The "majority" are not "17k per year temp workers."

 

Toyota can only hire temporary workers for a six month stretch, which is what they consider their "orientation" period that consists of on-the-job training. They are paid around $15 to $20 an hour, depending on what task you are assigned to, and at the end of six months, you have a review and you are either dismissed or hired full time.

 

So they don't necewssarily have to keep them and hire them full time. Sounds like a temp job or a seasonal job.

It's a temporary position. If the worker doesn't pan out for whatever reason, then there is no reason to hire them on full time.

 

Many industries employ this tactic -- not just Toyota or "foreign" automakers.

But they employ that tactic much more so than GM.

But they employ that tactic much more so than GM.

 

And increasing use of that tactic has done nothing good to our overall economy.  If you can't count on a job to last the life of a car loan, let alone a mortgage, sales are going to drop for everything.  It doesn't work to have one "side" of the economy free of all commitment while the other side is expected to bind itself for decades on end.

You all are lucky I'm not running the WH.  Not only would it be stunning inside, but I'd let the banking, auto and airline industries go down in flames!

Think of all the things the big three could have done in the last 20 years, and especially the last 10. They could have used their enormous technological assets to diversify into things other than motor vehicles. They could have diversified their product lineup. They could have taken more risks. They could have figured out why Asian and Europeans beat them in design. They could have pushed one of their brands into the green niche.

 

They did one thing. One thing. They pushed SUV's.

 

Let them rot.

But they employ that tactic much more so than GM.

 

How so? I can't find any verifiable sources for that. I suppose we shouldn't be badgering GM's unions for paying a worker on average $60 to $75 an hour for assembly line work (which includes benefits).

You all are lucky I'm not running the WH. Not only would it be stunning inside, but I'd let the banking, auto and airline industries go down in flames!

 

You go, Nero!

You all are lucky I'm not running the WH.  Not only would it be stunning inside, but I'd let the banking, auto and airline industries go down in flames!

 

You go, Nero!

 

ew..I'm not into incest nor would I kill my own mother!  Although he was a lover of the Arts.

Think of all the things the big three could have done in the last 20 years, and especially the last 10. They could have used their enormous technological assets to diversify into things other than motor vehicles. They could have diversified their product lineup. They could have taken more risks. They could have figured out why Asian and Europeans beat them in design. They could have pushed one of their brands into the green niche.

 

They did one thing. One thing. They pushed SUV's.

 

Let them rot.

 

Amen to that. 

 

 

You all are lucky I'm not running the WH.  Not only would it be stunning inside, but I'd let the banking, auto and airline industries go down in flames!

 

And to that I say, MTS for president. 

 

 

I really don't get all this hoopla about bailouts.  It's called Capitalism.  Companies rise to powers and companies fail.  Most respectable companies keep track of their finances and let their employees know they're struggling ahead of time, then they throw a going away party on the last day. 

 

GM is not a respectable company.  They've done nothing but suck the life out of every city they've set up shop in.  And now, to top the cake off, they wait until they're too far gone to let anybody know about their struggles...screwing over employees that never got the respect they deserved. 

 

I know it's tough to face a job loss, but in order to create new and more respectable jobs this purge has to happen.

 

LET IT BURN.

And to that I say, MTS for president. 

 

I'll never be President (the pay sucks), however, its very possible, in the very near future, I could have his ear.

MTS, you are joking right?  No, we don't need an economy at all... I'm increasingly surprised by the lack of support so many millions of Americans are recieving from their own.  I don't understand why the criticism isn't more evenly spread across sectors.  Why aren't we tying the real estate profession to a stake?  It's taboo to criticize the police when crime spikes, or even when it plagues certain neighborhoods relentlessly.  At least they don't make cars!

 

Earlier today I stepped on someone's toes with a comment about people in a certain line of work and where they could stick it.  That's never good.  But why is there a different standard in play when we discuss people who work for domestic automakers?  They can all burn Burn BURN for what they've done!  Even though, as in most fields of endeavor, key decsions are made by a small cadre and everyone else does the best they can with what's been dropped on them. 

