UAW workers paid $75 an hour!!!

[SgtSpike]

:clap

For the most part it's information that due to a variety of factors fails to compute with those who do not see a company as a team but as a dictatorship and the minions. And the minions better not complain. I've said over and over again that "unions" exist for a reason and it's not greedy workers, but workers who want a fair shake and in many cases don't get it which has been historically illustrated many many times. Of course then there is the argument about what is fair. Certain people in this forum (and I'm not referring to the Sgt) believe that fair= employment and that is all. "Your lucky to have a job!"

And yes unions are made up of people who can over reach, just like executives who become greedy with the consent of their BOD. Both should be judged critically. But conservatives usually only want to judge "labor" and turn a blind eye to the executives.

I understand that, but I still have three major problems with unions.

1. If a job isn't good enough for someone, why would they take it without asking for more? In other words, if the companies aren't paying enough in wages or benefits (which you just alleged they are not), then why are people still willing to work there? It's not like there's a monopoly on jobs - there's plenty of other places to work at (well, maybe not now, but that's besides the point).
2. How is it fair to non-union employees who do not receive near as much in wages or benefits as union employees receive?
3. How is it ethically justifiable for workers to take away money from the owners of a company without the company's consent? That is essentially what unions do.

 

[Alien Allen]

The unions are slowly but surely adjusting to the times. Back not that long ago they would basically hold hostage a school system, the Big 3, etc.

I might be wrong but when Reagan took down the Air Traffic Control Union it was the slow change towards a bit more reality. IMO

I can remember teacher unions closing schools. Now that is a rarity and I think might also be illegal.

There is nothing wrong with a union if it is reasonable. The same should apply to management. Both though are ripe for greed.

IMO...... today the UAW is not acting in the best interests of their members. The date certain asked for which they refused to accept is looking to be a very bad decision as now Bush is talking of some type of bankruptcy as the way to possibly go.

Should this happen I am more concerned about the innocent suppliers and their workers. They had nothing to do with this. They already have been squeezed by the Big 3 to give away their products at ever lower costs..

 

[SgtSpike]

The unions are slowly but surely adjusting to the times. Back not that long ago they would basically hold hostage a school system, the Big 3, etc.

I might be wrong but when Reagan took down the Air Traffic Control Union it was the slow change towards a bit more reality. IMO

I can remember teacher unions closing schools. Now that is a rarity and I think might also be illegal.

There is nothing wrong with a union if it is reasonable. The same should apply to management. Both though are ripe for greed.

IMO...... today the UAW is not acting in the best interests of their members. The date certain asked for which they refused to accept is looking to be a very bad decision as now Bush is talking of some type of bankruptcy as the way to possibly go.

Should this happen I am more concerned about the innocent suppliers and their workers. They had nothing to do with this. They already have been squeezed by the Big 3 to give away their products at ever lower costs..

I agree that unions CAN be good, and CAN make good decisions that benefit everyone, but naturally, since they're made up of workers, they're going to try to get as much for workers as possible. And why should we leave it up to the unions to decide who gets paid what? Shouldn't that be a contract betweeen the company and employee? Why do we need a 3rd party to decide these things for us? So that people aren't "underpaid" for all their tough assembly line jobs? If they were getting underpaid, they wouldn't take the job.

What would happen if there were unions for CEO's? A CEO could say to his board of directors, "Hey, I want an extra $5 million bucks, and you can't fire me for asking for it, and I'm not going to show up to work until you give it to me." There'd be an outrage.

I don't know where we went wrong on this... since when does anyone "deserve" a certain pay? They deserve whatever they accept the job for! If they think they deserve better, they should keep looking for another job. It's that simple, and it's the way things should be.

 

[Alien Allen]

Let me think on this one Sarge and I will get back to you tomorrow.

In the meantime you might want to do a little looking at the history of labor back in the day.

Unions were a positive back then because some businesses had a lot of clout and employees were easy come and easy go as the job did not require anything but effort.

There is a reason that big union leadership had a history of corruption as they let the greed drive the bus. now that bus is headed into the ditch

 

[SgtSpike]

Let me think on this one Sarge and I will get back to you tomorrow.

In the meantime you might want to do a little looking at the history of labor back in the day.

Unions were a positive back then because some businesses had a lot of clout and employees were easy come and easy go as the job did not require anything but effort.

There is a reason that big union leadership had a history of corruption as they let the greed drive the bus. now that bus is headed into the ditch

Oh I agree there were horrible things in labor way back when - I just think that the laws and regulations we now have in place against bad workplace environments and working too many hours are sufficient to allow the free market to do the rest of the work.

And I'll try to read up on unions and the beginnings of them, but I don't really have a good place to start... if anyone can help out with that, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Alien Allen]

Oh I agree there were horrible things in labor way back when - I just think that the laws and regulations we now have in place against bad workplace environments and working too many hours are sufficient to allow the free market to do the rest of the work.

