|
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Big 3,
Can I fault the unions for making every attempt to preserve those benefits? When it drives the company into bankruptcy or into my pocket book..yes.
Have I been a scab and filled a non-union quota position...no.
What is my position that entitles me to a higher wage than auto line workers? I am not classified as un-skilled labor as 70% of the auto workers are.
Do I realize that if my union counterparts weren't being paid $27/hr, I'd be making McDonalds wages...no I wouldn't, I am worth the money I make...I don't make the union wages because they are the ones that climb skyscrapers to perform their job, I won't do that. That is why they decided to have a union and why they get paid more. The non-union jobs at my company where here long before the union came in and the wages were good back then.
What would I do if my employer asked me to drop to $7/ hour or ship my job to Mexico? That is not likely seeming my job is service but if they asked I would choose to look for other work.
|
|
| |
|
| RedNeckTech - 12/1/2008 8:58 PM
Big 3,
Can I fault the unions for making every attempt to preserve those benefits? When it drives the company into bankruptcy or into my pocket book..yes.
Have I been a scab and filled a non-union quota position...no.
What is my position that entitles me to a higher wage than auto line workers? I am not classified as un-skilled labor as 70% of the auto workers are.
Do I realize that if my union counterparts weren't being paid $27/hr, I'd be making McDonalds wages...no I wouldn't, I am worth the money I make...I don't make the union wages because they are the ones that climb skyscrapers to perform their job, I won't do that. That is why they decided to have a union and why they get paid more. The non-union jobs at my company where here long before the union came in and the wages were good back then.
What would I do if my employer asked me to drop to $7/ hour or ship my job to Mexico? That is not likely seeming my job is service but if they asked I would choose to look for other work.
Well, you don't realize that if the unions don't preserve those retirement benefits paid for by the company, is IS coming out of your pocket book! The taxpayers cover pensions if the company goes bankrupt. All in that $2 trillion bill you get that I mentioned.
You are SADLY, VERY SADLY mistaken that you are worth the money you make when there's someone willing to do it for less money. Don't be arrogant and ignorant. If your employer could replace you for $15/hr, they would. Whether your job is imported or exported, this isn't the U.S. only economy for years ago you mention before the unions(thanks to consumers like you). Chico will do your job for $7, I'm sure. Those union wages keep yours up, like it or not. Remember, many of us may be looking for a job and can move to your area and displace you for less than what you make, but more than you propose to us!  I'm a chemical engineer making basically your wage after concessions we gave. If given the choice of $10/hr, I'm moving and coming to a town like yours, and so are many of my fellow qualified and skilled workers. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| I am worth the money I get paid because the industry is willing to pay it. If there was a sudden increase of people who could do my job then my worth to the company shrinks. Simple supply and demand. My stand point is if my job field becomes to the point that I am not satisfied I move on...or I adjust my life to the new wage, either way it is my move. If you feel you can move to my area and displace me from my job more power to you and kudos. There would be an obvious reason my employer made that decision and I would have to move on. I don't have a right to my job and if the market allows that to happen then so be it.
That is the first I have heard of pensions being covered by taxpayers if a company goes bankrupt. My wife's career field is pensions and benefits and that is news to her also. Companies physically put the pension money into a fund that is illegal for that company to touch and pensions are drawn from that fund when the time is correct. No tax payer involvement.
|
|
| |
|
| See Red, another benefit of unions and lack of knowledge outside this area. They bargained for their pensions to be guranteed and insured. If they go bankrupt, the pensions are guaranteed under the Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and insured by PBGC. Though under these circumstances, most will get about 50 cents on a dollar. Still better than the paper factory deal. If a massive claim was to fall on the PBGC and it couldn't be funded, which is GUARANTEED!!!! if any of the Big 3 go bankrupt, also taking into account stock market conditions which those funds are invested in, WE the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Plain and simple Red............. it boils down to this......if your contempt for the industry and unions is outweighs not floating a $25 billion loan, no matter who's at fault, more than paying 100x that amount in repercussions and can handle the $2 trillion bill, then write your represenatives and tell them. If not, then support the bridge loans. Simple choice. |
|
| |
|
| WALK! The competative edge is gone, automation has eliminated the need for many of those high paying jobs, go back to school and learn a new profession!
