What your opinion of the UAW?

aeronca65t wrote: There are surely some bad apples in the unions, but the real problem is companies that are managed by people who only look to the short-term, next-quarter profits. And those management people are spurred on by investors who don't care about long-term stabilty (or the folks on the production line, for that matter)...they just want a quick buck and will bleed the company dry and walk away. In my opinion the real fault is the investor class that promotes managers that will do their bidding for profits *right now* (and with little concern for the long term stabilty of the company). The Japanese companies always looked long-term and didn't make decisions based on short-sell investors. Their cars are good because their management was more concerned about long-term success. That also worked well for the blue collar folks, so the managment/worker relationship ended up more cooperative and less adversarial. As bad as some unions can be, at least they have *some* long-term interest in the auto campanies. The investors didn't care what deals were made with unions when the money was flowing. But now that they are missing out on their short-term gains, they blame the folks in the trenchs. W. Edwards Deming must be rolling over in his grave.

Very well said.

Short-sighted thinking and lack of long-term planning is the root cause of this entire financial mess. There's a lot of finger pointing about lack of foresight, but the truth is that it has become a part of our culture and every single segment of the population shares some blame.

Sure, you can blame the UAW for continuing the jobs bank or GM for investing heavily in the GMT900 program while Toyota was launching the Prius or banks for predatory lending or the government for making more money and increasing the national debt.

But what about the thousands of “day-traders” who move their money around so quickly that companies are virtually forced to focus solely on next-quarters earning? What about the 43% of Americans that spends more than they earn? What about the shoppers that have shunned their neighbor’s small town businesses to save $2 at Wal-Mart?

I really think the middle-class has e-traded and granite countertopped their way into this mess but still will not accept their portion of blame.

"Some unions are great, others just suck the life out of the profession.

I'm neither pro union nor anti union... I'm pro capitalism, and letting outside special interest politics skew anything is a step towards un-capitalism"

I'm with you Curtis.

I watched my ( first ) father-in law for 20 years, work for Fisher Body Euclid Ohio

He was a died in the wool Union man, until, they started the consessions.

Little by little they had to sell their memebers off. Whittle away all the greed they earned in the 50's and 60's, 70's.

By the late 1980's they were powerless. And just sucking the workers dry.

And powerless to earn back any of the great over priced Benis.

All the same time I worked a few miles away and earned slightly less, but still 80% of what they did, because they were there.

So,I benifited from thier exisitance.

But the price of cars just kept climbing.

Today? The Big Three are in deep doo - doo. Should the USA get into the car makin' business? Nope, just as the country should stay out of banking , real estate and Iraq.

Too late now. soon the Chineese will forclose and the flag will be red.

This depression is different from the one in the 30's because then folks Wanted to work.

Now? folks just want a hand out.

As long as I have my rifle(s) and handloader, I'll eat well.

How much mismanagement is due to UAW regulations? If management "fixed" the truck driver situation (posted above) by creating more throughput in this area, do you think the UAW would allow this driver to do 35% more trips per day? Or does this driver do exactly 100% of his quota, as required by UAW and management? What happens if he voluntarily achieves 110 percent?

aeronca65t wrote: As bad as some unions can be, at least they have *some* long-term interest in the auto campanies.

I disagree with this almost entirely. I don't think they have any long-term interest in the Big 3 auto companies at all, except as a perennial cash cow that can be milked because the Big 3 have to deal with them.

You have every right in the world to unionize. You have NO right in the world to force me to deal with your union.

I think management has also not served the Big 3 well, but I cannot in any way lay the blame entirely there. Both sides have been shortsighted greedy, and have protected ineptitude.

