UAW Strikes

[DaveH]

No no nooooo.... :icon_tongue:

A union is nothing like a subcontractor.

If the subcontractor goes to renegitiate his contract when it's up and the employer doesn't like the terms, you send the subcontractor packing and hire someone else.

If the subcontractor decides to stop working and put a stop to your business, you send them packing and hire someone else.

If a subcontractor is standing around holding things up because he doesn't want to help to do something because he doesn't think it' his job, but that he could easily (and safely) do, you smack him upside the head and send him packing and get hire someone who will actually work to make the company prosper.

Hiring, firing, raises, promotions, etc is the job of the employer, not the employee.

Just my $0.02

tjamz;187223 wrote:
Here's the crazy thing though about auto workers unions....ALL of the car makers in this country have union workers (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, etc...) When was the last time you heard of a strike against anyone aside from the "Big 3"? Oh yeah...it doesn't happen. These "foreign" companies come TO THE UNITED STATES to create jobs/build cars (while taking over major market shares based on proven reliability), they hire union labor to do so. Tell me why they aren't constantly in the news regarding strikes/walkoffs/contract negotiations/etc...

Basically, the unions are working as subcontractors to the industries they are in. My company (and yours Dustin/Dave) use subcontractors every day after negotiating terms. Basically the union workers work for the union, the union then goes over the T's & C's of the work they are contracted to do with the company. The union gets paid when its workers meet/exceed its commitments.

Mark me as pro-union, but I will say there are some messed up unions out there as well...just as there are messed up employers.

[Guest]

DaveH;187239 wrote:
No no nooooo.... :icon_tongue:

A union is nothing like a subcontractor.

If the subcontractor goes to renegitiate his contract when it's up and the employer doesn't like the terms, you send the subcontractor packing and hire someone else.

If the subcontractor decides to stop working and put a stop to your business, you send them packing and hire someone else.

If a subcontractor is standing around holding things up because he doesn't want to help to do something because he doesn't think it' his job, but that he could easily (and safely) do, you smack him upside the head and send him packing and get hire someone who will actually work to make the company prosper.

Hiring, firing, raises, promotions, etc is the job of the employer, not the employee.

Just my $0.02

If the employer isn't happy that the union strikes, he can hire people from outside of the union to work for him as well though. Yes, I agree there are a few differences between a subcontractor & union...but both will work to protect their employees. If I sub Bergstrom Electric (Actually, they are a very good electrical contractor...just using them for an example)for a job and Joe Electrician f#cks up my job, I can do NOTHING about him...I can go to the head of Bergstrom and demand that shit gets fixed, but I can't completely kick Bergstrom off the job unless they break the terms of their contract with me....repeatedly. Same general rules apply to unions.

Grinnell (now SimplexGrinnell) was a union run sprinkler company owned by Tyco Int'l. There was a HUGE union problem....the union had some pretty serious demands, Grinnell wanted nothing to do with it so they hired outside pipe fitters to fill the void....the union gave permission for their guys to cross picket lines at this point and eventually Grinnell managed to "break" the union hold. Sounds great, right? WRONG! The best of the fitters stayed with the union and went on to work elsewhere in the industry...the lower echelon (not all...there were some great guys that stayed w/ Grinnell as well) stayed w/ Grinnell. To this day SimplexGrinnell has problems hiring good, qualified fitters nationwide....and they are harder to fire now than they were under union control.

[Guest]

oh...fwiw, the UAW & GM came to an agreement today

[Colin]

Unions serve a purpose, but just like everything else in this country, they have gotten out of hand.

Let the unions stay, get rid of minimum wage I'm tired of getting paid less so some idiot can get paid as an equal. No one is equal, no one should be paid as an equal.

[capitlj]

Umm what. there has to be a minimum wage otherwise employers could dump employees and hire on others, to take over, and pay them half the wages. Which would be bad for the people they hired on as well since they might not be making enough for the cost of living.
If those numbers for the UAW are correct and some assembly line clown is making more in one year than I do in five, thats absolutly outrageous. I know taking cost of living into account will dampen it a little but jesus.
If it gets the cost of my 08 mustang down even just a grand, fuck the unions.

