A December 26 AP story tried to make people feel bad for Ford auto workers stuck between staying with the struggling company and possibly losing their jobs in the future, or choosing up to a six-figure buyout. Workers like this man:
Scott Swiercz, chose to stay at a job he knows he could lose rather than take any of eight buyout options, one of which is a $100,000 lump sum. Swiercz said it feels “100 percent” like a gamble, wrote AP business writer Ellen Simon.
This isn’t exactly Vegas. Most Americans would love to have a chance to get twice the median household income for working at a place for about 11 years.
Simon made the workers sound whiney and wimpy instead of focusing on the 38,000 employees who have taken the buyout. You can read Julia Seymour’s article here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oh no another Ford story!Sure
December 28, 2006 - 15:49 ET by bigtimerOh no another Ford story!
Sure wished loggers all over the NW would of had that beautiful option, after working in the woods twenty five years or more...would of been nice...instead we have ghost towns all over, including AK. Economy devasted. No attention has ever been paid to that whatsoever....the big bad loggers are bad bad bad.
Cry me a river Simon/Scott...whoever.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Unions, are no longer needed,
December 28, 2006 - 16:43 ET by JayTeeUnions, are no longer needed, in their CURRENT form. Some Union people I have worked with, have "retired on the Job". They are not competitive. The Unions have morphed into a new "primary Objective".....Help the Union employee keep their job, no matter what. Ignore global competition, Ignore the company's bottom line, and in fact, Ignore the company going out of Business, and Ignore performance of the employee.....give a Raise based upon longevity.
They are a Dying breed, they will be gone as soon as their political clout reaches minimum membership, for minimum political clout. RIP.
Retired on the job?Hell, they
December 28, 2006 - 16:46 ET by BlondeRetired on the job?
Hell, they become shop stewards, "retire" from the job, and then you have to negotiate with the fools as union officials the very next time their contract comes up for renewal.
Sheesh.
It's the unions
December 28, 2006 - 17:01 ET by CalifMoeI took a buyout from the telecom business in 2000 after 22 years. I started as a technician and left as a Director. And because of the unions I couldn’t reward the good workers and couldn’t get rid of the bad ones. It’s has, and is killing big business in the States.
I'm sorry for your situation.
December 28, 2006 - 17:04 ET by BlondeI'm sorry for your situation.
But you're correct. Unions add nothing. At all. Only distractions. Headaches. Added costs (ad nauseum).
I get to deal with the IBOTs. Sheesh.
My situation? Was that pointe
December 28, 2006 - 23:17 ET by CalifMoeMy situation? Was that pointed toward me?(no offence taken) It couldn't be, I'm a happy guy. I goofed off for 5 years. Living off my rental income. Traveling and playing with my toys. Now i'm a morgage broker. I work my own hours make good money, and find good investments before they hit the market. And health care! Let me tell y'all. I was paying over $350.00 a month for myself under the company's package after leaving. I did some checking. After not mentioning any company the same coverage costs $135.00 a month. Talk about a racket!
No offense intended. I'm gl
December 28, 2006 - 23:26 ET by BlondeNo offense intended. I'm glad it worked out for you. It's just never pleasant to have one's employment situation determined by someone else.
As you said earlier...unions are the great equalizer...dragging all down to the least common denominator. It's frustrating, as I well know.
Unions: the new guarantor of
December 28, 2006 - 16:46 ET by Chris NormanUnions: the guarantors of mediocrity...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
The
December 28, 2006 - 17:53 ET by pagarunions are getting ready to collect their reward for supporting the Democrats.
HR 1696 Employee Free Choice Act, the right to unionize.
The primary support for Unions involve three groups. The union
bosses get rich. The Democrat Party gets millions of dollars worth
of free labor for their campaigns, plus the donations of money.
But the real winner with the unions, is the Communist Party of America.
Check their statements at their URL.
The loser from all the union activity is the workers and America.
Question Concerning Unions
December 28, 2006 - 19:23 ET by UnsaneForgive my naivete, for I do not hail from a state with a strong union tradition. (In fact, the few people I have met who have belonged to unions have nothing good to say about them.) But wouldn't a union be better served by using the union dues it collects to provide benefits to its members such as health care benefits (for one example, offering to go 50-50 with employers in buying health insurance for its members?) instead of dumping money into political campaigns and forcing employers to keep wages artificially high, pay employees for doing nothing, etc.?