 

Letting the companies go down, letting the entire industry go down, punishes so many people for problems they had no hand in causing.  Cutting off the nose to spite the face, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, insert cliche.  They're cliches because humanity has supposedly learned these lessons before.  Is there no way we can distinguish between the auto executives (for whom, in many cases, nepotism has played a role) and the other several million people involved who don't deserve to have a lifetime of skill so devalued?  These are peoples' careers we're talking about, people who may not like SUVs any more than we do.     

I am SERIOUS.

 

If one goes down, the others will right-size and pick up the pieces.

 

They will be forced to change their management and adapt to the current sales / marketing and R&D climate.

 

I personally don't need a car.  I say let them go under!

^thanks 327. 

 

GM-Lordstown is "the only thing" that is keeping the Mahoning Valley alive. 

MTS is absolutely correct. 

 

I  recently flip flopped on the issue when thinking about the big picture.  Originally, I was for the auto bailout because of how many jobs and lives are at stake (millions!).  However, I've changed my mind completely.  Putting a $50 billion bandaid on this wound is not going to make people want to buy Fords.  The big three need to file Chapter 11, have a massive restructuring, and stop bending over to the unions that are forcing $3000 per car to go to health benefits for retirees.  That's just not sutatainable in the long run and we would through all this again.  Hell, didn't we bail them out a few decades ago already???

 

At most I could see the government helping fascilitate some kind of merger and in doing so loan some, but obvoiusly not the $50 billion, money to whichever entity would need it, provided that such money would be fully exempt from any potential bankruptcies down the road. 

 

We had to bail out the banks because they are the crux of our economy.  The Big Three are not and if we bail them out, where do we stop?

MTS, you are joking right? No, we don't need an economy at all... I'm increasingly surprised by the lack of support so many millions of Americans are recieving from their own. I don't understand why the criticism isn't more evenly spread across sectors. Why aren't we tying the real estate profession to a stake? It's taboo to criticize the police when crime spikes, or even when it plagues certain neighborhoods relentlessly. At least they don't make cars!

 

Earlier today I stepped on someone's toes with a comment about people in a certain line of work and where they could stick it. That's never good. But why is there a different standard in play when we discuss people who work for domestic automakers? They can all burn Burn BURN for what they've done! Even though, as in most fields of endeavor, key decsions are made by a small cadre and everyone else does the best they can with what's been dropped on them.

 

Letting the companies go down, letting the entire industry go down, punishes so many people for problems they had no hand in causing. Cutting off the nose to spite the face, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, insert cliche. They're cliches because humanity has supposedly learned these lessons before. Is there no way we can distinguish between the auto executives (for whom, in many cases, nepotism has played a role) and the other several million people involved who don't deserve to have a lifetime of skill so devalued? These are peoples' careers we're talking about, people who may not like SUVs any more than we do.  

 

You're missing the point.  These people are going to have a rough time, but the only way it can get better for them is through the collapse of the sick corporate giant.  Somewhere in the range of a quarter to a fifth of my extended family has worked for the auto industry either at the GM plant in Janesville, WI or the Chrysler/American Motors plant in Kenosha, WI.  You should've seen the bleak couple of Christmases we had when the plant in Kenosha closed. (I was too young, but I've seen the photo albums and heard ALL the stories) and now that my family members in Janesville are going through the same thing, ALL of the former Kenosha workers of my family started congratulating the Janesville workers.  It's kind of perplexing to imagine, but in a very vague sense, the auto workers are almost being held hostage by the Big 3's ability to overwhelm the towns it's in and pushing all other business out.  But when those plants close, the other business quickly fill in the gaps.  Of course there are a couple of years of down time, but it's necessary to rebuild a better future.

I can't speak for people in Ohio and Michigan who've experienced the closers there, but I do know how they were felt here in Wisconsin. 

 

GM needs to fail.  I'm sorry.

...  That's just not sutatainable in the long run and we would through all this again.  Hell, didn't we bail them out a few decades ago already???

