Chrysler: Union to own a majority stake in the automaker
Whip: Workers Take Over the Means of Production
15 Responses to “Chrysler: Union to own a majority stake in the automaker”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 28th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Funky link, dude. Goes Nowhere. Much like Congress.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
d’oh. fixed.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Wasn’t there a company in Atlas Shrugged that did something like this? A “workers paradise” type of place….I remember it going quite well in the book too….
April 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they renamed Chrysler and called it the Twentieth Century Motor Company.
Did Rand have a time machine or something? Wow
April 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Didn’t Marx (not Groucho either) have some comments along that line?
And yes, that was the Twentieth Century Motor Company mentioned in Atlas Shrugged.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
That’s right. Man, soon I think we will see anti-Dog eat Dog laws and Directive 10-289…fun times we’re living in ain’t they?
April 28th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
That’s why my next car will likely be a Mahindra.
April 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The only real problem I see here is that they will still be making Chryslers. This is not a business plan which has any chance of success, no matter who runs the show.
Perhaps after the union takes over they should just loot the pension fund and forget about making Chrysler a better company. They seem pretty good at that already.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Seems like a win-win to me (provided there are no Dog-Eat-Dog laws made).
Either the Union continues to act like a bunch of spoiled children who think that the corporation is a big piggy bank for them to rob until the company dies, or they grow up and come to realize that health of the company is directly related to the health of their livelihoods, and they start acting responsible.
Employee owned companies do exist and are successful.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Madrock, could work, provided that the new, retrenched employee-owned company does not have to pay for the monthly pensions and health-care costs of all those generations of retirees. None of those plans are fully funded. The real rip-off here happened decades ago.
UAW this, UAW that, I don’t relish the thought of people who’d been strongly led to believe that their working life was over, being compelled by “circumstance” over which they had no control to sell off their property and (try to) find jobs in their late years. Same token, why do taxpayers need to take over those obligations? We don’t seem to have learned much in three generations. Didn’t we pass a bunch of laws, and establish a bunch of regulating boards, and all?
April 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
There’s a big difference between a “union owned” company and an “employee owned” company.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Yup. I believe United Airlines has been employee-owned for quite a while. My “company” was employee-owned, too. I had both a lazy worker and an exploitave boss. I was both of them.
Seriously, what’s important is whether they can sell the stuff they make at a profit. Communism is not in production, it’s in the market.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Oyez, ‘further research reveals’ that the owner will not be the union and its membership per se, but the union’s (separate) retirement fund. That’s just another fund owner, and we’ve seen the impact of fund administrators on boards and CEO’s already. No hope here. I take it back–it can’t work.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hmm
Sounds familiar. Wasn’t there another titan of American industry that was taken over by the workers union and government (albeit the state government) some years ago???
Why yes. Colt.
Wonder how they’ve fared since then. Seems to me AR15s and 1911s are still two of the best selling guns out there.
Oh wait – you mean politicians engaged in business planning and Colt lost pretty much the entire share of that market?
Wonder if Chrysler faces the same future.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Well, considering Chrysler and GM have rolled over and become Socialist puppies, anyone wanting to buy from an American owned, non-government car company has fewer choices….