John Brown wrote: I have no problem with unions in general when they are looking out for the employee AND the company. The issue I have locally with the UAW is simple. I have a bowling buddy named Dave. He has worked for GM since 1991 as a transport specialist. He drives a load of subframes from one depot to the next. He makes $21.00 per hour... Unless he works over 8 hours per day, which he does every day, then he makes $31.50 per hour after 8. That is fair. The thing is Dave has a simple route in which he recieves a load (as in he sits in a truck and someone side loads his trailer) and drives a mile and a half and then unloads (well, the dock crew unloads) A round trip takes an hour. (Here comes my issue) On an average day Dave will work 10.5 hours and deliver 6 loads of parts. If you do the math you will see that Dave takes a nap between EVERY load. He has gotten away with it for 15 of 17 years and will get to do it until he retires or the company goes out of business while he sleeps 5 hours a day to make $60,000 per year! I understand he does not work during the change over and if they are down he gets 90% at the job bank.

The union is NEVER about the employee AND the company. It's always just the employee.

You have hit the nail on the head with Dave. The fact that he's sitting on his can and not allowed to get out of his truck to help load or unload points out one of the major issues with unions. If Dave worked on both ends as well as drove the cart then the company wouldn't need to hire as many people and the union wouldn't have as many members.

Unfortunately this goes on all the time with unions. Where do you think the saying "It's not my job man" came from?

I have experience with unions in the entertainmen field and it's the same there.

You can trip over a wire all day long on a movie set, but you can't reach down and move the wire or cover it up, the union won't let you. Be standing right beside a light but don't think about moving it 2", you have to wait until the guy gets off break and saunters back in.

My son played Radio City Music Hall when he was 9ish. There was a man in the dressing room who was paid to help the talent get dressed, only he didn't help he was paid to sit in the corner. When I helped him zip into his costume I was told I couldn't do it, but then he wasn't going to get up off his lazy a$$ to do it either.

This was the Rockette's dressing room. So this man got paid to sit in the Rockette's dressing room and watch them get dressed. Great job if you can get it, but you can only get that type of job in a Union.

ignorant wrote: Ding ding ding.. Winnar winnar winnar.... Totally right. Bad unions and their behavior are in place because management let them get that way.

No the management system comes from having to work around Union policies. You can't have bad management when they aren't allowed to manage.

carguy123 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Ding ding ding.. Winnar winnar winnar.... Totally right. Bad unions and their behavior are in place because management let them get that way.

No the management system comes from having to work around Union policies. You can't have bad management when they aren't allowed to manage.

think macro. it's management all the way up to the CEO....

Middle managers are not allowed to effectively do their work because the uppers haven't done theirs.. period.

carguy123 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Ding ding ding.. Winnar winnar winnar.... Totally right. Bad unions and their behavior are in place because management let them get that way.

No the management system comes from having to work around Union policies. You can't have bad management when they aren't allowed to manage.

Management AGREED to those policies in writing.

I will agree that current management is geared to deal with Union issues.

They will need to be thrown out if the union is.

RE: Unions:

I was a UAW Automaker for 11 years.

I do not like the politics of Unions, local or national.

But:

Everything was fine in the late nineties. Doesn't that fact prove that Detroit CAN make money, and lots of it, with Union labor?

FWIW, Most union workers are hard working, do the job everyday w/o complaint, and know they are lucky to have a good job with the benefits.

I currently do some side work in a non-union plant and can tell you the ratio of worthless individuals to good workers is about the same.

-James

if you need proof that the UAW has exceeded their original use, look no further than the NASCAR UAW-Dodge 400. Why does the UAW sponsor a NASCAR event? Where do they get that money? Couldn't that money be used for something more constructive?

Management did not agree to the policies of the union, the union forced it upon them.

When you have to manage around thinking and policies like Dave you can't truly manage, all you can do is make the best of a bad situation.

Lockheed is working towards another strike this spring. I have customers who can't buy a home right now cause they don't know how long the strike will last, all they know is that a strike will happen. Is there any big grievance? No, it's just how they bargain. Now tell me management agrees to the policies.

I've worked in union and non-union plants and I don't care for the UAW one bit. When I worked at the Toyota plant in Ky we had engineers that came over from the Vette plant in Bowling Green. He told us the type of stuff he had to deal with on a daily basis. The line stopping 5 minutes into startup because of workers not on the line (they only have to clock in at the gate by start time), being written up for putting duct tape on the floor (someone else's job), etc. I also read some of their false propoganda about the Toyota plant I worked in that they sent to their employees. I have no problem blaming them for the majority of the problems at the Big3. It's impossible to manage when your workforce has that kind of power and a total refusal to negotiate reasonably. If they were truely concerned about their company, they would be making major concessions now to help save them. They won't.