I guess I am just trying to think outside of the box to find ways that unions might actually be useful for purposes other than pricing their membership out of the labor market and otherwise seriously harming American industry.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane,Good idea about the un
December 28, 2006 - 19:32 ET by Indiana JoeUnsane,
Good idea about the unions going halfsies on health care! There may be some that DO, for all I know. I have a rather long post following, I'm a union steelworker. And being from a non-union background, you may be the MOST qualified to "think outside the box." A good idea is a good idea. "Naivete" be damned!
IJ
Unsane, you're on to someth
December 28, 2006 - 19:50 ET by John in CAUnsane, you're on to something there.
About 4 years ago the grocery workers in SoCal went out on strike, including the one's in my town. We had only 4 grocery stores, 3 different chains. One of them stayed open with union employees during the strike. One closed down shortly after the strike ended (a Safeway) that was barely hanging on before the strike began.
I think the strike lasted about 4 months. By the time it was all said and done, and the employees got their raises, etc., it was estimeated it would take the average employee two years to make up what they had lost while they were out on strike.
The saddest thing of all was the apparent lack of awareness of the typical striker of what their union was demanding and rejecting from the grocery chains. One LA radio station show had a copy of the offer from the grocers that the union had rejected. Except it barely resembled what the union had "told" the strikers what had been offered and rejected. Sadly, the "official documents" were available on the union websites, but buried, and apparently ignored by most of the striking employees.
The radio hosts would send reporters to picket lines and talk to the strikers, reading to them what was in the official offer form the grocers. Most of the strikers told them they were lying. They didn't want to hear it. They thought it was just anit-unionists trying to sow discord and distrust among the union members.
I've wondered for quite a while why the unions don't offer to their members what they demand union employers to give. Why don't they offer members health care and retirement plans that can be portable from one employer to another? Or even from one union to another?
IMO, the unions, and their members, would be much better off if the unions concerned themselves with the efficiency and viability of their industry.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
More on unions
December 28, 2006 - 20:06 ET by UnsaneAnd that's just it. I would respect the role of unions much more greatly if they actually worked in partnership with industry instead of constantly taking on an adversarial role.
In the early 1990s, Kroger was feeling the pinch in this area and up in Austin as grocery competition was radically heating up. The company turned to its unions for help. As I recall, all the unions (seeing the writing on the wall) agreed to wage cuts to aid the reductions in Kroger's costs - all, that is, except the meatcutter's union. Their union took the adversarial approach that all business is evil and greedy and are sitting on limitless money, and they refused to go along. Negotiations ensued for quite awhile, but the meatcutters would NOT budge.
So, in order to save X amount of meatcutter's jobs in the San Antonio - Austin area...the meatcutter's union cheerfully threw away everyone else's employment. Kroger responded by shutting down their stores and leaving both cities. That meant quite a few people lost their jobs, and the grocery consumers in both cities lost a little bit of competition. Throw in the effect of what the loss of these "anchor stores" did to shopping centers that I see to this day have not recovered - and you see the damage done by the meatcutter's union.
Seeing this happen at the age I saw it transpire made quite an impression on me. That is when I realized that unions outlived their initial period of usefulness - America is not described in the pages of a Dickens novel, the way some would have you believe.
In order for unions to be useful (getting back to my point on partnership), they are going to have to help shoulder burdens in industry, such as health care and other benefits. In health care especially I see great potential: we are are familiar with the concept of economies of scale, are we not? If they can do this, they can assist with ensuring the primacy of American industry for decades to come, and thus ensure their own survival. If they continue to assume the adversarial approach, American industry will be imperiled - as will the unions that represent their employees.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Unsane, the unions can only g
December 28, 2006 - 22:07 ET by MikeBUnsane, the unions can only get their money from their members the workers. So, if the unions just got the hell out of the way, the workers would have more money, and they could afford the 50/50 healthcare split with the employer without the agency of the union. Cut out the middle man as it were.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
In an ideal world we would ha
December 28, 2006 - 22:19 ET by UnsaneIn an ideal world we would have no unions. But I am a realist and don't see them going anywhere. Hence, my thought can also be looked at as a way to co-opt them. :-)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Well, I guess I'm going to pr
December 28, 2006 - 19:47 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I guess I'm going to provide the only counter-point on this thread, at least so far.
