Bravo!

Just as an update to this issue- the picketing UAW are rioting.  They have lanes of traffic closed to protect motorists.  The salaried workers, who have the right to work since they are not in the Union, were attempting to be bussed in but there wasn't enough police.  The police sent the buses away because they were afraid for the safety of the workers.  So, tens of thousands of dollars were lost today.  How is this going to help?  They have only been 10 days without contract. 

People say that they can't understand how these other nations blindly follow a leader, or why they act like animals.  Yet, we have a riot happening over a contract to get more then the already fair wages that they have.  We have people following the Union and obstructing the rights of other people by blocking roads and endangering fellow members of their community.  How can we bring peace to other lands when we can't even be civil in our own?

Unions did their job, yes..but would companies backslide if it wasn't for unions breathing down their neck?

I would say no.  It's not like non-Union workers are being abused in any way.  The laws are there now.  As an employer, you *have* to follow fair employment rules.

The Unions served their purpose.  The laws exist and even non-union employees are fairly treated.  They need to realize that they need to take on a new role.

Now, if they really wanted to help, they would turn into a shared employee non-profit corporation and lobby for lower healthcare costs and business taxes.  They would provide extra training and help with workflow.  Instead, they cost the employee money through dues, cost the employer money in disputes and management, and provide a huge legal hassle that really doesn't accomplish anything in the end.  They need to change.

Helix, Unions are on the decline. Karma is right. They have outlived their purpose. Now They are just destroying themselves. Why do you think companies outsource?

My mom works in a plant that has a Union. Unfortunately she is one of the few people that works hard no matter what. There are only a few people like her in the plant. The show up every day, work when they are sick, work hard and don't complain. Unfortunately because of that they get the worst jobs in the factory. The best workers get treated the worst. And all the lazy people there get to breeze by because of the Union.

mick k.  She gets the "worst" jobs because those jobs are typically the most important.  A huge problem is this: when a layoff happens, who gets laid off first?:

a) the "lazy" people
your mom if she is low on seniority?

Unfortunately, it is b.  And, that is simply just wrong.

Is it Greed or survival?

Don't single out a certain aspect of the system as the only problem because it isn't. Seeing a company or industry move amongst states rather than nations is a sign that things are not that far out of whack. Unions have little to do with jobs going overseas. People are not willing to work for such low wages and terrible working conditions as some of the other markets that started opening up overseas so most of those jobs were doomed from the start. Not to mention tax differences. If a company moves from one area in the States to another because they can pay less it is not necessarily that those people are more willing to work, but more likely that the cost of living is generally less as you move out from the city to more rural areas. Lower housing costs and often lower taxes.

The workers deserve to get as much as they can get. If they push too hard they loose, but sometimes you have to gamble. A good union knows their industries economics and knows the limits. "Rioting" as you call it brings in the news crews and companies hate that type of publicity. I'm not saying I approve of it but that is why they do it. Looks to me like Daimler Chrysler is making profits and showing higher profit projections in their market analysis so if that division is profitable then why shouldn't the laborers share the wealth?

Health insurance Co-Pay is risky for the individual. It may not end up being much for some, but for those who experience certain conditions is can be substantial. Sometimes a better deal to negotiate wages. In any case maybe higher wages may get someone's kids into college so the cycle isn't repeated. You have to look for the good in the bad. Seniority keeps companies from firing people as they age. And large corporations will target older folks because of statistically higher health insurance costs, injury rates, etc. Sure you always have your slackers but what else is new.

At some point what you call greed becomes survival. Two income families show one way that the worker class has dealt with the imbalances in globalization over the past few decades for example. But it is difficult to raise a family in some places in this country with $10/hr. wages.

Difficult for the working class to think they are the greedy ones when they turn on the TV and see companies price fixing, insider trading, fraud, etc.,etc. etc. There are a lot of modest living Americans who in recent years lost the savings they had for retirement or for their childrens college education not because of their own greed but the greed of the very corporations they worked for.There are some corporations that do play fairly but there are many that don't.

In any case don't blame it all on the unions and don't blame it all on the working class. If Corporate America doesn't play fair why should the workers be denied their rights to collective bargaining. So you may think that unions take away the ability of corporations to function as needed. Some have done that, but others know their industries well enough to keep the playing field fairer without breaking the bank. Is $20/hr an unfair wage compared to the golden parachutes of lousy execs? Is it worth fighting for your company paid health insurance when the insurers are under investigation for price fixing and are possibly the ones responsible for the contract difference in the first place? Is it fair that the concessions the workers make might be target to pay for execs bonuses? Or that decreased wages would deny their kids the ability to go to college?

