Uaw

[Fosters]

http://news.yahoo.com/uaw-wants-bigger-cut-detroits-newfound-profits-140625480.html


AUBURN HILLS, Mich. (AP) — To help American carmakers stay in business, autoworkers grudgingly gave up pay raises and some benefits four years ago.

Now that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are making money again, workers want compensation for their sacrifice. Just how much they get is the central question hanging over contract talks that start this week between Detroit and one of the nation's largest and most powerful unions.

The negotiations, the first since Chrysler and GM took government aid and emerged from bankruptcy, will set wages and benefits for 111,000 members of the United Auto Workers, including those at Ford, which avoided bankruptcy by taking out massive private loans. The UAW's four-year contracts with the Detroit Three expire on Sept. 14.

There's more at stake than pay. After the industry's brush with financial ruin in 2008 and 2009, both sides know how quickly Detroit's sales and profitability could vanish. Sales are on pace to reach nearly 13 million cars and trucks this year, better than the 10 million in 2009, but still below the 17 million peak in 2005. Americans are worried about buying cars when wages and the job market are weak. The workers and Detroit companies can't leave themselves vulnerable to rivals.

"Management's not the enemy at this point," says Jim Graham, a longtime local union president in Lordstown, Ohio, where workers make the Chevrolet Cruze car. "The enemy is the competition."

Even so, the talks won't be easy. Chrysler, which is run by Italian automaker Fiat, wants to hold the line on wages and benefits, while GM and Ford want to cut labor costs even more. There's friction inside the union, too. Many workers are eager to get a share of company profits and restore pay raises and some benefits given up during the financial crisis.

"You want to get something back," says Hans Smith, a worker at GM's pickup plant in Flint, Mich., who knows they won't get back all the concessions.

That could create problems for the UAW's new leader, Bob King, who preaches cooperation over confrontation.

King wants to "make sure our members get their fair share of the upside" but also keep the companies competitive.

Wall Street is watching, too. Stock prices at Ford and GM and a potential Chrysler public offering could be hurt if companies end up with higher costs.

The talks started Monday at Chrysler's Auburn Hills, Mich., headquarters with a series of friendly handshakes. Both sides wore matching maroon jackets to signal unity.

Here are the key issues in the talks:

— Reward for Risk:

Workers want a bigger cut of the profits now that Detroit's automakers are making money again. They got profit-sharing checks in January, but they'll want bigger ones this year to offset the risk that they could nothing if the economy slows more and auto sales tank. They also resent the size of executive pay packages, particularly at Ford, where workers fume that Ford CEO Alan Mulally got $26.5 million for 2010.

Some assembly-line workers are already mad about giving up guaranteed raises. They could resist profit-sharing.

"Most workers say 'No, that's not good enough,'" says Gary Walkowicz, a Ford worker who ran unsuccessfully against King last year. "It's like pie in the sky as opposed to real increases in wages to help us keep up with increasing prices."

The UAW's ultimate weapon, a strike, is banned at GM and Chrysler under terms of the government bailout. The union could still strike at Ford.

— Matching Rivals' Costs:

Even with big reductions in labor costs since 2007, GM and Ford still pay more in wages and benefits than Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, which don't have unionized workers. Ford's cost is the highest in Detroit at around $58 per hour, while Toyota's is $55, according to the Center for Automotive Research. GM and Ford will try to cut costs further in talks this summer, while Chrysler, which has the lowest costs in Detroit, doesn't want an increase.

Still, factory wages and benefits cost the Detroit Three around $20 less an hour per worker than they did four years ago. In the last contract talks, companies got the union to form trust funds to manage the cost of their retirees' health care. That took a huge cost off Detroit's books once the companies gave money to the trusts. The union also agreed to lower wages for newly-hired workers, about half the $29 per hour that longtime union workers make.

King says Detroit's costs will fall as more new workers are hired.

He says that the union won't make any more financial concessions, but will look at other ways to cut costs, including health care changes, as long as members aren't hurt.

Al Iacobelli, Chrysler's chief negotiator, says the company won't go back to the old formula of pay raises.

The UAW is eager to boost its ranks with more new hires. Its membership has fallen to 376,612, about a quarter of the 1.5 million it had at its peak in 1979. The companies, though, are reluctant to hire with auto sales and the economy still sputtering. King concedes that reopening plants would have to be justified by increased sales.