A lot of what you folks are saying here about unions, as they exist today, is 100% correct. As a union steelworker, I see the "retired on the job" mentality, the lack of ability to reward good workers and punish bad ones. The "egalitarianism" that is the modern union shop. I pay my dues, and rarely if ever need or can see my representatives. They're busy fighting to keep the jobs of workers who should have been gone long ago.
I'm in maintenance, so when the phone rings, we need to answer the call. And myself and one or two others, always the same ones, will do that. While another two or three, always the same ones, just sit there, feet on the table, reading a paper, or napping, or whatever. Not "working," by any stretch. For that reason alone, my department is probably 50% over-manned. And if a call comes in while "my" group is out, these guys will try to find a way to "hand it off" to us when we get back.
Not only do these guys get paid exactly the same rate I do, a lot of them are SENIOR to me. So, when lay-offs come, I'll go and they'll stay. Think they'll work any harder then? LMAO!!!
But, having said all that, over my 16 years at the mill, I've seen exactly WHY and HOW this situation has developed. I've seen my foreman come into my shop, look around, find the guys he knew he could count on to get the job DONE, and assign it to THEM. The ones he knew were worthless, he let sit. No matter WHAT else is in a contract, the phrase "management reserves the right to direct the workforce" is ALWAYS in there. These managers (and I've seen MANY do it) simply take the path of least resistance. THEIR boss wants the job done, and they take the easiest way out for themselves. Instead of using their authority to enforce the work rules, and make these "retired on the job" guys actually WORK, they shove all the work on the 50% who will actually DO it, and do a GOOD job of it. A worker CAN be fired for refusing to do assigned work, or demonstrating incompetence in his work, but if no work is assigned to him, how do you fire him for not working? This type of situation was ALLOWED to develop. I've SEEN it, time and time again.
As for the union officials, the ones who negotiate those contracts? Well, they're mainly in it for themselves. Over the years, many of our benefit packages have shrunk. Sure, WAGES have risen, but insurance coverage has fallen, and deductibles have risen. The heyday of the USWA ended in the mid-1980s, and fell even further during the '90s. Now, it's the UAW's turn. I'm not surprised they're screaming and crying.
I know a guy who works for GM, and things started going south for them about a year ago, maybe more. But they have WAY further to fall than the USWA ever did. These guys get ELECTION DAY off as a paid holiday (three guesses why)!!! Their pay scales put mine to shame. I've shaken my head at some of their benefits, and realized that they probably account for about 30% or more of the cost of a new car today. Maybe 50%, I don't know. But it's A LOT!
So, while I don't exactly feel sorry for guys like this one, I see his point. It IS a gamble. If he can keep his job for a year or two, he's money ahead on the buy-out offer. AND with his insurance coverage intact. Because the MINUTE he accepts that buy-out, his insurance ENDS. Right that minute. Six months ago, I may have accepted a buy-out, if one was offered. As it turns out, it would have been the worst decision of my life, insurance-wise. No details, but trust me on this, I'd have been royally screwed. And it would have had to be more than $100,000. As an auto-worker, I KNOW this guy makes more annually than I do. So, he'd be giving up a higher-wage job than I would.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I agree that unions, as they exist today, are impediments: to the company, to the workers, and to the economy. I've often observed that the workers are just the rope in a tug-of-war between the union and the company, both wanting as much as they can get from them. The company wants the work, the union wants the worker's money. There was a time when unions served a valuable purpose in raising the standard of living all across this country. And the THREAT of unionization of non-union shops helped even those people who chose NOT to unionize, as their companies would voluntarily give them equivalent wages and benefits, just to not have to DEAL with unions. I've worked in such places myself.
But today, in the end, unions have pretty much priced themselves, and the workers they "represent," right out of the marketplace. And the chickens are coming home to roost. And it will be a big adjustment for the people affected the most: the workers.
