~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Accountability. There has been much talk about it, but like so many things, it seems to be lip service. We are going to hold the banks accountable, but only after we've given them billions of dollars that they've fiddled away. We're going to hold the automakers accountable, well, at least GM's CEO Rick Wagoner, but UAW president Ron Gettelfinger? Nahhhh ... let's not get carried away here!
Actually, firing Wagner was justifiable. When the government is majority owner of private industry, they get to make the hiring and firing decisions (does this terrify anyone else?). But the government hasn't bailed out the UAW - they have no place to make demands that he step down. In fact, the UAW (and unions in general) have done quite well in an economy that has caused grief for most everyone else.
Ask any union member and they will tout the wonders of the union as the fearless champions of the downtrodden working man. Look at unions from an economic standpoint and you'll see monopolies raising wages above competitive levels.
Yes, there was a time when unions were necessary - when working conditions were deplorable - when wages were shameful. Unions won higher wages and better working conditions for their members - members who were without any other recourse. But like all things in life, there was a price - a reduction in the number of jobs available in unionized companies. It's a matter of the basic law of demand: unions successfully raise the price of labor and employers purchase less of it - or find a way to purchase it somewhere else (overseas) for a lot less.
What do unions cost our economy? In 2002, full-time nonunion workers had usual weekly earnings of $587, 21 percent lower than the $740 earned by union members. Looking just at the UAW, the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis conducted a study in 2007 that found GM was paying workers a combined total of $73 an hour, factoring in benefits like health care and pension payments. That's compared with the $45-$50 an hour foreign automakers in the U.S. are paying workers, including benefits. And we wonder why GM and Chrysler are having financial problems?
Of course, the UAW is not the only factor in the auto industry meltdown. There are issues of too many dealerships, "old" automotive technology and the decline of consumer spending due to the credit crunch and overall economic turmoil just to name a few, but it really is time to take a look at the economic impact of unions. You tell me - would you rather see 10 people employed at $73 an hour, or 16 people employed at $45 an hour?
Actually, firing Wagner was justifiable. When the government is majority owner of private industry, they get to make the hiring and firing decisions (does this terrify anyone else?). But the government hasn't bailed out the UAW - they have no place to make demands that he step down. In fact, the UAW (and unions in general) have done quite well in an economy that has caused grief for most everyone else.Ask any union member and they will tout the wonders of the union as the fearless champions of the downtrodden working man. Look at unions from an economic standpoint and you'll see monopolies raising wages above competitive levels.
Yes, there was a time when unions were necessary - when working conditions were deplorable - when wages were shameful. Unions won higher wages and better working conditions for their members - members who were without any other recourse. But like all things in life, there was a price - a reduction in the number of jobs available in unionized companies. It's a matter of the basic law of demand: unions successfully raise the price of labor and employers purchase less of it - or find a way to purchase it somewhere else (overseas) for a lot less.
What do unions cost our economy? In 2002, full-time nonunion workers had usual weekly earnings of $587, 21 percent lower than the $740 earned by union members. Looking just at the UAW, the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis conducted a study in 2007 that found GM was paying workers a combined total of $73 an hour, factoring in benefits like health care and pension payments. That's compared with the $45-$50 an hour foreign automakers in the U.S. are paying workers, including benefits. And we wonder why GM and Chrysler are having financial problems?Of course, the UAW is not the only factor in the auto industry meltdown. There are issues of too many dealerships, "old" automotive technology and the decline of consumer spending due to the credit crunch and overall economic turmoil just to name a few, but it really is time to take a look at the economic impact of unions. You tell me - would you rather see 10 people employed at $73 an hour, or 16 people employed at $45 an hour?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
35 comments:
Don't get me started on unions. Ooops, too late...
My dad worked for Pan Am *forever* as a ground crew member. In the early 80s his union went on strike. It last 8 or 10 weeks, then the union caved and got nothing. Yeah, that sucked, since mom was a SAHM at the time.
Recently ASM, in her job, had to fire a cop. Why? Because he disappeared for hours at a time while in duty. He was warned, in writing, that continued failure to perform his duties would lead to his termination.
