My take on the whole Big 3 Union thing

[Mxylplyx]

When I read all the various threads about union vs management, and whose fault all this is, I cant help but to notice something that makes the entire argument seem petty. How in the hell can you run any organization when this giant rift exists between management and labor? Perhaps this is because my perspective comes from a right to work state, but I see a culture of management vs labor in these old early 20th century dinosaur industries that is so imbedded into the ethic of every person, that the only way I see to clean it out is to fire them all and start over.

Here in the south, people make damn good money at the various plants they have opened, and the workers consistently vote down any attempt to unionize. In today's government regulated work environment, I see no reason why the fundamentals of an assembly line worker should vary much from my job as an IT professional. I negotiated my wage directly with my employer, and then I come in to work and do whatever my employer tells me to do. I get paid well because I'm a skilled professional, and a Mexican lady that is probably paid dick comes and collects the trash every day. If some faulty equipment causes me injury, I have the opportunity for legal remedy through the courts, just like anyone else. If they come up with a way for me to do my job more efficiently, or take on other tasks not originally agreed upon, I do it, or I'm free to leave. If my job itself becomes an inefficiency and they let me go, that fucking sucks, but I go find another job. Growing up in a non-unionized work environment, which I fully understand may contain many perks won by unions of the past, I dont see how any functional business could run any other way, and I seem to be right, as businesses that adhere to the former model seem to be dying a slow death.

The free market is not a monopoly like the government, or industries of the past, that can afford the inefficiencies of a lazy, entitled work force. In a global economy, if you cant keep your costs in line with your competitors, you fail.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

everyone but the union supporters know this.
well, actually they know it too but they're too greedy and selfish to care how it's affecting the host company and the overall economy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
When I read all the various threads about union vs management, and whose fault all this is, I cant help but to notice something that makes the entire argument seem petty. How in the hell can you run any organization when this giant rift exists between management and labor? Perhaps this is because my perspective comes from a right to work state, but I see a culture of management vs labor in these old early 20th century dinosaur industries that is so imbedded into the ethic of every person, that the only way I see to clean it out is to fire them all and start over.

Here in the south, people make damn good money at the various plants they have opened, and the workers consistently vote down any attempt to unionize. In today's government regulated work environment, I see no reason why the fundamentals of an assembly line worker should vary much from my job as an IT professional. I negotiated my wage directly with my employer, and then I come in to work and do whatever my employer tells me to do. I get paid well because I'm a skilled professional, and a Mexican lady that is probably paid dick comes and collects the trash every day. If some faulty equipment causes me injury, I have the opportunity for legal remedy through the courts, just like anyone else. If they come up with a way for me to do my job more efficiently, or take on other tasks not originally agreed upon, I do it, or I'm free to leave. If my job itself becomes an inefficiency and they let me go, that fucking sucks, but I go find another job. Growing up in a non-unionized work environment, which I fully understand may contain many perks won by unions of the past, I dont see how any functional business could run any other way, and I seem to be right, as businesses that adhere to the former model seem to be dying a slow death.

The free market is not a monopoly like the government, or industries of the past, that can afford the inefficiencies of a lazy, entitled work force. In a global economy, if you cant keep your costs in line with your competitors, you fail.

As far as I know there's no law that says the Big Three has to use Union Workers just as there's no law that says the Workers can't organize. You wouldn't want to deny the Workers the Right to Unionize would you? That'd be denying their right to assemble and belong to an organization. The problem is the Management gave away the baby with the bath water when they negotiated the contracts.

Now it's not only in their best interest to renegotiate those contracts but also the Union because being in a Union is worthless if there's no place for them to work

 

[dartworth]

there are plenty of successful companies throughout the US and the world with union workforces...but nobody talks about them...

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: dartworth
there are plenty of successful companies throughout the US and the world with union workforces...but nobody talks about them...

Because they probably weren't stupid or arrogant enough to cave in to the UAW's demands so willingly. The Big 3 managment probably gave in cuz they knew by the time the contracts would start negatively affecting any of the Big 3 they would no longer be there to worry about it.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: dartworth
there are plenty of successful companies throughout the US and the world with union workforces...but nobody talks about them...

Because they probably weren't stupid or arrogant enough to cave in to the UAW's demands so willingly. The Big 3 managment probably gave in cuz they knew by the time the contracts would start negatively affecting any of the Big 3 they would no longer be there to worry about it.

what demands are you referring too? the UAW has been giving management all kinds of concessions...sigh


/deadhorse

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
When I read all the various threads about union vs management, and whose fault all this is, I cant help but to notice something that makes the entire argument seem petty. How in the hell can you run any organization when this giant rift exists between management and labor? Perhaps this is because my perspective comes from a right to work state, but I see a culture of management vs labor in these old early 20th century dinosaur industries that is so imbedded into the ethic of every person, that the only way I see to clean it out is to fire them all and start over.