Thanks for the personal sto
December 28, 2006 - 20:17 ET by Ken ShepherdThanks for the personal story and excellent insight, Indiana Joe.
Ford problems
December 29, 2006 - 14:38 ET by mikebromoI have posted below some of my history as a Ford hourly employee.
Late fall in 2000 Ford was forced to cut it's Salary work force. Instead of eliminating it's younger inexperienced workers, Ford management decided to achieve diversity by firing it's older, mostly white males. The average age was about 50 years old with 25 years of senoirity.
I'm sure this led to the decline of Ford. Our plant was mass confusion. It was just funny and very painful to watch. Some jobs weren't covered or some Managers had 2and 3 jobs to do.
I had sold about half of my Ford shares the year before [1999] for around $50 a share. Six months later I retired, made a rollover of my 401k and sold the remaining of my Ford stock for $37 a share.
I rarely read news about Ford's troubles until I saw this thread today.Glad I saved my money and got out before the $hit hit the fan.
Excuse me, who do these people think they are?
December 28, 2006 - 21:32 ET by acaiguanaExcuse me, who do these people think they are?
Welcome to the 21st Century, Ford Worker. All the Silicon Valley people who lost their jobs; all the tech workers who lost their so-called wealth during the dot-com bust; all the small business workers who are suddenly on the street every year due to high failure rates; and you think you are owed something if your job goes South?
Well, you aren't owed a darn thing. Not a single penny. Not one dime.
Get a life.
I have zero tolerance for this stuff. America no longer has 'guaranteed' life jobs except in the Government which seems to be the option of choice for people who are risk aversive and who don't really want to work anyway.
Why are they so dependent on someone creating a job for them anyway? Why don't they get off their rear ends, get some education and find a life?
Man I get hot when I read this tripe from the MSM.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
ACA,Well, excuse me, but it's
December 28, 2006 - 23:34 ET by Indiana JoeACA,
Well, excuse me, but it's called a "contract." Signed by the union AND the company. The man is "owed" a PENSION. In the CONTRACT, signed and agreed to by the COMPANY.
The company is offering to "buy out" his vested pension. Maybe it's a good deal. Maybe it's not. The company wouldn't offer it if they didn't think it's a good deal for THEM. This man now has to decide if it's a good deal for HIM. His decision. But that's what he is "owed." The pension he was promised, IN WRITING, when he took this job. It wasn't "created" for him. It was advertised because the company WANTED workers. At the time, they NEEDED workers.
That's how I got MY "union job." It was by answering an ad, after I got "an education." They wanted people with my "education." And they agreed to pay me a certain wage, certain benefits, and a pension after so many years. Not 30 years. No "guarantee" of a life-time job. But my pension was "vested" after THREE years. Means they owed me SOMETHING, that was THEIR offer.
Now, have the unions gotten so greedy that they've helped to destroy the manufacturing base in this country? Definitely. Did the companies SIGN these "greedy" contracts? Definitely. Are they not now obligated to FOLLOW those contracts they signed? Well?
I'm in a big steel area. Lots of mills around here... or at least, there used to be. Many just closed their doors, filed the appropriate paperwork, and reneged on their contracts. Is that now the approved way to do business? Conservatives are typically stereotyped as "anti-union." Are they now "anti-legal-contracts" as well?
Sorry about the tone of this, but I got off MY "rear-end," and GOT an "education," and HAVE "a life." It just so happens to be a life that includes working in a union setting, at a big steel mill. Don't for one minute think it means I don't WORK for a living. We can't all be small-business owners, or small-business workers, or self-employed whatevers. Someone has to make the steel to make the cars, and build the superhighways for the cars to drive on. Not to mention the bridges, the "supermalls," the skyscrapers and the housing developments. What "small business" can do those things, and stay "small?"
Big companies require big workforces. They hired them when they needed them, and willingly signed contracts with their unions. Now, they don't need as many workers. But to suggest, as you seem to do, that the companies can just ignore those contracts and cast people off because it's convenient, is just plain wrong. At least Ford doesn't seem to be doing that. But others have, and it is not right, no matter how well it works out for the executives and stock holders.
