The Road To Recovery: Eliminating Unionized Jobs

[jpeyton]

About damn time, IMO. Ford, GM and Chrysler have done a good job in recent years bringing up the quality and attractiveness of their lineups. It's apparent that these companies will never be profitable in the current market with unionized workers and associated legacy health care costs bleeding their bottom line dry.

Text

By Ben Klayman

Chrysler LLC said on Monday it is offering buyouts of up to $100,000 each to hourly workers at 12 of its Detroit-area facilities as part of its November plan to eliminate up to 10,000 unionized jobs.

The offer will be extended to about 14,000 workers represented by the United Auto Workers union at the plants which make cars, engines, axles and other parts, Chrysler spokeswoman Michele Tinson said. About 4,600 can opt for a more attractive retirement package.

The buyouts could be extended to a 13th plant in Warren, Michigan, which was idled this week, and the automaker is in talks with the UAW to extend them to eight other U.S. plants, she said. The same offer was made earlier this year to hourly workers at plants in Belvidere, Illinois; Toledo, Ohio; and St. Louis, Missouri.

General Motors Corp and Ford Motor Co said earlier in January that they had launched buyouts for UAW-represented hourly workers in North America.

GM's buyout offers cover about 46,000 workers, while Ford said it would offer buyouts to all 54,000 UAW hourly workers. Ford did not announce a target for the buyouts but has nearly 12,000 retirement-eligible U.S. factory workers.

Industry analysts expect the U.S. auto sector to experience another down year in 2008 -- with one investor predicting a possible 15-year sales low. Top U.S. auto executives have said they would not hesitate to further adjust restructuring plans as needed if the market weakened further.

In November, Chrysler, which private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management took over in August, said it would cut up to 10,000 hourly jobs over the next 14 months as it moved to slash North American production.

The cuts were in addition to 13,000 jobs Chrysler had already planned to eliminate as part of a restructuring plan announced in February. Combined, the two announcements represented almost half its unionized factory positions.

Chrysler said in November it would also cut 1,000 salaried jobs and eliminate almost 40 percent of its white-collar contract positions.

Cerberus took control of Chrysler in a $7.4 billion deal. Daimler AG retains a nearly 20 percent stake in the U.S. automaker.

The Chrysler offers run through February 18, Tinson said. The buyout includes a lump-sum payment of $100,000 and six months of health benefits, while the retirement package includes a lump-sum payment of $70,000 as well as better pension and health-care benefits.

 

[Train]

I dont see how buyouts are going to help, other than cutting current costs. Considering it is still impossible for the big 3 to hire non union laborers. Last I checked anyways, UAW owns "shop union" meaning any labor hired automatically belongs to the UAW, wether the employer, employee, or both, want it or not. This also applies to 3rd party suppliers... union or else.

With this setup the Big 3 labor force will continiually shrink, but never expand.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
About damn time, IMO. Ford, GM and Chrysler have done a good job in recent years bringing up the quality and attractiveness of their lineups. It's apparent that these companies will never be profitable in the current market with unionized workers and associated legacy health care costs bleeding their bottom line dry.

Why is it always the unions that are killing the Big 3 (or any other US company for that matter)?

GM CEO Secures $4.6 Million Annual Pension

Best of all for Wagoner, this payout comes from funds that are separate from those underpinning the retirement programs of ordinary workers, which means he?ll pocket his $4.6 million-plus a year even if GM files for bankruptcy.

Exxon exec gets $400M retirement package

Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

Golden Parachute Club of 2006

Countrywide exec getting almost $40M

It doesn't matter how badly they run the company into the ground.....they get theirs and then get people like you who are brainwashed into thinking that it is the guys getting peanuts that are to blame.

 

[LumbergTech]

anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

What he said.

 

[Starbuck1975]

anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

Unions are an antiquated approach to solving a 20th century problem...unions are not solely to blame for the demise of American manufacturing, but they certainly are part of the equation...out of touch CEOs and management are the other part of the equation.

The best and most competitive manufacturing companies blur the line between the shop floor and the corporate offices in terms of empowerement, sharing the wealth and benefits.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

QFT

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

Unions are an antiquated approach to solving a 20th century problem...unions are not solely to blame for the demise of American manufacturing, but they certainly are part of the equation...out of touch CEOs and management are the other part of the equation.

The best and most competitive manufacturing companies blur the line between the shop floor and the corporate offices in terms of empowerement, sharing the wealth and benefits.

So you're saying that everyone is now fine and dandy. We all play nice and no one screws over whoever they can?

I all bullshit on that. As far as a lot of the pension 'problems' go, did you know that those totals include the massive pensions of ex-board members and CEOs? All this asking for the Unions, who fought hard for their members, to give up benefits that they got for them for the greater good - it's ridiculous. What about the CEOs and board members taking a pay cut for the good of the company? I don't see that happening.

