w/ their 110% price guarantee and showed them an ad for a TV from a store 500 miles away that was lower priced, that they would give you the 110% rebate??? No. Why??? The other store isn't in YOUR market area. They would have to honor it at their store 500 mi. away, but not where you live. In fact, due to market conditions(lower cost of living), the price might be lower at the store 500 miles away. If their costs are more where you live, you end up paying more. Its that simple.
That is why companies take their mfring to the South or overseas-lower costs. But what Honda seems to be doing by ruling certain counties out for employment is MANIPULATING the market to try to ensure that everybody will play by THEIR rules. Nobody told them to build a plant in Ohio or Indiana if they want the lower costs. In contrast, there is no guarantee that their hires WON'T unionize, even if it was Alabama they moved to. All they are doing is trying to skirt the rules. Do you think that the bigwigs at GM or Chrysler didn't anticipate the strikes??? Of course they did!!! They knew what was MOST likely to happen. All this hullabaloo over the last few weeks about the strikes is amazing!!!! In the end what happened???? They NEGOTIATED (what a NOVEL concept) an agreement that was ACCEPTABLE to both sides.
companies have the right to examine your personal lifestyle to determine if you will be too costly for them...
Smokers, drinkers, tobacco chewers, poor credit history, bad criminal background check, and maybe possibly sexual orientation...all these groups enagage in risky behavior that either adds to absenteeism, illness, or leads to a raise in health incurance to the the greater use of the benefit...employers have the absolute right to control their costs, plain and simple...
Now, if they DIDN'T offer health insurance, they might only look at habits that affect attendance and absenteeism...
The company could also terminate its group health ins and offer to pay each emplyee a sum of money to let them buy it on their own...so, if everyone was allowed an extra $4,000 yearly, they could go out and buy their own policy...so, if a nonsmoker found a policy for $3,800, they would save an extra $200...if a 400 pound smoker/drinker/tobacco chewer found a policy for $5,000, he would have to kick in the extra, and it would be HIM who pays the extra cost of his bad habits...the company may or may not raise its allowance each year, but those with bad habits would simply suffer the cost of their own habits, and it would not affect the employer at all, except for absenteeism...
What many of you seem to think is that you can do ANYTHING you want in your private life, and expect someone else to pay for it in higher premiums...
Yes, your private life is private, to an extent...when it can possibly or probably have an effect on ANY cost borne by your employer, the employer now has the right, NO, HAS THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION to screen those applicants out in order to minimize costs and maximize profits...
There's that dirty word again, profits...but, always remember, no company was ever established to create a job, it was established to make a profit for its owners or shareholders...only out of the profit can a job be created...so, for those who are incapable of understanding that they really have no rights when they apply for a job if they carry bad habits and there are others without those habits jusr as well qualified...
Even a credit check can and should be used against you, since, if you cannot handle your financial life, will it affect your employment in some way, esp if you are applying for, say, bank teller???
Should ex-cons be given another chance???...in the abstract, yes, most folks deserve a second chance...but every company has the right to know your criminal background, so they can make an INFORMED decision as to whether or not THEY want to be the company that takes the chance and hires you...they should know so their decision is informed...
There is just too much at stake in our competitive business world, and anything that counts against you that will hurt your employer should be revealed to that employer...luckily, most thorough background checks will reveal any knowledge we need to know, so we can attempt to hire only those who avoid risky habits that will eventually cost the employer $$$...
This is absolutely outrageous imidazol97. I think it's only right that Honda, reimburses the state tax payers of Indiana, for their contribution. I don't remember how much the state gave honda, in tax breaks but if they want to discriminate against certain "groups" like union people and African Americans. The sad thing is they aren't denying the claims. Where is the ACLU ???? I need to get my hands on a Honda, job application. This could be worth some buck$. :mad:
I get labeled a socialist, commie, Marxist, etc, but the power you think employers should have really isn't much different is it ?
It's as if you believe employer's have the right to run a company like a dictatorship. :surprise: That is all fine and good but many of these employers are being "subsidized" by these smokers, drinkers, tobacco chewers, different sexual orientation, obese, people with poor credit, etc, folks that are paying taxes and they the company are not.
They think their business has the right to not pay tax to the local area because they provide jobs. Well when they discriminate against " certain groups" because of so-called risky behavior then as I said in a earlier post they should not be taking public money when they build, expand, and should be a contributor, rather than a leach.
"it's only right that Honda, reimburses the state tax payers of Indiana, for their contribution"
I'm not defending the company Rockylee, but that statement shows you are taking a wrong and very narrow view in this matter. This business will pay SIGNIFICANT taxes (income tax, realty tax, business tax, sales tax, impost fees, and so on back to the state and municipality--well into the future. This isn't a one way street where the state just hands out money. This is a solid investment into ITS future. Also, there will be many millions of dollars passed thru to the state and the surrounding community by virtue of payroll being spent there by its employees. (Along with their income and sales taxes flowing back into the state coffers as well)
"discriminate against certain "groups" like union people and African Americans"
Hold on there Rockylee--nowhere do I see any mention of them not hiring African Americans! (Or is your suggestion a slight embellishment??) Furthermore, the largest city in the state--Indianapolis--is within their hiring radius. Come on now-- there aren't union people in that city to apply for jobs at that plant?? I suggest the question of anyone being "entitled" to a job there is the issue--your idea of "entitlement" is asking a bit too much IMO. Whatever happened to the idea that we "earn" the job? Methinks your exclusive focus on "rights" doesn't do justice to the other side of the coin--"responsibilities". Don't these two requisites go hand in hand--or aren't they both a part of your value system?
Indiana is an "at will" employment state. That means a worker can quit any time he/she wants to and the company can terminate an employee for "a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all" which is how my company's lawyers describe "at will" employment.
Anyone has the right not to accept a job but if they do, they essentially agree to the rules the employee makes, as long as said rules don't violate any laws.
Why so much negative about this new Honda plant in Indiana? What about the positives? A job for some who don't have one. More employment thru its construction. Revenue flowing into the area. Spin offs in services for the new plant. Parts manufacturing moving into the area. Not only that, there's more to the 'no former union employees' story and other complaints bantied about here. Wall Street Journal, Oct.10,2007--"The auto maker wants workers to live within an hour's drive of the plant so they can get to work on time even in bad weather. The hiring area does include a UAW-organized plant in Indianapolis and one organized by the International Union of Electrical Workers in Connersville, both of which closed and together idled about 1,500 people." (Note for Rockylee--One of those closed plants was a GM facility--anything to say about that?) I guess if you only look at the negatives, it can be portrayed as a negative, but it's not by any means a negative. Most folks would see it as a plus for the area. One more thing--for those who don't see a Honda as a decent employer--there are choices. One big one is not to apply there.
>African-American leaders also have questioned whether Honda's hiring plan discriminates against black workers. The population of the 20-county hiring zone is 80 percent white, with almost all of the nonwhites living in Marion County, where Indianapolis is located. In the hiring zone's other 19 counties, the population is 96 percent white. "I think it's wrong and unfair," said James Burgess, president of the Madison County NAACP in Anderson, of Honda's hiring policy.
A racial-discrimination argument defeated a hiring policy Honda used in the 1980s when it expanded two plants in rural Ohio and gave preference to applicants who lived within 30 miles of the facilities. That excluded residents of Columbus, the nearest large city to both plants, with a large African-American population, while the population within the hiring zone was overwhelmingly white. Honda settled a complaint by the EEOC by paying 370 black and women workers $6 million and offering them jobs.
They think their business has the right to not pay tax to the local area because they provide jobs.
Corporations do pay Federal, State & Local taxes.
In the past week, quarterly earnings were announced for the three largest integrated oil and gas producers in the nation. The most recent media attention is directed towards the earnings report from Exxon Mobil. (NYSE:XOM) These earnings come on the heels of last week’s announcements by ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX) Based on preliminary SEC filings, these companies reported combined annual corporate gross earnings of $108.2 billion, throughout the course of 2005.
