At Ford the lunchtime party is job one

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bozack

Craig, just cause I know it burns your ass so much I seriously hope the UAW goes down in flames over this.

That says a lot about you, none of it good. I've used up my quota of the word idiocy today, so I'll say no more.

But since you like cherry picked 'facts', let's do better and mention a broad fact - before unions were allowed to help workers, in 1900 the average annual salary for an American worker, adjusted for inflation, was $10,000. It's several times that from the time unions were allowed, which is what created the middle class out of poverty of your system.

I don't really care what 'burns your ass' or doesn't, I simply like for more people to do better, and unions overall, if imperfectly, help do that.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: bozack
union baby, union....I used to know plenty of union guys back in the day and the stories they would tell about all the work they didn't do and the pay they got was unbelievable. I once had a pipefitter friend of mine want me to join as in his words "they were looking for a few younger white guys" and I would have been a good fit...in retrospect I should have jumped in, probabily would have made more and done alot less work than I do now with more job security.

yeah...union fitters just sit around and get paid for doing nothing most of the time :roll:

Yep Cops, Fireman, teachers, guys who build all those missiles for Lockheed, planes for Boeing and especially autoworkers all sit on their ass everyday when they are not slamming shots of Jaegar.:roll:

 

[Paddington]

Yeah but don't think all unions are the same. They're not. One thing most union members will be quick to point out is theirs isn't as militant, aggressive, or unreasonable as the UAW. Hell in recent weeks I've overhead lots of our unionized employees at work ripping the the auto workers, and especially the UAW, for their behavior. Some of these guys are even represented by the UAW (but work in a different, non-manufacturing field).

The company can't negotiate with the union for fear of strike. But now in early 2009 the gov't really has a chance to force a new deal on the union. Maybe the wages should be brought in line with transplant factories, but more importantly these work abuses have to go and there has to be zero tolerance for alcohol on the job (people die in these factories, you know), and the company has to be allowed to crack down on absenteeism, whether it be taking away vacation/sick time, or firing workers.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: hellod9
Government should have no role in telling corporations how to run things, especially in terms of the culture of the company. Who the hell thinks businesses should have a culture that conforms to 'government culture.'

Absolutely correct! As long as they do not ask for help from the Feds or Gov't! If they do then you are absolutely wrong!

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You are not showing any understanding of the idea of the selective use of facts to make a partisan point.

When the government wanted to build support for invading Iraq, the amount of attention given to every anecdote, ever utterance, anything done by Iraq to justify viewing them as a threat was very high - in contrast to the many years, especially when we allied with them, when there was little attention paid.

The same technique applies constantly on many issues. If the president is pushing a tax cut, watch for every concern of the day to have some reference made to how tax cuts would help, watch for the anecdotes about anything supporting the tax cuts, like someone paying high taxes, to get attention. If the issue is the estate tax, watch for the anecdotes about some family losing a farm allegedly from the tax getting national attention.

What the 'just the facts' approach misses is that there are billions of facts, and the bias is not in the accuracy of the ones presented, but the selection process.

Because, as I said, the auto companies' problems are a national issue, some anti-union centers are exploiting the issue to score points against unions. You are falling for it.

Many workers in pretty much every industry can be caught wasting time sometimes. It's ripe for exploitation when singled out and publicized. It's not a very valid point.

So, with the public bailing out the car companies, there's a heightened sensitivity to any 'waste' by the workers. Suddenly it's all our business to micro manage them.

The thing is, it's very selective, and ultimately not too helpful - and IMO, a misguided campaign for a larger anti-union effort which is simply to help the rich, and hurt others.

You seem unfamiliar with the concept that those whose agenda is to help the rich and hurt others don't simply say that's what they're doing, and ask for more billions for the rich, and instead use propaganda that actually persuades many people, people like you, to tsk tks at those terrible unions and be willing to vote more against them.

Talk about vitriol and being a 'tool', you are the one to 'look in the mirror'.

I dind't say you are part of the effort to spread this propaganda, I said the effort is going on, and that you are falling for it. But you don't seem too able ot hear that.

