A modern parable

[DMD]

I got this email - it is funny and has kernels of truth, but is it really accurate completely?

 

-----------------------

 

 

A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

 

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

 

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

 

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.

 

Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

 

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

 

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

 

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to "equal the competition" and

some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

 

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

 

Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.

 

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India .

 

Sadly, the End.

 

Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

 

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US .. The last quarter's results:

 

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

 

Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses¦.

 

IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY

[Guest Chappy]

 

You're right the sad part is that we're laughing at ourselves which kind of fits with the story. Great symbolism with the story.

[H8tank]

I have reported this thread.

[Savage Beatings]

Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

 

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US .. The last quarter's results:

 

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

 

Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses¦.

 

Not too hard to figure out actually...

 

Ford = UAW

Toyota (and the other Japanese auto factories in the U.S.) = Non-Union

[Cunning Linguist]

Not too hard to figure out actually...

 

Ford = UAW

Toyota (and the other Japanese auto factories in the U.S.) = Non-Union

 

Bingo.

[rocknrobn26]

Not too hard to figure out actually...

 

Ford = UAW

Toyota (and the other Japanese auto factories in the U.S.) = Non-Union

 

Yeah, I forgot the UAW continues to hand out the fat raises for the execs.

[DMD]

Not too hard to figure out actually...

 

Ford = UAW

Toyota (and the other Japanese auto factories in the U.S.) = Non-Union

 

What are the differences between wages paid by Toyota and by Ford? Is it really that simple? I would suspect the answer is far more complicated and much more "systemic".

 

Having worked in a large corporation for 18 years in many capacities, I can see the truisms in the parable about layers of management and how they think a good old quality campaign (or whatever the fad is) will fix the problem. I have also seen bonuses and such paid out to higher level execs seemingly in contradiction to the direction and success of the company.

 

I am not taking a stand on either side, just wondering why it is that a huge company like Ford can see Toyota apparently surpass them when once upon a time, Ford was a global king and Toyota was just an importer of cheap cars. I do wonder how Toyota and Ford compare in salaries and perks.

 

And while it is unsavory to see execs get big bonuses, in the grand scheme their payments are a drop in a very big bucket.

[Puddy]

Toyota workers in Kentucky plant made more than UAW members last year

Posted Jan 31st 2007 5:16PM by John Neff

Filed under: Earnings/Financials

 

 

 

Last year was the first time that non-unionized workers at a foreign-owned assembly plant made more than members of the United Auto Workers union make on average in a year. The Detroit Free Press reveals in a very interesting article that Toyota paid out bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000 last year at its largest U.S. plant in Georgetown, KY. Combined with the base pay made by a non-union worker at the plant, that equates to $30/hour or $60,000/year based on a 2,000-hour work year. That is more than the $27/hour or $54,000 a UAW member made on average last year. Union workers, or course, hardly received any profit sharing bonuses last year due to the poor overall performance of the domestic automakers.

 

This isn't actually surprising, as a matter of fact it was bound to happen. In many instances, Toyota and other large foreign automakers operating assembly plants in the U.S. pay their workers near-UAW wages in an effort to dissuade them from unionizing. In a year when Toyota's sales have grown to record levels and the domestics are losing market share fast, it was inevitable that Toyota's big bonuses would put the pay of its assembly workers in the U.S. ahead of the UAW, which saw no bonuses last year and likely won't for a few. The lack of overtime hours was another hit to the UAW that dropped the pay for many of its members. In time, as the domestics (if the domestics?) recover and the big bonus checks are in the mail again, we expect the UAW's pay to again top that of any non-union assembly workers in the U.S.

 

We recommend reading the whole article written by Jason Roberson from the Free Press, as there's a lot of layers to dig through with this story.

 

[source: Detroit Free Press]

[Chavez]

Not too hard to figure out actually...

 

Ford = UAW

Toyota (and the other Japanese auto factories in the U.S.) = Non-Union

Good call, the union is completely responsible for poor management, bad product quality, and a lack of forward thinking.

 

...at least it's not SOLELY the Union's fault

On Nov. 22 after a speech at the National Press Club, Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford told the media, with apparent earnestness, that his company "can compete with Toyota, but we can't compete with Japan."

 

This is an old myth. Ford's competitive problem, according to its chief executive, is driven by the unfair advantages that the Japanese government allegedly bestows on its auto companies -- government-funded health care for workers, government support for the pension system and subsidies to develop the batteries needed for hybrid vehicles.

 

What makes this claim so extraordinary is that Japanese companies, led by Toyota Motor Corp., are thrashing Ford by building vehicles in North American factories with North American-made parts and North American workers, who receive American-style wages and health benefits. And increasingly, these Japanese brand vehicles are engineered in America by Americans.

 

Consider a few facts about Toyota. About 65 percent of the vehicles the firm sells in North America it assembles in North America, and it would assemble a much higher proportion here if it could only keep up with its rapid sales growth. Toyota will open its seventh North American assembly line in Texas next summer and an eighth line in Ontario in 2008. It may start assembling vehicles at a Subaru plant in Indiana in 2009, and it is said to be looking for yet another assembly location. In addition, it has three engine manufacturing plants and is looking for a site for a fourth. By the end of the decade, Toyota will be able to assemble about as many cars as Chrysler does in North America, and it is closing in on the capacity Ford will have after plant closings that are widely expected to be announced in January.

 

In fact, thanks to hiring by Japanese, Korean and German auto makers, total employment in the U.S. motor vehicle industry over the past decade has held steady at about 1.1 million.

 

So the problem is not Japan Inc. In fact, that country has been a striking industrial failure over the last 15 years. The latest firms to slide down the competitive slope are the big Japanese consumer electronics makers such as Sony Corp. and Panasonic, which are losing out to fast-rising Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese rivals. (In the video game wars, Sony is even getting beaten by an American company -- Microsoft Corp.) The electronics giants are following the downward path of most Japanese auto firms, which have either fallen into foreign hands (Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Mazda Motor Corp., the latter now controlled by Ford) or dramatically lost market share (Mitsubishi Motors and Isuzu Motors Ltd.).

 

The real problem for Ford, and the one that presents a dilemma for American society, is that an industrial-social system pioneered in Detroit in the 1930s has given way to another industrial-social system pioneered by Toyota in the post-World War II era. The irony is that Toyota based the production side of its system on ideas adapted from Bill Ford's great-grandfather Henry. While Detroit's executives have studied the Toyota model, they still have not mastered it or figured out how to pay for the generous (and largely unfunded) pension and health care promises inherited from their predecessors.

 

There were two elements to the Detroit system. The mass production part, pioneered by Henry Ford in 1914, replaced craft workers with assembly lines. It was so successful that Ford was able to pay decent hourly wages and still dominate the U.S. auto industry, along with General Motors and Chrysler.

 

The Big Three's hold on the U.S. market seemed so secure by 1948, that they struck a deal with the United Auto Workers that added a new element to the Detroit system: high wages and generous benefits. The car-making business had become a tight oligopoly, with investment barriers for entry so high that no domestic firm could afford to join the club. On the labor side, the UAW held a monopoly. Thanks to rising demand for cars, there were plenty of profits to go around. Periodically the three vertically integrated companies and the union engaged in a bargaining ritual to determine how to split the loot. As long as improvements in mass-production offset the ever-higher wage rates by reducing the number of labor hours per vehicle, the cost of cars for consumers held stable.

 

The threat to this cozy arrangement came when foreign firms started investing in U.S. production facilities, beginning with Honda in Ohio in 1982, followed by Toyota in a joint venture with GM in California in 1984, and then Toyota again in its massive Georgetown, Ky., complex in 1986.

 

If any government helped the Japanese at that time, it was the American government. When the Reagan administration came up with the Voluntary Restraint Agreement in 1981, it limited the number of imported Japanese cars sold in the United States for a period of years. Because consumer demand for Japanese cars then was greater than the supply, profit margins on the cars Japanese firms were allowed to sell soared. The Japanese companies then used those enormous profits to invest in North American factories and develop pricier up-market brands such as Lexus.

