Big 3

[rgraham666]

And not all unions are that adversarial. Many quietly sit down with management and hammer out the best deal for the workers and the company. You'll generally find that when the union is a problem that the problem began with management, who are concerned with their 'win/loss record'.

When both sides treat negotiations as a zero sum power game both sides will lose.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, he didn't say that.

There is such a thing as a moderate point of view.

I believe that the continued existence of unions can be a good thing. Their destruction could be a bad thing.

The idea that a union always has to hold the company hostage in every negotiation is a problem. They become more concerned about their won-loss record than about the real purpose for their existence. To better the conditions for the employees.

The institution is not the problem, anymore than the institution of the Presidency was the problem with W. It is the focus and behavior of the leadership that is the problem.

I majored in Labor Relations; I understand the problems with unions, and I also know the history. I fully concede that unions were a godsend when they first were formed, but with the laws that we have now, and the culture (which has changed dramatically since the time that Rob is citing), unions have become not only obsolete, but as corrupt as the companies they were originally formed to negotiate with.

I disagree with the institution itself not being a problem. I think it has become one.

eta: no, Rob didn't say that, but he doesn't have to. It's what's happening right now to the big 3. No, the fault doesn't lie entirely on the union, but neither does it lie entirely on management. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

 

[Liar]

Right....so we'll keep paying assembly line workers $75 an hour until the company goes bankrupt from it, then they can make $0 an hour. Makes sense to me.

Would be interresting to see where you got the $75 from, when even the $70/hour that the New York Times is spamming the mediasphere with sure looks to me like a grossly misleading exagerration worthy of Hannity, Kristol and ilks.

 

[Liar]

That's saying noting about unions though. I'm not too familiar with yours over there, but fro a distance, they look and act nothing like unions that familiar with. More like...guilds or something.

 

[trysail]

It is a curious fact that GM's operations are profitable everyplace in the world with the exception of one country.

 

[cloudy]

Would be interresting to see where you got the $75 from, when even the $70/hour that the New York Times is spamming the mediasphere with sure looks to me like a grossly misleading exagerration worthy of Hannity, Kristol and ilks.

It was in an article on BoingBoing. The figure is the true cost of an employee, not just his hourly wage in cash. This is the relevant part:

Many people blame the union. On average, Detroit union auto workers earn about $75 per hour (salary and benefits), as well as the legacy costs of health care and pension costs of retired union workers). It all adds up to about an extra $2,000 to the car's cost. Strict work rules and job classifications led to thousands of redundant factory jobs (one study concluded that 8,200 assembly jobs wouldn't be needed if the Big Three automakers had the flexibility of Toyota's US factories).

 

[R. Richard]

And how long do you think it would be before those laws are taken off the books if unions didn't exist? How long would it take before some sadistic, power mad jackass realizes, "Hey! There's nothing to stop me from treating my workers like shit! And it's fun!" and proceeds to do so? What will protect your wages and living conditions? And what good will cheap goods do you if you haven't got the money to spend on them?

The thing that stops some power mad management jackass from treating his workers like shit is call COMPETITION. If a company mistreats their workers long enough, the workers leave and find other jobs elsewhere. This isn't theory, I worked at a place where a manager was so bad that people were leaving in droves from his department and mostly no place else. Top management finally called him in and, according to urban legend suggested, "Why don't you take Monday off, without pay and Tuesday and Wednesday, and ... Are you getting the pucture here?"

The management didn't can bad attitude boy because he had a bad atitude. They canned him because he was costing the company money.

 

[gauchecritic]

The true cost of an employee is about as worthwhile calculating as the true cost of medicine, they both get what is commonly termed 'the going rate' or 'what the market can stand'. Neither is relevant when compared to 'the true cost' of living.

Working with numbers does nothing to enhance society.

People are neither 'resources' nor units, if you think they are then you're a corporation.

If you're a corporation, you're a legal entity. If you're a legal entity then you have an obligation to uphold standards of humanity. Treating people as resources is not humane.

 

[gauchecritic]

The thing that stops some power mad management jackass from treating his workers like shit is call COMPETITION. If a company mistreats their workers long enough, the workers leave and find other jobs elsewhere. This isn't theory, I worked at a place where a manager was so bad that people were leaving in droves from his department and mostly no place else. Top management finally called him in and, according to urban legend suggested, "Why don't you take Monday off, without pay and Tuesday and Wednesday, and ... Are you getting the pucture here?"

The management didn't can bad attitude boy because he had a bad atitude. They canned him because he was costing the company money.

Except McDonalds (and a host of others) where staff turnover isn't considered damaging but an accepted deficiency caused by company policy.

Market Competition only affects companies in Keynesian Economics 101 classes.

 

[cloudy]

The true cost of an employee is about as worthwhile calculating as the true cost of medicine, they both get what is commonly termed 'the going rate' or 'what the market can stand'. Neither is relevant when compared to 'the true cost' of living.

Working with numbers does nothing to enhance society.

People are neither 'resources' nor units, if you think they are then you're a corporation.

If you're a corporation, you're a legal entity. If you're a legal entity then you have an obligation to uphold standards of humanity. Treating people as resources is not humane.

But they are resources when you're working purely with numbers. Should they be treated purely that way? Of course not, but you have to have some sort of reference point to be able to know whether the company is making a profit or not. Like it or not, people are counted as a resource.

Look, I'm not arguing that point with you, because I think people should be treated fairly - and I always treated people that worked for me with respect and fairness, even fighting with my boss for the raises/wages I thought they deserved.

Just goes to show that people don't have to belong to a union to be treated fairly....as I've been saying all along.

eta: as far as the laws governing personnel, they won't be repealed anytime soon, whether unions exist or not, and if you've never dealt with them, I can tell you that they are unbelievable complex, and the fines for violating them are astronomical.

There is a form here in the U.S. that has to be filled out for every single worker called an I-9, and it has to be filled out by hand. You cannot erase or use white-out on the form, and the fine for the first mistake is $500. Make two mistakes? The second one will cost you $1000 plus the $500 from the first. Make three mistakes, and you're now paying a total of $3500 - and that's just for a one page form.

It costs much less to abide by the laws and treat your employees fairly - even without some union thug breathing down your neck.

 

[rgraham666]

And I'm not saying they'll be treated without unions.

But Gresham's Law will end up ruling if unions disappear. Companies that abuse their employees will be generally more profitable than ones who don't. This will cause stockholders to demand companies lower their pay, support systems and safety standards. And, let's face it, most companies will do it regardless. They aren't paid to be nice people.

More to come. I have a brain storming session to attend.

 

[jeninflorida]

that is good to know...after working for several small companies, I have had some good bosses and some bad bosses. however, when a key employee leaves, things get shaken. So my bosses do what they can to keep key employees around.

I'm not sure that I could ever work for a union or the goverment. being in a "pay grade" would not work for me. I'm smarter than the people that I work with and do more in less time...and put myself in our clients place so I tend to break the rules to keep the business and earn more business.

the 'Win/Loss' never works...it has to be a 'Win/Win'

And not all unions are that adversarial. Many quietly sit down with management and hammer out the best deal for the workers and the company. You'll generally find that when the union is a problem that the problem began with management, who are concerned with their 'win/loss record'.

When both sides treat negotiations as a zero sum power game both sides will lose.

 

[rgraham666]

Okay. My co-author isn't available. so let's deal with some points.

Now, apparently labor costs add $2,000 to the price of a new car. That's what? Ten percent of the cost? Big whoop in my opinion.

But let's assume that is too much and it's destroying the profitability of the company. So let's say that pay has to be cut by 50% to make the car profitable. That's a 5% decrease in the cost of the car. Oh wow!

And the employees abruptly have 50% buying power. Since I sincerely doubt that sort of action will be limited to the car manufacturers in a short time I believe every worker in America will be working for 50% less. As I mentioned the stockholders will demand it.

