Is the UAW striking its way out of jobs?

yea, doesn't make much sense

This was in my paper. It supports my article about the New Golden Age, we are not going to tolerate the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor.

(Name withheld) complained that GM executives were getting bonuses while workers were giving up their raises.

"The CEO can't give himself a 75-percent raise between 2005 and '06 right when we are restructuring, when we're giving up our raises and cost of living raises. You just don't do that," he said.

The company is going down. The CEO got his raise because he is starting to get GM more competative and having results. The fact is this whole strike came down to workers wanting GM to promise no new plants would be opened in other countries. That has nothing to do with their healthcare and wage discussions. This strike may just very well cost them all their jobs

I find your statement very interesting.

Did you know that in 1999, Japanese manufactures operate 15 manufacturing plants across the continental United States, and that they employ more than 300,000 (mostly UAW dues paying) Americans? At an average of 3,000 workers per plant, that's 10 automotive assembly plants making "foreign" cars in America.

There are 37 research and design centers here in the states. Americans have built more than 22 million Japanese-brand cars here in the US in the last 20 years. Japanese automakers' U.S.-based production accounts for more than 45 percent of total U.S. vehicle exports, excluding exports to Canada.

It's no longer an "us-against-them" mentality in the automotive workforce; there is no boundary line for the manufacturing of domestic or "foreign" vehicles.

When the UAW strikes, the Big Three get hurt, and the Big Three Benefit. As well, the foreign manufactures get hurt, then benefit.

Did you know that when a contract between the UAW and a manufacturer is reached, ALL of the other manufactures usually follow suit?

Yes, it is about the money. The UAW has given up wages, they certainly have not even kept up with the average, across-the-board, cost of living. It's even worse for the retirees!

No strike is a good strike. Indeed, wages are lost. There is a ripple effect to the rest of the community. However, ALL the automotive workers then benefit, in foreign-owned and in domestic-owned companies.

Sparky

The plan was to keep all exisiting lines operating the the US, while leaving open the option for future product lines to be located either in the us or abroad

Gabby

I understand that Foreign companies operate here. Did you know that their labor cost in half that of the American Automakers. I still think it is us versus them because a lot of corporate jobs help a lot of americans in the us. The foreign companies keep many of the corporate jobs in the homecountry and just hire workers at plants here. That in the long run is bad for the American Economy.

ModernDay,

Whose plan? The Big Three's plan? I think not.

Yes, the UAW wanted to keep all the plants open and operating. When they opened the assembly plant in Canada and transferred our Camaro and Firebird lines there, we, the US citizens were prohibited from going there to work. Did you know that Canadians can come here and work? We, US citizens, cannot go to Mexico and work. Did you know that Mexicans can come here and work?

Hmmm...

Nope, the labor cost is not half of that of the domestic automotive manufacturers'. It's 3/4. The only cost that is lower besides the pay, which is about $16 out of $20, is the cost for medical, though the numbers of those receiving medical benefits is slowly increasing. It's a two-edged sword, however, when you consider that the manufacturing company does not tack the cost for medical onto their automobiles, we all pick up the tab when the workers use the county system of hospitals and other care services. They call them, "The Working Poor."

We don't want to go back to the days before labor organized and people worked for pennies, but the unions need to pick their battles. The burden of health insurance is a big one . . . the more I talk, the more I realize I know nothing.

Did you know that the last time the UAW struck nationwide was in 1976. I think that's being very selective in picking their battles.

That was the plan GM expressed in recent presentations. That was which I was referring. All I am saying is that when a company is starting to make headway it is generally not good to cut the legs back from under it. In the long run that just hurts the workers and all americans as we lost our companies.

It is a big mistake for the Union to wage this fight. First of all, the wage increases are not really needed, but just a move to make more money for the employees at the expsence of the company. With the costs not that you can buy Honda, Toyota, and the other Japanese car for less than American cars, You would think that the Unions would work to lower the prices more so the workers can keep their jobs, and not risk them. But that is not the way with unions, they don't really care about the workers.
This is like with Deburn Mobile homes, back in Texas. The Mobile home market was in a slump, and the Union there kept raising their wages until the company finally locked the doors in 1989. So much good that did for the workers.