Sure, the expense of unions is something that business doesn't need. But larger corporation are known to deal with unskilled labor on the basis of statistics rather than merit.These days most of the union jobs are ones still protected by trade laws, government jobs, or transportation differentials which keep them from relocating overseas. Sure we have labor laws in place but that includes collective bargaining. Some unions actually save costs because they adminster health plans, etc. in larger volumes for several companies.

In any case more money to the worker and they consume which creates business. More money to business and they invest in business. But nobody will invest in new business and emerging markets in a hostile, corrupt, uncertain environment. Add to that the high energy costs. So don't blame the current economy on unions. It is simply not true.

 

Seeing a company or industry move amongst states rather than nations is a sign that things are not that far out of whack.

The only reason why they would move to a new state is to start a facility without a Union and knock down the cost of manufacturing.  If they could move oversees, I am sure that they would.  They need to keep their manufacturing facility in the US for corporate reasons, not because it makes financial sense.  I doubt that Daimler Chrysler would have any problem giving, say, Germany a crack at making more money.  People need to wake up and realize that America is not the manufacturing powerhouse that we used to be.  There are many emerging markets out there that we need to compete with.

Unions have little to do with jobs going overseas. People are not willing to work for such low wages and terrible working conditions as some of the other markets that started opening up overseas so most

People in the US *can't* work in the type of conditions that some oversees companies do due to our laws.  We don't need the Union for that.  There are labor laws that protect everyone equally.  However, I think that you need to investigate some of these markets as they aren't exactly the "terrible" conditions that Americans want to believe.  As an example, if we don't watch it, Japan will become the new powerhouse in the automotive industry.  They typically work in a high standard of conditions and have great pride in their work.

At some point what you call greed becomes survival. Two income families show one way that the worker class has dealt with the imbalances in globalization over the past few decades for example. But it is difficult to raise a family in some places in this country with $10/hr. wages.

Does an unskilled janitor deserve $52,000 a year?  You are obviously out of touch if you are thinking that *anyone* is making $10 at these places (except for possibly the temps or maybe the receptionist, but certainly not out on the line).  I don't think tier one is under $15 for totally unskilled labor.  Most people are making over $40,000 a year, and have little or no college at all.  Survival?  That isn't survival, that is greed.

Is $20/hr an unfair wage compared to the golden parachutes of lousy execs?

$20 an hour for unskilled labor is unfair.  It ends up costing the economy because *everything* ends up costing more.  A $20 wage does not cost the company $20, it ends up costing them about $35 with taxes.  Add health insurance to that, and it's now costing close to $40 an hour.  Employees are considered assets not liabilities when it comes to taxes.  It *is* unfair, and it is costing America jobs.

"Rioting" as you call it brings in the news crews and companies hate that type of publicity. I'm not saying I approve of it but that is why they do it. Looks to me like Daimler Chrysler is making profits and showing higher profit projections in their market analysis so if that division is profitable then why shouldn't the laborers share the wealth?

They were rioting.  The news showed them throwing bricks and throwing nails in the lanes to pop tires of any of the salaried workers transportation. The publicity that was given was in total favor of the corporation, not the workers who were acting like animals. Those salaried workers didn't deserve being denied access to their job, and they certainly didn't deserve having their fellow coworkers endanger their well being.  What do you think that the "Union" just did for the working relationship between Union and Salary within the plant?  Does any corporation need that type of animosity?  Keep in mind that this was only after 10 days of being without contract.  10 days! They were even in serious negotiations at the time, but they still went on strike.  Daimler Chrysler as a whole is profitable, but DDC is another question.  They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for DDC a few years ago (it was owned by Penske and was losing money), and it's highly debatable if it has even come close to paying that off.  So, why should the *other* workers in other parts of Daimler Chrysler pay for a non-profitable business by supplying extra wages to the workers? Why should the company have to pay the workers more instead of being able to open up new businesses or expand current ones?  Sounds like socialism to me.  Let's share the wealth even though you did very little and others did a lot.  People should get paid what they deserve on the basis of what they contribute, not simply because a business was run well and is profitable.

So don't blame the current economy on unions. It is simply not true.

