Who's more responsible for the decline in of the big 3: Union or Management?

[ALS]

The problem was she kept people on she should have dumped on unemployment to help them out.
Like I said she didn't see a paycheck for 6 months so her employees could keep getting their paychecks.
Guys these are not minimum wages jobs. There isn't an employee working for her making less than $14 or $15 per hour. These people will not work 40 hours. Most are part timers because they want to be. I would say her average employee works less than 30 hours a week. I have the same problem with employees that were working 40 hour weeks 2 years ago now working 25-28 hours a week.
They complain how they're making less money than last year. DUH I wonder why. I have one woman that cut 5 hours per week and she was complaining that she made $2,000 less than last year. She would have made close to $2000 more if she had just kept the same hours.
People on the other side of the desk have no idea what management has to deal with to make a buck.
I'm always looking for ways to save money in my overhead. I remember 3 years ago I changed the way I did my payroll. I had 2 Managers ask to see me in my office. They never looked at the new way they only thought they were getting the shaft. I sat there and went through the payroll with them step by step showing them they would be getting an average of $2,500 raise. One asked me why would you want to pay us more? Again Duh!
I told them maybe I would like to keep the good people I already have and be able to hire the kind of people I want down the road.
I pay better than all my competitors and treat my employees better than any of them.

 

[oilyriser]

What's needed is more and faster flexibility, so the system can adapt to changes in business structure, before the workers run out of savings and have to go on welfare.

 

[medic]

I worry about the financial well being of my employer for one reason and one reason only - so I know they can pay me. Everybody should look for way to trim the fat for their employers before they become the fat that gets trimmed.

 

[LarryL]

The union members know that the management makes all the money and union members have no responsibility for being productive. The company owes them a living, and healthcare and a big retirement. After all, they are union members. The fact that GM is in trouble is the time to go for higher wages and more benefits and a longer contract. Management is weak. Who cares if the cars are less than good, not a union member's problem. Nope. And the rest of you better buy American. You're supporting your country.

By the way, what's the base wage for a union member working at one of the big three domestic plants? A janitor with no tools, training or seniority is almost $25/hour plus health care and retirement.

 

[ALS]

First I don't want anyone to think I'm against Unions over all. I have a real problem with Public unions who work for tax payer money.
I don't think they should exist. As far as private unions such as the UAW I have no problems.
I have three employees who's husbands are union members. They are members of the Postal, Plumbers, and the Boilermakers. The postal worker is a great guy and understands what a hard days work is worth. The other two it took some time to educate them how to keep from getting laid off. I've known both these guys for over ten years. We have had some long talks about the pluses and negatives of being a member of an union. The boilermaker got it after being laid off for almost 2 years in the late nineties. They came within 2 months of running out of money to pay the mortgage. He got back on the job, changed his attitude, and hasn't seen a lay off for close to 5 years.
The plumber learned about 2 years ago after watching his unemployment run out and waiting another 3 to 4 months to be called back. The plumber use to take 5 to 6 months off on a voluntary lay off. His normal routine was to take off from Thanksgiving to middle of January. Then take off from Memorial day to Labor day. He would set up work under the table for extra spending money during the lay off periods.
The problem occurred when there was no work available when his unemployment ran out.
The job he has now he is the only union plumber on the job. He was put into the position of a supervisor over 8-10 other non-union plumbers. He got the job because the owner requested the union hall to send him out. He worked for the company about a year ago and busted his tail while on that job. The owner took a liking to him due to his work ethic and wanted him back. The other Union plumbers on that job were not asked back.
BTW I understand that the rules have changed in some of the union halls in the area. Employers wanting to hire can now request particular members instead of taking what the Hall sends out. I'm pretty sure that the "Don't Kill The Job" attitude is going by the wayside since the number of quality Union Jobs is decreasing quickly in the area.

 

[keith]

When Japan had less than 1% of US market share and the unions demanded the moon, the employer could find a way to pay for it. The 70's/80's oil crunch was a big turning point, Japanese cars really caught on, and the US employer was stuck with contracts they could no longer afford as market share dropped. The unions protected what they had, ignoring that they were killing the golden goose. It's been a 25 year trend downwards.

Who is to blame? There is plenty to go around and it didn't happen overnight.

The warning sign of doom is when the employees believe their allegiance is to the union rather than the employer.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Revisit the movie "GUNG HO".

 

[k1xv]

Perhaps Congress has a share of the blame too.

The retirement benefits negotiated did not require the set up of reserves to pay out of, as is normally the case in an actuarially sound business.