In past years the spirit of cooperation at the start of talks quickly has turned to nastiness as both sides staked out their positions. But UAW Vice President General Holiefield says this year will be different.

"We've come through hell and look where we're at today," he says. "I don't see anything as an obstacle."


They're not happy with profit sharing checks, but they want higher ones in case the company does worse? What part of profit sharing do they not understand? If there's profit, they get a check, if there's no profit, no check... And they're pissed at the CEO pay? The CEO that turned the company around from the brink of bankruptcy? :shake:

Unbelievable, how entitled these people think they are... Want CEO pay? Become a CEO. Can't do it? Too bad, keep bolting on lug nuts for $29/hr.

But I guess I can sympathize with them. I mean, especially the Chrysler employees, considering the price of beer lately, they need those raises I guess, just to be able to go on break!

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/14/chrysler-employees-caught-drinking-smoking-during-lunch-break/




Video: Chrysler employees caught drinking, smoking during lunch break... again

If this story sounds familiar to you, it's because something very similar happened just ten months ago. Chrysler employees at the Jefferson North Plant in Detroit were busted for drinking beer during their lunch breaks, and the automaker subsequently fired 13 of the workers involved.

Now, the same behavior has been observed at Chrysler's Trenton Engine Plant. The news crew at FOX 2 Detroit investigated many tips sent in from workers at the Trenton, MI plant, citing that employees were spending their lunch breaks drinking and smoking (and we aren't talking about cigarettes) at a nearby park.

When FOX 2 showed the investigation to Chrysler, Scott Garberding, the automaker's Senior Vice President of Manufacturing, said that he was "both hurt and angered" over what the cameras captured, adding:

"The employees that we identify, as soon as we understand who they are, will be suspended indefinitely without pay and anybody else involved will be dealt with swiftly. It's very frustrating to us, we take it very seriously."


On a more serious note; you'd think the bankruptcy would have been a wake up call for the UAW driving the auto industry out of business... Guess not.

[Bigdogjim]

Wow! I can see you point and also understand their fustration.

The working person alway take it on the chin.

[Cheeseheadbob]

Jim, that is probably the truth, but one has to temper that thought with, there is no other country in the world, other than the United States, where the "working person" has the ability and advantages to increase their earning power. This can be done either by increasing one's level of traditional education, or by learning/perfecting a trade. So, the old axiom of the poor working person taking it on the chin, should be supplanted with, then dodge the blow by getting your behind in gear and make yourself invaluable!


The working person alway take it on the chin.

[Fosters]

Wow! I can see you point and also understand their fustration.

The working person alway take it on the chin.

The working person takes it on the chin? Why, because the CEO got paid 25 mil?

Ever stopped to wonder how much that actually is for a company that employs 164,000 employees? Had mullaly worked for free, his massive, unjust, not fair salary would have been about 150 dollars per employee per year, before taxes. After taxes, that's maybe 10 dollars a month per employee.

Considering he turned around the company from the brink of bankruptcy, how much exactly would you pay your CEO out of your paycheck to save your company from going into bankruptcy, and you to still have a job?

And another thing, how much do you want to bet the union dues are a helluva lot more than 10 dollars per month per employee? But there's no outrage there about the working stiff taking it on the chin...

[PonyUP]

25558


And we can see where this will be going

[MAROGER]

"Now that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are making money again, workers want compensation for their sacrifice" "They also resent the size of executive pay packages, particularly at Ford, where workers fume that Ford CEO Alan Mulally got $26.5 million for 2010". "Unbelievable, how entitled these people think they are... Want CEO pay? Become a CEO. Can't do it? Too bad, keep bolting on lug nuts for $29/hr".
In all fairness want CEO pay? Become a CEO and realize that the money you have made comes in part on the backs and thru the hard work of your labor force.
Lets see based on a 40 hour work week the CEO made
$12,740 per hour
so if a $29 per hour worker would like a piece of the pie,, say a couple more bucks an hour why not? To be honest it still seems pretty far from CEO wages but maybe helps put a few of the workers kids thru college or improve their lifestyle a little.
This is why we must never let unions disappear
A little more food for thought,,,
As a record amount of U.S. citizens are struggling to get by, many of the largest corporations are experiencing record-breaking profits, and CEOs are receiving record-breaking bonuses (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7010492.ece). How could this be happening, how did we get to this point?
The Economic Elite have escalated their attack on U.S. workers over the past few years; however, this attack began to build intensity in the 1970s. In 1970, CEOs made $25 for every $1 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881) the average worker made. Due to technological advancements, production and profit levels exploded from 1970 - 2000. With the lion's share of increased profits going to the CEO's, this pay ratio dramatically rose to $90 for CEOs to $1 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881) for the average worker.
As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881) in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881).

