Hey, you just described me during all of my long hikes.Originally Posted by papa john
Union power comes from contracts between employees and management. A contract takes two -- employees through their elected representatives and management. It takes both sides to agree with union rules.
Since I've observed management practices all my life, I'm not surprised that management signs bad contracts. For examples of bad management judgments, even without the influence of unions, we need only to look at the financial mess all the big investment banks with their hundreds of thousands of non-unionized employess have gotten the world into.
I've worked for union newspapers, and non union newspapers. The best journalism by far is practiced by the union papers. Probably 90 percent of the journalism prizes won in regional competitions in Maine over the decades have been won by the state's one newspaper with significant union contracts.
The shipyard located six miles up the Kennebec from my house has been unionized for seven decades. Then and now it is the states largest employer. It relies almost exclusively on Navy shipbuilding contracts to survive.
Once while chatting with one of the top managers of the shipyard during a time of stiff competition for Navy contracts, I commented that, "I guess the future depends on how hard your employees are willing to work."
The manager looked at me as if I had made a silly remark.
"Productivity is a function of management," he said.
Weary
Well said weary.
Management(s) agreed to all the union contracts that some cite as problems. I've worked both union and non-union jobs during my life. The best one was a non-union job--but ONLY because the company was paying union scale wages/benefits because they had to compete in the labor market for the best employees. I find it incredible that CEO's and upper management officers making 7 figure incomes can have the arrogance to blame HOURLY wages that they themselves agreed to as the cause of profitability shortfalls.
Management incompetence is the root cause. The buck stops at the CEO's desk.
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
Weary, I have good money that says if I had said the Union was not to blame for the mess, you would have argued the other way!! You just want to argue. People that have been working for those huge wages for years did not agree to all of sudden take a 75% pay cut. Believe what you want. I guess you know there is a reason all the foreign automakers building automobiles here won't allow UAW in the door. Probably part of the reason those foreign automakers are kicking the big 3's asses!!! Wake up Waery, knock, knock, knock, anyone home?
Here ya go Weary, from one of your favorite papers I'm sure the LAT.
The American companies also are trying to cut labor costs. GM says it pays its workers an average of $73 an hour in wages and pension and healthcare benefits. Toyota pays its U.S. workers an average of $48 an hour, GM says.
$15 an hour my ass!
Bulldawg. From today's New York Times:
"The United Automobile Workers agreed to extraordinary contract concessions in negotiations that took place in 2005 and 2007. Not only will there be no raises for the four-year life of the most recent contract, but the starting pay for new hires at the Big Three has been cut by 50 percent — to $14 to $16 an hour. Benefits have also been slashed."
Weary
You honestly believe that a skilled auto worker, used to making between $60 and $75 an hour, benefits included, would agree to that kind of pay cut? Some of those machinists etc., are well worth $25-$30 an hour. Do you really beleive it when you read that those workers, who could go almost anywhere and make $25-$30 an hour, would agree to work for $15 an hour? If you believe everything you read, let me know what your hometown newspaper is, I have some ocean front property in the North Georgia mountains I want to run an ad on for ya!!!
The $15 an hour wage for new hires was in the contracts signed by all three auto makers and the United Auto Workers.
The existing workforce didn't get a pay cut. New hires will work for less. I originally posted this in response to you -- or someone -- who claimed their should be no bailout unless the union is ousted. I'm not enthusiastic about a bailout. But I suspect that this economy will go down the drain if the power of unions is further weakened.
We are already approaching a third world economy -- an economy divided between the super rich and everyone else. The inflation adjusted income of middle income people has been shrinking for decades. Only unions have any hope of keeping a consumer driven economy alive. Without middle income wages, consumers can't buy either the goods or services that have made this the most prosperous nation in the world. Without the pressure of unions to provide working people with a decent wage, the economy will inevitably go into a downward spiral.
Weary
Good observation.For examples of bad management judgments, even without the influence of unions, we need only to look at the financial mess all the big investment banks with their hundreds of thousands of non-unionized employess have gotten the world into.
Panzer
I don't work a union job and I make a decent wage. It could always be more, but who is ever truly happy with the wage they make? I don't rely on a union to get my pay raises, etc. for me. I rely on what most people in this country can't rely on; my hard work and knowledge. Couple that with the fact that I don't job hop like most of the country (16 years in one place, 33 years old). I guess you could say "I made it the old fashioned way, I earned it". But most of the country doesn't want to EARN their way in the world. They want the government or the unions to do it for them.
I have a mother that is employeed by one of the big three in a dealership. Her job would probably disappear if the government does not bail them out. But I still do not support a bail out, and neither does she. Because she holds the same values I hold, a rare value that you have to earn your way, not wait on the government or unions to do it for you.
I guess you think since all of the foreign automakers here are non-union, they don't pay a decent wage and are lousy employers? Funny that employees that should be downtroden in that type of environment produce a better product than a well taken care of happy union employee!!
it all depends on the auto workers
Bulldawg and Superman are on The people to buy a bear or two list when i meet them! ! !
you are what you eat: Fast! Cheap! and Easy!
I'll be at Ron's next Saturday and at the Ruck on MLK weekend. I prefer Hoegardeen, but will drink most anything imported.
Steam locomotives, eight-track tapes, pay phones, leaded gasoline, manors, labor unions...
My brother and I were planning on starting our thru hike mid march of 2009. However, once we put a pencil to it, I am 41, he 50, car payments, misc bills, getting ourselves outfitted it was looking challenging.
I decided to make a modest investment in a stock and now our plans are back on! Not sure if I should say what stock but it went up over 200 percent in a week! Point being that even in a slumping economy their are opportunities that can present themselves.
Do you have a link saying GM workers make $150K per year? I tend to doubt it.
I beleive he was speaking of fully loaded compensation, which is what this dscussion has been about. Here is a 2006 excerpt from CNNMoney:
"The top pay for a GM hourly employee is $27 an hour, but with benefits and future health care costs GM estimates that hour of work costs the company $73.73. The flat wage works out to about $56,000 a year before overtime, so those taking a $140,000 buyout would get about 2-1/2 years of pay in the lump sum."
Source
Remember that $27 is before overtime and most all unions play the overtime game to force more pay into the hands of their members, but according to my calculator, $73.73 over 2040 hours comes to $150,409.20
.....Someday, like many others who joined WB in the early years, I may dry up and dissapear....
Actually, most unions DON'T want workers to work overtime as they would rather have more straight time membership. OT actually costs companies LESS than hiring additional workes.
"That's the thing about possum innards - they's just as good the second day." - Jed Clampett
Since when?
Posting Permissions
