Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand what you are saying. I was not writing in reference to only GM or the auto industry alone. It was a general statement about unions. A major problem with the American auto industry today is absolutely the UAW with the cost of the pensions and benefits though. This is nothing new. All of the blame for the American auto industry's financial problems does not lie with just the unions although it is a major factor.
All unions, regardless of industry, both public and private, do absolutely promote and encourage their members to do as little as they possibly can. When contract time comes the union delegates also encourage their members to do even less if they are not satisfied with the contract being offered. Workers that do not want to take part of these work actions are treated as outcasts by the union delegates as well as other union members. This treatment is encouraged by the leaders of the union.
GM's troubles started many years ago. The early seventies is when they really started to collapse. If one is to look at the worst years of GM as far as quality and reliability are concerned, one will find that these coincide with labor disputes with the UAW. Many attribute the disaster of the Vega to be directly related to the UAW. At the time labor disputes were going on and many of these vehicles (as well as other GM models) were being sent to dealer ships with missing or loose bolts and parts, poorly aligned body panels, etc. There are UAW workers whom years later admitted to deliberately sabotaging these vehicles due to their anger at the company.
The funny thing is that union workers never seem to realize, until it is too late, that if the company they work for goes under, their job goes under as well.
Unions have their pros and cons, just like everything else.
But, remember that unions were formed in the first place to force the business owners to share the wealth they all worked together to create. In non-union shops, the boss gets to decide how much the workers get and how much he keeps for himself. History has shown that given that kind of authority, most companies and bosses won't share it equitably. They'll pay their workers just enough to keep them coming back and put the lion's share of the profit in their own pockets.
It's no accident that the rapid growth of income inequality in this country began in the 1980's, when the unions were just about killed off. With the curtailment of union organizing power, by law, and the example of Ronald Reagan when he killed the Air Traffic Controllers union, plus allowing Contintental Airlines to file bankruptcy for no other reason than to get out of their union contracts (American is doing the same thing right now), corporations saw an opportunity to rid themselves of unions by hook or crook. And, they pretty much have.
Please note that while CEO pay has skyrocketed to obscene levels, average take home pay for the workers on the floor has been stagnant in real dollars since the 1970's. There IS a correlation between that and the loss of our unions. Without the ability to organize effectively, workers have no way to force the owners to share the loot.
If you're happy working for peanuts and watching the boss drive off in his BMW and carrying his Golden Parachute, that's fine for you, but a lot of the rest of us don't like it.
Unions have their pros and cons, just like everything else.
But, remember that unions were formed in the first place to force the business owners to share the wealth they all worked together to create. In non-union shops, the boss gets to decide how much the workers get and how much he keeps for himself. History has shown that given that kind of authority, most companies and bosses won't share it equitably. They'll pay their workers just enough to keep them coming back and put the lion's share of the profit in their own pockets.
It's no accident that the rapid growth of income inequality in this country began in the 1980's, when the unions were just about killed off. With the curtailment of union organizing power, by law, and the example of Ronald Reagan when he killed the Air Traffic Controllers union, plus allowing Contintental Airlines to file bankruptcy for no other reason than to get out of their union contracts (American is doing the same thing right now), corporations saw an opportunity to rid themselves of unions by hook or crook. And, they pretty much have.
Please note that while CEO pay has skyrocketed to obscene levels, average take home pay for the workers on the floor has been stagnant in real dollars since the 1970's. There IS a correlation between that and the loss of our unions. Without the ability to organize effectively, workers have no way to force the owners to share the loot.
If you're happy working for peanuts and watching the boss drive off in his BMW and carrying his Golden Parachute, that's fine for you, but a lot of the rest of us don't like it.
I do not agree with the fact that owners of companies have to "share the loot". If someone owns a company they should have to share their profits equally between themselves and their workers? That is ridiculous. If a company decides to pay wages that people feel are too little they are free to leave and look for employment elsewhere. What would be the sense in someone opening a business if they have to equally share their profits with workers who have far less responsibility than the person running the business?
If it bothered me to watch a "boss" drive off in a car that is more luxurious and expensive than mine I would do what it takes to be in his or her position rather than be content doing what I am doing while complaining that I deserve what he or she has that I do not.
I am not saying that unions should not exist at all but I do believe that an employer should have the right to fire an employee whom is not being productive without having to go through all sorts of nonsense with a union to do so. I also feel that a company should not have to go under due to the fact that it has to pay its employees ridiculous salaries and pensions that it simply can't afford.
You are a liar. In the union I was in we were encouraged to give the contractors a good shake and were trained BY THE UNION to improve our skills and safety and make ourselves more productive. And when guys were justly fired by contractors they were punished by the union as well. We made good money and worked hard for it.
I wonder if you ever hit a lick in your life, I'd like to get you up on the iron and see if you can hold your mud. I'll bet I can work you into the ground and I'm 62.
Perhaps I was wrong to write "unions" which is taken as ALL unions. I should have said MANY workers unions. I stand corrected on that one. At the same time, you know nothing about me so to say that I would not be able to hold my own and that you would work me into the ground is a bit uncalled for. Not that it will matter to you and being that you have already called me a liar I will still allow you to know that I have always been a hard worker and have for many years held two jobs and have always worked hard at any job I have held.
I am also the member of a union and have seen the things I have mentioned. I know other people in different unions than mine that have seen these things happen as well within their unions. If you are going to tell me ALL unions encourage doing as much work as possible as safely but quickly as possible I will not call you a liar but will tell you that you are wrong.