The 'vitriol' you refer to is mostly your own reflected back. The word 'tool' was repeated after you first used it, to show you how you were talking. I've never initiated that word.

The passion against the lies and harmful agenda to hurt so many is what you also seem to mistake as vitriol.

Finally, on the issue of rational comments, you say you did not blame the unions, you said it was unions and management. I'd say the more accurate statement is that you did blame the unions, and say it was unions and management; and that it's primarily unions, since you are limiting your criticism of management to allowing unions to do wrong.

Cliffs: this is an anecdotal bit of information easily expoited for propaganda against unions, something you are falling for, unfortunately. Where are your posts on the problems of the wealthy, the problems of management, the problems of the right wing on these issues, to balance your comments about this union anecdote?

I appreciate your analysis. However, it is misguided.

Here's all I said about unions. "Sounds like poor management and/or union rules." Note that I put "management" first.

You instantly assumed that I was anti-union, and attacked me, without any real substantive argument. Now you're backtracking slightly, and saying that there's a bigger issue here. There's myopia involved here, and it isn't on my part.

You should ask yourself why you construed what is basically a neutral statement (indicting both management and labor) as an attack solely on unions. Overly defensive much? It is exactly partisanship like this that makes it unlikely that the two sides will ever reconcile. Each side is looking for any excuse to attack the other.

Like I said, I don't care about Ford or unions, until I have to pay to bail them out. Whichever is to blame for enabling the time-wasting employee behavior, whether management or union or both, needs to be fixed.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Corn
My guess is these guys are jobs bank "employees" and are not line workers. This is why the jobs bank needed to go a long time ago.

I would bet money on it. No way would these guys not be missed for those stretches of time if there were actually working. If they are... then shame on their bosses, too.

Yes, yes, yes, 100X yes to killing the jobs bank. I have been saying this for years. The jobs bank was originally put into place to protect the line workers from being replaced by robots. The need for this kind of protection #1 has come and gone and #2 was bullshit to begin with. Go back to school at night and learn a new profession/trade if you are affraid your job might one day become automated. I have friends and family in the jobs bank and they soak it up like a sponge. Only one of them is taking classes at night in preparation for the day when they axe it and they are all working on a different line, the unemployment one.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: tk149

I appreciate your analysis. However, it is misguided.

Here's all I said about unions. "Sounds like poor management and/or union rules." Note that I put "management" first.

Context. This is an entire thread in a political forum for this anecdote. That sends a message, whether you intend or realize it, or not.

You can say what you like, point to the 'management/union' phrase, but the bottom line is it's a thread about union people wasting time, and the rest is just peripheral.

You want to ignore that and try to defend, you can try, but you say *my* post was defensive? I pointed out the larger political picture this fits into. Nothing to 'defend' there.

You instantly assumed that I was anti-union, and attacked me, without any real substantive argument. Now you're backtracking slightly, and saying that there's a bigger issue here. There's myopia involved here, and it isn't on my part.

It didn't assume you were anti-union, it pointed out how this anecdotal post fits the anti-union agenda. That's right. You seem to want to deny that for some reason. Maybe you don't understand that, but it doesn't change the situation that there is an anti-union agenda being pushed now, and that this sort of thread serves it well, whether you simply posted it naively or out of conviciton for those views.

You took it as an attack on you, which may explain your defensive response - and 'projecting' might explain your statement my post was defensive.

You should ask yourself why you construed what is basically a neutral statement (indicting both management and labor) as an attack solely on unions.

First, I didn't. I discussed the aspect of it that I was interested in, the current anti-union political activities; I accurately said you had attacked unions, in part because you denied it.

You're the one 'backtracking', from 'did not attack unions' to trying to say that you listed management first, so the attack on unions is somehow mitigated.

You're debating semantics, making a post and not wanting to stand by it. I could explain the obvious, how an attack on *union people wasting time*, and you saying it's a 'management/union' problem without any specifics on management other than the implication that they allow the union to waste time - perhaps because the union is too powerful to stop - is primarily a criticism of unions. But you don't seem interested in having that pointed out, you just want to bicker about the semantics.