[thrash]

capitlj;187307 wrote:
Umm what. there has to be a minimum wage otherwise employers could dump employees and hire on others, to take over, and pay them half the wages. Which would be bad for the people they hired on as well since they might not be making enough for the cost of living.

You should use some of the free time you'll have not driving (suspended license) to read up on some economics. I recommend "Free to Choose", by Milton Friedman. The free public library should have a copy.

In any case, just because many politicians practice willfull ignorance of economic laws doesn't mean they aren't economic laws.

The minimum wage hurts the labor market and especially hurts those who have the least ability to earn money. The notion of a minimum wage is unethical. Let me illustrate.

Suppose you have a TV. You are willing to sell this TV for $20, because it's not worth any more than $20 to you. You can think of lots of things you'd like to spend that $20 on, and you'd be happy to part with the TV.

Thankfully, the government doesn't step in and say "no way kid, you CAN NOT sell your tv for only $20.. we'd rather you didn't sell it at all unless you can get at least $50 for it"

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it ?

Well, that's precisely what the minimum wage is. The government would rather have people NOT WORK than have them work for less than minimum wage. That's too bad, because not everyone who is working needs to collect minimum wage -- just a little money for this and that might be fine. A great example of this sort of situation would be senior citizens. They can sit at home rotting, or they can go and do something for a few hours a week and get a little money for it. They may not care if its $3 or $6 an hour, but an employer definitely has to. It may be the case that hiring 2 seniors at $3/hr each gets you the same or more work as hiring a younger/faster person at $6, but thanks to government interventionism, the seniors, the employer, and the community all lose out.

Let me repeat that -- the minimum wage effectively sets a skills/employability floor, below which nobody can be employed in any capacity whatsoever. There's no business case for hiring someone who isn't an able bodied young adult for a minimum wage job assuming that there's an able bodied young adult willing to do that work for the minimum wage. This means anyone less productive than an able bodied young adult is going to have a hard time finding work, and these are the sorts of people that we want to help find gainful employment the most!

People need to realize that employment is a mutual agreement. You agree to do what your employer asks you; your employer agrees to pay you. Your job is to try and get paid as much as possible; your employers job is to pay you as little as possible. If either of you find the terms unagreeable, either party can cease participating. Life goes on.

Why the government doesn't trust individuals to correctly price their own labor is a matter for another discussion. I suspect it's because its politically advantageous to turn citizens into people who depend on the welfare state. Pricing them out of the labor market is one way to help acheive that.

(note also -- its nearly impossible to be a day laborer or anything like that any more. there are too many forms, insurance issues, legal liabilities, etc. An employer has to invest too much in an employee to "give them a shot" in many cases. The government and legal climate continue to make it harder for employers to hire people in a mitigated-risk fashion. In france it was so difficult to fire people that hiring in some industries basically froze entirely, with the obvious negative effects on the economy, culture, etc)

Nearly nothing is more fundamental than a persons right to perform some service someone else finds of value. By setting a labor price floor, and by over-regulating employment, the government has derailed the ability for all kinds of people to be gainfully employed.

If you visit NYC some time on a rainy day, there are people that just show up outside of subway exits with a coat full of umbrellas. I'm sure they're not licensed businesses, I'm sure they're not reporting taxes, and I'm sure they're not part of some union or benefits program. But damn if they're not providing a valuable service, making enough money that it's worth it for them to do it. Is what they're doing illegal? Probably. But that's because our laws are unethical, not because they're doing anything wrong.

I've still got my $1 umbrella that I bought from a guy for $5 in Manhattan when it was pouring. That guy had was in the right place, at the right time, with the right attitude. I wish some of our "leaders" would learn a thing or two from the guys in NYC selling umbrellas in the rain.

[bubba]

Maybe if the Big 3 actually came out with cars that appealed to more people these days and could actually sell stuff they would actually make a profit and it wouldn't matter...I say hell with them let the move...most of their stuff isnt even american made anyways

[StangerBanger96]

thrash;187446 wrote:
You should use some of the free time you'll have not driving (suspended license) to read up on some economics. I recommend "Free to Choose", by Milton Friedman. The free public library should have a copy.

In any case, just because many politicians practice willfull ignorance of economic laws doesn't mean they aren't economic laws.

The minimum wage hurts the labor market and especially hurts those who have the least ability to earn money. The notion of a minimum wage is unethical. Let me illustrate.

Suppose you have a TV. You are willing to sell this TV for $20, because it's not worth any more than $20 to you. You can think of lots of things you'd like to spend that $20 on, and you'd be happy to part with the TV.

Thankfully, the government doesn't step in and say "no way kid, you CAN NOT sell your tv for only $20.. we'd rather you didn't sell it at all unless you can get at least $50 for it"

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it ?

Well, that's precisely what the minimum wage is. The government would rather have people NOT WORK than have them work for less than minimum wage. That's too bad, because not everyone who is working needs to collect minimum wage -- just a little money for this and that might be fine. A great example of this sort of situation would be senior citizens. They can sit at home rotting, or they can go and do something for a few hours a week and get a little money for it. They may not care if its $3 or $6 an hour, but an employer definitely has to. It may be the case that hiring 2 seniors at $3/hr each gets you the same or more work as hiring a younger/faster person at $6, but thanks to government interventionism, the seniors, the employer, and the community all lose out.

Let me repeat that -- the minimum wage effectively sets a skills/employability floor, below which nobody can be employed in any capacity whatsoever. There's no business case for hiring someone who isn't an able bodied young adult for a minimum wage job assuming that there's an able bodied young adult willing to do that work for the minimum wage. This means anyone less productive than an able bodied young adult is going to have a hard time finding work, and these are the sorts of people that we want to help find gainful employment the most!

People need to realize that employment is a mutual agreement. You agree to do what your employer asks you; your employer agrees to pay you. Your job is to try and get paid as much as possible; your employers job is to pay you as little as possible. If either of you find the terms unagreeable, either party can cease participating. Life goes on.

Why the government doesn't trust individuals to correctly price their own labor is a matter for another discussion. I suspect it's because its politically advantageous to turn citizens into people who depend on the welfare state. Pricing them out of the labor market is one way to help acheive that.

(note also -- its nearly impossible to be a day laborer or anything like that any more. there are too many forms, insurance issues, legal liabilities, etc. An employer has to invest too much in an employee to "give them a shot" in many cases. The government and legal climate continue to make it harder for employers to hire people in a mitigated-risk fashion. In france it was so difficult to fire people that hiring in some industries basically froze entirely, with the obvious negative effects on the economy, culture, etc)

Nearly nothing is more fundamental than a persons right to perform some service someone else finds of value. By setting a labor price floor, and by over-regulating employment, the government has derailed the ability for all kinds of people to be gainfully employed.

If you visit NYC some time on a rainy day, there are people that just show up outside of subway exits with a coat full of umbrellas. I'm sure they're not licensed businesses, I'm sure they're not reporting taxes, and I'm sure they're not part of some union or benefits program. But damn if they're not providing a valuable service, making enough money that it's worth it for them to do it. Is what they're doing illegal? Probably. But that's because our laws are unethical, not because they're doing anything wrong.

I've still got my $1 umbrella that I bought from a guy for $5 in Manhattan when it was pouring. That guy had was in the right place, at the right time, with the right attitude. I wish some of our "leaders" would learn a thing or two from the guys in NYC selling umbrellas in the rain.

The minimum wage laws are necessary now though unfortunately. There is no way in hell producers would lower their prices on stuff just because a minimum wage was abolished. Thus if the wage floor was removed, you'd have tons of people working for LESS money while attempting to buy goods that wouldn't adjust for the lower income. Some vendors would, which in essence would put Wal Mart in a full monopoly of the entire market of sales.

Competition might help a little but I guarantee the market wouldn't adjust well enough to not have a detrimental effect on the economy and the consumers.