There are plenty of people lining up for those $7.00 an hour jobs that take little skill. Back in the day there were many people looking for those McDonalds jobs now we "want" what we don't "need" and quite frankly we are a society of "WANTS".
How many brands of shampoo are in your bathroom? How many brands of Cereal are in your cupboards? And better yet how many CARS are in your driveway?????? The market is saturated and new technology will bring more jobs, it just has to be funded and the right skilled worker will get that high paying job. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| It may not be called backruptcy, but the conditions that lead to the 25 billion NOW and everyone knows a LOT later, will look a lot like it.
A loan now will not cut it and everyone knows it. This will be good money after bad without massive restructuring in labor, management, and suppliers. There will be plenty of pain to go around, but hopefully the industry can right itself.
In the days when there was no viable competition, the companies and unions could name their prices. That day has been over for many years. Recent contracts verifiy that many of the concerned have made some hard choices going forward, but, our new found crisis has made those good faith efforts insufficient.
Our government has made many mistakes to add the the current auto crisis, but the industry knew prior to 2008 that they had to make changes and unfortunately have now gotten caught in this finacial meltdown.
If this were my call, I would have them file backruptcy, which would expedite new arrangements and contracts and give them a ground zero from which to work.
Some government money would likely to needed because of the tightness of the credit markets. The day of reckoning is either now or in a year or two without trememdous adjustments. Likely cheaper to do it now than later.
Oh yeah, in answer to the original question, it appears that many stepped up.
Take care,
Jim O
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| EF- You are certainly correct: If Wal-Mart had been union, there would have not been the issues, but not for the reason you stated. If Wal-Mart was union, it wouldn't be Wal-Mart. It wouldn't even exist. There's no way it could compete with the non-union competition. The law prevailed, wrongs were righted, and life goes on: all without the union. Unions helped fix the problems decades ago, but now, they have become the problem.
I base my viewpoints on knowledge I've learned from people I trust. Here's just one example: A fellow I worked with quit our place and went to a large, union shop. I ran into him several months later and we talked for a while. He told me it is unbelievable how things operate at his current job. He worked 2nd shift, in a small group of 5-6 guys. They would work "normally" for the first 3-1/2 hours of their 10 hour shift. They would meet their "quota" just by working those few hours, and they literally sat and read the paper, played cards, slept, etc. for the rest of the shift. The union was responsible for that "quota". That is just one of dozens of examples.
Edited by thumper 12/2/2008 4:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
| RedNeckTech - 12/1/2008 8:06 PM
EF Swagee, There are many cases like the bearing company. I am not arguing against unions, as I said some people love them but wouldn't work in a shop that requires me to join one. I am arguing about using my tax money to prop up an industry when the union in that industry is the primary problem.
Fair wages are all around. I get paid a nice wage that is only $6 lower than my union counterparts with very nice benefits. I don't have to surrender part of my income just to work there like a union member does, I have a good chance to work up to management and make more money than I could in a union, I get a good vacation package and can take off for any reason that I feel I need to. And I don't have to for-go my pay and job to picket the company because some of the people there believe they are owed everything.
Wal-Mart is in business for a reason, to offer lower prices on products and most union workers shop at Wal-mart for that exact reason. There has to be lower paying jobs for an economy to work properly. If an adult with a family takes a job that was waged out for a teenager then that person has to work with it. What type of prices and inflation do you think I want to pay if every job was a union job? Union people don't even necessarily support union workers. Most of the union workers I know of take their vehicle to Wal-Mart for their oil changes because the union worker at the dealership adds too much on to the oil change. AWU members won't even buy the cars they make at the normal selling price, they negotiated a sweet deal price with the companies.
