• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

GM and the UAW

Wow! That site is totally left of red! :D
Any business firm today that tried to make a principled stand on such a matter as throwing out a legally recognized labor union would have to do so in the knowledge that its action was a futile gesture that would serve only to cost it dearly. And a corporation that did this would undoubtedly also be embroiled in endless lawsuits by many of its stockholders blaming it for the losses the government imposed on it.
Click to expand...
Tell it to Walmart, comrad. :D
 
Solitaire said:
Wow! That site is totally left of red! :D

Tell it to Walmart, comrad. :D
Click to expand...

Uhm, that site is very anti-union.

Where would GM be without the UAW?

"First, the company would be without so-called Monday-morning automobiles. That is, automobiles poorly made for no other reason than because they happened to be made on a day when too few workers showed up, or too few showed up sober, to do the jobs they were paid to do. Without the UAW, General Motors would simply have fired such workers and replaced them with ones who would do the jobs they were paid to do."

Yikes! Don't pull your punches like that, tell us how you really feel!
 
DHR said:
Just hate unions do ya. Why?

A union is always a product of bad manegment.
Click to expand...
Well. Some excellent companies have strong unions.

However, quotes like this one from the link makes me think the author is either extremeley one-eyed or not really serious:

Sixth, without the UAW, GM would not now be in process of attempting to pay a ransom to its UAW workers of up to $140,000 per man, just to get them to quit and take their hands out of its pockets. (It believes that $140,000 is less than what they will steal if they remain.)
Click to expand...
 
I think some of the author's points are valid. I would never buy an American automaker's stock given the current situation.

However, I do take issue with the last half of point number nine

Ninth, without the UAW tens of thousands of workers — its own members — would not now be faced with the loss of pension and healthcare benefits that it is impossible for GM or any of the other auto companies to provide, and never was possible for them to provide. The UAW, the whole labor-union movement, and the left-"liberal" intellectual establishment, which is their father and mother, are responsible for foisting on the public and on the average working man and woman a fantasy land of imaginary Demons (big business and the rich) and of saintly Good Fairies (politicians, government officials, and union leaders). In this fantasy-land, the Good Fairies supposedly have the power to wring unlimited free benefits from the Demons.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe Henry Ford's pre-union business as an "imaginary demon." Running a factory with a "goon squad" of several semi-professional hundred fighters ready to bust up any pro-union activities takes the imaginary out of the phrase "imaginary demon."
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
I wouldn't describe Henry Ford's pre-union business as an "imaginary demon." Running a factory with a "goon squad" of several semi-professional hundred fighters ready to bust up any pro-union activities takes the imaginary out of the phrase "imaginary demon."
Click to expand...
As DHR pointed out, bad management creates unions in the first place. But once created, the unions can get the upper hand in further negotiations and force deals which are not good for either party in the long run, as we're seeing now.
 
DHR said:
Just hate unions do ya. Why?

A union is always a product of bad manegment.
Click to expand...

Possibly. What sort of union does one form when one has bad management in the union?

"Quitting and starting your own union", "Don't work union" and "Don't hire union" strike me as very similar to the "Quit and work somewhere else" solutions of the anti-union crowd.

I have no idea if there's a right answer. My dad was in a union for umpteen years. He liked the union, he absolutely despised union management.
 
Never the less, a union is legal price fixing of a commodity. In any other endevor, it would be prohibited.

Now, I don't personally have a problem with price fixing. What I have a problem with is a union's legal standing to not have their striking members fired for not showing up for work. The best a company can do is close its gates.

It's all about supply and demand. If management is poor (too long hours, not enough pay and benefits, etc) then the workers are free to go elsewhere to companies that recognize their value.

That's the only reason I think unions suck
 
Rob Lister said:
If management is poor (too long hours, not enough pay and benefits, etc) then the workers are free to go elsewhere to companies that recognize their value.
Click to expand...

That works in theory, and so does communism.
 
Tmy said:
That works in theory, and so does communism.
Click to expand...

The difference being this works in practice.

The only time I'll support the existance of a union is in the presence of monopsony employer power. (i.e. a monopoly of labor to counter the power of the monopsony of employment.) But, at least in the present USA, I know of no labor markets that possess a single employer. In fact, if that were to occur I'd suggest busting up the employer's power through anti-trust law, rather than creating a SECOND distortion of the free market.

Therefore unions are nothing more than price fixing monopolists using political power for extortion rather than playing by fair rules and allowing supply and demand to dictate wage rates.

Aaron

P.S. I always imagined that if I didn't have valued skill sets I'd break picket lines as a temporary employee for companies suffering from striking employees to make a living, just hoping from one picketed company to the next. Just a pity those "rightous" union folks tend to commit bodily and property damage against such people as I image myself. Well, maybe I could suppliment my income by sueing them.
 
Unions are born because of the employee treatment by companies. If workers are happy then their really is no need to form a union.

Unions are a check n balance on the extreme power a company has over individual workers.
 
Tmy said:
Unions are born because of the employee treatment by companies. If workers are happy then their really is no need to form a union.

Unions are a check n balance on the extreme power a company has over individual workers.
Click to expand...

What a happy world you live in where employees would only unionize when their employer is unjust.

Has it occurred to you that employees will ALWAYS want better treatment than they receive, no matter how good it is? And that maybe, just maybe, some unions formed as a result of greed, not mistreatment?