 

The Japanese auto makers had an outlook different from that of the Big Three. The purveyors of the old Ford-GM-Chrysler-UAW system assumed that all production laborers in the industry, including workers making parts, should be paid the same rate. The corporate and union leaders further assumed that their position was impregnable and that they could promise to pay defined-benefit pensions and other benefits decades into the future.

 

The architects of the new Toyota-Honda system assumed that production labor would be paid different rates, as it was everywhere else in the world. Final-assembly workers would receive a premium and less skilled employees of parts makers -- not owned by the car companies -- would work for prevailing market wages. These Japanese firms also assumed that in hyper-competitive markets, no company could commit to benefits decades ahead. Better to base pensions on defined contributions made during work years rather than by guaranteeing payments in the far future.

 

This new Toyota system -- which John Krafcik, my former colleague at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and now the director of product strategy for Hyundai, labeled "lean production" -- uses less human effort and less capital to design products faster and with fewer defects.

 

What's more -- and this best describes Bill Ford's problems -- the leading Japanese car companies are making more money than their U.S. competitors not only because of lower costs, but because their lean design, production and purchasing system is turning out vehicles so desirable that Toyota and Honda can charge much higher prices for products in the same segment of the market. Indeed, these Japanese companies are giving wages and health packages to current workers in North America similar to those provided by their U.S. rivals, but they're selling vehicles today for $2,500 more than comparably equipped cars made by Ford and GM. This revenue difference, more than the production cost issue, lies at the real heart of Motown's problem.

 

Ford and GM have tried to embrace lean production methods, but as their market share shrinks, the legacy of the past looms larger. The U.S. firms need to shed large numbers of employees, but the main way to do that under "life-time employment" union contracts has been to encourage early retirement. This has solved one problem -- too many active workers. But it created a second -- too many retired workers for the active workers to support.

 

It's little wonder that money-losing Ford doesn't have the funds to invest in new technologies and is asking Washington for help. Meanwhile, Toyota is generating such enormous profits (more than $9 billion worldwide this year) that it can invest in new products and new technologies at a level far exceeding anything Japan Inc. could throw into the equation.

 

This is not to say that Washington shouldn't throw Ford a bone, such as tax credits for additional research on energy efficiency.* Everyone needs to do his part to address the greenhouse gas issue. But that sort of government goodie won't save the American-owned auto industry.

 

The bigger question is how to cope with the pension and health care commitments of U.S. companies on the road to financial ruin. This is not only a government policy issue, but a societal one. U.S. auto companies, and many other firms, are suffering from the same syndrome that is afflicting Social Security: There are too few workers in the post-Baby Boom generation to support the benefits promised long ago to the Boomers.

 

One approach would be to stand back and let the auto companies fail. A bankruptcy judge could then explain that the promises made to retirees are much more extravagant than what most other Americans are getting. The judge could then call the deal off and pay out pension benefits at maybe 50 cents on the dollar.

 

Another alternative would be to transfer the obligations to the government. This would ease the pain of a generation caught in a historic industrial transition. But how can the government take on such a burden when it is already saddled with war costs and budget deficits?

 

But no amount of government assistance can rescue U.S. auto companies unless they become better competitors. In fact, Ford had it exactly backwards when he spoke to reporters last month. Japan isn't his problem; Toyota is. And the answer for his company, like the challenge to it, lies here at home.

[Puddy]

Depends on how you measure it I guess. Throw in bennies and it is dramatically different.

 

U of M Economics professor tackles tough question of UAW wages

Posted Jul 13th 2007 4:32PM by John Neff

Filed under: Hirings/Firings, Plants/Manufacturing, Earnings/Financials

 

 

UPDATE: Link to source finally added. Our bad.