In an actuarially sound business, if you take on an obligation in, say, 1975 to pay someone something in, say, 2005, for the work they performed in 1975, you must set money aside out of 1975 income to pay that future obligation when it comes due.

Instead, the employers were permitted to make the promises, and then assume that they could fund what was due in 2005 out of 2005 income. That may be possible with an expanding business, but is all but impossible when the business is shrinking.

Had laws been in place to require actuarially sound funding of post retirement benefits, this would not have occurred. And had the laws at that time required more fiscal responsibility on funding post-retirement benefits, such generous benefit packages would not have been entered into.

So the answer for the future is more regulation, not less.

 

[sprintman]

The unions are to blame?? What an absolute load of rubbish. Ford and GM in Australia are 100% unionised and some of their workers earn up to to d@mn near $100,000 per annum. The difference is they can't build the vehicles quick enough to supply demand and Holden (GM Australia) export to 28 countries including the U.S. Now anybody with half a brain can work out why. The vehicles Ford and GM build here are sensational. Build quality, handling, braking, performance etc are, as Wheels Magazine said about the latest 6-speed auto Falcon, "as good as European vehicles costing three times the price" and they mentioned BMW 5 series. 'Build it and they will come' is something GM and Ford in the U.S and Canada need to get their head around. It's done here with a totally unionised work force, any excuse that Americans can't do the same is lame at best. Build the right vehicle for the current marketplace and you can't fail, no matter who you are.

 

[mechtech]

Policy is set by management. They know beforehand what they have to work with.
That lays the preponderance of blame at their feet.
BTW, many 'foreign' cars are made in the USA, and many of our cars are made abroad. This sure muddies the total picture.

 

[medic]

Wow LarryL, you obviously have issues with unions that go far beyond anything we can discuss here. I won't even try to open up that can of worms.

ALS, what is wrong with Pulic employee unions? A union firefighter in St. Bernard Parish, LA (which was recently under water) starts at $6.55/hr. As a rule, public employees can't strike. If they feel they are getting a raw deal in contract negotiations then it goes to arbitration. An arbitrator comes in and looks at what the government can afford and what the union is asking for and makes a decision that both sides have to stick to. This is about as fair as it can get. The government could always subcontract these jobs out but historically that is a bad idea.

 

[Gary Allan]

Some how there appears to be the impression that "union" equals "screw off worthless employee that you would fire in a minute if you could and you would affix some punitive measure to them to punish them for some alleged crime that they commited and make sure that none of their relatives went to the same school as your kids" type thing.

The basic deal of collective bargaining is the clear definition of responsiblities. No nebulous policies ..no arbitrary alterations ...a bargain made is a bargain made. It's that simple. Most of you would blame the rabble for the poor choice that they make ..whether it's due to stupidity or whatnot ...yet you somehow appear to blame the union member ..when all the highly paid and highly educated negotiators agreed to their compensation package. If someone had another over a barrel ..and capitalized on it ...there would be a sizable consensus here that would say that the guy on the short end of the stick was negligent in allowing himself to be in that position to begin with ...essentially saying that he got what he deserved. Now however, the managment of GM, Ford, etc ..are the poor victims of mercilous highway robbery and ..shame on those who benefitted from their naivate.

What magic potion did the unions have that took the word "NO" out of the suits vocabulary?? Was there a gun to their head? Did they not have the brains to add the plus and minus signs and make an informed decision? If not ..then they are surely the ones who aren't earning their paycheck. They are the slackers and the dullards. They are the negligent and unattentive. They are the failures in sophistication or preparedness.

Unfortunately ..they won't get what they deserve. They, the stewards of these fine corporations ..will get rewarded in spades ..while those that they promised these things to..will be left holding a bag of filled with air. Will that make some of you feel better??

 

[Not the Autorx Frank]

Gary, ok I'll risk public humiliation responding to your post

I think its really more of a dislike for the "union" not the union member. Individual acheivement kind of gets discarded in unionized jobs. They can't really fire you so all you have to do is show up (flame suit ready) . I understand sticking it to the man and all but I think things have gotten just a little out of hand. I think we would have better products at better prices if the INDIVIDUAL was more vunerable so to speak. I guess I am a little resentful so to speak because I managed to succeed on my own merit through a lot of hard work and a lot of failure on the way. The idea of entitlement just gets me going and I feel the union is not far from the polititions in this arena.

 

[Not the Autorx Frank]

BTW what is the literal translation of "GUNG HO" anyways.. LOL

 

[Pablo]

Unions have turned into places for loafers. Not all union members are loafers. Well OK maybe all public employee union members are loafers - but the fact that employees know they can screw off and be double insulated from any discipline is not an incentive to hustle. Plus screwing off still equals same high raises and same great health care and no indivualized reason to excell.