...

 

NO

Can we merge the two GM threads?

I personally don't need a car. I say let them go under!

 

I personally don't need an MTS, but I wish no ill upon it.  There are many ways to change and adapt the auto industry.  Dropping chaos onto Detroit, Cleveland, Youngstown, etc is about the worst possible option.  If that does happen anyway, let it not happen due to irrational spite and bitterness of Americans on Americans.

I personally don't need a car.  I say let them go under!

 

I personally don't need an MTS, but I wish no ill upon it.  There are many ways to change and adapt the auto industry.  Dropping chaos onto Detroit, Cleveland, Youngstown, etc is about the worst possible option.  If that does happen anyway, let it not happen due to irrational spite and bitterness of Americans on Americans.

 

Trust me honey, you need an MTS.  You all need a lil style, substance and fabulousness in your lives.  Especially Andrew, ProkNo5 & punch.  ;)

 

Seriously though.  The auto industry needs a WAKE UP and a SHAKE UP from top to bottom.  One company must be sacrificed for the greater good of the industry at large.

It's ProkNo5, short for Prokofiev's Symphony No. 5, but thank you for the props. 

 

Can I ask people's thought on Nancy Pelosi giving this deal props?

Other businesses fill the gap?  Like in Flint?  Detroit?  Youngstown?  When something this big goes under, it leaves a gap that will be filled over the course of decades, if at all.  And that is the source of the problem- we've let businesses get too big- from GM to Morgan Stanley to Microsoft, we are dependent upon a small oligopoly of companies as the backbone of too many of our regional economies, and too much of our national economy.  The devastation from letting GM go under is unimaginable.  We'd lose millions of jobs and be plunged into a depression that would be years to get out of.

For me, this comes back to college econ, supply/demand.  If Apple is about to fail due to an unappealing product, are they bailed out?  How about Circuit City?  P&G?  Increase sales, decrease costs.  Ford and GM haven't done that.  The incentive just isn't there for government to bail them out like they did the banks.  Without banks, the cornerstone of our capitalist system of borrowing and investing capital fails.

 

America needs to reinvent itself as a haven of medicine, education and technology.  This is our future.  Not the Detroit 3.

Not a huge Pelosi fan, but don't have a strong opinion on her.  Still don't get why people who shape metal or install components for a living need to go through some sort of wakey-shakey upheaval.  Don't see why finance is more critical or deserving of support than the productive activity for which finance exists.  Creation is an end in itself, while finance requires an object-- and a viable object at that.

 

I'm not contending that downsizing shouldn't take place.  I'm contending that it needs to proceed in a more orderly fashion than bankruptcy or collapse would entail.       

Can I ask people's thought on Nancy Pelosi giving this deal props?

President-Elect Barack Obama basically won his campaign in the Midwest.  The Democrats can take New York, New England, and California for granted.  Hence the goodies have to be distributed in the swing states.  That means keeping the rust belt happy.

 

It used to be that the Democrats lavished their largesse on the South, but now there are "greener fields" to plow.   

 

I am still amazed that he took Indiana. 

Not a huge Pelosi fan, but don't have a strong opinion on her. Still don't get why people who shape metal or install components for a living need to go through some sort of wakey-shakey upheaval. Don't see why finance is more critical or deserving of support than the productive activity for which finance exists. Creation is an end in itself, while finance requires an object-- and a viable object at that.

 

I'm not contending that downsizing shouldn't take place. I'm contending that it needs to proceed in a more orderly fashion than bankruptcy or collapse would entail.

 

I agree with you on almost everything you said here, but the problem is that they should've done all that change in the last few years.  They're running on fumes right now, and the longer they hold out the less change the thousands of employees have a chance of getting any of the scraps as severances.

 

Also, the financial bailout should not be used as a leveraging tool for the Auto bailout.  Quite frankly, I didn't support those either, but despite that they are very different situations.

