Get rid of car unions - then we'll talk

Quote from IShopAtPublix:
you still blame the unions.
More...
Saying management has no role in the downfall of the U.S. automakers is about as stupid as saying the unions don't share responsibility. There's plenty of blame to go around.

I just saw a CBC piece on a CAW worker from the Oakville plant. He said, and I'll try to paraphrase as accurately as possible here:

My Dad and grandfather worked at GM. When I was 18 [he's in his mid 40's so this would be what, mid 70's?] the union steward told me that at GM, I would have a secure job and I would be able to retire with a good pension after 30 years

Of course, this guy is worried about his pension now that GM is going under. Point is, does an unskilled worker deserve to retire on a full pension at the age of 48?

I have a sneaking feeling that the debt problems could be overcome by a deep pocketed buyer. The people who own the debt might be willing to listen to offers. The pension liabilities? Maybe someone more familiar with the actual numbers could chime in here.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Saying management has no role in the downfall of the U.S. automakers is about as stupid as saying the unions don't share responsibility. There's plenty of blame to go around.

I just saw a CBC piece on a CAW worker from the Oakville plant. He said, and I'll try to paraphrase as accurately as possible here:

My Dad and grandfather worked at GM. When I was 18 [he's in his mid 40's so this would be what, mid 70's?] the union steward told me that at GM, I would have a secure job and I would be able to retire with a good pension after 30 years

Of course, this guy is worried about his pension now that GM is going under. Point is, does an unskilled worker deserve to retire on a full pension at the age of 48?

I have a sneaking feeling that the debt problems could be overcome by a deep pocketed buyer. The people who own the debt might be willing to listen to offers. The pension liabilities? Maybe someone more familiar with the actual numbers could chime in here.
More...

NO NO and NO. Union bashing is popular among certain circles but it misses the point entirely.

Back in the 60s GM was the biggest corporation in the world. It was rolling in the dough like no other. It was not at all unreasonable that workers wanted a slice of that prosperity.

If you spent your lifetime working on the assemblyline and knew nothing else I am sure you would want a pension. Unions were reluctant to make concessions because of people like Roger Smith (former GM chief) who negotiated concessions from the unions so that he could boost executive pay. Roger Smith was a big f'ing moron btw.

Fast forward to present day. Union workers are made to look like parasites even though they were not responsible for the strategically moronic decisions that plagued GM/FORD/Chrysler.


Blaming GM/FORD/Chrysler problems on pension benefits shows a complete ignorance of business. Those liabilities are like long term bonds, only a problem when your cash flow dips. And your cash flow dips only when people stop buying your cars. What was GM doing in the 80s, 90s and early 00s?

It should be noted that Ford Taurus was the best selling car in USA until its moronic 1996 redesign.

One of the fundamental problems with present car buyers (as far as GM is concerned) is that they don't merely expect the car to not fall apart after they drive it from the lot. They want a polished experience. They want resale value, they want comfortable seats, cupholders, nice interior plastics, etc. When Consumer Reports almost always puts Toyota/Honda on top and when people can actually compare they bolt for the Toyota/Honda dealer.

So all those desperate claims about how the quality of Gm has advanced markedly fall on deaf ears. Nobody cares. Present day car buying is beyond expectation of a car not falling apart before 50,000 miles.

It is a sad and tragic story but it is the fault of the stupid management and not unions. "Greedy unions" is a convenient excuse but only for those who are ignorant of the history of US automobile industry.
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

NO NO and NO. Union bashing is popular among certain circles but it misses the point entirely.
More...

Popular, and well deserved.

Union membership has sharply declined in the U.S. over the past 30+ years. The best analogy is that of a parasite, killing it's host. Now, the parasites are begging to have someone save their host so that they can continue to survive.

The U.S. steel industry was ruined by unions. The same happened to the former big American airlines. And now, not surprisingly, the automakers. Perhaps you'd like to mention U.S. industries that are mostly unionize, subject to competition, and are still strong and successful?

I think the last bastion of unionism is the government workforce. But, few would consider them efficient or subject to competition. I worked in a union manufacturing facility for a decade, as well as a similar non-unionized facility and there was no comparison. The non-unionized facility had a better, more motivated and more productive workforce.

Unless the union contracts are terminated and renegotiated to make them competitive, I can't support any bailout for the automakers and would prefer seeing them all file for bankrupcy reorganization. Any bailout before that is just throwing good money after bad, and will only reward those that should be punished (the unproductive union workforce and workrules) and delay the inevitable. Why should taxes be raised on a low paid employee in Mississippi or Texas to fund the exorbant pay and health care benefits negotiated by a union for a worker in Michigan or Ohio?