Guess what? It happened again, the town fired him. And what do you know, the cop's union filed an appeal. It goes to arbitration, the arbitrator sides with the town, and the union now want to appeal that decision. Since when is NOT doing your fucking job defensible?
OK, off my soapbox. Sorry :-(
I guess it depends on whether I was one of the 10 or one of the 16, Dana.
Hubman, unions - like most entities - are looking out for their own best interests. I've always been confused as to how union members see this any differently!
Doomed, well, you have a point there! Accountability is great as long as it doesn't impact "us", right?
While your numbers are in one way accurate, they are misleading. The 73.00/hr in pay and benefits includes money spent on retiree benefits as well. That's what skews the actual dollar amount that reflect the wages of actual working members.
So when considering the amount in terms of a working UAW auto employee the pay and benefits are closer to 45.00/hr.
In fact, the average hourly wage rate is 28.00/hr. The UAW also agreed to a two-tier pay system where new hirees make 15.00/hr.
The concessions they gave in 2007, had the company not screwed up, would have saved GM $2,000 per vehicle.
The UAW also agreed to assume control of the retirees health care costs. That has been put on hold by the both parties so that a buyout on behalf of the automakers to the UAW does not have to be paid right now.
The UAW also gave up their jobs bank in the contract which sharply decreased pay and benefits that the big 3 were required to pay workers idled by plant shut downs.
And keep in mind, most foreign auto workers who as you say make 45-50/hr with benefits are working in countries that have socialized medicine so health care is not paid for by the company, and thusly not attached to their cost per hour.
As for the UAW, I have never been a big fan, but they aren't the one s not cutting back or giving things back.
And, as for Unions themselves, you really shouldn't lump them together as one entity. There are effective ones and ones that are not so effective. Just like any other industry.
And please, don't tell a Nursing Home Aide, a janitor, a prison worker that a union is no longer neccesary. I spent nearly five years representing those types of folks when I worked for SEIU...and they are neccessary.
Cheers!!
Of course they're looking out for their own best interests- with the exception of their ill-advised strike, my dad benefitted handsomely from his union membership for 20+ yrs. Of course, Pan Am eventually went bankrupt...
What bugs me about unions is their failure to occasionally say "You know what, your employer is right, you deserved to be fired!" When was the last time anyone heard of that happening? That would go a long way towards unions improving their public image.
Matt-Man, I was waiting for you knowing your union roots. Actually, there is some disagreement on whether or not the $73/hr includes retiree benefits, but even if we go with your assumption, UAW wages are still 20% higher than that of their foreign automaker counterparts in the U.S. (not covered by socialized medicine).
Yes, the UAW agreed to the reduction in new-hire wages, but there aren't any new hires! It looks good on paper, but when you're not hiring? Their cutbacks are lip service.
Giving up their job banks that help to support workers during plant shut-downs? The majority of the working population has never been offered such a luxury - and it is a luxury. It's time to reconsider the industry you choose to work in if you cannot plan for the known ups and downs of the industry.
Having worked in both union and non-union positions, I can say that my experience was that I fared far better in the non-union environment.
I worked alongside union guys when my company was bought by another and one shop was union and mine was not. The guys that worked in the other shop that were from my company had to join the union or be let go, and we got some guys from another site that were already union. One guy in particular didn't do squat, was always late took months off because he was "sad". and we could not get rid of him. His absence impacted other guys who had to cover him, but the union prevented management from firing him.
It is those kinds of abuses that make one think that they have gone too far, but I can still see places where unions do good. talk about a double edged sword. Maybe if not doing your job meant forfeiting your benefits then it might be more amicable.
Hubman, just as I believe is true in a more "socialized" government, labor unions beg to be abused - accountability disapears.
g-man, there has been discussion about voluntary "worker associations" (similar to what MLB does for free agents) that have to provide services of value to get members. I can see where that might be a great compromise.
I don't know where you are getting your "some disagreement" on the $73/hr figure or your numbers that Union workers are making 20% more than unorganized workers in domestically placed foreign auto workers.