Not a huge Pelosi fan, but don't have a strong opinion on her. Still don't get why people who shape metal or install components for a living need to go through some sort of wakey-shakey upheaval. Don't see why finance is more critical or deserving of support than the productive activity for which finance exists. Creation is an end in itself, while finance requires an object-- and a viable object at that.

 

I'm not contending that downsizing shouldn't take place. I'm contending that it needs to proceed in a more orderly fashion than bankruptcy or collapse would entail.

 

Agreed 100%.

For me, this comes back to college econ, supply/demand. If Apple is about to fail due to an unappealing product, are they bailed out? How about Circuit City? P&G? Increase sales, decrease costs. Ford and GM haven't done that. The incentive just isn't there for government to bail them out like they did the banks. Without banks, the cornerstone of our capitalist system of borrowing and investing capital fails.

 

America needs to reinvent itself as a haven of medicine, education and technology. This is our future. Not the Detroit 3.

 

Medicine and education are not the future of the US economy, any more than law or accounting are.  These are just specific professions, necessary but not sufficient in themselves to make society go.  Technology is a really broad term, and by all accounts it includes automotive.  Our current financial system is but one of many ways that capital can be moved around. 

 

Supply, demand, and all the secondary effects they spawn, can all be manipulated.  They aren't constants like gravity, nor are they gods.  They can't tell us to shut down major cities if we don't want to.  The world has pretty much the same supply, the same demand levels it had a couple years ago.  There are people, they need things, and they have energy & ideas to do things.  And yet today, nothing can get built, bought or sold because the financial system is all a-flutter.  I ask you, is this finance-first arrangement helping or hurting?     

Good article on why Bankruptcy of GM may not work. I am not so much for a bail out of the Big three as I am against the chaos that will be heaped upon the us economy if they do go under. Yes they have been mismanaged and have brought much ill upon themselves but their entire business model of parts on credit and paying after the fact(which has worked for 80 years) came crashing down during this credit freeze. GM had something like 25 billion in cash on hand at the beginning of the year. The article touches on the fact that even the better car companies depend on an incestous web of 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers who a GM's bankruptcy will cause a few of these suppliers cards to pulled out causing the whole house to come crashing down.

I know that when I interned for Delphi in the 90's they supplied parts to every car company except Honda. Delphi's biggest buyer is GM, GM goes under then Delphi goes under and the Toyota plant in Alabama or wherever grinds to a halt. So my position is kickout the management, bring in a crack team who may even split up GM, but the bailout would probably be best because it doesn't look like the money will be there to restructure in bankruptcy.

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1858702,00.html

 

Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008

Is General Motors Worth Saving?

By Bill Saporito

 

For months, General Motors had been telling everyone who would listen that bankruptcy was not an option. It had a $30 billion cash pile and plans to restructure the company as the economy rebounded and 2007 U.S. auto sales topped 16 million units.

 

>Weak, really weak, and you did not answer my question.

 

Since you didn't respond directly I'm assuming you don't have a response.  I can't believe anyone in 2008 is still daydreaming about the a glorious resurrection of the American auto industry its labor unions.  Reminds me a lot of how Southerners can't shut up about the Civil War.  Speaking of which, the taxes are WAY lower in the south...Mercedes and Hyundai built big plants in Alabama and Nissan moved its USA headquarters to Nashville to escape high taxes and find cheap non-union labor.  What foreign company would ever choose the high taxes and union wasp nests of Michigan or northern Ohio when they can just plain make more money more easily in the South?  The advantage of cheap Great Lakes shipping clearly doesn't overcome those cultural and legal factors, and for execs working in states like Tennessee that have no state income tax, that alone makes a huge difference in their personal incomes and they're the people who make these decisions.     

 

 

Life is not good for us based foreign brands.  I launched a plant in Mississippi back in 2005, supplying truck and SUV frames for Nissan.  When we started we had about 400 (non union) hourly employees and maybe 50 salaried people.

I just found out today that they are down to 10 hourly and 7 salaried.  Starting next week they are on a 6 week shutdown

>Weak, really weak, and you did not answer my question.

