Unionization and the labor cost differential

by SamCogar Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:17 pm

This cost differential has been a theme of the debate this week in Congress over whether taxpayers should subsidize GM, Ford and Chrysler.

But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai? UAW-represented workers at Honda and Hyundai could then bargain for higher wages.

The Employee Free Choice Act, passed by the House of Representatives last year, but stymied in the Senate, aims to make unionization easier by allowing workers to join a union by signing a card rather than by going through a secret-ballot election. The bill is called “card check” for short.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27836262/

YUP, give them Union barganing rights ....... and the Union bosses will demand higher wages and better entitlements.

And those companies are likely to close the doors and move out.

by ziggy Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:11 pm

SamCogar wrote:YUP, give them Union barganing rights ....... and the Union bosses will demand higher wages and better entitlements.

And those companies are likely to close the doors and move out.

That's a mostly hollow threat as old as U.S. industrialism.

If that's really their attitude, then phuck 'em, we're better off without 'em.

Let 'em move out. Take 'em down to Kanawha Airport, by 'em a ticket to wherever they want to go, kick 'em in the azz, and tell 'em good riddance.

Coal companies have been getting their way around the state and the statehouse by threatening to leave West Virginia for a century or more. And they ain't left yet. And neither will Honda nor Toyota. I say let's call SamCogar's bluff.

by Aaron Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:30 pm

I don't think it's a matter of calling the bluff or of the companies leaving. I think it's more a matter of Toyota or Honda will not give in to the outrageous demands of the UAW like GM, Ford and Chrysler did.

Toyota has 3 unionized plants and they didn't cave then so I doubt they will in the future. Honda didn't cave in Ohio when they came in there 10 years or so ago and in fact, the union was voted out by the employees.

The simple fact of the matter is, union membership is down for a reason and it's not because corporations are lying and keeping them out, it's because employees don't want them as they've consistently voted them down.

It's not that unions want card check; it's that they need it because the American worker doesn't want union representation, plain and simple. About the only people who don’t get that are unions and their apologist.

by ziggy Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:47 pm

I don't think it's a matter of calling the bluff or of the companies leaving. I think it's more a matter of Toyota or Honda will not give in to the outrageous demands of the UAW like GM, Ford and Chrysler did.

I think you are about right on this one.

by ziggy Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:54 pm

But of course if some unions brothers had not both given and received some knots to the head over the decades, Toyota and Honda would not see any need to take good care of their employees as well as we read that they do. When employers can forget about employees having a union, then those employers will again be treated as but disposable tools of the trade.

by Aaron Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:32 pm

And that's pretty much exactly what I've said. It was my fathers generation led by the Jimmy Hoffa's of the world and other unions that have given us the agencies like OSHA and MSHA and the department of Labor that enforces safe and fair work place practices.

And that is the reason the union is pretty much useless today. About all they're good for is shutting down companies. The one thing that I find interesting on this board is that some of the biggest union supporters have never been in or dealt with a union.

by **Stephanie** Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:45 pm

I have never been in a union. However, I worked in administration for a hospital with unionized employees, I served on a school committe and had to deal with NEA and my exhusband was a member of the Laborers International. They were all dreadful to deal with. Thugs, all three groups.

by Aaron Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:53 pm

I don't doubt it Stephanie. But when my father drove a truck in the late 30's, 40's and 50's, Jimmy Hoffa was needed. The teamsters are the primary reason federal motor carrier regulations are inforced.

Unions are also responsible for fair wages, standard work weeks, overtime and a variety of other safety and fair ork place practices.

But as I said, their time has passed. Heck, they don't ever "represent" the people they are supposed to. The UMWA 'endorsed' Barrack Obama but miners overwhelming voted for John McCain.

And it's not just WV and the UMW. While Obama may have gotten more votes of union members, Al Gore and John Kerry certainly didn't as union members from a variety of unions voted overwhelming voted for GWB in both 2000 and 2004.

by **Stephanie** Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:58 pm

Aaron,

I have never said that unions were never needed. Heck, I think there are certain industries that probably should unionize. Sadly, it seems the bigger and older and more powerful a union is, the more greedy, selfish, too frequently even criminal.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:29 am

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I have never said that unions were never needed. Heck, I think there are certain industries that probably should unionize. Sadly, it seems the bigger and older and more powerful a union is, the more greedy, selfish, too frequently even criminal.

And it's about the same way with industrial corporations. Their executives get old and entrenched and arrogant and greedy and selfish and criminal.

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:34 am

Why is it Frank that you think what you perceive the ills of management and corporations justify the pathetic behaviors of unions and blue collar workers?

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:50 am

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I have never said that unions were never needed. Heck, I think there are certain industries that probably should unionize. Sadly, it seems the bigger and older and more powerful a union is, the more greedy, selfish, too frequently even criminal.

