Another Anti-Union Talking point debunked

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

Then if there aren't enough people willing to work for those wages, a company is going to have to increase them to attract people. It has NOTHING to do with a worker's state in life - highschool vs married w/ kids. A wage a company wishes to pay is totally independent of a worker's situation. Yes, a worker can choose to work for offered wages or not depending on their situation, but the idea that some jobs SHOULD pay more because of the people taking them is absurd.

I'm not saying the job should pay more because of the workers state in life, I just used that as a example of how difficult it would be to find people willing to do the job for such low wages. Sorry, I thought that was apparent, my bad.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

You think negotiation shouldn't be a part of capitalism? You just "get another job"? Wow....

Where exactly did I say anything about negotiation not being part of it? You can negotiate whatever you want. I'm saying if the company is forced to pay too much for resources (labor or otherwise), by a union or by regulations, then the company will have trouble being competitive, and it will eventually go under.

The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

All the more reason not to reward bad management with the Democrats plan to give them cash.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

All the more reason not to reward bad management with the Democrats plan to give them cash.

I wasn't aware they had a plan just to give them money. My understanding was they (the Big Three) needed to come up a with plan to show how that money would help them become profitable instead of just putting off the inevitable.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

No argument there, except that what you're saying falls exactly under the "let the market determine the pay" mechanism. If there are not enough people to do the job, the company offers more in pay, or invests in some way to do something differently so they need fewer resources. Either way, the pay is set by market supply and demand. Since their competitors are subject to the same market environment, the employer would not be at a disadvantage.

 

[Zebo]

Plan? They have no plan they are idiots. How about last week when they said they could go out of business. Wow way to instill confidence in a new domestic purchase. Think about it: if you were in the market for a new car, would you want to buy them from a manufacturer that claimed to be on the verge of collapse? Basically they privileged ivory tower children not leaders who are in it for the short term cash. When this years numbers are out will not surpise me if they fall another 10%.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

All the more reason not to reward bad management with the Democrats plan to give them cash.

I wasn't aware they had a plan just to give them money. My understanding was they (the Big Three) needed to come up a with plan to show how that money would help them become profitable instead of just putting off the inevitable.

The initial idea was to punt the responsibility to Bush and have him just give them money, probably so they could whine about it later.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449115,00.html

WASHINGTON ? Democratic leaders in Congress asked the Bush administration on Saturday to provide more aid to the struggling auto industry, which is bleeding cash and jobs as sales have dropped to their lowest level in a quarter-century.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the $700 billion bailout to include car companies.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

All the more reason not to reward bad management with the Democrats plan to give them cash.

I wasn't aware they had a plan just to give them money. My understanding was they (the Big Three) needed to come up a with plan to show how that money would help them become profitable instead of just putting off the inevitable.

One of the reasons I'm against this bailout is that congress is going to force the companies (with strings attached to the bailout) to leave the unions unharmed. There are other factors contributing to the problems (bad products, timing, energy costs etc etc), but until they address them all -- including the union / benefit / labor cost, bailing them out is throwing good money after bad.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

No argument there, except that what you're saying falls exactly under the "let the market determine the pay" mechanism. If there are not enough people to do the job, the company offers more in pay, or invests in some way to do something differently so they need fewer resources. Either way, the pay is set by market supply and demand. Since their competitors are subject to the same market environment, the employer would not be at a disadvantage.

Except they are not on a level playing field. Does the terms ?chaebol? or ?keiretsu? mean anything to you? Or how about UHC? Or government 'loans' to their automakers. You relise Toyotas hybrid development costs among others were 100% paid for by Japanese tax payers?

By the way a union is the free market deciding what they are worth.

 

[Vic]

Too much stupid stubborn ideology in this thread, not enough objectivity. The unions have NOTHING to do with the fact that consumers don't want to buy American cars. And it is this steadily eroding market share, over the course of decades, that has put the American automakers in the position they are in now. And nothing else.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

All the more reason not to reward bad management with the Democrats plan to give them cash.

