[Y3a]

I used to be a 'Ford Man" in the 1960's and early 70's. I got tired of a different pattern of chrome applied to the same old american junk year after year. I've been a VW man since.
I was listening to the news(why, I don't know...) and they said that the asian car manufacturers MADE over $1K per car, whereas the American cars COST the manufacturers $2-400 per car, and said it was due to the high cost of union labor. So, what IS the value of Unions again???

[Spliffdaddy]

Labor unions essentially have no value - now that federal law dictates wages and working conditions.

I've often said that the AFL-CIO and any union locals affiliated with them are simply a funding mechanism for the DNC. It's true, and easily verifiable.

[Dork.]

They might be bundling in the entire cost of the labor, not just salaries..... health care and pensions are a huge cost for any US manufacturer that asian manufacturers do not need to provide at nearly the same level....

[Maflynn]

I wouldn't say they have no value but in the automotive industry the successes and excesses of the past painted both GM and Ford into a finanical bind. The line workers get paid a lot of money and have awesome benefits but don't forget the office workers get even more and are not union, so Ford's problems were not caused solely by unions.

As for the value of unions, without them we wouldn't have a 40 hour work week and have weekends off. They played an intregral role in worker's rights. I fear a lot of those rights are now (or will be) lost again in the threat of job loss.

I work as a programmer and the threat of outsourcing is so large at my company that they use that to continue to strip away the benefits, require longer hours and expect us to work weekends. In this environment I can see unions helping out but alas I don't see anything on the horizen.

Mike

[Montezuma58]

I might buy the pension costs as being a factor. But those are the results of the unions not the government. The Asian companies build loads of cars in North America so they have comparable health care cost at least for the manufacturing side of the company.

A big portion of the problem is that the US manufacturers had to much inertia to respond to changing markets quick enough. If Ford had not had strong truck sales for the last couple of decades they would of had to make these cuts years ago.

BTW I prefer the acronym ****ed Over Rebuilt Dodge.

[Dork.]

Fix Or Repair Daily!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Labor unions essentially have no value - now that federal law dictates wages and working conditions.

I've often said that the AFL-CIO and any union locals affiliated with them are simply a funding mechanism for the DNC. It's true, and easily verifiable.

You want to give the government more control over wages and working conditions?

Commie bastard! Who are you, and what did you do with Spliff?


As for the AFL-CIO being "simply" a funding mechanism for the DNC, I've found when dealing with labor unions it's far more insightful to look for their motivation in activities that are, shall we say, not easily verifiable.

In other words, you put the cart before the severed horse head.

[Sky Captain]

Are the Ford assembly plants in Canada still?

[OldManMac]

The blame lies on both sides of the fence, but at the end of the day, it is management's duty to see to it that the company is properly run. The unions have done what unions do; protect their workers and try to get them the best pay and benefits possible. What's happened is that the American auto industry rode a decades long wave of prosperity, where it really didn't matter how much anyone made, because people were buying the product, and there was little competition. Management and the unions were satisfied. Then competition entered the scene and management failed to react quickly enough (in the 60s, when the Japanese were bringing their junky little cars to the U. S. shores for the first time, auto execs laughed and dismissed them as nothing significant), and we have the results we have today. Today the unions have become everybody's favorite whipping boy because of the philosophy that prevails in this country, which is basically "I got mine, and don't worry about how I got it; now you get yours, and I'll worry about how you get it." In other words, everybody conveniently looks the other way when the execs reap obscene bonus and golden parachutes and perqs and pay packages (the average U. S. CEO earns over 400 times what an average worker makes, while it is less than 200 times for an average Japanese CEO). So we point our fingers at Mr. Johnny on the Line and tell him he's making too much money for what he does, and we cut his job, but we point to Mr. Jimmy in his McMansion and say what a fine gentleman he must be, as he's smart enough to run company ABC into the ground.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I used to be a 'Ford Man" in the 1960's and early 70's. I got tired of a different pattern of chrome applied to the same old american junk year after year. I've been a VW man since.
I was listening to the news(why, I don't know...) and they said that the asian car manufacturers MADE over $1K per car, whereas the American cars COST the manufacturers $2-400 per car, and said it was due to the high cost of union labor. So, what IS the value of Unions again???

It has less to do with a union and more to do with the cost of healthcare. I would say what the unions are doing today are preventing corporations from stripping their healthcare benefits or transferring the cost of those benefits to the worker (that was part of the case in both the NY transit strike and the Philly transit workers strike as well as one strike at a local school district down here.)