And just btw, I DO recognize the flaws in the current incarnation of labor unions. My rather longish post above (longer than THIS, even, LOL) makes that pretty plain. I'm a member because I pretty much HAVE to be, but I'm no big fan of unions. Just of fairness, and meeting one's obligations.
IJ
ford
December 29, 2006 - 02:49 ET by owlpelletsKind of funny how Toyota is making money in non-union states and creating good jobs. Both GM and Ford are dead but just haven't rolled over yet. The dashboard forward in any Ford truck represents their negotiated benefit package. When they run out of borrowed money, who is going to come up with the cash to pay what is "owed" in pension benefits? Me?
Heck yeah, owlpellets. My las
December 29, 2006 - 06:28 ET by Indiana JoeHeck yeah, owlpellets. My last two new cars were Hondas, built in Ohio. We even have a Subaru plant here in Indiana, but I'll bet they're union. Just not the over-the-top contracts that the Big 3 agreed to. I'm guessing when Daimler bought Chrysler, they managed to re-negotiate. GM and Ford seem to be where the trouble is.
Seems a lot of the people TOOK the "buy-out," 38,000 the article said. That's a money-saver for Ford, in the long run. And there's already a pension "safety net" out there, the PBGC. Administered by the government, but funded by insurance plans paid for by the companies. We've had occasion to become familiar with it through all the local steel companies that disappeared overnight around here. Much lower benefits than the companies offered, but better than a sharp stick in the eye.
Other benefits of the "old" union contracts were two weeks vacation during the summer switch-over of model years, and two weeks at Christmas. In addition to regular vacation. So, a first-year hire got FIVE WEEKS paid vacation! I've been in the steel mills for 16 years, and just worked up to four weeks last year. These type of "bennies" were definitely unsustainable, but were agreed to, which IS unbelievable.
This guy, if he sticks, will get laid-off in a year or two probably, and he won't get this type of buy-out offer then. If anything, he'll get maybe $20,000, or he can hold his "vestment," and start collecting something around $1000 a month, maybe, when he's 65. Less, if Ford is gone, through the PBGC. I happen to think both Ford AND GM will still be around. But, getting there... that's another story.
IJ
Hey, Joe, whaddyaknow? Couldn't help that. :-)
December 29, 2006 - 06:51 ET by acaiguanaHey, Joe, whaddyaknow? Couldn't help that. :-) Devil made me do it.
I'm not against pensions and I'm not particularly against Unions if it is an 'open' shop. If people want to pay a Union let the Union earn that money in an open market.
I have read your posts and I see all your points. I'm not really responding to the Union discussion here, I'm just saying that if a Company goes down, they have no obligation to pay employees some extra cash for just being employees. Their Pensions are protected to some degree (I am not sure at what level) by the Gumment I believe.
I'm not arguing Union Contract buyouts either.
I'm saying that there is a mentality that exists among the 'older' industrial base that a job is for 'life' and there is some sort of 'safety net' mentality which is a dependence issue rather than an individual responsibility issue. And I'm saying the marketplace is a cold hard mistress.
As far as your education and stuff is concerned it is obvious that you are not part of my rant.
So, while you are justifiably reacting to my tone, I am justifiably reacting to the MSM tendency to portray all the 'workers' as victims of the capitalistic system and as such having no opportunities other than a traditional blue collor Union job ignoring the economic dynamics of the marketplace. And the MSM picture shows this poor little guy getting screwed and going to the poor house (with $100K in his hip pocket) with clouds in the sky and the tone shades of grey in the background.
And that take on the system pisses me off.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
"Hey, Joe, whaddyaknow?&
December 29, 2006 - 07:33 ET by Indiana Joe"Hey, Joe, whaddyaknow?"
"Just got back from a dinosaur show!"- Curly Howard, I believe.
And I couldn't help THAT! LOL!
As for the "extra cash," my point is it's not really "extra." There's a concept in pensions of "vestment," and it ties the company to obligations. And provides an option. For instance, were I laid off today, I could just wait until I'm 65, and would then have a percentage of a 30-year pension, based on my actual time worked on the job. It's not a straight percentage, i.e., 15 years sevice does not equal half of a 30-year pension. But it makes the company carry a "paper" liability that it is in their interest to get rid of. That's where the concept of a higher "lump-sum buy-out" comes in. And in that case, it's the company making the payment, not the "Gumment," as you say.