 

 

A tip sent us to the blog of Dr. Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, who points out that hourly union workers at the Big 3 make on average 57.6% more in a year than a university professor with a Ph.D. Using figures from the automakers themselves, Dr. Perry tells us that a union worker at Ford makes $141,020/year including wages and benefits. A worker at General Motors makes $146,520/year and one at Chrysler earns $151,720/year. According to another report he cites, the average annual salary for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973, which happens to be close to the $96,000/year a Honda, Nissan or Toyota worker makes in the U.S.

 

Why trot out all these numbers? It's clear that upcoming negotiations between the Big 3 and UAW will likely yield concessions in both wages and healthcare costs. They have to if the U.S. auto industry is to survive. Dr. Perry references those who say the concessions must be "transformational", and to illustrate what that means, he suggests that Union workers would have to accept a wage equal to that of a college professor with a Ph.D.

 

We get that union auto workers are overpaid, we really do. Dr. Perry, however, seems to imply that there's something inherently wrong with a Ph.D professor making less than a high-school educated auto worker. The wage of a union auto worker, however, should come down because it's artificially high, not because the social order of education dictates that those with Ph.Ds should earn more than those who only finished high school. But hey, maybe we're being too sensitive.

 

[source: Carpe Diem]

[Puddy]

According to Forbes:

 

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

 

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

 

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

 

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

 

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

 

Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

 

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, and especially Ford, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.

 

What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about: "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school degree, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a Ph.D.

[Chavez]

in the grand scheme their payments are a drop in a very big bucket.

True enough; still, they are BIG drops, and generally are there regardless of performance.

 

Did you know one of the big spenders on the pro-increased fuel efficiency side is Toyota? That's because they have vehicles that are ALREADY compliant, whereas Ford/GM don't.

 

Bottom line is that while the union certainly contributes to US automakers being tough to change even if they aren't resistant to it, ever since the Asian car companies came in and started kicking ass in the 70s, they've been a step ahead as far as knowing what consumers are going to want down the road, designing attractive vehicles (Pontiac Aztek, anyone?), and putting out a higher-quality product.

[rocknrobn26]

Here's a different set of numbers:

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/default.asp...rt&id=80833

 

UAW Losing Pay Edge: Foreign Automakers' Bonuses Boost Wages in U.S. Plants as Detroit Car Companies Struggle

 

Posted: Feb. 1, 2007, 9 a.m., EST

 

From Detroit Free Press

 

The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.

 

In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.

 

In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.

 

Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are not far behind Toyota and UAW pay levels. Comparable wages have long been one way foreign companies fight off UAW organizing efforts.

 

But Toyota workers' pay topping that of UAW members comes as the union faces contract negotiations this year with struggling Detroit companies that will seek billions in concessions, partly because they face higher costs for retiree health care and pensions than their foreign-owned competitors.

 

Who's to blame?

 

UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel said if Toyota workers were paid more than union workers last year, the blame lies with Detroit's auto executives. The companies have lost market share because of past mistakes, which have translated into fewer bonuses for workers, said Casteel, who is on the union's executive board.

 

"Our profit-sharing formula, I know, is better than theirs -- if our vehicles are selling," Casteel said.

 

Ron Lare, a 59-year-old Ford employee on pre-retirement leave, said Toyota workers shouldn't get too excited about their wages because bonuses fluctuate. The only thing consistent, Lare said, is union protection.

 

"The floor beneath their feet is basically what the UAW has won," said Lare of Detroit, who has worked at Ford for 28 1/2 years. "If the UAW gets beaten down, their pay is going to come down. You let there be a real recession in the auto industry -- that bonus won't be there for Toyota, either."

 

Union perks vs. nonunion perks

 

The pay comparisons reflect the relative profitability of the foreign and domestic companies more than shortcomings of the UAW. But the situation chips at the argument that workers united in solidarity can get better wages, benefits and job security -- especially as the UAW shrinks and growing foreign companies continue to ward off organizing efforts.

 

"How do you convince someone you're better off with the protection of a union when they're making more money than the union employee?" asked Alfred McLean, a 66-year-old hourly UAW member at General Motors Corp.'s Warren Tech Center. He has 28 years of experience.