 

Since you didn't respond directly I'm assuming you don't have a response.  I can't believe anyone in 2008 is still daydreaming about the a glorious resurrection of the American auto industry its labor unions.  Reminds me a lot of how Southerners can't shut up about the Civil War...   

 

Your first sentence does not make sense since it is devoid of a reference.  You *still*  have to explain this:

 

The very fact that they know they can get bailed out is what allowed this to get to this point.  ... 

So what business decision by GM was made with the knowledge that they would be "bailed out"?

 

GM probably could have survived the drop in sales of pickups and SUVs (since they have the most efficient trucks).  What nailed the domestic automakers is the lack of credit for their customers.    The problem was due to decisions by Fed chair Greenspan and unethical practices by Wall Street bankers.

Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?

Mises Daily: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 by George Reisman

 

 

 

"First, the company would be without so-called Monday-morning automobiles. That is, automobiles poorly made for no other reason than because they happened to be made on a day when too few workers showed up, or too few showed up sober, to do the jobs they were paid to do. Without the UAW, General Motors would simply have fired such workers and replaced them with ones who would do the jobs they were paid to do. And so, without the UAW, GM would have produced more reliable, higher quality cars, had a better reputation for quality, and correspondingly greater sales volume to go with it. Why didn't they do this? Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions....

 

 

http://mises.org/story/2124

If that's ultimately where Detroit ends up, is it worth the price to get there? Put another way, does GM deserve to be bailed out or left at the mercy of the market and almost certain death? "The University of Chicago training in me says the market should prevail," says Schrager. "But the Chrysler bailout was a success, and, gosh, I'd love to save it." That sentiment is not shared by everyone, and it goes to the heart of the central economic debate facing the country — between hard-nosed capitalists, who believe the market should decide, and public-policy types who view the economy as something far more organic than a balance sheet. But ultimately, whether GM is dead or alive, the taxpayers are on the hook for billions, for everything from lost tax revenues to higher unemployment costs to taking over GM's pension obligations. The decision that Washington has to make is whether we pay for GM's survival or for its funeral.

 

Good conclusion.  Would it not be cheaper to socialize the consequences of shutting down GM? 

 

From a  Federal perspective, this would mean paying, higher costs in unemployment benefits (which are time-limited) and maybe food stamps.  An indirect cost would be reduced revenue due to more people being eligible for EITC.

 

This is actually a good question, to put a price on one or the other action.

 

 

 

 

David...wow...don't even know where to begin about that post...I wouldn't bet the bank that all you read in that article is fact.

Op-Ed Contributors

How High Gas Prices Can Save the Car Industry

By DANIEL SPERLING and DEBORAH GORDON

Published: November 16, 2008

 

FOR the American automobile industry, the years since the glory days of the 1950s and ’60s have been a period of decline. Ever since the oil crises and the Japanese import invasion of the 1970s, the automakers have repeatedly flirted with financial ruin.

 

They stayed afloat, at times quite profitably, by shifting their focus to sport utility vehicles and big pickup trucks, which indulged the desires of consumers for larger and more powerful vehicles. They deluded themselves into thinking they had created a successful strategy, when what they had really created was a protected and precarious perch.

 

Bankruptcy, then, might be well deserved, were it not for the risk of the complete collapse of the companies. The industry must be bailed out by the federal government. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, and a strong domestic manufacturing sector is important for security reasons...

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16sperling.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

David...wow...don't even know where to begin about that post...I wouldn't bet the bank that all you read in that article is fact.

 

I promote the idea of job security..but you have to admit, unions like UAW are taken to the extreme and they're very inefficient.

If that's ultimately where Detroit ends up, is it worth the price to get there? Put another way, does GM deserve to be bailed out or left at the mercy of the market and almost certain death? "The University of Chicago training in me says the market should prevail," says Schrager. "But the Chrysler bailout was a success, and, gosh, I'd love to save it." That sentiment is not shared by everyone, and it goes to the heart of the central economic debate facing the country — between hard-nosed capitalists, who believe the market should decide, and public-policy types who view the economy as something far more organic than a balance sheet. But ultimately, whether GM is dead or alive, the taxpayers are on the hook for billions, for everything from lost tax revenues to higher unemployment costs to taking over GM's pension obligations. The decision that Washington has to make is whether we pay for GM's survival or for its funeral.

