I knew that Ronnie headed the guild, bud did not know that he was advocating the creation of trade unions in E. Europe. That would seems kind of redundand since most if not all of the workers in E.Europe were already unionized.
I disagree with that. I would say that the first real trade union behind the Iron Curtain was Solidarity in Poland (remember Lech Walesa?) and that was formed in the early '80’s (I think - too lazy to look it up).
I met Lech personally in the 90’s after he served two terms as a Polish President. Anyway, I guess you are de-facto right since Solidarity could have been a “true” trade union compared to the panzie ones created by the commie-socialists.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Edit: And XSellSide - Brad Pitt is almost > certainly a card-carrying member of SAG and he > makes lots more than you do. … and waaaaaay better looking.
I think RR’s keeness on trade unions in E. Europe came from the Solidarity movement rather than the other way round. The Solidarity movement was obviously a pain against the communist leadership (hence why it was banned), and on the principle of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, Ronnie and Maggie encouraged Solidarity and other similar movements in communist countries, even whilst breaking their power (at least in Maggie’s case) in their own countries. My interpretation anyway…
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I agree that uneducated autoworkers who are > > unionized have a pretty sweet deal, and that > it’s > > a bummer that hummers are so expensive because > of > > it, > > I don’t see the connection between unions and the > cost of hummers. Last I checked, hummer providers > weren’t unionized. Hummers are GM cars, and I thought that the UAW negotiations with GM were the impetus for this thread. The claim was that their unreasonable demands made the products they produced with their labor too expensive. However, maybe hummers are expensive because car dealers ask so much for them (and customers are willing to pay). If that’s true, then the “unions make consumers pay too much” argument doesn’t hold up very well here.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bchadwick Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I agree that uneducated autoworkers who are > > > unionized have a pretty sweet deal, and that > > it’s > > > a bummer that hummers are so expensive > because > > of > > > it, > > > > I don’t see the connection between unions and > the > > cost of hummers. Last I checked, hummer > providers > > weren’t unionized. > > > Hummers are GM cars oh, sorry, misunderstood.
I was reading the front-page article in the WSJ yesterday regarding the new union contract with UAW. The article mentioned that GM cars sell for less than the average Japanese car so, given the much higher fixed cost to produce the cars, results in extremely skinny margins for GM.
Homer: What does the job pay? Carl: Nothing… Homer: D’oh! Carl: …unless you’re crooked! Homer: Woo-Hoo!
I agree with many comments aic made, but make union illegal is a bit too far. Even with union, employers sometimes collude. I think it happened in MLB once? Like someone said, ideally, we should have a world in which union is legal, but nobody really needs it. Is it applicable to guns, too?
>>I think RR’s keeness on trade unions in E. Europe came from the Solidarity movement rather than the other way round. The Solidarity movement was obviously a pain against the communist leadership (hence why it was banned), and on the principle of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, Ronnie and Maggie encouraged Solidarity and other similar movements in communist countries, even whilst breaking their power (at least in Maggie’s case) in their own countries. My interpretation anyway…<<< mostly agreed.
