-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/how_unions_are_destroying_the_auto_industry -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
This is certainly true. It'll be very interesting to see how big business reacts a) politically, since health care is bound to be a Big Issue in the '08 contests; and b) w/re/to how their dispensation of health care (ie, setting up on-site, low cost clinics).
[quote]They are corrupt and refuse to obey two Supreme Court judgements[/quote]
What's this in reference to?
For christ sakes at what point does business say, I could give a rats ass what union is what, it costs to much to do business with you as my labor force, so either compete at the same level everybody else does or you are fired.
It is a shame because without unions we could very well still have children working in factories for slave wages with little or no safety measures. They real tragedy is that they forgot what they were there for a long time ago and morphed into this machine that we see today.
Also dealing with the exchange rate which puts the US at a disadvantage would also help the US automakers.
But it is interesting to note you all ignored those little nagging facts about health care and the exchange rate.
Another leftie fantasy that has nothing at all to do with reality. National healthcare [i]increases[/i] costs, in every instance.
There is a trade deficit and we aren't the winners in that.
You reiterate the old leftie hash about a so-called "trade deficit". The reality is that we are rich enough to buy their stuff, and as long as the unions keep our auto industry uncompetitive, we will continue to buy their stuff. Poor countries can't afford to buy anybody's stuff, and thus don't have a "trade deficit".
If you really want to reduce the "trade deficit", get rid of the unions.
While you may not want it that way, it is the way it is right now and we are at the disadvantage. Now people who hate unions would rather that we just get rid of the health care benefit altogether. I suppose that is an alternative, but not even the business community likes that alternative which is why they are working with their unions on the issue.
You can have what's best for you as an individual but when another country has a nationalized program competing with your program what do you think happens, ZsaZsa?
It would help if you'd look at the cost per employee. Add the wages, tax liability, worker's comp. insurance, retirement, and health insurance together. The overall total is the fixed cost of any employee. If your company can only afford to pay 95% of its current cost per employee and remain profitable, would you be willing to take a 5% cut in wages? Or, would you rather it come out of your health insurance or retirement benefit?
HG, it would also help if you would look at the health cost that the other countries we are competing don't have to pay.
Our per capita costs are higher than any other OECD country, the rest of which have nationalized health care. That strongly suggests a causal link between efficiency and national health care.
Why is it not the responsibility of the individual to see to their own health care?
jpe,
This might be true, but ONLY if the quality of of health care in each OECD country is the same. There is no evidence, not even anecdotal evidence, to suggest that is the case.
Besides, if there were so much as a hint of the efficiency you refer to in a nationalized health care system, it would surely be the first instance of a government program increasing efficiency over that of the private sector. No one in their right mind is going to believe that!
Late in his term, Bush 41 issued an Executive Order requiring that workers on federal projects be notified of their Beck rights, but one of Bill Clinton's first official acts was to rescind that order.
[b]2-Abood[/b]: The Court ruled that compulsory dues for politics violates the First Amendment and that it is illegal to withhold forced dues from dissenters beyond the cost of collective bargaining.
[b]3-Pattern Makers[/b]: The Supreme Court affirmed private-sector workers' unqualified right to resign their union membership immediately.
There are some others, but these have not been followed, so some of us concerned with American freedom of Association Rights are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for these people to comply with US laws.
A few hundred years ago, most people believed that there was a causal link between black cats and bad luck. That doesn't mean that there was one. "Strongly suggests" is not proof of causality.
I'm sure each and every mass murderer has eaten apple pie at some time in his life, but that doesn't prove any causality between the two. Causality requires more than suggestion or coincidence.
That's generally an artifact of accounting in a socialist society vs accounting in a free society. Socialism is rife with hidden costs. In addition, cost is meaningless without taking value received into account, as others have mentioned.
Puzzle,
Pretty presumptuous generalization there! Even for a pro-union liberal.
Exactly which part of the "business community" do you have in mind here? Got anything authoritative to back this up, or are you just shooting from the left hip again?
So unless you have something contrary, quitcheryappin' B1.
Puzzle,
Like the typical, intellectually-challenged liberal, you've got it exactly backwards... again.
Since you were the one to make the ridiculous claim about the "business community," it's up to you to back it up when called. Which, of course, you haven't done at all.
I will grant that the Business Roundtable favors itself as an organization representing business corporations. But the idea that they are, or represent, the "business community" is the sort of gratuitious nonsense one would expect from a lower-lever DNC talking points memo.
AARP, of course, does not even pretend to represent the "business community" but is instead an insurance marketing company.
