# Auto industry: Ford vs the UAW... **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [September 15, 2006, 11:59am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/auto-industry-ford-vs-the-uaw/185003 "2006-09-15T11:59:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 34
**Author:** ![Jeff95TA](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/jeff95ta/32/5935_2.png) [@Jeff95TA](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Jeff95TA)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/auto-industry-ford-vs-the-uaw/185003/34 "2006-09-17T13:33:44Z")
> [@WTB:16 or 17 inch wheels and tires](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/wtb-16-or-17-inch-wheels-and-tires/22301/17): > > Really don’t understand why everyone is so pissed off at me for defending workers, all workers…but if you want to keep them coming I’ll be sure to give you answers whether you like em or not. No one is against defending workers when it’s warranted. But if the people have been overcompensated for their position, then I think a more appropriate response should be something like, “well at least they were able to make as much as they could before things got so bad that they were laid off”. Now that’s only if that really is the scenario, that they are overcompensated. If there’s a situation where they were **not** overcompensated, and something else led to their being layed off, like poor management or bad business decisions, then I would have all the sympathy in the world for them. Do you at least agree with this? --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/auto-industry-ford-vs-the-uaw/185003)._