And it's about the same way with industrial corporations. Their executives get old and entrenched and arrogant and greedy and selfish and criminal.

First of all, as my mother would say....two wrongs don't make a "right".

Are you using the greed and criminal activity of some executives to excuse the bad behavior of some union members and officials? If so, how does this apply to a nonprofit hospital or public school teachers. There re not greedy industrial corporate executives to get even with or to model bad behavior.

by SamCogar Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:07 am

Aaron wrote:Why is it Frank that you think what you perceive the ills of management and corporations justify the pathetic behaviors of unions and blue collar workers?

Frank is an expert on the subject ....... even though he never worked for a large corporation or ever been a Union member.

Him got educated to expert status by hanging around his garage until 11 pm every night waiting on phone calls.

Unionization and the labor cost differential 197570

.

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:23 am

As my father was pretty big in the Teamsters from the 50's to the 70's and I realize what they did for trucking, I was a union supporter. I remember walking the picket line as a young child up to my teen years, listening to stories and watching strikes unfold and through my readings on the early unions, I used to spout the same tripe Frank and others do. And then I joined my first union in 1994 and within 6 months, I was about as anti union as one can be.

Unions are no longer there for the good of the working man, they are there for nothing more the plain and simple reason of amassing as much money as they possibly can by any means possible. It's pure and simple greed.

Frank's never walked in those shoes but he supposedly knows how they feel.

I don't think so.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:21 pm

Aaron wrote:Why is it Frank that you think what you perceive the ills of management and corporations justify the pathetic behaviors of unions and blue collar workers?

I don't.

I'm just pointing out that management usually lives "higher on the hog" than the people who actually do the work that generates the wealth- the unionized and other blue collar workers, your favorite whipping boys.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:28 pm

Frank is an expert on the subject ....... even though he never worked for a large corporation or ever been a Union member.

Your ignorance is driving you to untruths again. My first several working years I worked under a union contract with a large corporation.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:48 pm

Ziggy,

Nobody, but nobody lives higher on the hog than the management of big unions. The overwhelming majority of them are interested in nothing but their own personal wealth and power. That's the sorry truth.

by sodbuster Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:55 pm

That is quite an overstatement Stephanie.

Just check the salaries, perks, etc. of corporate management.

Top union officials are, in my view, over-compensated.

But not nearly as much as the bigmoney bandits in the management of the big corporations.

by **Stephanie** Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:03 pm

Ah, but "big money bandits" don't extort money from the labor force the way union officials frequently do. Not all the money union bosses make is on the books.

You should do a little research on one of Slick Willie's favorite benefactors...the late Arthur Coia.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:20 pm

Ah, but "big money bandits" don't extort money from the labor force the way union officials frequently do.

Management has its own ways to "extort money" from its labor force.

Not all the money union bosses make is on the books.

"On the books" or off, what union officials rake in this kind of dough:

The chief executive of a Standard & Poor's 500 company made, on average, $14.2 million in total compensation in 2007, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library. Problems with executive compensation came to a head in 2007 with large severance packages given to CEOs of companies at the center of the mortgage crisis. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the financial turmoil set off by the collapse of the mortgage market could total nearly $1 trillion.

Yet, chief executive officers of the firms most responsible for causing the crisis collected hundreds of millions of dollars in pay last year. This highlights the need for further reform to protect companies and their investors.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:22 pm

The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. As a group, their total compensation amounted to $5.1 billion, versus $3.3 billion in fiscal 2003.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:32 pm

When a former Texas oil man and baseball team owner complains about excessive corporrate salaries, you know that something is out of whack.

Bush takes aim at executive salaries
President tells Wall Street CEO pay should be tied to shareholder interests

NEW YORK - In his “State of the Economy” speech today, delivered from the financial center of the world, President Bush aimed at bringing his economic message out of the shadows of the Iraq war. On his second day in a row he focused on the economy, the government reported faster-than-expected growth of 3.5 percent in the final quarter of last year.

In his address, Bush took aim Wednesday at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, standing on Wall Street to issue a sharp warning for corporate boards to “step up to their responsibilities” and tie compensation packages to performance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903282/

by Aaron Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:11 pm

That still doesn't justify unions extorting, lying, stealing and cheating as in the example Sam posted.

as for executive salaries, while often overpaid, those salaries are set by corporate boards. Seems to me about the only people who have a right to complain are the stockholders.

by ziggy Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:42 pm

as for executive salaries, while often overpaid, those salaries are set by corporate boards. Seems to me about the only people who have a right to complain are the stockholders.

I have as much right to "complain" about overpaid corporate executives as you and Sam do to complain about the pay of blue collar workers and their unions.

by sodbuster Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:42 am

Well Aaron are you suggesting wage controls?

by Sponsored content

Unionization and the labor cost differential

Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential

Re: Unionization and the labor cost differential