There is absolutely no reason the work force has any business in the decisions on how to operate the company, that is reserved for the owners and stockholders...the ones who put their money on the line to give you the job in the first place. That job you have is not yours and you don't have a right to it. That job is the owners and it is at their discretion that they let you have it.
Well, RNT, I’ve got to hand it to you. I can see that, despite my efforts to arouse in you any empathy for fellow workers of the world, your loyalty to the exploiting class is un-wavering. That is commendable, albeit troubling.
I feel both glad and sad for you. I am glad that you’re content in your paradigm, with your $21hr wage, decent benefits, vacation time, and opportunity for advancement in your company. I dare say that you owe all of those privileges to the courageous workers who fought, and in many cases died, when they stood in the face of their exploiters and said, “NO MORE!” I’m not sure why, but at every opportunity during this discussion to stick up for your fellow working class members, you’ve chosen to support our rulers instead. For that, I am sad for you.
I wish to leave you with some facts that I hope will stimulate the deterioration of your self-importance:
From the article: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibqxRYnbFgCrCxgLG_i57Bx4PXqA
Gap between rich, poor growing, OECD finds
Oct 21, 2008
BERLIN (AFP) — The gap between rich and poor has grown in most developed countries over the past 20 years, leading to an increase in child poverty, an organisation of 30 leading economies said in a report Tuesday.
"The gap between rich and poor has grown in more than three-quarters of OECD countries over the past two decades," said the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an influential policy forum for 30 top world economies.
Economic growth of recent decades had benefitted the rich more than the poor, it said in the report entitled "Growing Unequal: Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries."
Across the OECD countries, the average income of the richest 10 percent of people was, on average, "nearly nine times that of the poorest 10 percent."
Canada, Germany, Norway and the United States were most affected by the widening gap between rich and poor, while Greece, Mexico and Britain had seen a shrinking gap, the study found.
The danger of poverty was greatest in countries with the widest wage gap and lowest social mobility, it said.
~snip~
Children and young adults are now 25 percent more likely to be poor than the population as a whole.
~snip~
In the report, OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria warned of the dangers posed by inequality and the need for governments to tackle it.
"Growing inequality is divisive. It polarises societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor," he said.
"Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve. Ignoring increasing inequality is not an option."
~snip~
Best of luck to you.
Sincerely,
EF Swagee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Nobody has denied the unions served a purpose back in the day but now that purpose has been fulfilled. Employees are now protected by law, OSHA etc.
As for the loan, would you borrow money to a company that lost 38.7 BILLION dollars in one year...last year?! It is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb. It will be delaying the inevitable. |
|
| |
|
| thumper - 12/2/2008 4:50 AM
EF- You are certainly correct: If Wal-Mart had been union, there would have not been the issues, but not for the reason you stated. If Wal-Mart was union, it wouldn't be Wal-Mart. It wouldn't even exist. There's no way it could compete with the non-union competition. The law prevailed, wrongs were righted, and life goes on: all without the union. Unions helped fix the problems decades ago, but now, they have become the problem.
EF Swagee------ I am not saying the problems of abuse would not have existed. I am saying they would've been addressed before six years elapsed and over two million violations happened. There is a significant difference. Workers should not have to endure that kind of abuse for that long. Nor should they have to resort to filing a lawsuit to defend their most *basic* rights. I thought you said that those types of problems were fixed decades ago by the unions? Obviously, they're not fixed, or else workers wouldn't have to fight in class action situations. Yes, yes, yes, the law prevailed. I get it. My point was/is, the [weak] law did not prevail for six years and before over two millions violations occurred.
EF Swagee----------- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I hope. I assume we can agree on a few points concerning Wal-Mart; 1) It is America's largest employer, 2) It pays relatively low wages, 3) It is anti-union 4) It sells cheap products mostly produced by cheap labor in markets outside the U.S.
