Auto-Workers may not get paid for not working?

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by bloomautomatic

1. Country wide, they may only have 7% of the workforce, but in this case they appear to be pretty much 100%. Based on the enforcement of this jobs bank program alone, I'd say they're pretty powerful.

2. The amount they're paid is up to agreements between labor and management, but when it is significantly higher than other assembly jobs that require similar aptitude, and the company is losing money, then I would say it's too high.

Here's a hypothetical. Let's say UPS workers get paid twice as much as FedEx workers for the same job. UPS carries on for years with inflated rates, allowing them to pay their workers this rate. If the economy slows down, and UPS gets to the verge of collapse, it wouldn't have to be a socialist to say their labor costs are too high. To me, paying their workers higher than market rate and expecting a government bail out sounds socialist. Apply the same model to raw materials. If they'd be voluntarily paying more than the market rate for steel to make the cars, would you argue that the gov't should give them a bailout so they can continue to pay that inflated price?

3. I think government intervention in private business should be kept to a minimum, on all sides.

And for the record, I was in SMWIA Local 12 for 11 years and I still work in a Union shop. Unions can be a good thing, but it seems like they're looking out for their own bank accounts as much as they are the workers'.

Vince

Good points.

1. Yes, although there are several non-union auto shops in the U.S., union density is much higher in the industry than it is in general. But it seemed to me Dredly was making a more general statement on the "power" of unions in this country.

2. Fair enough, but this is where union density on a national and international scale comes into effect. If the hypothetical example is the case then the IBT simply needs to do a better job of trying to organize FedEx. Now when we're talking about (especially manufacturing) industries that have international competition for the same markets, the issue gets more complicated. Labor must globalize to meet the globalization of capital.

I'll give you an example-- the UAW has done very little to forge working relationships with foreign autoworker unions. Recently Hyundai set up a non-union factory in Alabama. The korean autoworker union is powerful and militant. If the UAW and the korean autoworkers had a better relationship they could have prevented the factory from being built without a card-check neutrality agreement. The UAW and other such American unions need to work with other unions overseas to try to better equalize labor costs, otherwise factories will keep moving to places with the cheapest labor, creating a global race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions. Hell, even Mexican workers have seen their jobs shipped to China in recent years-- and, ironies of ironies, after NAFTA Mexican farmers lost their jobs to US farm conglomerates using illegal Mexican labor!

Which brings me to my next point. As voters we need to oppose free-trade deals that don't have labor protections. In Mexico (like China) most unions are corrupt and run by the government and corporations and actually conspire with them to keep the wages of their own members down! And we wonder why jobs keep going there. We talk a lot about China's currency manipulation but very little of their manipulation of organized labor to keep labor costs low.

3. Yes, unions are institutions and thus are worried about their own interests including their treasuries. Now when it comes to union bureaucrats stuffing their own pockets this is definitely a bad thing, but a wealthy union can also do right by their members in terms of sustaining expensive contract campaigns, and it also allows them to organize new members into the union. And high union density in a given industry improves the benefits and wages for even non-union workers in that industry as well.

[Dredly]

1. I was referring to Unions nation wide. I agree that people should earn a good living doing what they do. I also agree that companies should treat their employees well and pay them a competitive wage

I also agree that a wage should be in relation to the job being done and that the COMPANY should have the option to set this amount of money based on what they are willing to pay and what they can afford to pay.

Unions were a crucial piece of developing this country and ensuring that the working conditions were in place to move this country forward... since then they have become corrupt pieces of gov't backed organized crime. They are directly responsible for the downfall of the American auto org as well as the US's manufacturing ability as a whole.

Honest days work for an honest days wage is a lost concept to unions.

2. The amount paid is due to EXTORTION by GOV'T PROTECTED unions. If the company doesn't give in to demands then the Union takes their people off the job and work stops. Getting rid of a Union is impossible due to gov't regulations and Union law.

The reason that so many new car companies are moving to the US is because they know that they can undercut American car manufacturers and get "affordable" labor and avoid tariff taxes. They also have no issue with telling the union to go fuck themselves.

3. Wages should be set by the market, not by unions! The market should dictate that a non-skilled high school graduate working on an assembly line should make 15.00 an hour max, they should not be making 35.00 because they are in a union.

The result is inflation across the board due to wages out pacing reality. Look at Detroit as a GREAT example. Huge money gets poured into the area, Money that isn't earned but is given due to Unions... now when those jobs leave there is a huge job skill vacuum, new companies can't pay the same amount and still make ends meet and people used to making 100K+ a year suddenly realize they have NO skill but they still have bills to meet...