[sailsmen]

Don't forget the Gov't spends $40,250 per private sector worker and only 4 out of 10 work in the private sector.

All those UAW guys do not make their first penny until they first pay the Gov't overhead put upon them.

CEO pay is nothing compared to the Gov't overhead.

It is the Gov't that is robbing them of their pay. It is the Gov't that has made them Indentured Servants by shackling them with a debt they can never pay back.

[Kodimar]

I've always found it humorous that people will complain about a CEO that makes $25 million a year but admire and worship the football/baseball player or actor that makes just as much or more.

These guys are the superstars of the business world. Except if they make a mistake thousands of people could lose their jobs or investors can lose millions.

There is no real world repercussions if a ball player strikes out.

[Fosters]

I've always found it humorous that people will complain about a CEO that makes $25 million a year but admire and worship the football/baseball player or actor that makes just as much or more.

These guys are the superstars of the business world. Except if they make a mistake thousands of people could lose their jobs or investors can lose millions.

There is no real world repercussions if a ball player strikes out.

Well put. :beer:


"Now that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are making money again, workers want compensation for their sacrifice" "They also resent the size of executive pay packages, particularly at Ford, where workers fume that Ford CEO Alan Mulally got $26.5 million for 2010". "Unbelievable, how entitled these people think they are... Want CEO pay? Become a CEO. Can't do it? Too bad, keep bolting on lug nuts for $29/hr".
In all fairness want CEO pay? Become a CEO and realize that the money you have made comes in part on the backs and thru the hard work of your labor force.
Lets see based on a 40 hour work week the CEO made
$12,740 per hour
so if a $29 per hour worker would like a piece of the pie,, say a couple more bucks an hour why not? To be honest it still seems pretty far from CEO wages but maybe helps put a few of the workers kids thru college or improve their lifestyle a little.
This is why we must never let unions disappear
A little more food for thought,,,
As a record amount of U.S. citizens are struggling to get by, many of the largest corporations are experiencing record-breaking profits, and CEOs are receiving record-breaking bonuses (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7010492.ece). How could this be happening, how did we get to this point?
The Economic Elite have escalated their attack on U.S. workers over the past few years; however, this attack began to build intensity in the 1970s. In 1970, CEOs made $25 for every $1 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881) the average worker made. Due to technological advancements, production and profit levels exploded from 1970 - 2000. With the lion's share of increased profits going to the CEO's, this pay ratio dramatically rose to $90 for CEOs to $1 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881) for the average worker.
As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881) in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592881).

Well, good to see that while the economy is down, the politics of envy are alive and well.

You ask why should the worker not make a couple of bucks an hour more. Tell me, does that worker improve their output to earn that 2 bucks an hour more? And why should that worker make 2 dollars an hour more, in an industry where everything is getting automated, in an economy with 10% unemployment, with hundreds of people lined up for that job - willing to do it for the same 29/hr or less?

And people complain that the big 3 are sending jobs to mexico while Honda/Toyota/Nissan/Mercedes open up factories in right to work states...

In this great country filled with opportunity, what is it that stops the 29/hr worker from rising to the top, except his own self?

PS. At the moment, UAW dues are 2 hours worth of work per month ( http://www.uawlocal4911.org/?zone=/unionactive/private_view_article.cfm&HomeID=31717&page=F2EA2EQ2Es ) . At 29/hr that would be 58 bucks per month. 58 * 12 means 696 dollars per year per employee. 696 * 164,000 = 114,144,000

So the UAW takes about 4.5 times as much as the CEO from the employees. Where's the outrage over that?

