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)
16707 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 6:03 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 15, 2009 6:01 am) It is simple supply and demand. Rocky always pointed to my $38 per hour as a reason that a UAW worker should get $30 per hour. That IS pure idiocy. The reason I got what I did was a willingness to work away from home and family. I lived in a 10X12 room for half the year and ate in a cafeteria. It sounds like a great job. We had many people work in the Arctic one shift and not come back. They did not want to leave the wife and kids for 3-6 weeks at a time. If I had quit and gone to work in CA doing the same work, I would have been lucky to get $25 per hour with no pension. If a person thinks they are worth more than they are getting paid. Find someone that will pay that price and quit where you feel underpaid. That is the beauty of a system like ours. Unions can rob us of our individuality by bringing the good producers down to the level of the poor producers. That is where the UAW, AMA, NEA and many Civil Service Unions are right now.
|
|
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Jan 15, 2009 2:20 am) 1) if the workers are really skilled enough, they wouldn't get laid off. If they're skilled enough, as soon as they get laid off they'll get another job easily. 2) If the workers are skilled and aren't overpaid, other companies will gladly take them. 3) If they're smart enough they would've boycott UAW rules that force them to join the union. 15 or so years ago, we were going through a consolidation in the defense industry. The VP of our division went to the IBEW and IUE asking for concessions to help manage costs. These were not wage or benefit reductions, but rather he just wanted a relaxation of the work rules so workers could be more easily moved around to meet the demands of the program. Well, the unions (a lot like the UAW, it seems), balked at this, so the VP played hardball. He just told 'em if he didn't have the flexibility in the unionized workforce he needed here, he would just move the work elsewhere where the unions did not exist. Since we already had mfg plants in Texas and Puerto Rico, they knew he was not bluffing. He got what he wanted, and the result is that the jobs stayed in the area. On another note, this same VP noted that he never noticed the workers on the floor or the maintenance staff (unionized) leaving for greener pastures. He concluded that things for them must be pretty comfy (wages and bennies above the industry norm) for them to stay. On the other hand, professionals (engineers) were leaving all the time for better paying positions, so the company put more money into the raise pool for the professionals to keep they around. This was a good example of items 1 and 2 in your post. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 15, 2009 6:28 am) I have a close friend that is a teacher and is in their union. I learned long ago not to talk to her about unions and someone who has tenure. She's very good at what she does, has won numerous teaching awards, and makes less than some tenured teachers who keep a bottle in their top desk drawer. That is what the unions have done to her school district.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 15, 2009 6:06 am) Here is the big question. Why, if Universal Health Care is SOOO important to the UAW, do they not want their retirees going on Medicare at age 65? I do not understand. They are on Medicare at age 65. Is somebody saying different?
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 15, 2009 6:58 am) Was that part of the 2007 contract concessions? What was all the flap about viagra and retirees? Is it the supplemental that is costing GM a bundle? Or do the retirees pay their own supplemental, as most of US retirees? Something is costing GM $1500 per car related to the retirees health care. Or Wagoner and Gettlefinger are not being honest.
|
|
|
Replying to: yankabilly (Jan 15, 2009 3:59 am) You're missing the real point. The point is, putting enough effort (read: work hard) and keep improving yourself (brains, skills, etc) makes you a valuable asset, which means the upper guys will want to keep you as long as they can. If you put mediocre to so-so effort and wish to get better pay, just drop dead. What's real sad is many Americans think they deserve more than what they get. UAW is a great example for this, not all of them of course, but many of them keep putting mediocre effort while thinking they deserve more and more pay. This type of people will fail, they always do, because the world isn't nice and only those who work hard can survive, period. This is why UAW and many other unions fail, they get too lazy and greedy to the point their lifestyles make no sense anymore. |
|
|
Replying to: mikefm58 (Jan 15, 2009 6:52 am) My ex wife that is a very good teacher felt the same way about the NEA. She finally left the public school system and took a huge cut in pay to teach in a private Christian school. Better discipline and parental involvement. I do understand the dilemma that a long time teacher faces in many parts of the country. The parents do not teach their children any respect for authority and it shows in the children from Kindergarten on. My sister in law went back to teaching when her son headed to college. She is going to retire early after this school year. She is tired of K-3rd grade kids kicking, spitting and punching her with no recourse allowed. The principle's hands are tied and parents do nothing. I'd knock the little suckers across the room and end up in jail. I could not be a teacher in our public school system today. Oh, and the NEA does nothing to protect teachers that try to discipline rowdy children. Not sure what they are good for except as a huge political lobby group. I doubt the leadership in the NEA is any better than the UAW. Just smarter.
|
|
|
Personally I find union workers a bunch of spoiled lazy bums. I won't expect medicare and whatever else from the employer. I'd work even harder, expect bigger pay for my effort, and make sure I have enough to take care of myself until I die without having to rely on, beg, or demand from my employers. That's the kind of mindset you need to have to succeed. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 15, 2009 7:36 am) For the Hourly GM pays what ever it cost to get the insurance over medicare. As of a couple years ago it was no copays or any cost at all to the retiree. Now the extra insurance requires some copay and max cost. To me it is pretty minimal so the insurance must be pretty high. And GM pays the whole bill for those who retired and are under 65. (remember the UAW has 30 and out and many took it with the buy outs). In an effort to reduce costs by $1 billion per year, GM and the United Auto Workers (UAW) agreed that retired hourly workers would start paying monthly contributions, deductibles and copayments for medical services up to $370 per year for individuals and $752 for families.
|
|
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Jan 15, 2009 7:36 am) For some reason the UAW and many other Unions believe they can change the basic rules of nature. Survival of the Fittest is rule Number ONE... |
|
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