It is important to remember that net income reported on financial statements, is the result of subtracting income-based taxes from corporate gross earnings. Before shareholders receive a return on their investment, the government takes its significant share off the top.
During 2005, these three companies paid a combined corporate income tax burden of $44.3 billion on their reported gross earnings. Compared to last year’s combined corporate income taxes of $29.7 billion, their burden for 2005 has increased by 49.2 percent and follows the overall trend of escalating corporate tax collections in the United States. In addition to corporate income taxes, the same companies paid or remitted over $114.5 billion in other taxes in 2005, including franchise, payroll, property, severance and excise taxes.
When the federal statutory corporate income tax rate of 35 percent is added to the weighted average of state corporate income taxes, the resulting rate of 39.3 percent means that corporations in the United States are currently at an international competitive disadvantage. In fact, as recent research has indicated, the top combined state and federal statutory corporate income tax in the U.S. is higher than any other country in the OECD.
"Honda's policy in Greensburg is a departure from the way it and other foreign auto makers have previously staffed plants in the U.S. Several years ago Honda put a plant in Lincoln, Ala., and took applicants from anywhere. It ended up hiring workers from 60 of Alabama's 67 counties, according to the company. The state, which had provided Honda with $158 million in incentives, required the company to consider workers from across the state. "We wanted to spread the opportunity across our state and wanted plants to be able to hire the best people in the state," said Calvin Miller, director of the Alabama's Talladega County Economic Development Authority.
Korean auto maker Hyundai Motor Co. also opened a plant in Alabama in 2005 and accepted job applications statewide as a condition of Alabama's incentive plan, said Hyundai spokesman Robert Burns.
"When Toyota Motor Corp. put a plant in Indiana, in Princeton in the southwest corner of the state, anyone from Indiana was allowed to apply for a job. But in the end Toyota hired almost all of the workers from within 50 miles of the plant, a Toyota spokesman said. At Toyota's new truck plant in San Antonio, skilled tradesmen were hired from as far away as the Midwest, the spokesman said, but neither plant has unionized."
>has the right to not pay tax to the local area because they provide jobs.
An interesting story about local costs is when the Ford plant in Ohio was being planned in Clermont Cty. the Governor Rhodes et al were exceedingly anxious to land anything resembling a manufacturing business because steel and others had been closing all over the state. He forgave $500,000 in tapin fees for the local water company but expected the area people using the same water company which covered several townships to pay the $500,000 cost of tapin out of the local economy. Most of the jobs were going to other workers from regional plants which had been downsized. Workers from Louisville (Kentucky, a different state) even got jobs there.
This was the Ford transmission plant in Batavia. I believe it's been closed or is being closed. This was when $500,000 was a large chunk of money, BTW.
Well, perhaps the NAACP sees their hiring policy as 'wrong and unfair' , but that's only speculation at this point. If it ever gets down to a court decision, then we would place some credibility in it. Until then, it's just one opinion. Insisting in this discussion that it's a done deal is misleading. Besides, do you think the NAACP is going to keep quiet when there's an opportunity for employment in the area? Sounds like smart politics on their part IMO!!
So who says Honda can't develop a new hiring policy? It's one thing to say it's different, but is it against any rules to do so? Don't think for a minute that any of the Big3 would dearly love to be able to do something different like that!! But there's not much hiring going on there just now, is there? :sick:
"It's as if you believe employer's have the right to run a company like a dictatorship...They think their business has the right to not pay tax to the local area because they provide jobs. Well when they discriminate against " certain groups" because of so-called risky behavior then as I said in a earlier post they should not be taking public money when they build, expand, and should be a contributor, rather than a leach."
Once again, rocky, you show your lack of understanding of business, which does explain why you think that employers have little or no rights at all, except the right to hire any worthless worker who can breathe on their own without an iron lung...
Tax abatements are often a minor cost to the state, who is usually BEGGING an auto plant to set roots in that state...think of it like seed money...once the plant starts construction many locals who were making $6/hour stocking shelves are now part of the construction team...the plant will generate millions in state income taxes (unless it is a no tax state like TN, TX, FL, WY, NV, AK), but the economic activity surrounding a 50 miles radius of the plant will be immense...better payroll usually means more expensive housing (real estate taxes) and all the industries that supply it...don't forget all the suppliers that set up shop around the auto plant as its supliers, and have their payrolls...don't forget the restaurants who supply these people, truckers moving everything around, and, what I love and you hate to call the "trickle down effect" because it starts with the wealthy (corporations) and trickles down to the entire economic zone that serves and is served by the plant, and most areas are very much improved when an auto plant comes in...
So, if the state foregoes, say, 10 years worth of property tax on the plant, but gains in every other way, it is a small price to "pay" (an investment, really) to get the plant...which is why states almost always fall all over themselves trying to get an auto plant in their state...
But, since all you can see with your limited horizon is "no additional union jobs" (with their rotten work habits and entitlement attitude), you cannot understand the true economic impact of such a small tax abatement of a few hundred million...don't forget, also, once the 10 year abatement ends, they will be paying their property tax which will then be a windfall for the local area...
The trickle down effect will ALWAYS be from richer to poorer, since the poorer have nothing with which to trickle UP...always remember...employees are quite expendable, as they prove it daily by their simple turnover...it is the employer who lends stability, simply because it is difficult to pick up an auto plant and move it down the road...
Further remember: if employees could create their own jobs, they would...BUT THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY CAN'T...so, capitalism depends on the rich and the employers, never the employees...
Nobody ever got a job from a poor man...Coolidge said that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...
For all your railing against the rich capitalists, it is they who are responsible for jobs, for it could never be the other way around...that is why I attribute all the rights to the employer, never the employee, for without the employer, the employee does not exist, except as another unit in a soup line...
"Once again, rocky, you show your lack of understanding of business, which does explain why you think that employers have little or no rights at all, except the right to hire any worthless worker who can breathe on their own without an iron lung..."
Ah! So you admit to discriminating against workers in iron lungs! :P
I'm not with you on total philosophy but those tax breaks to bring in plants make perfect sense. In Honda's case it's not where they would have located otherwise.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The tax breaks are $150 million paid by all of Indiana, not just the 30 mile radius landowners. Why shouldn't all people have an opportunity to get a job.
There are people who move to be close to where they're employed. Someone in Anderson can move even closer. Although State Route Highway 9 is pretty direct. There are a couple of other short routes. I'll bet apartments are being built in the areas closer to the plant as we speak. I recall my nephew living with 4 other guys when he worked in St. Louis and lived in Ohio.
Marsha7, I believe you're excessively harsh in your stereotypical description of unions (UAW or otherwise) with "rotten work habits and entitlement attitudes" Sure, there are some who bask in entitlement and selfishly exploit the protection of their union, but they are, fortunately, in the minority. Unfortunately that minority is usually comprised of those who make the most 'noise' when the employer is held up to criticism or exploitation for one reason or another. The vast majority of union members are decent folks who just quietly 'go along' because they have no other choice--they belong and support their union because they have to. Talk to these folks away from the shop floor and they will be the first to tell you they don't always agree with the foolish games those 'noismakers' play. You are correct BTW, in the way you describe the economic trickle down effect of business. I do however, personally believe that capital and labor go hand in hand--whether they like it or not the two are inseparable and cannot exist without each other. If our culture could change ('change'--the bane of trade unionists) by moving from the traditional confrontational relationships, toward a mutually co-operative relationship, then we could see some real progress in gaining a more equitable and fair sharing of the wealth in our society.
All Japanese Auto companies (in Japan) are unionised. http://www.jaw.or.jp/e/ JAW (the equivalent of UAW) has 724,000 paying memebers - So is actually larger than UAW.
So it is not that in Japan the employer is slave driving - Actually, overall Japan is much more heavily unionised than US (partly because of a much heavier domination of manufacturing industry).