Probably

Am I living in bizzaro world or something, I thought I read someone above, write about CEO's. Someone please tell me, why it's ok for a CEO to get millions in pay and bonuses, while the people that are "actually" the "backbone" of the company, are giving up and cutting back. This is the problem, as I see it. The value of the corporation, is placed more on "management", than on the "manufacturing" aspect of it.

Denney, the case was the CEO made moves that brought in revinues, and was rewarded for it. The workers did their jobs, and no insult here, but they get a good pay as it is. When you increase labor costs, just as materals, it has to come from somewhere, so that will drive up costs again.

Here's another quote from my local paper.
" Several workers mentioned local issues, including productivity measures that have led to a loss of jobs at the plant.
"We've been giving and giving and giving on production time,"

In other words, they are working their butts off to increase production, which cuts jobs and save the company big money. That money then goes to the CEO in his big raises and bonuses, while they lose their jobs, raises and benefits!

there we go lets work against productivity and efficancy this why labor unions crack me up. Many are good, but for some like auto enough is never enough. Forget the fact that they were overpaid for years and made drove these car makers into these problems.

'When you increase labor costs, just as materals, it has to come from somewhere, so that will drive up costs again."
So just like that it comes from the "backbone" of the company. Why couldn't the CEO give up too. Tell me which company will be more successful. A company that places more value on "management" to "think" of things, or a company that places that value on "people" that "produce". You right wingers always think the manager is more important than the producers.

Try running a factory without workers !!!

IF their CEO can make $8-10 million a year, and there are at least 3 top guys making around this much money, then they can afford to pay their workers a decent wage! Even when the company was losing money, the CEOs still made millions!

"drove these car makers into these problems"
The CEOs are the ones who drove them into their problems. Who decided to push SUV's instead of alternative energy? Who decided that bigger is better instead of focusing on quality and reliability? Toyota and Honda are kicking them because they have the cars that people want and the reliability record that people trust.
My husband drives a 2005 GM truck. The radio shorts out all the time so he has to keep fuses handy at all times (they fixed it under warranty and said there was nothing they could do), now it had to have the heat repaired for $373+. And this is a 2005! The CEOs make the decisions about where to focus their resources and they blew it!

OH, and if they really screw up, they still get their millions plus their golden parachute on their way out the door!

The workers do make a decent wage. They are arguing over future locations of plants. Which unions should not be able to dictate. The current executive is well paid because they are sucessfully pulling GM out of the ditch.

"The CEOs are the ones who drove them into their problems. Who decided to push SUV's instead of alternative energy?"

The people did in case you were not aware consumers choose SUVs the explorer became an instant favorite and peope bought them up. Toyota and Honda are winning because they can make cars cheaper and they happened to not have SUVs that problem is almost over. The fact is Honda and Toyota will win because they have lower labor costs.


Sorry you are having problems with a truck but that is hardly the CEOs fault.

Modern, that is the problem, seeing the forest through the trees. They can see the forest, but they cannot see the trees.
The reason for costs that drove up the problems American auto companies is a multitude of facts, and the Unions are one of the major issues here. Infact many of the sales issues we have around the world do start with the unions but people will not see that, they will see what they want to and that is it.
When Unions allow and support their people in absurd cost increases, then the cost has to come from somewhere, and the price tag is the place. The people that run the companies are going to get their money, no matter what, even if they drop all wage costs, they will still get more than the workers. When a CEO improves the sales by ideas he/she brings forward, they are going to get bonuses because they improved the sales and brought in more money into the company. This has nothing to do with the workers, so they should not be part of the raises. But the Unions are going to go on this faulty line that if the heads of a business can get more money, then their workers should too. But the truth is they will always be the last to get the raises, because the business is going to push the higher ups to increase the cash flow first then reward the workers later.
Now if a worker did somewthing that increased the sales, or productivity, I would support them getting a raise, as they would be the one that did the work for the company, but in this case the CEO brought in some ideas that worked. If they came from people under him, hopefully they got something out of it too. Most likely it was from someone in an add agency that came up with the idea, and the CEO was smart enough to jump on a good idea and capitalize on it.
And I agree, auto morkers are well paid to begin with.

It's entirely about who you value, the american worker, that's most of us out here, or the rich and elite, that would be those CEOs and the corporate presence. Obviously the lines have been drawn, and labor has nothing to lose, as if they don't stand up for themselves they will just be done away with, anyway. Fine, management, do what you will, but do it without asking labor to cut their own throat helping you eliminate them. We need a law that says you make it here, or you don't sell it here. Period.

