Latest on the UAW Bailout

Gary Allan · Dec 19, 2008

God loves you, calvin

calvin1 · Dec 19, 2008

at least Somebody does

- btw, nice to see the great censor in the tubes showing a little restraint

Loogie · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

God loves you, calvin

LOL! Take care, and have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays everyone.

Tempest · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted By: calvin1

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Quote:

Fundamentally any UAW member's wage is based on how much HARM he DOESN'T do to his employer. Wouldn't it be better to be paid based on how much GOOD you DO?

I need you to expand this concept just a bit here. I've never seen a more productive assembly line than we have today. I think too many cling to the Vietnam era junk that was produced and think that union is equated to lazy. Those people that are idle want to work. They're all sweating bullets hoping to come out of this with a life.

Give me what I want or the boys don't work. Give me what I want or the boys block the gates. Give me what I want or the boys will trip the line every time you restart it. Give me what I want or the boys will support your political opponents. Give me what I want or my friend over at the teamsters will tell his boys not to move your stuff. Give me what I want or I'll be a pain in your rear until you give in. - Ron Middlefinger If you are so confident in the quality and value of your labor then tear up the contracts and let the market decide what really is a "prevailing" wage. The UAW has sold its members up the river. Ron Middlefinger sure doesn't need to worry about his family's Christmas any more than Rick Wagoner or Bob Nardelli. calvin

$\:\!$ $\:\!$

Tempest · Dec 19, 2008

Quote:

I'm not sure how much first hand union experience all the union haters have but I'll tell you why I'm glad I'm in a union.

I've never been in a union myself, but my ex-wife is a member of the Postal Workers Union. There IS a reason why stamps continually go up and the post office is loosing money. Unions are inefficiency maximizers.

kingrob · Dec 19, 2008

Coming from someone that has been a member of two trade unions, one by my own choice and the other because it was mandatory to join it where I worked, I can say that the unions I have been witness to first-hand are working only in the interest of the union bosses. I joined an independent truckers union in hopes of being able to find freight that actually payed to haul it. A lot of drivers near me joined this same union because the scale of freight had dropped to an absurdly low price (another great injustice we had the Teamsters up north to thank for). What ended up happening was that the union bullied all local businesses into boycotting any union hauling and dropped their rates even lower until only the most desperate of all drivers would truck it. Basically my union sat around getting fat from the dues it was receiving while all of the drivers sat empty for weeks at a time. There were even snipers shooting "scab" truckers who dared to try and feed their families while the fat union bosses dined in fancy restaurants and putted around town with their Bentleys. Long story short, like most truckers Unions, it imploded. While we sat around waiting for wages that approached livable, other truckers went broke doing "charity" hauls. Companies big and small started contracting from national non-union based firms that gladly hauled their freight at a cheap rate, so long as there was a lot of freight to haul. They payed their company drivers .20 cents a mile to move it and we waited around with our thumbs up our duffs. This is not an isolated incident, this could be said of unions in general. There arises a need for a union when wages or work conditions require it. Union gets what it wants, then it wants more, until there's nothing left to take. Shut down greedy organized crooked labor unions, and give the working man something to live on. You know, there's a reason they still haven't found Jimmy Hoffa.

d00df00d · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I don't want my $12/hour workers competing with $2/day workers. I don't want the conditions that lower cost of doing business entities are subjected to HERE. This is the untidy "unannounced consequence" of your campaign banner.

Gary, I admire your measured and thoughtful contributions on this topic. I have to say, however, that I can't accept that the above is true. Breaking the UAW's stranglehold does not even mean breaking the UAW, much less does it mean a return to blatant and shameless exploitation of workers. We have laws, institutions, and social conventions independent of unions that at the very least provide effective checks against such exploitation. Let's separate what unions have done from what this union is doing.

dkryan · Dec 19, 2008

kingrob and d00df00d: Well said! You, too, Calvin!

Duffman77 · Dec 20, 2008

Originally Posted By: IndyIan

Originally Posted By: Kestas

I mentioned this in another thread. I have three engineering degrees (two masters) from Big Ten schools that represents eight years of education and lost wages. I work in the auto industry. My girlfriend is a UAW member clerk in a warehouse for one of the automakers. Last year she made more money than I did. She put in a good amount of overtime... but so did I - unpaid! My job has more responsibilities than her job. I have 28 years experience working in my field helping design engineers and manufacturing plants with their problems. She's been in her job about 10 years stacking boxes and tracking inventory. Something is wrong with this structure of compensation. Either the UAW workers are paid too much for what they are doing or I am paid too little. It's been mentioned many times among my colleagues over the decades about this disparity and "why should anybody bother with a college education" when they can become a UAW member and make the same wages. Back in the 70s, it was even considered 'uncool' by some to get an education, which only added to this spite.

Sounds like you need to join a union! $;\)$ I actually don't see why engineers don't, if actors and writers do in the entertainment industry, why not you guys?

This seems to be the attitude of the union proponents, if everybody unionized then all would be smiles and lollypops. The fact of the matter is if you look at a snapshot in time Real GDP (or the size of the pie) is frozen as time is frozen. When unions coerce a larger piece of the pie it has to come out of someone elses mouth. Yes the UAW has raised the standard of living for their members. What they have done was take the pie out of the mouth of anybody has bought a new car in the last 40 years because they overpaid for the car. I dislike unions because it creates arbitrary haves and have nots based on membership. Unionize everyone to remove the disparity and you get a command economy which can only be worse off than a absolute free market economy.

Gary Allan · Dec 20, 2008

Well, I think you have to weigh the pre-ripped off socialized nations. I don't see a whole lot of dystopian discord there (the Swedes, Germans, Norwegians, Swiss, Dutch ..etc.) The attempt to maintain a stable lifestyle. Not one where your people are devaluated at the whim of Wall St. and trade. I mean, at one point you really have to evaluate just what participation as a citizen within a nation means in terms of benefits. It's a hard sell to say to a ever increasing mass of your population that success within the nation is dependent upon moving more of your fellow Americans toward the poverty line. Internally speaking ...we're into the destruction of wealth for the sake of accumulation of wealth. Any creation of wealth is done for other peoples.

xlt4me · Dec 20, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Well, I think you have to weigh the pre-ripped off socialized nations. I don't see a whole lot of dystopian discord there (the Swedes, Germans, Norwegians, Swiss, Dutch ..etc.) The attempt to maintain a stable lifestyle. Not one where your people are devaluated at the whim of Wall St. and trade. I mean, at one point you really have to evaluate just what participation as a citizen within a nation means in terms of benefits. It's a hard sell to say to a ever increasing mass of your population that success within the nation is dependent upon moving more of your fellow Americans toward the poverty line. Internally speaking ...we're into the destruction of wealth for the sake of accumulation of wealth. Any creation of wealth is done for other peoples.

Gary, There you go bringing incite, logic, and truth to a discussion based on fervent hate for any and everything associated with unions. Just accept the fact that those lazy communist auto workers who sit around all day while the cars build themselves should only make $15/hr with no benefits.

kingrob · Dec 20, 2008

Quote:

should only make $15/hr with no benefits.

That's pretty d*mn good money for unskilled labor.

Gary Allan · Dec 20, 2008

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I don't want my $12/hour workers competing with $2/day workers. I don't want the conditions that lower cost of doing business entities are subjected to HERE. This is the untidy "unannounced consequence" of your campaign banner.

Gary, I admire your measured and thoughtful contributions on this topic. I have to say, however, that I can't accept that the above is true. Breaking the UAW's stranglehold does not even mean breaking the UAW, much less does it mean a return to blatant and shameless exploitation of workers. We have laws, institutions, and social conventions independent of unions that at the very least provide effective checks against such exploitation. Let's separate what unions have done from what this union is doing.

Well, I do 100% concede that the UAW is fighting a losing battle in the face of the 100% predictable outcomes. The ship cannot stay afloat .. ..but let us for a moment reverse our (your) view. Just why didn't the management allow the strike to get this issue settled? Just why was it allowed to continue to the point of this collision? Let's say the apparently obvious reason ..they would "lose money" (as in more money upsetting the statusquo than maintaining the statusquo) enduring a strike. Who benefited from that? Stockholders? Engineers? Suppliers? Dealers? Service Techs/Service Writers ..tire manufacturers ...delivery truck drivers ..banks ...(how big of a list do I have to assemble here?). So, let me spin it this way .."all of us" will get ours ..and we'll just let them lose at the end of the gravy train. Many were riding on it.

