UAW needs a reality check [political]

[JagFarlane]

UAW calls on Congress to fix mess

Ya know, as much as I hear criticism of the Big Three CEO's, I hear less criticism of the mess that the UAW has created, and the gall that they have. It just goes to demonstrate why I have not been a fan of unions at times, they are erm, a bit greedier than outward appearances. Using figures provided by The Canadian Press lets look this over.

The average GM unskilled, generally just a high school graduate, makes $30 an hour. Presuming said worker works full time, with no overtime, and not on holidays, said worker makes $1200 a week, at 52 weeks, $62,400. Not too shabby for someone who didn't go to college. In comparison the average teacher in California [highest paid in the US] made $55,693 Teacher pay.

Now, we add on the good stuff. GM workers still receive a pension, an outdated form of retirement. So while the rest of us are socking away for retirement, they get to enjoy that extra cash. Up until 2005 GM workers didn't contribute to health insurance and in '05 GM finally convinced them to contribute, by forgoing a $1 an hour raise to contribute. Which, btw, goes to remind us that there have been issues with the automaker for the past 3-4 years now.

To put this all in perspective Toyotas American plant total labor costs are $48 an hour, up until recently, GMs total labor cost was $73 an hour, is $69 an hour, and in 2010 will be $62 an hour, per worker. So using the cost, even under the new contract, we calculate as such:
Currently GM employs roughly 325000 workers. We take the $21 an hour difference and say GM was paying equal to Toyota, the savings alone is $6.8 million a year.
So, not only would they save money, but one more thing to ponder, the labor costs are tossed onto the price of the cars sold. One can only wonder, if they were able to lower these prices, how much would the cost of a vehicle drop? This could make GM cars a bit cheaper and thus better equipped to compete with foreign companies.

Just my $.02 but, it would appear to me, that the UAW better come up with a better solution for the problems that they've helped create. A $14 difference can make quite a bit of an impact, and perhaps, instead of spending $17 million a year on Viagra and $5.6 billion a year on healthcare, they can keep the company running and keep these people employed, something I think that the workers would be a bit more happy over than suddenly being unemployed in a job market that isn't friendly towards the unskilled laborer used to making $30 an hour and having little to no real retirement savings in their own right.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I stopped supporting the UAW when their workers crossed our picket lines back in the 70s. I was a member of an AFL-CIO craft union, and the UAW guys walked right across our line.

I oppose companies building cars offshore to save money on labor. Americans dont sleep in refrigerator boxes, and our standard of living isnt cheap. Someone has to pay the taxes for teachers and cops and soldiers, and the middle-class does that. The Japanese car companies build their cars here, and if they can do it, GM ought to be able to do it, too.

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh. Same old, same old.

 

[trysail]

Sigh. Same old, same old.

"Same old, same old" is exactly right— "Same old, same old" willful ignorance of thoroughly well-documented, widely accepted reality, facts and economics.

The United States of America is absolutely bankrupt. It has been living beyond its means for far too long and it is simply a matter of time before it defaults on its obligations. Sooner or later, we're going to find out what it's like to live in Bolivia, Zimbabwe or Argentina.

 

[Darkniciad]

Unions have become exactly what they were conceived to combat -- greedy monsters with absolutely no concern for anything but profit. You expect the company to screw you, but at least they're paying you while they do it. You're paying the union for the privilege of getting bent over and ass raped.

Been there -- done that. Never again. I'll go on the dole before I'll work under the vampiric bureaucracy of a union again.

The UAW has as much a hand in the state of the big 3 as the government and the execs. They'll either figure that out, or they'll be in the unemployment line next to their charges.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My union embezzled the pension fund. The union president did have the decency to die, though.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Unions have become exactly what they were conceived to combat -- greedy monsters with absolutely no concern for anything but profit.

It's a hazard of any bureaucracy. Most become overbloated monsters who look only to feed themselves.

But there are businesses out there who could use a union (Wal-Mart, for one...) to actually protect workers.

The problem isn't the idea of unions and what they seek to do... the problem is when bureaucracy starts working only to feed itself. And inevitably, it does.

I worked in a school and was protected by the teacher's union. Best benefits I've ever had, retirement, too. And it was quite staggering how much I was being paid for what I did, actually. I went from making $8 an hour doing what I did to making more than double that at a school.

 

[Darkniciad]

Unions are horrible at doing anything for workers in retail. That's exactly where I was.

The unions sticking their claws into the retail sector are the ones that are doing badly. They're after what looks like a juicy source of revenue in a vain attempt to increase clout. They have little bargaining power, as the workforce is easy to replace. How hard is it to run a cash register or bag groceries? Seriously?

Here's what I got from the union when I transferred from a non-union subsidiary to a union one.

Lost my profit sharing ( $500-$600 a year )
Went from time and a half on Sunday to $1.00 extra an hour.
Lost two paid holidays.
Drastic reduction in holiday pay.

All of these reduced benefits also "phased in" very slowly over a year or more, as opposed to 90 days ( or less ) to full benefits in the non-union location. Until everything phased in, even these reduced benefits were cut by 50-75%

What did all this hack-n-slash purchase?

Elimination of the employee portion of the insurance and the deductible. Part-timers could also get the insurance.

What it gave me was about a 25% loss by the time I added up the lost benefits, and then subtracted the insurance premium/deductible.

Wal-Mart and grocery store employees wishing for unions better be careful what they wish for.