What I don't see on your abbreviated list are the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Small Business, SCORE, the Conference Board, the National Business Association, or any of the 30,000 plus business and trade associations across the country.
I'm sure the Business Roundtable wil do their level best to keep congressional Democrats and their union puppet masters from raping the business community too awfully much more. But for you to suggest that the business community wouldn't gladly rid themselves of the obligation of paying for that health care "benefit" is pure drivel on your part. And if you were honest about it, you'd admit as much.
The reality of our free enterprise system is that prosperity is created when labor and management(or capital) cooperate with each other to create more than was there in the first place, thus dispelling the myth of the "fixed pie". Unions violate this principle, and thus produce the opposite of prosperity, which is why the auto industry(being fairly unionized) is no longer generating prosperity. It's fairly simple when you look at the basic principles involved.
BTW, the increase in CEO compensation is due to the fact that capital is more productive than labor, and always will be, when it is free to seek its maximum return. When unions demand artificially high compensation, they ultimately produce a reduced demand for labor, mostly through mechanization, but also through outsourcing and the enriching of foreign competitors. The examples are all around us.
She and I go round and round about unions all the time. A while back, when I would assert that business doesn't like working with unions, she would claim "nonsense" and tell me to talk with the folks at IR Bobcat here in North Dakota, who she claimed had a wonderful relationship with the union.
Well, about a month after she said that the United Steelworkers at IR Bobcat went on strike. The striking workers tried to stop buses with replacement workers in them by throwing nails under the tires, which prompted IR Bobcat to get a restraining order. Ultimately the union won out and got their demands from IR Bobcat, but now just a few weeks ago the company had to lay off a bunch of people at another plant.
I did a post about the whole thing [url=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/when_unions_cause_unemployment/]here[/url].
Not surprisingly, Puzzle has mentioned IR Bobcat's "wonderful" relations with the Steelworkers since. Nor did she comment on any of my posts concerning the Bobcat strike.
Telling, no?
When I first moved to the Atlanta area, nearly 30 years ago, there were two major airlines here, Delta and Eastern. Eastern was heavily unionized, while Delta was non-union. And as anyone who flew on both can attest, the difference in the level of service, from ticket agents, to baggage handlers, from flight attendants to telephone operators, was as the difference between night and day. While Eastern was sinking under the combined weight of its vile and venal union bosses, especially William Wimpsinger of the machinists union, and the sheer ineptitude of chairman and CEO Frank Borman, the employees of Delta bought their airline, Atlanta's airline, a new plane.
Delta is now unionized, and not surprisingly, in the midst of a Chapter 11 reorganization. I have no doubt that the healthcare and pension "benefits" forced on the Big 3 automakers will probably wind up being the responsibility of the US taxpayers... to the relief of the collectivist illiterates on the left like Puzzle.
Of course, as a small business guy, I have the same opinion of unions that I have of taxes, hurricanes, and leprosy.
Still, you gotta fell a certain modest compassion for someone whose goals and ambitions are always at the expense of someone else. For those on the Left, life IS a zero-sum game. What a waste!
I wonder whatever happened to the adage that with age and experience comes wisdom.
Having worked in corporate law for five years and starting off in union mediation, I've seen this issue from both sides. Unfortunately, AFAIK, both sides are guilty of overreaching and being just downright unreasonable. It's the workers who are getting whipsawed in the middle and just have to suck on it.
I found that the corporate leadership were a lot closer to Scott Adam's world of Dilbert than is comfortable. They were beholden to the new Harvard MBA business model, composed of PointPoint Presentations, Spread sheets and 'crunching numbers.' There was no loyalty to the nation, no loyalty to the individual employee. Gordon Gekko was more the rule than the exception.
Two consecutive quarters of bad numbers would result in massive layoffs, cost cutting, outsourcing, reduction of benefits, and off-shoring -- all of which came at the cost of the employee. No job couldn't be outsourced, no area (except for the very top ranks) were immune. Indeed, a piss-poor 10K, matched with layoffs of thousands of American workers is often rewarded by massive bonuses to CEOs.
Fire American engineers and hire two or three Third World imports riding in under the H1-B visa program. The same mindset has driven the illegal immigration debate, forcing low and entry-level wage American workers off the market and onto the public dole. Doctors, nurses and other skilled professions are (ab)using the H1-B program in the same manner.
The Unions, for their part, extract a sizeable chunk of the employee's wage and devote it to almost exclusively Far-Left candidates, whether the employee is Far Left or not. They protect marginal and bad workers, drive wages up beyond what is reasonable and stifle good business practices.