However, they do not seem to have any significant productivity issues....
Like you, I'm a free-market/fiscal conservative/small government libertarian kind of guy. I agree with just about 100% of what you're saying here, but I have to point out that much (if not most) of the opposition to using tax holidays, abatements, etc. to attract business comes not from the entitlement-loving left but from pro-business/anti-big government organizations like the Cato Institute. They argue (convincingly, in my view) that these taxpayer-funded giveaways amount to paying companies to build factories in places where they'd probably build anyway. There's no hard evidence that the taxpayers are appreciably better off in the long haul.
IMO, a competently-run state with low taxes & a minimum of regulatory overhead will have no trouble attracting new businesses.
It is possible that the reason for less strife is the disparity between the workers and the top executives is much less than it is in the USA.
Here the average CEO makes 500 times the average worker. That is reason for discontent within the working class. I think there have been revolutions in other countries over such a wide gap between the haves and have nots. Not likely here as the haves convinced the have nots that they did not need to own a gun. I guess we could attack the wealthy with day old Krispy Kreme donuts.
a competently-run state with low taxes & a minimum of regulatory overhead will have no trouble attracting new businesses.
I tend to agree with that position. I know that Arnie was courting Toyota trying to get them to build a factory in CA. I think he gave up due to all the regulatory hoops a company would need to go through in CA. No corporation in their right mind would build a new factory in CA.
It's a free country, go apply for the job as CEO. Pay seem good. The US labor force just spends too much of their time looking for stuff to complain about. Now get to work!
Please note: WORK is a four letter word. Sorry about that. :P L
Will the NAACP help us white folk out here in California? Seems that city, county and state application forms, at least a few year back, asked about your race. I can only assume that so called minority groups got first pick for jobs. Funny thing is, today the Caucasian is a minority in Calif. so go figure. Seems like a lot of government discrimination going on over the last several decades. And it wasn't by Honda. L
The US labor force just spends too much of their time looking for stuff to complain about. Now get to work!
I think you missed my point on disparity. According to the statistics I have read the difference between the top guy and the worker in US corporations has dramatically ballooned over the last 20 years. I think it was somewhere around 13 times difference in 1970 between the average CEO and the average worker.
When every one is doing good the masses are quiet. When they cannot afford what they used to be able to afford they get cranky.
I did my 45 years in the workplace in a much easier time. I feel for my kids and their kids. Both my children and their spouses work full time and make less combined than I made the last 10 years I worked prior to retirement. If it was a non-union job it would not have been so good. They are all college educated, only two graduated. I only went through high school.
There are lots of jobs. Just finding the one that pays the bills is the trick.
PS I never had the desire to be a CEO. Too many hours and too many backs to stab for me. I like my free time away from the job. CEOs have little of that free time away from the job.
Having worked in both US and Japanese companies, I agree there is something to be said about lower max/min compensation ratios driving better labor/management relationships - Though "better relationship" does not automatically translate into higher productivity.
But unions here (in Japan) in the last ten years have almost forgone all pay increases - with the result Japanese manufacturing is now a lot more competitive. So they do have a "big picture" understanding together with management.
By the way, even the US CEOs feel they are being paid too much...(from today's Financial times - The caption of the article is "We are overpaid, say US executives", in case the article requires a password)
Ever consider that the Union job perhaps overpaid? Just a thought. If what you are trying to achieve is parity, and a college education required job times two is not paying as much, then lowering the grossly overpaid would equal things out. Seems like the market place is adjusting. And yes, I agree, in many ways, these may not be the best of times for many. That said, most people make much - much more than I ever did while working. Problem is the dollar is not worth much. Looks like goods and services need to adjust their prices downward. This is not something so easy to do with 83 dollar a barrel oil. L
Ever consider that the Union job perhaps overpaid?
Not really. I felt fortunate to have the good job I had. I think it has to be balanced out against the cost of living in the area. There are a lot of families trying to get by in So Cal on $45k per year with two people working. With the average 2 BR apt renting for $1200 per month plus utilities it is a stretch on the budget.
Indeed. Real standards of living are not increasing (nor are they the best compared to peers), yet American workers put in more work than those of other first world nations.
Yes, the rents and cost of living should come down. Higher wages only chase those higher prices. No way to catch up. A real adjustment could hit the USA between this year and the years to come. Housing cost need a real trimming. Artificially high labor cost only boost the cost of living. And I do agree, if I am the one getting the bonus on life -- life is good. Eventually, something has to give. In the auto industry, it is now in a critical stage. While it is interesting to see the calm before the storm, within the next five year, we will feel the velocity. L
rents aren't gonna come down. Government employees being asked to go easy on spending and return property taxes so landlords can lower rents? A single town in S. Fl. has over 300 town owned vehicles. Many are $55,000 V8 SUV's for town employees to go around in. The property insurance companies struck a deal with the state to only raise rates 40% instead of the 80% rate increase they wanted. People paying $2000 a year are now paying $3600 a year. The insurance companies got together and paid for a new bldg on U of Colo science college campus to put out 3 consecutive annual calls for 'busier than normal hurricane seasons for S. Fl. and coastal U.S.' The oil companies may have chipped in too.
imidazol97: The tax breaks are $150 million paid by all of Indiana, not just the 30 mile radius landowners.
The benefit from the plant will be reaped by all of the citizens of Indiana, not just those who work at the plant.
Those Honda employees will pay income taxes to the state on their salaries (a flat 3.4 percent rate on federal adjusted gross income).
They will use their wages to buy products, which are assessed with a sales tax (6 percent). They will buy gasoline for their vehicles, and thus pay gasoline taxes (18.8 cents per gallon).
If Indiana is like other states, revenue from gasoline, income and sales taxes is sent to the central treasury, and is then spent on programs that benefit the entire state. So all of the people of Indiana will benefit from the additional tax revenue generated by the salaries paid to workers, and the purchases made by said workers.
If they can carry their iron lungs w/o assistance, I will interview them...but they must avoid all magnetized areas, or their iron lung might be pulled along, taking them with it...THEN I CAN FIRE THEM FOR LEAVING THEIR POST DURING THE USE OF MAGNETIC MACHINERY...fight THAT, union scabs...
grbeck...while I respect the opinions of all, and agree with the opinions of some (duh!), your response #1282 seems to reflect a thread that is now becoming evident...all those who seem to be pro-union seem to have the small picture, like not understanding that a plant in South Indiana can benefit the entire state, even tho it may be placed so some folks cannot work there (like former union folks)...their entire outlook seems to ask why can't the plant be placed for the convenience of employees, rather than comprehending that the EMPLOYER sets the stage and obviously wants to minimize certain workers, probably the type they represent...
Those who understand that there can be no jobs without employers, also seem to understand how the benefit of tax abatements will still be made up over time, but there are still definite economic benefits in the meantime...it just seems that if a company wants to locate where the union effect is minimal (or none), they complain that the company has the NERVE to avoid working for THEIR benefit...
Always remember: Henry Ford employed something like 300,000 workers in his plants...ONE Henry Ford created jobs for many, but those 300,000 created NOTHING on their own, and certainly could not create a Henry Ford to "give" them jobs...employers can always find employees, but employees, without an employer, can only sit home and watch Oprah...
jimbres: your thought has validity... maybe the plants would have located there w/o the incentives...but when states are so close together, say, GA, Tenn, Ala, and they all fight for an auto plant, maybe the maker would have settled exactly where they did, but, when they look at 3 or 4 sites, and they all have railroad and interstate and airport access, one must still wonder if there really is the option of multiple sites that would perform perfectly, so the state that gives the best incentives may win...