It sounds like people don’t really have a balanced viewpoint on unions. Personally my father was a union member (Coca Cola worker), my brother and my mother are union members (USPS workers). Throughout my life I have seen the good and bad points of the union. 1. The idea that the average union worker makes 52/hr + OT is ridiculous and completely wrong. That comes out to $108,160 with no OT. Considering that OT is 1.5x regular and an average worker my work 10hrs of OT per week, then that would come out to $148,720. That is utterly stupid to think that. Only the most skilled and highly traded workers will make anywhere close to 150k. That’s your crane operators at ports that have worked there for 40 years. Typical ignorance. However, what is most shocking is the complete inability to realize what actual workers get paid. Your typical union worker might make 70k *with* OT. I knew a friend that made 100k, but he worked 80hrs a week for 6 straight months with 5 years of experience. The guy knew how to work, knew how to be efficient, and knew where things needed to go in order to deliver mail on time. Sure, 100k is a lot, but for essentially destroying your body, with 5 years of experience you think it’s unreasonable? Get off your high-horse. If your here and you have more than 5 years of experience *and* you have your letters *and* you work for a bank, then you’re making a hell of a lot more than 100k. I work for a bank and I work ~60 hrs a week and I get paid more than that at 4 years of experience as a VP. 2. Unions were designed to help workers who were easily replaced as a commodity to give them some type of collective power. Many think that this is not needed anymore. However, having worked at the USPS myself over several summers while going to college, I can tell you that the union IS needed. Part of it is the old-style management of cronyism, poor oversight, poor education, and even worse objectivity of higher management. Many places, such as the USPS are old decripit systems as far as management goes. Many of the managers don’t even have business degrees but wield tremendous power. This is why you had unions, to balance that out. I have seen managers who were Vietnam Vets be able to fire people on the spot for no reason at all. Naturally the Union stepped in and stopped it, but only after tremendous mental anguish on behalf of the worker. in other cases, the union prevents people from taking away what they promised to deliver in the first place. 3. The downside to unions is that they encourage apathy. “I get paid $X if I move 5 pieces of mail per hour or 100, so why not move 100?”. Additionally, in many cases, they protect people who shouldn’t be there in the first place, like drunks on the job driving forklifts. 4. Somebody mentioned about people losing jobs despite the union that their father is in. This is probably the 2nd biggest problem with unions. Most members cannot fully grasp how their actions affect a company. Those larger salaries, pensions, healthcare, drag these companies. However, when it comes down to it you can’t prevent Americans from wanting cheap shit from China, which drives business overseas. Unions can’t stop that. Frankly, it sounds like people have only educated themselves about unions through cnbc or Bloomberg from headlines with little to no analysis. It’s ridiculous for people to not even analyze the situation in an unbiased manner, thinking of the advantages and disadvantages.
highparkcfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I met Lech personally in the 90’s after he served > two terms as a Polish President. That would be a fine moment in my life if I got to do that. I have enormous respect for him. > Anyway, I guess > you are de-facto right since Solidarity could have > been a “true” trade union compared to the panzie > ones created by the commie-socialists.
spierce: Thanks for your posting. I certainly learned something and it is always nice to get different perspective/knowledge/opinons. Afterall, that is why I stop by. One thing is though, I would not call postings here analysis. They are merely opinions, thoughts, and feelings based on limited info. I would not say it is ridicurous just to express opinions. Of course we get things wrong and you are free to correct us. Again, just my opinion and I might be wrong. That said, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you think about this UAW situation specifically? Did you think they made right decision to go on a strike, or do you think they could have done better?
aic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unions essentially promote employee collusion > which drives up labor costs and, indirectly, > consumer prices. Why should corporations be > prohibited from colluding to manipulate prices if > employees are allowed to do the same with wages? > They both have the same effect on consumers…higher > prices. > > People should get paid what the market says they > are worth and not a penny more. Keep the “employer collusion” thought in mind next time you ask for the market rate for your bonus. I also think that in a concentrated area like Detroit there’s definitely collusion with respect to how much they’ll pay factory workers… Not that I really support the UAW, I just realize what they’re trying to do…
Basically what it comes down to is everyone in this world is concerned about their own interests over anyone elses. I guess I can’t blame the UAW for acting how they do or GM on behalf of its shareholders. As I always like to say, “After me, you come first”.