(In fact, there's a rumor going around that MY company is going to offer a "buy-out." Rumors in the steel mill are like dust, they're everywhere. But OUR pension fund is something like $7 BILLION in the black. The company can't touch that extra money, due to the foresight of the founder in setting it up. BUT, if they can clear the liabilities, they can grab it. If the rumors bear out, I just may take the money and run. But it's WAY more than $100,000, according to rumor. Which, as we all know, isn't worth the paper it's NOT printed on.)
And the PBGC, which I link to above, is again a "wait until you're 65" thing, at a lower rate than the company would pay. So the "buy-out" option is attractive to both sides, and is a reasonable compromise between a company going under, or meeting it's obligations, IMO. Just, it's an individual decision, and not an easy one to make, depending on one's circumstances.
I understand your upset with the "spin" of stories like this one, and really that's what the site is generally about, MSM bias. I just thought I'd cut through it all with a little "inside" info on how these things really work in the "blue-collar" world. The UAW basically has nearly killed the goose that lays the golden eggs for them, and they're spun as "victims." But the companies DID make these agreements, and should have SOME accountability for them. IMO, of course.
Regards,
IJ
We're on the same page Joe.
December 29, 2006 - 07:57 ET by acaiguanaWe're on the same page Joe.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Ya can't win if ya don't play."
Ford Pensiois
December 29, 2006 - 13:44 ET by mikebromoRetired from Ford 6/1/01. I worked 30.1 years and get full pension. You must
be 55 years old to be elgible to receive a pension, or worked 30 years.
A friend of mine was 58 at the time with 29 years and wanted to retire now.
His pension would have been about 60% of full retirement. He stayed one more year to collect full retirement.
Vacations
December 29, 2006 - 14:17 ET by mikebromoStarted working at Ford Motor Company in 1971. Through the years vacation elgibility pretty much stayed the same for my 30 years. Joe, wrong on the FIVE WEEKS paid vacation for first year hourly employees. After first year of emploment you received 40/40, meaning 40 hours vacation and 40 hours personel time. At five years it increased to 80/40, ten years to 120/40 and at twenty years it was maxxed out at 160/40
Two week Summer shutdown was usually was frozen by the Company at the beginning of the year. Which means two weeks of your paid vacation MUST be taken at this time. I preffered the cool of Spring and Fall for my vacations. Employees not elgible for vacation would collect unemployment.
Christmas shutdown was not vacation, they were paid holidays. The union rules when I worked for this year would have been December 22,25,26,27,28,29 and January 1 and 2 would be paid Holidays.
In 1971, I was an unemployed Vietnam Veteran. That Summer President Nixon made an Executive Order that all Employers must hire Veterans first. Took me awhile to understand why I got all the $hitty jobs. I was delaying some union big shot kid of getting a job.
I got back at them before I retired. I encouraged about a 110 people to sign up to have their portion of uniun dues paid for political purpose to be be returned. To say the least, they were glad to see me retire.
Mike,Thanks for the corre
December 30, 2006 - 07:58 ET by Indiana Joemikebromo,
Thanks for the corrections. My buddy at GM was my sole source of my info, and one who's been there obviously has better knowledge.
Suspending the "Summer shutdown" time was apparently an individual company decision? Maybe it happened at GM sometimes, too. But apparently it WAS written into the contract as a "normal" benefit, right? My company uses "loopholes" to void contractual areas also, not surprised they're not the only ones.
Call it "vacation time" or "personal time," 80 hours off with pay pretty much adds up to two weeks of "whatever." I've never had a "personal time" benefit, my vacation was one week a year until my ...3rd year? At the earliest.
The distinction reminds me of how my friend described his pay if he worked a holiday. He got double time for working, plus an extra day off with pay later, a "personal" day, if you will. I said, "Wow, that's triple time!" He replied, "No, it's double time plus STRAIGHT time." Well, 2+1=3, doesn't it? But again, this was at GM. I don't personally know any Ford employees.
And, not to argue semantics again, but the "paid holidays" you list add up to eight work days. Two weeks would be ten workdays, so we're really discussing a difference of two days. I don't think I get eight "paid holidays" all year, anymore... maybe, but it's a close thing.
