-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Oh, Nial, you & I have completely different opinions of unions - but we'll continue to be friends! Yes, the Japanese wanted our workforce - but they didn't want the unions. GM built Saturn in Tennessee as a non-union plant & it prospered until the union got its foot under the tent...now, Saturn is in the same dire straits as all the other GM subsidiaries.
Unions could care less about the financial success of the company - all they want is forced benefits that are greater than any other industry in the nation...GM didn't embrace the unions - the unions forced themselves on GM & now have a stranglehold on their future....I don't see the unions coming in to offer their services at a lower salary during these hard times...instead, GM is having to go after their non-unionized employees for pay cuts!
Ask the union to take a cut in their health benefits to help the company become successful again & watch the fight you get...remember: $17-million in Viagra each year to union workers paid for by GM!
One of the main suppliers to GM here in Alabama was in dire straits a few years ago & went to the union to ask for some cuts...the union said 'no' & went on strike...it all went to court & the judge ruled that the unions had to make some concessions as the company had done all it could...the unions said 'no' again & the company went out of business.....then, of course the unions cried 'foul'!
Management has made lots of mistakes, I'll give you that...however, in addition to <span style="font-style: italic">"responding to the short-term demands of the investor-class"</span> they also have to respond to the short & long-term demands of the unions!
Why do you think WalMart has fought unionization so long? & why do you think WalMart is the primary target of unions?
Unions could care less about the financial success of the company - all they want is forced benefits that are greater than any other industry in the nation...GM didn't embrace the unions - the unions forced themselves on GM & now have a stranglehold on their future....I don't see the unions coming in to offer their services at a lower salary during these hard times...instead, GM is having to go after their non-unionized employees for pay cuts!
Ask the union to take a cut in their health benefits to help the company become successful again & watch the fight you get...remember: $17-million in Viagra each year to union workers paid for by GM!
One of the main suppliers to GM here in Alabama was in dire straits a few years ago & went to the union to ask for some cuts...the union said 'no' & went on strike...it all went to court & the judge ruled that the unions had to make some concessions as the company had done all it could...the unions said 'no' again & the company went out of business.....then, of course the unions cried 'foul'!
Management has made lots of mistakes, I'll give you that...however, in addition to <span style="font-style: italic">"responding to the short-term demands of the investor-class"</span> they also have to respond to the short & long-term demands of the unions!
Why do you think WalMart has fought unionization so long? & why do you think WalMart is the primary target of unions?
MGBGT_noob
Jedi Hopeful
Offline
Ever since 1981, unions have had a tough time in this country. Beginning with the Regan administration, the federal government has taken a serious turn toward anti-labor policies.
Yes, during the prosperous times, in the '50s and '60s, unions tended to get what they wanted, and gained a reputation as hotbeds of corruption. That was then, this is now.
Union membership has dropped from 50% of the workforce, in the immediate postwar era, to about 12% now. This is largely doe to the adoption of so called "right to work" laws (known to labor as "right to fire"), and outsourcing of many skilled jobs to 3rd world countries.
If corporations like GM had done as they should, and put the money for employee benefits aside, when they had it, they would not find themselves in the situation we see now. For example:
1. the company and union negotiate a contract. As part of the negotiation accountants determine the future cost of the agreement. both sides settle on a reasonable level of benefits, that the company can afford, by putting money aside every year.
2. the money the company has set aside for future employee benefits goes into an account, and while there are few employees drawing on these benefits, the account grows quickly.
3. someone in the company says "that's a lot of money to have just lying around, lets loan that to ourselves, and pay it all back later"
4. after several such "loans" the company finds ways to reduce the amount it pays into the account in the first place, and has second thoughts about the "pay it back" part. Now, they have to pay the benefits out of their general operating budget, instead of the dedicated fund. Still not a problem, as long as few people need to take advantage of these benefits.
5. the problems start years later, when large numbers of people who worked for the company when the union negotiated the contract, start to retire. Now the company, which could have had a pool of money, to pay out these benefits, must reach into its pockets and pay back the "loans" it made from the retirement fund years ago.
So, can we call this the union's fault?
They negotiated the contract in good faith, and didn't demand anything the company could not provide, if the company acted wisely.
Do we blame the company for negotiating the contract?
They made plans to fund these benefits, in a way that would allow them to avoid all the out of pocket expenses down the road.
Personally, I blame the attitude that has prevailed in the "business community" for the last 25 years or so. That a company has no obligation other than to make profit, and that they can lie, cheat, steal, and injure, in order to do so.
Yes, during the prosperous times, in the '50s and '60s, unions tended to get what they wanted, and gained a reputation as hotbeds of corruption. That was then, this is now.