Capitalism works. Let them survive on their own, or fail on their own. The same goes for the bulk of the financials as well, IMO.

I agree with the OP 100%. You are right on the money.
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

NO NO and NO. Union bashing is popular among certain circles but it misses the point entirely.

Back in the 60s GM was the biggest corporation in the world. It was rolling in the dough like no other. It was not at all unreasonable that workers wanted a slice of that prosperity.

If you spent your lifetime working on the assemblyline and knew nothing else I am sure you would want a pension. Unions were reluctant to make concessions because of people like Roger Smith (former GM chief) who negotiated concessions from the unions so that he could boost executive pay. Roger Smith was a big f'ing moron btw.

Fast forward to present day. Union workers are made to look like parasites even though they were not responsible for the strategically moronic decisions that plagued GM/FORD/Chrysler.


Blaming GM/FORD/Chrysler problems on pension benefits shows a complete ignorance of business. Those liabilities are like long term bonds, only a problem when your cash flow dips. And your cash flow dips only when people stop buying your cars. What was GM doing in the 80s, 90s and early 00s?

It should be noted that Ford Taurus was the best selling car in USA until its moronic 1996 redesign.

One of the fundamental problems with present car buyers (as far as GM is concerned) is that they don't merely expect the car to not fall apart after they drive it from the lot. They want a polished experience. They want resale value, they want comfortable seats, cupholders, nice interior plastics, etc. When Consumer Reports almost always puts Toyota/Honda on top and when people can actually compare they bolt for the Toyota/Honda dealer.

So all those desperate claims about how the quality of Gm has advanced markedly fall on deaf ears. Nobody cares. Present day car buying is beyond expectation of a car not falling apart before 50,000 miles.

It is a sad and tragic story but it is the fault of the stupid management and not unions. "Greedy unions" is a convenient excuse but only for those who are ignorant of the history of US automobile industry.
More...

Your appeal for Unionized Shops is nothing more than Socialist clap-trap.

Unions are obsolete. Every reasonable expectation from Labor has been legislated by Politicians. Minimum wage, pensions, retirement, severance, vacation, down to sick days. Etc.

Unions DO NOT have the arbitrary right to partake in a firms earnings, regardless if a company makes hand-over-fist.

Thats what PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is all about.

PRIVATE RISK + PRIVATE INVESTMENT = PRIVATE PROFIT.

Labor bears none of the risk or capital investment, yet feel "entitled" to enjoy a bulk of the profits!!

And for what? Tightening a bolt?! Installing a chair!? Driving a forklift?!

Try working a real labor job for 10 bones an hour, doing shit work, then come back and tell me UAW's - who fuck the dog most of their career - deserve 7 TIMES better than any of these other poor Souls.
.
The only handout States should provide is Free Education. All the way up.

That way, you Union Boys can go to school, get a real job, and stand on your own two feet. Cause right now, the Public is carrying your lazy ass all the way into Bankruptcy

And I'm not absolving Management. They fucked up Big Time. Shouldn't be allowed to manage a car company again.

But you Union Boys fucked up just as hard.

Listening to you idiots rationalize 70 Bucks an hour while nearly half the population makes 12 bucks an hour, working 60 Hours a week, really drives me crazy.

Oh well. You and Management brought this on yourselves. Enjoy!
 
Quote from EricP:

Why should taxes be raised on a low paid employee in Mississippi or Texas to fund the exorbant pay and health care benefits negotiated by a union for a worker in Michigan or Ohio?

Capitalism works. Let them survive on their own, or fail on their own. The same goes for the bulk of the financials as well, IMO.

I agree with the OP 100%. You are right on the money.
More...

Excellent points.

Agree 10,000%!
 
Quote from RisingTide:

Get rid of UAW
More...
Because we don't really need the middle class in order to be a great society, do we? Because the more people in this country work for the minimum wage (which btw should also be repealed) the sooner we'll be able to restore our former glory. Because if we could only restore slavery and indentured servitude our business model would immediately become a smashing success. Because when business is growing and profitable we should reward the owner/CEO with tens/hundreds of millions of dollars, when business is a failure we should cut the salary and benefits of its workers. Right?

