And most of those changes dont kick in until 2010 when their new contract starts. It seems to me, it might just be a good idea to move those changes forward to help save the company.
And most of those changes dont kick in until 2010 when their new contract starts. It seems to me, it might just be a good idea to move those changes forward to help save the company.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
In the past and some have not even gone into effect yet. So again, they have not given an inch during this bailout/begging/stealing process.
Then why have the union at all? Oh wait could it possibly be so they can extort by threatening to strike if/when they are ever profitable again repeating history?
Look at the japanese counterpart plants in the South. They have a very good wage and are efficient. UAW is useless.
- Mar 9, 2005
- 16,255
- 4,928
- 136
Why yes I am unfortunately but my employer doesn't pay any buffer to make up the difference between what the state pays and my regular pay. Good news is that I received a call yesterday that the mill will be fired back up on Jan 2nd.
My point of starting this thread is that even though everyone came to the table with their hands out once they got the money the first thing they started doing is complaining about the terms. I'm a union worker and I've worked around guys that have come from uaw enviroments. All I can say is if the ones I worked with are indicative of the greater union body then I can see why the big 3 struggle to put out vehicles in a timely manner.
Where I work we're JIT and don't warehouse anything we make. Everything is loaded realtime as it's produced and shipped out. We have an exceptionally lean workforce, too lean in fact which makes for solid shift of work. We don't have relief hands to give us a break so if there's a gap in the line we get one and if not we keep on working. While I don't advocate working people like pack mules while they're at work I do believe in a honest days work for an honest days pay.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
The thing you are complaining about (sub-pay or jobs bank) is already something that Gettelfinger said he would give up back in the bailout talks.
It is funny that this whole thread is based upon something unspecified that the UAW doesn't like about what Bush wrote into this bailout. WHAT IS IT??? We don't even know.
Last time the stumbling block was "parity" and the UAW didn't want to sign something so undefined. I know I don't like signing blank checks and handing them out with the stipulation that people charge me a "reasonable amount."
If it weren't for the UAW those plants wouldn't be as competitive in their offerings.
Also the problem with the big 3 is not a problem that revolves around unions. The Japanese have car plants in the US and Japan that are unionized. The problem with the big 3 is a problem of arrogant and thick headed management who have made horrible decisions period.
Unskilled labor? Then the big 3 could move all those jobs south of the border if those jobs are so damn easy to do that anyone can do them. All the jobs that could have been automated have been in the car industry and frankly most jobs at car plants are those that require the human touch of some sort to be done correctly. As far as subsidizing goes the Japanese automakers are all subsidized to the hilt by their own government and by local US state governments that want their plants in their states.
The UAW is already assuming the pension and healthcare costs, and their new workers will be hired in at $14/hr. $14/hr is less than $30k/yr folks. These aren't people flipping burgers, they're working their @ss off everyday, in tough conditions, and have to be perfect everytime.
I think, with the exception of the job bank, the UAW has given plenty up already. If we want the Big 3 to reach "parity" with its Japenese US plants, then lets have the Big 3 Management reach "parity" with the Japanese Management.
Me thinks the push for "parity" would disappear PDQ....
Chuck
I think, with the exception of the job bank, the UAW has given plenty up already. If we want the Big 3 to reach "parity" with its Japenese US plants, then lets have the Big 3 Management reach "parity" with the Japanese Management.
Me thinks the push for "parity" would disappear PDQ....
Chuck
Most of their jobs are south of the border. Everyone I know that worked for one of them lost their job in the last 10 years due to plant closings, and all of them were laid off at least two years ago. This includes contractors.
As to whether this is "skilled" labor, I'm not going to argue with you. Simply because something can't be automated doesn't make it a skilled position. Similarly, some of the processes that I automate could not be done by any person, no matter how skilled. Some of the people I know who have lost their jobs were engineers, but these also had no problems finding new jobs.
But the bottom line is this: you can make as many cars as you want. If people don't buy enough of them, then you have no business making that many. Period. You cannot supply a single reason for me to give Ford a loan to produce a car that will never be bought. This is the core issue here that no one wants to address.
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
I applaud your post. You have nailed it. At this point we do not know what the sticking point is. This entire thread is based on conjecture.
Most anti-UAW threads are based on false assumptions. This one is based on an article with vague references that have not been defined.
Those in the car-selling industry would argue that there's plenty of demand, however this demand is being crushed by the inability for customers to obtain loans for their vehicles.
http://online.wsj.com/article/...tml?mod=googlenews_wsj
Hey look, I support the bailout of the automakers, but I think the union is dead wrong. If they don't get their act together, in March 2009 it's going to be game over because this country's patience is limited.
Just earlier this year, American Axle demanded concessions from the union. The union then went on strike against American Axle. The strike went on so long dozens of GM and Chrysler factories closed. American Axle then said, "look, you fuck over GM, and extort some money from them, then we can both be happy." So the union went on strike against the few GM plants that were open, not dependent on AA parts (they specifically picked the Malibu and Lambda plants because those were GM's better sellers) and extorted a $200 million buyout package for their American Axle workers. Oh yeah, this was all while the situation was getting quite grim for the auto industry... But I digress.