Perhaps I was wrong to write "unions" which is taken as ALL unions. I should have said MANY workers unions. I stand corrected on that one. At the same time, you know nothing about me so to say that I would not be able to hold my own and that you would work me into the ground is a bit uncalled for. Not that it will matter to you and being that you have already called me a liar I will still allow you to know that I have always been a hard worker and have for many years held two jobs and have always worked hard at any job I have held.
I am also the member of a union and have seen the things I have mentioned. I know other people in different unions than mine that have seen these things happen as well within their unions. If you are going to tell me ALL unions encourage doing as much work as possible as safely but quickly as possible I will not call you a liar but will tell you that you are wrong.
Fair enough.
Note that like any economic entity it's the duty of a union to look after the economic interests of it's members. Sometimes this is done wisely and with long term interests in mind. And sometimes it's done unwisely and with short term interests in mind. Just as with corporations.
I do not agree with the fact that owners of companies have to "share the loot". If someone owns a company they should have to share their profits equally between themselves and their workers? That is ridiculous. If a company decides to pay wages that people feel are too little they are free to leave and look for employment elsewhere. What would be the sense in someone opening a business if they have to equally share their profits with workers who have far less responsibility than the person running the business?
If it bothered me to watch a "boss" drive off in a car that is more luxurious and expensive than mine I would do what it takes to be in his or her position rather than be content doing what I am doing while complaining that I deserve what he or she has that I do not.
I am not saying that unions should not exist at all but I do believe that an employer should have the right to fire an employee whom is not being productive without having to go through all sorts of nonsense with a union to do so. I also feel that a company should not have to go under due to the fact that it has to pay its employees ridiculous salaries and pensions that it simply can't afford.
The boss and the rest of his management team could not produce a dime's profit without the worker bees. Why shouldn't the bees share in the honey too?
Take GM for instance. How many cars could they produce without those workers on the line? Not a single one. They are an integral part of the operation and it takes everyone doing their job and, hopefully, working together to make it a success. To say that only the boss and his friends deserve to share the profit from what is a joint effort of them all indicates a philosophical belief that workers are just another economic asset, like land and capital, not human beings deserving credit for what they do.
As for those rules which make it difficult to fire unproductive workers? Yes, many unions have taken those to extremes, but those rules were instituted as a defense against equally extreme firings before the unions. With no controls over who could be fired companies were free to exploit their workers, and their families, with threats and intimidation and sometimes physical violence. And, they did...all the time.
One more point: Nobody forces companies, or unions, to sign a contract. All those things you find objectionable are negotiable at contract time. Sometimes, the negotiating power rests with the unions and sometimes, like today, management has the upper hand. The result is that contract specifics vary from contract to contract, but everyone involved voluntarily agrees to its provisions when they sign it. If company doesn't like what's in the contract, don't sign it. It's pretty simple.
Now, because Continental led the way, companies have the legal power to shed themselves of those contract provisions when they become inconvenient through the bankruptcy process. This how so many lifetime employees are losing the health and pension benefits they were promised. A classic example is the contract with the State of Wisconsin. The state renigged on a promise they voluntarily made, promises their workers counted on. Now, when it's inconvenient to pay what they promised, the state just simply said, "We never meant it." If the shoe were on the other foot and the union employees said, "We're not working 40 hours a week any more. We're just gonna work 20 instead," I wonder how those who support tossing a voluntary contract would feel about that?
The VERY BEST cars built in America come from Non UAW shops. The Japanese and Korean companies pay their workers very well. If they are lazy, or inept, THEY ARE FIRED. If they do a good job, they can move up and make better money.
Drinking and smoking dope on lunch breaks will not be tolerated, or given a blind eye. There are PLENTY of GOOD, DECENT people seeking employment with the Asian plants here. They build a quality product, and quality employees build it.
Greedy, corrupt, inept union workers stay on the job at the Detroit 3. They have the "cradle to grave" mentality that is screwing up this nation, and sending manufacturing jobs overseas. The only reliable Detroit car is the Ford Fusion, and it is built in Mexico. Ford DID have a better idea by not letting the slugs in the UAW get their grimy, inept hands on a car that was so important to the company.
GM BRAGS that the Sonic is built in the USA. Being that ALL Detroit 3 assembly workers are UAW would make me NEVER even consider the Sonic. Daewoo is nothing special, as GM has a big share in it, but I'd rather have a Korean built Aveo than a UAW built Sonic.
I will continue buying the high quality Japanese or Korean makes built in the USA. They build quality cars built by quality people.
I think a few of you might possibly be thinking that auto quality is directly related to assembly quality, that's not all of the equation. I can tell you from a San Antonio Toyota plant that I get to frequent the line workers are happy as heck with their $17.00 an hour jobs and they are committed to doing a great job. They'll stop the line in a heart beat to correct an issue with one unit and they're applauded, not chastised for doing it. They have team meetings weekly where they discuss how to make the unit better and will cross chat with other assembly worker teams to help get it done. Unfortunately, that doesn't always equate to the best vehicle made. The Tundra has been plagued with all kinds of quality issues but most are from an engineering stand point, like the horrible tailgates that break, the floors in the beds that won't support any kind of rack, and the incredibly lousy multipiece frame. They've had cam failures, torque converter failures, etc so it's not just the Union or nonunion workers that makes up 100% of the quality of a vehicle. The assembly guy has to have good engineering behind the parts he's putting on the vehicle. I'm far, far from being a union guy, I hate them and especially the UAW, but you have to place the blame where it's due.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