Somehow, when Honda built that new plant in Lincoln, Alabama, I have to assume that the standard of living for a 50 mile radius has been raised for thousands of people, directly (employed by the plant) and indirectly (suppliers to the plant, including local malls, restaurants, furniture stores, Loews, Home Depot, etc.)...so a tax abatement and paying for a railroad spur is a small investment that will bring dividends for many years to come, unless Honda gets arrogant like the Big 3 and flushes its reputation down the tubes like GM...
Having worked around many union people, I was constantly told about how they all made so much money. If they worked excessive hours of overtime at skilled trades jobs, a six digit income in the early 90's was quite common. They all sent their kids to college to become CEO's so they wouldn't have to work Sundays too.
When the company wanted to shed a money losing segment, they asked the union if they could sell it. The union took a vote and determined that the company was not allowed to sell. That's when I realized that the union actually owned the company. Being CEO meant diddley.
Everyone lost their jobs when the company wound down the business because the union voted not to allow a sale. A little disagreement over who actually owned the company here? Had the sale gone through, everyone could have still had jobs for the new owners but the union workers may not have still been able to accumulate more GM pension benefits if they worked for the new owners. They were worried about a pay cut as well. They were perfectly happy to take down all those around them to so as not give management a say in what can the company can do. What I take from this is that union is a sort of gangster organization. They will take down thousands with them but after all is said and done we would have even worse benefits from our employers without them. Will Honda give it's workers a decent wage and benefits without a union just to show they don't need a union to get a fair shake? Will Honda workers get a pension? Or will buying a Honda be subsidizing a company that leaves it's employees without the things a union gets you?
When all the GM plants were closing and the governor of Indiana went to Japan to seek investment to replace the lost jobs in Indiana, he was laughed at by the Japanese. "We have defeated this American and he comes begging for the lowest level work we can offer to be placed by us in his country? Ha Ha Ha."
A Honda plant in the US is not the answer. Take the number of workers at the new Honda plant times the hourly pay and the number of Civics to roll off the line and it comes to less than $500 american labor per $22000 Civic. Where is the other $21500 going?
I'm not defending the company Rockylee, but that statement shows you are taking a wrong and very narrow view in this matter.
And I having a very narrow view is different from yours ? :surprise:
This business will pay SIGNIFICANT taxes (income tax, realty tax, business tax, sales tax, impost fees, and so on back to the state and municipality--well into the future.
Yeah I agree in the FUTURE They have all the loop holes and tax breaks to pay next to nothing based on what I readafter all the tax subsidies.
This isn't a one way street where the state just hands out money. This is a solid investment into ITS future.
Agree it's a solid investment but not all Indiana's are going to benefit as Honda, is openly discriminating against blacks, union workers, etc. I do not see how you can justify their position ????? Taxpayer money was used to help build this plant, and with Honda's record on discrimination they aren't very good corporate partner in the community unless you fit their criteria. If I was african american, I would BLACK BALL Honda products. :mad:
Also, there will be many millions of dollars passed thru to the state and the surrounding community by virtue of payroll being spent there by its employees. (Along with their income and sales taxes flowing back into the state coffers as well)
So your are justifying their business practices because they can buy off phony politcal figures. I guess it's now making all since. Indiana, has a large KKK population where the plant is located if I recall correctly. The sad thing is Honda is Japanese, and the KKK crowd would wish them dead like any other minority.
So Honda, has decided to hire their sworn enemy or at least have friendly ties to that group ? :surprise: Well I know that sounds ridiculous but that's the way it looks.
Hold on there Rockylee--nowhere do I see any mention of them not hiring African Americans! (Or is your suggestion a slight embellishment??)
I think imidazol97, cleared that up as he laid out plent of proof. Thank-you imidazol97.
Furthermore, the largest city in the state--Indianapolis--is within their hiring radius. Come on now-- there aren't union people in that city to apply for jobs at that plant??
Come-on now do you really think Honda, will hire anyone who was a former union worker. They are openly admitting to what they are doing. Why not it's not like anyone of importance is going to question them. :sick:
I suggest the question of anyone being "entitled" to a job there is the issue--your idea of "entitlement" is asking a bit too much IMO.
I'm not asking for entitlement, I'm requesting equal treatment. I guess Honda, hasn't learned that part of our culture yet ?
Whatever happened to the idea that we "earn" the job?
How can you earn a job, when your employer has already established prejudices.
Methinks your exclusive focus on "rights" doesn't do justice to the other side of the coin--"responsibilities".
Me thinks the exact same thing but on the other side of coin.
Don't these two requisites go hand in hand--or aren't they both a part of your value system?
I do think somebody should have to be "qualified" to get the job. The employer has the right to ask for such qualifications but discrimination based on stereotypes is against the law and should be enforced.
The hiring area does include a UAW-organized plant in Indianapolis and one organized by the International Union of Electrical Workers in Connersville, both of which closed and together idled about 1,500 people." (Note for Rockylee--One of those closed plants was a GM facility--anything to say about that?) I guess if you only look at the negatives, it can be portrayed as a negative, but it's not by any means a negative. Most folks would see it as a plus for the area. One more thing--for those who don't see a Honda as a decent employer--there are choices. One big one is not to apply there.
That is moot to the 1500 people who are out of work as they won't gain employment from Honda, if they applied because Honda, has already established they will discriminate against UAW, workers. I don't understand how this justify's your position silverfox5 ?????? :confuse:
It would be like myself as a tall Aryan male with Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, with Norweigan and German heritage only hiring people who fit the Aryan race criteria and announce it in the media. I wouldn't have to worry about the NAACP, filing a law suit as I'd proably be killed or at least beat up.
Not as much as they should gagrice. I know in this state, many community's have virtually eliminated taxes on business so they won't leave. Sure ever business pays payroll tax but to the local community not all pay at least here in Michigan.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, companies cannot discriminate against workers because of affiliation with a union.They are, however, allowed to restrict hiring to certain geographical areas if they have a legitimate business reason for doing so, a spokeswoman for the National Labor Relations Board said. UAW officials are gathering information in hopes of filing official complaints with the NLRB or possibly the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
So they exploited the loop hole imidazol97. It's obvious what they are doing. I just gotta laugh at how some folks are justifying this.
"It's as if you believe employer's have the right to run a company like a dictatorship...They think their business has the right to not pay tax to the local area because they provide jobs. Well when they discriminate against " certain groups" because of so-called risky behavior then as I said in a earlier post they should not be taking public money when they build, expand, and should be a contributor, rather than a leach."
Once again, rocky, you show your lack of understanding of business, which does explain why you think that employers have little or no rights at all, except the right to hire any worthless worker who can breathe on their own without an iron lung...
Tax abatements are often a minor cost to the state, who is usually BEGGING an auto plant to set roots in that state...think of it like seed money...once the plant starts construction many locals who were making $6/hour stocking shelves are now part of the construction team...the plant will generate millions in state income taxes (unless it is a no tax state like TN, TX, FL, WY, NV, AK), but the economic activity surrounding a 50 miles radius of the plant will be immense...better payroll usually means more expensive housing (real estate taxes) and all the industries that supply it...don't forget all the suppliers that set up shop around the auto plant as its supliers, and have their payrolls...don't forget the restaurants who supply these people, truckers moving everything around, and, what I love and you hate to call the "trickle down effect" because it starts with the wealthy (corporations) and trickles down to the entire economic zone that serves and is served by the plant, and most areas are very much improved when an auto plant comes in...
So, if the state foregoes, say, 10 years worth of property tax on the plant, but gains in every other way, it is a small price to "pay" (an investment, really) to get the plant...which is why states almost always fall all over themselves trying to get an auto plant in their state...
But, since all you can see with your limited horizon is "no additional union jobs" (with their rotten work habits and entitlement attitude), you cannot understand the true economic impact of such a small tax abatement of a few hundred million...don't forget, also, once the 10 year abatement ends, they will be paying their property tax which will then be a windfall for the local area...
The trickle down effect will ALWAYS be from richer to poorer, since the poorer have nothing with which to trickle UP...always remember...employees are quite expendable, as they prove it daily by their simple turnover...it is the employer who lends stability, simply because it is difficult to pick up an auto plant and move it down the road...
