Uaw

[jackellis]

A long time ago Henry Ford built his company on the premise that he would build a car that his workers could afford. If the average workers wage is cut to the point that he can no longer afford to buy what he makes the only long lines are going to be at the unemployment office and not at he car dealerships.

Henry Ford built his company in a much different economic environment than the one we have today. He was the market leader rather than the market follower.

I think it's also worth noting that the kinds of concessions being asked of the UAW are likely to spread throughout the economy. Public service jobs cannot be exported, but the rich post-retirement benefits public service employees currently enjoy are going to be a think of the past as stagnant wages flow through to tax receipts. ne of my nehpews is a detective and right now the city he works puts an amount equal to 1/3 of his salary into a pension fund. That alone is more than the typical benefits burden most private companies use in their budget assumptions and it is an enormous drain on public finance.

On balance, I think my generation has ridden a bit more on the success of my parents' generation than it has contributed to the current prosperity, and the generations that follow are going to be paying the price.

[RobC]

I tend to agree with the majority of posters here that there is blame to be spread around all over. But, I don't think the UAW is being singled out unfairly. A lot of the current troubles can be traced to the UAW. Not in the wages, per se (although that's a part of it) but in the arcane work rules that are established. The Big 3 would like to be able to retool and have the flexibility to move with the market, but current UAW work rules won't allow for it. Ford actually has one of the world's most advanced auto manufacturing facilities in Brazil (I think). They have a real just-in-time system set up, with the major suppliers physically located in the same plant. The plant has access to the ports and the lines can be reconfigured almost at will to accommodate a number of vehicles. Workers are asked to do a number of different jobs and it changes on a regular basis. The catch? It's not a union shop. The UAW would never allow that type of flexibility in the US. And that's the real crux of the matter.

[ragswl4]

I tend to agree with the majority of posters here that there is blame to be spread around all over. But, I don't think the UAW is being singled out unfairly. A lot of the current troubles can be traced to the UAW. Not in the wages, per se (although that's a part of it) but in the arcane work rules that are established. The Big 3 would like to be able to retool and have the flexibility to move with the market, but current UAW work rules won't allow for it. Ford actually has one of the world's most advanced auto manufacturing facilities in Brazil (I think). They have a real just-in-time system set up, with the major suppliers physically located in the same plant. The plant has access to the ports and the lines can be reconfigured almost at will to accommodate a number of vehicles. Workers are asked to do a number of different jobs and it changes on a regular basis. The catch? It's not a union shop. The UAW would never allow that type of flexibility in the US. And that's the real crux of the matter.

Excellent point. This concept is exactly what Toyota does and does well. Jobs and manufacturing will continue to move off shore if we don't remove our heads from where the sun doesn't shine. We no longer have a lock on technology that we used to enjoy. I heard a report last night that GM and Toyota both made 16.7 million vehicles last year. Toyota's made $18 billion, GM lost $30 billion. (numbers seem large to me, but hey if you can't trust CNN who can you trust?) We can rail all we want against foreign cars, foreign companies, UAW, bailouts, yada, yada, yada but that isn't going to get us out of this mess. Action talks and BS walks. Time for some action and yes, sacrifice by all.

[Hellrazor]

[QUOTE=430752;382590 I asked the question and will ask again, why do the Union members have to give up wage cuts by Congressional demand when no others are being demanded? [/QUOTE]


You answered your own question. They called out the UAW because they have an enforcable contract. If Ford decides to cut 20% pay for the UAW workers it will go to arbitration or court. If big brother forces the UAW to renegotiate the contract as part of the funding deal, that problem goes away. Your example of "at will" employees is a moot point, they are at will and can be terminated as such.

[sparkeyjames]

When will you quit pointing the finger at the hourly worker and point it where it belongs? Wall Streets insistence on quarterly profits and P|SS poor management got them where they are now. Vehicle design and engineering are what MANAGEMENT SAYS it should be right down to the crappy quality. I have never heard of a guy on the assembly line making those decisions. Lack of foresight is something the auto industry is very good at.
Lets examine a case in point. Remember 1973? Long lines for gasoline. It almost came close to rationing. You would have thought they got the message. They kinda sorta did for about 10 or 15 years. They produced some economical vehicles. Then it was back to business as usual. Cars and trucks got bigger and the SUV came about. Although the fuel economy of a truck/SUV was over all better than in years past they sold so many of them as to make it a moot point. Marketing departments are slick aren't they. Oooo like a rock it'll let you haul big loads or take an army of kids to the soccer game. There has been no inclination of management in the auto industry to produce vehicles that get even better fuel economy without the government mandating that they do so. Did the guys on the line tell management "lets make trucks and SUV's the he// with economy cars". I don't think so. Not one time in all the history of the automobile industry has the hourly assembly line worker made one decision as to what gets produced. Yet now he is getting the shaft for the idiocy, greed and lack of vision of those in upper management.