Unions = BAD

[RLS]

The “Jobs Bank” concept was pioneered by Japanese auto companies, who have had a no layoff policy in place for many years. The policies currently in place at Honda and Toyota, which pay workers full salary for an indefinite period, are more generous than job security programs in UAW-negotiated contracts.

With 4,500 workers earning their full paychecks while its San Antonio truck plant was idle this summer, Toyota had more workers in its version of the “Jobs Bank” at a single plant than Chrysler, Ford and GM currently have in all of their factories put together.


Wages for UAW members at Chrysler, Ford and GM range from about $14 an hour for newly hired workers to $28 an hour for assemblers to $33 for skilled trades workers.

Typical hourly wages at Honda, Nissan and Toyota are only slightly lower. Due to the effect of profit-sharing formulas, however, there have been some recent years in which a typical Toyota worker has taken home a larger annual paycheck than a typical GM worker.

The $73 an hour figure is outdated and inaccurate. It includes not only the costs of health care, pensions, and other compensation for current workers, but also the costs of the pensions and health care benefits of retired employees spread out over the active workers. Active workers never receive any of this compensation in any form, so it is not accurate to describe it as part of their “earnings.”


The main reason that Chrysler, Ford and GM have higher legacy costs than the foreign nameplate operations in the U.S. is not because their retiree benefits are much higher. It's because they have so many more retirees. Because the domestic auto companies have been operating in this country for many years, they have large numbers of retirees. But the foreign nameplate operations only started operating in this country 25 years ago, and therefore have very few retirees.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of retirees from Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW and Mercedes live in countries where national health systems spread the costs of providing health care across the entire societies.


According to the latest data from the Harbour Report, an independent study of factory efficiency, nine of the ten most efficient auto assembly plants in North America are union plants, represented by either the UAW or the Canadian Auto Workers. (Harbour Report 2008, Media presentation, available at http://www.oliverwyman.com/ow/automotive.htm)

In addition, when factories are compared by vehicle segments – a compact car plant vs. a compact car plant, a pick-up truck plant vs. a pick-up truck plant – union plants are scored as the most efficient in eight out of nine vehicle segments.





Rick

[ALS]

I'm not a fan of unions for one reason. In most cases the union makes it almost impossible to boot the deadwood milking the job for a check.
Although if most unions were run like the USPS union I'd back unions much more.
I don't blame the unions as much as I blame the management for agreeing to these ridiculous contracts. A union can only get in a contract what management agrees to. PERIOD.

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by RLS

The “Jobs Bank” concept was pioneered by Japanese auto companies, who have had a no layoff policy in place for many years. The policies currently in place at Honda and Toyota, which pay workers full salary for an indefinite period, are more generous than job security programs in UAW-negotiated contracts.

Rick

So your defense for "job banks" which people sit in for years is that its good in Japan? Didn't Japan just have a catastrophic economic meltdown a few years ago?

Making 28.00 on an assembly line is insane. Its a no-skill job. I've worked assembly lines and packing lines before... no skill needed other then to show up and have working extremities. Plus that 28.00 is what the worker is paid, that doesn't include the excellent benefits or the pension plan.

There is no reason anyone should be working at a company that has been losing a billion+ a quarter for the last 2 years that isn't working to produce. Salaries should be slashed across the board from the top to the bottom, Shifts should be stopped and workers laid off.

Its called "cutting the fat". Saving 100K a year by not having a personal plane is a nice gesture... now cut 200 Million a year by trashing the job banks. Cut another 500 Million a year by reducing benefits or signfigantly increasing employee contribution. Save another 500 Million a year by reducing pension matching. Save another 250 Million a year by forcing early retirement and hiring new people at the low wages. Save a billion a year by eliminating 3rd shift and consolidating plants. Or close plants completely and shift business to larger more streamlined / modern plants.

Its simple economics, If your company is losing money then money must be cut from the spending to balance out what is being earned.

And if you are going to walk over to the Gov't and ask for money make damn sure you know where you need that money to go! Have the gov't cover the pensions! Take that 25 billion + whatever capital can be raised. Give it to whoever manages the pension fund and say "This is all you get until we turn a profit. Make it last".

And anyone that wants to strike over this unfair deal means they don't need the job. Fire them, you walk off the job you are no longer employed. This is business, its not gov't. If you want to protest you feel free to do that after your shift is over or before it starts.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by Dredly

I also agree that a wage should be in relation to the job being done and that the COMPANY should have the option to set this amount of money based on what they are willing to pay and what they can afford to pay.

You presumably believe in the free-market, which in turn is predicated on the basis of free contract which means in a labor contract (whether between employer and single employee or between employer and group of employees) the wages are agreed upon by TWO parties, not the unilateral prerogative of the employer only. If the employee or employees refuse the best offer given by the employer they are free to withhold their labor as individuals or a group.