I wasn't aware they had a plan just to give them money. My understanding was they (the Big Three) needed to come up a with plan to show how that money would help them become profitable instead of just putting off the inevitable.

One of the reasons I'm against this bailout is that congress is going to force the companies (with strings attached to the bailout) to leave the unions unharmed. There are other factors contributing to the problems (bad products, timing, energy costs etc etc), but until they address them all -- including the union / benefit / labor cost, bailing them out is throwing good money after bad.

I'm wondering why the Union doesn't take the money they have in the memberships Pensions and invest it in the Big Three. I know that the Carpenters Union has worked with Home Builders in the past loaning them the money to finance large housing tracts which benefitted both the Union Membership and the Contractors/Home Builders.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Plan? They have no plan they are idiots. How about last week when they said they could go out of business. Wow way to instill confidence in a new domestic purchase. Think about it: if you were in the market for a new car, would you want to buy them from a manufacturer that claimed to be on the verge of collapse? Basically they privileged ivory tower children not leaders who are in it for the short term cash. When this years numbers are out will not surpise me if they fall another 10%.

Yep.

Originally posted by: Zebo
By the way a union is the free market deciding what they are worth.

Exactly. Unions are an integral aspect of free market capitalism, just as corporations are. Management and capital can organize, and so can labor. In fact, it would require a govt intrusion into the free markets to prevent the formation of labor unions.
This wingnut notion to the contrary is nothing but ignorant ideology.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

No argument there, except that what you're saying falls exactly under the "let the market determine the pay" mechanism. If there are not enough people to do the job, the company offers more in pay, or invests in some way to do something differently so they need fewer resources. Either way, the pay is set by market supply and demand. Since their competitors are subject to the same market environment, the employer would not be at a disadvantage.

Except they are not on a level playing field. Does the terms ?chaebol? or ?keiretsu? mean anything to you? Or how about UHC? Or government 'loans' to their automakers. You relise Toyotas hybrid development costs among others were 100% paid for by Japanese tax payers?

By the way a union is the free market deciding what they are worth.

With regard to labor, other manufacturers in the US (like Honda) are on the same playing field as GM and Ford. I'm not saying everything else is on a level playing field, I know foreign companies have other significant advantages in terms of subsidies etc.

Also, yes, a union is a part of the free market mechanism, but that also means that when union companies like GM start to fail, we should let them fail so they can restore competitive balance within the market framework. Propping them up without fixing the underlying problems is useless.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[The Unions are going to have to make some concessions to help these companies become profitable as it's in their membership's best interest. Of course the Companies are going to have to do something about their inept management too.

All the more reason not to reward bad management with the Democrats plan to give them cash.

I wasn't aware they had a plan just to give them money. My understanding was they (the Big Three) needed to come up a with plan to show how that money would help them become profitable instead of just putting off the inevitable.

One of the reasons I'm against this bailout is that congress is going to force the companies (with strings attached to the bailout) to leave the unions unharmed. There are other factors contributing to the problems (bad products, timing, energy costs etc etc), but until they address them all -- including the union / benefit / labor cost, bailing them out is throwing good money after bad.

I'm wondering why the Union doesn't take the money they have in the memberships Pensions and invest it in the Big Three. I know that the Carpenters Union has worked with Home Builders in the past loaning them the money to finance large housing tracts which benefitted both the Union Membership and the Contractors/Home Builders.

Good point, I'm not sure why that hasn't happened either. They've made big concessions over the last few years, but that's too little too late.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Exactly. Unions are an integral aspect of free market capitalism, just as corporations are. Management and capital can organize, and so can labor. In fact, it would require a govt intrusion into the free markets to prevent the formation of labor unions.
This wingnut notion to the contrary is nothing but ignorant ideology.

unions as they exist are a government backed monopoly on labor in many states. that's not free market either.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zebo
By the way a union is the free market deciding what they are worth.

Exactly. Unions are an integral aspect of free market capitalism, just as corporations are. Management and capital can organize, and so can labor. In fact, it would require a govt intrusion into the free markets to prevent the formation of labor unions.
This wingnut notion to the contrary is nothing but ignorant ideology.