[sailsmen]

I have in my hand a copy of a letter from a well known "Non-profit" a/k/a NONTAXPAYER who has offered a "$100 cash bonus" to all employees who will provide address and income in order to qualify for more Federal tax credit money.

I think this is highly unethical and possibly illegal. I have reported it to the authorities.

[Fosters]

I have in my hand a copy of a letter from a well known "Non-profit" a/k/a NONTAXPAYER who has offered a "$100 cash bonus" to all employees who will provide address and income in order to qualify for more Federal tax credit money.

I think this is highly unethical and possibly illegal. I have reported it to the authorities.

Jeebus. Did it come with 10 free voter registration cards too? :shake:

[MrBluGruv]

In this great country filled with opportunity, what is it that stops the 29/hr worker from rising to the top, except his own self?

Isn't this around $60k a year before taxes? Assuming they work no over-time?

**** I wish I could get even close to that out of college with my degree. Of course, I plan on getting there and beyond that point by a fair bit, but especially down here in south-central Texas, 60K a year is actually pretty nice pay.

The funny part is the actual work they are doing though. I'm sure these people are physically active throughout the day, but it is still simple manual labor....

[MAROGER]

I've always found it humorous that people will complain about a CEO that makes $25 million a year but admire and worship the football/baseball player or actor that makes just as much or more.

These guys are the superstars of the business world. Except if they make a mistake thousands of people could lose their jobs or investors can lose millions.

There is no real world repercussions if a ball player strikes out.

Not an accurate comparison,, The baseball/football player is a union member who's pay is negotiated and salary is based on what the market can bear. The player is not the CEO of the organization, The owner is and I'm guessing that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones Draws a much better salary than his players. Please don't get me wrong on this topic. I do agree that many of the CEO's have brilliant minds and deserve to be showered in praise and money. What I have a issue with is when the little guy gets bashed over the head for wanting a bump when company is doing well

[Fosters]

Not an accurate comparison,, The baseball/football player is a union member who's pay is negotiated and salary is based on what the market can bear. The player is not the CEO of the organization, The owner is and I'm guessing that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones Draws a much better salary than his players. Please don't get me wrong on this topic. I do agree that many of the CEO's have brilliant minds and deserve to be showered in praise and money. What I have a issue with is when the little guy gets bashed over the head for wanting a bump when company is doing well

Define company is doing well? 2/3 of those companies went through bankruptcy, and all 3 of them are still losing ground to toyota...

Also, did you read the part that said they've gotten profit sharing checks, but they want larger ones to cover the scenario in case the company doesn't do well? That doesn't seem to mesh so well with your premise, does it?

[sailsmen]

I have a problem with those who want no risk when the company does poor but a bonus when it does well.
Real simple, employee pay is solely based on the profitability for the previous pay period be it a week or 2 weeks or 30 days. If the company loses money that position holds a loss until the profits offset the loss.
Can't wait to see their faces when they get a minus check instead of a pay check! LOLOLOL.

[MAROGER]

So the UAW takes about 4.5 times as much as the CEO from the employees. Where's the outrage over that?
I cant speak for the UAW but in the Union I belong to my pention and medical insurance is provided thru the cost of my dues. When seeing what some of my friends are having deducted from their checks to cover insurance my 60 a month for Blue c/s seems quite the value.

[Kodimar]

Not an accurate comparison,, The baseball/football player is a union member who's pay is negotiated and salary is based on what the market can bear. The player is not the CEO of the organization, The owner is and I'm guessing that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones Draws a much better salary than his players. Please don't get me wrong on this topic. I do agree that many of the CEO's have brilliant minds and deserve to be showered in praise and money. What I have a issue with is when the little guy gets bashed over the head for wanting a bump when company is doing well

It is, because in a publically traded corporation the CEO doesn't set his pay either, it is set by the board of directors who are elected members of the share holders. Unless he is also the sole owner of the company, then you are correct.

However none of the CEOs of the American auto companies are owners.

[sailsmen]

Publically traded companies are a fly compared to the size of Gov't. The CEOs are not enslaving you but Gov't is. Gov't spends 35% of every dollar in our economy. You want more money get Gov't to go back to 25%. You will put another 10% in your pocket.