Further remember: if employees could create their own jobs, they would...BUT THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY CAN'T...so, capitalism depends on the rich and the employers, never the employees...
Nobody ever got a job from a poor man...Coolidge said that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...
For all your railing against the rich capitalists, it is they who are responsible for jobs, for it could never be the other way around...that is why I attribute all the rights to the employer, never the employee, for without the employer, the employee does not exist, except as another unit in a soup line...
Wow, I just felt like I was talked to like a little boy. :P
Of course the wealthy creates jobs. I know you think I hate all rich people, but not all rich people are bad folks. I have wealthy relatives. It's the greedy rich people who I dislike. It boils down to morales and doing what's right. If you want to sell your stuff in my state or country then it is expected you give something back. If it wasn't for us commoners, the rich wouldn't have anyone to buy their stuff or use their services. It's a give and take culture to make this country finacially sound. I right now see only the takers sucking this country dry to the bone. When they leave it ruins they will move on over to China. They milk it for all it's worth then packup and leave. They at the same time expect us commoners to protect them from the enemy's some of which they created. Their is no nationalism left in this country and is why we are falling apart. I know it's a dog eat dog world, but I never thought growing up things would get this bad and the bad side of capitalism, would run free without any fence to keep it in check. :sick:
Perhaps the light at the end of the god forsaken tunnel will glow next November.
The tax breaks are $150 million paid by all of Indiana, not just the 30 mile radius landowners. Why shouldn't all people have an opportunity to get a job.
Comments
Responding to your 'wink wink' remark "And Unions are totally responsible for this no doubt", I suggest to you that responsibility lies on both sides.
The UAW isn't blameless by any means.
Their part in the equation lies mostly in their determined, almost militant resistance to any changes in work practices over the years--a philosophy to which they still subscribe to for the most part.
Things haven't changed all that much on the shop floor these days--it's a painfully slow process, and probably one of the major stumbling blocks to significant efficiency improvements for the Big3.
The Big3 employers have made efforts to change things, but (in a sense shame on them) only token progress has been made so far.
They have historically been unwilling to push too hard because the UAW has been a force to be reckoned with when they really wanted to buck efforts to change things.(Wildcats, work stoppages, calling any changes a strike issue at negotiations, etc.)
There are sill a great many Big3 work practices etched in stone for years that have to change in order for real improvements in cost/efficiency to happen.
The big advantage offshore automakers had when they set up their shops here was their plants were greenfield sites, and they were able to establish more realistic and sensible work practices from the git go.
In fairness to your alledged 'tour' of a GM plant, the General has done a fair bit of work making change on the shop floor, but still lags behind Chrysler.(Now if Chrysler can come up with a more saleable product line!!)
Ford, on the other hand, has a long way to go to catch up with the other guys.
The thing that I see happening though, and it concerns me greatly, is a tendency of all of them to close plants--perhaps they see this as the quick and dirty/less painful way to gain efficiencies in their overall operations.
The VEBA plan (effective 2010 BTW) calls for a $30 Billion down payment by GM, plus a $165 Million 'top up' to cover fund shortfalls, every year for 20 years.
I don't think there's much of a chance for a 'Caterpillar' situation for the GM folks.
"The assault on Midwest public workers, says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, “echoes a message coming from the White House down to men and women on the front lines of our struggles against poverty, disease, crime and terrorism all across our country: ‘We expect first-class devotion, service and sacrifice, but we will treat you like second-class citizens,’"
link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We question the motives of Honda as well as that of Gov. Daniels, who was in favor of this policy. Indiana taxpayers pay into the general fund that supported the programs and tax abatements allowing Honda to locate here. Therefore, everyone should have an equal opportunity to apply for positions with that company. Selective hiring practices such as this are usually designed to exclude some faction of the population and seek to circumvent equal opportunity statutes and guidelines. This opens the door to worker exploitation and sets a dangerous precedent for other companies planning to locate here.
These practices are also a veiled attempt to exclude those individuals who might have belonged to a union at previous workplaces. Union members stay informed and know their rights under the law. A company that wants employees who do not know their rights is looking to exploit those workers. Unions have advanced workers’ rights and safety, and workers have a growing desire to know their rights. Some believe a unionized work force was one of the main reasons jobs left Indiana, and Madison County in particular. "
link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Second of all, as far as the "free market" concept goes, do you think if you went to one of these big box stores w/ their 110% price guarantee and showed them an ad for a TV from a store 500 miles away that was lower priced, that they would give you the 110% rebate??? No. Why??? The other store isn't in YOUR market area. They would have to honor it at their store 500 mi. away, but not where you live. In fact, due to market conditions(lower cost of living), the price might be lower at the store 500 miles away. If their costs are more where you live, you end up paying more. Its that simple.
That is why companies take their mfring to the South or overseas-lower costs. But what Honda seems to be doing by ruling certain counties out for employment is MANIPULATING the market to try to ensure that everybody will play by THEIR rules. Nobody told them to build a plant in Ohio or Indiana if they want the lower costs. In contrast, there is no guarantee that their hires WON'T unionize, even if it was Alabama they moved to. All they are doing is trying to skirt the rules. Do you think that the bigwigs at GM or Chrysler didn't anticipate the strikes??? Of course they did!!! They knew what was MOST likely to happen. All this hullabaloo over the last few weeks about the strikes is amazing!!!! In the end what happened???? They NEGOTIATED (what a NOVEL concept) an agreement that was ACCEPTABLE to both sides.
Smokers, drinkers, tobacco chewers, poor credit history, bad criminal background check, and maybe possibly sexual orientation...all these groups enagage in risky behavior that either adds to absenteeism, illness, or leads to a raise in health incurance to the the greater use of the benefit...employers have the absolute right to control their costs, plain and simple...
Now, if they DIDN'T offer health insurance, they might only look at habits that affect attendance and absenteeism...
The company could also terminate its group health ins and offer to pay each emplyee a sum of money to let them buy it on their own...so, if everyone was allowed an extra $4,000 yearly, they could go out and buy their own policy...so, if a nonsmoker found a policy for $3,800, they would save an extra $200...if a 400 pound smoker/drinker/tobacco chewer found a policy for $5,000, he would have to kick in the extra, and it would be HIM who pays the extra cost of his bad habits...the company may or may not raise its allowance each year, but those with bad habits would simply suffer the cost of their own habits, and it would not affect the employer at all, except for absenteeism...
What many of you seem to think is that you can do ANYTHING you want in your private life, and expect someone else to pay for it in higher premiums...
Yes, your private life is private, to an extent...when it can possibly or probably have an effect on ANY cost borne by your employer, the employer now has the right, NO, HAS THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION to screen those applicants out in order to minimize costs and maximize profits...
There's that dirty word again, profits...but, always remember, no company was ever established to create a job, it was established to make a profit for its owners or shareholders...only out of the profit can a job be created...so, for those who are incapable of understanding that they really have no rights when they apply for a job if they carry bad habits and there are others without those habits jusr as well qualified...
Even a credit check can and should be used against you, since, if you cannot handle your financial life, will it affect your employment in some way, esp if you are applying for, say, bank teller???
Should ex-cons be given another chance???...in the abstract, yes, most folks deserve a second chance...but every company has the right to know your criminal background, so they can make an INFORMED decision as to whether or not THEY want to be the company that takes the chance and hires you...they should know so their decision is informed...
There is just too much at stake in our competitive business world, and anything that counts against you that will hurt your employer should be revealed to that employer...luckily, most thorough background checks will reveal any knowledge we need to know, so we can attempt to hire only those who avoid risky habits that will eventually cost the employer $$$...
Thank-you for the link. That was a good read but about made me puke. :sick:
-Rocky
-Rocky
I get labeled a socialist, commie, Marxist, etc, but the power you think employers should have really isn't much different is it ?