So now goods are 5% cheaper and people have 50% less money to spend. Um, I don't think they'll be buying a lot of stuff, do you?

Let me draw a metaphor for you, guns.

Now as you know I regard guns as just tools. They aren't good and they aren't evil. Neither are unions.

Whenever guns get discussed here one of the the major arguments bought out is that guns are necessary to protect people from unethical and violent conduct from others. And to protect against dangers to freedom from the government. Bringing up that things aren't that bad doesn't affect the people raising this argument. "No, things are always dangerous," they say.

Well, unions are a tool that people use to protect themselves from unethical and violent conduct from others. And to protect against dangers to freedom from the government. Now I'm hearing the argument, "But things have changed! They aren't that bad anymore."

Strange, no?

 

[jeninflorida]

I have no idea what the base pay, but when you add that and insurance, taxes, pension, this and that....how far does it add up?

Would be interresting to see where you got the $75 from, when even the $70/hour that the New York Times is spamming the mediasphere with sure looks to me like a grossly misleading exagerration worthy of Hannity, Kristol and ilks.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROB

Few think like you.

Most people comparison shop and go for the lowest price. So Detroit is $2K in the hole to begin with. And Toyota & Honda are better cars than Detroit makes. Plus they get better gas mileage.

Five percent may be nuthin to you, but to most people its enough.

JEN

The average Detroit worker makes $30 an hour to put one dodad on every car that comes down the line. Their average technical training is 30 minutes to learn how to fasten the seat or install the headlight or mount a tire. They arent machinists or painters. Skilled workers make a lot more.

 

[jeninflorida]

but the actual cost is more than $30 an hour...you have to add in the bennies and the pension...the job bank program...insurance...all that stuff. so even though the employee earns $30 an hour the company has to pay more like (total guess) $60 an hour for that employee

ROB

Few think like you.

Most people comparison shop and go for the lowest price. So Detroit is $2K in the hole to begin with. And Toyota & Honda are better cars than Detroit makes. Plus they get better gas mileage.

Five percent may be nuthin to you, but to most people its enough.

JEN

The average Detroit worker makes $30 an hour to put one dodad on every car that comes down the line. Their average technical training is 30 minutes to learn how to fasten the seat or install the headlight or mount a tire. They arent machinists or painters. Skilled workers make a lot more.

 

[gauchecritic]

but the actual cost is more than $30 an hour...you have to add in the bennies and the pension...the job bank program...insurance...all that stuff. so even though the employee earns $30 an hour the company has to pay more like (total guess) $60 an hour for that employee

And then you have to take away tax breaks, tax avoidance, favoured supplier, grants and underwriting for the company, and then tax for the employee, insurance from the employee, pension from the employee and etc (which the company don't pay by the week or month (or occasionally ever) ) and my guess is that it comes out to less than $30 an hour.

 

[jeninflorida]

I wish that my company could get tax breaks....tax avoidance,....this and that...cuz i know that were under tight cash flow.

And then you have to take away tax breaks, tax avoidance, favoured supplier, grants and underwriting for the company, and then tax for the employee, insurance from the employee, pension from the employee and etc (which the company don't pay by the week or month (or occasionally ever) ) and my guess is that it comes out to less than $30 an hour.

 

[cloudy]

Let me draw a metaphor for you, guns.

Now as you know I regard guns as just tools. They aren't good and they aren't evil. Neither are unions.

Not a good analogy, Rob.

Guns are iron and steel - mindless and non-fluid/unchangeable. Unions are neither of those things, so the "union is a tool" argument is naive, at best.

I realize you have the best of intentions, and if the history of unionization wasn't so corrupt at the core, I would agree with you. In a theoretical world, unions are a good thing. But we don't live in a theoretical world, and in the past, oh....fifty years, unions have done more harm than they have good.

eta: Not all employees are the kind that will give a fair day's work for fair wages/treatment, and management isn't always the ogre you make them out to be.

