Unionization and the labor cost differential

"His union represents a varied group of low-paid workers, including brick carriers, asbestos removers, tunnel diggers and toxic-waste haulers."

Well I dont know for sure about some of them, but Asbestos workers and toxic waste haulers make good money.

I figure the others do too, I just dont know for sure.

But if it wasn't for the Union they would all be low paid.

I say let's call SamCogar's bluff.

What will you say to the stories of union excess? When the unions go to prospective members' homes and terrorize their families? Damn fools don't know when they're being helped? Is that what you'll say?

Often in the past someone will say that honest men and women can disagree. I don't believe that unions are universally, monolithically evil. I also do not believe that cororations are inherently evil. I believe that men and women who, otherwise are disposed to do good works, occassionally do evil things and, seeing that they are not prosecuted, repeat those evil things.

I cannot defend corporate officers who rule their corporations on a short-term basis and ignore the big, long-term picture. The spector of Big Three CEO's taking separate private planes to Washington to beg for public money is troubling and speaks volumes to greed and avarice. Worse, when corporate big wigs bail out with golden parachutes it looks like the fix is in. We all lose out except for the fixers and insiders. To hell with the rest of us.

Corporate crooks and union crooks are one and the same. Each of us is a fool to defend one and damn the other.

When card check is the law of the land the Department of Labor will magnanimously declare that unions no longer have to open their books. We'll go back to the murky dealings of the 1950's and union bosses will "look out for the little guy" by taking a lead pipe to their kneecaps.

Now Jimmy, it's funny you should ask about unions and terrorism. I have a story about a Laborer's Union boss called Mondo and a guy named Jeff who told him he wasn't going to give him the $25 Mondo was demanding for Christmas.

However, that would be anecdotal and Sherm would just dismiss it. So if you're interested lemme know and I'll email it to ya!

By the way, in did you see my question about bmd's name in the Betchya Can't Do It thread? Please check out the post I quote. I have something I'd like to call bmd but I would like your opinion first. lmao

sodbuster wrote:Well Aaron are you suggesting wage controls?

No Sherman I'm not. Let each man be paid an honest days work for the work they provide.

sodbuster wrote:But if it wasn't for the Union they would all be low paid.

Which union? If you are speaking of what unions accomplished for blue collar workers, yes, you are right.

If you are speaking for the unions they belong to now, you don't know that. It's an anecdotal story with no proof.

Stephanie wrote:Now Jimmy, it's funny you should ask about unions and terrorism. I have a story about a Laborer's Union boss called Mondo and a guy named Jeff who told him he wasn't going to give him the $25 Mondo was demanding for Christmas.

However, that would be anecdotal and Sherm would just dismiss it. So if you're interested lemme know and I'll email it to ya!

I'm interested.

Well I think Nixon tried that.

He also came up with a healthy tax credit for buying a car built in America.

And he is the first one I can remember who proposed the "negative income tax'", which I believe is pretty much analogous to the "earned income credit".

So my point is even republicans have to resort to gvt. intervention during hard times.

Why should Americans be bribed to purchase inferior products? To save mismanaged companies from suffering the fate they brought up themselves?

Seems a waste of money to me. Seems to me the government would be better off giving the money directly to Americans to purchase any vehicle they want given that the Big 3 ceased being America's auto industry 20+ years ago.

The auto companies are in dire straits because we are in a recession, people cant get loans to buy auto's. Blame wall street not the unions.
I worked for GM for 35 years, and trust me, I didnt make $70 an hour.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601479_2.html?hpid=topnews
most current workers earn $28 an hour, but new hires start at $14.
If GM liquidates or goes bankrupt, we will lose our pension, health care etc., but what the heck, our pension is guarenteed by the government., so all taxpayers will be picking up our pension. If that wont support us., I guess we can go on Medicaid......

Retired GM & proud UAW skilled trades

So tell us, Hacker, ..... what pushed the price of a new car up to $30,000+?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/business/main4677571.shtml
Even the roar from Congressional critics about assembly line largesse seemed to miss the fact that labor costs account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle; the remaining 90 percent includes research and development, parts, advertising, marketing and management overhead.

I find it hard to believe that people are so anti-union... why is this?

I don't think anybody is saying the average member of the UAW takes home $70 an hour. But I'll bet with health insurance, dental insurance, presecription eyewear, prescription medicines, Michigan workers comp, Michigan unemployment insurance, and so on the gross hourly rate is a whole lot closer to $70 than it is to $28.

The reported $70 per hour for Big 3 labor costs is calculated incorrectly. They take the total pay and benefits for all current workers, add payments to retirees, and divide it by hours worked to get $70 per hour. About $20 of that is retiree benefits for existing retirees. That is a huge problem, but not current pay and benefits.

So that means their hourly compensation is $50.00 per hour.

As for why so many are anti union, how about the job banks for starters. Or the fact that we're paying people to watch a machine work.

I know management made the decision to include that in the contract so if GM fails because of ALL their poor decisions, then let them fail.

GM was in trouble long before the recession hit. Why should taxpayers keep them afloat if they're losing money on every vehicle made?