[J-MAN]

So the UAW takes about 4.5 times as much as the CEO from the employees. Where's the outrage over that?
I cant speak for the UAW but in the Union I belong to my pention and medical insurance is provided thru the cost of my dues. When seeing what some of my friends are having deducted from their checks to cover insurance my 60 a month for Blue c/s seems quite the value.

Value indeed!!Sounds like your union should be running the country. $60.00 a month for full insurance and a pension on top of that? Don't see how that leaves anything to run the union Dam near a miracle! In my neck of the woods BC/BS medical w/dental, vision and let's not forget Life and STD can't be bought for $1500.00 per month for a family. Someone is picking up the lions share of the cost and it ain't your union! Is your insurance provided through a Trust?

What union is this? They certainly deserve recognition.

[Shaijack]

Let Joe Laborer run the companies and see what happens. I bet he will want 26 million in pay too. He will forget about his friends quickly.
As a owner of a company the employees thought nothing of asking for a pay raise even when the market was bad. What are you to do? I stopped all raises and bonuses until things got better then shared with them all I could.
They do not understand what nut has to be cracked to remain in operation.
Oh I am very PRO Labor. Not union.
Billy you are right lets shut down the government today. I am all for reducing it now.
As a ex-CEO I paid myself what my top paid employee made, yes I did get bonuses which were more than my regular pay. I took all the chances (did they put up their houses and property) and if they wanted all they had to do was go work for my rivals. No one did.

[SC Cheesehead]

So the UAW takes about 4.5 times as much as the CEO from the employees. Where's the outrage over that?
I cant speak for the UAW but in the Union I belong to my pention and medical insurance is provided thru the cost of my dues. When seeing what some of my friends are having deducted from their checks to cover insurance my 60 a month for Blue c/s seems quite the value.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this would be a first.

There are union-managed pension funds, and perhaps a few union-managed health plans, but these are all paid for (in the most part) by the company.

In some cases employees may be able to contribute additional monies toward them, but by and large the cost of the programs is borne by the company as an employee benefits expense. (Usually 60% to over 100% of W-2 wage cost.)

Union dues typically cover local admin. costs, contribution to the national union, PAC funding, and strike funds; and if its a trade union, funds will also go toward apprentice programs (although unions often negotiate company contributions toward those as well).

[MAROGER]

Publically traded companies are a fly compared to the size of Gov't. The CEOs are not enslaving you but Gov't is. Gov't spends 35% of every dollar in our economy. You want more money get Gov't to go back to 25%. You will put another 10% in your pocket.

The government,, don't get me started! I just wish I knew the answers on how to fix that mess! I guess spending a little less than they have would be a good place to start!!
I saw an interview with "sorry I cant remember" But I thought the idea was kinda novel,,, Don't elect a single incumbent candidate,, presidents come and go, but congress has no term limt,, When the public shows its willing to clean house with the senators and Representatives perhaps they will actually notice who they are working for!!

As bad as things look never stop voting!

[Bigdogjim]

Jim, that is probably the truth, but one has to temper that thought with, there is no other country in the world, other than the United States, where the "working person" has the ability and advantages to increase their earning power. This can be done either by increasing one's level of traditional education, or by learning/perfecting a trade. So, the old axiom of the poor working person taking it on the chin, should be supplanted with, then dodge the blow by getting your behind in gear and make yourself invaluable!

Bob while I have no issues with your answer I am proof that " make yourself invaluable" Does not always work. Company's I am interviewing with would rather hire workers with no experience? (transportation) Please do not get me wrong I am not whining because I am out of work, far from it. Seams like when you get "older" you become unempolyable to an extent. I am OK right now;)

And your 100% correct that right here in the good old USA we do advantages that are not found else where:flag:

[Bigdogjim]

The working person takes it on the chin? Why, because the CEO got paid 25 mil?

Ever stopped to wonder how much that actually is for a company that employs 164,000 employees? Had mullaly worked for free, his massive, unjust, not fair salary would have been about 150 dollars per employee per year, before taxes. After taxes, that's maybe 10 dollars a month per employee.

Considering he turned around the company from the brink of bankruptcy, how much exactly would you pay your CEO out of your paycheck to save your company from going into bankruptcy, and you to still have a job?

And another thing, how much do you want to bet the union dues are a helluva lot more than 10 dollars per month per employee? But there's no outrage there about the working stiff taking it on the chin...

