Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16705 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: usfmarine (Jan 05, 2009 12:03 am) I am also a former Army sgt. and that word hero should go to the men and woman of are ARMED FORCES for the sacerfice that they are induring. So if you do see one of are men & woman put out you're hand and say thank you!! |
|
|
Replying to: usfmarine (Jan 05, 2009 12:03 am) Good Post! |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 04, 2009 8:21 pm) There is a difference between Union bashing and pointing out mistakes made by a Union. In this case the UAW. You are very biased in your narrow views on how the World should be. The reality is that the import auto makers are kicking the Big 3's butt on quality and doing it with USA workers. You can bemoan the fact that people will work for less in other states. I was a Union member for 46 years before I retired. I was never as blinded to the faults of the Union as many on this thread are. You expect money to just grow on trees. The UAW has bullied the B3 and especially GM for years. They have had such wimpy management that they did not know how to stand up for the company. To my way of thinking implementing a contract that screws future employees to maintain the status quo for the existing employees is not any kind of concession. Getting rid of the Jobs bank was just common sense. Now it is your turn to explain something. You seem to be a UAW insider. Why on earth would the UAW strike GM this year when they were bleeding red ink? GM had lost $38 billion dollars and had little hope of making any money this year and the UAW calls for strikes on two of the only plants that were making vehicles that GM was able to sell. If that is not sticking a knife in the back of the company that is paying the bills, I sure do not know what you would call it. Your overall postings further point out the entitlement mentality so prevalent in the UAW workers. Nothing in our Constitution guarantees you a middle class income. Let alone an upper class income that most UAW workers have had for the last 50 years. The UAW worker is NOT MIDDLE CLASS. They are UPPER CLASS. When you make $100k per year you are in the top 5% of wage earners in the USA. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 04, 2009 10:22 pm) That is exactly correct. If it was not for the large donations that the UAW and other Unions give to the Democrats, they would not even be considering loans to the nearly departed GM & Chrysler. The loans are for the UAW workers and NO OTHER REASON. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 04, 2009 9:45 am) Most of the time the extreme highs and extreme lows are thrown out because they may involve specialized segment. Therefore not really considered in the mix. Any time a business, employing a lot of people, starts up, the surrounding area bennefits. A number of other businesses may move in. Their' pay scale is in competition with each other, not with the new business/factory. While true that businesses catering to the UAW employees might suffer or close for lack of businesses, when a plant closes, that would happen whether the UAW worker had been making $28 or $15. Just because the worker at a D3 plant was making a certain pay and got a raise didn't necessarily mean the guy changing tires at the local tire store got an equal raise or bennefits. His compensation would be only be affected by the pay at other tire stores or comparable industries. Businesses will pay what is necessary to get and retain skilled people for their particular type of work. That is where the "Averages" really fall into play. I don't buy most argument that the UAW single handedly raised the middle class standard of living for all Americans. It simply raised the standard of living for the UAW workers. When the D3 closes plants, what do those UAW workers find to do to continue their lifestyle? Few companies in the area pay anywhere near the same. Many companies don't really want them because of the union/entitlement attitude. And yes there are always exceptions. Kip |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 04, 2009 9:45 am) That sounds nice, but all that extra money floating around in the local economy drives up the cost of housing, utilities, taxes, etc., so the non-union folks are no better off than before, and may even be worse off if the numerical inflation of their wages and property pushes them into more punitive tax brackets. |
|
|
whether Big 3 can build cars in Japan, but I did recently read in one of my "car books", critical of the American auto industry, that years ago, I think it was Gm had the opportunity to sell cars in japan, but they "arrogantly" refused to design their cars with right hand drive...if true, they wonder why Japanese consumers won't buy them???... I am reading a book now, "The End of Detroit", written about 5-6 years ago...amazing how prescient the book is/was, as tho someone was writing it today... It seems that anyone and everyone outside of GM/Ford/Chrysler saw this coming 10-20 years ago, and only the BIg 3 stuck their heads in the sand in denial... Interesting comments about the short tenure of Bob Stempel as Chairman of GM, and what a disaster he was, also sticking his head in the sand...seems that GM was a master at manipulating numbers to make it seem like they were profitable, but they were losing money on every car they made, and failed to learn ANYTHING from the Japanese method of manufacturing and from NUMMI in Fremont, Calif... What is amazing is that they survived this long losing billions every year, and building cars well in excess of their market share, only to pretend to be Number 1...stupid...