"When a CEO improves the sales by ideas he/she brings forward, they are going to get bonuses because they improved the sales and brought in more money into the company. This has nothing to do with the workers, so they should not be part of the raises. " Again, "value", If it has nothing to do with the worker, then why don't they do away with the worker and let "management" build the cars. You just don't get it do you. You right wingers place little value on the worker, but you can't do without them. You can't run a factory without workers!!

"Now if a worker did somewthing that increased the sales, or productivity, I would support them getting a raise, as they would be the one that did the work for the company,"
You mean something like "MAKE THE CARS IN THE FIRST PLACE". It is obvious that you are either a CEO, share holder, or uneducated.

"It's entirely about who you value, the american worker, that's most of us out here, or the rich and elite," It's all about value.

"The people did in case you were not aware consumers choose SUVs the explorer became an instant favorite and peope bought them up."
A lot of THE PEOPLE buy what is MARKETED to them! The SUV was marketed well because that is the product GM wanted to sell. Other people make decisions based on other factors like the environment and reliability.

Now as for how overpaid GM workers have been in the past, my elderly neighbor retired from GM. He and his wife even call them "Generous Motors" so that tells you they felt like VALUED employees! They live in the tiniest house on the block, I wish I could put a picture of it. His wife worked until he broke her hip or something this spring. They are FAR from wealthy from their years at GM, but they felt valued. Now the employees feel like they are not valued and they are striking.

Where is Jimmy Hoffa when you need him.

Modern Day Publius: "The UAW called a strike today against General Motors. With the US automakers already at a competative disadvantage to Asia and Japanese automakers is this the right move? It seems that this move will only weaken their poisiton and do a tremendous disservice to the Union Members."

Dan R: "It is a big mistake for the Union to wage this fight. First of all, the wage increases are not really needed, but just a move to make more money for the employees at the expense of the company."

Actually, wages are not even an issue according to the article. The strike is about getting GM to promise to continue producing future lines of cars in the U.S, rather than exporting production abroad. The unions sees the strike as an effort to save their own jobs in the future. Thus a UAW representatives stated, "..job security is one of our primary concerns." Manufacturing jobs have been being exported from the U.S. for years now, so I don't blame the union for worrying about their own futures. Would investors in GM win if the company built its cars in a country with fewer labor laws and environmental protection? Maybe. Would the American worker win? No. They should strike.

GM also wants to shift the cost of health care benefits from the company to the union. So to the workers it is about preserving the benefits they have earned. We are not living in an age where unions work to undermine corporate entities for their own benefit. As the UAW notes, it has made a number of concessions meant to help the company get through rough periods. The purpose of a union is to ensure that its members get a fair deal. So again, the union should strike to preserve benefits for its members.

As if the strike matters anyway. GM CEOs will move plants regardless; and the CEOs will get more raises and more bonuses for saving the company so much money.

It will not matter to any of the decision makers or any of the stock holders that tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of Americans will end up on unemployment lines, have to enroll in taxpayer supported job re-training programs and that some will eventually end up on welfare.

They will lose their homes, their cars, their savings and their dignity and their children will not be able to get a college education; unless they qualify for grants, loans and other assistances.

..and the CEOs will laugh all the way to the bank.

The problem with unions is they are contrary to the marketplace. The Marketplace says if you do more, you will get paid more. Unions say, pay us more and maybe we will do more. If you are a diligent worker, who works harder than the other employees you are often reprimanded by the union bosses for making the other workers look bad. In this case, they want GM to produce a certain number of cars whether they can sell them or not. This flys in the face of the Supply and Demand doctrine that our economy works on.

Polliwonk - That's crap. Union's say "We are doing plenty; share more of the riches." and they are hardly contrary to the marketplace. They help establish a just and fair compensation for the labors of workers that produce the products sold in the marketplace.

MANAGEMENT is contrary to the marketplace. They assign prices that they HOPE the market will bear regardless of what the market demands; and they are known for trying to control SUPPLIES in order to force higher market prices to be accepted and paid.

