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.
According to a former GM CEO the bean counters were the reason for their downfall - the workers just make the cars that management tells them to. GM made crappy cars, union or non-union people still wouldn't have bought them.
Precisely - the people at the top set the tone for the company. If they establish a policy that quality doesn't matter and that bean-counting is the path to success, one cannot blame the unions or anyone else under them for complying. Had they disagreed, they would be out of a job - most "leaders" do not tolerant anyone questioning their "brilliance" these days.
Remember that executives and other big-wigs are paid fortunes because they are supposedly "taking risks" and "leading" the company. Maybe they should actually man-up and show some accountability for their actions vs. blaming the union workers at the bottom of the heap for their mistakes.
According to a former GM CEO the bean counters were the reason for their downfall - the workers just make the cars that management tells them to. GM made crappy cars, union or non-union people still wouldn't have bought them.
I would say that it is a half truth. The management also permitted union employees to negotiate for crazy amounts of pay to make crappy cars. I would also not be surprised if foolish grievances also contributed to poor productivity and an entitlement attitude. When I worked in a non-union plant everyone did whatever needed to be done in order to meet production and safety goals. I knew a guy who worked in a union factory and, while waiting for a part to get to his end of the line, decided to grab a broom and be productive while waiting for his part. His reward? A fellow union member told him that if he ever saw him sweeping the floor again he would file a grievance against him, as sweeping was outside of their job description.
I would say that it is a half truth. The management also permitted union employees to negotiate for crazy amounts of pay to make crappy cars. I would also not be surprised if foolish grievances also contributed to poor productivity and an entitlement attitude. When I worked in a non-union plant everyone did whatever needed to be done in order to meet production and safety goals. I knew a guy who worked in a union factory and, while waiting for a part to get to his end of the line, decided to grab a broom and be productive while waiting for his part. His reward? A fellow union member told him that if he ever saw him sweeping the floor again he would file a grievance against him, as sweeping was outside of their job description.
Ford is also heavily unionized (UAW same as GM and Chrysler) and was able to stave off bankruptcy and has completely paid off their debt they took on to sustain themselves while management retooled for smaller cars. GM management did nothing of the sort, they had no plan.
The GM bankruptcy was a management failure not a union failure.
Unions, if run correctly, are a good thing. Anyone who enjoys a 40 hour work week, thinks safe working conditions are a good idea, and who is opposed to child labor is enjoying what unions have earned for workers in this nation over the years.
These days, unions have been so heavily marginalized that they rarely make much of a difference. I think less than 10% of the private work force in the nation is unionized. The numbers are probably higher for the public sector, but I doubt it comes close to 50%. So, despite all the complaining about "unions ruining this nation," they quite frankly haven't had the power to do that for years even if they wanted to.
Most of my own experiences with unions have been positive, though I wasn't in the union (engineers are very rarely protected by unions, which is probably why our jobs are being outsourced or sent overseas at a high rate.) The unionized employees at my former employer had more vacation time and better benefits than the non-unionized workers. Why? Because the union fought for its people against the greedy and corrupt management that ran that place into the ground.
Brainwashing of Americans against unions has been remarkably successful. For example, it is amazing how many people think the collapse of the auto industry was caused solely by the unions, as if the assembly workers were the ones who made the poor management decisions regarding which cars to produce or how heavily to focus on financial games vs. designing quality cars. This is insanity, of course, but all it takes is a few stories about GM's "job bank" (which was admittedly a poorly-implemented idea), and everyone will scream about the evils of unions.
The reality is that unions did not send your jobs overseas - greedy corporate leaders who want slave labor did that. Unions did not create the housing bubble nor did they profit from it - the banks did that. Unions have not destroyed this nation - our "leaders" did that.
So, long story short, just remember that the caged-in workers slaves in Foxconn assembly plants don't have unions - heck, I think even talk of organized labor is punishable by death in China - and there are those who would love to implement slave labor in this nation. Thankfully, the gains made by unions years ago - before people started hating them for no good reason - are making it harder to enslave the working class in America.