I will agree that the average worker at a US or foreign owned company CAN be a hard worker (I've seen it at Toyota), they just don't have any reason to be when the UAW is in charge.

It's not the UAW, but I read an interesting article about the negotiations that led up to the New York City transit workers strike. If you can even call it a "negotiation" when the union wouldn't budge in the slightest.

jamscal wrote: ...Management AGREED to those policies in writing...

As carguy123 said, one of the primary purposes of a union is to force management to make those decisions. I am certain management is to blame for many of the issues they big 3 are having, but I really don't think giving in to the unions is one of them (unless there is some sort of collusion that I am not aware of)

aircooled wrote:

jamscal wrote: ...Management AGREED to those policies in writing...

As carguy123 said, one of the primary purposes of a union is to force management to make those decisions. I am certain management is to blame for many of the issues they big 3 are having, but I really don't think giving in to the unions is one of them (unless there is some sort of collusion that I am not aware of)

I'm not sure that "forced" is the right word. The most they can say is, "Do this, or a mass of your workforce will leave."

The management of the companies decided it was less costly to do what the UAW wanted, than to try to replace their workforce. It's entirely probably that if the Big 3 just said, "No. Get lost," that it would have cost them more then, but saved money in the long run. And set a precedent that they had the balls to stand up to the UAW.

The auto management has proven that they don't have the balls to stand up to the UAW. So they've learned that they can overpower the companies to get what they want, because they'll ultimately cave.

I'm also reminded of the pilots unions for the major airlines. They agreed to major cutbacks to help keep the companies afloat. But that's an example of a union working properly to function as a more efficient bargaining tool to represent a mass of workers.

You would think that at some point it would be in the union's best interest to let the 55 year old drunk worker get booted out the door. When the company goes broke, there are no jobs for anybody. When the line runs efficiently and they make more cars for the same amount of time, there are more raises for everybody.

On the other hand, without the union, they can run employees 18 hours a day and pay them almost nothing with no benefits and even bring children in at a lower wage to work the line. That is why unions started to begin with.

I don't think it is a matter of getting rid of unions as much as it is getting unions to change and to strike a balance. Paying drunk guys who show up late, paying people to sleep and paying people not to work is out of balance. The unions will be forced to change so the companies can survive.

On the other hand, the current slowdown is not just the fault of the UAW. I think our overall economy is changing. Fewer people can afford expensive SUVs and fewer people in the future will be able to buy new cars every three years. The increasing scarcity of fossil fuels and the abuse of credit has caused this, NOT the UAW. Detroit must either learn to be profitible by selling fewer, smaller less expensive cars, or people here will be buying their smaller less expensive cars from South Korea and China.

Snowdoggie wrote: On the other hand, the current slowdown is not just the fault of the UAW. I think our overall economy is changing. Fewer people can afford expensive SUVs and fewer people in the future will be able to buy new cars every three years. The increasing scarcity of fossil fuels and the abuse of credit has caused this, NOT the UAW. Detroit must either learn to be profitible by selling fewer, smaller less expensive cars, or people here will be buying their smaller less expensive cars from South Korea and China.

One of the Big 3 CEO's (I think for Chrysler) said it to congress in this latest trip, very well:

"We built more cars than our customers wanted to buy. Then we had to get rid of them at drastically reduced prices."

IMHO,It boils down to this: there would be no need for unions, IF companies did right by their employees. Fair and equitable treatment across the board, whether management or labor. I've been in a union building trade for over 30 years, and while I'm not pleased with my local, I haven't seen too many non-union contractors I would want to work for, and my training has been second to none. UAW is an entirely different animal. As far as the rank and file goes, try standing at a machine for 8-10 hours a day,everyday, every week, every year taking a piece of metal off and turning it,or screwing it, or watching it. Sure, it takes no great brain power or skill, but I'd be bored to tears and time would drag. I've done work inside a few different auto plants and they couldn't pay me enough to do that.

minimac wrote: IMHO,It boils down to this: there would be no need for unions, IF companies did right by their employees. Fair and equitable treatment across the board, whether management or labor.