 

Workers for foreign automakers don't pay union dues, but they do share the costs of insurance and retirement plans. UAW-represented autoworkers get health insurance and a full pension after 30 years -- valuable perks they will fight to keep during contract negotiations this year.

 

But even accounting for Toyota employees' health care spending -- $700 per year on average, according to the company -- the Georgetown workers still made more in 2006.

 

General Motors Corp., which lost $10.6 billion in 2005 and didn't issue profit-sharing checks last year, paid its production workers an average of $27 an hour, GM spokesman Daniel Flores said. That would be a base of about $54,000 a year, based on a 2,000-hour work year. The $30 average at Toyota's Georgetown plant, which includes a bonus, equals $60,000 a year.

 

Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group representatives said GM's base pay figures are similar to theirs. Only Chrysler, which had a 2005 profit, paid a bonus last year. The $650 bonus was not enough to surpass Toyota's pay.

 

Unknown in the calculation is overtime, which boosts UAW workers' pay. The auto companies would not release overtime data.

 

Lack of overtime hurts

 

Ron Harbour, president of Harbour Consulting and the publisher of a respected ranking of plant efficiency, said domestic overtime is dropping because of improved quality and recent production cuts.

 

"Because there was so much overtime for so many years, they got used to that level of pay," Harbour said. "And it built the economy around here that's collapsed so much -- second homes, boats, snowmobiles and all of that."

 

Toyota's bonuses are comparable to the record profit-sharing checks earned by Chrysler and Ford workers in the late 1990s. That puts the pay of Toyota's workers ahead of that of UAW workers for the first time, said Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

 

But when massive profits rolled in, Detroit executives squandered them, he said.

 

"There were certainly years back then at the profit peak of the truck boom when we could gaily march out the door and buy Volvo, or Jaguar, or Saab -- brilliant moves -- with our truck profits, rather than invest in hybrids," McAlinden quipped about GM's and Ford's spending decisions.

 

GM's aim is to resume profit-sharing, Flores said.

 

"When profit is generated in the U.S., employees share in the profit," he said.

 

When asked about salaried workers earning bonuses because of UAW sacrifices last week, Ford CEO Alan Mulally said that all employees must be compensated competitively.

 

The 'union threat effect'

 

Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in labor issues, said Toyota's high wages are somewhat expected.

 

"Toyota pays high wages in part to avoid the UAW," Shaiken said, adding that economists would refer to Toyota's high wages as the "union threat effect," meaning companies pay union-comparable wages to fend off organizing efforts and the risk of a strike.

 

"But what Toyota inadvertently shows," he added, "is that you can compete paying higher wages."

 

Assembly workers for Detroit automakers last year remained a bit ahead of Honda's U.S. hourly workers, who made an average $24.25 an hour, or $26.20 with the $4,485 bonus they received. In November, Honda paid bonuses for the 21st consecutive year, the longest streak in U.S. auto history, said Ed Miller, Honda spokesman.

 

Nissan workers are paid $24 an hour in Mississippi and $26 an hour in Tennessee, but company officials would not disclose employee bonuses.

 

Hyundai Motor Co. pays its U.S. production workers less than other automakers. Wages at its Alabama plant start at $14 an hour and grow to $21 an hour after two years on the job, according to a January 2004 company release. Hyundai declined to say whether those wages have increased since then.

 

But the UAW's Casteel, who is working to organize autoworkers in southern states, said the UAW's recruiting strategy of comparing union and nonunion checks doesn't work in less-developed parts of the South. In Alabama and Mississippi, for instance, the U.S. Department of Labor says wages average less than $11 an hour.

 

"If you start looking at where they put these plants, they go out to the most desolate places you've ever been in your life," Casteel, an Alabama native, said of foreign automakers. "And they make sure there are no other competitive wages with any other industry. You'll drive through these piney woods for an hour and all of a sudden you run upon this major manufacturing facility."

 

Copyright © 2007, Detroit Free Press

Copyright © 2008 Babcox. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Babcox is prohibited. AftermarketNews.com and the AMN logo are trademarks of Babcox.