Union membership has dropped from 50% of the workforce, in the immediate postwar era, to about 12% now. This is largely doe to the adoption of so called "right to work" laws (known to labor as "right to fire"), and outsourcing of many skilled jobs to 3rd world countries.
If corporations like GM had done as they should, and put the money for employee benefits aside, when they had it, they would not find themselves in the situation we see now. For example:
1. the company and union negotiate a contract. As part of the negotiation accountants determine the future cost of the agreement. both sides settle on a reasonable level of benefits, that the company can afford, by putting money aside every year.
2. the money the company has set aside for future employee benefits goes into an account, and while there are few employees drawing on these benefits, the account grows quickly.
3. someone in the company says "that's a lot of money to have just lying around, lets loan that to ourselves, and pay it all back later"
4. after several such "loans" the company finds ways to reduce the amount it pays into the account in the first place, and has second thoughts about the "pay it back" part. Now, they have to pay the benefits out of their general operating budget, instead of the dedicated fund. Still not a problem, as long as few people need to take advantage of these benefits.
5. the problems start years later, when large numbers of people who worked for the company when the union negotiated the contract, start to retire. Now the company, which could have had a pool of money, to pay out these benefits, must reach into its pockets and pay back the "loans" it made from the retirement fund years ago.
So, can we call this the union's fault?
They negotiated the contract in good faith, and didn't demand anything the company could not provide, if the company acted wisely.
Do we blame the company for negotiating the contract?
They made plans to fund these benefits, in a way that would allow them to avoid all the out of pocket expenses down the road.
Personally, I blame the attitude that has prevailed in the "business community" for the last 25 years or so. That a company has no obligation other than to make profit, and that they can lie, cheat, steal, and injure, in order to do so.
aeronca65t
Great Pumpkin
Offline
tony barnhill said:
Ah yes! That's the spirit! :laugh:
swift6
Yoda
Offline
tony barnhill said:
I worked for Saturn for a short time. During my "initiation" we went through the history timeline of the company. Part of that history included a statement that Saturn has never been a profitable division of GM. Even in its early days when you say they were prospering. The reasoning for the lack of profitability that I was given by the long term employees had to do with the way that GM managed Saturn. They initially dumped a ton of money into Saturn, specifically to compete with the Japanese imports. Their marketing was VERY poor. Management just expected people to buy the cars because they were built in Tennessee. Now, Saturn is just a badge. All current Saturn models are badge engineered vehicles with a more "edgy and European design". In some cases, the Astra and the roots of the Sky, are European models. The rest of the line up can be found in most any other GM showroom.
Tony, while I am not a big fan of Unions, I still feel that the management structure of GM and Ford both deserve a large part of the blame for where they are now. I don't buy into the Labor Unions being more forward looking either (not your point I know). If they were/are more forward looking to guarantee the jobs for their members, then they should be walking into management and saying "how can we help". But the Unions alone can't do it. Management HAS to change their thinking.
But that's just my opinion.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Shawn - I agree there's blame enough to pass around to management & unions alike...I'm just not a fan of unions....but I can see the faults of management also....you don't borrow from Peter to pay Paul at any level - personal or corporation or gov't!
However, while GM is finally going to the gov't for help (too late methinks), I agree with you that the unions aren't doing anything except blaming the problems on management.
I have an old friend (old in how long we've known one another, not age) who retired from Saturn (management) specifically because of unions & badge engineering...& he also says the new Saturns aren't 'his' cars.
My question now is: since we the public are about to bail GM out (bet you guys can guess where I stand there), do we each get a car in return for our investment? If so, I'll take a Corvette!
However, while GM is finally going to the gov't for help (too late methinks), I agree with you that the unions aren't doing anything except blaming the problems on management.
I have an old friend (old in how long we've known one another, not age) who retired from Saturn (management) specifically because of unions & badge engineering...& he also says the new Saturns aren't 'his' cars.
My question now is: since we the public are about to bail GM out (bet you guys can guess where I stand there), do we each get a car in return for our investment? If so, I'll take a Corvette!
TR6oldtimer
Darth Vader
Offline
To digress a bit, on the issue of productivity. In the case of productivity it has not increased because of unionization or not, it has come about by changes in manufacturing techniques. When one looks back on the auto industry, there was a time when a team of workers built a car from start to finish. Ford changed this with the assembly line. Today cars a designed to facilitate assembly by robotic welders and painters. One of the programs I enjoy watching is "How it is made", the first thing you will note is the intensive use of automation and robotics. People are relegated to the jobs a machine has yet to be designed to do.