It's not just protecting the workers. It's communal bargaining.

If you work at most any job, you negotiate with your employer on your advancement and pay raises. When you get a huge industry with a massive amount of workers, it can frequently be more efficient to band together and elect a representative who can negotiate for the entire workforce.

Even if companies treat employees well, everyone will be happier if you don't have to do individual bargaining with 10,000 workers.

That doesn't mean that unions don't get out of hand.

Salanis wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: On the other hand, the current slowdown is not just the fault of the UAW. I think our overall economy is changing. Fewer people can afford expensive SUVs and fewer people in the future will be able to buy new cars every three years. The increasing scarcity of fossil fuels and the abuse of credit has caused this, NOT the UAW. Detroit must either learn to be profitible by selling fewer, smaller less expensive cars, or people here will be buying their smaller less expensive cars from South Korea and China.

One of the Big 3 CEO's (I think for Chrysler) said it to congress in this latest trip, very well: "We built more cars than our customers wanted to buy. Then we had to get rid of them at drastically reduced prices."

I remember a few months ago hearing Rick Wagner talk about how cars are going to be downsized due to the cost of oil and how the consumer will have to be 'educated' to pay more to purchase and maintain a high quality smaller car.

Looks like Wagner is the one getting 'educated' now.

Snowdoggie said: On the other hand, without the union, they can run employees 18 hours a day and pay them almost nothing with no benefits and even bring children in at a lower wage to work the line. That is why unions started to begin with.

Maybe 100 years ago, but not today, not in this country. I've never been a part of a union and I've worked for all types of companies and have never worked an 18 hour day. I've worked for several companies that 'prefer' I work weekends and long hours (including Toyota), but they paid well for it and it was optional.

Clay wrote:

Snowdoggie said: On the other hand, without the union, they can run employees 18 hours a day and pay them almost nothing with no benefits and even bring children in at a lower wage to work the line. That is why unions started to begin with.

Maybe 100 years ago, but not today, not in this country. I've never been a part of a union and I've worked for all types of companies and have never worked an 18 hour day. I've worked for several companies that 'prefer' I work weekends and long hours (including Toyota), but they paid well for it and it was optional.

I have worked up to 15 hours in one day, but it was a management position with a Fortune 500 firm. Salaried, not hourly, and they gave nice bonuses.

You might want to look at the Chicken Processing Plants in West Texas. Long hours, they were using child labor in some cases and most of the employees were undocumented. They got fined for it. There have also been instances of sweat shops here using undocumented labor with those kind of hours.

Sure, it is rare, but the threat of having a Union and the labor laws keep it that way. Businesses will do what ever they can get away with.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e9608/i9608p2.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/06/23/sweathsop050623.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_3_66/ai_84307170

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/rpt/23495.htm

Salanis wrote: I'm not sure that "forced" is the right word. The most they can say is, "Do this, or a mass of your workforce will leave." The management of the companies decided it was less costly to do what the UAW wanted, than to try to replace their workforce. It's entirely probably that if the Big 3 just said, "No. Get lost," that it would have cost them more then, but saved money in the long run. And set a precedent that they had the balls to stand up to the UAW. The auto management has proven that they don't have the balls to stand up to the UAW. So they've learned that they can overpower the companies to get what they want, because they'll ultimately cave.

Those employees wouldn't leave, though. They would strike, which is totally different. It isn't smart to replace a striking worker with a non-union employee. If they would leave without striking, then management would have to do whatever is necessary to keep the worker (more pay, less hours). That's capitalism.

IIRC, there was a huge rift in the Teamsters several years ago which came down to a union truck driver could NOT hold the fuel nozzle when filling a truck, it was necessary to have ANOTHER union employee for that task.

