Jacampb2 wrote:You know, I have almost replied to this thread several times, but I get angry and decide not to. I finally decided to add my two cents, hopefully I won't start an argument, but here goes.
I like to think that we are pretty civil at arguments here. We've got a pretty good spectrum of political beliefs and opinions. And while we do get into some pretty deep debates, it has generally not come between us as friends.
In this case I believe the car industry bailouts have been sensationalized to such a degree by the media, that it unfortunately means the naysayers seem to be quite a bit more vocal right now. However, you do not stand alone. I at the very least am on the fence about it -- I think your government was far more lenient in bailing out much worse companies like AIG, while the auto industry absolutely got shafted, and deserved the bailouts far more than many of the wallstreet sleazebags who caused this mess to begin with. Perhaps this sensationalism was simply because the auto industry was the first non-economic-sector industry to ask for money? Or perhaps the media and political leaders just had a bone to pick. Who knows. Regardless, I still think they were treated unfairly.
However, I do also think that changes need to happen with their structure as well. Companies like GM especially have become hulking corporate dinosaurs, who couldn't help but bleed like stuck pigs even when the economy was in good shape. So I believe this economic downturn is just what they needed to kick their asses into gear, and change the way they do business, hopefully for the better.
An unfortunate circumstance of this economic collapse is that financial stimulus will be necessary, lest we revert ourselves back to the dark ages. I think the auto industry bailout needed to happen, but I would also be very upset if they were to continue on "business as usual".
Jacampb2 wrote:First off, I agree that GM and the UAW have agreed to some ridiculous things. The job pool for one, where people with no work go for 8 hours a day and do nothing but still make full rate. Also, it seems their benefits are a bit over the top, but saying that the unions are responsible for their current condition is total bull shit. Do the hourly guys get paid to much? You know, the average hourly GM guy makes within a few dollars of what the average toyota guy does here in the US. The difference is in their estimated hourly cost per employee. It is much higher for the big three, but consider this, from what I understand that is hourly cost is based on Current employees, but includes the cost of the pensions and benefits who are all still actively collecting their retirement benefits. The big three have a hell of a lot more people in retirement than the foreign guys, simply because they have been manufacturing on US soil so long. I think that the flaws with their current labor contract are that they get to many vacation days, to many paid holidays, and to much health care compensation. Do I think their hourly rate is fair. Damn skippy I do.
If the way they calculated salaries includes their pension, then I must retract my above post. Upon closer inspection it clearly states "Labor cost per hour, wages and
benefits for hourly workers.". So those benefits could easily include pension and health care, in which case they are only estimated values at best, and it does not illustrate the pay scale I was trying to get across (i.e. annual net income).
I would be interested to see the actual hourly pay scales compared between e.g. Toyota and a UAW worker. If the difference is indeed as slim as you state, then I must rethink my position some more, due to the extremely skewed statistics that I have been fed.
Jacampb2 wrote:Most of you have never had to work a shift work job. Most of you don't know what it is like to give up your family for weeks at a time due to working 12 hour midnights and sleeping during the day. You see, I am a Union employee, Steelworkers, and granted, the steelworkers are not as hardcore as the UAW, but I still know a fair amount about the process of labor contracts and the battles that go on between companies and union.
I have no college education and I make close to 90k a year. I have decent benefits (although worse every year), but let me tell you something. I doubt very much that most of you would want my job. I spend most of my time running my equipment via computer, however, I have went through years of training to get where I am. My position requires a lot of skill at troubleshooting, chemistry and physics. I am responsible for 3 seperate chemical processes, that when all are running full out generate this company about 500K a day. One of the things I make is so hazardous that I have to get in a suit, and full scuba gear to take samples. I do this every day. Every day I go to work, and know that if I fuck up, not only does my life hang in the balance, but the whole fucking town around me. Is it worth the $30 per/hour I make? Damn right it is. Would you go to work every day knowing that if something goes drastically wrong that you will never see your kids again? There are very few professions out there that are like this, most of the public service, fire fighters, cops, know what it is about. I am not saying working in GM is like this, but there are likely quite a few hazardous jobs there as well.
I absolutely support the pay scales of typical shift workers. Sitting in my cushy office chair it would be easy to cry foul that I spent years in University to get my position, but in reality, University was dead simple, and so is my job. I'm sure I could teach you my programming job in about a year, tops. I certainly would not leave my position for yours, if I was only paid the same as I am here.
Jacampb2 wrote:Anyhow, that is enough of my rant. I just hate seeing people say that Unions are the cause of all of americas problems. I found the "parable" bellow on another board, it provides a totally different slant on things. I will say, that the parable describes the exact same attitude around this company.
Later,
Jason
Definitely not. Unions are responsible for the labor laws, minimum wages and (more) equal treatment we get today. Without them, we would have been much worse off... that much is immediately clear. However, I do think that since we have now passed many employee supports as law (e.g. making unfair layoffs disputable in court, etc), that unions are losing their purpose. I do still agree that they can be beneficial to a point, but I personally prefer local, responsible unions over monolithic ones that are run as bureaucratic corporations. Those enormous unions can be equally (or in some cases more) corrupt compared to their companies. Since they have a monopoly on the labor, they can ask for ridiculous benefits as well. I think unions should continue existing, but perhaps far more scaled down, thanks to our new labor laws carrying much of their previous burden.
Nice parable by the way... it expresses rather clearly the "corporate dinosaur" side of the auto industry that I think needs to be reworked.