It's as if you believe employer's have the right to run a company like a dictatorship. :surprise: That is all fine and good but many of these employers are being "subsidized" by these smokers, drinkers, tobacco chewers, different sexual orientation, obese, people with poor credit, etc, folks that are paying taxes and they the company are not.
They think their business has the right to not pay tax to the local area because they provide jobs. Well when they discriminate against " certain groups" because of so-called risky behavior then as I said in a earlier post they should not be taking public money when they build, expand, and should be a contributor, rather than a leach.
-Rocky
-Rocky
I'm not defending the company Rockylee, but that statement shows you are taking a wrong and very narrow view in this matter.
This business will pay SIGNIFICANT taxes (income tax, realty tax, business tax, sales tax, impost fees, and so on back to the state and municipality--well into the future.
This isn't a one way street where the state just hands out money. This is a solid investment into ITS future.
Also, there will be many millions of dollars passed thru to the state and the surrounding community by virtue of payroll being spent there by its employees. (Along with their income and sales taxes flowing back into the state coffers as well)
"discriminate against certain "groups" like union people and African Americans"
Hold on there Rockylee--nowhere do I see any mention of them not hiring African Americans! (Or is your suggestion a slight embellishment??)
Furthermore, the largest city in the state--Indianapolis--is within their hiring radius. Come on now-- there aren't union people in that city to apply for jobs at that plant??
I suggest the question of anyone being "entitled" to a job there is the issue--your idea of "entitlement" is asking a bit too much IMO.
Whatever happened to the idea that we "earn" the job?
Methinks your exclusive focus on "rights" doesn't do justice to the other side of the coin--"responsibilities".
Don't these two requisites go hand in hand--or aren't they both a part of your value system?
Anyone has the right not to accept a job but if they do, they essentially agree to the rules the employee makes, as long as said rules don't violate any laws.
What about the positives? A job for some who don't have one. More employment thru its construction. Revenue flowing into the area. Spin offs in services for the new plant. Parts manufacturing moving into the area.
Not only that, there's more to the 'no former union employees' story and other complaints bantied about here.
Wall Street Journal, Oct.10,2007--"The auto maker wants workers to live within an hour's drive of the plant so they can get to work on time even in bad weather.
The hiring area does include a UAW-organized plant in Indianapolis and one organized by the International Union of Electrical Workers in Connersville, both of which closed and together idled about 1,500 people."
(Note for Rockylee--One of those closed plants was a GM facility--anything to say about that?)
I guess if you only look at the negatives, it can be portrayed as a negative, but it's not by any means a negative. Most folks would see it as a plus for the area.
One more thing--for those who don't see a Honda as a decent employer--there are choices. One big one is not to apply there.
A racial-discrimination argument defeated a hiring policy Honda used in the 1980s when it expanded two plants in rural Ohio and gave preference to applicants who lived within 30 miles of the facilities. That excluded residents of Columbus, the nearest large city to both plants, with a large African-American population, while the population within the hiring zone was overwhelmingly white. Honda settled a complaint by the EEOC by paying 370 black and women workers $6 million and offering them jobs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Corporations do pay Federal, State & Local taxes.
In the past week, quarterly earnings were announced for the three largest integrated oil and gas producers in the nation. The most recent media attention is directed towards the earnings report from Exxon Mobil. (NYSE:XOM) These earnings come on the heels of last week’s announcements by ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX) Based on preliminary SEC filings, these companies reported combined annual corporate gross earnings of $108.2 billion, throughout the course of 2005.
It is important to remember that net income reported on financial statements, is the result of subtracting income-based taxes from corporate gross earnings. Before shareholders receive a return on their investment, the government takes its significant share off the top.
During 2005, these three companies paid a combined corporate income tax burden of $44.3 billion on their reported gross earnings. Compared to last year’s combined corporate income taxes of $29.7 billion, their burden for 2005 has increased by 49.2 percent and follows the overall trend of escalating corporate tax collections in the United States. In addition to corporate income taxes, the same companies paid or remitted over $114.5 billion in other taxes in 2005, including franchise, payroll, property, severance and excise taxes.
When the federal statutory corporate income tax rate of 35 percent is added to the weighted average of state corporate income taxes, the resulting rate of 39.3 percent means that corporations in the United States are currently at an international competitive disadvantage. In fact, as recent research has indicated, the top combined state and federal statutory corporate income tax in the U.S. is higher than any other country in the OECD.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1321.html
Korean auto maker Hyundai Motor Co. also opened a plant in Alabama in 2005 and accepted job applications statewide as a condition of Alabama's incentive plan, said Hyundai spokesman Robert Burns.
"When Toyota Motor Corp. put a plant in Indiana, in Princeton in the southwest corner of the state, anyone from Indiana was allowed to apply for a job. But in the end Toyota hired almost all of the workers from within 50 miles of the plant, a Toyota spokesman said. At Toyota's new truck plant in San Antonio, skilled tradesmen were hired from as far away as the Midwest, the spokesman said, but neither plant has unionized."
link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
An interesting story about local costs is when the Ford plant in Ohio was being planned in Clermont Cty. the Governor Rhodes et al were exceedingly anxious to land anything resembling a manufacturing business because steel and others had been closing all over the state. He forgave $500,000 in tapin fees for the local water company but expected the area people using the same water company which covered several townships to pay the $500,000 cost of tapin out of the local economy. Most of the jobs were going to other workers from regional plants which had been downsized. Workers from Louisville (Kentucky, a different state) even got jobs there.
This was the Ford transmission plant in Batavia. I believe it's been closed or is being closed. This was when $500,000 was a large chunk of money, BTW.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If it ever gets down to a court decision, then we would place some credibility in it.
Until then, it's just one opinion.
Insisting in this discussion that it's a done deal is misleading.
Besides, do you think the NAACP is going to keep quiet when there's an opportunity for employment in the area?
Sounds like smart politics on their part IMO!!
It's one thing to say it's different, but is it against any rules to do so?
Don't think for a minute that any of the Big3 would dearly love to be able to do something different like that!!
But there's not much hiring going on there just now, is there? :sick:
Once again, rocky, you show your lack of understanding of business, which does explain why you think that employers have little or no rights at all, except the right to hire any worthless worker who can breathe on their own without an iron lung...
Tax abatements are often a minor cost to the state, who is usually BEGGING an auto plant to set roots in that state...think of it like seed money...once the plant starts construction many locals who were making $6/hour stocking shelves are now part of the construction team...the plant will generate millions in state income taxes (unless it is a no tax state like TN, TX, FL, WY, NV, AK), but the economic activity surrounding a 50 miles radius of the plant will be immense...better payroll usually means more expensive housing (real estate taxes) and all the industries that supply it...don't forget all the suppliers that set up shop around the auto plant as its supliers, and have their payrolls...don't forget the restaurants who supply these people, truckers moving everything around, and, what I love and you hate to call the "trickle down effect" because it starts with the wealthy (corporations) and trickles down to the entire economic zone that serves and is served by the plant, and most areas are very much improved when an auto plant comes in...
So, if the state foregoes, say, 10 years worth of property tax on the plant, but gains in every other way, it is a small price to "pay" (an investment, really) to get the plant...which is why states almost always fall all over themselves trying to get an auto plant in their state...
But, since all you can see with your limited horizon is "no additional union jobs" (with their rotten work habits and entitlement attitude), you cannot understand the true economic impact of such a small tax abatement of a few hundred million...don't forget, also, once the 10 year abatement ends, they will be paying their property tax which will then be a windfall for the local area...
The trickle down effect will ALWAYS be from richer to poorer, since the poorer have nothing with which to trickle UP...always remember...employees are quite expendable, as they prove it daily by their simple turnover...it is the employer who lends stability, simply because it is difficult to pick up an auto plant and move it down the road...