Shari,

People did not buy SUVs because they were marketed the Explorer was the suprise sell. It was more functional and better looking than station wagons and minivans. Everything is led by consumer demand in what is sold. Someone does not watch tv wanting a car and decide to buy a hummer. They watch ads and decide which car to buy.

"We need a law that says you make it here, or you don't sell it here."

Classic Isolationism, that does not work for the record.

It's easy for all of us to judge both GM and the UAW. These problems are the result of decisions made long ago.

Contracts were negotiated in the 60s and 70s based on the assumption that Americans made and would continue to make the best cars in the world by the best workers in the world.

Some time in the early to mid 70s, the quality of what came out of the American auto makers declined. Whether it was bad management, bad engineering, out-of-date plants, bad workers or some combination of that list, GM, Ford and Chrysler could not respond to the outcry for vehicles that were fuel efficient, less polluting, safe and durable (remember the 5 mph bumpers?).

Foreign governments' trade protectionism was not countered by the U.S. Americans began to notice that they could get a better car for less money by buying Japanese. Loyalty to the American worker lost out to putting food on the table and making the mortgage payments.

American manufacturers continued to make crap well into the 90s. Again, whether that was the result of bad management, engineering, plant or labor is open to debate. But the problem remains -- the U.S. auto manufacturing business is a mess.

What bothers me is that everybody is being asked to make sacrifices -- line workers, supervisors, lower and middle managers. Everybody except for the executives.

I'll go on the record saying that I support the UAW, even though I'm in management. What is happening to them today will be happening to the rest of us in the near future. As corporate profits decline, companies will look to "cash out" by closing plants and selling property. Companies will move operations overseas where labor costs are a fraction to what they are here.

This will happen, not only to blue collar workers, but to engineers, computer professionals and even medical professionals.

"Isolationism does not work" Hmmm, I wonder when we tried it that proves that? Also, this world trade open markets does not work. Well, maybe for you, but for the masses of American workers, I think you're FOS when you say it works, it does not, and FOS when you say isolationism does not work, for us.

Thank you for posting your article to !!!Today's Top Three Photos and Articles!!!@

http://bestoftoday.gather.com/

"The people did in case you were not aware consumers choose SUVs the explorer became an instant favorite and peope bought them up." One thing you all forgot about the SUV's, Bu$h gave hugh tax breaks for people who bought big trucks and SUV's.
Now, haw many of you know a poor person with a 50,000.00 SUV.

"Marketplace says if you do more, you will get paid more." No, that's what the market place "did" say at one point in history. Today, it says, His profit / loss has increased to the positive side, which ensures a higher dividend to the stock holder.

We were operating under Isolationsim that caused the great depression. It also almost caused the world to be defeated by the axis powers. That is a lesson in history that has been learned. Are there ways to created reasonable tariffs probabbly, but we make money selling services and other things overseas too. Our economy would be in total collapse if we applied your proposed law.

Denny-

SUVs were popular in 1994, long before Bush, dont try to pass that buck.

I know that. But there was a "surge" in purchases of "big" vehicles, when Bu$h (and congress) passed his "tax cuts for the rich". I didn't know we had a time limit, that we couldn't go back to. Even now in the face of "global warming" and the demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars, Detroit is still mass producing "gas hogs". Because that's where the highest profit margins are.

There is still a demand for them. They are producing new car lines too, but it also takes a few years to create a car from scratch.

MDP,

Where do you put the most value, on management, or the workers.

You don't even need to ask that question, denny. Publius, in Bizarro world maybe, but they taught us that the depression was caused by over speculation in over inflated stocks.

And Isloationism. Check the facts even as the world was at war and England was about to fall FDR had to make secret deals to keep the English surviving because Americans did not want to help anyone but themselves. And the stocks by the way were only a small part of it.

Denny, one most value both. I make this argument because without the workers you cannot make a product. Without a company the workers do not have jobs. What I am saying is this. No one is guarenteed anything in life. Jobs in todays market come and go and the unions cannot demand long term commitments because they do not know where the market is going. This is the same logic that caused a lot of the problems when they paid workers when they were not even running the plant. That is just insane policy.

"And Isloationism. Check the facts even as the world was at war and England was about to fall FDR had to make secret deals to keep the English surviving because Americans did not want to help anyone but themselves. And the stocks by the way were only a small part of it."