Uhhh... me thinks you are ignorant of the realities Vic. There are government laws and regulations in place specifically designed to allow workers to unionize and provide protections for those trying to unionize. In the absence of such protections and regulations, unions would not exist (at least not effectively), the corporations would crush any attempt to unionize. In fact, if you look at history, that's exactly what happened, worker / union movements got crushed -- violently if needed -- until governments created regulations and protections for workers and unions. Of course, feel free to disagree simply based on your ideology, but history is proof that unions, in their present form, can not and did not exist without government help.

Think about it. In the absence of government protection, if I even suggested creating a union where I work, I'd get instantly fired and blackballed from any similar corporations. Government regulations (ie intervention in the free market mechanism) are needed to allow unions to form. Even with government regulations, some corporations like Wal-Mart have managed to effectively destroy any possibility of union activity within the company, going as far as to simply close stores and fire everyone if workers choose to unionize.

Unions were needed to counteract the massive imbalance in terms of negotiating power the employer had over employees. There are instances where that need still exists today, but they are few and far between, which is exactly why union membership continues to drop.

I'm not arguing that unions should not exist at all or that they don't have a place in the labor market.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
They make $20 or $30 per hour for jobs that would (outside a union) get them $10 - $15 per hour.

So you think they should make the wages a High School kids makes. Where are they going to get tens of thousands of workers who will to do that work for such paltry pay?

What you or I think someone should be paid should be irrelevant. Let the market determine what someone gets paid. If a certain job is worth $6 per hour, then so be it, if you want to make more than that, do what you need to so you can get another job. The argument that they should make more wages than a "high school kid" holds no water: if a highschool kid can perform a job that is worth more, then yes, that high school kid should make more.

What I'm saying there isn't enough High School kids avialable to do that work. You want Adults who have families and all the expenses that come with it to work for such low wages? Good luck, they'd not be able to find enough people to fill the positions and will have to pay higher wages just to get enough people to do the job.

No argument there, except that what you're saying falls exactly under the "let the market determine the pay" mechanism. If there are not enough people to do the job, the company offers more in pay, or invests in some way to do something differently so they need fewer resources. Either way, the pay is set by market supply and demand. Since their competitors are subject to the same market environment, the employer would not be at a disadvantage.

Except they are not on a level playing field. Does the terms ?chaebol? or ?keiretsu? mean anything to you? Or how about UHC? Or government 'loans' to their automakers. You relise Toyotas hybrid development costs among others were 100% paid for by Japanese tax payers?

By the way a union is the free market deciding what they are worth.

With regard to labor, other manufacturers in the US (like Honda) are on the same playing field as GM and Ford. I'm not saying everything else is on a level playing field, I know foreign companies have other significant advantages in terms of subsidies etc.

Also, yes, a union is a part of the free market mechanism, but that also means that when union companies like GM start to fail, we should let them fail so they can restore competitive balance within the market framework. Propping them up without fixing the underlying problems is useless.

Agree 100%.

They will fail when GM files chapter 11 and sadly many will continue to blame those oppressive lazy unions while the problems of soiled branding, lack of innovation and hit and run leadership remain. Sadly, the loan is a done deal it's too political not to be so I think you're wasting your breath there.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Vic
Too much stupid stubborn ideology in this thread, not enough objectivity. The unions have NOTHING to do with the fact that consumers don't want to buy American cars. And it is this steadily eroding market share, over the course of decades, that has put the American automakers in the position they are in now. And nothing else.

Yep, the "stupid stubborn ideology" is on your part. If you really believe that unions have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation of the big 3, you clearly are letting ideology override reasoning. It's not a matter of whether unions are a part of the issue, just a matter of how much of a factor. I contend they are a part of the problem, not the only problem. Getting rid of the union by itself will not fix the issue either.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Zebo
By the way a union is the free market deciding what they are worth.