One of the biggest problems facing society, in my [questionable] judgment, is that *real* median wages are on the decrease, which leads to all sorts of negative consequences (see article on wage gap/poverty i posted in another response).
I am suggesting that wage earners working at Wal-Mart can't afford the American dream. In fact, the American dream is becoming more un-obtainable for more and more fellow working class members every day. Consumers can't afford to buy stuff that cost more than the cheap products sold at Wal-Mart. Meanwhile, the upper class gets smaller and richer and the lower class gets bigger and poorer.
Do you (and others reading this thread) find this problematic? If so, how should we address it? If not, why not? --------------
I base my viewpoints on knowledge I've learned from people I trust. Here's just one example: A fellow I worked with quit our place and went to a large, union shop. I ran into him several months later and we talked for a while. He told me it is unbelievable how things operate at his current job. He worked 2nd shift, in a small group of 5-6 guys. They would work "normally" for the first 3-1/2 hours of their 10 hour shift. They would meet their "quota" just by working those few hours, and they literally sat and read the paper, played cards, slept, etc. for the rest of the shift. The union was responsible for that "quota". That is just one of dozens of examples.
EF Swagee------------- On one hand, I object to the scenario you describe. When I consider that the company and the union worked together to make that deal, which I'm guessing was a compromise, then it doesn't seem so objectionable. I mean, the company still profits, right? How many hours of labor are the profiteers putting in? I'm talking about the ones who don't work, but reap profits produced by the workers?
I don't pretend that workers, union or non, do no wrong. I just think that a lot of us have a disturbing tendency, when contemplating economy-related issues, to point the finger of blame at fellow working class members. I am here to tell you, that we are pointing in the wrong direction-----------
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Rich S - 12/2/2008 7:16 AM Nobody has denied the unions served a purpose back in the day but now that purpose has been fulfilled. Employees are now protected by law, OSHA etc. I've been a passive observer on this thread until now. Rich, You have expressed my beliefs exactly. Unions were extremely needed years ago. I believe that they have out lived their purpose. As an educator I am forced (yes forced) to be a part of a union. If I had a choice (union has taken my choice away) I would not pay my dues or be associated with it. I agree with redneck, I would like to be payed and respected on my merit.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| Thumper said - I base my viewpoints on knowledge I've learned from people I trust. Here's just one example: A fellow I worked with quit our place and went to a large, union shop. I ran into him several months later and we talked for a while. He told me it is unbelievable how things operate at his current job. He worked 2nd shift, in a small group of 5-6 guys. They would work "normally" for the first 3-1/2 hours of their 10 hour shift. They would meet their "quota" just by working those few hours, and they literally sat and read the paper, played cards, slept, etc. for the rest of the shift. The union was responsible for that "quota". That is just one of dozens of examples.
EF Swagee said- On one hand, I object to the scenario you describe. When I consider that the company and the union worked together to make that deal, which I'm guessing was a compromise, then it doesn't seem so objectionable. I mean, the company still profits, right? How many hours of labor are the profiteers putting in? I'm talking about the ones who don't work, but reap profits produced by the workers?
That remark says it all, in my opinion. I just told you SIX guys were working only 3-1/2 hours of a 10 hour shift, and your response is "THE COMPANY IS STILL MAKING MONEY SO IT'S OK"
That, my friend sums it all up in one sentence. Thank you for finally bringing it out. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| The irony of Walmart being mentioned in a union debate.
"Made in China" is where it's at. And then complain about American outsourcing in the next sentence. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Lol, now that is funny!
Dennis, being forced to be part of the union is another problem I have with the "current" unions. I find it very hypocritical that it is mandatory. Too bad you could not strike against the union:) I would be willing to bet the next generation will not have this problem as unions are slowly dissapearing. Companies just don't have to put up with them in this day and age. There are other places to go. It sucks for the employees that will lose their jobs and benefits but right or wrong, this is the next step for capitolism. I feel in the long run this will turn out positive. The big three will survive after major restucturing and once again American vehicles will be something we can be proud of. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Here's an interesting video, put out by Detnews.