Putz. FDR didn't even come to power till the depression was well on it's way. Hoover was the president that presided over the fiasco. FDR brought us out of it. Isolationism in that case meant from entering the war, not economically. We were all over trading with Hitler and anyone else that would trde with us. Remember Prescott Bush and his little attempted coup? You almost had me believing you knew something, but what a stupid idea that was. All I can do is shake my head.

I understand that ron, it just shows the extent we were going to. No, the depression came from a belief that we should not particpate in the world economy or politics. We caused the European collapse by refusing to give further aid to Germany that led to the bad economy that led to Hitler's rise. When we quit giving money to germany they could not pay their reperations that the other economys were counting on and the Eurpoean economy collapsed we were a little sheltered here because of our indulgence. But our economy had not been expanding or our products updating because we had no desire to compete in the world. That is why it took a lot of work to bring our production up to the level we needed for war. When you dont participate in competion you do not get better products nor the level of innovation needed for sucess.

Globalism will eventually raise the wages in these foreign countries to levels comparable with the West, but it's a two-way street. Foreign auto makers operate plants in the US, that don't offer the bloated benefits that UAW contracts are saddled with. Still, the workers do well enough to keep full employment at all of these factories.

I don't understand why some think that any company can operate without making money. Companies should have resources for several down years, but GM was being bailed out by the feds in the '70's! The arrival of foreign companies building cars in the US has freed the government from having to bail out the industry again. Cars can be built cheaper, right here in the USA. It sucks for people that are in certain sectors of the industry, but it's better than losing the whole industry.

Again, many nations that used to be known for "cheap labor" are now major economic powers, like Japan. Maybe their investment in our economy can help us now, by bringing us back to economic reality.

As for CEO and management salaries, they are usually determined by an outside, and minimally compensated Board of Directors, usually composed of CEO's of other companies, from other sectors of the economy. It seems a bit unseemly, and ripe for reform. Maybe the shareholders should decide CEO compensation directly, instead of voting on the BoD? Maybe the customers, or employees should determine CEO compensation?

Unfortunately, this is the process that the laws have forged capitalism into, in our nation. The laws can be changed, but removal of outdated laws that have created such huge bureaucracies is a hard sell. Real change could devastate whole sectors of the financial sector. I know some would love to see this, until they see it's impact on them, personally. Further, the government gets half of tax revenues from the top 10 percent of earners, which is a short list: entertainers, sports stars, and business executives. Even pro tax Dems don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, do they? They also support increasing the cig tax, which hits the poorest americans hardest, statistically. But I digress...

CEO salaries are not the problem at GM and other US plants. BREAKING NEWS! THE STRIKE HAS ENDED! No details as of this writing; I just overheard the headline, while writing, and the segment, on ABC, was short.

"Globalism will eventually raise the wages in these foreign countries to levels comparable with the West," Then tell me why, with the onslaught of foreign workers (illegal aliens) coming into America, Americans have "lost" all kinds of benefits, and wages have either been stagnant of decreased. They're not trying to bring the rest of the world standards "up" to ours, their being ours "down" to the rest of the worlds. Or at least a meet in the middle.

"Still, the workers do well enough to keep full employment at all of these factories." Well, there was another time we had "full employment" in America. Workers had "full employment" so they could work 12-18 hours a day without breaks, they could work in dangerous conditions for only pennies a day. Not only did they have "full employment", but so did their kids. Their kids "got" to work for those same amount of hours, in the same conditions for less money. Weren't they lucky. History has proven, that with "no" restrictions, business will give those "lucky" people enough to be "poor" and to barely survive on. That's why the whole family "had" to work. And this was America in the early 1900's. Thank god for unions, as the republibots have "always" been against "anything" that improves the lives of "workers". Against minimum wage, safe working conditions, 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and many more. Unions have been "greedy" in the past, but "nothing" compared to big business, left to it's own.

Thanks for your comments, denny B!

NEWS FLASH: The strike is ended. Employees get to keep their jobs (for now) and GM will save an estimated $3 billion per year thanks to the bargaining.

Good News for the corporacrats that manage GM; sketchy news for the Americans that actually put GM's cars together.

Good news for the American Economy!

Denny, I cited Japan as an example of a former "cheap labor" nation. That was 30-50 years ago. In another 30-50 years, most of Asia will be comparable to the West in wages.