UAW Concessions?

[Tink888]

I guess this question kind of goes with the bail-out threads. I don't know if we should or shouldn't bail out the auto industry - I feel split.

I heard on a radio show yesterday that when you factor in benefits, the average auto worker makes upwards of 60.00 per hour. (I don't know if it's true or not - just what was said on the radio).

My question is since things are so bad, have the union members taken concessions in pay, benefits, etc? It not, why not? Are they willing to?

I'm not asking because I'm anti-union or pro-union. I work for a non-union corporation in an industry especially hard it by the mortgage melt-down. We have seen huge layoffs and taken an 18% pay decrease this year. We don't like it, but we're doing it because we have no choice and want to keep our jobs. Lots of companies are doing this right now.

I'm just wondering if unions are willing to make the same sacrifices?

My post isn't an attack on any group, I just am curious about this and what others think.

 

[whjoyjr]

Then the upper management structure needs to take one as well, including the Board of Directors.

When the dot com I worked for was failing, the CEO took zero salary for a year, and asked for the rest of the senior staff to do so as well. Only 20% did. I did not take a pay cut per se, but I worked, on average, 50 hour weeks.

Have management put up first.

 

[Purseval]

They said on Fox News the other day that $1500 of the price of each car sold by GM goes to pay for benefits vs $110 for a Toyota and no bailout will help unless they find a way to bring those costs down. Declaring bankruptcy will let them renegotiate their benefit and pension plans, it's probably a better strategy in the long run than a government loan which has little chance of ever being repaid.

 

[RockNRollerGator]

The UAW would probably rather let their company fail then take any concessions, like what happened at Eastern Airlines.

Also, GM has said they have no interest in restructuring if they go bankrupt. If they declare bankruptcy, that's that for GM.

 

[mickeysgal]

Declaring bankruptcy will let them renegotiate their benefit and pension plans, it's probably a better strategy in the long run than a government loan which has little chance of ever being repaid.

Just trying to understand which is preferable...a bankruptcy or a bailout? What is so horrible about declaring a bankruptcy?

 

[Hoodie]

The problem is the UAW. This is a UAW bailout, not an auto industry bailout.

The big three can compete with Toyota, Honda, etc. with the higher priced SUVs and big cars. They can't compete with the smaller, lower priced cars because the construction costs and amount needed to cover wages and benefits is more than the car is actually worth.

The UAW needs BIG concessions to make this work. I don't see it happening though. Unions have a history of preferring to keep their perks rather than keeping jobs.

 

[manning]

The UAW would probably rather let their company fail then take any concessions, like what happened at Eastern Airlines.

Also, GM has said they have no interest in restructuring if they go bankrupt. If they declare bankruptcy, that's that for GM.

And what happens to the employees? They lose everything. That is one thing I don't like about the unions. They take the all or nothing stance instead of concessions and like Eastern Airline the employees lose everything. Unions have failed to adapt to today's economy. It is now worldwide. Corporations are more willing to pull the plug and move overseas today.

One of the biggest jokes I heard was a union leader say we need to organize in China. He didn't have a response when the other guy said go ahead and try and more than likely you will return in a box.

When I was a kid in the 50's I asked my dad why we had it so good. He said "we are the only one's standing. We bombed Europe and japan into the ground. Mark my words things will get tougher for you when you grow up when they get back on their feet." This from a man who didn't get to go to high school.

 

[powellrj]

I am on a roll today, see my HBO post.

When they were ready to close Guild Lamp in our town, the Union STILL voted to strike. They knew they would close the plant, in the next few months and they still voted to strike which only caused them to close the plant sooner.

While I hate what is happening, I can't see where a bail out will do anything except prolong the inevitable. They need a complete re haul and that just won't happen.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

The UAW would probably rather let their company fail then take any concessions, like what happened at Eastern Airlines.

Also, GM has said they have no interest in restructuring if they go bankrupt. If they declare bankruptcy, that's that for GM.