 

Good conclusion. Would it not be cheaper to socialize the consequences of shutting down GM?

 

From a Federal perspective, this would mean paying, higher costs in unemployment benefits (which are time-limited) and maybe food stamps. An indirect cost would be reduced revenue due to more people being eligible for EITC.

 

This is actually a good question, to put a price on one or the other action.

 

 

 

 

 

That generally my new worry, which is that the local tax hit across the country would probably be greater than keeping them ticking and paying taxes through to the end of the recession. The fed will either dump money in the car companies or directly to the cities, states, and individuals.

I promote the idea of job security..but you have to admit, unions like UAW are taken to the extreme and they're very inefficient.

Efficient--how do you mean?  Production at  GM-Lordstown is as efficient and cost effective as any Japanese auto company plant.

 

 

What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army

By WESLEY K. CLARK

Little Rock, Ark.

 

AMERICA’S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington’s intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative....

Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16clark.html?_r=1&em

 

 

 

I promote the idea of job security..but you have to admit, unions like UAW are taken to the extreme and they're very inefficient.

Efficient--how do you mean?  Production at  GM-Lordstown is as efficient and cost effective as any Japanese auto company plant.

 

Source?

 

I read that during slow times, Toyota union workers are trained on how to work more efficiently and produce higher quality cars, or they practice safety drills. Does GM do the same? (that's not a rhetorical question, I really wanna know).

 

This info comes from a U of M professor's blog so I wouldn't just take it with a grain of salt.

 

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/07/uaw-pricing-themselves-out-of-market.html

 

This is an interesting graph from Forbes in 2006. It doesn't even seem real to me

 

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2848/wagesva0.jpg

 

Unions are outdated. They served a purpose when we began industrializing and workers dealt with really harsh conditions and low pay. Gradually it became exploitation of the corporation. There's sort of this liberal notion that the people at the top are evil, rich and out to take advantage of the poor man at the bottom. I definitely think they've taken their demands too far and now its hurting them. C-Dawg is pro-union but he himself said you can get by in Toledo on 12 dollars an hour. We have minimum wage laws and social programs that I don't believe we had when unions were originally formed.

 

 

 

The Forbes magazine citation you put up does not execute. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/13/ap3818877.html  Hence, I remain skeptical about the hearsay claims of huge compensation for autoworkers.  If it's so great, why didn't you apply? 

 

(I don't know what any of this has to do with "university professors").

 

Unions are outdated. They served a purpose when we began industrializing and workers dealt with really harsh conditions and low pay. Gradually it became exploitation of the corporation. There's sort of this liberal notion that the people at the top are evil, rich and out to take advantage of the poor man at the bottom. I definitely think they've taken their demands too far and now its hurting them. C-Dawg is pro-union but he himself said you can get by in Toledo on 12 dollars an hour. We have minimum wage laws and social programs that I don't believe we had when unions were originally formed.

 

I disagree.  Any worker profits when they can get a collective bargaining agreement and leverage their power to get higher compensation.

 

 

 

(I don't know what any of this has to do with "university professors").

 

I made that point because it's a reputable blog. (and ironic that he's from Flint/AA).

 

 

I disagree.  Any worker profits when they can get a collective bargaining agreement and leverage their power to get higher compensation.

 

 

Well yeah, until their plant closes. Or people making 8 bucks an hour part time paying taxes and watching their dollar decrease, bail them out.

I disagree. Any worker profits when they can get a collective bargaining agreement and leverage their power to get higher compensation.

 

To the point that they can bankrupt a company? Or until the UAW (or insert any other union) bullies a company around for ungodly benefits and compensation for assembly-line work? You're not talking about people with Ph.D.'s, or even Master degrees. You're referring to people who do one task day-after-day in an assembly line -- a basic manufacturing process. It's not entirely technical but does require training.