Unions are from the old days of no employee protection laws, they are archaic collections to fight workplace repression. Let's face it - IF those laws suddenly go away (they won't) the unions may have a place again. Unions sour the work environment, and the whole this is my "type of labor don't touch it" even for carrying a bloody box are stupid, and extremely unproductive. I have seen it first hand and it doesn't work.

Unions collect dues and use the dues for political causes. Usually liberal/left/democratic lobbying of the worst type. Union members regardless of political persuasion have little or NO say in how their own mandatory collected money is spent. I simply wouldn't tolerate this, and many don't, but are quickly stifled when they speak up. Teacher's unions are terrible in this regard.

The worst thing about unions? Management can be worse....and that my friends is very scary.

 

[JHZR2]

There are obviously a lot of misunderstandings regarding unions, etc. I know I myself have them, I know firends do, etc. I can say that I have more in common with union workers than I do with multimillionaire managers... and I realize that everyone nees to make a decent wage. But it seems that in the world of normal folks (say people whose gross household salaries are under 120k), the unionized workers have an easier way to get their monetary security, with less chances of severe situations than others do...

I know from personal experience... a number of my friends went through school, got an enginerering degree after a LOT of hard work, get out in the workforce, and guess what? A Union base rate worker with no seniority makes more or less the same money. Its quite depressing, and often the question becomes, whats the point? Maybe this is short sighted, I think so, but I know people who now feel this way.

Theres also the idea that somehow public employee unions are lesser entities than others. Public employees, most all needing a college degree, but most of all working desk jobs are somehow inferior. An electricial or plumber or UAW worker actually mnakes stuff... a public employee is lazy. They have no right to a Union. Has it ever occurred that especially here, there ARE a lot of lazy workers (union or not) in general who simply dont care much? I wish there was some productivity crossed with quality metric that could be universal to see how the 'laziness' of public union workers crosses with other union tradesmen. Id bet there is an imbalance, and just because a public worker can sit behind a desk doesnt mean that they'd be on the bad end of the scale....

Id also be interested in seeing what percentage of American car quality defects are design related, versus what are manufacturing related. Some have claimed before that the Japanese, for example, take more price in their work. Is this so? I dont know, but it is a potential hypothesis. And, if a worker here isnt going to take pride in their work, then they dont deserve a cushy job or a decent wage. Therein lies the issue with unions. At least on the surface, and probably in reality, there is no real control of quality control for the actual trades that the members partake. If there is no real responsibility, then things dont matter so much. If I didnt get my work done, Id get canned or docked for leave without pay. It seems that such things arent enforced when a Union is involved.

Once again Ill say that I think there is some truth in the concept that in a large entity such as, say GM, the highest worker shouldnt be paid more than 10x the lowest. Maybe this is anti-capitalism, I dont know... I just throw out ideas... but it sure seems that if this was the case, everyone would have to take a little more care in what was going on, as everyone would be closer to earth... Take that extra $$$, invest it in improvements, etc. $25/hr for a tradesman vs millions of dollars per year for management seems to create an issue in and of itself... and it enables the blame game far moreso than if pays were more similar.

JMH

 

[ALS]

The reason I have a problem with the public unions is the public is forced to pay their salaries. In a private sector if I don't like a company or their policies I can shop elsewhere.
Most guys I know that are union members are hard working and worth every cent they are paid. But I would say 25% TO 30% of the people working in these unions should be tossed out on the street. These are the ones that give everyone else in the union a bad rap.
I have a problem when I see for example The NYC school system having to spend over 1 million dollars and an average of 7 years getting rid of a total misfit teacher in their school system.
I saw two cases of outstanding teachers turned away at the door so a mediocre teacher could be hired in their place.
You want tell me different I'll never believe it.
I tell you about a young lady that decided to go into teaching. Her second year of teaching she got her own 5th grade classroom. This district (not in Pa.) is ranked at the bottom of the achievement in the state and U.S. Her first year her class scored above the state and national averages on the national testing. Let me add they cherry picked her class and she also got every problem 4th grader in the school. This young lady figured out how to keep their interest and motivate them. She got a letter of accommodation from the School District and they gave her an award in a plaque and held an assembly at the school in her honor.
She then had to put up with most but not all of the other teachers making remarks of "Oh here comes the Super Star."
Or "How does it feel to be Gods gift to teaching".
The next year she was replaced by the school board.
Her Principle could not believe what they had done. It seems the teachers in the school went to the union and wanted her out of the school system. Why? Because she made the rest of them look bad. The teachers excuse for the kids poor performace was it was "the parents fault".
How many times have you heard that one?
When she was grading papers during her first year as a student teacher, the teacher supervising her asked her why she was writing corrections in the columns on the kids English papers. She said so they have an example of how to write the sentence correctly next time. The teacher said why waste your time these kids are too stupid to learn and their parents are even stupider.
She can't even get a full time job in the public school system here in Western Pa. She was substituting 5 days a week at one district.
When it came to filling the vacancy she was filling in for the school board turned down her principles request to hire her. They went with the individual the "union" suggested. She is now working in a Private Catholic school.
I don't have a problem paying a teacher like this $50k,$60K or more a year if the kids are getting taught by the best we can find. But I do have a problem when you can't get rid of a total misfit due to tenure and have to pay them top dollar on top of that.

 

[MillerMan]

management............short term planning, and they let the unions get out of control, they should have packed up and left northamerica long ago when the unions got out of hand

 

[stringsattached]

Another big one from me.

If you don't feel like reading all of my babble, part 1 is about unions, and part 2 is about the big 3...

Part1:
Alright. I DO NOT work for a union, but my dad and a lot of my friends do, so we've talked it out quite a few times, and their general feelings seem to be about what are showing up here on this board.

Here's how I understand these things to work:
In a capitalist economy...
Buy material + buy labor = product. As long as the value of the product is greater than the cost of the material and the labor, a profit is made. However, by design, this results in the laborer NEVER getting paid what their labor is worth. If they did get paid what their labor was truly worth, there would be no profit, because the equation would balance itself out.

So, people start unions or some other kind of confederation to keep from getting screwed over too much. The idea is for the union to squeeze and squeeze so that they can get salaries/benefits that are as close as possible to a true reflection of their labor, which makes things a little more fair.

However, the unionized workers do not have the power to change the direction of the company, only to change the efficiency with which it operates. The general direction of the company, marketing of the product, research, etc. is up to the administration. If this is about right, I think it is a little nuts to put all the blame on the union workers for a company's downfall unless you can make the case that the workers caused so much strife and their demands were so unreasonable that the sheer amount ineptitude caused the organization to collapse.

It also seems a little loopy to me that unions can make all kinds of demands to ensure their security (pay raises, retirement, seniority laws), but then often fail to return that same kind of security to their management and their organization by slacking off and pulling dumb tricks. Maybe they feel like the management "owes" them or something.


Part 2:
And don't overlook the obvious in this... what part does the consumer play? Maybe people just flat out don't want to buy the same kind of cars and trucks that the big three have been producing anymore, and their analysts didn't predict the changes in time/correctly. Maybe you can pin it all on the marketing, or the research. Maybe you can blame everyone for putting all their eggs in the wrong institutional basket. People/governments/empires have make big mistakes and called out the wrong shot before, why is it so hard to believe that a consortium can still be so wrong, and so "wrongly wrong"? Maybe because it's so much fun pointing fingers...

At any rate, the internet has undoubtedly changed the way people buy products in the last 10 years. When my dad was a kid, a "good" truck was what the people he lived with said was good, and that was what he bought. Now you can go online and read reviews from some guy in the South Pole and compare/contrast every product under the sun. If 50 people over at Edmunds say that the car you want to buy is a piece of junk, how long do you think it will take you to change your mind and start looking at another brand? How long do you think it took those 50 bad reviews to accumulate vs. how long it took to design, manufacture, and market that car? The new market can change in the blink of an eye, and sometimes it's hard for lumbering giants to change their tune quick enough.

 

[Win]

"Ford and GM in Australia are 100% unionised and some of their workers earn up to to d@mn near $100,000 per annum. The difference is they can't build the vehicles quick enough to supply demand and Holden (GM Australia) export to 28 countries including the U.S. Now anybody with half a brain can work out why. The vehicles Ford and GM build here are sensational. Build quality, handling, braking, performance etc are, as Wheels Magazine said about the latest 6-speed auto Falcon, "as good as European vehicles costing three times the price"

I agree that the Holden vehicles are of excellent design and build quality. I would not hesitate to buy another if they are made available here. A Maloo in the garage would look fine next to the GTO.

I thought I read that GM had greatly increased the funding at the Holden design studios, such that Holden is, or will be, the third largest design group within GM, and isn't the Monaro designer now in North Amercia as head of GM design?

I hope we will be seening a strong Australian influence on GM car design in the next two or three years.