Duffman77 · Dec 20, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Well, I think you have to weigh the pre-ripped off socialized nations. I don't see a whole lot of dystopian discord there (the Swedes, Germans, Norwegians, Swiss, Dutch ..etc.) The attempt to maintain a stable lifestyle. Not one where your people are devaluated at the whim of Wall St. and trade.

My understanding of the European unions is that they do not try to strangle every penny out of their employer, the long term financial health of the company be dammed. I dont have a problem with a workers right to unionize, I actually feel that workers being collectively represented in large organizations is very important. Two areas that I have a huge issue with is unions preventing the dismissal of employees that should be clearly fired and unions right to strike. You throw out $2 vs $12/hour. No company can find the workforce they require at $2 an hour, especially if the workforce requires any significant on job training. I am in 100% agreement that there are others in the workforce that are severly overvalued, IMO there needs to be some regulation in that regard, the idea that the board of directors can set their own wages is rediculus and frankly they are taking pie out of my mouth as a stockholder through a retirement fund.

Gary Allan · Dec 20, 2008

Quote:

My understanding of the European unions is that they do not try to strangle every penny out of their employer, the long term financial health of the company be dammed.

Well, the whole integrated business/government/population also has limited economic growth in the effects of the socialized nature of the community. There's nothing else to grab. They typically manage their trade so not to drain the equity and resources of the nation for the profit of a few. As I said, the necessary side effect of this type of population management is low or no economic growth. It doesn't seem to prevent them from creating advanced technology ..just advanced profits from them. That's not to say that some of the inhabitants aren't frustrated in the lack of what they could achieve if they weren't carrying all of their "dead weight" ...but they tend to, like us, assume that the existence bubble remains constant without them participating in terms of contributions toward the society. Most of us are blind to it too. We somehow fool ourselves into ignoring the "untidy side effects" of our personal gains in a city that's losing money, in a state that's losing money, in a nation that's losing money. It's the trap that appears to feel good ..or at least make sense "at the time".

Quote:

No company can find the workforce they require at $2 an hour, especially if the workforce requires any significant on job training.

I assure you there is a huddled mass of humanity that would love the real benefits of $2/hour earning potential. They're highly motivated and have been applying the ingenuity of dire need for a very long time. Vietnam should have been the all time bona fide testament to what poor, under resourced, and motivated people can achieve in a place where life comes cheap. Some will surely argue that if they are so motivated ..and will slave away for a few slips of green paper ..they deserve it. While this is true ..one has to also accept that he/she too is subject to the same fate as those displaced by the flow of worth to others who deserve it. It's a peril that is always okay for "someone else" ..and, or so it appears, only the exempt preach this truth as beneficial.

Quote:

I am in 100% agreement that there are others in the workforce that are severly overvalued, IMO there needs to be some regulation in that regard, the idea that the board of directors can set their own wages is rediculus and frankly they are taking pie out of my mouth as a stockholder through a retirement fund.

The League of Distinguished Gentlemen have a long list of legacy costs of their own. They reward each other handsomely in a hand shaking and back scratching manner. So ..in light of that, aren't we all merely at various levels of being scammed? I'd say if there's a con going on ..I can identify with a $25/hr worker much more than I can a multi-millionaire.

Duffman77 · Dec 20, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Quote:

No company can find the workforce they require at $2 an hour, especially if the workforce requires any significant on job training.

I assure you there is a huddled mass of humanity that would love the real benefits of $2/hour earning potential. They're highly motivated and have been applying the ingenuity of dire need for a very long time. Vietnam should have been the all time bona fide testament to what poor, under resourced, and motivated people can achieve in a place where life comes cheap. Some will surely argue that if they are so motivated ..and will slave away for a few slips of green paper ..they deserve it. While this is true ..one has to also accept that he/she too is subject to the same fate as those displaced by the flow of worth to others who deserve it. It's a peril that is always okay for "someone else" ..and, or so it appears, only the exempt preach this truth as beneficial.