In fact, I read that,
"Worse, conditions are better in transplants in some areas. An example of a happy plant of workers is in the Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. The workers are now being paid more and getting better bonuses than UAW workers average at domestic plants."
The two tier pay system has been place for more than a few years. It takes place here in Bagwine at the Navistar plant. So yeah, more than a few workers have been hired under it.
Yeah, the Jobs Bank program was a good thing. And it was constructed through two party negotiations with both management and Union agreeing to it. And, when times got tough it the UAW who offered unilaterally to give it up.
And as far as Hubman and his firing comment...I never took a case to Arbitration that I thought was not worthy, and for G-Man's comment, probably 10-15% of workers who are unionized are lazy...and I bet that ratio applies to places that have no union as well.
Cheers!!
Unions served a purpose many years ago...before OSHA and discrimination laws were in effect. Now most union leaders are basically economic terrorists. The membership is not to blame, but the leaders are universally power and money hungry.
As with anything else in our world, Unions are good AND bad. There are still plenty of industries that need the assistance of unions. As Matt-Man pointed out, Home Health-care workers, custodial staff and the like are still being taken advantage of if they are not part of a union.
I worked in a union print shop in NYC years ago. The members of the union were safe from all discipline from the owners. They were not accountable for their work. I used to kid that a press man could walk into the administrative offices, pull a gun, shoot the owner and the union would say 'we will move him to another plant, don't worry.'
What happened? the union put itself out of existence with stupid demands and a callous outlook of 'give us everything, we don't care if business is off right now'
Unions, like all potential powerful institutions, have a potential for great good, or great corruption.
I'm not saying this because I want to stir the pot, I'm saying it because it's true.
There are those in a union who are there only to play the game, and there are those who are really trying to make a positive impact on the workplace and workforce.
The same can be said of large corporations. The same can be said of politicians.
Given enough power, what you do with that power and authority is what is noticed.
Most unions try to be fair, however, their job isn't an enviable one. Smear campaigns by employers who don't want to see unions come in, jaded figures by companies who don't want to face their bad managements and accounting practices, and overall bad feelings about some raw deals done by other unions all contribute to a difficult situation.
However, for every silver lining, there's something not so nice as well.
I mean, there are the potential mob ties for some unions.
Yeah, yeah, I know.. Old news, right?
Are you sure? I'm not.
Then there are those who try to influence politicians for better paying government jobs for their unions..
Don't tell me that doesn't happen. I've seen that one firsthand.
So it's give and take.
The main point here is perspective.
If you're in a good union, and happy with your place, then unions are great.
If you're in a situation where the employer is crappy, and you need rescue from the abuse, a union would be a godsend.
If you're the CEO of a major corporation, and you now have to double your payroll because of a union who has moved in? They're the devil incarnate.
How about the employee of a non-union shop with 25 years on the job experience, who suddenly takes a $10 paycut because a union comes in a regulates the payscale? Yeah, they become the devil as well.
Good or bad, they are out there, and for some places they work, in others, it's better if they weren't around to cause problems.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.
Good Morning Dana,
I have had the misfortune of dealing with unions from both sides as an employee and as management.
As an employee; after reviewing the information provided by a business agent attempting to unionize the company I was with. Not wanting to join, I found myself having to deal with death threats tampering with my vehicle and a cigarette burned into the back of my hand by the president of the union that time.
As management; fighting the unionization of my own company and having the opportunity to review some of their financial statements it reinforced how shady organizations can be, having pension funds that don’t balance, funds for cash payments to business agents (so that they can bribe people). Then there are the no show employees and ones that show up push a start button, sit on their butt for 8-hours then push a stop button, there’s efficiency for you.
I find them utterly contemptible. Any idea of expanding unions in this country is wrong, they are bad for business they’re bad for the country.
A union may be able to save your job, but if a company goes out of business- they cannot and will not help you.. Unions came into being for a reason, and I predict when workers are treated like chattel long enough- they will be back..Socialism is coming to the USA soon- because of greed. Too bad, we had a nice system going for a long time.. Unions have shrunk in size to a point where they don't affect our economy- just themselves.
