Looks like GM took another blow from the Unions. In a statement, the Detroit-based company (American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings) said the union had "singled out" the supplier by refusing to allow it to cut hourly labor costs that are three times higher than its rivals at over $70 per hour.

I sure hope that was a typo... $70 dollars an hour and they won't take a $14 an hour pay cut. That's some kinda *****!!

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080226/...canaxle_uaw_dc

 

Fawk em. Dissolve the company, reorganize, hire new workers, let the fawking union bastards starve. It's no wonder why China is kicking our manufacturing asses. Unions aside, labor costs over there at 25% of what they are here. That will make or break a company quickly.

 

Whether it's 70 bucks an hour, which IMO a drop of half is twice what anyone makes so what's with that, or $15/hr, unions get blamed for it. How can you compete with poverished nations without becoming one yourself? It's a race to the bottom. It's not like gas, food, energy costs have come down to ease the situation so what do you do. Reasonable pay cuts unfortunetely have become the necessity because gov't allows offshore crap to be sold here so easily and it's not recipricated. NAFTA was bad enough, now it's going to be that in Asia too? *** that!!!!!!!! Ya, I'm a unionized auto worker, but also a realist. I'll take reasonable pay cuts in order to maintain a job.

 

$70 is a little misleading.

thats wage plus benefits plus everything else an accountant uses to calculate labor cost.

As far as actual wages, its probably more like what automaker assemblers make - $25-30/hr

 

It's always something with that UAW.

 

By this you mean fighting for AMERICAN jobs? Standing up for the working man, better quality of life? Then yes, you're right. At this point in the US economy, especially Michigan, begger's can't be chooser's, I think the UAW knows that. Without the UAW in alot of cases, many companies would have packed up long ago, give them that much.

 

The unions served a purpose... 50 years ago.

 

I think 25% may be a bit too optimistic Yeah, no wonder...

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/06/0502/art1.html

 

Is this from someone who has no clue about unions, just that they are an easy scapegoat? Pretty much. Most people have no clue what unions do, just blame them for rising material costs, overseas competition and weak trade policies on this end. Labor costs are rising yes, on an even pace, how about the sharp material cost increases? This and the fact that low paid workers can sell the same product as higher paid in the US market, not vice versa. If people making toys here were paid $5 an hour, it far exceeds most overseas manufacturers, if not all. Unions get what the companies can feasibly give, besides, 9 times out of 10 the unions work hand in hand with the company. Really, the union doesn't need to be what it was, just acts like a referee at best. But of course, every 3 years at contract time, how greedy those union people are. When they do good, other companies and stores do good. Trust me, if they paid me more, the bank gets more (interest and investing) I spend more, I everything more. My extra money has to go somewhere and by doing so profits someone else. Everyone prospers or everyone suffers.

 

The problem with Unions (as with most Socialist organizations) is that they eventually become a haven for over-priced mediocrity.

They are generally being eaten alive in today's economic environment because they operate around a business model that places the highest value on years of service, while the rest of the world operates on a model that places the highest value on the quality and/or quantity of your output.

If Unions delivered a product that had a value that was proportional to their cost, they likely would still be a powerful and driving force in today's economy, rather than an archaic reminder of how things used to be.

 

I agree. In most cases the unions end up screwing over as many people as they help.



Companies should work peice work rates, with set quality control standards that don't budge. The hard working people will earn their hard working people rate. The slackers won't earn nearly as much and hopefully move on to something they are good at.

 

Well said.

 

Well said... I agree. I haven't commented on this thread yet because I got everything off my chest on the 17 other union threads that were posted over the last few months...

I knew it was only a matter or time before another one popped up.

 

You guys aren't looking at what a union does for the employees it represents. I bet the majority of you have no clue how a union works.

 

For the most part, the Unions do not design the cars, nor do they test the cars, nor do they test-market the cars. The guys in the Union build what the designers, the engineeers, and the artists give them to build. If the product is mediocre, place the blame on the other folks---not necessarily the guys on the line...they build what they are given to build.

I agree with Stealth, many only see the monetary issues when the time comes, but fail to see the other issues For example:

I am an educator with 31 years experience. One point that the union has done, not just for me, but for the students (the product) is to ensure the best tacher/student ratio as possible. The fewer students in a classroom, the better the personalized education which can be offered. Becasue of the Union fighting to maintain class sizes, we have continued to offer the best education in our school district in years. At a price, yes; but what price can on actually put on an excellent education?

At times the Bd. of Ed wants to cut costs, but the my union, the OEA as well as the local association, has fought to maintain the class size ration to ensure that the kids get the best education possible. No mediocrity there.

Tim C.