Further remember: if employees could create their own jobs, they would...BUT THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY CAN'T...so, capitalism depends on the rich and the employers, never the employees...
Nobody ever got a job from a poor man...Coolidge said that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...
For all your railing against the rich capitalists, it is they who are responsible for jobs, for it could never be the other way around...that is why I attribute all the rights to the employer, never the employee, for without the employer, the employee does not exist, except as another unit in a soup line...
Ah! So you admit to discriminating against workers in iron lungs! :P
I'm not with you on total philosophy but those tax breaks to bring in plants make perfect sense. In Honda's case it's not where they would have located otherwise.
There are people who move to be close to where they're employed. Someone in Anderson can move even closer. Although State Route Highway 9 is pretty direct. There are a couple of other short routes. I'll bet apartments are being built in the areas closer to the plant as we speak. I recall my nephew living with 4 other guys when he worked in St. Louis and lived in Ohio.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sure, there are some who bask in entitlement and selfishly exploit the protection of their union, but they are, fortunately, in the minority.
Unfortunately that minority is usually comprised of those who make the most 'noise' when the employer is held up to criticism or exploitation for one reason or another.
The vast majority of union members are decent folks who just quietly 'go along' because they have no other choice--they belong and support their union because they have to. Talk to these folks away from the shop floor and they will be the first to tell you they don't always agree with the foolish games those 'noismakers' play.
You are correct BTW, in the way you describe the economic trickle down effect of business.
I do however, personally believe that capital and labor go hand in hand--whether they like it or not the two are inseparable and cannot exist without each other.
If our culture could change ('change'--the bane of trade unionists) by moving from the traditional confrontational relationships, toward a mutually co-operative relationship, then we could see some real progress in gaining a more equitable and fair sharing of the wealth in our society.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.jaw.or.jp/e/
JAW (the equivalent of UAW) has 724,000 paying memebers - So is actually larger than UAW.
So it is not that in Japan the employer is slave driving - Actually, overall Japan is much more heavily unionised than US (partly because of a much heavier domination of manufacturing industry).
However, they do not seem to have any significant productivity issues....
Like you, I'm a free-market/fiscal conservative/small government libertarian kind of guy. I agree with just about 100% of what you're saying here, but I have to point out that much (if not most) of the opposition to using tax holidays, abatements, etc. to attract business comes not from the entitlement-loving left but from pro-business/anti-big government organizations like the Cato Institute. They argue (convincingly, in my view) that these taxpayer-funded giveaways amount to paying companies to build factories in places where they'd probably build anyway. There's no hard evidence that the taxpayers are appreciably better off in the long haul.
IMO, a competently-run state with low taxes & a minimum of regulatory overhead will have no trouble attracting new businesses.
Here the average CEO makes 500 times the average worker. That is reason for discontent within the working class. I think there have been revolutions in other countries over such a wide gap between the haves and have nots. Not likely here as the haves convinced the have nots that they did not need to own a gun. I guess we could attack the wealthy with day old Krispy Kreme donuts.
I tend to agree with that position. I know that Arnie was courting Toyota trying to get them to build a factory in CA. I think he gave up due to all the regulatory hoops a company would need to go through in CA. No corporation in their right mind would build a new factory in CA.
Please note: WORK is a four letter word. Sorry about that. :P
L
I think you missed my point on disparity. According to the statistics I have read the difference between the top guy and the worker in US corporations has dramatically ballooned over the last 20 years. I think it was somewhere around 13 times difference in 1970 between the average CEO and the average worker.
When every one is doing good the masses are quiet. When they cannot afford what they used to be able to afford they get cranky.
I did my 45 years in the workplace in a much easier time. I feel for my kids and their kids. Both my children and their spouses work full time and make less combined than I made the last 10 years I worked prior to retirement. If it was a non-union job it would not have been so good. They are all college educated, only two graduated. I only went through high school.
There are lots of jobs. Just finding the one that pays the bills is the trick.
PS
I never had the desire to be a CEO. Too many hours and too many backs to stab for me. I like my free time away from the job. CEOs have little of that free time away from the job.
But unions here (in Japan) in the last ten years have almost forgone all pay increases - with the result Japanese manufacturing is now a lot more competitive. So they do have a "big picture" understanding together with management.
By the way, even the US CEOs feel they are being paid too much...(from today's Financial times - The caption of the article is "We are overpaid, say US executives", in case the article requires a password)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/29593584-7a7a-11dc-9bee-0000779fd2ac.html
You are always welcome to apply for the UAW union and other Union positions if you feel they are overpaid.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not really. I felt fortunate to have the good job I had. I think it has to be balanced out against the cost of living in the area. There are a lot of families trying to get by in So Cal on $45k per year with two people working. With the average 2 BR apt renting for $1200 per month plus utilities it is a stretch on the budget.
The socio-economic gap is also expanding to a level not seen in generations
This can and will cause strife. Bad TV, fast food, and religious material won't keep people submissive forever.
The benefit from the plant will be reaped by all of the citizens of Indiana, not just those who work at the plant.
Those Honda employees will pay income taxes to the state on their salaries (a flat 3.4 percent rate on federal adjusted gross income).
They will use their wages to buy products, which are assessed with a sales tax (6 percent). They will buy gasoline for their vehicles, and thus pay gasoline taxes (18.8 cents per gallon).
If Indiana is like other states, revenue from gasoline, income and sales taxes is sent to the central treasury, and is then spent on programs that benefit the entire state. So all of the people of Indiana will benefit from the additional tax revenue generated by the salaries paid to workers, and the purchases made by said workers.
grbeck...while I respect the opinions of all, and agree with the opinions of some (duh!), your response #1282 seems to reflect a thread that is now becoming evident...all those who seem to be pro-union seem to have the small picture, like not understanding that a plant in South Indiana can benefit the entire state, even tho it may be placed so some folks cannot work there (like former union folks)...their entire outlook seems to ask why can't the plant be placed for the convenience of employees, rather than comprehending that the EMPLOYER sets the stage and obviously wants to minimize certain workers, probably the type they represent...
Those who understand that there can be no jobs without employers, also seem to understand how the benefit of tax abatements will still be made up over time, but there are still definite economic benefits in the meantime...it just seems that if a company wants to locate where the union effect is minimal (or none), they complain that the company has the NERVE to avoid working for THEIR benefit...
Always remember: Henry Ford employed something like 300,000 workers in his plants...ONE Henry Ford created jobs for many, but those 300,000 created NOTHING on their own, and certainly could not create a Henry Ford to "give" them jobs...employers can always find employees, but employees, without an employer, can only sit home and watch Oprah...
jimbres: your thought has validity... maybe the plants would have located there w/o the incentives...but when states are so close together, say, GA, Tenn, Ala, and they all fight for an auto plant, maybe the maker would have settled exactly where they did, but, when they look at 3 or 4 sites, and they all have railroad and interstate and airport access, one must still wonder if there really is the option of multiple sites that would perform perfectly, so the state that gives the best incentives may win...
Somehow, when Honda built that new plant in Lincoln, Alabama, I have to assume that the standard of living for a 50 mile radius has been raised for thousands of people, directly (employed by the plant) and indirectly (suppliers to the plant, including local malls, restaurants, furniture stores, Loews, Home Depot, etc.)...so a tax abatement and paying for a railroad spur is a small investment that will bring dividends for many years to come, unless Honda gets arrogant like the Big 3 and flushes its reputation down the tubes like GM...
When the company wanted to shed a money losing segment, they asked the union if they could sell it. The union took a vote and determined that the company was not allowed to sell. That's when I realized that the union actually owned the company. Being CEO meant diddley.
