In reply to Steve_Jones :
If you can teach me to run equipment, forklifts, cranes, etc... with the precision required to be accurate, safe and timely, IN ONE DAY, sign me the berkeley up. I don't disagree the skills needed to run a company, but I think you grossly undervalue the skills needed to make a company run.
We used to have a massive Caterpillar construction equipment plant not far from me. Employed lots of people, obviously. UAW shop.
As a kid, I remember that just about every time we would drive past that plant, the workers were out front picketing.
CAT eventually closed the plant and moved production to Mexico.
What I learned at age 7? still resonates with me today. Keep up the greedy shenanigans and those jobs will become so much vapor.
Look for the Union label! Sure, and how many clothes are actually made in the USA these days?
Read up on Electromotive and their Union conflict in London, Ontario.
EMD called the bluff and closed the factory and moved it to non-union Muncie, Indiana. The London plant is gone.
Datsun310Guy said:Read up on Electromotive and their Union conflict in London, Ontario.
EMD called the bluff and closed the factory and moved it to non-union Muncie, Indiana. The London plant is gone.
Just like TV and movie production - I suspect we will see more auto manufacturing moving to the southeast.
SVreX might be very busy.
Negotiation and self interest.
The CEO's job is to look after the overall health of the company, not the financial health of individual workers. The CEO is largely incentivized to run the company to maximize shareholder return. If the choice is between paying workers more and paying shareholders more, they will pick the shareholders.
I see nothing wrong with workers negotiating heavily in their own self interests. No one else is going to do it for them. Collective bargaining is a very powerful tool to help them realize their goals.
I'm not concerned that their initial asks are higher than what is reasonable. That is how negotiations work. If you're selling a car and want to maximize how much you get paid, you're not going to put up an asking price of what you'd be happy with. You're going to throw up a price that is on the extreme high end of what someone might be willing to pay, fully expecting to be talked down from there.
I'm not terribly worried that paying workers more is going to particularly increase car prices. Auto makers sell cars for as much as people will pay for them. They are already doing that. If they could charge more, they would. Buyers are not going to accept higher prices just because worker wages increased.
Increased wages will be seen in decreased CEO pay and returns to shareholders.
They'll grumble about it for a while. But then profits will increase while wages stagnate. CEO and shareholder payouts will increase. Eventually workers will get frustrated about stagnant pay and will collectively bargain for another pay bump to make up for wages flagging behind inflation and company profits.
The cycle will repeat.
This one is a tough one for me. As I sit here (desk job, salary, not UAW or other union) I'm pretty pissed off at the shameful wage increases my company has given over the last 7 years and knowing that the CEO and other upper management/execs make such a huge salary despite some epic blunders just burns me up. If I made a mistake that cost the company 5%, probably 2% of what they've done, I'd be out, and rightfully so. On that note I hope the union gets every penny because the more time I spend in the corporate world, the more I realize the execs didn't get where they are because of what they know, but who they know.
But on the other hand, I worked at a union plant. Huge facility. The abuse I saw there was astounding. People taking a 12 minute break and stretching that into an hour so they could go to the bar across the street, then come back drunk. They kept their jobs, just needed proof that they went to AA once a month. Seeing the union 'brothers' sellout the new hires so they could keep their insane wages at the expense of new-hire wages showed me that there is no 'we' in union, but there is an 'I'. Also, with the exception of the skilled trades, the jobs are easy. Even the fork-lift driver is an easy job. It can't be taught in a day. That job can be taught in a day, in a week you are 85% as good as any other driver, and in a month, 99.9%. The other jobs, 15 minutes and you're a master. That makes me think that they could go 10 years without a pay increase, and cut the bennies in half and still be overpaid.
In the end, I hope they get a more reasonable increase and the execs are paid directly related to their performance.
To sum up, then- People are greedy, people are jealous of things other people have, and people dismiss the requirements and abilities of other people, no matter their socio-economic position.
Cool.
Turbo_Rev said:In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
You clutch them pearls any harder, you're gonna break em.
