OT UNION BUSTING

razz wrote:
> Hey ****tard!!!! I do not live in the states for one, I'm a mechanic for
> two, and IT DOES require more than what you think is required. I
> assembled diesel engines at the factory, and give your ****ing head a
> shake ****tard..... not only do you have to assemble, you have to
> perform diagnostics, and knowing how to calibrate the ecm's..****tard.


Blah, blah, blah, blah... I'm a computer geek and I've built more
than one Ford engine and a number of others. BFD. Factory assembly of no
kind is the same as the use of diagnostic skills.

--


> I have never seen a computer infected by botnet.
> How it is like? - Lemat


They sneeze bits all over teh internets. - Rev. Beergoggles

wrote:
> Soon.... quite soon... the world will realize that you should only get paid
> for what you you deliver.. unions will evaporate.
>
>

Well, this past Thursday we had a record sneaux fall in South
Louisiana so maybe Hell is freezing over. So much for global warming...

--


> I have never seen a computer infected by botnet.
> How it is like? - Lemat


They sneeze bits all over teh internets. - Rev. Beergoggles

razz wrote:
> Well master mechanic, then you would of known each ecm has to be
> calibrated to individual engine, such as if used to tow, and type of
> engine being used on. So in order to program the fuel to air ratio's
> and various other parameters, you plug the ecm into a computer program
> with the pre- calibrated parameters set by the engineering department,
> and down load the info and or adjust according to each individual engine.


Uh huh and that's hard, how? In fact, there's a there is an F body
tuner around here that taught his dog to do it so he wouldn't have to
pay a mechanic for that.


--


> I have never seen a computer infected by botnet.
> How it is like? - Lemat


They sneeze bits all over teh internets. - Rev. Beergoggles

On Dec 14, 3:16 am, "WindsorFox<[SS]>" >
wrote:
> razz wrote:
> > Well master mechanic, then you would of known each ecm has to be
> > calibrated to individual engine, such as if used to tow, and type of
> > engine being used on. So in order to program the fuel to air ratio's
> > and various other parameters, you plug the ecm into a computer program
> > with the pre- calibrated parameters set by the engineering department,
> > and down load the info and or adjust according to each individual engine.
>
> Uh huh and that's hard, how? In fact, there's a there is an F body
> tuner around here that taught his dog to do it so he wouldn't have to
> pay a mechanic for that.
>

That reminds me of that episode on "Cheers", where they taught the
chimpanzee to paint and deliver mail.

On Dec 12, 7:07*pm, "dwight" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Dec 12, 12:33 pm, Millwright Ron > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 8:47 am, wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Your quoted/linked item from the NY Times is the factually challenged
> > story. *See a thorough debunking he
> >http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2162.cfm
>
> There was another article in the Detroit Free Press, "7 Myths about Detroit
> Automakers."
>
> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2008812050400
>
> ...beginning with Myth 1: Nobody Buys Their Vehicles. All of these myths are
> familiar to me, and I confess that I believed more than one of them.
>
> It's interesting to me that we here discuss the overpaid assembly line
> workers who are dragging down their own industry, while in another newsgroup
> we discuss the appallingly low pay of retail clerks, whom we expect to be
> experts in their fields. It's irrelevant, just interesting.
>
> My own company has switched completely from pension to employee-funded
> 401(k) retirement plans. This will prevent that company from finding itself
> straddled with a growing number of retirees (which, of course, was the whole
> idea behind the switch by many, many companies to employee-funded retirement
> plans, rather than company-funded, as in the past). Detroit, too late, is
> already saddled with a growing number of retirees, and these fixed costs
> cannot be addressed. Even if the current workers took a 1/3 cut in pay, it's
> a non-issue. The UAW is a distraction, not the root cause of the problem.
>
> Even the automotive offerings of the Big Three compare favorably to other
> marks. From pickups and SUVs to fuel-efficient smaller cars, their lineup is
> very similar to what the other brands are selling. Other than the sudden
> surge in oil prices and the ensuing economic collapse, Detroit could have
> soldiered on, trying to build what they thought the American public wanted.
> But there was, in fact, a surge in oil prices, and sales dried up quickly..
> Detroit never saw it coming and was unprepared. That may have been the big
> failing.
>
> If Detroit was meeting its sales quotas, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion. Now that they are not, we're focusing on the hourly pay scale of
> the average UAW worker.
>
> Whenever a Republican politician opens his mouth, I know that I'm about to
> hear a distraction. It's their favorite tactic. Rather than address the real
> issues, they point to strawmen and fall guys, to draw attention away from
> themselves. Republicans of late have spent an INCREDIBLE amount of money,
> and we are now supposed to find new respect for them because they balk at
> making a $14billion LOAN... And the sticking point? The UAW doesn't want to
> come right out and say that they'll cut back their wages by 1/3 by next
> September 1st.
>
> The Republican party should be disbanded. Today.
>
> dwight, disenfranchised Republican