The AFL-CIO, Teamsters, etc. look out for the best interest of their workers. They are not perfect but without them corporations would walk all over a lot of people and there would be more than the 40 million or so Americans without healthcare coverage.

I'm not sure how much, if anything, the unions have done in the past to help the company out but the stink comes both ways on this. If the cost of labor cuts into Fords profits management can also be blamed for not properly managing the company, disregarding the competitveness of the foreign auto industry, isolating themselves from the modern, global buiness structure and for having bad negotiators when dealing with their unions.

I wish I had a union - my ER visit deductible just went up to $100 and my office visit copay is now $25. Eventually things are going to come to a head between workers and corporations over health care cost. Eventually we're going to end up with Federally subsidized healthcare coverage.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I used to be a 'Ford Man" in the 1960's and early 70's. I got tired of a different pattern of chrome applied to the same old american junk year after year. I've been a VW man since.
I was listening to the news(why, I don't know...) and they said that the asian car manufacturers MADE over $1K per car, whereas the American cars COST the manufacturers $2-400 per car, and said it was due to the high cost of union labor. So, what IS the value of Unions again???

It has less to do with a union and more to do with the cost of healthcare. I would say what the unions are doing today are preventing corporations from stripping their healthcare benefits or transferring the cost of those benefits to the worker (that was part of the case in both the NY transit strike and the Philly transit workers strike as well as one strike at a local school district down here.)

The AFL-CIO, Teamsters, etc. look out for the best interest of their workers. They are not perfect but without them corporations would walk all over a lot of people and there would be more than the 40 million or so Americans without healthcare coverage.

I'm not sure how much, if anything, the unions have done in the past to help the company out but the stink comes both ways on this. If the cost of labor cuts into Fords profits management can also be blamed for not properly managing the company, disregarding the competitveness of the foreign auto industry, isolating themselves from the modern, global buiness structure and for having bad negotiators when dealing with their unions.

I wish I had a union - my ER visit deductible just went up to $100 and my office visit copay is now $25. Eventually things are going to come to a head between workers and corporations over health care cost. Eventually we're going to end up with Federally subsidized healthcare coverage.

[boots]

The stats I heard yesterday on the news were that the union contract stipulates, like, $26 per hour. But if you figure in the benefits (read: healthcare) it is really a liability of about $60 per hour. Sorry I don't remember the exact numbers, but I know I'm only off by a couple of bucks on each number. That's huge.

Add to that the union stipulation that all the employees continue to get paid 90% of that when the plants get shut down until the contract ends, and it's a huge financial liability for Ford's books. On the upside, there won't be 30,000 people joining the unemployment roles because of it. But I do tend to think that the unions have negotiated themselves out of jobs because they force unrealistic business models to extend far beyond their normal lives.

[thunderous_funker]

RIRedinPA and KarlG nailed it already.

Why do we blame unions for the contracts but not blame the CEO's that also negotiated that contract. The union didn't show up, write its own checks and go home.

The union also didn't design cars no one wanted to buy. The union didn't fail to invest in alternative fuels or modern manufacturing techniques. In fact, the union had little or no say in all the major decisions that have imperiled the US auto makers.

Did the union deflate the dollar? Did the union set global steel prices? Did the union set healthcare costs which, by the way, is the single largest cost to the industry. GM spends more on healthcare than on steel. So it isn't even China's fault for that one.

Hell, wanna save the auto industry? Bust the insurance and drug companies.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

RIRedinPA and KarlG nailed it already.

Why do we blame unions for the contracts but not blame the CEO's that also negotiated that contract. The union didn't show up, write its own checks and go home.

The union also didn't design cars no one wanted to buy. The union didn't fail to invest in alternative fuels or modern manufacturing techniques. In fact, the union had little or no say in all the major decisions that have imperiled the US auto makers.

Did the union deflate the dollar? Did the union set global steel prices? Did the union set healthcare costs which, by the way, is the single largest cost to the industry. GM spends more on healthcare than on steel. So it isn't even China's fault for that one.

Hell, wanna save the auto industry? Bust the insurance and drug companies.

Another smackdown, courtesy of thunderous_funker. You totally rule.

[Spliffdaddy]

So....you're suggesting that the auto industry has overly rewarded its employees - to the point that it's hurting their business?

Isn't that what the liberal ideology is all about?

Face it. Labor unions are a form of legalized extortion.

When the medical service industry overly rewards itself at YOUR expense - you don't blame yourself for paying for it, do you? I mean, you didn't have a choice. Either you pay or you don't get the work done.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So....you're suggesting that the auto industry has overly rewarded its employees - to the point that it's hurting their business?

Isn't that what the liberal ideology is all about?

Face it. Labor unions are a form of legalized extortion.