 

 

 

3550 Embassy Parkway, Akron, OH 44333 Privacy Policy

 

powered by outstanda

 

Seems like the other #'s (Forbes article?) allow a 2x factor for bene's vs hourly wage. Doesn't sound right.

[MikesVikes]

The lone designated rower started a union. The union mandated how much he could row and how hard. The union mandated that he should be given a 15 minute break for every 3 hours of rowing. Of course the union gave him a nice benefit package for his efforts.

[Savage Beatings]

I don't think its so much the difference in wages between Union and Non-Union workers, as it is the benefits (whether for current employees, or more germain, for retired auto workers). I'm not saying that the domestic auto manufacturers should abandon their retirees, but keeping the promises that they've made absolutely makes them less competitive.

[Chavez]

I don't think its so much the difference in wages between Union and Non-Union workers, as it is the benefits (whether for current employees, or more germain, for retired auto workers). I'm not saying that the domestic auto manufacturers should abandon their retirees, but keeping the promises that they've made absolutely makes them less competitive.

It's not as if anyone expects people to keep promises anyway.

[cliaz]

There are many problems that caused the issues between Ford and Toyota. I grew up in a blue collar family and needless to say I know my step father does not respect what I do for a living. He wont admit it but I can see it in his eyes and his political views towards large corporations and government. He was a fire fighter for 28 years (until 9/11 forced him to retire) and president of his local chapter in the Union. He blindly supports all unions without care of why they are striking. Of course because his license plates display union logo of the fire fighters union if he were to cross any picket line it would be bad news.

 

Unions are a corrupted system that uses the common, less educated working class man to generate their income. I’ve been in various unions in my younger working life, Teamsters and UFCW to name a couple. They have done nothing to help the workers. During contract negotiations they threaten to strike if smaller demands are not met. My best friend is still in the UFCW and they almost went on strike in this areas last week because Safeway and Giant food wanted to shift some of their health care costs over employees in the amount of $50 a pay period. That’s $200 a month. Let me tell you, I’d love to have their health care coverage at only $200 a month. Also they wanted to remove the time and a half for Sunday hours. To me, the union saw this turning out as the employees shelling out more money per month which would lead to those same employees leaving those stores and working for non-union grocery stores where the wages were higher and the health care better for the same price per month. They threaten strike simply to keep employees in the union so the union leaders could continue to receive their paychecks funded through the union dues. Its sad.

 

Were I work, I pay about $110 more per month for healthcare but I have way better coverage, plus dozens of additional perks that my company can afford to give us because they do not have to worry about a union. The union side of my company has the same healthcare, they still pay 50% of what I pay but do not enjoy the additional benefits like free life insurance, free short term and long term disability, free AD&D for all members of my family including free life insurance up to 50k on each member. Also my position mapped over to the union side of the shop makes 30% less and does not share in the stock options and accumulated wealth packages. At the end of this year because I met all of my goals that my upper management set forth for me I received on top of my annual raise and bonus a lump of $12,000 in stock. Of course I can’t touch it for four years after which I can invest it as I like but still the union position does not have this.

 

The union uses a gate keeper system where the elites which run the union only let in what they think will please the employees, effectively controlling them. I have a friend who works on the union side that loves the union because he makes around $70,000 with his base salary and over time per year. If he were on my side he would easily be in my pay scale and more comfortable in life. Instead he knows that the union will protect him and because of this it is not uncommon for union workers to be seen parked on the side of the road with construction cones around their work trucks, taking naps during the day.

 

The union uses the common man to control the main body of a company effectively limiting the amount of work that could be done in any given year. On my side we work long hours (I work around 60 hours a week give or take) but we are more than compensated for this time. Management within our company including the upper execs understand that the equity built up in us far surpasses shipping our jobs over seas. They moved the non-essential groups like the call centers over to India and Asia but our division is linked by industrial countries including America. Since our core of execs reside on the east coast, each division is led by an exec with in our builds. We have divisions in England, France, Germany, Japan, Ireland, and soon to be Australia because our upper management does not believe in shipping massive technical and advanced jobs to developing countries. So I have no fear of losing my job to a third world county with in the next decade.