Here in the south, people make damn good money at the various plants they have opened, and the workers consistently vote down any attempt to unionize. In today's government regulated work environment, I see no reason why the fundamentals of an assembly line worker should vary much from my job as an IT professional. I negotiated my wage directly with my employer, and then I come in to work and do whatever my employer tells me to do. I get paid well because I'm a skilled professional, and a Mexican lady that is probably paid dick comes and collects the trash every day. If some faulty equipment causes me injury, I have the opportunity for legal remedy through the courts, just like anyone else. If they come up with a way for me to do my job more efficiently, or take on other tasks not originally agreed upon, I do it, or I'm free to leave. If my job itself becomes an inefficiency and they let me go, that fucking sucks, but I go find another job. Growing up in a non-unionized work environment, which I fully understand may contain many perks won by unions of the past, I dont see how any functional business could run any other way, and I seem to be right, as businesses that adhere to the former model seem to be dying a slow death.

The free market is not a monopoly like the government, or industries of the past, that can afford the inefficiencies of a lazy, entitled work force. In a global economy, if you cant keep your costs in line with your competitors, you fail.

I am in the same position and thoughts as you, except, I've done a somewhat recent 'tour of duty' at one of the Big 3 as a line worker for a summer, so I've got a little perspective on this:

First: Management, largely, doesn't care in these places as it would at least attempt to in an office. There is an illusionment of caring in many cases, however, when it comes down to it, they really don't.

Second: You are not dealing with people in these places that are highly educated. In many cases, you're talking about below average intellect.

Thirdly: There is no 'good faith' trust between Management and the workers. The sum of this has many parts, some of which is #1 above, #2 above, plus the fact that the mistrust has been going on so long, it's defacto...there are others inputs into this as well.

The work dynamic between line manager and higher, and the union workers under them, is so F'd up, that it defies imagination.

Example: I literally worked on one of the 3 toughest jobs on a section of the line stooped over (I'm 6'3"), while someone that was about 5'8" worked another of the 3 toughest jobs in that section half on his tiptoes. Why? Because the stupid F'ing line manager was/is a complete b*tch idiot. Her reason for doing so: 'Others have done your jobs, you shouldn't have problems doing them. You don't like it? Quit.' Now, do that same rediculousness on both side for the past 20 years, and you'll understand why things are so F'd up at the Big 3.

Chuck

 

[bctbct]

You will be outsourced.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: bctbct
You will be outsourced.

Possibly, but is that different than a union worker losing his job because his company fails? I have an advantage finding a new job because my work ethic hasnt been utterly destroyed by working in the big 3 management/union culture so long. I cant imagine that imbedded work ethic can be shaken off so easily once the gravy train comes to an end.

 

[daniel49]

let me give you a personel example.
Company xyz owns plants A in a non right to work state, and plant B in a right to work state. Both are unionized. I work at Plant A.

Plant A:
>our wages and benefits are better.
>We have no OT on demand, its up to us.
>Our health care premiums are paid by the company.
>Our company is profitable.

Plant B:
>wages are lower, benefits decreased.
>have been on strike 3 months because mngt. wants a 60 hour week if they feel they need it.
>There premiums just went up 300%, also a reason for the strike.
>Instead of negotiating in good faith mngt. tried to replace them when they went on strike.
>Company is not profitable at this time.


Now far be it from me to say unions are perfect, but even farther be it from me to say Employers are perfect.
Unions do serve a purpose, as there are many Employers out there who are retarded when it comes to knowing how to treat thier employees.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: dartworth
there are plenty of successful companies throughout the US and the world with union workforces...but nobody talks about them...

Because they probably weren't stupid or arrogant enough to cave in to the UAW's demands so willingly. The Big 3 managment probably gave in cuz they knew by the time the contracts would start negatively affecting any of the Big 3 they would no longer be there to worry about it.

what demands are you referring too? the UAW has been giving management all kinds of concessions...sigh


/deadhorse

Well they can start with doing away with that Job banks deal where laid off workers get 96% of their wages for two years after being let go.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: dartworth
there are plenty of successful companies throughout the US and the world with union workforces...but nobody talks about them...

Because they probably weren't stupid or arrogant enough to cave in to the UAW's demands so willingly. The Big 3 managment probably gave in cuz they knew by the time the contracts would start negatively affecting any of the Big 3 they would no longer be there to worry about it.

what demands are you referring too? the UAW has been giving management all kinds of concessions...sigh


/deadhorse

Well they can start with doing away with that Job banks deal where laid off workers get 96% of their wages for two years after being let go.

Darworth is right. We're just beating a deadhorse. There's dozens of big3/union threads out there and they all end up the same way.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: dartworth
there are plenty of successful companies throughout the US and the world with union workforces...but nobody talks about them...