If there was no union, the corporation would still shit on the workers. (You can even see it with the unions being there).

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

Unions are an antiquated approach to solving a 20th century problem...unions are not solely to blame for the demise of American manufacturing, but they certainly are part of the equation...out of touch CEOs and management are the other part of the equation.

The best and most competitive manufacturing companies blur the line between the shop floor and the corporate offices in terms of empowerement, sharing the wealth and benefits.

:thumbsup:

I still think bad management is much more to blame than unions, but unions do their fair share of damage as well. There are plenty of companies that treat people right with or with out unions. And there are a lot of companies that shit on their employees union or not.

 

[bctbct]

Why stop at Unions, lets flood the country with cheap immigrant labor, that will keep the prices down.

I have never understood why people get hung up on what other people make. IF you are jealous of their wages, go do the job.

Unions led the way to improved working conditions and benefits, as they decline those will follow.

 

[GrGr]

The US is insane for destroying the Unions and it's workforce. If there are no workers to buy the products produced by the factories who shall then buy them? If the wages of the working class is destroyed by inflation and corporation anti-Union politics the workers cannot function as consumers anymore. Kill of the working class and the Middle class will soon fall off the same cliff. Remove the balance of the work force and the ruling elite will take off like a Banana Republic. Oh that is already happening, silly me. The US is increasingly looking like a Third world country.

Hooray?

 

[StageLeft]

Why do people bitch about CEO pay? If he can make $10M for bringing in $1B of business, he's a good investment and if the board felt it was worth giving him tons of money, maybe it was? If they are paid tons to leave, then maybe it was a bad contract the company signed in the first place.

Unions have benefits, but they also reward people doing menial labor with far more money than they're worth. I know some people are paid around $60k to do something a highschool kid could do. It doesn't make sense, which is why they could easily hire somebody at half the cost if not for the union.

Why the sense that without a union the company will treat the employees badly? If it does, they leave. There are manufacturing companies that do fine without unions and their employees are content. If they treat the employees badly, the employees leave and it costs the company money. This is not 1920 anymore.

A union holds a company hostage by forcing better conditions/pay/benefits for its employees than the open market says they should get. I'm not surprised Walmart won't let its employees unionize. What we'd end up seeing is higher prices for the consumer as Walmart, if it wants to keep its margins where they are, is forced to raise prices because the union would start doing "union stuff".

The US is increasingly looking like a Third world country.

Methinks you've never been to one to say such a thing. It's total hyperbole. Let us put this in perspective: The US has among the world's top GDPs per capita and low unemployment. How does this resemble a country with 20% unemployment and a per capita GDP of $3200?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

What he said.

Hitler was voted in to protect the people too. Doesn't mean power cannot be abused. It is not illegitimate for people to ask and perhaps believe that Unions take themselves too far and cripple the employer.

This is amplified by the exporting of jobs and the importing of cheap labor products. (Thank you globalization) THAT has to end, or all your unionized jobs will be given to those who don?t use Unions and all the employers who keep Unions will go bankrupt. Example, Ford and GM.

 

[StageLeft]

THAT has to end, or all your unionized jobs will be given to those who don?t use Unions and all the employers who keep Unions will go bankrupt. Example, Ford and GM.

And in fact these foreign car companies (hyundai, toyota) are setting up shop domestically, trouncing the big three, and their employees are not being run to the bones on minimum wage.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A union holds a company hostage by forcing better conditions/pay/benefits for its employees than the open market says they should get.

This is utter rubbish. Companies sign contracts with unions because it is in the best interests of the shareholders to do so. If it wasn't then the companies' directors and officers would be violating their fiduciary responsibilities and the shareholders would sue them into the dirt.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

And a big YAWWWWWWN....

The ever persistent Pro-Union myths never cease to amaze me.

You do realize that the union population only makes up about 9% of USA's current workforce dont you? The other 91% arent exactly "Shit out on the pavement" At its peak unionized labor in the US maxed out at about 55% in the mid to late 1950's

Non-union jobs (expecially in manufacturing) have been MUCH safer the past decade or so than unionized counterparts. (Big 3 offshoring while Honda, Toyota, other non union co's hiring like mad in the US)

You do realize it is possible to retire without ever having been in a union dont you? I know your union boss probably told you you'd die in gutter somewhere when you got old had you not been saved by the all mighty union, but that doesnt mean you should have took his word for it.

