Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
EU: It looks like Belgian economy will restore quickly
  • Ford workers angry about the automaker’s plans to shutter a plant in Belgium broke windows and burnt tires in a demonstration outside the company’s European headquarters in Germany. Police say the protesters arrived on buses from Belgium and blocked the entrance to the plant. Then a group of 20 to 40 stormed the building and threw stones through windows while others burned tires and set off firecrackers.

    Ford has announced plans to shut an assembly plant in Genk, Belgium, jeopardizing some 5,000 jobs, and union representatives are currently meeting with company management in Cologne.

    Of course, mass media, telling you about recovery that will follow, are telling the truth, aren't they? Closure of factories, small firms and constant cuts are clear signs that corporations are getting ready to huge rise in demand.

  • 30 Replies sorted by
  • Next step, will they take management physically hostage as is the norm south of the border?

  • you don't know the reason the factory closed.

    the belgium goverment makes it the most expensive country for companies, to employ people.

    a worker there costs over 47€ while in most EU countries it is 27-37€

    the goverment there demands higher payments such as healthcare, taxes and higher hour payments, this is the reason ford is closing in belgium, the reason they are pissed is because there is probaly no other work in belgium for them.

    just like the factory that closed in The netherlands last year :)

    since companies want to make more profit in these times, it's a obvious choice their leaving belgium.

  • @sicovdplas

    it's a obvious choice their leaving belgium

    If you have sole target for "optimizing budget" and cut expenses, yep. Otherwise, no.

    Idea that everyone must compete with everyone on the global market, so corporations could choose best place and hire cheapest workers and get huge tax cuts (most new factories are paying almost zero taxes) is just nuts. It is whole logic put upside down.

  • Mr. Ford himself once said "cars don't buy cars"…

  • @vitaliy_kiselev i know, but every business is about profit.

    same for ford or any business, values are long lost ;)

  • It's the union effect again. Unions, like mafia, make demands and then use force to get paid. Instead of breaking legs, they strike and cripple the plant until the company gives in to the demands for higher pay. Once the company does this, the criminals, I mean "unions", realize that they can do this again and again until they bleed the company dry and/or the company decides to get rid of the plant. It's simple self preservation. At least here in the USA, unions are singlehandedly responsible for the near death of the domestic auto industry. They are parasites. They don't care if their wants eventually kill the host, they want what they want right now!

  • @svart

    Amazing position. Really. How mass medua and education can put all things upside down in someones head.

    Goal of normal ANY people union (like normal country) is to make life better. And it means better medicine, better culture, better transportation, good and accessible education, lot of cheap kindergartens, good food. If it is required - higher pay.

    Yet criminal mass media and criminal education guys turned it all upside down, stating that everyone must be competitive, everyone must follow the market, everyone just a screw, if corporation is optimising their papers closing every social thing they have - it is cool and good for market. And, of course, all cuts must be in education, food must be turned into profitable junk.

  • I was a member of a union for years. I watched it from the inside. I was harassed until I joined, which I joined because the union had forced the company to give them the dental and vision care parts of the health insurance. This meant that in order to get dental or vision care, you HAD to join the union.. Interesting way to FORCE people to join, no? I paid my excessive union dues and I watched meeting after meeting where the only topics were how to get more from the company even in the face of reduced revenues and how they could gain more political power. I'd say that the most powerful person in the company was not the CEO, he was the union boss. You do know that the unions and mass media are partners in the USA, right? That's right, mass media makes unions look like the good guys. Maybe in other countries it's different, and it certainly was different in the age where there were no worker's rights laws and people had to stand up for each other, but today, unions are nothing but forces that pay politicians huge amounts of money to sway government in their favor while living off the dying hosts of companies.

    EDIT: I DO agree that mass media and education are criminal. They both have agendas that are clearly in their own favor, not the favor of the consumer. Unions are exactly the same way now though. They give HUGE amounts of money to government figures in return for "favors". I'll also agree that food is junk now and all people want better, but people are still monkeys and monkeys will take and take and demand bigger and better for cheaper until there is nothing left. We are nothing but greedy monkeys looking to gather shiny objects to elicit the affection of other monkeys and to assert stature over others.

  • @svart

    Unions are not good or bad in current system.

    But blaiming unions for things you blame them is not fair. As they did natural thing, they have no reason to be on the side of company owners and management.This is how current system works. Everyone try to fuck everyone.

    But if they start to use opposite approach, fucking won't go away, it'll be just cut after cut after cut. It is system.

    No place for St. Clause like CEO in it.