GM stock began falling in 2007, as the recession began... see chart
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/General_Motors_(GM)/WikiChart
fyi: Millwright (we didnt stand and watch a machine work, we installed it and made it operational)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos190.htm
The Union has dropped the jobs bank
The new hires at GM are making $14.00 an hour and no benefits.
The UAW will be responsible for our health benefits beginning in 2010 (VEBA)
A deduction is taken from our pension check every month for health care.
Apparently you have never been in a factory and see how hard these people work, whatever they make, they earn it....

Nope, I've never been in a GM plant.

A Toyota plant, yes.

A Ford plant, yes.

But not to a GM plant.

So do the bulk of employees stand around, operating mechanical equipment to put nuts and bolts on parts with robotic arms doing the heavy lifting or is GM stuck in the 50’s where they have manual labor for every action?

For the record, I got my information on people watching machines from a former GM executive who is now a VP in operations for the company I work for. He left GM about 15 years ago because, in his words, "I saw the writing on the wall” and part of his reasoning was the clause in the contract that said no man would lose his job due to a machine. So is he wrong?

As for GM being in financial trouble, GM was in trouble long before 2207, losing $2331 per vehicle and in the first 9 months of 2005, they lost $415 Billion.

The fact that their stock remained high is part propaganda by GM, part lunacy by shareholders.

And the job banks weren’t dropped until GM went to Washington, hat in hand begging for money and then it was only because of the outrage of the American public. Were it not for that, GM would still likely have them.

Unless of course the union was willing to sacrifice them in contract negotiations, which seems unlikely.

For the record, I got my information on people watching machines from a former GM executive who is now a VP in operations for the company I work for. He left GM about 15 years ago because, in his words, "I saw the writing on the wall” and part of his reasoning was the clause in the contract that said no man would lose his job due to a machine. So is he wrong?

[b]Dont know., retired 15 years ago. At that time some robots were there, but the majority were working on the assembly line.

The fact that their stock remained high is part propaganda by GM, part lunacy by shareholders.

Stockmarket tells the story

And the job banks weren’t dropped until GM went to Washington, hat in hand begging for money and then it was only because of the outrage of the American public. Were it not for that, GM would still likely have them.

The Union dosent want all the jobs to go to foreign
automakers, they are willing to sacrifice to keep jobs for Americans....

You have to be in the shoes of us retirees, including my Uncle of 92 (we are a GM family) .

You mean like the Americans that work at 11 Toyota manufacturing plants, one in Buffalo, West Virginia?

Or the other Americans that work in ~35 other auto production facilities including Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Mercedes and others?

And that doesn't even begin to take into account the vendors and suppliers they use.

Can you tell me Hacker, why is a Toyota Corrola any less American then a Chevrolet Malibu or a Ford Taurus?

The profits go to Japan, China, Mexico etc. They own the companies...
GM is going to close 10 more plants.,
I think they are going to go take bankrupty and ask the Judge to tear up their previous contracts with the union and others.
"As GM Goes, So Goes the Country" Aint' it the truth? What a shame

And the profits for Budweiser go to Belgium and Miller goes to South Africa. Should Americans stop drinking those "foreign" beers?

The bottom line is, Toyota has 13 manufacturing facilities, employing 36,000 plus employees (they call them team members), producing ~1.3 million vehicles, more than 1.5 million engines, and nearly 400,000 automatic transmissions per year and spends more than $28 billion parts, goods and services in the US alone.

They pay billions in salaries which leads to billions more in taxes.

And that doesn't take into account the other "foreign" auto manufactures.

GM may very well be big, but they certainly not the driving force of the American economy. They've been mismanaged for so long that they lose thousands on every vehicle the produce. Perhaps they've grown TOO big and need to be brought down in size and stature. Bankruptcy could very well be the best thing to happen to them.

"As GM Goes, So Goes the Country" Aint' it the truth? What a shame

.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090218/BUSINESS01/90218010&s=d&page=5#pluckcomments
But Detroit automakers still employ more than foreign car firms do. GM, Ford and Chrysler support direct employment of 239,341 and an additional 973,969 indirect jobs, the Center for Automotive Research says. Foreign plants employ about 113,000 in the United States.
There goes 1,213310 jobs.

LOL, Sam

I wish you fellas would laugh quietly.

Adelphia will not shut down. DELCO will not shut down. It may cause a lot of pain but all those people will not lose their jobs even though GM tried to force them into a slave relationship. By slave relationship, I mean that GM is not only their principle customer (in theory) GM is their only customer (in practice). I think it is entirely possible that the ancillary industries that have sprung up to support GM could find happiness supplying to Honda or Toyota or Ford.

I'm sure some employee of Packard said the same thing in around 1955.

As did some employee of Studebaker around 1955.

As did some employee of Nash-Kelvinator around 1954.

As did some employee of Hudson around 1954.

Or any of a dozen or more car companies that have come and gone over the years.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this Chicken Little, but if GM or Chrysler fail tomorrow, the sky's not going to fall.

Another company will be there to take up the slack.

Perhaps if the government would have allowed Chrysler to fail in the late 70's, GM wouldn't be facing the prospect of failure now. Well, that and if they were managed better.