Question about the UAW

[Lanshark]

The bailout to Chrysler and GM has a provision that the union workers at those plants must have their compensation package (salary/benefits) reduced to match the average worker at non-union Toyota and Honda plants in the US.

If compensation in both union and non union plants becomes equal, what benefit is the UAW providing its members?

I've never been a member of a union but my FIL retired from the steel mills in Gary, IN. Years ago they were needed to keep their employees safe and to make sure they were treated fairly.

Are they still needed?

 

[eliza61]

I think they serve a need but problems come into place when unions become unflexible.
My dh worked for a major oil refinery and the union wasn't needed so much for salary negotiations but for safety issues. Management refused to repair equipment and provide personal protection gear for workers. I mean this is an oil refinery, talk about a dangerous work environment. So in this case the union was/is most definitely needed.

 

[kirbsam]

i think osha takes care of safety issues now. too many fat cats at the top taking dues and trying to justify their own existence.

 

[rascalmom]

I have been pretty vocal on some other threads against the auto bailout - primarily because I think it will be too hard for these companies to turn around and become viable without shedding some of the overburdensome requirements of the union contracts.

That said, I do think in some instances the unions have a benefit to workers. The right to have a collective bargaining agreement is important to teachers & other government workers.

I do think the UAW benefits the auto workers with high wages & benefits - much more so than the average blue collar worker in other industries. Do I think those wages & benefits are fair & justified?.......that is another matter entirely. The auto industry is an example to me of the unions going too far in their demands and the weilding of their power. In that area, I think they have far outlived their usefulness and are ultimately harming the industries that have provided jobs.

Wage & contract negotiation needs to become more realistic. It is important to realize the union contracts effect not just hourly wages (which will become more in line per current contracts, particularly as older workers retire), but in contract-specified inefficiencies which lead to paying for more labor hours, etc. I have read that it takes almost twice as many labor hours for the domestic automakers to produce a car than it does for the foreign-owned American auto plants. Part of that may have to do with newer & more efficient production facilities....but much has to do with union contract specifications.

I do think OSHA takes care of most safety issues these days. I am involved in the ownership or management of 3 businesses - all non-union, and there are regular safety inspections and requirements to keep all workers in each of those 3 very different businesses safe.

I don't have a problem with unions existing - I just think every state ought to have right-to-work laws. In that way, union membership becomes optional and will likely continue to exist in places where it is truly needed.

You have to wonder if Michican and other hard-hit areas would be attracting diversified industries if they had better business environments. With the stranglehold the UAW has on that area, I can't imagine any new business wanting to start up there and risk the same labor issues that they see the automakers face.

 

[Lanshark]

I know that OSHA now takes care of a lot of the safety issues. I would love to see the big 3 be able to compete. Not because I like their product but because of those that depend on them for their jobs

 

[forgop]

My dad retired as a pipefitter from a former GM plant and I was a supervisor in UAW plants for about 5 years. I obviously have differing perspectives from what I've seen and learned.

Unions had their day, but I think what they do is create so much bureaucracy that cripples companies from operating efficiently. A decent size UAW plant will spend MILLIONS just paying the elected union officials who don't contribute a single minute of work. I've seen these guys paid for 16 hours/day, 365 days a year whether they're in the plant or not.

As bad as the management is at GM and many others, the unions are even worse.

 

[bicker]

The bailout to Chrysler and GM has a provision that the union workers at those plants must have their compensation package (salary/benefits) reduced to match the average worker at non-union Toyota and Honda plants in the US.

If compensation in both union and non union plants becomes equal, what benefit is the UAW providing its members?

The point, to some extent, is to eliminate the advantage that union workers extort from the industry though strong-armed leverage. Those advantages are part-contributors to the disadvantage that the US automakers suffer from, that keeps them from being able to compete effectively with other automakers, and, in turn, has contributed to leading them to the brink of ruin.

However, many believe that the language of conditions on the unions in the bail-out package are vague enough that the Obama administration can basically ignore most of them, and let the unions effectively ignore most of them, thereby under-cutting the intent of the bail-out.

:toilet flush:

 

[Galahad]

The right to have a collective bargaining agreement is important to teachers & other government workers.

How so?

 

[Dan Murphy]

In the early and mid years of the 20th century, trade and labor unions were very needed, effective, helpful and did move working people ahead, in compensation, working conditions, safety and benefits. Today, in the early years of the 21st century, the government, with its myriad of laws and departments, IMO, have pretty much eliminated the need for unions, at least as they existed in the past.

 

[Galahad]

In the early and mid years of the 20th century, trade and labor unions were very needed, effective, helpful

Indeed. And I think there is a distinct difference between trade unions and labor unions.