The US employment situation, I think, defies explanation by sound bite. There are many factors, but all seem to be to the benefit of corporate ownership, or union leadership, and to the detriment of the American worker.
The Unions are essentially communist front groups, but sad to say, sometimes collective bargaining is a necessary evil. The remedy will require careful surgery, and not civil war-era style hacking.
So what? Pass a tarrif which levels the profit margins of US auto makers with the foreign? Then with the tarrif revenues we can subsidize American automakers employee costs? Sorry Puzzle, the unions are a large part of the problem. Competition from foreign auto makers is all that is keeping auto prices down where the rest of us can afford them. Eliminating price competition is no solution to this socialist nightmare the democrats with the full support of unions have created.
First-off, I must admit that I have not had direct experience with major league clubs. That being said, I found that often, in the rarified atmosphere of high-dollar industries, the very well-placed could have the laws written to order.
It's nothing new. There is an old latin maxim that compares the law to a spider's web -- it only catches small bugs.
What other industry can make so much money from the public, yet can demaand that Stadia be built at the cost of the host city taxpayers?
To answer your question, I will say yes, but that will just be a SWAG (Scientific, Wild-Ass Guess).
The USA is mired into so many multilateral agreements that there is very little room left for unilateral action. Jimma Carter found this out when he tried to boycott the Soviets. American farmers, who depended upon sales to the Soviets, went ballistic. US Olympic hopefuls sat on their hands as the games went on without them.
The way the rules are set up right now, the US is really geared to lose.
Any attempt at creating a level playing field in the form of countervailing tariffs because a commnad- economy government is unfairly subsidizing their industry (check out the Red Chinese ocean shipping fleet, which has resulted in the decimation of US-flagged vessels) or unfairly closing their markets to US goods, such as the Japanese closing of their markets to just about all American goods exept wood and beef, is met with an Attack of the Lobbyists. The hue and cry over trade protectionism goes up.
It's all BS of course. We need to strive for FAIR Trade, not 'Free Trade' which is draining US capital, jobs and manufacturing capability off at a steady and alarming rate.
The Multi-national corporations are okay with it, because they have no loyalty to any nation, much less any particular currency, so long as profits are good.
I might as well admit that I am a Teddy Roosevelt Populist, right now, in case any of you folks start just what shade of Red I may be. Not for corporations for the corporations's sake, definately against commies.
What is largely forgotten is that the corporation is a fairly recent invention -- a separate entity from the owners and organizers with eternal existence. It used to be that if Mr. Woolworth started a business that he was IT. His profits, his taxes and his liability. Corporations were granted a legal existence because it was supposed to be a benefit to society.
A lot of folks aren't being taught that in schools nowadays.
To vastly oversimplify it... yes.
It only stands to reason. If you are Joe-shit the Ragman and can only afford a Public Defender, who often is a recent law school graduate, incredibly underpaid and incredibly overworked, don't be surprised if your legal advice is to plea guilty to a lesser included.
If you can afford Barry Sheck, Roy Black or Gerry Spence, your dream team can smother the overworked prosecutor's office in motion practice. They can bring in Jury Selection specialists, which are arguably the most critical part of any criminal defense.
It helps of course, if you are in fact innocent.
A lot of folks aren't being taught that in schools nowadays. [/quote]
Not quite accurate. Toward the end of the 19th Century, American business had discovered the method of forming Trusts, and were more powerful than the govt, at all levels. The govt "busted" the Trusts, and to facilitate big business while keeping it under govt control, devised the corporation.
MZ: Don't take this as a criticism on your overall material, though; just this one detail of economic history.
I don't see the conflict in the statements. After all, TDR, the 'Trust Buster' what the one doing the busting. Being a populist, he took on Big Rail, Big Steel and Big Oil. The legal fiction of a corporation was intended to strike the balance of creating jobs, fostering commerce and being a net benefit to society. Abuse of the corporate existence could be controlled by piercing the corporate veil in some instances and going directly after the officers and directors.
If I recall correctly, prior to our beloved income tax, tariffs were a healthy revenue source for government. Now, we have the opposite, free trade and the American is the revenue source.
It seems free trade is forcing American corporations to compete with foreign companies who in some cases have a much lower tax burden, less regulation, and lower wage base. I had always hoped that this would force government to relieve American business and taxpayers in order to compete. However, Americas productivity and ingenuity has for the most part kept us very competitive. In the auto industry we simply have an inferior product, union indolence, and government confiscation and regulation that is just flat out too much to overcome.
This might be better equipment, service or just spending a little more time to do things right.