[thrash]

StangerBanger96;187466 wrote:
The minimum wage laws are necessary now though unfortunately. There is no way in hell producers would lower their prices on stuff just because a minimum wage was abolished. Thus if the wage floor was removed, you'd have tons of people working for LESS money while attempting to buy goods that wouldn't adjust for the lower income. Some vendors would, which in essence would put Wal Mart in a full monopoly of the entire market of sales.

Competition might help a little but I guarantee the market wouldn't adjust well enough to not have a detrimental effect on the economy and the consumers.

I don't think I agree with this assessment. Why do you claim producers wouldn't lower their prices? Wholesalers and retailers lower the prices for all kinds of reason as it is currently. If the cost of labor to a retailer goes down, they certainly have more latitude to lower prices than they did before while still stayingp profitable.

It's also not clear that "tons of people" would be working for less money. That is, I don't think lots of people would have their pay cut immediately. I think that some people WOULD start to work that weren't working previously.

Infact, Wal-Mart already pays ABOVE the minimum wage in most cases. Wal-Mart recently lobbied to INCREASE the minimum wage precisely because it shuts out smaller businesses with poorer cash flows.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm899.cfm

interesting data point:

Only 2 percent of America’s workers make the minimum wage, but 5 percent of the workforce is unemployed. Which group needs the most help? Consider also that most minimum wage workers are part-timers and under 25 years old and that half are bound for a raise within a year. Clearly, raising the minimum wage won’t help the unemployed at all and will only make their job opportunities scarcer.

[Guest]

I respect your opinion on this matter thrash, but I think you are incorrect. In a perfect world, it would work perfectly.....but so does Socialism (in a perfect world), and I think most of us agree that socialism doesn't have the best track record historically.

[Guest]

And no, I'm not saying what you are suggesting is socialism....

[DaveH]

The min wage is a sham, it's there to make some politicians feel good about themselves, that they are helping poor people. In reality, almost nobody makes the minimum wage since market forces have made it so that the minimum people will work for is higher than the minimum wage. There may be some work (as thrash points out) where people will work for less, I don't know, if so, let them work. People should get paid what they are worth, not what the government tells them they should be paid. If the govt thinks $8/hr is a good min wage, why not $12/hr? maybe $15/hr would be great, then people making minimum wage would have more money... oh wait, then some businesses would go down the tubes because the work that these employee's do doesn't allow the company to break even, much less make money. Buisnesses go down the tubes and then the people don't have a job at all. That worked out well didn't it. Market forces are what should detemine wages. Period.

[thrash]

tjamz;187475 wrote:
I respect your opinion on this matter thrash, but I think you are incorrect.

why? based on what?

In a perfect world, it would work perfectly.....

Nothing works perfectly. In the real world, the unhindered market works near optimally. History shows that when government manipulation has been at a minimum, the economy flourishes. One problem may be your definition of "perfect" or "optimal". Asserting that there is some central direction or goal of the economy is a statist/socialist/progressive idea. (i.e.: poppycock). In a free market, individual actors work for their own self interest. It is a side effect, not a goal, that aggregately the conditions of society improve. History shows us time and time again the incredible power of the capitalist system to be the agent of change for the betterment of mankind and of society in general. History also shows that when governments attempt to manipulate this for some perverse end, the manipulation fails to acheive the "desired" result and introduces other negative side effects as well.

This is not difficult stuff to figure out. In a society where people are free to choose what they do or don't do, people will rarely choose the least agreeable option available to them. What is the only entity capable of limiting choice? The government.

but so does Socialism (in a perfect world), and I think most of us agree that socialism doesn't have the best track record historically.

nobody rational thinks socialism works even in theory. Smart people like FA Hayek predicted precisely what would happen in a socialist/communist society years before it was actually tried (read "Road to Serfdom", by FA Hayek).

[GarageAlchemist]

without the minimum wage very expirenced workers ( say 20 years with one company) would lose their jobs, because they could hire some noob out of college for less than half what they have to pay the old guy, because the old guy has (hopefully) been getting raises for 20 years.

[thrash]

GarageAlchemist;187482 wrote:
without the minimum wage very expirenced workers ( say 20 years with one company) would lose their jobs, because they could hire some noob out of college for less than half what they have to pay the old guy, because the old guy has (hopefully) been getting raises for 20 years.