EDIT: Found it. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/424/424.F2d.124.482.34169_1.html

I had the specifics wrong, the Teamsters wanted the job taken away from another union and assigned to someone in theirs. I seem to recall that they still didn't wan tthe truck driver to do it, they wanted yet ANOTHER employee just for that pupose.

Lead paragraph:

The Section 10(l) injunction was granted upon a petition filed by Merle D. Vincent, Jr., Regional Director of the Third Region of the National Labor Relations Board. The petition was based upon a charge filed with the Board by Bethlehem Steel Corporation and alleged that there was reasonable cause to believe that Teamsters was engaged in picketing and various related acts and conduct designed to compel Bethlehem to assign the work of fueling equipment and handling the fuel hose and nozzle at the New York State South Mall Project at Albany to employees represented by the Teamsters rather than to employees represented by Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers (AFL-CIO) in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act.2 The district court, after conducting a hearing, found that there was reasonable cause to believe that appellant was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged and, on July 16, 1968, entered an order enjoining appellant from engaging in such acts and conduct "pending the final disposition of the matters involved pending before the [Board]."3

Snowdoggie wrote: On the other hand, without the union, they can run employees 18 hours a day and pay them almost nothing with no benefits and even bring children in at a lower wage to work the line. That is why unions started to begin with.

Current labor laws prevent 18 hour workdays, and a diverse economy provides competition for workers, which results in better pay and benefits. When unions started, auto manufacturing employed a huge part of the US workforce. And these labor laws weren't in effect. I appreciate what the unions did back then, but they're not necessary now.

Look at the trucking industry. There used to be a few employers, and one strong union. Now, there are hundreds of employers, all striving to hire the same people, so their benefits must be decent. No union is necessary, any more.

If there were twenty auto manufacturers in the US today, I wouldn't feel bad about two going under. However, having only three companies controlling 99% of one huge industry (and one union) isn't good.

2 things as I blast in and out of here...

1) Unions are evil and a disaster not because of the members, but because of the leadership, who are generally only interested in their own financial and political gain. They do an excellent job of brainwashing the sheep into believing it's all about them. I watched a very valuable assembly plant close it's doors and move shop to Mexico after the UAW held endless strikes to extort as much blood from the company as they could. They finally found the breaking point.

2) While probably somewhat outdated now, read Ben Hamper's book "Rivethead". It will tell you all you need to know about the mindset of the typical union employee.

Kramer wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: On the other hand, without the union, they can run employees 18 hours a day and pay them almost nothing with no benefits and even bring children in at a lower wage to work the line. That is why unions started to begin with.

Current labor laws prevent 18 hour workdays, and a diverse economy provides competition for workers, which results in better pay and benefits. When unions started, auto manufacturing employed a huge part of the US workforce. And these labor laws weren't in effect. I appreciate what the unions did back then, but they're not necessary now. Look at the trucking industry. There used to be a few employers, and one strong union. Now, there are hundreds of employers, all striving to hire the same people, so their benefits must be decent. No union is necessary, any more.

In situations where there are many hiring and few wanting work, you can negotiate a good salary and benefits without a union. When times get hard, there are many unemployed and employers can pick and chose, try negotiating a liveable wage at that point.

Guess which direction our economy is headed?

Sure there are employment laws, but businesses don't always obey laws. I have included a few links in my previous post that proves that. How many construction companies hire illegal workers? How many food processing plants do? What about landscaping firms?

Lets say you are a libertarian and you believe in no limits for business. Lets say Detroit wants to go to China and India and recruit unskilled workers among the millions of starving people there who would be more than willing live in company dormatories and work 12 hours a day for a dollar a day. Are you OK with that? Consider the fact that neither the UAW workers who lose their jobs nor the new employees who only make $1 a day will be able to afford to buy those cars. Also consider the fact that the businesses who depend on the money spent by autoworkers will be going into bankruptcy because the unemployed UAW workers no longer have money to spend and the newly employed workers can't afford to buy anything past basic food and clothing.

In what direction does your economy go then?