 

[rgraham666]

Calling up another example of the book I mentioned earlier today, Up the Organization: How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits, the author had the perfect solution to the problem. Give your people the very best deal you can!

When the people who work for you know that their efforts are appreciated and they are paid fairly for those efforts, your biggest problem becomes making them go home before they burn themselves out.

But, oh no. Management works from the assumption that the people that work for them are without exception lazy, stupid and incompetent. And people tend to live up to your expectations.

 

[Darkniciad]

And unions assume that the lazy, stupid, and incompetent are just as deserving of the same benefits as the poor saps that actually show up to do the job, who are then forced to drag around the dead weight of these un-fireable human sea anchors.

 

[Katyusha]

Calling up another example of the book I mentioned earlier today, Up the Organization: How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits, the author had the perfect solution to the problem. Give your people the very best deal you can!

When the people who work for you know that their efforts are appreciated and they are paid fairly for those efforts, your biggest problem becomes making them go home before they burn themselves out.

But, oh no. Management works from the assumption that the people that work for them are without exception lazy, stupid and incompetent. And people tend to live up to your expectations.

This is what we were taught in business school, except it's not that management just works from the assumption that people are lazy, stupid and incompetent no matter who they are, but rather because they see their workforces as expendable. They'll make their labor costs appear to be as small as they can because hey, if the current workers don't like it, they can go work for someone else! And in an at-will employment state (which at least half of the states in the U.S. are now) your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason, with or without notice, so long as it can't be proven that their termination of your employment is in violation of federal labor law. That's how the states exert control over the unions; the at-will employment laws take away the bargaining power that the unions have.

The problem with this mindset is that companies are unwilling to acknowledge that turnover costs a lot more than employee retention efforts. The higher your turnover, the higher your employment costs, but that isn't seen on the financials. You're right, when workers know they're being paid fairly for their work, and treated fairly by their employers, they will give you their best; it's called internal customer satisfaction. When that isn't present, workers will work like crap. I see it at my job; the people who are getting paid $22,000 a year to manage an entire fleet of cars that changes all the time do the bare minimum they can get away with because they're not getting paid enough to properly deal with all the bullshit that gets thrown at them. The people getting paid state minimum wage to carry out the needs of the fleet aren't particularly good workers either, despite their intelligence and upbringing.

Corporations that are beholden to their shareholders and their executives completely ignore all of this.

 

[rgraham666]

That sort of attitude also shows how limited the world view of the people running companies is.

All they see is that "employees cost too much." They don't see "Employees buy our stuff."

So every thing they do that means less money going to employees means they're selling fewer goods.

In the book I mentioned the author says, to all intents and purposes, "Do not hire MBAs under any circumstances."

 

[Boota]

Unions can be good or they can be a necessary evil. I've had no experience in a bad union, although I've heard stories. Walmart needs a union to protect it's employees because that company is a fucking evil cult. I briefly worked for them and they are horrible, horrible people. Walmart is the prime example of why unions exist. It's to fight shit like they do on a daily basis that decent humans wouldn't consider doing.

I have family and friends in the UAW and they support limited concessions in order to keep the company going. You can't give the company everything they ask for or you'll be paying them to work there, but unions do often work with the management of companies for the betterment of all.

My brother works for a company that fights tooth and nail to keep a union out. Part of that fighting forces them to treat their workers well, so everything is good on both sides. If companies behaved honorably unions wouldn't even be necessary.

 

[Katyusha]

In the book I mentioned the author says, to all intents and purposes, "Do not hire MBAs under any circumstances."

Or anybody who's got a degree from the Wharton School of Business at Penn. They teach the ruthless, cold, calculating, profit-at-all-costs mentality that's driving companies into the ground these days.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Unions can be good or they can be a necessary evil. I've had no experience in a bad union, although I've heard stories. Walmart needs a union to protect it's employees because that company is a fucking evil cult. I briefly worked for them and they are horrible, horrible people. Walmart is the prime example of why unions exist. It's to fight shit like they do on a daily basis that decent humans wouldn't consider doing.

I have family and friends in the UAW and they support limited concessions in order to keep the company going. You can't give the company everything they ask for or you'll be paying them to work there, but unions do often work with the management of companies for the betterment of all.

My brother works for a company that fights tooth and nail to keep a union out. Part of that fighting forces them to treat their workers well, so everything is good on both sides. If companies behaved honorably unions wouldn't even be necessary.

One of the primary reasons I would support letting the Big three go into chapter 11 is so that a 3rd party can determine what is fair. The Company will only do what's good for the Company, the Union only what's good for the Union and the working stiff is odd man out. Why not let a 3rd party who doesn't have a dog in the fight come up with a compromise?

 

[ottohauser1977]

Germany and most other European countries have unions that make American ones look like castrated versions of organized labor.

I understand the competition issues, but if Germany and the rest of Europe has powerful unions and can still compete on the global market, so can America. It's not the fault of the UAW. It's the fault of executives who find it easier to push SUVs than to give the consumers a chance to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I know this. Millions of Poles thank God (if they believe in him) every day for a certain trade union that defied the Communist "workers' paradise" back in 1980 and changed the world.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Germany and most other European countries have unions that make American ones look like castrated versions of organized labor.

I understand the competition issues, but if Germany and the rest of Europe has powerful unions and can still compete on the global market, so can America. It's not the fault of the UAW. It's the fault of executives who find it easier to push SUVs than to give the consumers a chance to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

*nodding*

That's a really good point, Otto.