Last week’s deal was supposed to hold both the managers’ and unions’ feet to the fire. In handing out the taxpayer money, the White House insisted the auto union cut worker pay roughly to the levels of their successful competitors, Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
For $17 billion in emergency bailout cash and possibly much more later, it was a reasonable request. As President Bush said, “The time to make the hard decisions to become viable is now — or the only option will be bankruptcy.” He added that a deadline of March 31 for the industry to prove its “viability” and other limits “send a clear signal to everyone involved.”
Well, if so, the United Auto Workers didn’t get it.
Just days before Christmas, the UAW let it be known it’ll fight any concessions on wages and benefits. “An undue tax on the workers” is how union boss Ron Gettelfinger described it as the UAW reneged on the deal almost before the ink was dry.
This will go down as one of the most cynical acts of political manipulation ever. The UAW agreed to one thing with President Bush, knowing full well President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats were big recipients of union largesse and would let them slide. They read the situation correctly.
ET-“I repeat, GM can’t lay off workers or close plants.”
– General Motors has announced that it will close its Grand Rapids metal and die plant by the end of 2009
-GM to close its Janesville, Wisconsin-based SUV assembly plant by the end of 2008
-GM announces the same production end date at its Moraine, OH plant.
-General Motors will halt production at its Oshawa truck plant next year and probably won’t reopen it again because of the collapse of pickup sales in the U.S., chairman Rick Wagoner said today.
-General Motors Corp. is closing four pickup and SUV assembly plants throughout North America, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner announced early Tuesday at a shareholders meeting in Wilmington, Del. (Dated June 3,2008)
-Chrysler said Monday that it will close a factory in Fenton, Mo., that makes minivans, and cut a shift at another plant that assembles pickup trucks.(Dated June 30,2008)
-The Norfolk Ford plant is on the list to be closed in 2008. The plant employs some 2,500 people and builds the top-selling F-150 truck.
-Daimler Trucks North America announced Tuesday that it was closing its Swan Island manufacturing facility and eliminating 900 jobs.
-Daimler’s Sterling truck plant in St. Thomas, Ontario is adding itself to the growing list of auto plants closing their doors in Canada.
This is certainly not a complete listing of rather unfortunate facts that that ET is embarrassing oblivious to. If you actually employed facts and not simply zealotry, you might convince someone, other than yourself, that you know what you’re talking about.
right, ulianov/lberia – that’s what I said, that union assets aren’t disclosed and it is difficult to find out exactly how much unions are worth – and then YOU, rather than providing us with the data that proved YOUR claim that unions are NOT that wealthy…simply copied my words and said that it’s difficult to find out how much unions are worth. So, haha yourself. You copied my words rather than providing the PROOF that, as you claim, unions aren’t that wealthy. So, how about proving your claim, hmmm?
Again, you copied my words to substantiate your claim that you didn’t know how much they are worth.
BUT – you are the one who insisted that unions are not that wealthy. So, prove it.
You’ve said nothing, I note, about the Teacher’s Union ability to put over 51 billion into a purchase.
No, you are wrong – the pension and other funds, if controlled by the union ARE assets. That’s under Labor Union Law, by Osborne and Axelrod, 2005.
I repeat, unions are parasitic. There is no benefit to the workers. I’ve pointed that out numerous times – and your claim that union wages are higher is the height of economic ignorance. The wages are higher..and this cost is passed on to the consumer, so that the cost of living increases with a unionized workforce. Can’t you figure that out???
Plus, as I’ve noted before, this transformation of an industry from product and service orientation to employee gratification means that profits don’t go to better the product and service, because the profits are so reduced. Got that? So, GM can’t do the research to develop better cars, because their profit is reduced by paying legacy costs to their retirees, by paying those higher wages and so on.
Again, unions are parasites. And stop with the insults; stick to the issues. And provide some proof:
Proof that unions are not wealthy;
Proof that the cost of unionization is not passed on to the consumer;
Proof that services provided by unionized industries are better than that provided by non-unionized industries. My claim is that the protection for incompetence provided by the unions means that unionized services are inefficient and indifferent;
Unions DO control the workers. During election times, these unions (eg teachers) phone their members up, to tell them where and what to do on the campaigns – and who to support.
Unions are parasitic.
Why should an unskilled person installing cup holder all day be paid $55 to $73 an hour???
That is ridiculous.
I would fire all the UAW worker and hire new workers, pay them half what the UAW workers are getting.
I’d have no problems finding people more than happy to be getting $26 to $37 an hour.
Then I could sell cars for less than the imports go for.
No need for bailouts.
The UAW people with their $33 MILLION resort deserve to be all fired, they are the new “monarchy”, the new “oppressors”.
Oh and to those who claim GM having financial trouble is proof positive capitalism is not working just consider this little fact I found in a Mark Steyn article,
GM has 96,000 employees but pays the medical bills of ONE MILLIOn PEOPLE.