Oh I already know what your rebuttal is going to be... "The union invented the retirement plan!" or some other knee jerk along those lines where you then tell all us lowly non-union scabsicles how thankful we should be for the unions doing so much good that the benifits spilled over to us fascist worshipping pigs. A stretch at best, but no, it IS possible for people to recieve benifits and good pay through a free market system of supply and demand... something the union does not know of since they rely on the concept of monopoly and political payoffs to stay in, and increase, thier power.

What the unions dont tell you is that sometimes the employees end up with lower pay and less benifits after the "collective bargaining" than before unionization. But they dont care! They get a cut of your paycheck so they declare victory, and the imbiciles rejoice.

You didnt even address anything in regards to the UAW owning shop unions in each of the big 3 (and thier suppliers) talk about strong arming. If any corp could exert this much pressure on an entire industry the DOJ would shut them down in a heartbeat.

But in the end, natural forces prevail. American unions will be wiped out by the likes of Toyota and Honda. Its too bad we had to give up market dominance to foriegn owned companies to do so.

If the union leadership had two brain cells to rub together, they might decide to COMPETE with Toyota and Honda's factories... But they forgot how to do that quite some time ago.

Instead they do the only thing that can save them.. try to get those factories into the UAW as well, because once that happens, the UAW will be back to owning all auto labor again, and sit back and not care while the money rolls in.

Just look at some of the insane tactics the UAW has used to try and force its way into southern Honda & Toyota plants... million dollar smear campaigns, staged safety incidents, trying to take away secret ballots.. lying to workers about what the National Labor act actually says....

they are obvioulsy wasting a lot of union dues, and if the union workers would stop chanting thier union propaganda they might realize what the union bosses have been doing all these years and vote them out. Then maybe vote someone in who can do something productive.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

What he said.

Hitler was voted in to protect the people too. Doesn't mean power cannot be abused. It is not illegitimate for people to ask and perhaps believe that Unions take themselves too far and cripple the employer.

This is amplified by the exporting of jobs and the importing of cheap labor products. (Thank you globalization) THAT has to end, or all your unionized jobs will be given to those who don?t use Unions and all the employers who keep Unions will go bankrupt. Example, Ford and GM.

In other words : Corporate greed

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

And a big YAWWWWWWN....

The ever persistent Pro-Union myths never cease to amaze me.

You do realize that the union population only makes up about 9% of USA's current workforce dont you? The other 91% arent exactly "Shit out on the pavement" At its peak unionized labor in the US maxed out at about 55% in the mid to late 1950's

-super snipity-

I only read this much and wanted to comment.

I will take your figures on Union Jobs as facts. 9% is a small number, but how many of those 9% (contrary to the 91%) have procured better pay, health insurance and job security? Companies like Walmart indoctrinate workers with anti-union spam videos where you are told to "just say no" as if someone was propositioning drugs. Walmart (and alot of major corporations) actively are against Unions. Why? For the employees benefit? Hardly.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

And a big YAWWWWWWN....

The ever persistent Pro-Union myths never cease to amaze me.

You do realize that the union population only makes up about 9% of USA's current workforce dont you? The other 91% arent exactly "Shit out on the pavement" At its peak unionized labor in the US maxed out at about 55% in the mid to late 1950's

-super snipity-

I only read this much and wanted to comment.

I will take your figures on Union Jobs as facts. 9% is a small number, but how many of those 9% (contrary to the 91%) have procured better pay, health insurance and job security?

Its a crapshoot, unions will tell you that they always do better, but as I pointed out after your snip, this is not the case, unionization can often leave workers in a worse off situation as far as pay and beinifits. But the union will declare victory, simply becaue they now get a cut of everyones paycheck.

Companies like Walmart indoctrinate workers with anti-union spam videos where you are told to "just say no" as if someone was propositioning drugs.

Sounds like Walmart is looking out for thier workers best interest. Or they could just be offsetting the effects of millions of dollars of unionization campaigns the unions spend trying to get a foothold on the workers paychecks of large companies like Walmart. If I worked at Walmart, I wouldnt want ot unionize either.

Walmart (and alot of major corporations) actively are against Unions. Why? For the employees benefit? Hardly.

Since the employees do the work that makes the money, it is in the companies best interest to have thier employees best interests in mind. The employer has much more of an incentive to take care of thier employees than a union does.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

And a big YAWWWWWWN....

The ever persistent Pro-Union myths never cease to amaze me.

You do realize that the union population only makes up about 9% of USA's current workforce dont you? The other 91% arent exactly "Shit out on the pavement" At its peak unionized labor in the US maxed out at about 55% in the mid to late 1950's

-super snipity-

I only read this much and wanted to comment.