So, we have this gap in pay between union and non-union pay at auto companies. Why is it that we automatically complain that the union pay is too HIGH and don't complain that the non-union pay is too low? Why is it that we can easily justify and defend salaries of CEOs of money losing companies that are higher than NBA stars make, but throw a huge fucking hissy fit if a blue collar worker is able to afford a decent house and actually has decent health care.
I though the whole American Exceptionalism thing was based on "we're better than everybody else and this is why everybody wants to be an American." So why celebrate the lower paid workers and demonize the higher paid workers as if making decent wages is some kind of sin, unless of course you are a white collar worker, in which case you are entitled to those high wages and great benefits?
And why, when discussing GMs problems do we immediately complain about worker's pay and benefits as if somebody is getting something they don't deserve and always leave out the $20 million dollar retirement packages that all those former CEOs (and with GM there are a lot of former CEOs) all got. Not to mention the free car every 3 months and free gas that 8,000 white collar workers get? Or any of the other corporate largess that is commonplace among the big three automakers?
And then there's that whole business model that has resulted in a decreasing per-unit profit for 50 freaking years! The business model that GM bosses and the UAW have refused to change.
Oh and there's the tax code that has punished the big three for modernizing their plants, while states and cities that recruit foreign car companies are giving them land for free and giving them no property tax for 10 years and extraordinarily low utilities costs and billions in income tax breaks. Taxes and utility costs that are either shouldered by the taxpayers or small business or just absorbed by the state and offset by cutting things like children's healthcare and other services that go to undeserving people.
Basically I'm pointing out here that the foreign auto companies are incredibly heavily subsidized by their own government and by the state and local governments here in the U.S. You can argue that there is a net economic impact for those states, and that's probably true. But, that comes at the cost of creating a HUGE competitive advantage to the foreign car companies.
There's plenty of blame to go around for GM's plight. So many groups focus only on the management's excess and others focus only on the union, but very few people will admit that BOTH management and labor have been equally careless with the company's well being for more than a generation. For the last 25 years our government, management and the UAW has pretended that just allowing GM to close US plants and build cars in Mexico would take care of all their problems and none of their problems had anything to do with the shitty cars that they were building. Well, they were wrong.
As for the banks, well I've babbled on long enough.
My cousin works for Ford and he is being furloughed without pay for one week per month..he loves it because he makes $50 per hour for 3weeks per month...Whgat will happen is the Union will break the industry and we will have none or will have to start over.
Do you really believe that without the watchdogging unions do, that proprietors (using that word loosely) can be trusted to maintain safe working conditions and fair wages? You honestly think they will? I mean, so far those in the top seats haven't proven to be very trustworthy. We always think the cuts should come from the workers and not those who profit the most (and do no work). And besides, quite truthfully, $50 an hour is a good wage, but not an exhorbitant wage for a family. When unions disappear, those wages will shrink I'm betting and so will conditions and healthcare etc. But those at the top will profit even more.
Matt-Man, you're going to keep me honest, which is a great thing, and will teach me to save my links! Not to worry, I'll find the damn things - and I swear it wasn't Glenn Beck who said it!
Karen, I agree - members are NOT to blame for the tactics of their leaders. I hope I wasn't sounding anti-worker.
Bond, I honestly do not believe ANY industry needs unions. As I mentioned in an earlier response, a "worker association" with no government protection and that is voluntary? Absolutely! Unions as they currently are? Absolutely not!
Jorm, unions did their "great good" many years ago. Now they are nothing more than cartels that generally hurt our economy far more than they help the worker.
Karl, you and I agree on this topic wholeheartedly!
Buff, I think unions still negatively impact the economy, but then I live in greater Chicagoland where unions run amuck (along with our politicians)
Jay, actually, I'm not defending CEO salaries at all - CEO compensation is directed by the BOD and share holders - both of which have been making poor choices.
And next time, would you be a little more upfront with your opinion? *wink*
Hammer, what a deal! I keep hearing these inklings of GM being "forced" into bankruptcy and I have to wonder how that will impact the UAW.
