As for the two tier system, can you imagine working somewhere for 20 years and then you are told your wages will be cut in half? What do you do about your home and family now? Multiply that by 130,000 people. What would you do? That's why the two tier system was used. Yes, it has it's problems. The biggest one I see is getting ANYONE to do that work for that wage. GM cannot keep workers at that wage in 2 plants.
I'd be curious to see a source for that. Here in WI a truck manufacturer had a job fair for ~700 jobs. 1700 people showed up. Even with an increase in turnover for the entry level positions I doubt there's a real issue finding people for those jobs. It definately isn't a workers market right now, particularly if you lack education or skilled training.
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/117061493.html
I can contact a worker at the GM Lordstown plant. I could have him join here and post, if he would, about his experience dealing with new hires at his plant, working for $14/hr. He is a member of another board I visit. He is one of two sources I had for this information. I am trying to remember where I read posts by the other worker at a different GM plant.
Would you believe a worker who has to train the new lower tier workers at GM?
I am not saying that $14/hr is not a good wage, especially in this economy. I am also not saying that GM has a problem getting people to apply for the jobs or even start the jobs. What I AM saying is that once the people start training on the jobs and see everything they have to do, feel it in their feet, backs, and shoulders, their hands start to crack (noise) and elbows don't want to work, these people are not willing to sacrifice their bodies for this kind of pay. That is why Henry Ford had to double the wage to retain people back in 1917. It eats up your body, and $14/hr is not worth it.
A miner is paid well not because he is highly skilled, it's because the work environment is rough, hazardous, and dangerous. It's the same thing on the assembly line.
What saved Ford was not cutting down on the 8% of the cost to build a vehicle, which is labor, it was the total restructuring of the company that makes up the other 92% of the cost to build a vehicle.
The UAW is still at Ford. Most all the workers are still getting paid the same wage they were paid in 2005. We still have very good benefits, yet Ford made $6.3 billion last year, and at one time last year was the highest profitable manufacturer in the world. In the end they were beat by Volkwagen, who was not going through the same restructuring that Ford was. GM sold more vehicles but Ford made more money, even with the UAW. That's because that 8% is not the only place where cost savings were made. Maybe that percentage is down to 6% now, but what saved Ford was changing the way they fundamentally run their company.
Ford no longer has to have anything on their books for retiree healthcare because of the VEBA. That represent billions of dollars. The union voted for it after Ford suggested it.
A lot of what was given up was to make things look good in the eye of the public. Nobody guesses that only 8% of the cost to build a car is in total labor. I get responses like 50%, 70%, and 45%. So by giving up things the public believed THAT is how Ford was being saved. Sure, Ford did get a benefit out of it, but in no way could it alone have saved the company, even if we worked for free. That would have only cut 8% of the cost of building a vehicle, and Ford needed much more than that.
So now that we are down to about 6% of the total cost of a vehicle, in labor, we wouldn't mind getting back 1/2% since the company is doing so well now. Is that a crime?
Steve