Unionization and the labor cost differential

Not to change the subject "whew"
What do you guys think about the United Mine Workers? Is it okay for them to be unionized?

The unionization of the mines brought about a whole slew of positive changes in coal mining. Just as unionization of the Big Three assembly lines solved a number of problems. The current problem is that the union (not just the UMW but all unions) foisted their safety concerns off on the federal government. All unions have to do now is protect an ever dwindling piece of the pie. Some of what good the unions did may return through the card check legislation. I doubt that. I'd say that any resurgence in unionization now will only hamper the recovery.

Years ago the union played a role in the development of today’s workplace.

We know have government agencies that are supposed to enforce safety and wage issues. If they’re doing they’re job and inspecting and enforcing as they should, then I no longer see a relevant role for the union in today’s workplace.

I dont believe OSHA has anything to do with wages. They enforce safety & hazards in the workplace. The Union & GM negotiated our wages.

Here's a devastating analysis from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500874299418721.html

No, OSHA doesn't have anything to do with wages. The Department of labor enforces wage law though, including OT and any discrepancies between the employee and the employer.

They also negotiated job banks, and when push came to shove, you lost those.

New employees get $14.00/hour instead of the $28.00 of previous contracts.

And now they're going to freeze wages. Until the outcry starts and sooner or later they'll agree to the same reduction management is taking.

So what are you getting for your dues? And is Ron Gettlefinger suffering as members are?

The UAW is part of the problem and it's closer and closer to the point that GM is going to have to eliminate that problem so they can compete with the likes of Toyota, which by the way starts non-union employees off at $14.55 an hour in Buffalo WV.

Hacker wrote: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 . Foreign plants employ about 113,000 in the United States.

There goes 1,213310 jobs.

LOL, Sam

Hacker, the number of coal miners employed in the US in:

1920 - 784,621 miners ..... 658,265 tons
1950 - 488,206
1970 - 146,078
2006 - 82,595 miners ...... 1,162,750 tons

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Hacker, there went 702,026 direct coal mining jobs.

And 405,611 since 1950

So, you stated 239,341 jobs lost ain't very many in comparison.

And ps: they are producing more tons of coal/year than they ever have.



.

Sam, that is 1,213310 jobs.

I am one of those that was fortunate to retire at 50., but not too sure I will outlive the time I spent working.. lol
Health care isnt exactly free, as a amount is deducted each month from pension check.
I dont think bankrupty is the answer. It isnt a bailout, it's a loan, but the outlook is really bad and we are very worried.
I have to tell you, I am shocked at the anti union sentiment in the country, as most people in the US are in the working class.

Great debate, Guys....

ohio county wrote:Here's a devastating analysis from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500874299418721.html

AAAH SO ......

That was a couple years before Detroit agreed to let auto workers retire with full pension and benefits after 30 years on the job, regardless of their age. In practice, that meant a worker could start at age 18, retire at 48, and spend more years collecting a pension and free health care than he or she actually spent working. It wasn't long before even union officials realized they had created a monster.

That is the same monster that State Government has also created, ..... RIGHT?



.

Hacker wrote:Sam, that is 1,213310 jobs.

I am one of those that was fortunate to retire at 50., but not too sure I will outlive the time I spent working.. lol
Health care isnt exactly free, as a amount is deducted each month from pension check.
I dont think bankrupty is the answer. It isnt a bailout, it's a loan, but the outlook is really bad and we are very worried.
I have to tell you, I am shocked at the anti union sentiment in the country, as most people in the US are in the working class.

Great debate, Guys....

And as the article pointed out, it is those like you that is draining GM and if something is not done then you will be part of the reason GM goes under.

Hacker wrote:Sam, that is 1,213310 jobs.

And that is your 5 to 1 loss figure.

If I do the same, then:

702,026 would be .... 3,510,130 jobs lost.

And 405,611 would be .... 2,028,055 jobs lost.

And you are still sucking hind titty.


.

And as the article pointed out, it is those like you that is draining GM and if something is not done then you will be part of the reason GM goes under

Oh, Okay... LOL[b]

Do you disagree Hacker?

I mean, wasn't it you who was telling us that the $70.00 labor rate per car wasn't really $70.00, it was more like $30.00 but they had to put $70.00 because of all the retiree's they are carrying?

So how long are current workers supposed to carry retirees? Can you not see how those legacy cost just keep piling on and on to GM's financial problems and that if GM retiree's had to wait until they were 62 as most companies do, how much money they would save?

Even the military stopped this absurd practice of allowing retirees to collect pensions until they were 62 25 years ago.

Have you worked at a job for 30 years, most of the time 7 days a week.. Do you expect to get a pension when you retire? If you dont, then you should have signed a contract with the company you work for to make sure you are covered in your old age...

Sam, I read the article, I know what it said. I didnt have the power to make the rules, I just abided by them.

Nobody blames you for taking the money. You'd have been a fool not to. But how can you make a case that we ought to pony up forty-five billion in public money to honor thirty years and out when it is a bad deal for GM? If they'd had the courage to cut their losses with the UAW and Saab and Saturn and Oldmobile and Buick they wouldn't be mooching public dollars now and holding off the bankruptcy proceedings.

As I'm 43, no I haven't worked a job for 30 years. I'm going on 10 with my current employer and I've planned for my own retirement myself. When I first started years ago, we had a defined benefit plan that was always under funded and it didn't take me long to realize that I had better watch out for myself and not depend on anyone else to take care of me.

At any rate, that's not relevant. You working for 30 years (the days or hours don't matter as you were compensated for you time) don’t change the current situation.

Legacy costs are destroying GM. That is a fact. Everyone knows it and if it is not addressed, GM will fail.

In fact, were it not for taxpayers, they would have already failed. So why should my tax dollars go ensure such a poorly ran company?

Hacker's argument is the same as ShermanGeneral's.

They both have "Golden Parachutes" they want the public to keep funding.

And they want the working public to work until they are 65, 72 1/2+ etc. to generate that funding for their 30 - 20 years for showing up on the job.

Well said, Sammy.

Our new member from VA admits to having retired at 50 years old. Now he wants the taxpayers to fund his retirement because these golden parachutes are bringing GM to her knees.

He's young, he should work. Most of us folks here in the real world don't have the luxury of retiring at 50. My 30 y/o husband certainly won't be able to retire in 20 years but he'll never afford retirement if a percentage of his wages are confiscated by the government so that hacker and his GM buddies live fat dumb & happy off the taxpayer trough.

Hacker's uncle is 92 and has been collecting a GM pension for how many years now? Let GM go into bankruptcy. I much prefer that to our having to fund Hacker's 40 year retirement at the expense of my son's braces, my daughter's dream wedding, or my husband's well deserved retirement in about 40 years.

You want to know why so many people find unions distasteful? Greed, cronyism, nepotism, and corruption are a few of the many reasons I don't care for the unions of today.

Welcome to the forum, btw.

You want to know why so many people find unions distasteful? Greed, cronyism, nepotism, and corruption are a few of the many reasons I don't care for the unions of today.

Do you know of any institutions- public, private, charitable or otherwise- that are exempt from these nearly universal human traits?

Oh, and it's good to have you back here, Stephanie.

Unions have turned them into art forms, Ziggy.

Thanks, it's good to be back!

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.

You are not the first person to suggest so:

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Eugene Debs asserted that the role of the established AFL union leadership was "to chloroform the working class while the ruling class went through its pockets." This was accomplished through blocking workers' participation in direct democracy in the unions, short-circuiting activist strategies that were favored by the majority, and ignoring or persecuting critics. Unfortunately, this tradition is not dead yet.

http://recollectionbooks.com/cs/KaiserStrike.htm

Well I think it's a heck of a note that you guys support letting employers just renege on their employees' retirement.

I say they should honor their contract.

Sounds to me like class envy sour grapes.

Why should my husband have a portion of his wages confiscated to "honor" a contract he did not enter into? Why should my 63 y/o mother, who saw her 401k reduced over 45% in less than a year be forced to?

Why should taxpaying American be forced to fund an unrealistic pension fund?

WHY, ...... WHY, ....... WHY because those who have been feeding at the "public trough" all their life are getting mighty worried that people like you will start applying the same reasoning to their unrealistic retirement funding.



.

Did ya notice the newbie didn't stick around to answer the question why taxpayers should be forced to honor contracts the company he worked for cannot?