Unions exist for two reasons to combat the idiocy of management and influence government for the good of it's workers. If it were not for unions there would still be children working in factories. There would be no employee health benefits for anyone ANYWHERE. Unions were the catalyst for much social change and the government regulation of working conditions. You who scoff and point fingers should learn from history. Management of any large corporation with no laws to hold them back will treat their employees with total contempt (read up on sweat shops in foreign countries). Unions level the playing field and without them you would all be living in corporate owned shanty towns. (read up on the coal mining industry before the unions.).
Oh but this could never happen in this day and age you say. BULL$h|T. Congress is increasingly controlled by corporate donations, influence and promises. Without the power of unions how long do you think it would be before the corporations started getting some of those laws, that labor unions help get enacted, overturned or softened to the point of uselessness?

I myself have never been in a labor union. I will say however that their usefulness cannot be questioned. I have benefited from them and so have you whether you know it or not. To be without them or to lessen their influence scares the crap out of me.

Jim

[Crash2510]

I myself have never been in a union, but I have seen what they can do to hurt small and fledgling businesses.

There is no doubt in my mind that unions had their time and their place, but they have exceeded their useful life. At one point they were necessary to fight for the rights and safety of workers, but that time is past. Unions nowadays have too much power. They succeed in only taking from a company and never are responsible for giving things back. Everything about their job has been drawn out by the union essentially making them slow robots that always complain about their work. Management is not the problem because their hands are tied. The only way the big three could stay competitive was by cutting costs somewhere. Cost cutting was impossible when it came to workers wages and exorbitant pensions so they had to cut elsewhere.

I find it hard to believe that the bankruptcy of one of these companies is going to spell the end of the world, quite frankly I think it would be good for them. At this point the best thing that could happen to the automakers would be to find a way to get rid of the UAW in order to bring profits back up and maybe a bankruptcy would help. Other businesses, such as the Steel companies, have already begun to do this with some success. Workers rights and safety have not been affected.

I don't find anything wrong with congress singling out the auto makers, specifically UAW, because they came asking for a handout. If anybody wants a handout they need to be put under some scrutiny. In my opinion if they just give them the money they might as well take the money and flush it down the toilet because it is not going to do any good without a plan. The plan for banks was simple, no more crappy mortgages and loans, but with the automakers it is slightly more difficult. Automakers need to make themselves more profitable, but that is currently impossible. If they ever hope to compete with honda and toyota they will have to cut wage costs one way or another so they might as well do it now.

[JSUPreston]

Where do we stop with these bailouts?

Rags, one bailout that I think would make sense is all the folks who have taken out student loans in an effort to better themselves.

I'm not an economist by any sense of the imagination, but the way I see it is this. Person pays $500/mo. for student loans. If college education was paid for (I believe some European countries do this), that would free up the $500 for other purchases. That person has the potential of injecting up to $6k/year into the economy. That's a car payment, or a small house payment, or lots of woodworking tools.

Granted, there would have to be restrictions and limitations. For example, I know someone who took out probably $5k in student loans and failed out. Should that person's loan be bailedout/forgiven? I don't think so. However, if someone makes at least a 2.5/3.0 gpa (4.0 scale) and gets a job in their major field, forgiving the loan may not be such a bad idea.

Just my $.02 worth.

[cgallery]

Rags, one bailout that I think would make sense is all the folks who have taken out student loans in an effort to better themselves.

The danger would be runaway increases in tuition.

Tuition at universities is already increasing at a rate much faster than the rate of inflation.

It seems whenever a third-party payer enters the picture (for example, health insurance), one can expect runaway increases in costs.

[havighurst]

Does anybody else find it ironic that congress is trying to give business advice to the auto industry or to anyone for that matter. Our government is also a business. How much is our current deficit? How many years has congress failed to balance the budget? How do they continue operating - getting loans. Isn't that what the auto industry is asking for? A loan, with a repayment schedule, not a handout. The impact of a collapse will be far reaching to areas that are not ususally considered. I heard a news story that soap operas would suffer due to the lack of advertising revenue. I assume that it would apply to all areas of media.

What I find interesting is the divide between northern states and southern states along the sentate vote. It is reported in the papers here that the southern senators (which have foreign auto plants in their states) are playing to their constituents. What I can't wait for is all those constituents to realize that NASCAR will be comprised of Toyota.