 

[bicker]

I think the characterization "important" is very subjective. Do teachers "need" collective bargaining in order to be effective educators? I think most would agree that, objectively, no: Education, itself, goes back thousands of years, and collective bargaining, itself, is relatively new.

I don't see teachers as any different from people in my company, with regard to the "importance" that collective bargaining would play. The difference is that teachers are unionized so can collectively bargain, while folks at my company are not and cannot. Other than that, there is no difference; in other words, the only difference is that they can do it.

Collective bargaining applies the leverage inherent in the threat that all the workers for an entity will stop working unless "demands are met". That's a good thing for society when that leverage is used to address societal needs: Reduction in the number of working poor, reduction in the cost of indigent health care costs, etc. It is a bad thing for society when that leverage is used to address personal needs: Increase in taxes (or, for commercial entities, prices) to account for higher labor costs.

 

[mickeysgal]

IYou have to wonder if Michican and other hard-hit areas would be attracting diversified industries if they had better business environments. With the stranglehold the UAW has on that area, I can't imagine any new business wanting to start up there and risk the same labor issues that they see the automakers face.

 

[bicker]

That is a really good point: Would any business want to move to Michigan, even putting aside the economic climate, but rather just due to the long history of (for lack of a better term) antagonism towards industry in Michigan? I wonder how Michigan and Massachusetts compare, over the last seventeen years (since William Weld was elected governor of Massachusetts), with regard to attracting a diversified employment base to their respective states. It think that is one metric that all state government should be evaluated on, monthly if necessary, to put the appropriate pressure on government to ensure their state can better withstand crises such as this one.

 

[corndog]

If I were in union leadership and I wanted to make myself relevant again, I would be doing everything possible to make the union the provider of health insurance instead of the employers.

 

[Lanshark]

In the early and mid years of the 20th century, trade and labor unions were very needed, effective, helpful and did move working people ahead, in compensation, working conditions, safety and benefits. Today, in the early years of the 21st century, the government, with its myriad of laws and departments, IMO, have pretty much eliminated the need for unions, at least as they existed in the past.

Exactly how I feel. I believe the UAW has more cost than benefit therefore does more harm than good

 

[CarlaKay]

Unions are still needed and still play an important role. If the Southern GOP Senators got their way, the UAW would have been gutted which would have allowed the foriegn automakers to lower wages. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raynor18-2008dec18,0,4066838.story

However, an internal Toyota report, leaked to the Detroit Free Press last year, reveals that the company wants to slash $300 million out of its rising labor costs by 2011. The report indicated that Toyota no longer wants to "tie [itself] so closely to the U.S. auto industry." Instead, the company intends to benchmark the prevailing manufacturing wage in the state in which a plant is located. The Free Press reported that in Kentucky, where the company is headquartered, this wage is $12.64 an hour, according to federal labor statistics, less than half Toyota's $30-an-hour wage.

If the companies, with the support of their senators, can wipe out or greatly weaken the UAW, they will be free to implement their plan.

But their plan will not work. The Bush administration is likely to keep the Big Three alive long enough for President-elect Barack Obama to construct a real solution. Democrats and even most Republicans understand that a nation that has already lost 2 million jobs this year cannot afford to put at risk 3 million more.

The Southern union hating GOP Senators did not succeed in the plan. Without unions, you will see lower wages across the country which was the goal of these partisan and hateful GOP Southern Senators in the first place.

 

[mickeysgal]

Unions are still needed and still play an important role. If the Southern GOP Senators got their way, the UAW would have been gutted which would have allowed the foriegn automakers to lower wages. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raynor18-2008dec18,0,4066838.storyThe Southern union hating GOP Senators did not succeed in the plan. Without unions, you will see lower wages across the country which was the goal of these partisan and hateful GOP Southern Senators in the first place.

You have got to be a union rep or a union business agent. You've got your own brand of hate rhetoric down to a science in your posts across these UAW threads.

If wages were to decline without a union in place then they would decline to what the market would bear due to regular industry competition, not an overinflated, artifical level set by a union contract. And normal industry competition setting the bar for wage compensation isn't such a bad thing. Only problem is unions want you to believe that no one can survive without them which is far from the actual truth.

 

[Mom2Nick]

Unions are obsolete and have been for some time.

 

[bicker]

If wages were to decline without a union in place then they would decline to what the market would bear due to regular industry competition, not an overinflated, artifical level set by a union contract. And normal industry competition setting the bar for wage compensation isn't such a bad thing.

Indeed, it is perfectly fine for most people... why should certain people be treated better than the rest of us?