And I'll try to read up on unions and the beginnings of them, but I don't really have a good place to start... if anyone can help out with that, I'd appreciate it.

I would not do any better than you can by goggling.

Hoffa is an old school Union guy though so I would ask him for what he could point you to. But expect it to be pro union.

Having said that ............. I live just outside of Detroit where I think... could be wrong... unions got their start due to the strong arm tactics by the auto makers. It was brutal .... But then you had corruption take over the leadership of the union. do some googling of Jimmy Hoffa to get a taste :nod:

 

[Minor Axis]

I understand that, but I still have three major problems with unions.

1. If a job isn't good enough for someone, why would they take it without asking for more? In other words, if the companies aren't paying enough in wages or benefits (which you just alleged they are not), then why are people still willing to work there? It's not like there's a monopoly on jobs - there's plenty of other places to work at (well, maybe not now, but that's besides the point).
2. How is it fair to non-union employees who do not receive near as much in wages or benefits as union employees receive?
3. How is it ethically justifiable for workers to take away money from the owners of a company without the company's consent? That is essentially what unions do.

Mostly these questions illustrates your total allegiance to management and the total minimization of rank and file employees who live and work in "an economic system". Companies are teams, it's as simple as that. But historically companies have been notoriously stingy with wages and benefits in factory/production jobs. That is why unions came into existence. Workers busting their asses saw the owners getting rich while giving them minimal reward. Unions force employers to share a bigger piece of the pie. There is nothing unfair about that unless your the greedy owner you thinks it's all about you, your comfort and success. Your employees, especially your good employees are what made your vision happen.

And I have never suggested that rank and file employees deserve as good as the owners or the top executives but they deserve a decent wage. That is where the rub probably lies, is getting you and me to agree on what a decent wage and benefits are.

 

[SgtSpike]

Mostly these questions illustrates your total allegiance to management and the total minimization of rank and file employees who live and work in "an economic system". Companies are teams, it's as simple as that. But historically companies have been notoriously stingy with wages and benefits in factory/production jobs. That is why unions came into existence. Workers busting their asses saw the owners getting rich while giving them minimal reward. Unions force employers to share a bigger piece of the pie. There is nothing unfair about that unless your the greedy owner you thinks it's all about you, your comfort and success. Your employees, especially your good employees are what made your vision happen.

And I have never suggested that rank and file employees deserve as good as the owners or the top executives but they deserve a decent wage. That is where the rub probably lies, is getting you and me to agree on what a decent wage and benefits are.

Lol, that does nothing to address the issues I have about unions. But I guess we can just agree to disagree.

I don't see how it is fair to forceably take money from the shareholders and give it to the workers any more than how it is fair to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They earned it, they deserve to keep it or give it away as they see fit, NOT have someone else make that decision for them.

 

[Peter Parka]

Its hardly just "giving" it away is it? Unless you think the workers contribute nothing to the sucess and money making of the company.

 

[Tim]

Lol, that does nothing to address the issues I have about unions. But I guess we can just agree to disagree.

I don't see how it is fair to forceably take money from the shareholders and give it to the workers any more than how it is fair to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They earned it, they deserve to keep it or give it away as they see fit, NOT have someone else make that decision for them.

Let me ask you a few questions...

Do you have a job? If so, how many hours will you work this week?
Do you get paid holidays? Paid vacation?
How about benefits?

Corruption aside. Unions are a way for workers to collectively bargain with their employer. They are not a way to extort money.
If a group of workers form a union and lobby for a better work environment or better pay, the management has every right to refuse. Hell, nobody is holding a gun to their head. They could fire every last one of them and hire all new employees if they so wish. Union contracts are a two way street. Both management and union employees must agree on the terms before they can go forward and sign the contracts.
As to the above questions. You can thank the unions for 40 hour work weeks. Overtime for anything after 40 hours. Maternity and family leave. Paid holidays and vacation. Safer work environments, better lighting, safety equipment and safe work practices. Hell, you can even thank them for making what you are today, because it's the unions who have progressed the blue collar workers wage over the years. Without the union working towards equalizing pay between blue and white collar workers, you would be working for dollars less an hour.
None of these things could have ever happened if it were individual workers lobbying for change in the workplace. The companies would just fire that person and replace them. The only voice a worker has is through collective bargaining.
I suggest you read up on your history of unions. Learn the things they have done for all of us.
Then you can blast the corrupt unions with a clear conscious. You will understand that not all unions are thugs and extortionists and you have directly benefited from union influence.

 

[Minor Axis]

Lol, that does nothing to address the issues I have about unions. But I guess we can just agree to disagree.

I don't see how it is fair to forceably take money from the shareholders and give it to the workers any more than how it is fair to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. They earned it, they deserve to keep it or give it away as they see fit, NOT have someone else make that decision for them.