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 05, 2009 10:29 am) |
|
|
lotsa stuff for me to respond to. yes the transplants have done well. they are non-union thanks to our labor laws which make it extremely difficult to organize workers. (The passage of EFCA should help there; interesting that every transplant has unionized workers in their home countires but choses to adopt the anti-union legacy here) thus their benefit costs have been lower (supplement unemployment, health care, defined benefit plans (pension) legal services, etc) transplants also don't have the enormous legacy costs for past retirees (almost 500,000 at GM alone) that are going to be transferred to the VEBAS. plus they received rather hefty state taxpayer subsidies to locate where they did. again let's not forget that labor costs are about 10% of the product. yes the domestic auto industry also made some bad decisions but they are doing better. let's also not forget that while the uaw has a say in terms and conditions of employment they have no say in certain management perogatives. walter reuther asked the big 3 to make a small car in the 50's. he was told in no uncertain terms that he had crossed the line and had better shape up. now i guess you could argue that the uaw should have (given up) bargained away the difference in benefit costs before now. easier said than done - particularly now. lets not forget that the uaw constitution (not any law), says the membership must ratify its contracts. Plus let's not forget that most of these benefits were negotiated during periods when the auto industry was doing quite well. why or how does the uaw say we will reduce benefits to the level of transplants while the employers are paying the salaried employees and managers rather well and making handsome profits. ok someone also suggested that when the choice is bankruptcy, why not negotiate away vested benefits (lifetime health care for past retirees). good point! indeed most employers would like to have the ability to bargain about past retirees -hell their gone, can't strike, don't vote for union leadership or ratify contracts piss on the old farts, times are tough indeed that was the big 3 did to their salaried retirees. also think of the temptations at the bargaining table--you want a wage increase for active employes and voting members, how about trading that for reduced retiree benefits? the retirees can't do anything about it let me assure you that such propositions has been put on the bargaining table. but the uaw has a proud history and culture. retirees are special --very special. yes bankruptcy kills everything and could be worse-but even making a proposal to negotiate away a vested retirement benefit (that was promised to someone after working for 30 years in a factory) would enrage and insult any uaw negotiating committee. if you don't understand the difference between negotiating it away and losing it in bankruptcy--the only analogy i can give you is that of choosing between surrender and being run over by a tank. there are some things you just have to do--bring on you tank. i still can't seem to reach some people that how the uaw spends its dues money (43 year old black lake education center) is an internal matter not really fairly before the federal government or the taxpayers. yes in congressional hearings, the uaw supported the big 3 requests for bridge loans to keep the plants open. these loan checks or wire transfers were reportedly made out to GM and Chrysler. the uaw has not received any money directly from the us treasury. ok the big three gets the loan money and start paying creditors,; employees are creditors in that sense-so at the second level, workers benefit from the loans, ok the workers who are uaw members pay dues of 2 hours pay per month to the UAW - so at the thrid level the uaw benefits from the loans, so the uaw gets the dues money and spends some of it to maintain the black lake education center which has been used almost exclusively by uaw members for 40 years. we now have traced the loan through four distinct levels of transfer. IF the loaning entity, the government (or the taxpayers) have the right to question the appropriateness of the expendiiture through 4 levels of disbursement-----then look out. where do we draw the line--fifth level, sixth level. we now have a new form of GENERAL government supervision of all economic decision making called big big brother personified. if however ron gettlfinger had spoken up in the congressional hearing and said --the uaw needs help too, we are an integral part of this industry and we have lost two thirds of our membership. we have trouble making payroll and paying expenses--could we have a couple of million dollars loaned to us by the taxpayers so we can continue to service our members and administer the contractrs and participate in the needed restructuring of the auto industry. if he had made that request and if our republican senators would have said sure--we have always believed that workers are entitled to a voice in their affairs and theat union are partners in the economy---how many million would you like? or if president bush had told treasury to call up the uaw and ask them how much they would like (by the way i assume you all know that the UAW was stonewalled (not invited) to loan discussions with the big 3 and treasury.) had this occured --then by all means --jump in-- tell the uaw that the black lake center is too lavish to maintain (dig up walter reuther reuther's ashes and dump the center), that the golf course should be sold first at whatever price you can get. but gettelfinger didn't ask for any money for the uaw and neither bush nor the southern repukes offered to give a dime directly to the uaw. case closed!!! so i say again--if the uaw wants to spend its membership dues on education and recreational activities for its members and as long as such expenditures are not illegal--it is none of the government's business and indeed none of the taxpayers' business. if uaw finances get desperate enough, something will have to be done at the black lake center--but that is for the uaw and something called the "unfree market forces" to decide.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 04, 2009 9:48 pm) the international is the parent part of the UAW-- headquartered at solidarity house in detroit--it has responsibility for all uaw membership (there's one canadian local- since the CAW divorce--so that;s why its still an "international union). the uaw holds convention every three years to elect officers and set policy (like financing the uaw black lake education center from interest on the strike fund) the uaw has a well deserved reputation for being a clean, democratic union. any member can appeal almost any union decision to an outside Public Review Board composed of non-uaw professors and clergy. Uaw salaries for staff are not lavish. I am not aware that any union officer in its 75 year history has ever been indicted let alone convicted of corruption , fraud or self dealing. delegates to the uaw conventions are elected by uaw members at the local union level.l The locals are separate legal entities - usually connected to a single facility--thus local xyz may be located across the street from a big 3 dallas car plant. labor agreements are negotiated jointly by the international officers and staff and the involved local or if it is a mulitplant contract-- locals. negotiated contracts must be ratified by the membership
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