You equated "I think the likelihood of the US auto industry failing is absurdly unlikely" to "I think people losing their job is funny", somehow.
If need to be mad about something, I guess you're allowed to misconstrue whatever you want.
I did misread your post, and I'm sorry. It was not intentional.
Datsun310Guy said:Read up on Electromotive and their Union conflict in London, Ontario.
EMD called the bluff and closed the factory and moved it to non-union Muncie, Indiana. The London plant is gone.
Look at what GM did in Oshawa, which was a very productive plant with high quality.
Streetwiseguy said:To sum up, then- People are greedy, people are jealous of things other people have, and people dismiss the requirements and abilities of other people, no matter their socio-economic position.
Cool.
And I think some people are out of touch with wages these days, even in non union plants.
The 3 screws example from the previous page is what an entry level employee makes where I work, a place known for middle of the road pay, but good benefits and an excellent work environment
Streetwiseguy said:To sum up, then- People are greedy, people are jealous of things other people have, and people dismiss the requirements and abilities of other people, no matter their socio-economic position.
Cool.
This.
The extreme asks of the union is the fault of executives and management failing to do their jobs effectively and prioritizing short term gains over long term stability, and offloading responsibility to another entity to CYA.
Inflation is a thing. People need their wages to increase every year to keep up with inflation. If you do not get a raise at least equal to inflation, you are effectively earning less every year. Executives know this - or have no excuse not to.
The smart thing to do is to just bake in across-the-board cost-of-living raises every year. This is simpler, easier to account for, and removes unnecessary complication from planning and budgeting - rather than dealing with sudden, less predictable leaps in wages every 4-8 years. It keeps employees more content and preempts major disruptions like we're seeing. This ultimately saves money.
It's the difference between doing scheduled maintenance on a car vs. waiting until something breaks.
The only reason executives wouldn't do this is because they want to demonstrate to shareholders that they are doing everything they can to maximize profits - including suppressing payroll expenses. They want the union to be belligerent and force their hand so they can turn to the board and say, "I'm sorry. I didn't want to pay out such a huge raise that ate into profits, but the union forced my hand. It was out of my control. Nothing I can do. So sorry."
If you are in a management position, you are ultimately responsible for *everything* that happens within your sphere of management. If you are the CEO, that means EVERYTHING in the company. If there is a problem that hurts productivity and it does not get corrected, it's because you have created a system that allows it to happen.
Unions take funds from workers. Workers only choose unions because they are the lesser of two evils. If you run your business in such a way that employees are well compensated, safe, and healthy without needing union protection... they'll boot the union. Or at least scale it back to the level of an insurance premium.
If any union wants to see circular logic make heads explode, even if it means conceding some initial salary gains, get the contract to tie the lesser of median or average worker wages directly to the greater of CEO(s) granted compensation or inflation with a bonus tied to the difference between CEO(s) granted compensation and CEO(s) realized compensation.
Driven5 said:In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
Why is it the dock workers' fault that workers workers in other industries are too afraid to stand up and demand wages that finally catch and keep up?
The only way management compensation is a red herring with no on bearing on employee compensation, is if the latter has little to no effect on stock price. If that's the case, management loses their argument to the shareholders for preventing employee compensation from keeping up.
But if employee compensation does have a significant effect on stock price, then it's not a red herring and management compensation has everything to do with it. If that's the case, management loses their argument to the employees for preventing employee compensation from keeping up.
Most sectors are not as large and well organized as dock workers and auto workers. In both of those cases they have the ability to have a huge impact on both their employer and the economy at large, so a strike can get them a bigger result compared to say your local bakery staff. And in both cases competition is removed from the equation because everyone in the sector gets the raise. But if your local bakery staff raises wages and then the price of bread, the bakery across town with a different union or no union at all take their business.
The answer is for the auto makers to move to Southern states and automate. No body owes Union's anything.
If they cannot sell their services to a willing buyer because of cost they go out of business.