I will take your figures on Union Jobs as facts. 9% is a small number, but how many of those 9% (contrary to the 91%) have procured better pay, health insurance and job security? Companies like Walmart indoctrinate workers with anti-union spam videos where you are told to "just say no" as if someone was propositioning drugs. Walmart (and alot of major corporations) actively are against Unions. Why? For the employees benefit? Hardly.

If I wasn't union I would be paid more and could climb the ladder faster. The union is holding me back, and I'm being 100% serious.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

If I wasn't union I would be paid more and could climb the ladder faster. The union is holding me back, and I'm being 100% serious.

Another way to look at it;

If you were not Union and there were no Unions then immigrants, legal or illegal would likely have taken your job by now and driven wages and benefits in to the toilet.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A union holds a company hostage by forcing better conditions/pay/benefits for its employees than the open market says they should get.

This is utter rubbish. Companies sign contracts with unions because it is in the best interests of the shareholders to do so. If it wasn't then the companies' directors and officers would be violating their fiduciary responsibilities and the shareholders would sue them into the dirt.

Why do unions strike?

If I wasn't union I would be paid more and could climb the ladder faster. The union is holding me back, and I'm being 100% serious.

Of course it is. A union undermines a proper meritocracy. A major reason we are still in the US and not in Canada is because the nursing union across that entire country would have forced MrsSkoorb, with real nursing experience here, to start at basically the bottom rung and clean up sh*t along with the other nursing grads vs. getting a skilled, experience-required position here. Unions are unnatural in that sense. They do not allow fluidity and inhibit progression that might otherwise occur and prohibit regression (i.e. firing) that might occur.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

If I wasn't union I would be paid more and could climb the ladder faster. The union is holding me back, and I'm being 100% serious.

Another way to look at it;

If you were not Union and there were no Unions then immigrants, legal or illegal would likely have taken your job by now and driven wages and benefits in to the toilet.

How can you say this? I have never been in a union and I don't see immigrants taking my job. Or, actually that's funny because I am an immigrant, but no other immigrant has taken it haha

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

And a big YAWWWWWWN....

The ever persistent Pro-Union myths never cease to amaze me.

You do realize that the union population only makes up about 9% of USA's current workforce dont you? The other 91% arent exactly "Shit out on the pavement" At its peak unionized labor in the US maxed out at about 55% in the mid to late 1950's

-super snipity-

I only read this much and wanted to comment.

I will take your figures on Union Jobs as facts. 9% is a small number, but how many of those 9% (contrary to the 91%) have procured better pay, health insurance and job security?

Its a crapshoot, unions will tell you that they always do better, but as I pointed out after your snip, this is not the case, unionization can often leave workers in a worse off situation as far as pay and beinifits. But the union will declare victory, simply becaue they now get a cut of everyones paycheck.

Companies like Walmart indoctrinate workers with anti-union spam videos where you are told to "just say no" as if someone was propositioning drugs.

Sounds like Walmart is looking out for thier workers best interest. Or they could just be offsetting the effects of millions of dollars of unionization campaigns the unions spend trying to get a foothold on the workers paychecks of large companies like Walmart. If I worked at Walmart, I wouldnt want ot unionize either.

Walmart (and alot of major corporations) actively are against Unions. Why? For the employees benefit? Hardly.

Since the employees do the work that makes the money, it is in the companies best interest to have thier employees best interests in mind. The employer has much more of an incentive to take care of thier employees than a union does.

You use Walmart and best interest of employees in the same senario? Walmart is the bottomfeeder of employees and you are full of shit.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

anti-unioners never cease to amaze me..with their ignorant assumptions about how everything would be just rosy and wonderful if we could get rid of these darn unions...they were formed in the first place to protect people who were being abused and to put control in the people who actually do the fucking work instead of letting corporate interests bleed them dry of their talents only to SHIT THEM OUT ON on the pavement when they get a bit older and useless

Unions are an antiquated approach to solving a 20th century problem...unions are not solely to blame for the demise of American manufacturing, but they certainly are part of the equation...out of touch CEOs and management are the other part of the equation.

The best and most competitive manufacturing companies blur the line between the shop floor and the corporate offices in terms of empowerement, sharing the wealth and benefits.

So you're saying that everyone is now fine and dandy. We all play nice and no one screws over whoever they can?

I all bullshit on that. As far as a lot of the pension 'problems' go, did you know that those totals include the massive pensions of ex-board members and CEOs? All this asking for the Unions, who fought hard for their members, to give up benefits that they got for them for the greater good - it's ridiculous. What about the CEOs and board members taking a pay cut for the good of the company? I don't see that happening.

If there was no union, the corporation would still shit on the workers. (You can even see it with the unions being there).

Penisons and healthcare cost the big 3 around $3billion each(and rising), the whole exec/board pension is a red herring as it is next to nothing.