Overly defensive much? It is exactly partisanship like this that makes it unlikely that the two sides will ever reconcile. Each side is looking for any excuse to attack the other.

A thread about an anecdote of union people allegedly wasting time is the non-partisan sort of communication designed not to be an attack to the two sides can reconcile? Gotcha.

Sorry, that's just nonsense. Calling this thread what it is is not partisan, it's not opposed to good relations between management and unions. You're blowing smoke.

Like I said, I don't care about Ford or unions, until I have to pay to bail them out. Whichever is to blame for enabling the time-wasting employee behavior, whether management or union or both, needs to be fixed.

Except the time-wasting behavior has virtually nothing to do with the need for the bailout.

You never said anything about the crucial role unions play in the prosperity of the middle class. You did imply that this anecdote is significant. You now explicitly laid the need for the government bailout at the feet of time-wasting union people (even if management had blame for it happening). It's all a bunch of nonsense, and serves well the Republican Senators I mentioned who are using the bailout to attack unions.

I'd say stick to the issues, not anecdotes you have to spin. The issues include, what is good public policy on the bailouts - what serves the public interest? What are the causes of the auto manufacturers being in this trouble and are there any public policy issues needing to be addressed?

Unions can be examined for their flaws and fixes they need, but the anti-union efforts going on because the wealthy are trying to hurt them to make more money aren't that.

My post had plenty of 'substance', contrary to your statement, but the attack is ironic coming from a post about such a trivial anecdote as this.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't really care what 'burns your ass' or doesn't, I simply like for more people to do better, and unions overall, if imperfectly, help do that.

Unions are an antiquated organization whose time is well past...just as traditional mass production is no longer a viable manufacturing strategy, the work conditions that caused the rise of unions are long gone.

Most states provide the legal coverage and protection once under the domain of unions.

Unions exist for one reason today...to preserve the power of unions.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't really care what 'burns your ass' or doesn't, I simply like for more people to do better, and unions overall, if imperfectly, help do that.

Unions are an antiquated organization whose time is well past...just as traditional mass production is no longer a viable manufacturing strategy, the work conditions that caused the rise of unions are long gone.

Most states provide the legal coverage and protection once under the domain of unions.

Unions exist for one reason today...to preserve the power of unions.

Workers have a right to organize and get more for their money just as businesses attempt to do everything in their power to pay them as little as possible.

Cry me a river because the worker is now enjoying some of the same freedoms as an employer gets. BooHoo.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Yeah but don't think all unions are the same. They're not. One thing most union members will be quick to point out is theirs isn't as militant, aggressive, or unreasonable as the UAW. Hell in recent weeks I've overhead lots of our unionized employees at work ripping the the auto workers, and especially the UAW, for their behavior. Some of these guys are even represented by the UAW (but work in a different, non-manufacturing field).

The company can't negotiate with the union for fear of strike. But now in early 2009 the gov't really has a chance to force a new deal on the union. Maybe the wages should be brought in line with transplant factories, but more importantly these work abuses have to go and there has to be zero tolerance for alcohol on the job (people die in these factories, you know), and the company has to be allowed to crack down on absenteeism, whether it be taking away vacation/sick time, or firing workers.

UAW is a lot more than autoworkers they represent workers at defense contractors such as General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Honeywell, Raytheon, General Electric, Rolls-Royce Allison, Bell , etc. Perhaps your co-workers are just jealous of the size, power and benefits UAW workers get or have bought into the anti-union spiel in general but the way I look at it is the very unions existence raises wages/benefits/conditions for all workers union or not because those employers are faced with a constant comparison and looking over their shoulder and that's a good thing.


Still waiting for your link about this BS and the rape

GM fired a few workers at one plant for this back in the 1990's, and the whole plant went on strike. Other plants followed. The company lost $2 billion.

One of their workers could walk in KKK garb, snort cocaine in front of everyone, and then rape an underage girl right in the factory, and the company would still be unable to fire them.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Craig234
That says a lot about you, none of it good. I've used up my quota of the word idiocy today, so I'll say no more.

But since you like cherry picked 'facts', let's do better and mention a broad fact - before unions were allowed to help workers, in 1900 the average annual salary for an American worker, adjusted for inflation, was $10,000. It's several times that from the time unions were allowed, which is what created the middle class out of poverty of your system.

I don't really care what 'burns your ass' or doesn't, I simply like for more people to do better, and unions overall, if imperfectly, help do that.

Typical, different viewpoint = idiot for you guys right, why am I not surprised.

I have worked for years in a non unionized industry, as has my wife...and neither of us suffer...unions had their place but that time has passed, or at least with regards to the UAW...but only time will tell.

 

[StageLeft]

A week ago somebody told me about stories from her boyfriend who said that people at one of the domestics--I think it was Chevy--are drunk all the time. I thought it sounded unbelievable, but this lends credence to it.

This, though, is what happens when people's job is not reliant on their performance. Remove merit, you remove performance.

 

[Squisher]

Let me just say that the UAW is comprised of a workforce that mimics the workforce at any company. It has no greater amount of miscreants than any other workforce.

Coming to work under the influence is grounds for discipline. A supervisor can either see behavior that is typical of someone under the influence or smell alcohol and can demand a drug/alcohol test at any time. Anyone suspected to be under the influence can also be subjected to a search including their locker and vehicle. Any refusal is grounds for dismissal. A person caught with drugs on company property is grounds for dismissal. A person found to be under the influence can be subject to discipline up to and including dismissal. Chances are that if a person is found to be under the influence and there has NEVER been any other issue with the employee they will be forced into rehab and put on probation.



Getting back to the OP, if it was so widespread how is it possible productivity at UAW plants rivals that of any of the foreign transplants? First of all, there is a very very very small amount of employees that can be justified to be outside of the plant during work hours. Typically your badge or ID clocks you into and out of work when you go through a turnstile. All your "rings" have to also be approved by your supervisor, individually, before you can be paid. Any hanky-panky taking place would also have to involve someone in management.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't really care what 'burns your ass' or doesn't, I simply like for more people to do better, and unions overall, if imperfectly, help do that.

Unions are an antiquated organization whose time is well past...just as traditional mass production is no longer a viable manufacturing strategy, the work conditions that caused the rise of unions are long gone.

Most states provide the legal coverage and protection once under the domain of unions.

Unions exist for one reason today...to preserve the power of unions.

Workers have a right to organize and get more for their money just as businesses attempt to do everything in their power to pay them as little as possible.

Cry me a river because the worker is now enjoying some of the same freedoms as an employer gets. BooHoo.

Workers have a right to organize and get more for their money? But if businesses do the same thing, you'll call them a cartel, say they're being unfair, anti-competitive, etc.

 

[gar3555]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: gar3555
I've worked for everyone of the big 3 as a contractor (engineering automation), and this kind of behavior is rampant among the line workers/maintenance. I've seen workers drunk while working in these plants. They can't be fired for this b/c alcoholism is a disease. IF they get caught, all the have to do is go to AA/rehab and get paid while there.

I appreciate your exposing the things you see as well. No argument that unions don't have their own abuses.

In the larger picture, unions have played a key role in providing the only effective way for workers to get decent treatment, despite the abusses.

But we should watch for how to try to minimize their abuses as well.

Unfortunately, power is blind - the same shift in power needed to curtail the abuses you describe is the shift in power that would slash their wages for no good reason.

The issue of 'right' has so little place in the process; it ends up merely being a power balancing act for the most part, since who is to judge what's 'right'?

Show me a way to reduce the abuses (and I'm not saying everything you listed is an abuse, but certainly there are abuses) without simply taking power away from the unions that hurts them in unfair ways, and I'm interested. But how are we going to do that? Outside, neutral scrutiny might be one way, but how is that going to happen? Public review? Government regulation? Not many are in favor of a lot of those 'solutions'. So, we deal with the imperfections - and selectively point them out to score points.

I don't blame the UAW solely for the problems. I don't even put them as the majority of the problems, but nonetheless they are a part of the problem IMO. They need to retool their school of thought the same as management.