Unions were a crucial piece of developing this country and ensuring that the working conditions were in place to move this country forward... since then they have become corrupt pieces of gov't backed organized crime.

Black people smoke crack.
Arabs are terrorists.
Gun owners are ignorant rednecks.

Aren't generalizations fun?

I've been in the labor movement for over a decade now, have worked with many unions and I'm only aware of three on a national level that have any significant organized crime influence. And I can say, without a single reservation, that my union, from the local to national level, has NO organized crime influence.

They are directly responsible for the downfall of the American auto org as well as the US's manufacturing ability as a whole.

Um, no...foreign competition is. Sure, labor costs are part of that, but you can hardly blame unions for doing their damn job-- improving wages and working conditions for their members. If the unions in other countries did as good of a job it wouldn't be a problem because there would be wage equilibrium or at least a reasonable wage floor.

Hell, the auto and manufacturing jobs we lost in the 1970s and 80s had more to do with the Marshall Plan and rebuilding of Japan than it did with American unions. And why are you giving a free pass to the politicians who gave PNTR to China despite labor and currency manipulations by the state or the politicians who passed NAFTA? Nah, much easier to blame it all on the unions. Why lay the blame on much more powerful institutions when you can call the smaller kid a bully and use it as an excuse to pick on him?

Honest days work for an honest days wage is a lost concept to unions.

Besides unions doing their job-- improving wages, benefits and working conditions for their members-- what evidence do you have to support this statement?

The amount paid is due to EXTORTION by GOV'T PROTECTED unions. If the company doesn't give in to demands then the Union takes their people off the job and work stops.

That's not extortion. That's the right of free contract. You don't pay what I want I withhold my labor. You don't pay us as a group what we want we all withhold our labor. Maybe we should do like China and ban strikes? Force people to work? Oh wait, we already have that-- it's called a Taft-Hartley injunction.

Getting rid of a Union is impossible due to gov't regulations and Union law.

Only someone completely unfamiliar with the NLRA and who's never dealt with the NLRB would make such an erroneous statement. Under the law all employees have to do is get 30% of their co-workers to sign up on "deauthorization/decertification cards". Then the employees may file a petition with the NLRB for a secret-ballot decertification election (if they want legal assistance dong this the NRTWF, an anti-union outfit, will provide free lawyers, but you don't even need lawyers to it). 50%+1 (simple majority) votes to decertify the union, no more union as far as the government's concerned and the employer has no legal obligation to recognize the union or bargain with them any longer.

As far as unions being "Government backed"-- ha! You ever dealt with the NLRB? I have, several times. For one thing, there are very few restrictions on employer conduct. What does exist is nearly impossible to enforce to any deterrent level. I've had people get fired during organizing campaigns because of their union activity (plainly illegal under the NLRA), and the best we can get for them, several months later, is reinstatement with back pay (minus whatever they earned in the interim)-- now you tell me, how many doggedly anti-union employers will such a penalty deter from breaking the law? And I've seen employers blatantly violate the law and the NLRB didn't do shit at all. I've seen NLRB election ballots where we know we've won impounded by the Feds for years before they were counted, and employers flat-out refuse to bargain (another violation of the law) and nothing happened to them. After Carey (President of the Teamsters) launched the UPS strike, the Feds punished him by trumping up corruption charges against him of which he was eventually acquitted, but ended up costing him the presidency.

Shit, we even had an employer STEAL dues money from our members, the NLRB did nothing and the D.A. refused to prosecute for larceny. Yeah...the government's really got our backs...I guess that's why we only have 7% of the private sector workforce as opposed to the REAL government-backed unions in China that have 100%. Don't make me laugh. Save that "government-backed Big Labor" argument for someone who doesn't know better. Anything we get is through shop-floor and industrial organizing-- the government's never given us shit except a bureaucratic method of regularizing industrial relations so there won't be strikes...and that's all we'll ever get from them.

The reason that so many new car companies are moving to the US is because they know that they can undercut American car manufacturers and get "affordable" labor and avoid tariff taxes. They also have no issue with telling the union to go fuck themselves.

Yep, that's why Hyundai did it...to avoid their own unions in South Korea. That doesn't mean that plant will always be non-union however if their employees choose otherwise.

Wages should be set by the market, not by unions!

Ah yes, the mysterious market forces that contain no rational actors. Oh, wait a minute, that's not true, markets contain...wait for it...wait for it...PEOPLE! And these people negotiate prices, both as individuals and as organizations/institutions. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it'll always be. It works on the labor side and the capital side and the consumer side.

You may think you are arguing from a free-market basis, but in reality, extrapolating your arguments to their logical conclusion would nullify the basis of free market theory-- the right of free contract.

Unions = BAD

Arguments informed by ideology but not facts + sweeping generalizations = WORSE