When I took my class, about 6 months ago, on Unions and Collective Bargaining, Unions were given the credit as being the leaders in most of these changes. It was also argued that now that employees have protections in place, that is the reason that union membership is down to 11.8% (this was the number in the DOL study I used from 6-2011 if I recall).
Not sure if I agree that they are no longer needed, but definitely agree that they have helped workers both union and non.
I would say that it is a half truth. The management also permitted union employees to negotiate for crazy amounts of pay to make crappy cars.
The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted....... The management also permitted.......
Plrease tell me when i can stop saying it because it finally sunk in that once again it was MANAGEMENT who allowed and agreed to the contracts. They could have said NO, they could have held their ground, they could have done many things.... BUT!, no matter how you cut it, MANAGEMENT agreed because they belived that it would not hurt them. So, who's at fault; the Union for fighting for their members and could have been told to take a hike, or MANAGEMENT for agreeing to the union's wishes? Management Permitted Management Permitted Management Permitted Management Permitted Management Permitted Management Permitted
I worked 19 years in one union and 10 years at a different place in a totally different union.
The last place I was union president and the plant manager said he had no trouble with the plant being union.
He stated he didn't want to deal with 35 guys coming into the office expecting to be the highest paid because each one was so sure they were the most valuable employee and thus worth more than their co-workers.
The plant manager made sure everyone was productive and took the necessary steps to get rid of them if they were not.
We had a good relationship-------------union and management.
We also were the most productive of the 3 plants that the owner owned.( the other 2 were non-union )
It seems to me that as I stated above in my OP message that no system is perfect. Any system can have good and bad people thus a system can look good or bad, thanks for this input.
The reality is that unions did not send your jobs overseas - greedy corporate leaders who want slave labor did that.
Some people believe that protectionism does hurt a nation. Some may say that union protecting jobs in the long run hurt our economy. The perception is that when certain industry is protected, that creates a monopoly. That monopoly can control prices because it has no competition. How would you respond to that? Take care.
I just remember something regarding outsourcing jobs. Something came to my mind that I remember from years ago. Back in I believe in the 70s and before, companies moved to other states (not other countries) to find areas where that state was friendly to companies by giving them tax breaks and other support.
Now companies move their operations out of the country. How different is that now? Because it is OK to hurt fellow Americans by other Americans but not from other people from other parts of the world? The principle is the same, move somewhere else where you can produce at lower costs and be more competitive.
Your thoughts on this one please.
Some people believe that protectionism does hurt a nation. Some may say that union protecting jobs in the long run hurt our economy. The perception is that when certain industry is protected, that creates a monopoly. That monopoly can control prices because it has no competition. How would you respond to that? Take care.
In the end, power still lies with the corporations, especially these days when they can buy off politicians to bust up the unions. Plus, even with unions, you still have competition between different companies and between domestic and foreign companies.
I suppose if there was one huge "super union" that covered all the workers in an industry across the planet, and everyone in it worked together, you could have a problem. For example, if every auto assembly worker around the world went on strike until they were paid $100 an hour or some such thing, it would be bad. But that is very far-fetched and doesn't at all reflect reality.
Whatever drawbacks there are to protectionism and unions are vastly outweighed by the drawbacks that exist in forcing the workers in developed nations to compete with slave labor in poor nations for jobs. It doesn't matter how skilled you are when companies can get people with 1/2 your skills for 1/4 the price - you just can't win in such situations. Unions can't really prevent this, at least not these days, but they can slow the decline. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, they set the standards years ago - before this nation sold out - for what constitutes an acceptable work week and work environment. All one has to do is go to a Foxconn plant in China to see what happens when no such rules are established or enforced.
Here is another one. Some people think the unions have outlived their usefulness. How so? Is it bad to form a group to equal the power with a company and work for what the workers think is in their best interests?
Also, let me ask you all something else:
List the items in a priority sequence what do you think are the areas a union should fight for the workers? The most important at the top and so down the line. It would be interesting to see how people proritize thinks. Take care.
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.