I don't blame it all on the Unions, they are just one example.  I blame it on people like you that think that people should get every cent that they possible can even if they don't deserve it.  People like you that can't see how these ridiculous demands on wages have made our economy so unstable and have cost many people their jobs.  People who can't see that the people running companies that have Master and Doctorate degrees as well as a fiduciary responsibility *should* get paid for the education and liability burden that they bring to the plate.  If you owned a business and had the burden on your shoulders, would you still give "Johnny who sleeps in a box for half the day" an equal cut, or do you think that you would deserve more than him because you were the one losing sleep at night because of the stress of owning a business?

In any case more money to the worker and they consume which creates business. More money to business and they invest in business.

More money to the worker creates a higher standard of living cost for everyone which raises prices (at the same time that prices are raised because the good costs more to produce due to higher wages).  A modest wage keeps prices down and gives money to corporations to create new jobs.  Which would you rather have, high wages and a high employment rate, or lower wages and a low unemployment rate?  Wages are at an all time high, and so is unemployment.

I feel that you are one of the people that I am referring to when I say that Americans need to wake up and see what is going on.  Corporations are formed to make money, and they will do so even if it requires them to find cheaper labor in other countries.  Multi national companies have even less interest in the US, so why shouldn't they just produce in a market that is less costly?  At what point will the American economy get low enough to give us a wake up call that what we are doing right now is not working?  When will we start doing what is best for our country and not what is best for our person?

Karmagirl

I worked at UPS when they were getting ready to strike about 8 years ago. I was a temporary employee - by choice; I was a college student at the time. There were also permanen non-union employees and union employees. I cannot tell you how many times the union and the "other" employees bumped heads. The non-union employees actually got slightly better benefits and the same pay as the union, and yet the unionites went around telling us that joining the union would be better. At least they started off by telling us, and then it degenerated into thinly veiled threats and harrassment. They would go around and randomly put union bumper stickers on cars, never let a moment pass to make a derogatory comment about us and/or the company (yeah, the company they also worked for), and would block our way when trying to leave the plant. Leave! My time there ended before things got really bad.

I never really understood the argument about a living wage. Yes, it is important for people to make a living wage, so why did you take a part-time job at 8$ an hour and then demand that THEY change, rather than you go look for a better job? It seems to me to be a very frightening symptom of a larger issue. Too many people feel that they are entitled to everything they want. The Constitutions grants us the right to *pursue* happiness. It does not grant us the right to a minimum of $60,000 per year.

I do admit that sometimes times are tough, and jobs are not always easy to find or get. However, if you are an unskilled laborer, then your pay should be as small as the skills required for the job you are doing. If you don't like it, you are free to *pursue* other options.

Good article. Thanks! (By the way, ever read Atlas SHrugged by Ayn Rand?)

"The only reason why they would move to a new state is to start a facility without a Union and knock down the cost of manufacturing."

But if you look you will find that the UAW has unionized the newer plants in the South and on the West Coast. You have differences in state taxes and also need to look at the transportation infrastructure for raw materials and finished goods. I wouldn't doubt the steel tariff shenanigans is what sent some industries packing from there.
Add the cost of bringing imported steel into the Seaway vs. other ports and stockpiling raw materials for ice season.

"However, I think that you need to investigate some of these markets as they aren't exactly the "terrible" conditions that Aylmericans want to believe. As an example, if we don't watch it, Japan will become the new powerhouse in the automotive industry."

Many of the countries our corporations have set up shop in have either no, substandard, or socialized medical care. Not to mention the ones with minimal labor laws. We simple can't compete in manufacturing in some of the countries without ditching half of the labor laws we have. I'm not talking about Japan either. The big difference there is the work ethic, but also they have a modernized, efficient steel industry. About the best you'll find in the wordl. But it's not like Japan hasn't had its problems. They went quite a few years with no growth recently. Japan already is a powerhouse of the auto industry and has been for a while. But we've been trading partners with Japan for decades.


"You are obviously out of touch if you are thinking that *anyone* is making $10 at these places"

I did not say that I was simply responding to your statement of: "Employers have to pay $20 for a $10 job."
I know they make good money. But if someone barters for $20 its a $20 job. If you don't you lose.
If $20/hr bothers you...What the longshoreman make would probably give you a heart attack
I'm in no way advocating the way the UAW is doing things but sometimes it takes some noise to get a bigger piece of the pie.

"Wages are at an all time high, and so is unemployment. "

Yes things are not good, particularly in that area. But it isn't the UAW's fault.
It's probably the hardest hit region in the country. High wages and unemployment means the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

"At what point will the American economy get low enough to give us a wake up call that what we are doing right now is not working?"