I have no issues with Mr. Mullaly making what he makes! When Ford was in trouble he agreed to work for $1.00 a year p;us stock options. Smart move because he was betting ont only on himself but Ford a Comlpany!

My stock went up so I get no beef with CEO!

You just asume I do.

[Vortex]

If it wasn't so sad it would be almost funny how some have made working folks the villians of society. Why begrudge a union (or any) worker for trying to get a better wage or benefits? They took the hits when the market was down.

[droppointalpha]

I read through this and feel I must comment...

If Joe Lineworker puts a nut on and fails to tighten it correctly, then at some point down the line, a customer has to take the vehicle in, have it diagnosed and corrected... lets say $1000 for that nut when we figure all the costs and time because the car was still under warranty.

Now, Bob CEO makes a mistake in planning and over plays a small move in some segment of the market or plant renovations for a new product line... I guarantee there isn't a SINGLE decision a CEO makes everyday related to the function of the business that costs less than 5,000 if its a screw up. More importantly, he has been hired to bear the weight and responsibility for company worth more money than all the UAW workers will make in ten years. And you plan, let's say, as a director on the board to attract the top level talent it takes to turn the situation around (and asking the canidate to risk their own good name and reputation) with what amounts in the CEO world to peanuts?

And the employees want to share in the profits? At Ford they are already paid higher wages than Toyota employees! They are the highest paid auto workers, on average, in the US! How much more do they think they are worth, considering no US-owned company has held the top slot in vehicle longevity in well over a decade nor the top spot in minimizing factory defects/errors?

I've toured a Toyota facility in KY and I've seen the assembly lines in Detriot... if the UAW thinks they are the cream of the crop in automotive assembly and worth more than the already higher than average wage they get, I got news for them... They will be out of a job sooner rather than later... the market will not support anything else.

I love my Marauder and I own a '67 Chevy truck and a '92 Chrysler Lebaron... But if these jokers think I hold their work to the same quality and craftsmanship as Toyota or even Nissan...

I shake my head at this because they need to step back and look at the whole picture... And if $29/hr ain't enough for them, perhaps they should be calling on Ford to shift production to some place with a lower cost of living... Hell, I'm responsible for a 20+ million dollar ship for 12 hours every day at work and I'm not making a dollar more than they are...

[TooManyFords]

If it wasn't so sad it would be almost funny how some have made working folks the villians of society. Why begrudge a union (or any) worker for trying to get a better wage or benefits? They took the hits when the market was down.

I begrudge anyone that thinks that because they are part of a huge organization , if one gets a raise they all get a raise. Pay should be based on merit alone and rewarded individually.

You work hard, you benefit or else you find a new job.

[Marauderjack]

I begrudge anyone that thinks that because they are part of a huge organization , if one gets a raise they all get a raise. Pay should be based on merit alone and rewarded individually.

You work hard, you benefit or else you find a new job.

+10!!:beer:

[Kodimar]

Publically traded companies are a fly compared to the size of Gov't. The CEOs are not enslaving you but Gov't is. Gov't spends 35% of every dollar in our economy. You want more money get Gov't to go back to 25%. You will put another 10% in your pocket.

Damn right!

[Fosters]

I begrudge anyone that thinks that because they are part of a huge organization , if one gets a raise they all get a raise. Pay should be based on merit alone and rewarded individually.

You work hard, you benefit or else you find a new job.

:beer: Well put!

The union has the big bad strike as a bargaining chip. They go on strike = production stops and manufacturer loses money. They have the law on their side, in non Right To Work states, you cannot fire a union employee on strike (well, you pretty much can't fire a union employee period), and you are not allowed to replace them, but you have to keep paying them.

The union also promotes equal outcomes for unequal work. If someone works their ass off while another person slacks off, they will get the same pay. Promotions/raises are usually based on seniority, not ability. How is that fair?

The individual has another way of bargaining. If you're not happy with what you make and you believe you could make more money doing something else somewhere else, you're free to go do that. You're also free to negotiate with your employer, without shutting down their operation. If you are indeed doing more, and are invaluable, your employer may raise your compensation. If not, you can take that set of skills somewhere else where you get paid more. If that happens enough, the employer will be forced to pay more in order to keep or attract new employees.