I live in the greater Detroit region. From what I can tell, no Big 3 autoworker has been truly "laid off" in decades, unless you count collecting 95% of your pay for not working being "laid off". Not many industries can claim that. Furthermore, many of the factory workers that have left GM, Ford, Chrysler since 2005 have been "bought out" of their contracts to the tune of some $100,000-$300,000, with many of them continuing to collect benefits as well. In essence, their productivity was so worthless it was cheaper to give mini CEO-esque golden parachutes to leave the company.
Despite what Gettelfinger says about the union having made concessions in 2007, the real problem is that the concessions apply only to future hires, and even then, future hires working in support jobs (lawn mowing, janitorial work, etc.) One of the major sticking points in 2007 was that GM, Ford, Chrysler said that the guy that whacks the weeds in front of the building shouldn't be paid on the same scale that the "skilled" assembly line worker should be paid. The union fought this tooth and nail, but ultimately had to agree to the two tier deal. Let me make this very clear, no current unionized factory worker has made any real concessions... And that has to change.
Just earlier this year, American Axle demanded concessions from the union. The union then went on strike against American Axle. The strike went on so long dozens of GM and Chrysler factories closed. American Axle then said, "look, you fuck over GM, and extort some money from them, then we can both be happy." So the union went on strike against the few GM plants that were open, not dependent on AA parts (they specifically picked the Malibu and Lambda plants because those were GM's better sellers) and extorted a $200 million buyout package for their American Axle workers. Oh yeah, this was all while the situation was getting quite grim for the auto industry... But I digress.
I live in the greater Detroit region. From what I can tell, no Big 3 autoworker has been truly "laid off" in decades, unless you count collecting 95% of your pay for not working being "laid off". Not many industries can claim that. Furthermore, many of the factory workers that have left GM, Ford, Chrysler since 2005 have been "bought out" of their contracts to the tune of some $100,000-$300,000, with many of them continuing to collect benefits as well. In essence, their productivity was so worthless it was cheaper to give mini CEO-esque golden parachutes to leave the company.
Despite what Gettelfinger says about the union having made concessions in 2007, the real problem is that the concessions apply only to future hires, and even then, future hires working in support jobs (lawn mowing, janitorial work, etc.) One of the major sticking points in 2007 was that GM, Ford, Chrysler said that the guy that whacks the weeds in front of the building shouldn't be paid on the same scale that the "skilled" assembly line worker should be paid. The union fought this tooth and nail, but ultimately had to agree to the two tier deal. Let me make this very clear, no current unionized factory worker has made any real concessions... And that has to change.
Do I really need to type out *Insert name of auto company here* rather than Ford for the point to be made? Dear lord.I demand a Ferrari, but no one will loan me the money. Therefore, I do not contribute to the actual demand for Ferraris. What's the difference here? If people can't buy the car for any reason, the demand simply isn't there. Any argument against this reasoning is specious at best.
My families personal experience has tainted my view of unions, but I live in Peoria, Illinois. Caterpillar Headquarters is here, along with several factories, and they are all UAW shops. When I was a teenager and they were having one of their strikes, they assaulted my mother as she tried to leave work, broke her windshield, slashed her tires and beat large dents into her door. You may not consider them thugs, and maybe the UAW workers at the big 3 are different, but from my personal experience I consider them to be actual thugs.
And then there is the bigger problem with the UAW, they are not trying to be a union at a company, they are trying to be the union at all companies. At least here they used to have billboards up calling themselves the Union for All Workers. They unionized the production line operators at the chemical plant my father works for. They are trying to become a labor monopoly, and any type of monopoly is bad.
Now, I am not completely anti-union. I believe every manufacturer should have a union, especially the large ones, because a large company is able to use its position in the market to take advantage of its workers. But these large unions that control the workforce for multiple companies are pretty much the exact same thing in reverse.
The white collar workers at the Big 3 really take the brunt of the beatings. Whenever they have to tighten their belts, the first ones to lose their jobs, have pay cuts, benefit cuts, etc. are always the salaried work force. They do this because the salaried workers aren't unionized, whereas if they try to cut a single union worker's pay they can look forward to a strike at all their plants. A generation ago, the top engineering, design, science, and finance students were eager to take good paying jobs at the Big 3 in Detroit. Now these jobs pay quite poorly and have terrible security. I can't stress enough how bad the situation is for the average engineer, artist, scientist, or even finance guy at the Big 3, because they've been taking pay cuts for years. Not being able to attract good talent obviously hurts their prospects for turning their business around in the future.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
and while many of you noted that GM and Toyota employees make about the same atm (which is ruffly true of normal permanent employees), what you don't note that a large portion of Toyota's workforce are temps working for less than 15 and hour with no benefits. also Toyota is free to find labor saving ways to produce a car. GM on the other hand can't eliminate someones job with automation unless they create a new job to replace the lost one.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
So what do you want to do? Cut the salaries of the current UAW folks? OK, you can do that.
Now the cost of the cars won't decrease by any amount, so sales won't increase.
And the 40% of us that pay taxes in the country will become, what, 39% 38% 37% Less? I mean, once you cut their salaries back, they ain't going to be going on spending sprees.
Considering they already gave up COLA this last last contract, which means they've been taking pay cuts as inflation occurs, I think they're fine where they're at.
You agree of course that Big 3 Management should lead by example, Correct? You do have a link where Big 3 Management has stated they are at parity with their Japenese Management counterparts, Right?
Thought so...F the little man for a nickle, so you can give the Millions to the Leadership. Brilliant.....
Chuck
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter