I think the cause of the downfall is pretty clear, my question is what is the solution, or can there be one?
Who's more responsible for the decline in of the big 3: Union or Management?
- Thread starter gulledge
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, in terms of solutions, I think we've run out of "painless" around these parts. It's a shame all these things are falling apart at one time.
Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.
Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.
In Washington, the minimum wage is something like $7.15.
Even though it's the highest in the US, no one can actually live on it. I think there should be a new way of naming it. The minimum someone has to pay a worker vs. the minimum it takes to actually live on.
Even though it's the highest in the US, no one can actually live on it. I think there should be a new way of naming it. The minimum someone has to pay a worker vs. the minimum it takes to actually live on.
This is 100% right. Anybody who had the opportunity would ask for more, even if they aren't worth it. It is human nature. The wages and benefits are agreed upon by both parties when the union workers have a contract. The days of union thugs and strong arming people are almost completely gone. Therefore the white collar management (who makes at least a six figure salary) who approved the contract is to blame for the extraordinary wages and benefit of the blue collar workers.
As far as the downfall of the big3, management makes all of the decisions from contract approvals to new models to giving themselves raises. The UAW actually helps management by soliciting the government officials to place tariffs on imported cars, keeping the big 3 more competitive.
I'm more than willing to point the finger at management - BUT - please tell me what happens when management says no to the ransom demands of the union (and YES they are demands and very often WAY over the top).
What happens is the union goes on strike. IF management tries to hire outside the union all heck breaks loose. The unions have and very much wanted the power of management. They got it and screwed the pooch along with the guys in the suits. I stand with what I wrote - both sides are greed pigs and trough has been removed.
What happens is the union goes on strike. IF management tries to hire outside the union all heck breaks loose. The unions have and very much wanted the power of management. They got it and screwed the pooch along with the guys in the suits. I stand with what I wrote - both sides are greed pigs and trough has been removed.
Unions are for people who cant stand on thier own 2 feet and ability. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you take risk and reap the reward or you avoid risk and get payed squat. Basic elements of free enterprise. aaaa don't get me started.......sigh............
JHZR2
Staff member
As far as minimum wage goes - the way I look at it is that its there to protect high school kids from getting taken advantage of when doing their after school or summer jobs. Perhaps theyre also there to help stay-at-home moms and dads and seniors and whatnot who want to work only a few hours a week and earn a few extra bucks so you can go out to dinner or buy a little extra this or that...
If youre reliant on jobs that only pay minimum wage for your livelihood, you've got other problems. I have no problem that the minimum wage puts you melow the poverty line... As I said, if youre working at minimum wage, youve got other problems and NEED to think about knowing something, anything, and having some value in your efforts.
Maybe this is a dumb thing to say/ask, but I wonder if they got paid more or less the same, but had less benefits (or more of their own $$$ went to pay for these things), if there would be any problem at all. As I understand it, the issue is that when, for example, a plant closes for one reason or another, the workers still get paid 95% of their salary or some ridiculous thing like that... plus benefits. As a result you have workers making lots of $$$, doing nothing, and production stopped, likely due to sales being lackluster. Seems to obviously be a recipe for disaster.
At the same time, maybe there is some truth to the idea that in a company, the highest paid employee should only make 10x the lowestpaid employee. Maybe that would help too... $1MM can pay a lot of pensions, or invest in any variety of improvements.
JMH
If youre reliant on jobs that only pay minimum wage for your livelihood, you've got other problems. I have no problem that the minimum wage puts you melow the poverty line... As I said, if youre working at minimum wage, youve got other problems and NEED to think about knowing something, anything, and having some value in your efforts.
Maybe this is a dumb thing to say/ask, but I wonder if they got paid more or less the same, but had less benefits (or more of their own $$$ went to pay for these things), if there would be any problem at all. As I understand it, the issue is that when, for example, a plant closes for one reason or another, the workers still get paid 95% of their salary or some ridiculous thing like that... plus benefits. As a result you have workers making lots of $$$, doing nothing, and production stopped, likely due to sales being lackluster. Seems to obviously be a recipe for disaster.
At the same time, maybe there is some truth to the idea that in a company, the highest paid employee should only make 10x the lowestpaid employee. Maybe that would help too... $1MM can pay a lot of pensions, or invest in any variety of improvements.
JMH
Not for Euro brands built in the USA.
Terry nailed it! You have to blame management if the unions get a sweet deal! GM gave in when times were good to avoid tough decisions.
JHZR2
Staff member
Thing is, correct me if Im wrong here, but... In dealing with an entity such as a Union, it is ALWAYS a tough decision, no matter what. My impression is that in dealing with the unions, no matter how good of an initial deal is offered, and no matter how good or bad the times, if the union doesnt get the deal that it wants, it strikes, period. negotiations on the front-end only go so far, regardless.
So there is NEVER a hope for a smooth transition regardless... and other than getting the union dissolved, it is a permanent rut.
This doesnt mean that the management shouldnt have been dealing with and perhaps fighting it for a LONG time now... but that doesnt mean that things would ever be any more rosy than they are now.
Its almost like there is no hope!
JMH
So there is NEVER a hope for a smooth transition regardless... and other than getting the union dissolved, it is a permanent rut.
This doesnt mean that the management shouldnt have been dealing with and perhaps fighting it for a LONG time now... but that doesnt mean that things would ever be any more rosy than they are now.
Its almost like there is no hope!
JMH
10 Points to Pablo again.
Management is to blame for what the unions DEMANDED? Right.
It isn't as though the unions asked nicely for a modest raise...they DEMAND big stuff and threaten to stop the assembly lines until they get what they want.
Management is to blame for that? Not a chance.
Management is to blame for what the unions DEMANDED? Right.
It isn't as though the unions asked nicely for a modest raise...they DEMAND big stuff and threaten to stop the assembly lines until they get what they want.
Management is to blame for that? Not a chance.
JHZR2
Staff member
yes but at the same time, in a large business, management has so many strings pulling at them that it is nearly impossible to balance one way or another. They have a responsibility to the employees, who areinfact against the management, IMO, they have a responsibility to the consumer to have product and parts available, they have a responsibility to the shareholder to provide value and growth, etc., etc.
Tough to balance when a plant's downtime is billed at something like $12k per second.
I think the best way to say it is that there is enough blame to go around, and pointing fingers is entirely useless, as theyre both responsible 100%.
JMH
Tough to balance when a plant's downtime is billed at something like $12k per second.
I think the best way to say it is that there is enough blame to go around, and pointing fingers is entirely useless, as theyre both responsible 100%.
JMH
JHZR2
Staff member
OK, dumb question... what would happen if, during a strike, or even now just for all new hires, a company like GM took in all non-union laborers. I dont know if its possible, but say they made a rule that all new hires are non-union employees... Might not fix past problems, and I have to wonder if it would really fix future problems or provide a resolution for the future either...
Didnt Reagan fire all the union air traffic controllers and then try to re-hire non union folks after, back in the 80's?
OK, Ill really show my ignorance here... If a company like GM went into bankrupcy, wouldnt that dissolve all of these seemingly silly contract obligations that they have? Id feel bad for pensioners, dont get me wrong... but wouldnt that help them a lot if it is indeed the case?
JMH
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, that's the real problem. If you recall the Michael Douglas film, MoNEY, Charley Sheen bolstered the purchase of the
small airline that his father worked at on the basis that it was worth it just due to the overfunded pension fund. our fine
lawmakers realized that corporations were using pension funds as a tax shelter ..and to get their hands into untapped
revenues, redesigned the laws ..turning them into assets. They then allowed them to fund pensions at a rate of "as the
burden comes to bear" plus some modest growth.
btw- (I forget his name) who ever the yahoo CEo that was in charge during the recent Delphi failure ..was also at the helm
for Bethlem Steel and a few others. He's the Lorenso of manufacturing. Whatever company he gets appointed to as CEo ...ditch
it like the plague if you have stock in it. He's the executioner of the ailing.