That's what running a deficit is all about. As the dollar loses strength against foreign currencies it should stimulate investment within the US manufacturing sector.


"A modest wage keeps prices down and gives money to corporations to create new jobs."
A modest wage keeps prices down and gives money to corporations to create overseas jobs.
A good paying job gives you extra money to invest in the corporations paying their employees modest wages.

I would say no. It's not like non-Union workers are being abused in any way. The laws are there now. As an employer, you *have* to follow fair employment rules.

I don't know Karma, I worked for a security company and they totally abused me. I had to work with a alcoholic, he put my life in danger because he was the one in charge in emergencies and he was the one that was suppossed to train me to know what to do at the site, the account magager ignored my complaints of harrassment, and when I was 'laid off' I filed for unemployment and was denied by my own company and they told unemplyment that I quit PLUS that I had no reason to quit as well.

Currently there is an investigation into this matter by OSHA, but in the mean time I am living on nothing (at least until recently when I took at temp job).

So I would say unions will exist and rightfully so, but they can be just as bad as the company itself. In this Detriot situation, I have to say it is greed on the employees part. Your getting 15 - 20 and hour, health benifits, and other pluses but your striking? I would tell them something and it would be this:

Security guards REALLY need a union, you do not
Forieng companies outproform you, yet you want us to buy American
You get better than living wage (way better) but you would rather tear down your own company in wage increases

Give me a break.
This is what is wrong with the airlines. people getting 40,000 a year for doing less than what a person at McDonalds does.

What is happinging here is people living high off the hog and they don't want it to slip away.

Very insightful and well written article. I work at a union (UAW) plant as an engineer and have seen a lot of what you've written about.

I agree the time for unions is past.

It looks like the workers cut their own throats on this one.  They came to a tentitive 5 1/2 year contract.

Here's a big picture that I pieced together through different information sources, but it all lines up, and doesn't look good.

A local paper reporting about the situation said:
"Additional uncertainty surrounds the future of the plant when DaimlerChrysler starts producing a new heavy-duty engine in 2010. The engine, which will replace Detroit Diesel's mainstay Series 60 engine, will be engineered in Redford, but DaimlerChrysler has not said where it will be manufactured."

Why is 2010 a magic number, and why should the manufacturing workers worry?
The plant is leased.  Its lease is up mid 2010.  The new contract for the workers is for 5 1/2 years, not 6 (like previous) which ends their contract a month or so before the lease expires on the building.  This gives DDC time to get a new line set up somewhere cheaper, and have it running in parallel with the series 60 ramp down.

Considering that there is a rumor that the strikers destroyed over $80,000 worth of property (not to mention the wages/ production lost during the down time) during the strike, I'm not sure how people reasonably expect these corporations to bend over backward for them.

Workers & Management, always a complex issue. Michigan has a lot of Union workers, & I'm sure watching it day by day can make a non-union person sensitive to inequities unionized workers. In California, we had a very long grocery store workers strike last year & as the various sides stated their cases, it was hard being sympathetic to a group of people who didn't want to contribute to their health care (I have to share health care costs with my employer), in an industry with a very low profit margin.

Historically, of course, Unions were a concept that provided the poor, immigrant classes safe working conditions and satisfactory benefits. No one can forget reading Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in school. You would have been blogging about greed from another prospective back then (well, not blogging, but editorializing in another media).

Greed seems to be the operative principle that runs business. The pendulum swings one way, then the other. But obviously the checks and balances are not operative. The first step for businesses, whose employees are costing too much is to move to states who have lower benefit expectations, like Saturns being the first GM car moving from Michigan to South Carolina, or some southern state. The next step is to move to a poor country, like Walmart buying most of its merchandise from China. Then we lose employment and some struggling writer in South America writes another inciteful novel.

Karma, I agree, unions outlived their usefulness YEARS ago.. They were created out of the disasterous working conditions in the 30's and 40's. When workers were grossly underpaid, management was abusive, and working conditions were absolutely abysmal!

So whats the excuse now? There is none, and unions need to go away. I know a guy that makes $75,000.00 a year putting seat covers on Mustangs, he has a 10th grade education, and has trouble with basic spelling and math. Hes not an exceptionally hard worker, and in fact, i'd rate him as below average in working ethics. So why does this guy get 75k a year and free health insurance? Union. Does he deserve it? Heck No! Like I said, Unions totally outlived their usefulness.

Good article.

Bob McNaughton