UAW Strike at GM

[JoeEllison]

This is just another case of a corporation transferring wealth from the workers to the millionaires, and transferring the risk in the opposite direction.

 

[madurobob]

With respect to defined benefits or pension plans, those are withering away in favor of 401K's and the like, i.e., known costs without future liability look so much better on one's balance sheet.

Kind of my point. The corporation shifts the risk of providing for retirement to the worker and the market in general (via 401k). From a personal standpoint I think its great - I get to manage the money and it is entirely portable. But, from a societal viewpoint it really is a dumping of risk onto society by the corporations.

With regard to unions, my point was that they've not been raiding the pension funds (I don't think) or changing the rules mid game. So, unionized companies may be providing for their union employees retirement far better than their non-union counter parts. Thats the one big benefit I see to unions.

 

[DaChew]

GM is effectively paying $85/hour now for UAW workers, how much will the union want to provide the same functions while becoming the members' new punching bag?

I don't see it working.

That is how the construction trade unions have worked for some time. They've learned to live within their budget. Your point is correct though. There will be a lot of turbulence in the union over what benefits workers will have because they will be paying for it themselves in lieu of higher wages (they do anyway but there's always been that disconnect). And right now, UAW leadership knows they don't want any part of it because they will be the punching bags especially since, as you pointed out, they are fairly highly paid. I believe that's at least part of why they've tabled taking over the health care from GM.

But I don't see any alternative for the UAW. Other than disolving. Which I just don't see happening.

 

[balrog666]

Kind of my point. The corporation shifts the risk of providing for retirement to the worker and the market in general (via 401k). From a personal standpoint I think its great - I get to manage the money and it is entirely portable. But, from a societal viewpoint it really is a dumping of risk onto society by the corporations.

With regard to unions, my point was that they've not been raiding the pension funds (I don't think) or changing the rules mid game. So, unionized companies may be providing for their union employees retirement far better than their non-union counter parts. Thats the one big benefit I see to unions.

The US Government has already voluntarily assumed that risk by forming the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the idiots.

As for union pension funds, ask the mob where they get all those cheap loans that they almost never pay back but that still show up as assets in the pension funds. Mob control of unions and pension funds exists for one simple purpose and it works really, really well - just ask the people who really run the Teamsters.

 

[balrog666]

This is just another case of a corporation transferring wealth from the workers to the millionaires, and transferring the risk in the opposite direction.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, yes, we all know how wealthy those workers are.

And the risk has already left the barn.




Tell me, are you an actual True-Believer-Communist?

 

[balrog666]

That is how the construction trade unions have worked for some time. They've learned to live within their budget. Your point is correct though. There will be a lot of turbulence in the union over what benefits workers will have because they will be paying for it themselves in lieu of higher wages (they do anyway but there's always been that disconnect). And right now, UAW leadership knows they don't want any part of it because they will be the punching bags especially since, as you pointed out, they are fairly highly paid. I believe that's at least part of why they've tabled taking over the health care from GM.

Yep. But GM is going to shed that liability one way or the other or they will go out of business. The UAW needs belly up to the bar or they will be dealing with a bankruptcy judge instead and the spinning of the strike as a way of softening up the union members seems to indicate that "everybody" knows that.

But I don't see any alternative for the UAW. Other than disolving. Which I just don't see happening.

Or they could branch out as other unions have. Guess what percentage of the members of the United Steelworkers Union are actually steelworkers now?

 

[JoeEllison]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, yes, we all know how wealthy those workers are.

And the risk has already left the barn.




Tell me, are you an actual True-Believer-Communist?

Clearly, you don't understand economics.

 

[DaChew]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, yes, we all know how wealthy those workers are.

What makes the comment especially amusing to me, is that I do know a number of UAW guys who are millionaires. By this time of the year, any UAW tech support worker with some seniority has already cleared well over $120K. It doesn't take a very diligent savings and investment plan over a 35 year career to end up with a nest egg worth a couple mil.

 

[DaChew]

Yep. But GM is going to shed that liability one way or the other or they will go out of business. The UAW needs belly up to the bar or they will be dealing with a bankruptcy judge instead and the spinning of the strike as a way of softening up the union members seems to indicate that "everybody" knows that.

Yes. They do not want another, larger Delphi on their hands.

Or they could branch out as other unions have. Guess what percentage of the members of the United Steelworkers Union are actually steelworkers now?

The exact correct answer to your question is - a lot. Remember though that UAW actually stands for: United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) so there are already a number of UAW members not building cars right now.

 

[Fnord]

I see the UAW's future as a transformation to a workforce agency. They will contract with manufacturers to provide auto line technicians. They will handle all of the personnel admin. - Pay, benefits, hiring etc. The companies will provide a per person hourly rate to the UAW. That's it. US manufacturers get to shed 90% of their personnel departments and HR functions along with the administration of health benefits in return for paying one flat rate per person. Only thing left to negotiate is hourly rate.

The UAW tried this, and continues to try. They've spent the last 20 years or so approaching clerical workers to bring them in under their auspices.

The UAW tried in 1988 to take over the Clerical Technical Union of Michigan State University. When the CTU members figured out that the UAW would also take over their pension fund, and determined that it was "an attempted raid from the United Auto Workers," the CTU members almost unanimously voted 'No' on their proposed takeover.

Right after that vote, the UAW quietly withdrew its support of the CTU in its two-week strike against the University (MSU would not implement the results of a classification study that raised the pay levels of over 2/3 of the bargaining unit). The UAW's withdrawal was seen as de facto evidence of their interest in only the millions of dollars in the CTU pension fund.

While the UAW might like to present itself as a "Workforce Agency," they are more interested in the money that such an arrangement might generate, rather than the well-being of its members.

 

[DaChew]

The UAW tried this, and continues to try. They've spent the last 20 years or so approaching clerical workers to bring them in under their auspices.

The UAW tried in 1988 to take over the Clerical Technical Union of Michigan State University. When the CTU members figured out that the UAW would also take over their pension fund, and determined that it was "an attempted raid from the United Auto Workers," the CTU members almost unanimously voted 'No' on their proposed takeover.

Right after that vote, the UAW quietly withdrew its support of the CTU in its two-week strike against the University (MSU would not implement the results of a classification study that raised the pay levels of over 2/3 of the bargaining unit). The UAW's withdrawal was seen as de facto evidence of their interest in only the millions of dollars in the CTU pension fund.

While the UAW might like to present itself as a "Workforce Agency," they are more interested in the money that such an arrangement might generate, rather than the well-being of its members.

Well, if you want UAW support, voting against their representation is probably not the way to go about getting it.
Let me make clear - The UAW and the big three have brought this mess upon themselves and if they are very lucky and a little wise, they'll work something out that allows them both to exist. I really do hope the UAW survives somehow but I won't weep for their demise either. They will have brought it upon themselves.

ETA: I will feel very bad for my current and retired UAW friends if they lose their jobs and/or healthcare as a result.

 

[Segnosaur]

Hell, I'm a CPA and I cannot say who is to blame. But, I can say that regardless of where blame lies, the result is an offloading of retirement risk to society in general. If a company scales back its pension plan employees have to look elsewhere for retirement. That "elsewhere" is going to include, in the US, taxpayer funded Social Security (they hope).

But if the company was already struggling, and needed to scale back its pension plan in order to remain in business, the alternative would have been for the employees to look elsewhere for retirement benefits anyways when their company goes bankrupt.

 

[Fnord]

Well, if you want UAW support, voting against their representation is probably not the way to go about getting it.
Let me make clear - The UAW and the big three have brought this mess upon themselves and if they are very lucky and a little wise, they'll work something out that allows them both to exist. I really do hope the UAW survives somehow but I won't weep for their demise either. They will have brought it upon themselves.

ETA: I will feel very bad for my current and retired UAW friends if they lose their jobs and/or healthcare as a result.

I won't weep for the demise of GM or the UAW at all. As you said, they brought it on themselves, let them fix it or not -- it's all the same to me.

 

[Segnosaur]

This is just another case of a corporation transferring wealth from the workers to the millionaires, and transferring the risk in the opposite direction.

I am solidly middle-class, and not 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.

I hold (as part of my retirement plan) mutual funds that carry stock in auto manufacturers. So, when the UAW manages to raise wages for their workers, I suffer in several ways... it will cut the amount of profits that are returned to my mutual funds (and thus I will be financially poorer on retirement), and it will increase the cost of any vehicles I choose to buy in the future.

 

[Fnord]

I am solidly middle-class, and not 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.

I hold (as part of my retirement plan) mutual funds that carry stock in auto manufacturers. So, when the UAW manages to raise wages for their workers, I suffer in several ways... it will cut the amount of profits that are returned to my mutual funds (and thus I will be financially poorer on retirement), and it will increase the cost of any vehicles I choose to buy in the future.

Not if it's a Toyota...

 

[balrog666]

The UAW tried this, and continues to try. They've spent the last 20 years or so approaching clerical workers to bring them in under their auspices.

The UAW tried in 1988 to take over the Clerical Technical Union of Michigan State University. When the CTU members figured out that the UAW would also take over their pension fund, and determined that it was "an attempted raid from the United Auto Workers," the CTU members almost unanimously voted 'No' on their proposed takeover.

Right after that vote, the UAW quietly withdrew its support of the CTU in its two-week strike against the University (MSU would not implement the results of a classification study that raised the pay levels of over 2/3 of the bargaining unit). The UAW's withdrawal was seen as de facto evidence of their interest in only the millions of dollars in the CTU pension fund.

While the UAW might like to present itself as a "Workforce Agency," they are more interested in the money that such an arrangement might generate, rather than the well-being of its members.

"Follow the money!"

 

[Segnosaur]

Not if it's a Toyota...

Actually, it might...

Even if Toyota does not use union labor, some of its suppliers might.

In addition, Toyota is in competition with GM and the other unionized automakers. If the cost of GM products is higher than it needs to be (due to unionization), then Toyota may decide it can safely increase the price of its vehicles without loosing market share.

 

[JoeEllison]

I am solidly middle-class, and not 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.

I hold (as part of my retirement plan) mutual funds that carry stock in auto manufacturers. So, when the UAW manages to raise wages for their workers, I suffer in several ways... it will cut the amount of profits that are returned to my mutual funds (and thus I will be financially poorer on retirement), and it will increase the cost of any vehicles I choose to buy in the future.

There's no absolute requirement that it do either.

 

[balrog666]

There's no absolute requirement that it do either.

You sure love those "absolutes", don't ya?




Back to you, are you a Communist? A Socialist? A union member?

 

[grayman]

The rail workers union is a bit different. Their product has no competition - or the competition is different enough (car, bicycle, etc..) that it almost doesn't count. Also, customers absolutely rely on the "product" being produced on a daily basis. So, a strike gets everyone's attention immediately and there is pressure for a quick resolution...

Maybe the light-rail workers can strike, but not the freight haulers.