Republicans

Even the Republicans' sense of political self-interest seems dimmed
by
their
anti-union zealotry. Senate Republicans may think they gain political
points
by standing against assistance to a major industry, but they will
suffer
political damage lasting generations if they permit the U.S. auto
industry to
collapse. - Ralph Nader


Millwright Ron
www.unionmillwright.com

Kruse wrote:
> On Dec 14, 3:16 am, "WindsorFox<[SS]>" >
> wrote:
>> razz wrote:
>>> Well master mechanic, then you would of known each ecm has to be
>>> calibrated to individual engine, such as if used to tow, and type of
>>> engine being used on. So in order to program the fuel to air ratio's
>>> and various other parameters, you plug the ecm into a computer program
>>> with the pre- calibrated parameters set by the engineering department,
>>> and down load the info and or adjust according to each individual engine.
>> Uh huh and that's hard, how? In fact, there's a there is an F body
>> tuner around here that taught his dog to do it so he wouldn't have to
>> pay a mechanic for that.
>>
>
> That reminds me of that episode on "Cheers", where they taught the
> chimpanzee to paint and deliver mail.


LOL

--


> I have never seen a computer infected by botnet.
> How it is like? - Lemat


They sneeze bits all over teh internets. - Rev. Beergoggles

Scuse me, poohawk.... this is a Mustang NG.... Off the assembly line, there
is no choosing and swapping module calibrations.... This engine gets that
program.... period. From my standpoint, my factory scan tool will identify
the engine/PCM and IT will decide what the programming is to be.... The
programming that I must work with is decided by EPA guidelines...

And, yes, I can see where programming a module can be so very hard on
some... having to turn the key off at the right time and having to turn it
back on at the right time.... Gosh, that can be tough to keep up with,
right?

Now... I'm not entirely sure how it works with heavy trucks.... but then
this isn't "rec.autos.big-****ing-trucks"...

FWIW... most new modules now come "stupid". PCM, TCM, ABS, vehicle
dynamics, body control modules, audio modules.. all of these require some
sort of installer input these days... but aside from any "personality"
changes, we don't get the chance to alter programming like an aftermarket
PCM tuner might allow.

On Dec 12, 7:07*pm, "dwight" > wrote:

> Even the automotive offerings of the Big Three compare favorably to other
> marks. From pickups and SUVs to fuel-efficient smaller cars, their lineup is
> very similar to what the other brands are selling. Other than the sudden
> surge in oil prices and the ensuing economic collapse, Detroit could have
> soldiered on, trying to build what they thought the American public wanted.
> But there was, in fact, a surge in oil prices, and sales dried up quickly..
> Detroit never saw it coming and was unprepared. That may have been the big
> failing.

I agree with these statements. I did not read your Seven Myths story,
but if the list did not include the one that the Democrats/Greenists/
Statists are currently disseminating -- that the problem with GM and
Chrysler is that they do not build "the kinds of vehicles that
Americans want to buy" -- it should have. How else does GM retain the
largest market share (albeit a dwindling one) if it does not build
"the kinds of vehicles that Americans want to buy"? How does Ford sell
one million F series pickups every year (as opposed to 170,000 to
180,000 Toyota Priuses, and as opposed to, e.g., the Honda Accord
hybrid, which Honda canceled for lack of interest) if Americans do not
want them?

> If Detroit was meeting its sales quotas, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion. Now that they are not, we're focusing on the hourly pay scale of
> the average UAW worker.

The first statement is self evident. More to the point, if GM and
Chrysler were not coming to Washington asking for a DOWN PAYMENT of
$34,000,000,000,000, just to see them through mid 2009, we would not
be having this discussion. Because they ARE asking for the money, all
aspects of their operations are fair game.