If an employee is mistreated they have choices: 1) if it was illegal treatment: sue 2) if they are undercompensated for their work: quit.

The counter to number 2 is that most people need jobs. The simple response is there are plenty of companies that need employees (namely all of them). Companies that inadaquately compensate their employees loses them, and that makes the company either 1) increase compensation or 2) go bankrupt. Rational companies choose the former.

What makes you think employers have unbalanced power without the existance of unions?

Employers COMPETE for employees. (Or do you believe that all of us working without union "protection" work for minimum wage without benifits?) The market protects my wages, not some bully.

Just to be fair and balanced, employees compete for jobs by underbidding each other. So on the demand side eployers bid up wages, and on the supply side employees bid down wages. Where they meet is equalibrium where no one willing to work for the going wage rate is without a job and no employer willing to pay the going wage rate is without an employee.

Unions distroy the efficency by preventing employees from bidding down the wages, i.e. price fixing. This causes the wage rate to be too high. As such employers are willing to higher fewer people, but more people would like to work at that pay. Thus, unemployment. Good job, unions manage to cause unemployment, higher prices, and lower output. The only "winners" are those people who are lucky enough to have the unionized jobs. They selfishly took what they could and to heck with fairness, productivity, and any other considerations. Selfish, evil people always earn my ire.

Just out of curiousity, do you believe that special interest groups lobbying Congress only due so to right an injustice, or might some people use political power to bend the rules in their favor out of greed?

Aaron
 
WildCat said:
As DHR pointed out, bad management creates unions in the first place. But once created, the unions can get the upper hand in further negotiations and force deals which are not good for either party in the long run, as we're seeing now.
Click to expand...

I suspect management were not to concered about offereing better pensions rather than a pay rise now since they new the cost would hit after they had left.
 
geni said:
I suspect management were not to concered about offereing better pensions rather than a pay rise now since they new the cost would hit after they had left.
Click to expand...

That would either mean they have bad management or poor oversight by the stockholders.

Any decent accounting of stock value would include the present value of any future contract a company has, including contracts with employees.

Taking your reasoning to its logical conclution managers and executives should borrow huge sums of money, in that it won't be paid back until their gone, and just look at all the money they brought into the company TODAY!

The board isn't that dumb. Boards may do a crummy job of representing stockholders, but they aren't morons.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
Just out of curiousity, do you believe that special interest groups lobbying Congress only due so to right an injustice, or might some people use political power to bend the rules in their favor out of greed?

Aaron
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Unions are the only ones with politicans in their back pockets?? Cause business do the same. If anything big biz has far more pull than unions.

Pre union days you had big companies that were really the be all and end all. They would pay workers virtually nothing while making incredible profits off their labor. Dont forget the lousy work conditions and poor treatment. There was a huge gap tween the rich and poor. Unions at least helped to spread the wealth a bit, which in turn benefits society as a whole.
 
Tmy said:
Are you saying that Unions are the only ones with politicans in their back pockets?? Cause business do the same. If anything big biz has far more pull than unions.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to labor or companies... I'm comparing lobbists TO unions. Not saying unions ARE lobbists. I'm saying both groups use political power (one through collective bargaining and one through buying Congressmen) to change the rules of the game in their favor.

Pre union days you had big companies that were really the be all and end all. They would pay workers virtually nothing while making incredible profits off their labor. Dont forget the lousy work conditions and poor treatment. There was a huge gap tween the rich and poor. Unions at least helped to spread the wealth a bit, which in turn benefits society as a whole.
Click to expand...

You're talking about the condition I allowed for unions... when an employer was the only game in town. And even then my solution is to break that monosopy power, not create a monopoly. But the later solution is better than none. What really improved the plight of the worker was multiple employers in each labor market. And since there are no labor markets in the modern US of which I am aware (feel free to provide a counter-example) there is no need to counter monosopy power that doesn't exist.

Your statement about a more even wealth distribution is highly suspect, but not germane, so I'll ignore it.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
That would either mean they have bad management or poor oversight by the stockholders.
Click to expand...

No it means they are more interested in the short term future of the company rather than stuff decades down the line

Any decent accounting of stock value would include the present value of any future contract a company has, including contracts with employees.
Click to expand...

Pension liabilties are far from striaghtforward to calculate

Taking your reasoning to its logical conclution managers and executives should borrow huge sums of money, in that it won't be paid back until their gone, and just look at all the money they brought into the company TODAY!
Click to expand...

Too straigtforward. However there are a couple of common financial practices that basicaly amount to this (a classic one is to sell insurences agaist certain complex financial events with wordings so complex sorting the whole thing out practicaly garentees a court case last I heard the total value of this documents stood at over 1 trillion)

The board isn't that dumb. Boards may do a crummy job of representing stockholders, but they aren't morons.
Click to expand...

The board isn't dumb. It just knows it has to sell it's stock before the long term problems hit.
 
For all their fighting unions arent out to destroy business. They need the business to succeed.

The problem with business is that is driven just by profits, profits NOW! So they are willing to do harm to society and the country in order to make a buck. Unions are least lookinng out for the workers. Which doenst allways mean they want the most $ for the worker.

Then theres the non money issues. Fairness issues. Why should the promotion go to the underseving son in law of the boss?? Why should workers be fired on a whim when theyve put so much of their lives into a company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom