Question for Pro-Union Folks: How Do You Explain This

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Johnny B. Fury

A couple of questions for the pro-union folks on the forum:

1) Do you agree or disagree that unions share culpability in the downfall of the American auto industry?

2) How do you explain the relative prosperity of the foreign automakers that have factories in the largely non-unionized southern half of the USA if unions were no factor in the current mess in Detroit?

1) No. See Below.
2) They do have unions in their own countries (and several other countries where they manufacture). They do just fine. Business decisions affect a company a lot more than unions do. Honda, Toyota and Hyundai wouldn't start marketing 70% or more of their fleets with trucks if they had union. Instead, they used common sense and innovative plan to grow in the long term.

[JoeP]

I like how the premise of this thread assumes that management pushed the right cars and amenities and generally made excellent decisions etc and if not for unions somehow, all would be well.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Johnny B. Fury

A couple of questions for the pro-union folks on the forum:

1) Do you agree or disagree that unions share culpability in the downfall of the American auto industry?

Yes. with SHARE being the key word in that statement.

Originally Posted by Johnny B. Fury

2) How do you explain the relative prosperity of the foreign automakers that have factories in the largely non-unionized southern half of the USA if unions were no factor in the current mess in Detroit?

That's of course a complex question having no simple answer but among other factors:

1) Many of those companies do not have the adverserial management/labor relationship that's plagued Detroit for years, plenty of guilt there on both sides of the bargaining table.

2) Many of those companies pay above average wages for their areas, there's likely to not be a great outcry to unionize when labor's treated as a respected partner rather than a necessary evil.

[Johnny B. Fury]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I like how the premise of this thread assumes that management pushed the right cars and amenities and generally made excellent decisions etc and if not for unions somehow, all would be well.

See below:

Originally Posted by Johnny B. Fury

By asking if unions "share culpability", any reasonable person should be able to deduce that the other entities sharing the blame would at a minimum be management and the economy.

Formulate whatever conclusion you want about the questions posed, but it's a logical question since unions play a big part in that industry.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I like how the premise of this thread assumes that management pushed the right cars and amenities and generally made excellent decisions etc and if not for unions somehow, all would be well.

The OP specifically asked: "Do you agree or disagree that unions share culpability in the downfall of the American auto industry" How is the OP even suggesting that management had no part in the downfall of the big 3?

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Johnny B. Fury

By asking if unions "share culpability", any reasonable person should be able to deduce that the other entities sharing the blame would at a minimum be management and the economy.

So do you have an intelligent response or no?

Do you have an intelligent question?

Do you know what a non-sequitur is?

There are plenty of successful unionized companies - mine being one - and there are plenty of non-successful non-union companies, so it doesn't follow that unionization is an indicator of a company's performance.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by burdell

2) Many of those companies pay above average wages for their areas, there's likely to not be a great outcry to unionize when labor's treated as a respected partner rather than a necessary evil.

Yep. And that isn't just limited to automakers.. I noticed European and Asian companies provide tons of benefits, with many non-union workers in the South receiving more money in terms of pay and benefits than many unionized industries elsewhere. Southerners have better work ethic, and there is no employee-employer tensions like there were in the Northeast/Rust Belt during the Industrial Revolution that would encourage unionization.

Also keep in mind that Southern facilities are a lot more modern and more efficient. The big three suffer from diseconomies of scale, where massive manufacturing facilities lead to huge overhead costs that are difficult to compensate for.