But I have to say that unions do hamper innovations that increase productivity. It is, after all their purpose to insure their members are employed, but not necessarily to the benefit of the business. How can I say this? Well I remember, long ago, when the painters union dictated the size of paint brushes the workers could use, and their fight to oppose the use of rollers, all to insure more painters would be needed to do the job.
But don't get me wrong, unions have done good as well, but like everything in life, given virtually unlimited power, some unions have gone over the line.
By the way, I was at one time a member of IBEW and the SEIU until I realized that the negotiated pay scale was actually a cap on my wages, and moved on to management, where I was rewarded for my productivity.
Oh, a fun story. When I worked in the shipyards as a union electrician, the union found out work was being done in the harbor by non-union workers, so they set up a protest picket line. A short time after we started marching back and forth, three black cars drove up and twelve guys wearing sun glasses and dark suits got out. A short time later the shop steward told us to leave. The guys in the car were CIA, the ship where the work was being done was the <span style="font-style: italic">Glomar Explorer</span>, the ship used to raise a Soviet nuclear submarine that had sunk in the Pacific.
But I have to say that unions do hamper innovations that increase productivity. It is, after all their purpose to insure their members are employed, but not necessarily to the benefit of the business. How can I say this? Well I remember, long ago, when the painters union dictated the size of paint brushes the workers could use, and their fight to oppose the use of rollers, all to insure more painters would be needed to do the job.
But don't get me wrong, unions have done good as well, but like everything in life, given virtually unlimited power, some unions have gone over the line.
By the way, I was at one time a member of IBEW and the SEIU until I realized that the negotiated pay scale was actually a cap on my wages, and moved on to management, where I was rewarded for my productivity.
Oh, a fun story. When I worked in the shipyards as a union electrician, the union found out work was being done in the harbor by non-union workers, so they set up a protest picket line. A short time after we started marching back and forth, three black cars drove up and twelve guys wearing sun glasses and dark suits got out. A short time later the shop steward told us to leave. The guys in the car were CIA, the ship where the work was being done was the <span style="font-style: italic">Glomar Explorer</span>, the ship used to raise a Soviet nuclear submarine that had sunk in the Pacific.
OP
RonMacPherson
Guest
Guest
Offline
I would like to restate that it is how the Unions are managed...
Examples.
Schuman carriage here on Oahu, the Cadillac dealer that opened back around the turn of the last century, closed its doors around two years ago.
Why Union MisManagement. Non-union until after the WWII when the folks came home from the war and all demanded equal treatment and pay. No problem for a couple of decades, but then they got greedy, production suffered. I inspected at the dealership and the trans tech, who was supposed to disassemble a 4L80E auto trans for inspection refused to do so, to the managers face. He was still working there a couple of months later. It got so unprofitable there that Dutch Schuman finally said, "enough" and closed the doors.
Servco who have the Toyota and some Chevy franchises through out the state also have Union, been union for several decades that I know of. Now they are on top of it. They closed unprofitable stores(actually merged them into successful ones) and rebuilt their contract where techs are paid on production.. Production went up, everyone is happy. And by the way Servco labor rate is the lowest manufactur dealer on the island under a hundred and all the other stores are well over a hundred.
Will a union protect you. Depends. Servco just laid off 120 people in the parts and service throughout the state because of the economy. Those that were protected by union were let go strictly by seniority. Those that were not union were let go by productivity and customer satisfaction ratings.
Examples.
Schuman carriage here on Oahu, the Cadillac dealer that opened back around the turn of the last century, closed its doors around two years ago.
Why Union MisManagement. Non-union until after the WWII when the folks came home from the war and all demanded equal treatment and pay. No problem for a couple of decades, but then they got greedy, production suffered. I inspected at the dealership and the trans tech, who was supposed to disassemble a 4L80E auto trans for inspection refused to do so, to the managers face. He was still working there a couple of months later. It got so unprofitable there that Dutch Schuman finally said, "enough" and closed the doors.
Servco who have the Toyota and some Chevy franchises through out the state also have Union, been union for several decades that I know of. Now they are on top of it. They closed unprofitable stores(actually merged them into successful ones) and rebuilt their contract where techs are paid on production.. Production went up, everyone is happy. And by the way Servco labor rate is the lowest manufactur dealer on the island under a hundred and all the other stores are well over a hundred.
Will a union protect you. Depends. Servco just laid off 120 people in the parts and service throughout the state because of the economy. Those that were protected by union were let go strictly by seniority. Those that were not union were let go by productivity and customer satisfaction ratings.
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] Those that were not union were let go by productivity and customer satisfaction ratings. [/QUOTE]
That somehow appeals to me.