Because they probably weren't stupid or arrogant enough to cave in to the UAW's demands so willingly. The Big 3 managment probably gave in cuz they knew by the time the contracts would start negatively affecting any of the Big 3 they would no longer be there to worry about it.

what demands are you referring too? the UAW has been giving management all kinds of concessions...sigh


/deadhorse

Well they can start with doing away with that Job banks deal where laid off workers get 96% of their wages for two years after being let go.

I don't disagree with this. The UAW mentioned today that this is a issue that will be addressed. However, this covers like 12K UAW members...it seems to me there are bigger issues at hand

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: Red Dawn


Well they can start with doing away with that Job banks deal where laid off workers get 96% of their wages for two years after being let go.

I don't disagree with this. The UAW mentioned today that this is a issue that will be addressed. However, this covers like 12K UAW members...it seems to me there are bigger issues at hand

It's a Billion Dollar issue, seems like a good place to start.

 

[Lemon law]

If the OP had a clue, he would not ask this question.

What ails the big three Detroit automakers is management. Who have forgotten to innovate or even design their products for future needs. Stubbornly clinging to the delusion they can sell poorly designed
cars to the general public with the power of marketing.

And once again when crunch time comes, their knee jerk reaction is to blame labor.

And despite all those past union concessions, any time the companies even approach financial health, its time to give management huge bonuses, that up the price of their products through the roof, labor might be able to stomach a share the pain plan, but that money should immediately go into R&D rather than into managements bonuses.

There is not that much wrong with labor, but there is a hell of a lot wrong with the management, and if we fire the lot of them, congress might be willing to help. But the people they sent to talk to congress were so damn clueless, congress is somewhat right not to listen to them. And when Ford kept touting internal combustion engines, they might has well been calling for bring back the dinosaurs. The damn handwriting has been on the wall for decades, but those management idiots do not even know how to read it. And worse yet, they do not want to learn how to read.

Oh what a wonderful world it would be for me if everyone dedicated their lives for my benefit and worked in my behalf for free. So it is written, so shall it be done by congressional mandate.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
When I read all the various threads about union vs management, and whose fault all this is, I cant help but to notice something that makes the entire argument seem petty. How in the hell can you run any organization when this giant rift exists between management and labor? Perhaps this is because my perspective comes from a right to work state, but I see a culture of management vs labor in these old early 20th century dinosaur industries that is so imbedded into the ethic of every person, that the only way I see to clean it out is to fire them all and start over.

Here in the south, people make damn good money at the various plants they have opened, and the workers consistently vote down any attempt to unionize. In today's government regulated work environment, I see no reason why the fundamentals of an assembly line worker should vary much from my job as an IT professional. I negotiated my wage directly with my employer, and then I come in to work and do whatever my employer tells me to do. I get paid well because I'm a skilled professional, and a Mexican lady that is probably paid dick comes and collects the trash every day. If some faulty equipment causes me injury, I have the opportunity for legal remedy through the courts, just like anyone else. If they come up with a way for me to do my job more efficiently, or take on other tasks not originally agreed upon, I do it, or I'm free to leave. If my job itself becomes an inefficiency and they let me go, that fucking sucks, but I go find another job. Growing up in a non-unionized work environment, which I fully understand may contain many perks won by unions of the past, I dont see how any functional business could run any other way, and I seem to be right, as businesses that adhere to the former model seem to be dying a slow death.

The free market is not a monopoly like the government, or industries of the past, that can afford the inefficiencies of a lazy, entitled work force. In a global economy, if you cant keep your costs in line with your competitors, you fail.

How can you talk about the rift between management and labor and then totally blame labor for it? Unions came into existence because of the completely shitty way management treated labor back in the bad old days, and unions continue to have influence in some areas because management has done absolutely nothing to convince workers that labor is anything but the enemy. Look at the rhetoric you're using for example, you assume that every single person employed actually building the big 3's product is lazy and entitled...but don't worry, if they give up being in a union, no doubt you'll be in favor of treating them totally awesome. :roll:

I do think unions have screwed up some here, but it takes two to tango, and management at most union places doesn't help the situation at all.

 

[GeezerMan]

Link

It's a tough job at GM. Good thing GM helps them out

GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra




By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.com

April 18, 2006



Lifestyle drugs -- chiefly Viagra -- are costing General Motors $17 million dollars a year and the cost is passed along to car, truck and SUV consumers. The blue pill is covered under GM's labor agreement with United Auto Workers, as well as benefit plans for salaried employees.

GM executives estimate health care adds $1,500 to the price of each vehicle but they do not break out how much of the premium is caused by erectile dysfunction expenses. GM provides health care for 1.1 million employees, retirees and dependents and is the world's largest private purchaser of Viagra.

GM recently raised the co-pay for erectile dysfunction drugs
to $18 under a new agreement with the UAW and the company has also pared benefits for salaried workers.

The automaker spends almost $5.6 billion each year on health care. While lifestyle drugs are a small fraction of the total medical bill, every health care expense is added into the price of every new vehicle and is a drag on the struggling goliath's earnings.

Given the large number of aging autoworkers in the U.S., the industry?s Viagra tab and bill for other erectile dysfunction drugs is certain to continue rising.

Neither Ford nor Chrysler will disclose the amount spent on erectile dysfunction drugs.

While many government and company health plans have eliminated impotence drugs from coverage plans, GM has more than two retirees for every active worker on its rolls and must negotiate eliminating the drugs from the union health plan with the UAW.

 

[Pacemaker]

The unions in the town I live in constantly talk about how horrible the products they make are... bite the hand that feeds you much? Also, IL recently passed a law stating that you can't smoke in businesses. The local UAW actually considered striking because they told them they couldn't smoke in the building anymore (apparently it was in their contract that they could). They also considered striking because the company wouldn't let them wear competitors hats to work.

I don't want to talk bad about unions because they have done some good in the past, but anymore it just seams like they want to fight over nothing. This is probably why management harbors resentment for the workers, and if the things listed above are the best things they have to complain about then maybe the workers should lay off management.

BTW, this is only the union local to where I live, and I am aware that in other areas they may not behave this way.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: MxylplyxThe free market is not a monopoly like the government, or industries of the past, that can afford the inefficiencies of a lazy, entitled work force. In a global economy, if you cant keep your costs in line with your competitors, you fail.

Please remember to come back and post when someone on an H-1B or L-1 visa takes your job or when your job gets shipped out to India.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Red DawnAs far as I know there's no law that says the Big Three has to use Union Workers just as there's no law that says the Workers can't organize. You wouldn't want to deny the Workers the Right to Unionize would you? That'd be denying their right to assemble and belong to an organization. The problem is the Management gave away the baby with the bath water when they negotiated the contracts.

I'm not an expert, but weren't the unions essentially forced onto the Big 3 by the federal government decades ago?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MxylplyxThe free market is not a monopoly like the government, or industries of the past, that can afford the inefficiencies of a lazy, entitled work force. In a global economy, if you cant keep your costs in line with your competitors, you fail.

Please remember to come back and post when someone on an H-1B or L-1 visa takes your job or when your job gets shipped out to India.

But he's skilled, so skilled a Third Worlder can do what he does for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Zorba]

Every Union shop I have ever been too or worked at has had a horrible relationship between labor and management. Why do you think the labor keeps it Union? In my opinion, it is the management's responsibility to bridge the gap, but most of the time it seems management just wants to make it worse.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zorba
Every Union shop I have ever been too or worked at has had a horrible relationship between labor and management. Why do you think the labor keeps it Union? In my opinion, it is the management's responsibility to bridge the gap, but most of the time it seems management just wants to make it worse.

And the counter point is that the Union has been the ones working to make it worse. When a floor worker can tell a plant engineer to piss off because it's almost break time.... you know you have a problem with the Union. Oh, and it wasn't just one guy, none of them seemed to have any respect.



But in all seriousness. There has to be a good faith effort on both sides...but that doesn't seem to be the case for either one from what I've seen.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Zorba
Every Union shop I have ever been too or worked at has had a horrible relationship between labor and management. Why do you think the labor keeps it Union? In my opinion, it is the management's responsibility to bridge the gap, but most of the time it seems management just wants to make it worse.

And the counter point is that the Union has been the ones working to make it worse. When a floor worker can tell a plant engineer to piss off because it's almost break time.... you know you have a problem with the Union. Oh, and it wasn't just one guy, none of them seemed to have any respect.

But in all seriousness. There has to be a good faith effort on both sides...but that doesn't seem to be the case for either one from what I've seen.

I completely agree both sides treat each other like crap, almost like they are intense competitors. I think both sides should treat each other better, but I think it really has to be pushed by the management. An example I know of that worked well was with Spirit Aerosystems. When Onex bought the plants from Boeing they start off with a "Screw the Union" mentality, but after a few months they changed their tune and started treating the union like partners. Now they have the best union/management relationship I have personally ever seen.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: bctbct
You will be outsourced.

Possibly, but is that different than a union worker losing his job because his company fails? I have an advantage finding a new job because my work ethic hasnt been utterly destroyed by working in the big 3 management/union culture so long. I cant imagine that imbedded work ethic can be shaken off so easily once the gravy train comes to an end.

Just because the UAW has its share of lazy workers doesnt mean you have a higher work ethic.

Its an assemble line, it moves, they work. Management decides when it moves.

Gov't probably has twice the waste and you have a hardon for the Big 3.