 

What justifies their ungodly pay, in comparison to a university professor that makes far less?

Unions...they served a purpose when we began industrializing and workers dealt with really harsh conditions and low pay.

 

This is a cliche' without any thought behind it.  You are repeating a truism. 

 

What really happened is that unions were more often than not defeated by management, with a lot of help by various levels of government and the courts, up to and including using military force.

 

The historical accident of the New Deal occuring around the the same time as the big  organizing drives of unskilled factory workers, and having politicians freindly to labor in office at the Federal (and state) levels at the time of the unionization drives of the 1930s and 40s had a lot to do with the sucess of the unions.  The political conditions were right, for once, for unions to suceed.  There was also a period of full employment after the war (meaning there was labor shortages) prior to automation kicking in that gave unions some barganing power. 

 

As for legal frameworks for working conditions, again there was a sort of two way street between unions and politics, as union political organizing elected freindly politicians into office who passed laws regulation wages and hours and, later, working conditions.  That's one of the pardoxes of democracy, in that it has the potentional to limit economic freedom (of business owners to do as they will).

 

There is absolutely nothing to say that any of this can't be reversed in the future, either by repeal via legislation or by court decision.

 

 

 

 

 

I continue to remain skeptical about the claims of wildly-large pay for employees of domestic automakers.  I am sure that no Chrysler employee gets a $6000 paycheck every two weeks, despite the bar chart above. :humor:

 

On an Ohio Public Radio segment, they noted that the pay of the employees of the Japanese producers (Honda-Ohio) is not much less than the pay of the domestic autoworkers.  Benefits are much better at the domestic plants, though.  (I would love to see real data supporting pay scales if someone has better data than OPR).

 

We are in an economic environment where benefits and pay are being reduced.  I doubt that anybody on this forum is happy that expectations for American employees are such that they won't have sufficient medical benefits or retirement medical benefits.

The problem is the combination of political power plus economic power. Collective bargaining is generally a good idea, but collective bargaining backed up by the political power tips the playing field. Industrial capitalism with its propensity toward stability needs unions, but financial capitalism with its highly dynamic boom-bust cycles is less able to deal with unions and the modalities of collective bargaining.

The problem is the combination of political power plus economic power. Collective bargaining is generally a good idea, but collective bargaining backed up by the political power tips the playing field.

 

That could be said of both sides... unions no longer have much political power, and the period when they did was not that long in the grand scheme of history.  If union contracts don't mix well with boom-bust cycles, neither do mortgages or student loans.

I continue to remain skeptical about the claims of wildly-large pay for employees of domestic automakers.  I am sure that no Chrysler employee gets a $6000 paycheck every two weeks, despite the bar chart above. :humor:

 

You must not have read the article or any statements to that effect. It's not a "paycheck", but once you include in the equivalency of benefits that include retirement and health, you are essentially tacking on many fringe goodies that simply are not necessary.

I continue to remain skeptical about the claims of wildly-large pay for employees of domestic automakers. I am sure that no Chrysler employee gets a $6000 paycheck every two weeks, despite the bar chart above. :humor:

 

You must not have read the article or any statements to that effect. It's not a "paycheck", but once you include in the equivalency of benefits that include retirement and health, you are essentially tacking on many fringe goodies that simply are not necessary.

 

Health care and retirement are clearly necessary.  It probably isn't wise to have employers pay for them, as illustrated by our auto industry v. all the others.  As for wages, yes you could get by in Toledo on $12/hour but all you're doing is getting by, i.e. failing to die from exposure or starvation.  You're not saving for retirement, you're not buying health insurance, you're not sending anyone to school.  You're probably not buying a house either, since you're grossing under 25k.  There needs to be upward pressure on low end wages, and not just through minimum wage laws.  Twelve is almost double the minimum wage and it's still peasantry at best, in Ohio.  Free market isn't going to solve it either.  Left to its own devices, a free market for labor would result in one giant castle surrounded people living in dresser drawers.