In 10% unemployment, with a ton of people lined up for each open position, why on earth should the employer be blackmailed into paying more for every position?



As to the benefits being handled by the union, it was in the first article; the UAW does that with pensions, except that the pensions are in a trust, and the company funds that trust. When the meltdown occurred in 07-08, the trusts were created, and the companies, being broke, were allowed to fund those trusts with stocks. That is how the UAW gained a stake out of GM and Chrysler.

[Fosters]

Publically traded companies are a fly compared to the size of Gov't. The CEOs are not enslaving you but Gov't is. Gov't spends 35% of every dollar in our economy. You want more money get Gov't to go back to 25%. You will put another 10% in your pocket.

If that was the case, the people at the top would get a 10% cut and the people in the bottom half - who happen to have no income tax burden after all of the deductions and credits - would get squat... and the politics of envy would rev up in a hurry...

I agree though, spending needs to be cut... and when taxes are reformed, it should be the same percentage for everyone, individual/corporation/etc, and no loopholes, no credits, no incentives.

While that would still be a progressive tax, it is a compromise between what we have now, and a consumption tax - the more you consume the more tax you pay.


Back to the subject... the UAW does get me worked up as they have proved they are in a position to drive the big 3 out of business. Cars are my hobby, you drive Ford out of business/out of the US, I'm gonna have a big problem with that...

[justbob]

I can only speak for construction so forgive me if it differs a tad. You can and you will be fired if you can't give an honest 10 in 8 hours, if you ever call in sick and hold up a job, or in the event of going on strike. Last strike? Couldn't tell you, way too many years ago and well before my time. Within the bylaws? Hell no. They have other ways to let you go if your not a "company man". What you see, here, and "think" you know about what goes on is sooo far from reality that it makes me laugh every time its brought up.

In times like this, you better have some thick skin, big boy panties, and be ready to break every bilaw written to keep your job. I only mention this because I am sure the UAW workers are not living on easy street like you think. There are many ways around the rules and NO ONES job is as secure as the rules may state.

I am on pretty good terms with my boss, almost friends. I go over and above to help his business stay afloat. The harder the only other employee and I work, the more tools I provide (an entire van full) the more I can benefit by getting a decent check to bring home. Not just that, but I actually care about my name, my actions on the job site reflect who I am.

He has worked me when there wasn't any work, I don't forget actions like that and I do what I can to help pay back.

See, not all union workers are scum. There is a very huge difference between paper and reality. And some of us take pride in our workmanship and continue schooling to further better ourselves for no real benefit except personal satisfaction in being better than the next guy. We pretty much weeded out the ones not worth the coin when this economy collapsed.

Carry on, that's all from me as these threads drive me nuts.


Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk

[droppointalpha]

Union protection is largely a matter of industry and location (ie state)...

Construction isn't as heavily unionized and limited to union friendly state by in large. US owned auto production entirely unionized and has enormous protection from state and federal lawmakers friendly to the union and a long history of such protection... just looking at recent events, the federal gov't prioritized union pensions over secure bond holders, which is in direct contradiction to precedence in our law.

Take the example quoted. If you were known to be drinking on lunch break everyday, how long would you last? Would any of you even considered it? Now I wonder how long it went on at that plant?

I don't wish to marginalize your experience. But unions aren't all the same nor is their influence/power. I used to work on union ships and in the marine industry, unions aren't really unions so much as staffing agencies of professionals... it like working for a law firm or accounting firm.. clients come and go, some guys are on permanent assignment to one company and most float here, there, and yonder. Yes the rules can be bent but its more internal power plays between union members, not the shipping company.

[sailsmen]

Gov't does not generate wealth. It only destroys wealth by charging an admin fee for confiscating wealth and redistributing it. The admin fee results in less wealth.

The 10 year return on the S&P 500 is 2.7% indicating their profits for the last 10 years have been significantly less than expected. During the past 10 years Fed spending has doubled.

The question is WTF are we getting for our money?

I can give an example. The Fed is "rebuilding" the most dangerous projects in our area at a cost excluding land of $220,000 to $330,000 per unit. How does it feel to have money confiscated from you and given to an able bodied person who chooses not to work so they can live in a house that is better than your house for FREE?

Does it give you that warm Santa Claus feeling all over?

Keep rewarding irresponsible behavior and you will have more of it.