That's right give management a pass. Forcibly? I could tell you how a company can do a strategic bankruptcy (a bankruptcy that was not necessary for lack of money) for the express purpose of forcibly knocking down all the non-management employees earnings. Don't ask for more details because on second thought due to the sensitive nature, I don't want to give any more info than that.

 

[SgtSpike]

Its hardly just "giving" it away is it? Unless you think the workers contribute nothing to the sucess and money making of the company.

Anything above and beyond the free market wage is "given" away, yes.

Let me ask you a few questions...

Do you have a job? If so, how many hours will you work this week?
Do you get paid holidays? Paid vacation?
How about benefits?

Corruption aside. Unions are a way for workers to collectively bargain with their employer. They are not a way to extort money.
If a group of workers form a union and lobby for a better work environment or better pay, the management has every right to refuse. Hell, nobody is holding a gun to their head. They could fire every last one of them and hire all new employees if they so wish. Union contracts are a two way street. Both management and union employees must agree on the terms before they can go forward and sign the contracts.
As to the above questions. You can thank the unions for 40 hour work weeks. Overtime for anything after 40 hours. Maternity and family leave. Paid holidays and vacation. Safer work environments, better lighting, safety equipment and safe work practices. Hell, you can even thank them for making what you are today, because it's the unions who have progressed the blue collar workers wage over the years. Without the union working towards equalizing pay between blue and white collar workers, you would be working for dollars less an hour.
None of these things could have ever happened if it were individual workers lobbying for change in the workplace. The companies would just fire that person and replace them. The only voice a worker has is through collective bargaining.
I suggest you read up on your history of unions. Learn the things they have done for all of us.
Then you can blast the corrupt unions with a clear conscious. You will understand that not all unions are thugs and extortionists and you have directly benefited from union influence.

Yes I have a job, work 40 hours a week, and get full benefits.

Regarding what you said about unions, I'm confused. Because last I heard, if union workers went on stirke because they want better pay, the companies who they were working for couldn't fire them. Is that not true?

Then I can also thank unions for sending millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. :thumbup (Being sarcastic here, I don't want manufacturing jobs in the US). I think it's funny how people complain about that. Either you pay way too much for American manufactured goods because American workers want all sorts of benefits, or you pay less and don't have the manufacturing done here in the US. You can't have both though. If you want $100 toy cars, by all means, bring the manufacturing to the US! Lol...

Anyway, I agree with you that unions have done some good things for the workforce here. I just don't think they are necessary (or fair) in today's day and age. If the people aren't happy with the wages or benefits they are getting, they should quit, and find a new job. If the manufacturers stop getting enough workers because they aren't paying enough, then they'll pay more. It's that simple, and it works (without screwing with the supply and demand in the free market).

That's right give management a pass. Forcibly? I could tell you how a company can do a strategic bankruptcy (a bankruptcy that was not necessary for lack of money) for the express purpose of forcibly knocking down all the non-management employees earnings. Don't ask for more details because on second thought due to the sensitive nature, I don't want to give any more info than that.

Makes sense. All I'm saying is that we should let them return to non-unionized workers who do not distort the real value of the work that is being done. Not giving management a pass though, the board of directors should see that management needs to take a pay cut to help the company, and should direct the company accordingly.

 

[Peter Parka]

Anything above and beyond the free market wage is "given" away, yes.

So you believe the company could survive then without the blue collar workers?

 

[SgtSpike]

So you believe the company could survive then without the blue collar workers?

No, but I believe there are plenty of people who would work for $40/hr on an assembly job (or heck, maybe even $10?), so the company wouldn't have to pay $75/hr if they weren't unionized.

 

[Peter Parka]

No, but I believe there are plenty of people who would work for $40/hr on an assembly job (or heck, maybe even $10?), so the company wouldn't have to pay $75/hr if they weren't unionized.

Do you actually read stuff before posting?

 

[SgtSpike]

Do you actually read stuff before posting?

Sometimes.

What did I miss this time?

 

[Peter Parka]

People wouldnt be on $40 an hour if it wasnt for the unions, in fact a lot of people still arnt. Minimum wage here is about 6 quid ($10) an hour and there are more people on that than $40 an hour.

 

[kelvin070]

Unions should think hard about flexible wages which comprises of a fixed and variable component. The variable component will depend on profitability of the company

 

[Peter Parka]

Unions should think hard about flexible wages which comprises of a fixed and variable component. The variable component will depend on profitability of the company

Agreed as long as there is a fixed mimum wage, one which is dependant on a contract which both boss and employee sign which sets the minimum standard of work the employee is expected to do or they can be dismissed immediately without any compensation and the minimum standards and conditions the boss will provide.

 

[kelvin070]

Agreed as long as there is a fixed mimum wage, one which is dependant on a contract which both boss and employee sign which sets the minimum standard of work the employee is expected to do or they can be dismissed immediately without any compensation and the minimum standards and conditions the boss will provide.

A formula with a win win solution can be worked out