Thanks again for letting us hear from one who's REALLY "been there" with Ford.
IJ
Joe, a contract signed under
December 29, 2006 - 14:09 ET by MikeBJoe, a contract signed under coercion is voidable. For decades the unions have coerced the companies into signing contracts that have been detrimental to the companies. If you don't think there was coercion involved, look up the news stories of the violence committed by union thugs during strikes. The shooting of Greyhound buses during the Greyhound strike comes readily to mind as only one example. Those contracts where the union did not bargain in good faith are also voidable. Good faith would not include making it nearly impossible to fire incompetent or dishonest employees, or demanding benefits that make it impossible for employers to make a profit, or adjusting the workforce to reflect current business conditions, and so on.
Yes, the union members ratified the contracts in good faith by voting in favor, but the fact is, in too many cases, the union negotiators were not bargaining in good faith. Besides, I always figured, if the working conditions were so terrible, the workers should quit, maybe in mass, and seek employment elsewhere. If a company cannot hire employees at a given wage/benefits structure, then they will adjust the wage/benefits structure until they can hire employees, or the company will go out of business. Also, if the working conditions and wages were so terrible as certain businesses were so bad as to cause employees to go out on strike, why were so many workers willing to accept jobs at those employers while the unions were striking?
I am reminded of the UAW strike against McDonnell Douglas in '95 or '96. The union went out on strike, and MD contracted with STS to provide temporary workers while the UAW was striking. It seems that only a few weeks into the strike, MD was getting 80% of pre-strike production with only 50% of the pre-strike workforce numbers, with a higher quality of workmanship. MD basically told the union to bugger off, they didn't want them back, and the union caved and made concessions. So, the workers went out on strike for several weeks, and got nothing for their troubles: no increase in wages, no increase in benefits, nothing.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB, (hmm, lot of "Mike's"
December 30, 2006 - 08:30 ET by Indiana JoeMikeB, (hmm, lot of "Mike's" out here today, ;^)...)
Well, there's "coercion," and there's COERCION. Not denying that many "job actions," as the unions prefer to call them, include some violence. Maybe throwing rocks, blocking plant gates, even shooting at vehicles, as you mention. If it could be PROVEN that the union officials sanctioned or actually ENGAGED in these behaviors, THEN you may have a case of "coercion." But the "everybody knows it happens" concept of union violence would not be enough to bring a LEGAL finding of "coercion."
And including overly-generous, even outrageous benefit demands is not, to my thinking, bargaining in bad-faith. Anymore than a company including excessive benefit cuts. They're "bargaining chips," to be exchanged and winnowed out. And if a company (OR a union) signs an agreement with such things intact, that was THEIR mistake. Trying to get out of those clauses, THAT'S bargaining in bad-faith. I've been on the wrong end of a few of those kinds of mistakes by my UNION negotiators.
And the question isn't are the "the working conditions... so terrible?" Contracts have a life-span. They expire, and need re-negotiated. So, every four or five or six years (the length has varied), when I feel I deserve a dollar an hour raise over the course of the next six years, but the company only offers a quarter, I should quit, and start over? Or EVERYONE should quit? As my company fell on hard times, we TOOK wage and benefit cuts, I mentioned that a couple posts up. We shared in the losses, and expect to share in the gains. As the company said we would. I could tell stories, but my long-winded style has taken up too much of this thread already.
Addressing your final paragraph, sure, many workers have found that striking is NOT in their best interest. It's ALWAYS a gamble, a scary one. I've personally never been out on strike in 16 years in the steel mill. The last big work-stoppage in my mill, a few years before my time, was judged a LOCK-OUT of the workers by the company. The COMPANY called off the contract talks. The state government made that determination, and the locked-out workers were paid unemployment. They were "out of work through NO FAULT of their own." The Union was willing to continue the talks and continue to work.
Read all my posts. Unions have screwed up so much of the business AND employment market, I totally agree with that. But the decision to strike is, trust me, never an easy or cavalier one. And as you note, it frequently blows up in the worker's faces... but it's the only real option they have when a COMPANY does not "bargain in good faith." Which actually HAPPENS, believe it or not.
IJ