My point was not that there were people in the world who would work for $2/hour, but there is nobody in the U.S. that will work for that wage. I have seen it argued that if the big 3 were free to set the wages unopposed of the UAW that people would not be able to live off it. Well clearly GM could not cut wages to $2/hour, likely not $10 either. While it may appear that labour can be had for cents/hour in some areas of the world that is certainly not the case when everything is considered. Factories in these sh*tholes around the world require private armies for securuty, bribes to officials that are significant in frequency, theft is a more significant problem and then there are transportation costs. More often than not the workforce doesnt have an education level significant enough to run equipment any more sophisticated than a sewing machine. The taxes that so many freqently [censored] about pay for an effective judiciary, police, school system and infrastructure that are required to sustain an automobile factory and its surrounding area. If GM moved it's plants to central africa, yes it could aquire labour at cents/hour, but by the time they got it to the U.S. market it wouldnt be any cheaper than making it here under non-organized labour. On an aside, I ask you were did all the cheap junk come from 20 years ago?

Gary Allan · Dec 20, 2008

Quote:

On an aside, I ask you were did all the cheap junk come from 20 years ago?

40 years ago it came from Japan. It started with the toy market. They broke right away. Japjunque was a common term back then. 30 years ago we opened the markets ..it improved some ..destroyed others. Superior didn't matter for a market that didn't exist like consumer electronics. My biggest ...hmm..it's not an objection, really ..perhaps sadness (though that too is not completely accurate) is that the auto industry is our last bastion of large scale manufacturing domestically. Service economies have no bottom to them. You mentioned labor laws and whatnot a bit back. These will form "extended traps" for us as a population in the future. Our environmental laws aren't going to retreat ..so I don't see there ever being a globe without some place that will be cheaper for doing business. It's like everything from public school standards to car safety standards. We keep raising the costs ..while at the same time ..shoveling the ability for the population to support such things out the door as fast as possible. This is not a formula for success as a society.

Duffman77 · Dec 20, 2008

Well making American automotive industry uncompetitive with their foreign competitors is no way to keep it around. The problem is free trade agreements that do not require the other party to meet equivalent enviroment or worker safety standards. I believe that these standards are probably in the agreements but the business above all else attitude of govt probably has ignored it. Obama talks like things will be different in the future, I guess only time will tell.

Gary Allan · Dec 20, 2008

(I would normally end it here since we've seem to reach some rationalized understanding ..but) We've got a global interest that goes beyond our domestic situation. This I don't discount and I can appreciate that what is "good for me" may involve me sacrificing something of mine. This happens in wars and many things. "Our best interest" may indeed spell hardship upon me. That is, the world is a potentially dangerous place ..and it's surely in all's best interest to pacify it as much as possible. There's also the notion that the best way to sooth a harsh social environment isn't to alienate it ..but to foster it into something better. Most of the oppressive environments are so due to the acquisition of ..or the maintenance of power. Give the natives something to occupy them, and they don't revolt. Have them starving ..and you've got troubles. So, one could look at global development as a preemptive pacification movement and an economical one in terms of future avoided costs. You develop your strategic assets as needed ..you develop your strategic threats as necessary. Our grain shipments to the Soviet Union (enabled by taxpayer "trade credits") were to allow the Soviets to keep a lid on the place. The last thing you need in a cold war is chaos. It's the same with Japan ..and China. Now I don't mind dumping my fair share into this whole thing for the sake of my future ..and "our future" ..but there seems like there's a distinct lack of disclosure on just what goals we're trying to achieve in these strategic maneuvers.. and how they're financed. Am I getting my money's worth out of my "investment" in the enterprise? I say that I am not. The global strategic enterprise ..like most outreaching global enterprises ..has profiteers who capitalize on the necessary developments.

d00df00d · Dec 20, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Just why didn't the management allow the strike to get this issue settled? Just why was it allowed to continue to the point of this collision? Let's say the apparently obvious reason ..they would "lose money" (as in more money upsetting the statusquo than maintaining the statusquo) enduring a strike. Who benefited from that? Stockholders? Engineers? Suppliers? Dealers? Service Techs/Service Writers ..tire manufacturers ...delivery truck drivers ..banks ...(how big of a list do I have to assemble here?).

Everyone benefitted, at least for a while. Let's not forget that the Big Three were still in the black for a long time after the trouble appeared. Under those circumstances, and given their sheer size and momentum, a labor dispute wouldn't have looked like something that was going to bring the company down. It would have looked like a brick wall: when you see one, the responsible thing to do is to turn around, try to go another route, and hope you can weather the storm. The alternative is torpedoing the company right away. How ever little you think all those parties benefited from maintenance of the status quo, you have to admit they'd be a lot angrier if the company had gone bust.