If the union is that stubborn, then let the company fail and then everyone will be out of job. This is yet another reason I don't like unions, they just don't always want to do what's right for the company. A friend of mine use to work for Cape Cod Healthcare, he'd been there for 35 years (he was let go). Because things have been tough all over, and because of the way some of the HMO's are performing, the hospital has been losing money. So like any other company, they started laying workers off. The current union contract stipulates that each member pays nothing for their healthcare, nothing! Well, the hospital asked the union to renegotiate the contract so the hospital can save some jobs. I'm sure you guys can guess what the answer was. No. So the hospital started laying union members off. Tough luck, but the union had it's chance.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

If the union is that stubborn, then let the company fail and then everyone will be out of job. This is yet another reason I don't like unions, they just don't always want to do what's right for the company. A friend of mine use to work for Cape Cod Healthcare, he'd been there for 35 years (he was let go). Because things have been tough all over, and because of the way some of the HMO's are performing, the hospital has been losing money. So like any other company, they started laying workers off. The current union contract stipulates that each member pays nothing for their healthcare, nothing! Well, the hospital asked the union to renegotiate the contract so the hospital can save some jobs. I'm sure you guys can guess what the answer was. No. So the hospital started laying union members off. Tough luck, but the union had it's chance.

I totally agree. If the union won't compromise and restructure with pay cuts and cuts in benefits, so they are more competitive and to save the company, then they need to fail. Just handing them money is NOT going to solve their problem, it will just be a waste of taxpayers money.

 

[Golf4food]

Unions were necessary "back in the day" when companies more or less had monopolies, business was nearly all local, and there was little competition or motivation to treat employees well (think Chinese sweat shops today). Now? We have laws and regulations and a global economy with lots of competition. Unions have not adapted and their contracts are now dragging down the companies that keep them alive and will eventually kill both the company and the union (and the employees by proxy). Unions today do more harm than good in general (my mother still is part of a union and my father was before retiring, so I'm not just speaking out of hand). They might help in some instances, but for the most part I see them as a one step forward, two steps back situation. Eventually they will cause their industries to fail if they don't adapt to the modern economy and there will be no union, no company, and no jobs for any of them.

 

[nahbois2000]

I am also in the camp of not bailing out unions. There is no more cradle to grave companies.

If over $1k over every car sale has to go to unions, that is crazy!

Don’t support them one ounce

 

[whjoyjr]

I am also in the camp of not bailing out unions. There is no more cradle to grave companies.

If over $1k over every car sale has to go to unions, that is crazy!

Don’t support them one ounce

The healthcare provisions were part of the total compensation package, just as were the pensions. The workforce took lower pay in exchange for the benefit packages.

Where times were good, the executives took out multi-millions, if not billions. The unions still got what was in the contract. Later, after the wealth was looted, everyone wants the very people who had no control over the bad business decisions are asked to give, and NO ONE ON THIS BOARD has called for the executive committee to sacrifice one bit...

 

[nahbois2000]

The healthcare provisions were part of the total compensation package, just as were the pensions. The workforce took lower pay in exchange for the benefit packages.

Where times were good, the executives took out multi-millions, if not billions. The unions still got what was in ourcontract. Later, after the wealth was looted, everyone wants the very people who had no control over the bad business decisions are asked to give, and NO ONE ON THIS BOARD has called for the executive committee to sacrifice one bit...

Because as a tax payer, I am not bailing out someone for lifetime benefits and the costs that come along with it. This is with the union and the company, not me. If the company can not support it, oh well. That is not our problem.

I don't want to see large companies like this go under. The lost of not just their jobs, but all the other companies (from cattle ranchers to electronic companies) would be impacted. Jobs would be lost from all of those fields.

If ALL those people keep their employement because us tax payers don't bail out life time benefits for union folks, well take that in a heartbeat. I rather have everyone working, then supporting ex-workers and their medical costs.

 

[RitaZ.]