Lee, I absolutely do! In fact, I will even go out on a limb and say that specifically WOMEN and minorities are at a disadvantage anywhere a union is in place (with the single exception of teacher's unions) Unions are still allowed to play by the good-ole-boy standards of 50 years ago!
wow...this is going to be interesting....
I can only speak as a Teamster. I have zero knowledge on the UAW or any other union. Plus there are many divisions within the Teamsters union. I work in Freight........this is going to be too long of a comment...I'll comment then write my own post on the subject.....
however....all unions do is represent workers during collective bargaining negotiations....Unions don't decide which cars to build, which machines to build and unions do not put together a business plan. All they do is negotiate and represent...
Unions don't set CEO compensation packages either (the average CEO in the USA makes 475 times the average salary of an American worker)
Will Gettlelfinger get a 20 million dollar retirement like Wagoner did if Obama tries to fire him? (no union could negotiate that sweetheart of a deal)..
On the lazyness of union workforce...I go by the 5-90-5 percent rule. In freight we have 5% of the workers who bust their ass, skipping lunches and breaks and so on.....then we have 90% like me who do a fair days work for a fair days pay..We work hard, we work fairly and we represent the company we work for with pride...then you have the 5% of the lazy guys...the guys who get in 3 wrecks and still get their job back.....is that fair???...no...however again...and being a steward.....I see management choosing to not use their tools of discipline outlined in the contract to get rid of those who don't deserve their job.....
ahhh...I wish I hadn't got started on this....I'm on my Teamster negotiated lunch and break and only have 20 minutes left....
In closing (and I apologize for the chaotic nature of this comment)...I think you union bashers give unions too much credit....Unions and their pay do not.....I fucking repeat....DO NOT run companies out of business....We don't have that much power...what runs companies out of business (and my company is struggling financially because of this) is the mis management and MULTI-BILLION dollar mistakes made by company management..
Teamster, thanks for stopping by! Now, I must defend myself a bit here - I did say, "Of course, the UAW is not the only factor in the auto industry meltdown.", and I also pointed out that labor constitutes only 10% of the price of a vehicle, leaving 90% of the problem elsewhere. I think your 5-90-5 rule is likely accurate for all employees - union or not.
My issues are not with union workers, but with unions. My belief is that they have outlived their intended purpose and do more harm than good in today's economy.
although I am management and have my own AFL-CIO stories... I just wanted to add...
The company The Teamster works for is undergoing the same economic hardship as many American companies.
The company went to the Union for help...and the Union Members voted to take a 10% pay decrease to help the company.
Mainstream Media never reports on those kinds of stories.
dana...i think we agree on a lot..
I KNOW we disagree on this.........
My belief is that they have outlived their intended purpose and do more harm than good in today's economy.
Dana, just wait till I show up where you live with my picket sign. LOL I agree with what you say about bad union people. Every group has a few bad eggs. If I could tell you about the lowlife management slime I have dealt with in almost 32 years of union membership. You would know why I am glad I belong to a union.
Matt-Man, most of my data came from [HERE] and [HERE] ... and yes, I realize Fox is a bit right leaning.
Kat, I agree, in fact, I'm not so sure mainstream media reports on anything of relevance any more - if it doesn't piss people off, they don't report it!
Teamster, I went back to my sources and saw only 8.5% of workers belong to unions. Do you believe our current economy could support an increase in the union workforce?
Doomed, show up in my neighborhood with anything resembling union affiliation and they'll run you right out of town - tarred and feathered!
I'm old school union, Dana. We do the tar and feathering. LOL
I see that much of your information comes The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. That certainly does explain the tone, tenor, and bias of your post. Cheers!!
so...you all tar and feather the UPS guy?
Doomed, that might be fun!
Matt-Man, actually, I take full responsibility for the tone, tenor and bias of my post, but it would have been silly to use data that didn't support my argument, don't you think?
Kat, the UPS guy comes in the middle of the night out of fear. OK ... not really ...
Your teamster comes in the middle of the night??
What a coincidence....so does mine...without the fear....
laughing Laughing LAUGHING....
rolling my eyes
Post a Comment