The question is not, should we loan $15,000,000,000,000 GM and
Chrysler to see them through to mid January? The question is, will
they EVER be able to repay the money? Assuming that the total "loan"
principal that the Government finally hands out comes to
$34,000,000,000,000, and assuming that GM and Chrysler sell 3,000,000
vehicles per year for the five years during which they are supposed to
pay it back, that's more than $2,000 per vehicle just to repay the
principle. Add in interest at 5% per annum and the numbers just get
worse. Add to that the $1,500 - $2,000 per vehicle UAW burden (vs.
the wage scales at non-UAW factories), and the $500 per vehicle legacy
costs burden, and you've got a $4,000- $5,000 financial burden
attached to every vehicle, that the competition does not have. There
is simply no way for this to work.

Specifically with respect to the UAW, I am glad they it was able to
win the wage and benefits and retirement packages it has achieved in a
free market over the years. However, I do not want one nickel of my
money to go to prop it up. I work forty to sixty hours per week, and
I do not make $71 per hour in wages and benefits. Nor (at age 54) do
I have any prospect of retiring at age 56 -- or even age 66 -- as many
UAW workers do and have done. Either the UAW rank and file makes the
concessions that are necessary to keep their employers afloat, or
their employers go out of business. It's really simple.

> Whenever a Republican politician opens his mouth, I know that I'm about to
> hear a distraction. It's their favorite tactic. Rather than address the real
> issues, they point to strawmen and fall guys, to draw attention away from
> themselves. Republicans of late have spent an INCREDIBLE amount of money,
> and we are now supposed to find new respect for them because they balk at
> making a $14billion LOAN... And the sticking point? The UAW doesn't want to
> come right out and say that they'll cut back their wages by 1/3 by next
> September 1st.

That sure is a collection of nonsense. Let's just agree that, yes, it
was the UAW's unreasonable refusal to agree to make concessions today,
which in any event will kick in in 2010, and which will probably be
made irrelevant when GM and Chrysler do finally go under due to the
UAW's obstinacy, which caused the $15,000,000,000 bailout bill not to
pass.

Also, let's remember that, with 60 votes needed in the Senate to bring
the House's $15,000,000,000 bailout bill to a floor vote, the vote
last Thursday was 52-35; that voting "no" were 4 Democrats; and that
voting "yes" were 10 Republicans. If those 4 Democrat "noes" had
joined the 10 Republican "ayes," just 4 more Democratic votes would
have been sufficient to have passed the bill. The 4 missing
Democratic votes include Joe Biden (who evidently cannot leave his
hotel room in Chicago in case someone, ANYONE calls); John Kerry (who
found it more agreeable to be in Poland for photo ops at the latest UN
IPCC global warming hysteria-fest); and Senator Wyden of Oregon (who
has not publicly stated a reason for his absence (out shopping for a
new Prius, maybe?)). Also MIA was President-Elect O!'s Illinois Senate
seat, which remains unoccupied because of the usual DEMOCRATIC morass
of corruption which characterizes his home state's politics.

Also let's not forget that the Democratic leadership in both houses of
Congress found it more important for the membership to begin their
Christmas vacations on DECEMBER 12, than to stick around for another
week and work it out -- something which undoubtedly could have been
done.

So blame the Republicans for the failure of this $15,000,000,000
bailout down payment if you like, but first tell me why they the 32
Republicans were wrong to vote "no," and second tell me why the UAW
and the Democrats were not more to blame than the 32 Republicans.

> The Republican party should be disbanded. Today.

Wow. Now that would be a great day for our country. I question how
anyone who claims ever to have been a Republican can make that
statement. It's like the Judas Colin Powell, saying he was throwing
his support behind Obama because, among other things, Obama's judicial
appointments were likely to be more to his liking than Senator
McCain's. Anyone who can make that statement was never a Republican
to begin with.

180 Out

According to the news the auto companies currently employ about
50,000 workers. They have moved most jobs to suppliers. If each
of the 50,000 workers took a $20K pay cut, it would save a
billion dollars a year. While this is nothing to sneeze at, it
is small compared to the amount of money the auto makers need
to stay in business. I assume the benefits for currently
retired workers is a bigger problem. How do you solve that ?
Do you let the auto makers welch on deals made 10 years ago ?