  • I was a union guy for several years. Yes, the union sought to improve salaries and benefits. But, when the company experienced financial difficulty, the union agreed to salary and wage benefit reductions to keep the company alive. Most unions are willing to do that and have done that, including auto workers and teacher unions.

    the union had forced the company to give them the dental and vision care parts of the health insurance. This meant that in order to get dental or vision care, you HAD to join the union.. Interesting way to FORCE people to join, no?

    Makes sense to me. The union negotiated health and dental and you seem to want those benefits without supporting the union? You want a free ride eh?

  • @brianluce No free ride. I still had to pay for it, one way or another. We just had really high union dues to cover the insurance, pretty much the same price I would pay through the company, if the company had kept that. So the only real explanation is that the union negotiated to take care of those in order to "recruit"(force) people to join. Obviously you are pro-union, having likened me to a freeloader without even knowing the situation. The real freeloaders are the union members who get paid 25-75% higher wages than normal competitive free market employees and who have historically blocked non-union workers from working in certain sectors in order to keep excessive wages secure, ala NYC and their draconian pro-union laws for entertainment, etc.

  • Unions, like many ideas fallowing this philosophy, are well-intentioned... but have devastating consequences in the implementation.

    People simply need to look at the results, not ideas. Coming from outside of Detroit, myself, and knowing MANY people (from workers to designers), it was crystal clear that the unions in Detroit lead to the failure. Last I heard from a manager at GM, the line-workers were making as much as 6-year educated management. The message to the next generation was, don't get educated... join the union! The insensitive to become a designer, engineer, or manager dwindled in the 80-90's and as a result... bland, poorly designed, poorly assembled cars, left americans buying foreign. The revenue that was being used for R&D/design, went instead, to manual labor demands. Sales went down, quality went down, union demand kept rising, until boom! Failure.

    Philosophically, unions and socialization lead to failure because they are a zero-sum system applied to a non-zero game. They are intrinsically incompatible.

  • As far as choosing examples for criminal mass media Belgium would definitely be one of the last places I would pick. :) @Vitaliy_Kiselev you say that "Goal of normal ANY people union (like normal country) is to make life better." But stating the goal is not enough. You have to look at the results.

  • Communism is a religion. :-) Its impossible to reconcile it with logic.

  • @svart And who then negotiated the wages at your union job? Also a freeloader is different from a free ride. If you think the company would have paid you a wage equal to what the union negotiated and that the company would've offered you the same benefit package, then I have a bridge listed on ebay you might be interested in...

  • Last I heard from a manager at GM, the line-workers were making as much as 6-year educated management. The message to the next generation was, don't get educated... join the union! The insensitive to become a designer, engineer, or manager dwindled in the 80-90's and as a result... bland, poorly designed, poorly assembled cars, left americans buying foreign.

    Okay, looks like you diagnosed the problem with the American Car industry. Rather than go to college, talented young people decided to work on assembly lines straight out of high school. Glad we got this one cleared up.

  • @svart Check out the management compensation packages at GM too. Honda and Toyota has CEOs who earn a small fraction of GM and Chryslers management, work harder, and do not fire people at random. The unions may be a problem, but greedy management is an equal if not a bigger issue. The MBA system does a remarkable of producing parasites!

  • @brianluce I ended up leaving the job for another 6 months later, nothing to do with the union specifically but the job wasn't what I was lead to believe it to be and the constant BS of not being able to do things to complete my job because union rules said that I couldn't do certain things that others were supposed to do. It left me frustrated and angry, especially stuff like being made to do double shifts with no notice, etc. Actually, the pay was pretty much the same between union and non union at this job to start, at least until you got some tenure and then it went up, way up, and a few years in, you could make more than your manager, who was non-union. I left for a job in a completely different industry and have followed that path as non-union ever since and never looked back. It's cool that you guys defend something you believe in, but it's still killing the industries. Strangling them to death, slowly but surely.

    @zcream no doubt. The golden parachutes for these CEOs are ridiculous as well but the CEO is vastly outnumbered in total wage by the employees. At the height of the bubble, Chrysler was paying out something like 6 billion in benefits while only bringing in 3 billion of revenue. That's how bad the union screwed Chrysler. Thankfully, UAW has been backing down and has accepted lower pay scales for new workers in return for a chance at a majority stake in Chrysler.. Wait, what? That's right, a 55% stake in a company that they strangle to death and has been bailed out and sold a few times during the recession, has yet to pay back the majority of it's bailout and is still down like 40% of it's previous sales.. Good bye chrysler! In the name of capitalism we should have seriously let this one fail. Bad cars, Bad management, Bad employment deals, etc. It's no wonder that non-union automakers are making profits, making good cars and are eating our lunch in the auto industry. They don't have to cheapen the cars to make more profit to make up for the excessive wages.