 

Unions, however will promote that fear to the working class.

 

Now don’t get me wrong there are certain professions that require a union to protect them even in today’s world. Fire fighters, police, and miners. I used to think the teachers did as well but my wife’s union is so worthless that they can’t even get a copy of their current contract until it is up for voting again. It is sad.

 

If the motor industry here in America just rejected the union, hired the scabs they needed to run the plants until the general public could see the difference in working conditions and compensation we would have a better market for cars.

 

I’ll close this with two points about unions that made me really cynical towards them. Around 1996 I worked for UPS and Safeway at the same time while in the military (yea no rest for me but I was young). When the Teamsters went on strike my Safeway store had groceries shipped to them by scabs from Canada. When one of the trucks backed up to the loading dock after hours, three “people” pulled the driver out of the cab, beat him, sliced the air line for the breaks, took his drivers licensee and told him that if they saw him again, they would burn his house down and harm his family. Personally that would be an empty threat to me because I would be from Canada but I wouldn’t put it past them.

 

Then at UPS I had been promoted to belt supervisor on the night shift. So I was no longer in the union and had to come into work. I had to cross the picket line in the back of a brown UPS delivery truck. When I came out of work I went to the employee parking lot which only had non-union employee cars in it. Because I had to report and do the job of the union workers (e.g. pack trucks for shipping) I had the windows of my car smashed out and then I was threatened in the parking lot by people I’ve never seen in our building before. I was told that next time it would be my jaw.

 

/rant off

[rocknrobn26]

I swore to myself I would NOT get into a union/non-union debate on this board again.....there have been sooo many, but here I go AGAIN......

 

There is no way a union die hard can convince a non-union person what they believe is right, nor vice versa. This thread, I thought, was more about the auto industry and the union affect to the 'Big 3's' demise. On that note:

1) Did unions play a role in the 'Big 3's' demise? YES! High salary/benefit demands had to play a role.

2) Were they the major contributor? NO! The worker does NOT decide what to market. In the late 70's thru much of the 80's, 'Big 3' were still putting out cars with little regard to fuel consumption, rust protection, or safety. The execs were still getting major bonuses for LOSING BUSINESS! A drop in the financial bucket perhaps, but they were still rewarded for putting out an inferior product. Add, imagine being a line worker and seeing this. What would you do?

3) I still question the #'s that that Forbes article presented. salary + 2x for bene's smells bad.

 

Cliaz,

I'll respect your comments for the most part, but I take umbrage with comments like:

 

"Unions are a corrupted system that uses the common, less educated working class man to generate their income."

In the unions I have been in 95% of the dues stayed in the local, and the local is US! The national will help when asked, but it's the local that drives/directs a union. The national does NOT call a strike, only the local can do that, and then only after a vote. On the point of less educated.............try becoming a plumber, carpenter, rigger, machinist, tool &die maker, automotive mechanic, electrician, iron worker.....if you think they are less educated you are a snob! They may not know Chaucer, but they can teach you more than you could ever absorb about their trade.

 

"The union uses a gate keeper system where the elites which run the union only let in what they think will please the employees, effectively controlling them."

Bull! The union is controlled by the local, the workers, NOT the national. The local reps are elected, and get at best a minimal stipend.

 

"Now don’t get me wrong there are certain professions that require a union to protect them even in today’s world. Fire fighters, police, and miners."

I think you're alluding to safety as an issue here. Have you read a paper lately about teachers getting beatin', stabbed, their cars being vandalized? If anyone should need protection it's our teachers. They are vulnerable and seem to be ignored in this are.

 

"I used to think the teachers did as well but my wife’s union is so worthless that they can’t even get a copy of their current contract until it is up for voting again. It is sad."