 

[jeninflorida]

how long does it take for someone to work at McDonalds...the front line worker sorry to say is a low end job and most poeple can jump in the same day that he or she is hires. so its easy to find new people. I have no idea what McDonalds is paying but I remember back a few years ago McDonalds was paying $3-6 over min wage. turnover for a place like McDonalds does not matter for the owner

Except McDonalds (and a host of others) where staff turnover isn't considered damaging but an accepted deficiency caused by company policy.

Market Competition only affects companies in Keynesian Economics 101 classes.

 

[jeninflorida]

but in the end...most american's are not buying american cars from the big 3. they cost too much. when the bail out came out, UAW said "its not our issue and we will not change"...that is worse than the foolish leaders each flying down in a private jet. The big 3 leaders should have stood up to the union years ago. I would hate for anyone to lose his or her job, but the BIG 3 and the UAW live in fantasy land.....unless we turn to socialism and take control of the auto industry...then so what if each car is sold for a loss of $2,000 at least we have jobs...then each american can pay more in taxes on April 15 to support "fantasy land" at the big 3

Okay. My co-author isn't available. so let's deal with some points.

Now, apparently labor costs add $2,000 to the price of a new car. That's what? Ten percent of the cost? Big whoop in my opinion.

But let's assume that is too much and it's destroying the profitability of the company. So let's say that pay has to be cut by 50% to make the car profitable. That's a 5% decrease in the cost of the car. Oh wow!

And the employees abruptly have 50% buying power. Since I sincerely doubt that sort of action will be limited to the car manufacturers in a short time I believe every worker in America will be working for 50% less. As I mentioned the stockholders will demand it.

So now goods are 5% cheaper and people have 50% less money to spend. Um, I don't think they'll be buying a lot of stuff, do you?

Let me draw a metaphor for you, guns.

Now as you know I regard guns as just tools. They aren't good and they aren't evil. Neither are unions.

Whenever guns get discussed here one of the the major arguments bought out is that guns are necessary to protect people from unethical and violent conduct from others. And to protect against dangers to freedom from the government. Bringing up that things aren't that bad doesn't affect the people raising this argument. "No, things are always dangerous," they say.

Well, unions are a tool that people use to protect themselves from unethical and violent conduct from others. And to protect against dangers to freedom from the government. Now I'm hearing the argument, "But things have changed! They aren't that bad anymore."

Strange, no?

 

[rgraham666]

A little exploration on the "$73 an hour" claim.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JEN

McDonalds pays about what WAL-MART pays new hires....about 75 cents above minimum wage. And both companies pay more for night shifts and employees with good work histories.

In 2006 I took a Christmas job at WAL-MART. I made $6.85 plus 50 cents for overnight shift plus 50 cents for my employment history....plus 5 cents cause I'm strong as a mule.

Yes. The $30 figure doesnt include bennies or mandated overhead.

People buy Jap cars because Detroit cheapens cars to make up for the extra labor costs.

 

[jeninflorida]

two good examples about the union and outsoucing. Huffy Bikes, and Arrow clothing both sat down with their respected union and said that if we can make these cuts we are out of buisness. the union would not budge...so now all those jobs are in China and only white collar jobs are left. now, granted this was a few years ago.

so when the gm went to the DC, the UAW said that this is not our issue and we will not make any changes...the UAW guy has lightened up a little but does not sound like they are really ready to make changes....

so if the bail out does not come, the the big 3 & UAW do not make any changes....why should we support them? big 3 has bad leadership, uaw would rather not budge...but in the end the union worker will be unemployed.

And not all unions are that adversarial. Many quietly sit down with management and hammer out the best deal for the workers and the company. You'll generally find that when the union is a problem that the problem began with management, who are concerned with their 'win/loss record'.

When both sides treat negotiations as a zero sum power game both sides will lose.

 

[Liar]

I realize you have the best of intentions, and if the history of unionization wasn't so corrupt at the core, I would agree with you. In a theoretical world, unions are a good thing. But we don't live in a theoretical world, and in the past, oh....fifty years, unions have done more harm than they have good.

Are you speaking globally or locally?