Exactly. Unions are an integral aspect of free market capitalism, just as corporations are. Management and capital can organize, and so can labor. In fact, it would require a govt intrusion into the free markets to prevent the formation of labor unions.
This wingnut notion to the contrary is nothing but ignorant ideology.

Uhhh... me thinks you are ignorant of the realities Vic. There are government laws and regulations in place specifically designed to allow workers to unionize and provide protections for those trying to unionize. In the absence of such protections and regulations, unions would not exist (at least not effectively), the corporations would crush any attempt to unionize. In fact, if you look at history, that's exactly what happened, worker / union movements got crushed -- violently if needed -- until governments created regulations and protections for workers and unions. Of course, feel free to disagree simply based on your ideology, but history is proof that unions, in their present form, can not and did not exist without government help.

Think about it. In the absence of government protection, if I even suggested creating a union where I work, I'd get instantly fired and blackballed from any similar corporations. Government regulations (ie intervention in the free market mechanism) are needed to allow unions to form. Even with government regulations, some corporations like Wal-Mart have managed to effectively destroy any possibility of union activity within the company, going as far as to simply close stores and fire everyone if workers choose to unionize.
Unions were needed to counteract the massive imbalance in terms of negotiating power the employer had over employees. There are instances where that need still exists today, but they are few and far between, which is exactly why union membership continues to drop.

I'm not arguing that unions should not exist at all or that they don't have a place in the labor market.

So big deal the government though the peoples wishes leveled the playing field a bit allowing workers to organize without fear of reprisal. That in itself was a free and democratic choice. Government creates and has in place plenty of rights the property and capital owner relies on the take ownership of what somebody else produces such as property rights, a court system to enforce those rights, the reserve banking system, unique and protected forms of business organization called "corporations", securities, contract rights etc, is created by government to protect those that have capital from those that don't. Think about it: If those government protections wernt there someone bigger stronger meaner and faster could take what they wanted from the paper holders. We already have experience with what will happen when there are no unions, no minimum wage, no OSHA requirements, no safety net, and no government infrastructure that favors anybody but owners. On the other hand, we only need to look at communist revolutions to see what happens when the protections for the owners break down. Neither is pretty sight.


In the true sense of the word there is nothing 'free market' about either side organized labor or capital markets.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Zebo
So big deal the government though the peoples wishes leveled the playing field a bit allowing workers to organize without fear of reprisal. That in itself was a free and democratic choice.

I haven't argued that it was not a choice or part of the democratic process, nor whether it's needed or fair or whatever, that's for another thread. I was addressing Vic's statement that "In fact, it would require a govt intrusion into the free markets to prevent the formation of labor unions.". That's simply completely wrong.

In the true sense of the word there is nothing 'free market' about either side organized labor or capital markets.

Agreed, there is no true "free market" when an entity such as a government creates the rules by which everyone must abide. That's a good thing for all of us.

Unions exist because greedy people and corporations exploited workers to such an extent that those in government were convinced or forced to do something about it. In prior centuries that exploitation was simply an accepted way of life, but that way of thinking has fortunately changed in most of the civilized word.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Unions exist because greedy people and corporations exploited workers to such an extent that those in government were convinced or forced to do something about it. In prior centuries that exploitation was simply an accepted way of life, but that way of thinking has fortunately changed in most of the civilized word.

Human greed has not changed and if conditions allow you will see the same exploitation again.

Unions existed for a simple reason and that reason has not gone away. Why the non union car manufacturers pay what some feel are a 'high wage for unskilled work' is because they want to keep the unions out. Remove the union out of the picture completely and then lets see what Toyota & Honda pay - Walmart wages.

And to your earlier point about Govt intrusion to stop unions, maybe you have forgotten the actions of Margaret Thatcher in what was strongly unionized UK and Reagan's role in union busting, starting with the air controllers union to make an example.