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | I might have to consider adding Ford to my portfolio after watching that video! I love the fact the uniforms are the same for everyone and they all eat together. Lots of smiling faces there. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Jayman, You just gave me a video that I can use in my engineering course when we discuss automation and computer aided manufacturing. Thank You! Never thought that I would see the day when I got teaching material from a fishing web site.
Thumper, I agree with your analogy 100%. Your example of working 3 1/2 hours during a 10 hour shift hit the nail on the head.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Now that the focus has been on the auto industry and manufacturing unions. Shall we bridge the gap and discuss teacher unions, construction unions, and engineering unions and any others?
The world is not black and white.
Dennis, on a side note, Automation and Computer aided manufacturing. I work with some real robots if you ever up for a field trip. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | jaymon that video shows exactly what i was talking about in a earlier post and what we could have and should in our country. Change can be hard for humans but is needed! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Sunshine - 12/2/2008 7:54 AM . As an educator I am forced (yes forced) to be a part of a union. If I had a choice (union has taken my choice away) I would not pay my dues or be associated with it. Sorry, but you DID have a choice when you chose your profession and you DO have a choice now -- find a different job. You could even stay in the same field - most private school teaching positions aren't unionized; those in higher-ed teaching positions are prohibited by law from forming unions in WI. If the anti-union people were consistent, they would recognize that the same suggestion they have for people that don't like their working conditions should be the same for those that don't want to be union members. Damn, and I was trying so hard to stay out of this. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I guess I would like to ask everyone, from both sides, a question.
Does the management of a company that moves jobs over seas, do so because they are 1-Not making money here because of the labor force, or 2-Are they moving the jobs over seas because they can make MORE MONEY because of the cheaper labor force or 3-are they simply trying to be price competitive with the producers from another country of the same product that is being shipped in and sold or less? With that answer, I think that everyone can then attack what is wrong and what needs to be done.
Attacking one another with out true facts will serve no one. For our work force to lower themselfs, wage wize, to the rest of the workers in the world is absurd. Opening up free trade with communist countries is also absurd. Get to the root of this whole problem. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Sunshine - How does your job pay compared to a similar one at a catholic school?
Thumper - I completely agree that your former employee's situation is a joke. I guess my problem with situations like that is it takes two parties to come up with such STUPID contracts. What kind of an dimwitted manager would agree to a contract that says you can stop working with full pay once you reach your quota and then set the number so low? Kinda makes me wonder how long its going to be before the company loses its business to a place that actually knows how to manage its workforce. I'm sure it will be the union's fault when it happens....
No company is hostage to its unionized work force. Any company that would allow employees to sleep on the job has WAY bigger issues than a bad union contract. I firmly believe unions CAN still have a position influence on many sectors of the american economy today, but for that to happen, both unions and the management need to work together to establish common sense practices. My gut tells me that that won't happen and labor/management relations are going to take a BIG slide backwards in the coming years. |
|
| |
|
| this doesnt seem walleye fishing related this post should be moved or deleted |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Brad: It’s a guess but I would say that I am paid 30% to 50% more than a catholic school teacher. That comparison is a real stretch and an example of extremes. It’s hard to put enough money in the Sunday donation plate to pay salaries, retirement, and insurance. Stacker: Your answer is 1,2 and 3. Viking: Of course, in a theoretical sense you are right. We all have choices in life. If forced to, I could make the same decisions like Redneck had to make. Unfortunately, I’m too old and too close to retirement to pursue other dreams voluntarily (out side of fishing of course). Jayman: Yea, yea, let’s go after teacher unions. After all, they are the root of all evil economically in Wisconsin. And they only work 6 months out of the year |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Sunshine...
If you answered yes to all 3 then the problem is not with the union worker, it is with the greed of the owners as well as them taking advantage of policies that are in place for world trade. |
|
| |
