Skip to main content

View Diary: "Union-free is better" argument proving wrong (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am not sure your argument (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, mijita, VClib

    makes much sense.  

    Union free is better means better than the alternative.  It does not mean "super awesome all the time and immune from any and all economic pressure."  Thus, if you want to show that union-free is NOT better, you have to show, at least, that the as a result of the economy, the financial conditions at Toyota is THE SAME or WORSE than at unionized plants.    

    •  Well, it could be delayed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      From what I've read, the big 3 (especially GM and Chrysler) collapsed first because they were older and had made more mistakes. So when the economy turned down, those 3 weakest auto makers failed. Now Toyota is catching up in the worst way, that's why the company isn't in THE SAME or WORSE shape than unionized plants -- yet!

      I've got my fingers crossed that they don't suffer like the Big 3, but I wonder if this is just the beginning. First it's 1,000 jobs, next quarter it's 100,000. And being union-free did nothing to prevent it or make it any easier for employees.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site