G

> wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 7:07 pm, "dwight" > wrote:

> > Even the automotive offerings of the Big Three compare favorably to
> > other
> > marks. From pickups and SUVs to fuel-efficient smaller cars, their
> > lineup is
> > very similar to what the other brands are selling. Other than the sudden
> > surge in oil prices and the ensuing economic collapse, Detroit could
> > have
> > soldiered on, trying to build what they thought the American public
> > wanted.
> > But there was, in fact, a surge in oil prices, and sales dried up
> > quickly.
> > Detroit never saw it coming and was unprepared. That may have been the
> > big
> > failing.
>
> I agree with these statements. I did not read your Seven Myths story,
> but if the list did not include the one that the Democrats/Greenists/
> Statists are currently disseminating -- that the problem with GM and
> Chrysler is that they do not build "the kinds of vehicles that
> Americans want to buy" -- it should have. How else does GM retain the
> largest market share (albeit a dwindling one) if it does not build
> "the kinds of vehicles that Americans want to buy"? How does Ford sell
> one million F series pickups every year (as opposed to 170,000 to
> 180,000 Toyota Priuses, and as opposed to, e.g., the Honda Accord
> hybrid, which Honda canceled for lack of interest) if Americans do not
> want them?

Eh, you should have read it. This would have been covered in "Myth 1: Nobody
Buys Their Vehicles," and "Myth 5: GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for
investing in pickups and SUVs."

> > If Detroit was meeting its sales quotas, we wouldn't be having this
> > discussion. Now that they are not, we're focusing on the hourly pay
> > scale of
> > the average UAW worker.
>
> The first statement is self evident. More to the point, if GM and
> Chrysler were not coming to Washington asking for a DOWN PAYMENT of
> $34,000,000,000,000, just to see them through mid 2009, we would not
> be having this discussion. Because they ARE asking for the money, all
> aspects of their operations are fair game.

They should have come to Washington as GMAC, Ford Credit, and whatever
banking arm of Chrysler. They'd have gotten all the money they needed, no
questions asked.

> The question is not, should we loan $15,000,000,000,000 GM and
> Chrysler to see them through to mid January? The question is, will
> they EVER be able to repay the money? Assuming that the total "loan"
> principal that the Government finally hands out comes to
> $34,000,000,000,000, and assuming that GM and Chrysler sell 3,000,000
> vehicles per year for the five years during which they are supposed to
> pay it back, that's more than $2,000 per vehicle just to repay the
> principle. Add in interest at 5% per annum and the numbers just get
> worse. Add to that the $1,500 - $2,000 per vehicle UAW burden (vs.
> the wage scales at non-UAW factories), and the $500 per vehicle legacy
> costs burden, and you've got a $4,000- $5,000 financial burden
> attached to every vehicle, that the competition does not have. There
> is simply no way for this to work.

If you don't mind calling up the UAW website in your browser, here are some
startling numbers: http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

Look at "active" vs. "retired" and "surviving spouses," and you get a good
picture of what's actually going on with the UAW contract. Problem is, you
can't suddenly tell all of those UAW retirees that, sorry, the deal is off.
Well, you can't do that any easier than telling Americans under the age of
50 that Social Security will be ended prior to their reaching retirement
age... It could be done, but no politician wants to be the one to come out
and say it.

> Specifically with respect to the UAW, I am glad they it was able to
> win the wage and benefits and retirement packages it has achieved in a
> free market over the years. However, I do not want one nickel of my
> money to go to prop it up. I work forty to sixty hours per week, and
> I do not make $71 per hour in wages and benefits.

(Neither does anyone in the UAW.)

> Nor (at age 54) do I have any prospect of retiring at age 56 -- or even
> age 66 -- as many UAW workers do and have done. Either the UAW
> rank and file makes the concessions that are necessary to keep their
> employers afloat, or their employers go out of business. It's really
> simple.

The union wage scale is NOT that far removed from the non-union shops. That
being said, I don't doubt that the UAW, if pressed, would vote to cut their
own wages, rather than become unemployed. While I have the UAW page up, it
points to a percentage of 8.4 to represent the labor cost of a typical new
vehicle. Obviously, the vast bulk of the cost is related to non-labor
events, from design and marketing to raw materials, "executive
compensation," and more. I'm sure that the UAW would join in to address
lowering the costs, so long as the other 91.6% of the costs are also put
under the microscope.

> > Whenever a Republican politician opens his mouth, I know that I'm about
> > to
> > hear a distraction. It's their favorite tactic. Rather than address the
> > real
> > issues, they point to strawmen and fall guys, to draw attention away
> > from
> > themselves. Republicans of late have spent an INCREDIBLE amount of
> > money,
> > and we are now supposed to find new respect for them because they balk
> > at
> > making a $14billion LOAN... And the sticking point? The UAW doesn't want
> > to
> > come right out and say that they'll cut back their wages by 1/3 by next
> > September 1st.