A teacher contract is public record. Even the salary schedule. Whilst I was teaching anyone could have goe to the county center and found out exactly what I made. If she can't get a copy from the union (which I highly doubt), I'd love to see the reasons, because all a teacher has to do is go to the Admin office and demand a copy, not to mention she had to have gotten one when it was last ratified. Sorry, that is not correct! You better talk to your wife again.

 

You and the truck driver being vandalized and beaten, is sad. In my almost 40 years of union involvement, I have never seen it, nor have I even heard threats to same. I won't deny that it has happened, and I'm sorry for your experiences.

 

I totally understand your SF's feelings.

 

Signed,

A proud ex-union member/official/negotiator .

If 51% of us vote to stand in a bucket of chit, then we ALL stand in that bucket!

Don't understand it.....don't bother asking!

Edited April 5, 2008 by rocknrobn26

[cliaz]

Cliaz,

I'll respect your comments for the most part, but I take umbrage with comments like:

 

On the point of less educated.............try becoming a plumber, carpenter, rigger, machinist, tool &die maker, automotive mechanic, electrician, iron worker.....if you think they are less educated you are a snob! They may not know Chaucer, but they can teach you more than you could ever absorb about their trade.[/b]

 

rocknrobn26 - I should make this a little more clear so there is no misunderstanding in my comment. When i speak of less educated I am referring to the middle America who work in the factors in these regions. The towns that surround a majority of the auto plants have medium income of less than $30,000 a year and a majority of the people do not have college while still even some [more than most in the east and west] do not hold high school diplomas with a small number of those only holding a GED. When i speak of less educated i am not referring to tradesmen. By definition from social scientist in the United States we have five social classes in the United States: Upper Class, Upper Middle Class, Lower Middle Class, The Working Class and the Lower Class.

 

Upper Class - 1 to 2% of the people in the US fall in this category. This group is limited to the very wealthy. think of CEOs of major corp., TV moguls, NFL owners, ex-presidents etc. these people have advanced degrees and massive political power and influence.

 

Upper Middle Class - make up about 10 to 15% of the population. This group is comprised of doctors, lawyers, architects, etc. This group as well holds advanced degrees and limited political influence.

 

Lower Middle Class - This group makes up around 30 to 35% of the population and includes less affluent professionals such as elementary teachers, nurses, middle management in most companies, real estate people, owners of small businesses. Not all members of this group hold degrees from a college but make a decent living.

 

Working Class - this group makes up about 40 to 45% of the population. This group is populated by electricians, plumbers, certified auto mechanics, etc. This group's income can be higher than lower middle class people but they tend to identify themselves with manual workers. Most do not hold degrees from college but instead use trade school to give themselves a comparable level of education to that of lower middle class people which is relative to their trade.

 

Lower Class - This group makes up 20 to 25% of the population. People in this group are often poorly paid and tend to occupy the lower rung of the occupational ladder. They do not hold degrees from colleges and in some regions with in the united states a substantial percentages do not hold high school diplomas.

 

I will not continue speaking about unions when there are pro-union people on this board simply because the matter of for or against unions in America is as deeply divided as the subject of abortion. I cannot relay my opinion on you and expect you to see my point of view nor can you expect to relay your opinion on unions and expect me to see your point of view. Our own personal experiences shape who we are and how we view things. For me to assume you should see my point of view on a matter that you've supported all your working life would be ethnocentric behavior on my part. Your experiences were positive and as such you have a very high opinion of unions. I, on the other hand had negative experiences and have a less than favorable opinion on unions. We are who we are.

 

All I can say on the matter is this "I do not mean to directly disrespect you or what you've accomplished in your life working for a union and I hope my post will not lessen your personal opinion of myself."

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

I am in a union (of ridiculously overeducated people, though not necesarily smart people)

I was able to get healthcare through the union that i could not afford on my own. One emergency C section later, I am eternally grateful to the union for having provided me that.

[rocknrobn26]

"I do not mean to directly disrespect you or what you've accomplished in your life working for a union and I hope my post will not lessen your personal opinion of myself."

 

Fair enough. And the same feeling goes for me.

Peace.