That is not capitalism, that is SOCIALISM.
And it is failing.
Again, ulianov – you informed me that unions are not wealthy when I claimed that they were. You provided no proof. I then stated that it is difficult to ascertain with clarity, the financial assets of a union and asked you how you could prove that they were not wealthy. You simply repeated my sentence (difficult to ascertain)..and provided no proof for your original claim of unions not being wealthy.
My comments about the Teacher’s Union were ignored by you.
Yes, Osborne and Axelrod is a good book about the problems of unions. For example, p76, where the union removed elected officials because those individuals were attempting to argue against union policies; other times, where the union imposed fines for ‘dissident member activity’ and ‘disloyalty to the union’. How’s that for democracy ..or is it authoritarian intimidation?
Again, the book, which is about 1,000 pages of detailed examination of labour laws, litigation and etc..notes on p. 188, Ch 2 that ‘union benefit funds that are under the control of a union’..as differentiated from those administered by a trust – are union assets. I suggest you read the book.
You should also note the number of cases brought by members against the unions – and this doesn’t refer to the cases which individuals didn’t bring because they couldn’t afford the legal costs to fight the unions.
Your repeated references to ‘higher wages’ to the worker totally and completely ignores that wages don’t exist in isolation from the full economy. Those higher wages are passed on to the consumer, and this means that all costs of living go up, effectively invalidating the increased benefits of those wages.
Furthermore, if the full costs of wage and other benefits are not passed on to the consumer, this reduces the profit for the company. Of course, you probably think that profit simply goes into fancy dinners and cars. No, it has to be spent on research and innovation, upgrades of equipment – and because this wasn’t done, Ford’s cars are less valued than Honda’s cars. Get it?
Again, unions are parasites; they serve no function in our modern world and indeed, deeply harm the market economy because they prevent the market from functioning and instead, transform industrial corporations into employee service centres.
By the way, you in one post contrasted fascism with socialism. Fascism IS a socialist system. Socialism, communism and fascism all operate the same way, with rights and authority located in the collective rather than the individual. The only difference between fascism and socialism/communism is the location of ultimate authority. Fascism locates it in the past and in a hereditary essentialism, while the other two locate it in the future and is a cultural or created, non-hereditary essentialism.
Cheers. As for NCC talking points – sorry, I don’t read their stuff. Or the Fraser Institute. But, your logical error is to assert that IF one reads work from there, THEN it is wrong. Who says so? Their analysis could be right. You are making an error akin to saying IF it comes from X-country, THEN, it’s excellently made. Texts like Osborne etc are my sources..and I can make up my own mind.
The UAW IS wealthy,
Even as the industry struggles with massive losses, the UAW brass continue to own and operate a $33 million lakeside retreat in Michigan, complete with a $6.4 million designer golf course. And it’s costing them millions each year.
Read the whole thing here
ET-“‘union benefit funds that are under the control of a union’..as differentiated from those administered by a trust – are union assets. I suggest you read the book.”
– Those financial instruments listed as assets on the CAW Balance Sheet will have offsetting pension liabilities, etc., which effectively reduce the asset carrying value. To only consider the wealth of any entity in terms of assets is asinine. This would not be a true reflection of wealth.
ET2-“Those higher wages are passed on to the consumer, and this means that all costs of living go up, effectively invalidating the increased benefits of those wages.”
If that was strictly true then the union workers would not enjoy the rather elevated current standard of living that they do, as opposed to the historical level of industry compensation. Whether the cost of labour is completely reflected in the sale price of manufactured goods relates greatly to demand/market elasticity, not necessarily the effects of wage increases.
How can you insist on classifying an entity as parasitic when the “host” invites this relationship, the relationship exists voluntarily, and it is demonstrably beneficial to the “host”. As well, these benefits extend beyond wages and benefits. I cannot take you seriously if you are suggesting that union environments do not insist that management is far more effective addressing discrimination, abuse, safety and the vagaries of incompetent management than employees without trained and dedicated union representation.
Your ideology does not serve you well in this argument.
Unions foster a sense of entitlement…period. Those that want to EARN a living on their own terms do not survive in a union environment. It stifles and degrades individuality and the pursuit of excellence. It forces the collective and upholds the rule of mediocrity. It peels its due off of its members paycheque to return nothing but heavy-handed union bosses to fearmonger and propogandize to its unwashed masses on the cruel corporate oppression. The kamikaze nature of these organizations prove that the safety, well-being and working environment of its members was lost decades ago as the purpose behind their existence. Those that can’t see this inherent nature of the current incarnation of the union either have their entitlements riding on the success of these unions or have yet to realize history demonstrates the failure of communism and its derivatives.
No facts will be produced to concretize this statement of opinion. Please refrain from asking.