Because it was UAW that decided to manufacture hundreds of thousands of [poor quality] Hummers, Escalades and Expeditions and zero hybrids when oil prices were at their peak, because it was UAW and its members that blocked every attempt to implement Universal Healthcare in this country forcing american companies to pay for it while their competitors in Europe and Asia did not have to. This is not to say that unions are blameless but hey, let's get real here...
 
all the ford and chevy v8's are still running on the 283 and the 289 smallblocks from the 60's,in the 70's the made some crap 4 cyl's and never bothered to do the work of making a good one,they used a lot of foreign engines and stuck them in their american cars,chrysler bought mitsubishi and used their engines, ford used some good german engines in their fiesta( probably vw) in the late 70's early 80's and they were using nissan and mazda engines in their windstar,gm put toyota in their prisms and geo's,if you try to remain the biggest automaker in the wealtheist country by patching together cars and putting a shiny coat of paint on 'em,your not gonna make it, i'm surprised they have lasted this long, as far as unions and pay scale ,let em make $8 an hour,but then they need to sell houses for 40 k and bread for a quarter and hamburger for 49 cents a pound, gas for 30 cents a gal, all that union pay goes right back into the economy, or ,if they close , thats 3 million jobs and their paychecks coming out of the economy, thhis blame falls squarely on the lazy,cheap, greedy management of gm,ford and chrysler who refused to put money back into the business to keep up with the times,most importantly ,fuel consumption. The same robbery that has pilfered their coffers for the last 30 years is pilfering the U S government right now on Bush's way out
 
If you worked for GM making $70 bucks an hour (or whatever sum with benes) would it have killed you to buy a GM product? Crissake you made enough to have it repaired. Money was cheap enough to buy a new car every three years.

The old timers were appalled to drive into work and see Toyota's or foreign cars in the company lot. Old timers listening to fellow union workers trash the company that paid their wages. Back then loyalty mattered, managment was not the enemy, it was someone the union did business with. It's the work culture that's changed.
 
Yep, that evil union fighting for good wages and benefits for the working man. It's un-american for Christs sake.
Let's break it down like a fraction. Auto makers are guilty of making shitty cars. That's it! The wall street crowd has caused the market to crash, credit markets to freeze and the economy of the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD to collapse. Who do we beat up...the auto makers, of course. Who do we make jump through hoops for a loan? Yep, you guessed it. Who do we demand structural changes from...right again, the auto industry. All the while the banks just keep the same failed model in place at the expense of the taxpayer. Makes perfect sense to me. :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Quote from a_person:

Because when business is growing and profitable we should reward the owner/CEO with tens/hundreds of millions of dollars, when business is a failure we should cut the salary and benefits of its workers. Right?
More...

Seems that a lot here don't understand capitalism. The OWNER (i.e. shareholders of a public company) actually <i>owns</i> the company. It's <i>their</i> company. They risk their money. They make the decisions (as it should be). They make the profit if/when the company makes profits. They lose their investments if/when the company loses money or goes bankrupt. The owners also choose the management (through the board). => If they make crappy management choices, then the company does poorly and the owners lose money, which is as it should be.

What about management? Their employment (and pay) is at the discretion of the owners (as it should be). If they screw up, they often get fired (as they should be). The management are not much different that star atheletes, in that their pay is based upon their expected performance. You think you have a potential CEO that would be the best in the world => You better make him a high offer or he'll take the CEO offer from someone else. No different that a star baseball pitcher. Do the owners often pay a lot for what turns out to be a crappy CEO? Sure, and the New York Yankees often do the same thing. Then the CEO or player, gets fired and the owners find a new and hopefully better replacement.

What about labor? Labor is (or should be) determined almost exclusively by supply and demand. As fewer qualified workers are available, the wages of the employees increase (otherwise, the employees will quit and work for nearby competitors). As more qualified workers are available, the wages of the employees drop (as the owners have lower priced replacement workers - granted at an initial retraining cost). What if the employees feel that they are being underpaid? => Gosh, how about quit and find another job??? Is this that tough to understand?

What about the UAW? I would humbly suggest that they pool their cash, and create their own automaker. That way, they could double the pay of all their workers, make perfect decisions 100% of the time, AND make zillions of dollars of profits. Not sure why they haven't already started one, maybe George Soros could loan them the money. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, unions have allowed labor to boost their wages substantially above the fair labor rate, as determined by supply and demand. While this certainly benefits the workers in the short-term, it kills them in the longer-term, as their companies are unable to compete against other firms paying a fair-market labor rate. As a result, the union workers are evenually increasingly laid-off, as their host company loses money, often leading to bankrupcy. The union contracts, won through threat of strike, ultimately result in the worse kind of lose-lose situation, where the workers (and managmenet) ultimately lose their jobs, and the owners lose their investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top