That sure is a collection of nonsense.

Not, judging by every election cycle in recent memory.

> Let's just agree that, yes, it was the UAW's unreasonable refusal to
> agree to make concessions today, which in any event will kick in in
> 2010, and which will probably be made irrelevant when GM and
> Chrysler do finally go under due to the UAW's obstinacy, which caused
> the $15,000,000,000 bailout bill not to pass.

No, I don't agree. I don't agree that the UAW is the cause of the failure of
any auto manufacturer, and I do not agree that the UAW was unreasonable in
recent days.

> Also, let's remember that, with 60 votes needed in the Senate to bring
> the House's $15,000,000,000 bailout bill to a floor vote, the vote
> last Thursday was 52-35; that voting "no" were 4 Democrats; and that
> voting "yes" were 10 Republicans. If those 4 Democrat "noes" had
> joined the 10 Republican "ayes," just 4 more Democratic votes would
> have been sufficient to have passed the bill. The 4 missing
> Democratic votes include Joe Biden (who evidently cannot leave his
> hotel room in Chicago in case someone, ANYONE calls); John Kerry (who
> found it more agreeable to be in Poland for photo ops at the latest UN
> IPCC global warming hysteria-fest); and Senator Wyden of Oregon (who
> has not publicly stated a reason for his absence (out shopping for a
> new Prius, maybe?)). Also MIA was President-Elect O!'s Illinois Senate
> seat, which remains unoccupied because of the usual DEMOCRATIC morass
> of corruption which characterizes his home state's politics.

Are you trying to argue that the Democrats are just as bad as the
Republicans?

> Also let's not forget that the Democratic leadership in both houses of
> Congress found it more important for the membership to begin their
> Christmas vacations on DECEMBER 12, than to stick around for another
> week and work it out -- something which undoubtedly could have been
> done.

Yes, I believe that you are...

> So blame the Republicans for the failure of this $15,000,000,000
> bailout down payment if you like, but first tell me why they the 32
> Republicans were wrong to vote "no," and second tell me why the UAW
> and the Democrats were not more to blame than the 32 Republicans.

In this instance, in this particular vote, the dissenting Democrats are
every bit as wrong as the naysaying Republicans. At no time did I praise the
Democratic party.

The bottom and inescapable line here, and the one which even the reigning
Republican leader has to admit, is that we simply cannot allow any one of
the Three to go into bankruptcy. Not merely for the benefit of the lazy and
overpaid UAW workers ("Myth No. 7," by the way), but to protect ALL of us -
you, me, and the guy down the street. In the current economy, this would
spell widespread disaster, the extent of which none of the experts can
predict.

A couple of years ago, perhaps, if General Motors had gone belly-up, we
would have suffered, would have spent far more in resulting costs, but we
would have absorbed it and moved on. To potentially double the unemployment
rate (currently 7%?) today would be an incredible burden for this country.
$15,000,000,000 to even $125,000,000,000 is a relatively small price to pay
to stave off this catastrophe.

> > The Republican party should be disbanded. Today.
>
> Wow. Now that would be a great day for our country. I question how
> anyone who claims ever to have been a Republican can make that
> statement. It's like the Judas Colin Powell, saying he was throwing
> his support behind Obama because, among other things, Obama's judicial
> appointments were likely to be more to his liking than Senator
> McCain's. Anyone who can make that statement was never a Republican
> to begin with.
>
> 180 Out

Ah, yes... "Judas." The man speaks his mind, gives a cogent, reasonable
explanation for his decision, and he's "Judas." Great.

The Republican Party of just a couple of decades ago is all but gone and
forgotten. The Social Conservatives who have run the party of late have
destroyed everything that the Party stood for, and stand - speaking of "180
Out" - almost diametrically opposed to its principles. . Now that the Dems
have retaken the White House, you see a small number of "true conservatives"
beginning to surface (beware those who seek only to re-label themselves),
talking about taking back the party. I wish them luck.

I hope they refind their fiscal conservatism (NOT in this case, thank you
Mr. Hoover). I hope they seek to restore rights and liberties. I hope they
work to keep government out of my home.

Of course, while I'm hoping, I hope that BOTH parties take a sensible,
long-term approach to the current economic crisis and work to restore full
faith and measure to the U.S. economy. And if they could lower my credit
card interest rates, great.

dwight