When the medical service industry overly rewards itself at YOUR expense - you don't blame yourself for paying for it, do you? I mean, you didn't have a choice. Either you pay or you don't get the work done.

Unfortunately, you still don't get it. If I go to my boss and demand a raise, it's up to him whether to decide if it's excessive. At the end of the day, management has to make the decisions as to what's best for the company; that's what they're paid to do, no ifs ands or buts. As usual, you can only see one side of any argument. You call labor unions legalized extortion (which is partially correct, but you think you're worth so much as well, and do what you can to get that worth), yet, by refusing to address the issue of overpaid management, you act as an apologist for them. There's two sides to every coin.

[subego]

Originally Posted by KarlG

You call labor unions legalized extortion (which is partially correct, but you think you're worth so much as well, and do what you can to get that worth), yet, by refusing to address the issue of overpaid management, you act as an apologist for them. There's two sides to every coin.

[Spliffdaddy]

I was a overpaid union member for almost a decade. You won't catch me apologizing for either management or occupational workers. The overpaid management you refer to are typically *elected* members of the board of directors. Their salaries are approved by the shareholders. And, absolutely, they are overpaid. Upper and middle management of most large corporations are not typically overpaid. Heck, I made more money than the district level manager of AT&T - and I drove a forklift at the time.

I didn't really start making *good* money until I started working for myself. Which sounds great until you actually do it. Most days I wish I had my old union job back. So I could sit on my ass and make $70k a year and get free medical insurance and six weeks of paid vacation.

Last I checked, AT&T wasn't doing very good. Go figure.

Worse yet, they probably had to hire 3 mofos to replace me.

Labor unions are archaic, pointless organizations. You can't defend their continued existence by virtue of the fact that some managers are overpaid.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Labor unions essentially have no value - now that federal law dictates wages and working conditions.

I've often said that the AFL-CIO and any union locals affiliated with them are simply a funding mechanism for the DNC. It's true, and easily verifiable.

You also said that you were going to go to Iran and be a martyr.... and yet here you are, still posting online.

I guess it was just another empty threat?

[James L]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

RIRedinPA and KarlG nailed it already.

Why do we blame unions for the contracts but not blame the CEO's that also negotiated that contract. The union didn't show up, write its own checks and go home.

The union also didn't design cars no one wanted to buy. The union didn't fail to invest in alternative fuels or modern manufacturing techniques. In fact, the union had little or no say in all the major decisions that have imperiled the US auto makers.

Did the union deflate the dollar? Did the union set global steel prices? Did the union set healthcare costs which, by the way, is the single largest cost to the industry. GM spends more on healthcare than on steel. So it isn't even China's fault for that one.

Hell, wanna save the auto industry? Bust the insurance and drug companies.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Management agreed to a union deal, and signed a contract with the union to pay a certain amount.

How is that the unions fault again?

[Railroader]

If a ship runs aground, and the crew did exactly as the captain commanded, who do you blame for the accident?

[Y3a]

I would have been better to NEVER sign agreements with unions. I guess then you would try to hire non-union auto workers and hope the striking union thugs wouldn't intimidate the non-union guys or set the factories on fire.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Did the union set healthcare costs which, by the way, is the single largest cost to the industry. GM spends more on healthcare than on steel. So it isn't even China's fault for that one.

Hell, wanna save the auto industry? Bust the insurance and drug companies.

I think this is the main point that a lot of people aren't addressing. Health care costs are getting higher, far outstripping inflation. There are many reasons why, and not all of them center around greed. But the fact is that in this country, the way we do health insurance masks the true cost of health care. Most people don't care about the total price tag, they just care when their co-payment goes up.

There's a good friend of mine who's an old-school, "Alex P. Keaton" kind of free-market Republican who has determined that he actually wants the govermnent more involved in the health care process. He, of course, wants to see the current system re-structured first so that people are more aware of the true cost of health care, he does not want to see Hillary anywhere near the final plan, and he desperately wants to see malpractive lawsuit reform first.

But his main motivation is to take the responsibility for paying for health care "benefits" away from corporations. His attitude is that the rising cost of health care will eventually make it too expensive for American businesses to compete globally. (If Ford and GM are any indication, that day may already be here.) If the health care system in this country is restructured so that corporations do not take on that risk, they can keep more of their money in profits and afford to pay higher wages. Supply-sider that he is, he thinks the increased tax revenue from all this new-found profit will pay for health care reform all by itself. I think he underestimates the supply-side effect, but then again, I always thought that supply-side economics was bunk, anyway.

[Y3a]

The losing lawyers should pay the court costs.