Everyone lost their jobs when the company wound down the business because the union voted not to allow a sale. A little disagreement over who actually owned the company here? Had the sale gone through, everyone could have still had jobs for the new owners but the union workers may not have still been able to accumulate more GM pension benefits if they worked for the new owners. They were worried about a pay cut as well. They were perfectly happy to take down all those around them to so as not give management a say in what can the company can do. What I take from this is that union is a sort of gangster organization. They will take down thousands with them but after all is said and done we would have even worse benefits from our employers without them. Will Honda give it's workers a decent wage and benefits without a union just to show they don't need a union to get a fair shake? Will Honda workers get a pension? Or will buying a Honda be subsidizing a company that leaves it's employees without the things a union gets you?
When all the GM plants were closing and the governor of Indiana went to Japan to seek investment to replace the lost jobs in Indiana, he was laughed at by the Japanese. "We have defeated this American and he comes begging for the lowest level work we can offer to be placed by us in his country? Ha Ha Ha."
A Honda plant in the US is not the answer. Take the number of workers at the new Honda plant times the hourly pay and the number of Civics to roll off the line and it comes to less than $500 american labor per $22000 Civic. Where is the other $21500 going?
And I having a very narrow view is different from yours ? :surprise:
This business will pay SIGNIFICANT taxes (income tax, realty tax, business tax, sales tax, impost fees, and so on back to the state and municipality--well into the future.
Yeah I agree in the FUTURE
This isn't a one way street where the state just hands out money. This is a solid investment into ITS future.
Agree it's a solid investment but not all Indiana's are going to benefit as Honda, is openly discriminating against blacks, union workers, etc. I do not see how you can justify their position ????? Taxpayer money was used to help build this plant, and with Honda's record on discrimination they aren't very good corporate partner in the community unless you fit their criteria. If I was african american, I would BLACK BALL Honda products. :mad:
Also, there will be many millions of dollars passed thru to the state and the surrounding community by virtue of payroll being spent there by its employees. (Along with their income and sales taxes flowing back into the state coffers as well)
So your are justifying their business practices because they can buy off phony politcal figures. I guess it's now making all since. Indiana, has a large KKK population where the plant is located if I recall correctly. The sad thing is Honda is Japanese, and the KKK crowd would wish them dead like any other minority.
So Honda, has decided to hire their sworn enemy or at least have friendly ties to that group ? :surprise:
Well I know that sounds ridiculous but that's the way it looks.
Hold on there Rockylee--nowhere do I see any mention of them not hiring African Americans! (Or is your suggestion a slight embellishment??)
I think imidazol97, cleared that up as he laid out plent of proof. Thank-you imidazol97.
Furthermore, the largest city in the state--Indianapolis--is within their hiring radius. Come on now-- there aren't union people in that city to apply for jobs at that plant??
Come-on now do you really think Honda, will hire anyone who was a former union worker. They are openly admitting to what they are doing. Why not it's not like anyone of importance is going to question them. :sick:
I suggest the question of anyone being "entitled" to a job there is the issue--your idea of "entitlement" is asking a bit too much IMO.
I'm not asking for entitlement, I'm requesting equal treatment. I guess Honda, hasn't learned that part of our culture yet ?
Whatever happened to the idea that we "earn" the job?
How can you earn a job, when your employer has already established prejudices.
Methinks your exclusive focus on "rights" doesn't do justice to the other side of the coin--"responsibilities".
Me thinks the exact same thing but on the other side of coin.
Don't these two requisites go hand in hand--or aren't they both a part of your value system?
I do think somebody should have to be "qualified" to get the job. The employer has the right to ask for such qualifications but discrimination based on stereotypes is against the law and should be enforced.
-Rocky
(Note for Rockylee--One of those closed plants was a GM facility--anything to say about that?)
I guess if you only look at the negatives, it can be portrayed as a negative, but it's not by any means a negative. Most folks would see it as a plus for the area.
One more thing--for those who don't see a Honda as a decent employer--there are choices. One big one is not to apply there.
That is moot to the 1500 people who are out of work as they won't gain employment from Honda, if they applied because Honda, has already established they will discriminate against UAW, workers. I don't understand how this justify's your position silverfox5 ?????? :confuse:
It would be like myself as a tall Aryan male with Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, with Norweigan and German heritage only hiring people who fit the Aryan race criteria and announce it in the media. I wouldn't have to worry about the NAACP, filing a law suit as I'd proably be killed or at least beat up.
-Rocky
Not as much as they should gagrice. I know in this state, many community's have virtually eliminated taxes on business so they won't leave. Sure ever business pays payroll tax but to the local community not all pay at least here in Michigan.
-Rocky
Under the National Labor Relations Act, companies cannot discriminate against workers because of affiliation with a union. They are, however, allowed to restrict hiring to certain geographical areas if they have a legitimate business reason for doing so, a spokeswoman for the National Labor Relations Board said. UAW officials are gathering information in hopes of filing official complaints with the NLRB or possibly the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
So they exploited the loop hole imidazol97.
-Rocky
Once again, rocky, you show your lack of understanding of business, which does explain why you think that employers have little or no rights at all, except the right to hire any worthless worker who can breathe on their own without an iron lung...
Tax abatements are often a minor cost to the state, who is usually BEGGING an auto plant to set roots in that state...think of it like seed money...once the plant starts construction many locals who were making $6/hour stocking shelves are now part of the construction team...the plant will generate millions in state income taxes (unless it is a no tax state like TN, TX, FL, WY, NV, AK), but the economic activity surrounding a 50 miles radius of the plant will be immense...better payroll usually means more expensive housing (real estate taxes) and all the industries that supply it...don't forget all the suppliers that set up shop around the auto plant as its supliers, and have their payrolls...don't forget the restaurants who supply these people, truckers moving everything around, and, what I love and you hate to call the "trickle down effect" because it starts with the wealthy (corporations) and trickles down to the entire economic zone that serves and is served by the plant, and most areas are very much improved when an auto plant comes in...
So, if the state foregoes, say, 10 years worth of property tax on the plant, but gains in every other way, it is a small price to "pay" (an investment, really) to get the plant...which is why states almost always fall all over themselves trying to get an auto plant in their state...
But, since all you can see with your limited horizon is "no additional union jobs" (with their rotten work habits and entitlement attitude), you cannot understand the true economic impact of such a small tax abatement of a few hundred million...don't forget, also, once the 10 year abatement ends, they will be paying their property tax which will then be a windfall for the local area...
The trickle down effect will ALWAYS be from richer to poorer, since the poorer have nothing with which to trickle UP...always remember...employees are quite expendable, as they prove it daily by their simple turnover...it is the employer who lends stability, simply because it is difficult to pick up an auto plant and move it down the road...
Further remember: if employees could create their own jobs, they would...BUT THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY CAN'T...so, capitalism depends on the rich and the employers, never the employees...
Nobody ever got a job from a poor man...Coolidge said that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...
For all your railing against the rich capitalists, it is they who are responsible for jobs, for it could never be the other way around...that is why I attribute all the rights to the employer, never the employee, for without the employer, the employee does not exist, except as another unit in a soup line...
Wow, I just felt like I was talked to like a little boy. :P
Of course the wealthy creates jobs. I know you think I hate all rich people, but not all rich people are bad folks. I have wealthy relatives. It's the greedy rich people who I dislike. It boils down to morales and doing what's right. If you want to sell your stuff in my state or country then it is expected you give something back. If it wasn't for us commoners, the rich wouldn't have anyone to buy their stuff or use their services. It's a give and take culture to make this country finacially sound. I right now see only the takers sucking this country dry to the bone. When they leave it ruins they will move on over to China. They milk it for all it's worth then packup and leave. They at the same time expect us commoners to protect them from the enemy's some of which they created. Their is no nationalism left in this country and is why we are falling apart. I know it's a dog eat dog world, but I never thought growing up things would get this bad and the bad side of capitalism, would run free without any fence to keep it in check. :sick:
Perhaps the light at the end of the god forsaken tunnel will glow next November.
-Rocky
That is exactly my point also pal.
-Rocky
Thank-you pal for the link.
I do support the Japan Automobile Workers' Unions
JAW
-Rocky