I've stood firmly on me tongue throughout this thread. I'm pleased with mese'f fer it.
That somehow appeals to me.
I've stood firmly on me tongue throughout this thread. I'm pleased with mese'f fer it.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
DrEntropy said:
That somehow appeals to me.
I've stood firmly on me tongue throughout this thread. I'm pleased with mese'f fer it.
[/QUOTE]
Aw, Doc, tell us exactly how you feel....heck, we've come this far without any political or personal attacks!! Friends one & all....
coldplugs
Darth Vader
Offline
MGBGT_noob said:
This was the point I tried to make earlier but you said it better. I'm no fan of unions - one of the first things I learned about installing new computer equipment in union shops is to make sure your data collection terminals can't be reached by a fork lift - but I fault GM management for this debacle. Too bad we can't let it fail...
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Why can't we let it fail? Where do the bail outs stop?
OP
vagt6
Guest
Guest
Offline
Blaming unions for the fall of the big automakers is akin to blaming the mouse for being eaten by the cat!
The Board of Directors is responsible for leading these corporations, and no one else. It is <span style="text-decoration: underline">their</span> decisions and leadership (or the lack thereof) that determine the success or failure of the organization.
Unions are a small part, but by no means did they ring the death knell: Blame the CEO and the Board. They made the idiotic decisions, not the unions. Further, management must negotiate <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">effectively</span></span> with unions and employee groups. This did not happen, either.
Don't blame the hard-working rank and file for the misgivings of the $million dollar salaried fops at the top!
The Board of Directors is responsible for leading these corporations, and no one else. It is <span style="text-decoration: underline">their</span> decisions and leadership (or the lack thereof) that determine the success or failure of the organization.
Unions are a small part, but by no means did they ring the death knell: Blame the CEO and the Board. They made the idiotic decisions, not the unions. Further, management must negotiate <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">effectively</span></span> with unions and employee groups. This did not happen, either.
Don't blame the hard-working rank and file for the misgivings of the $million dollar salaried fops at the top!
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
I blame the management for giving in to the unions so as not to have strikes.....I blame the unions for asking for more than any other group of workers in America....in good times, the management caved in to the unions to protect their bonuses...in good times the unions asked for more & more....neither was thinking about bad times.
Now that its time to pay, they both need to ante up & be prepared to make concessions.....at least the union should tell all those horny union members to buy their own Viagra...that'd save GM $17,000,000 alone each year!
Now that its time to pay, they both need to ante up & be prepared to make concessions.....at least the union should tell all those horny union members to buy their own Viagra...that'd save GM $17,000,000 alone each year!
Golden_Swan
Senior Member
Offline
Can I believe what I am reading?
A political discussion going on for at least the last two pages!
"Why can't we let it fail? Where do the bail outs stop?"
Bravo and Hurra for Tony. Though I live in a social-democratic country, when I see people ASSUME the bailout will continue to the auto manufacturers, I see them talking about the same thing from the 80's, what happened to Chrysler, except it had a different name then, "No fault Capitalism". Now it's just called "Bailout". And what it really means is good old fashioned east European Socialism!
So even though I'm not anywhere near a moderator, Cut it with the politics, huh?
A political discussion going on for at least the last two pages!
"Why can't we let it fail? Where do the bail outs stop?"
Bravo and Hurra for Tony. Though I live in a social-democratic country, when I see people ASSUME the bailout will continue to the auto manufacturers, I see them talking about the same thing from the 80's, what happened to Chrysler, except it had a different name then, "No fault Capitalism". Now it's just called "Bailout". And what it really means is good old fashioned east European Socialism!
So even though I'm not anywhere near a moderator, Cut it with the politics, huh?
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Willie - like I told a friend recently, <span style="font-style: italic">"If you have $2,000 that's casino winnings & you want to gamble again but GM at around $2 and sell at around $6 - but don't quiver if it only goes to $5.50."</span>weewillie said:
I bought GM earlier during the crisis on the same assumption & got out with a 15% gain! Its since gone down some & climbed again. If you buy it now, you'll probably have to think long term (it was $35 in October 2007) unless you want to jump when it reaches $12.....last trade I saw for GM was $2.92 but haven't looked at it lately.
Go here to see what GM has done this year:
https://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/1y/g/gm
weewillie
Darth Vader
Offline
the way I see it is, the unions were there to protect the worker etc etc etc, and when they saw how much money the corporations were making they wanted a share of it(and that is not a problem) however when a worker stopped working and someone else had to pick up the slack and do their work too that's where I draw the line at protection. They are making the same money as me and doing nothing for it and management can't do anything about it.