 

[Stunt]

"average wages for workers... ...were just $28 per hour"
Just?! $28/hr for mostly unskilled laborers is huge.
The $70 figure is wages plus fringe (benefits)

For budgetary reasons my company uses $55/hr per employee because the total cost of the employee is much higher than their wages. That doesn't even include the liabilities associated with that worker. The total cost of a big 3 workers is huge relative to comparable jobs in the manufacturing sector.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"average wages for workers... ...were just $28 per hour"
Just?! $28/hr for mostly unskilled laborers is huge.
The $70 figure is wages plus fringe (benefits)

For budgetary reasons my company uses $55/hr per employee because the total cost of the employee is much higher than their wages. That doesn't even include the liabilities associated with that worker. The total cost of a big 3 workers is huge relative to comparable jobs in the manufacturing sector.

The $70 figure is reached by taking the a) wage of current employees, b) fringes and other costs of current employees, c) pension and retirement fringes of retired employees, then the total is divided by the number of CURRENT employees to get that figure.

Remove the costs of retired employees and the figure becomes comparable with non union plants in the south.

When the new GM - UAW contract comes into force in the 2010 their costs will probably less than non union plants and the legacy costs will be off GM's book (to be handled by the union). Lets see if Toyota Honda lower their wages to compete!

 

[piasabird]

You have to admit for the House or the Senate to ask the big three for a business plan is kind of Ironic. Let me see the business plan of the House of Representatives.

A. Raise Taxes.
B. Pay off all our supporters.
C. Get Reelected.

When Congress does nothing is when the people in the USA get the most benefit.

One man's flat tax is another mans tax break for the rich.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Unions exist because greedy people and corporations exploited workers to such an extent that those in government were convinced or forced to do something about it. In prior centuries that exploitation was simply an accepted way of life, but that way of thinking has fortunately changed in most of the civilized word.

Human greed has not changed and if conditions allow you will see the same exploitation again.

True, human greed will never change, but society's view of human rights has changed. Slavery was perfectly acceptable in the past, no civilized country would even consider allowing it now.

Unions existed for a simple reason and that reason has not gone away. Why the non union car manufacturers pay what some feel are a 'high wage for unskilled work' is because they want to keep the unions out. Remove the union out of the picture completely and then lets see what Toyota & Honda pay - Walmart wages.

And what's wrong with that? If GM/Honda/Toyota etc want to pay walmart wages, there's nothing wrong with it. People will then take some other job, and the manufacturers won't have the labor they need, so they'll be forced to raise wages. Simple supply and demand. I don't know why some people have this weird idea that some jobs must be high-paying -- the market supply and demand should dictate pay for a job.

And to your earlier point about Govt intrusion to stop unions, maybe you have forgotten the actions of Margaret Thatcher in what was strongly unionized UK and Reagan's role in union busting, starting with the air controllers union to make an example.

I didn't say the government would not be able to strengthen or weaken unions through it's actions, I said without government protection/legislations, unions could not exist.

:thumbsup: Thank goodness for Thatcher and Reagan, the "Iron Lady" and the "Great Communicator" -- too bad we just don't have leaders like that anymore!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
How far will management and the corporate thugs go to smear the middle class workers?
Even fellow working class folks bashing workers and supporting lower wages against their own best interests.
Well, lies and distortions are on the table, like usual.
-snip-

IMO, you're blaming the wrong people for this common misunderstanding.

As I've said before, the journalists writing these stories are confused, and spread that confusion to others.

I'll try again, the wages between the US auto makers and the others (e.g. Toyota) are similar (as noted above by others).

The trouble stems from a lack of understanding accounting rules and practice.

In accounting it's called *Cost Allocation* under the principals of *cost accounting*.

The costs of a business are allocated (in various methods) to the product they produce. The US automakers have a lot of "legacy costs" (costs of former employees or those no longer working etc). These costs are allocated to the products (autos/trucks); they are allocating them based on labor hours per vehicle.

So, the larger figure ($70) includes not only the salary & benefits of the employees actualy working on the autos, but the legacy costs as well.

The journalists are looking at the larger figure and misunderstanding that as being only hourly labor costs for those employees actually working now.

For those untrained, examining financial data can lead to all kinds of confusion and mistakes.

Fern