[ January 26, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: wwillson ]
Hmmm, a small town built around an automovite palnt. The plant shut down - why? We don't know. The japanese came to save the plant and the town. The workers who were used to working for $17/hr were now making $6/hr with almost no benefits. (this would put me back to minimum wage - not to easy for anybody to adjust back to a life of poverty after working your way up) They were still a union and unfortunatly only had one rep, Michael Keaton. He tried to make things better, but the japanese didn't understand our work ethic or lack of work ethic in their mind. They didn't understand how American workers could make their personal lives and their families priorities. The single union rep made a deal with management and a different deal with the workers. After this mess was created, the workers went on strike and the plant closed its doors, based on lies from one guy who was stuck in the middle. In the end, both sided compromised, both making concessions, and the plant and the town were saved.
So, that being said, what does it have to do with this situation?
I have worked both union and non-union jobs. I was once a temporary employee working for the State of New York. I was forced to pay union dues, but got absolutly no protection from the union at all. When promotions came, I was let go and a female employee, who never did her job and spent at least 1/4 of the day sleeping her drunk off, was given full time because she flirted with the boss. I never even saw a copy of the contract.
I am 100% in favor of unions where they are needed. Some companies don't need unions and as a rule, the employees realize this and don't vote them in, if it ever gets that far. As I stated in a previous post, unions that use strong arm tactics are almost all but dead. Most unions negotiate peacefully and make concessions as long as management is will to do the same.
How much money do the white collar employees at the big 3 make? How much is their pension? Unless somethign is done with the rising healthcare costs, every union in this country is going to have to make concessions.
JHZR2, as far as making a rule to hire only non-union emplyees and prohibiting them from forming a union, this is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and would cost any company severely in fines and penalties.
Management. K1xv hit the nail on the head.
IIRC, pensions (deferred compensation) were popularized in WWII when income tax rates were extremely high and wages were (effectively?) frozen. They were a good way to retain employees with the current set of circumstances.
It's too bad that current retirees' pensions weren't funded by the sales of 1976 Vegas, Volares, and Pintos that those people made. Instead the Big Three were allowed to play with that money and squander it away.
It's too bad a manufacturer can't/won't pay a lump sum to a third party annuity company at an employee's retirement to cover all those employees' costs as negotiated, thereby clearing that employer's books and responsibilities for good. Or that the assumption that a company will remain solvent to pay these costs is enforced by taxpayer bailouts.
Naturally, the government administration that should have cracked the whip on the automakers way back when is also long gone. Any problems the current guys could fix wouldn't be appreciated for decades and they won't head down that track due to current sacrifices.
IIRC, pensions (deferred compensation) were popularized in WWII when income tax rates were extremely high and wages were (effectively?) frozen. They were a good way to retain employees with the current set of circumstances.
It's too bad that current retirees' pensions weren't funded by the sales of 1976 Vegas, Volares, and Pintos that those people made. Instead the Big Three were allowed to play with that money and squander it away.
It's too bad a manufacturer can't/won't pay a lump sum to a third party annuity company at an employee's retirement to cover all those employees' costs as negotiated, thereby clearing that employer's books and responsibilities for good. Or that the assumption that a company will remain solvent to pay these costs is enforced by taxpayer bailouts.
Naturally, the government administration that should have cracked the whip on the automakers way back when is also long gone. Any problems the current guys could fix wouldn't be appreciated for decades and they won't head down that track due to current sacrifices.
JHZR2
Staff member
The thing is, all of her employees have their own financial problems. Could you expect them to care about their employer, when they have (seemingly more real) problems at home? I dont really care for the outlook of most Unions, but at the same time, i dont really care for the outlook of most management either. This case is a good example why.
I wasnt born rich, my parents are both public servants... Its only through a LOT of cheapness that we had any comfort or security in our lives. My parents and grandparents taught me this all too well... I dont know why others cant understand same. Because... the situation you discussed comes back to a lack of financial responsibility all around... which is no good no matter what.
JMH
[ January 26, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]
Why should they care about their employer's financial problems? As an employee or a business owner (it really doesn't matter), if I do work for someone I expect them to pay for it. I do not expect a bunch of excuses as to why they can't. I call those people "deadbeats" and I won't do business with one again.
There is also a problem with mixing business and friendship. I rented a room to a friend of mine; big mistake. He failed to pay rent and took 4 months to get his things out. I had to send him a "Pay or Quit" notice before he'd return my calls to make arrangements to get his things out of my house.
I suspected that would happen but I was hoping it wouldn't. Now I know better.
- Status
Similar threads