What is not being reported is all the concessions that the UAW made last year. One of the most signficant is being taking over the health care costs for the retirees and allowing the auto industry to take that off their books.

I know that I am not objective living in Michigan and being a UAW member, but I do hope that this situation can be resolved quickly.

[JSUPreston]

The danger would be runaway increases in tuition.

Tuition at universities is already increasing at a rate much faster than the rate of inflation.

It seems whenever a third-party payer enters the picture (for example, health insurance), one can expect runaway increases in costs.

CG, you do raise a very good point. When I started at Jacksonville State, in Jacksonville, AL, tuition for in-state was $625/semester for full time up to 21 hours. My entire freshman year (not counting a trumpet purchase) was less than $3k for room, board, tuition, fees and books. My wife is currently finishing her 2nd degree. She takes 2 classes at a time due to scheduling issues. She pays more for 2 classes than I did for 19 hours when I started. Granted, costs do increase over time, but something has got to give. It's about to get to the point where only the rich will be able to afford school. Everyone else that wants to go will be up to their eyes in hock for the rest of their lives.

[430752]

Exactly. Make it fair. People in a bank and secretaries don't make $29 an hour plus gobs of benefits. People in a bank and secretaries don't have a 90% pension, 95% lay off benefit in a 'job bank', etc. Most people, to make $60k a year, plus benefits, are working much more than 45 hours a week in a factory and don't have Union Stewards who will raise **** if the line foreman asks someone to stay and extra 15 minutes to finish up a project.

Ummm... I don't know how things are in Florida, but up here, especially in Manhattan, a freakin' doorman makes $60K. Maybe more. Not sure their base salary, but last case I had with a doorman in a highrise, on Jersey's gold coast, not even Manhattan, his share of the bonus pool was $7,500. I regularly hear the doormen's Christmas bonuses in Manhatten are in the $10-15k range. Again, I can't speak directly to secretary jobs in Manhattan at BearStearns, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, etc., but in the legal industry in Jersey, just over the river, legal secretaries (not even paralegals) make between $40-70, many in the $80k's if loyal, long serving, etc. Add at least 10-20% for crossing the river to Manhattan. And those are basic, clean, indoor, quiet, 9-5 jobs, inlcuding lunch (with the occassional o/t for massive cases). Sure, some small firms might start at 30-35k, but they don't last long at those depressed wages in the secretary is any good (although in this climate...?) Anyway, my point being is that if Jersey law firms are paying those wages for secretaries, I bet financial secretaries in Manhattan are being paid much more. In any event, I think it fair to say that they are making on average at least $29/hr plus benes for a near straight 40hr/wk job. Most recent person I knew to get hired in the financial industry (my wife's cousin) was at GoldmanSachs, about 4 years ago, hired as an analyst (their term for entry level flunky), he had only a bachelor's degree, and started at $110K 4 years ago, more than I was making in Jersey as an attorney with an advanced degree. Last auto-related contract I negotiated was done four months ago for a foregin (european) autmaker's parts distribution warehouse for picker-packer employees in northern Jersey (non-UAW union). Their wages were at approx. $25/hr, and will be at approx. $28.50 in three years, full pension, and about 10-15% contribution to medical premiums. Trust me when I say that the guys in the warehouse worked much harder than any of the secretaries, analysts or doormen.

This doesn't answer the question if its appropriate or etc., but I just want to address the question of comparative wages across the industries. It is up to you to decide if hardworking people busting their backs should earn pay which provides a trailer and used pick-up truck with hamburger helper on the stove or whether they should be paid enough to afford a simple but sturdy ranch/split level with one new car and one used car in the driveway and a chicken on the stove. Why does everyone earning less say the others are overpaid, why doesn't the underpaid say ****it, I'm underpaid and should be earning more? Is it simply human nature that misery loves company?

[LCHIEN]

"Trust me when I say that the guys in the warehouse worked much harder than any of the secretaries, analysts or doormen."

Working hard doesn't mean hard work. USing mental skills can often be worth much more than physical skills.


Finally pay in Manhattan reflects some of thee highest living costs... its typical for job pay to be adjusted for the local living conditions. I checked a on-line cost of living calculator and see that COL in Saginaw MI is 42% less than NYC, NY.

[ragswl4]

Rags, one bailout that I think would make sense is all the folks who have taken out student loans in an effort to better themselves.

I'm not an economist by any sense of the imagination, but the way I see it is this. Person pays $500/mo. for student loans. If college education was paid for (I believe some European countries do this), that would free up the $500 for other purchases. That person has the potential of injecting up to $6k/year into the economy. That's a car payment, or a small house payment, or lots of woodworking tools.

Granted, there would have to be restrictions and limitations. For example, I know someone who took out probably $5k in student loans and failed out. Should that person's loan be bailedout/forgiven? I don't think so. However, if someone makes at least a 2.5/3.0 gpa (4.0 scale) and gets a job in their major field, forgiving the loan may not be such a bad idea.

Just my $.02 worth.

I respectfully disagree. I think the bailouts have already gone too far. I have a son-in-law who was just layed off from Office Depot due to the downturn in the economy and all that goes with it. Nobody is gonna bailout Office Depot and his job is gone. That's OK, that's the way it works and as it should be. It's only one example of a person that lost their job and there are millions out there that have lost their jobs with no prospect of a bailout. Its tough on a lot of people but that's the way capitalism works. Now if we want to provide everyone with an education, health care, a house, etc.. through the government (read taxpayer) then we abandon capitalism and all the opportunity it offers. I just want to make the point that the money for all this bailout is OUR TAXES, now and for a long time in the future. We should not forget that.

I view these issues from a retired, fixed income perspective. Folks like me will get no assistance from anyone as our income falls and our taxes go up to pay for this. I hope we all realize that WE have to PAY for these bailouts.

[gjat]

Ummm... I don't know how things are in Florida, but up here, especially in Manhattan, a freakin' doorman makes $60K. Maybe more. Not sure their base salary, but last case I had with a doorman in a highrise, on Jersey's gold coast, not even Manhattan, his share of the bonus pool was $7,500. I regularly hear the doormen's Christmas bonuses in Manhatten are in the $10-15k range. Again, I can't speak directly to secretary jobs in Manhattan at BearStearns, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, etc., but in the legal industry in Jersey, just over the river, legal secretaries (not even paralegals) make between $40-70, many in the $80k's if loyal, long serving, etc. Add at least 10-20% for crossing the river to Manhattan. And those are basic, clean, indoor, quiet, 9-5 jobs, inlcuding lunch (with the occassional o/t for massive cases). Sure, some small firms might start at 30-35k, but they don't last long at those depressed wages in the secretary is any good (although in this climate...?) Anyway, my point being is that if Jersey law firms are paying those wages for secretaries, I bet financial secretaries in Manhattan are being paid much more. In any event, I think it fair to say that they are making on average at least $29/hr plus benes for a near straight 40hr/wk job. Most recent person I knew to get hired in the financial industry (my wife's cousin) was at GoldmanSachs, about 4 years ago, hired as an analyst (their term for entry level flunky), he had only a bachelor's degree, and started at $110K 4 years ago, more than I was making in Jersey as an attorney with an advanced degree. Last auto-related contract I negotiated was done four months ago for a foregin (european) autmaker's parts distribution warehouse for picker-packer employees in northern Jersey (non-UAW union). Their wages were at approx. $25/hr, and will be at approx. $28.50 in three years, full pension, and about 10-15% contribution to medical premiums. Trust me when I say that the guys in the warehouse worked much harder than any of the secretaries, analysts or doormen.

This doesn't answer the question if its appropriate or etc., but I just want to address the question of comparative wages across the industries. It is up to you to decide if hardworking people busting their backs should earn pay which provides a trailer and used pick-up truck with hamburger helper on the stove or whether they should be paid enough to afford a simple but sturdy ranch/split level with one new car and one used car in the driveway and a chicken on the stove. Why does everyone earning less say the others are overpaid, why doesn't the underpaid say ****it, I'm underpaid and should be earning more? Is it simply human nature that misery loves company?

People don't make money like that in the 'real world'. Warehouse would be lucky to get $12 an hour, no benefits. $60k a year is manager / owner money. Therein lies the resentment that we people working for that kind of money, who's companies are still employing us, have to pay taxes to subsidize workers making $60k with tons of benefits, whether or not they work in New York or Detroit, and they helped sink their companies. We also resent having to subsidize people who bought the 3 bedroom 2 bath house they can't afford while we live in 'trailers' that we're paying for. The average US income for a male is about $45,000. $60k plus generous benefits is WAY ABOVE average.

[Hellrazor]

Unions exist for two reasons to combat the idiocy of management and influence government for the good of it's workers.

Pro-Union or Anti-union... I don't care. BUT, when the company goes bancrupt all shall suffer. If a union refuses to give anything back and the company closes its doors. Who is at fault?

Think about a few things:
1. Big Steel
2. Airlines

Both had huge unions, huge benefit packages and failed. The only difference was the airlines made concessions.