zigy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce: > > Thanks for your posting. I certainly learned > something and it is always nice to get different > perspective/knowledge/opinons. Afterall, that is > why I stop by. > > One thing is though, I would not call postings > here analysis. They are merely opinions, thoughts, > and feelings based on limited info. I would not > say it is ridicurous just to express opinions. Of > course we get things wrong and you are free to > correct us. Again, just my opinion and I might be > wrong. > > That said, if you don’t mind me asking, what did > you think about this UAW situation specifically? > Did you think they made right decision to go on a > strike, or do you think they could have done > better? Personally, I think the auto companies sucked so much out of the workers in many ways. First off is the pension, they used pension accounting bullcrap to manipulate the numbers and either manage earnings, or short the workers. That’s why so many of these pensions (bethlahem steel?) are in trouble, because management has screwed workers when times were good *and* bad. That’s why I think it’s a good idea for the UAW to take control of the money, provided that a 3rd party trustee is chosen and a money manager chosen by an elected council is hired. The last thing I’d want, as a union worker, is to have those upper echelon mofuggers from having control over multi-billion dollar portfolios. As far as wages go, they need to take a cut. They either cut, or they get screwed in the long-run by driving their company into the ground. The caveat to that is that management needs to guarantee that they won’t be spreading around bonus’ when the times get good, to only upper management. No Delta bullcrap there. Did they make the right decision to go on strike? I think they didn’t. I think all parties should realize that GM and F are in trouble. Both parties need to give up a lot in order to make sure the companies survive and become more profitable. one thing that I found interesting was a piece on 247wallst.com about GM and F fuel efficiency and sales. Domestic manufacturers are ~20% less fuel efficient than foreign manufacturers, which drives sales. I think they not only need to reduce prices on cars, but also make cars people want. This is where one of the bigger sources of distrust comes in. Your average worker sees that they sweat their asses off, take licks “for the good of the company”, yet when it comes to bonus time, only management gets anything. They give up a lot while getting no cheese. When I was working at the USPS I saw this. My mom had been working there for ~25 years. She made a decent amount of money, certainly better than her masters degree in education would have gotten her. The union was going to “strike” (the USPS can’t technically strike), but settled. Management, despite being an over-bloated, ineffective, and poorly run body, decided it was bonus time. I forgot the average bonus given, but it was quite a bit. What did management, in all of their plethoric “people skills” give the workers? 100 grand. Not 100 grand per person. Not 100 grand per unit. A 100 grand candy bar. Yes, a candy bar. Even better, it was a *STALE* candy bar, manfuacturing date was 2 years prior. Government surplus, 100 grand. That’s the kind of BS workers have to deal with. They give up a lot, get nothing *AND* get pissed on. That’s why there are unions. ----------------- Another Anecdote is my dad. He worked at Coke for 35 years. Had a pre-law degree, but my sister happened and he had to abandon the idea of becoming a lawyer to raise kids. He was about to retire and his dipshit boss decided that he wanted to extract a little more from my dad. He said that if my dad wanted his retirement to go through unfettered he had to give the boss my dad’s retirement present, a grandfather clock. It was ~3k clock Coke gives retiring employees. My dad put his time in, he deserved what he got from Coke and this bunghole wanted to take it. My dad called the union and the guy almost got fired. unions are good and bad, I’d like to think the good outweighs the bad, but I am not so naive. However, it’s not correct to think that it’s all bad.
Ronald Reagan would get rid of terms negotiated that would hurt the health of the industry (even though it would benefit his employees). Now it’s as much as I can take for the present, screw the company. Remember the union-run airlines? Out of business!
Thanks for sharing your insightsand experience, spierce. >it’s a good idea for the UAW to take control of the money, provided that a 3rd party trustee is chosen and a money manager chosen by an elected council is hired. That sounds like a good idea. If I were them, I would not want to let someone I cannot completely trust manage my money. >They either cut, or they get screwed in the long-run by driving their company into the ground. Exactly. I think that is why people here are upset to see UAW going on a strike, saying “job security is our priority.” >when it comes to bonus time, only management gets anything. They give up a lot while getting no cheese. Certainly understandable to see them upset. But I also wonder why they stay there. I would try to get new skills and leave for somewhere else (or get education and try to become one of them mgt). Maybe some do. Or some are just not able to do so though willingness for whatever the reason. I don’t know. >it’s not correct to think that it’s all bad. That I agree. I guess it depends on how you manage it. Thanks again for sharing.
aic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have thought about this. Should someone who > most likely did not graduate highschool (i’m not > saying this is everyone doing physical labor in > the auto industry) deserve to make $52/hour + > overtime. Their wages are inflated as are many > others that work in areas that are unionized. > > Unions make people lazy. People join unions > because they are easily replacable. Those of us > that are not part of a union are the ones that pay > in the long run. My lazy-ars junior high school > global studies professor that had no idea what he > was doing and didnt come to class half the time > retired on my dime. > > Children in school has nothing to do with unions > and if you are asked to work a seven day week and > you only want to work five, get another job. not everyone is capable of working as a white collar professional, they need some protection. Also theres still alot of very dangerous jobs out there, heavy manufacturing, construction, mining etc with out unions alot of those workers would be dropping like flies. If you take a labour relations course and study the decline in union membership and change in laws groverning unions, you’d get the sense that unions have been severly curtailed since the early eighties.