Unions were necessary "back in the day" when companies more or less had monopolies, business was nearly all local, and there was little competition or motivation to treat employees well (think Chinese sweat shops today). Now? We have laws and regulations and a global economy with lots of competition. Unions have not adapted and their contracts are now dragging down the companies that keep them alive and will eventually kill both the company and the union (and the employees by proxy). Unions today do more harm than good in general (my mother still is part of a union and my father was before retiring, so I'm not just speaking out of hand). They might help in some instances, but for the most part I see them as a one step forward, two steps back situation. Eventually they will cause their industries to fail if they don't adapt to the modern economy and there will be no union, no company, and no jobs for any of them.

 

[whjoyjr]

Because as a tax payer, I am not bailing out someone for lifetime benefits and the costs that come along with it. This is with the union and the company, not me. If the company can not support it, oh well. That is not our problem.

I don't want to see large companies like this go under. The lost of not just their jobs, but all the other companies (from cattle ranchers to electronic companies) would be impacted. Jobs would be lost from all of those fields.

If ALL those people keep their employement because us tax payers don't bail out life time benefits for union folks, well take that in a heartbeat. I rather have everyone working, then supporting ex-workers and their medical costs.

But the Union members have to get taken?

Can you say double standard?

 

[whjoyjr]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-25-1306366335_x.htm

Some snips:

"General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner received compensation valued at $15.7 million for 2007, up 64 percent from the previous year, according to a federal regulatory filing the company made on Friday."

"GM lost a record $38.7 billion in 2007, largely due to a charge for unused tax credits. Without the charges and other one-time items, the company lost $23 million."

Also in the filing, the company said it had changed its pension plan so executives can retire at age 60 with full benefits. The company's retirement age was 62. The AP does not include pensions in its compensation figure.

Wagoner received $45,291 for personal and business use of company aircraft, $164,561 worth of security benefits and $185,472 for life insurance and death benefits, according to the filing.

"He said investors who oppose to pay packages can only vote against the members of the board's compensation committee who are seeking re-election, which he called "a blunt and insufficient instrument for registering dissatisfaction."

GM's board said it would oppose the measure, noting that it discusses compensation issues with large investors.

"We do not believe a symbolic annual advisory vote would provide the Board with any useful information," the company said."

Yeah, the union benefits are what is really hurting GM...

 

[RitaE]

Why is it always an either/or proposition? It's not the Union's fault, it is Management. It isn't poor Management, it is the unreasonable Union demands.

Well hey -- GUESS WHAT? There is no law of physics that says only one person or organization can be at fault in one given moment.

Yes, any company that is receiving Federal Funds should have limits placed upon their compensation structures for executive employees. Yes, if UAW auto workers want to keep their jobs, they are going to have to agree to major concessions.

JMHO.

 

[bsnyder]

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That's a 52 percent differential from Toyota's (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

And then there's this:

If you’ve followed developments in the auto industry at any time during the past couple couple decades, you’ve probably heard of GM’s “Jobs Bank.” This nausea-inducing scam was the concoction of the UAW in the 1980s. Rather than allow GM to layoff workers when conditions warranted, the UAW had GM assign workers to the Jobs Bank, where they were paid almost full wages and benefits NOT to work. The Jobs Bank was pitched nominally as a retraining program, where workers would acquire the skills and train themselves in the technologies and techniques of the future, or where “workers” could perform community services.

Alas, the Jobs Bank became little more than a casino and lounge, where workers would report for a full day of leisure, reading newspapers, playing cards, and generally not adding value to GM’s vehicles. (Sounds a bit like my job description, actually.) Now you know why a handle falls off or you hear a tinny sound when you slam your Chevy’s door.

Understandably, GM and the UAW generally don’t like to talk about the jobs bank. It sort of undermines the credibility of the argument that a bailout would save hard working Americans’ jobs. But it still exists and estimates are that thousands of workers report there for duty every day.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/13/a-cancer-on-the-big-three/

A government bailout without concessions by the UAW and management would be insane. But we'll probably do it anyway.

 

[kirbsam]

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That's a 52 percent differential from Toyota's (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

And then there's this:



http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/13/a-cancer-on-the-big-three/

A government bailout without concessions by the UAW and management would be insane. But we'll probably do it anyway.

great post.