  • "Last I heard from a manager at GM, the line-workers were making as much as 6-year educated management. The message to the next generation was, don't get educated... join the union! The insensitive to become a designer, engineer, or manager dwindled in the 80-90's and as a result... bland, poorly designed, poorly assembled cars, left americans buying foreign."

    Did you have to swallow the red or the blue pill to believe this? :D

  • I'm pretty sure that there's 'good' unions and 'bad' unions. I've been told - anecdotally - that when Rupert Murdoch smashed the print unions in London during the 80s there were entire departments of people that literally had no job to do, kept in place only by the union. But, it was also the trade unions that were instrumental in stopping the appalling conditions that industrial workers in the UK used to labour in (circa ~1800s)

    Like most things when there's two opposing power structures - do you try and maintain a balance, or hope that the side that has control behaves responsibly?

  • (Chrysler) , has yet to pay back the majority of it's bailout

    You're making up things to fit your argument. This is but one example. Chrysler has paid back over 90% of its bailout. From factcheck.org:

    President Barack Obama visited a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, on June 3 to discuss the recent announcement that the Chrysler Group LLC repaid $5.1 billion in outstanding loans. That brought the total repayment, as of May 24, to $10.6 billion — about $1.9 billion less than the $12.5 billion the company borrowed under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

  • @brianluce Actually no it's not made up. Your attempt at nullifying anything I say by cherry picking information from some website is feeble at best. Your supposed proof actually shows the numbers. 5.1 billion repaid out of 8.5 billion TARP loan. The rest is write-offs, write-downs, borrowing from other loaners to pay back government loans and of course, 1.5-2 billion of our government will just absolve.

    The same website you used, actually has more information on it, further down the page that you might not have read in your giddiness and quick attempt at proving me wrong:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/chrysler-paid-in-full/

    "But this is fuzzy math, at best. The fact is that the Obama administration "wrote off" part of the original loan issued under Bush.

    When Chrysler filed for bankruptcy on April 30, 2009, the "new Chrysler" that emerged assumed only some of the $4 billion loaned by the Bush administration. In a new report issued last month, the GAO explained that Treasury — under the Obama administration — "wrote off $1.6 billion" of the "original $4 billion loan extended to the old Chrysler."

    In its May 24 announcement touting Chrysler's final repayment, Treasury acknowledged that it is "unlikely to fully recover" about $1.9 billion."

    So that's a 1.6 billion write-off and a 2 billion absolvement.. 3.6 billion the taxpayer won't get for sure. And now the government has sold it's remaining stock involvement to Fiat, a 1.3 billion loss after they only made about 560 million from the deal:

    "Since then, the administration has announced that it will sell its remaining Chrysler shares to Fiat, the Italian automaker that will now own a majority of the U.S. car company. Taxpayers will reap about $560 million from the stock sale, Treasury says. That still leaves taxpayers about $1.3 billion in the hole, and Treasury doesn't expect to ever get it back."

    which brings the total loss up to 4.9 billion of loss to the taxpayer. That's about 57% of the secondary 8.5 billion tarp loan that they recieved. So the use of my word "majority" was INDEED correct, but then again, it's hard to think of the numbers when there is so much to take in besides what BS our government and it's union cronies would want you to believe..

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/25/chryslers-payback-isnt/

    EDIT: Oh and even more good info, Chrysler paid back what it did to the US government with LOANS from Canada:

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/05/chrysler-celebrates-payback-acknowledges-outstanding-obligations-sort-of/

  • @brianluce
    @svart

    Please, keep fighting with facts. Do not go personal, please.

  • cherry picking information from some website

    "Some website"? it's non partisan factcheck.org. It's a reputable sources, unlike, I dunno, some random FOX News site like you used.

    And the total amount committed by Treasury was 12.5 billion, not 8.5. That changes the math unfortunately. And there's nothing about a 200 billion absolvement. Just read the article again, it's fairly straightforward:

    Taxpayer beware: You have to read the fine print to know what the president means when he says Chrysler has paid back "every dime" of loans it received "during my watch." The company got $12.5 billion in bailout funds under the Bush and Obama administrations, but — despite what the president said — isn't expected to pay about $1.3 billion of it.

    Anyway, this is too far into the weeds and fine print to hold my interest. If you want to hate on unions and US Auto, go right ahead. Luckily for the rest of us, neither is going away any time soon.

  • Isn't it obvious that both a situation where companies can dictate any working conditions they want to and a situation where unions can dictate any working conditions they want to are desasterous for society as a whole?

    The market for labor needs, like any market of significant size, regulations that keep a balance between the interests of all buyers and sellers.

    A totally "free" market ("free" as in "without any rules") is nothing but an anarchy, where the strongest group will use its power to oppress all the others - and that is a bad thing no matter whether its "corporations" or "unions" that are the oppressors.