Talk:United Auto Workers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for February 11. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
Contents |
[edit] One Party State?
This phrasing, near the end of the History section, is unsourced and seems to violate NPOV:
The union is essentially a 'one party state' controlled from top to bottom by the Administative Caucus which chooses International officers seven months prior to their actual election at a quadrennial election held in June.
Unless sourcing can be found for this, I would suggest it be stricken from the article. Robert cruickshank 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed that text. If someone can find sourcing for the statement and shows how it does not violate NPOV, then we can consider returning it. Robert cruickshank 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What about foreign owned plants in USA?
The article sort of peters out in the 1970s...there's nothing in here about the UAW's drives to unionize plants owned by Japanese and German automakers. Is that information elsewhere? If so it should be linked from here, otherwise it should be compiled. It seems to me that the Big 3 are making good cars (ranked best in class by various sources), and yet they're spiraling into bankruptcy while complaining of massive pension liabilities (Damlier sold Chrysler for 1/4 of what it paid for it 9 years ago--US$8 vs. YS$36 billion--and along with that comes US$19 billion in underfunded pension debt), while everyone else is moving auto production to the US because it's cheaper to make the cars here. It looks to me like the UAW is a parasite that's nearly killed off its host. Yes, that's POV, and that's why I'm not jumping to edit the article. On the other hand, maybe that's the truth, and if so, it should be in there... scot 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would also like to see this article expanded because I, too, have heard many people expressing a sentiment that the UAW is killing US car makers through the overwrought compensation they've garnered for their members. True or not, it ought to be mentioned in the article. RobertM525 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Union or no union, the cost of living is still too high in this country for the automaker's tastes. The jobs would've gone anyway, but foreign companies are NOT manufacturing here because its cheaper (Japan artifically keeps its currency down), but for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.15.101 (talk • contribs)
- Then why haven't any of these plants unionized? If it were politically motivated, then having the Unions on their side would be a plus, as they are a significant lobbying force. And unions really do add to the cost: But with benefits, one industry researcher estimates Toyota’s total labor costs to be about $35/hour, versus $81/hour for GM, including its legacy retirement and healthcare costs. That means that if Toyota did no better than match GM’s Arlington levels of productivity, it would still have a $1000 per car cost advantage in labor alone. (from here) scot 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Current Strike
Perhaps something should be said about the current strike going on in GM plants? Mcflytrap 19:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo uaw.png
Image:Logo uaw.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
