Thursday, November 27, 2008

Pay special attention to the last... and WORST person in the world

Decreed by at
Testament Chapters

4 comments:

Beck said...

For the moment, Let's pretend that I hold Keith Olbermann in any higher regard than the likes of Bill O'Reilly... (which I don't)

$38/hr is still about 80 grand a year for a job that doesn't even require an education level beyond a high school diploma. Meanwhile, teachers, firemen, police officers, nurses, etc. often have to work a second freakin' job to bring in a net income that is a little more than half that. And how many of these even get something as basic as an hour for lunch at the same time every single day?

And the fact that the union would simply go on strike and cripple their parent company for anything less than what they currently have is mind bogglingly irresponsible. Sorry, no sympathy from me what so ever.

Olbermann is right; artificially inflating that figure is intellectually dishonest. But to pretend that the UAW doesn't share any responsibility for the American auto industry's woes is equally so.

November 27, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Pope said...

Blaming the soldiers for the demanding fair treatment while glutted generals misdirect the battles and armies movements - that isn't what I am prepared to do.

Do I think that some of the benefits and contracts should be renegotiated? Yes. Historically unions have done this to keep companies afloat (usually getting screwed later for the attempt at helping, thinking that those in charge give a flying flip about loyalty). And the union members I personally know are willing to take less in pay and benefits to keep their jobs. I truly doubt the CEOs and upper management are willing to do the same. Do the union employees share some of the blame? ... I guess a little bit, but their transgressions are totally overshadowed by the corporate missteps and bloated salaries of the upper echelons.

And to reply to your comment about firemen, police, teachers, so on. THEY NEED TO UNIONIZE! Or in the case of teachers, get legislation passed to make it legal to have a union with teeth. *And most of the nurses I know make pretty good money plus benefits.*

-- Is the UAW on strike? I had not heard that. Post on it and I will happily dissect whether it is fair or not using my own personal, and thereby most awesomely balanced, perspective. --

November 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Beck said...

No, they are not on strike. But they have stated that they are not willing to renegotiate their benefits for the current crisis.

And, to be fair, I'm perfectly willing to concede that if the members of the company management aren't willing to change their own lifestyles and activities to keep the company afloat, then it wouldn't be particularly fair for the UAW to have to, either.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they are in this boat together, and they are both going to sink it.

And really, in the long run, I'm not sure that is a bad thing. In nature, the occasional brushfire clears the land, making room for new growth. Maybe our native auto industry needs to do the same... After all, some of these companies are older than dirt, and slow to change their ways.

Not a perfect analogy, I know. I'm certainly not wishing misfortune upon the thousands of families dependent on the jobs the "big three" provide for them. But these companies and their current business models have had their chance, and they are on the verge of collapse. Meanwhile, other automakers are doing well enough that

1.) They don't feel the need to go to congress in their private jets to beg for a handout.

2.) The majority of their employees have resisted organizing under the UAW because they largely don't feel they *need* to. Which is usually a sign that the management is doing something right.

The woes of the auto industry are the result of poor leadership... And with the unionized labor model, you have two sets of leaders: Your company management, and your union leadership. Both are at fault, and both are going to sink the ship.

November 27, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...

I am a little unclear on Beck's assertion about why many employees have not unionized. I agree, if management is doing things right, there is no need for unions. If the management treats people fairly then employees won't walk out. So who is doing things right? I guess the Japanese auto companies that have a much lower union rate and still offer competitive compensation. The problem is lots of management is downright awful and self-interested. They will protect their own pockets and those of their investors and fuck everyone else. It is a little like saying we don't need police if people just refrain from breaking the law. That would be dang swell, but it won't happen.

I agree with Brian that police and firefighters, and teachers should unionize. What many of them get paid is a disgrace. But stop and look at the disparities in union states versus non-union states for those jobs. A fireman or teachers gets paid way more in a state like Illinois or Michigan than in North Carolina. Why? Because they have fucking unions. So why aren't there unions in NC and similar states? Well, for one there is the history of brutal labor repression that broke unions before they even got started. Second, in NC there is a state law that PROHIBITS state employees from unionizing. It's not that a teachers' union doesn't exist because there is no demand, but because state law bans it: GC-95-98. (Ok, to be fair, state employees can unionize in NC. But they cannot bargain collectively so there is hardly any point.)

So, while Beck might be right to place *some* blame on an outdated union model or a few self-interested union bosses, the real trouble still lies with the corporate management. Treat people fairly and you will resolve a lot of these problems. Additionally, look at the figures on income growth I have cited before. The largest and most rapid income is in upper management.

Plus, if you want a completely "free market" oriented business plan, it is the management that should pay the price when profits fall. Are the UAW workers still producing the same quality product for the roughly the same price. Pretty much yes. So why penalize them at a great rate than the people who structure sales, investment, advertisement, R&D, etc? Why is there more pressure to reduce compensation for hourly workers than to reduce compensation for salaried workers? If you cut the hourly guys pension or medical benefits, why not cut the benefits and 401k contributions for the guy designing next years' Chrysler Seabring or the guy in charge of the latest Tacoma ad campaign? Let alone the jackass that was making major financial decisions and still walked away with a bijillion dollars in stock options. The end point is this: the costs are almost always un-uniformally distributed down, and the blame seems to fall disproportionally on what is the most vocal group.

November 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)