I had a different response written to this, but now I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

is the guy who's been there 20 years making minimum wage or not? If he is, what were all those raises he got? Minimum wage raises?

[RE-Enema]

GarageAlchemist;187482 wrote:
without the minimum wage very expirenced workers ( say 20 years with one company) would lose their jobs, because they could hire some noob out of college for less than half what they have to pay the old guy, because the old guy has (hopefully) been getting raises for 20 years.

Not if he is more qualified, works hard, and is efficient. In any business your employees are the most valuable part of the business. They can make you money or they can lose you money. If the employer understands this the old guy with experience have nothing to worry about. If they don't, than that is not a company you would want to work for.

[Guest]

RE-Enema;187486 wrote:
Not if he is more qualified, works hard, and is efficient. In any business your employees are the most valuable part of the business. They can make you money or they can lose you money. If the employer understands this the old guy with experience have nothing to worry about. If they don't, than that is not a company you would want to work for.

I agree w/ Jeff here. Yes, it does happen that "old-timers" get pushed out by n00bs from time to time, and sometimes it is because of what they get paid...but if you've been in an industry for 20 years, odds are you are making more than minimum wage as it is so Heath's argument is pointless. Sometimes the 20 year employee is getting paid more than what they can hire a qualified rookie...and the seasoned guy gets let go. The employee failed to show a value to his employer that made him irreplaceable. Perhaps the new guy has more ambition, enthusiasm, strive....or knows new and more efficient techniques making the old guy obsolete. All of these scenarios (IMHO) point to the employee as being at fault for not keeping up to date on his trade and advancing his knowledge and advancing his worth to the company.

[StangerBanger96]

tjamz;187490 wrote:
I agree w/ Jeff here. Yes, it does happen that "old-timers" get pushed out by n00bs from time to time, and sometimes it is because of what they get paid...but if you've been in an industry for 20 years, odds are you are making more than minimum wage as it is so Heath's argument is pointless. Sometimes the 20 year employee is getting paid more than what they can hire a qualified rookie...and the seasoned guy gets let go. The employee failed to show a value to his employer that made him irreplaceable. Perhaps the new guy has more ambition, enthusiasm, strive....or knows new and more efficient techniques making the old guy obsolete. All of these scenarios (IMHO) point to the employee as being at fault for not keeping up to date on his trade and advancing his knowledge and advancing his worth to the company.

Instead of firing the guy why not offer him either termination of pay cut. Let him have a say in his fate. If the guy does a great job but they think he's getting too much rather than letting a good employee go you'd think they would give him an option at least.

It could boil down to the fact that the upper echelon of most companies has no damn clue what the actual worker bees of the company do.

[Guest]

thrash;187480 wrote:
why? based on what?

I respect your opinion, because it is not much different than how theoretically I'd like to see it work. I don't think it would lower product costs all that much though. Lets take a small town ND worker. MANY people in rural ND work for min wage (or start at min wage...I know many CNA's that barely get $7/hr after years of service) because that is all the employers are willing to pay for many positions. These people still have to be able to afford gas/clothes/groceries/housing. Often times they pay more for these things than we do in more urban areas (even housing...Rugby, ND housing is higher than Fargo in many cases...throwing out the highest end of Fargo and lowest end of Rugby....$150000 gets you a nicer house in Fargo vs Rugby.) So, by your theory, EVERYTHING in Rugby should be cheaper than Fargo since wages are lower there. Doesn't hold true though.

[Guest]

StangerBanger96;187491 wrote:
Instead of firing the guy why not offer him either termination of pay cut. Let him have a say in his fate. If the guy does a great job but they think he's getting too much rather than letting a good employee go you'd think they would give him an option at least.

It could boil down to the fact that the upper echelon of most companies has no damn clue what the actual worker bees of the company do.

Because not all companies can afford to create a position and/or offer a great severance package. Most people have too much pride to take a pay cut. To bring this topic full circle, this is part of the reason people look to unions for job protection.