Its like a free market thing. If I can get similar quality at lower cost I'll buy my latte from Dunkin's Donuts and not Starbucks. Et Cetera.
When people point out and rant that CEO's make too much? $20m is crazy but if I'm making that money I'm feeling I earned it.
Union guys making $60-$75 an hour is crazy unless I'm being paid that wage then I'm cool with it.
In the words of Steve Miller; take the money and run.
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
The point is that worker wages in entirely unrelated sectors is way more of a red herring with way less bearing than outsized wage growth of their own management.
In reply to jharry3 :
Auto industry workers in Southern factories actually owe a significant chunk of their compensation package to the persistent threat of the UAW moving in if they get too under-compensated.
Duke said:I won't make any numbers up off the top of my head, but I know I've seen statistics showing that a staggering portion of the cost of a new 1985-1995 GM vehicle was paying off UAW pension demands from 1970-1980.
Thanks for bringing this up. So-called "legacy costs" can present a huge burden to companies, with retirees getting pensions and healthcare for the duration of their retired lives. See also: the United States Postal Service.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
You ain't lying about the usps. But their pension issues are caused by congress and its command thst the usps pre fund pensions into the future. They're literally putting money aside for people who they haven't hired yet.
to also play into the anti union stuff. Look at the British car industry in the 70's. Get too greedy. It all goes away.
So what do you think this will do to the price of a new car which is already a 6 or 8 year financing plan for a lot of people?
Figured I'd toss in a few cents/thoughts before this thread gets locked.
Prices will go up. The strike is one reason why (if for no other reason than they can raise prices and blame it on the UAW). Long term financing is another reason. Most people think monthly costs on an automobile purchase, not overall price, because it's what their budget allows. Auto prices can go up if banks extend out loan terms. And with new autos lasting longer and longer, it's easier to justify. RV loans are 10 and 15 year notes. I can see auto loans reaching that point in the near future. So, as an auto maker, if I know that the average person can get a 10 year loan and they're concentrating on a monthly price point, I can raise the price of my vehicles with little impact to the monthly buying power.
Granted, that means people with take longer to buy a new vehicle, so while it'll help the short term gains*, it'll hurt the mid-term gains until 10 year notes are common and becomes the norm for prices. Although by the time that hits, will cars be as popular? Maybe?
Couple of other things worth pointing out since this thread has become more about unions than the specific affect on prices.
-Rob
Fueled by Caffeine said:to also play into the anti union stuff. Look at the British car industry in the 70's. Get too greedy. It all goes away.
That wasn't just the union's fault. They weren't keeping up with the competition in design. Compare the Datsun 240Z and the Porsche 914 to the MGB and The Triumph TR6. As much as I love old British cars, you have to see that they were falling behind in the 70's.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Fair point. The products were not good
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Fair point. The products were not good
..and I have owned several of them.
Steve_Jones said:Tom Suddard said:This article is interesting:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/soaring-ceo-pay-commands-spotlight-uaw-strike-big/story
If the workers can do the job of the CEO, they should get CEO pay. Putting a mirror on a Jeep pays $X, CEO pays $Y. If your only skills are screwing a mirror on, then that's the rate.
I use that example because there is a guy that screws the mirror on the Gladiator that is on FB complaining he is "forced to work 60 hours" a week. He is currently "maxed at $26.55 an hour".
$26.55 at 40 hours is $1062.
$39.82 at 20 hours (1.5x for OT) is $796.40
$1,858 per week, plus health insurance, plus retirement to screw on 3 screws in a climate controlled clean shop, seems pretty good to me. He did not dispute the numbers, just said it should be more because of the record profits. When asked if they make no money next year will he take a cut? "of course not, why would I"
Just like the housing thread, looking at what others have and thinking you deserve part of it "just because" is foolish.
You forgot union dues.
In reply to GeddesB :
You should gladly pay those dues, after all they're the ones that got you the raises. Does the union not deserve to be paid for doing their job? Without them your life would be worse.
You'll need to log in to post.
