General Motors goes non-union

[kryptonite]

Mostly, though, it's been because U.S. corporations would rather employ people in third world countries where brutal strongmen crush labor unions, drive down living standards, and companies can lock you inside, fire you when you're pregnant or old, etc. What a shame we don't have those wonders here, eh?

Well then why don't you just move to one of those countries and "make a difference"? It takes a village, you know.

Your logic is nuts. Without corporations in the past there would not have been unions. Corporations mean jobs, jobs mean a workforce, and a workforce often in the past voted for unionization. How would unions exist without the jobs that corporations create.

Many times companies have mentioned unions as the reason they leave Michigan, or decide not to open a facility here.

[Retroit]

...for the first time in about 30 years, GM has opened a non-union plant in the U.S.

Did GM [[or any other company) ever open a plant with the intention of it being unionized. I thought that unionization was the prerogative of the UAW or the employees, not the owners or management.

[wobbly]

"absolutely no correlation between productivity gains and job losses."

Not having a degree in economics I spent a few minutes googling and came up with this from a UofMich professor on leave to the American Enterprise Institute [[not gen'ly considered a left wing group):

"one of the most significant factors in the recent decline of American manufacturing jobs is the significant increase in productivity of U.S. workers"

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/03/...ve-caused.html

Where'd you get your statistics that there is no correlation?

[tangerine]

It seems like there are more good, high paying factory jobs in the South where the unions are not as strong. Just a datapoint.

[wobbly]

Stash says: "Henry Ford was offering unheard of wages at the time, classic example of free market forces at work."

I think this refers to the $5 day.

The Ford Motor website admits this was a response to constant turnover in the workforce due to the brutality of the work "Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high".

High indeed. A Forbes article says "Over the course of 1913, the company had to hire 963 workers for every 100 it needed to maintain on the payroll. To keep a workforce of 13,600 employees in the factory, Ford continually spent money on short-term training."

The higher wages - and more stable workforce - produced a doubling of profits. The production site eventually moved, but to Dearborn, not to Alabama or China.

Of course the undocumented slander "labor thugs" appears above. I know that Walter Reuther was beaten by Harry Bennett's company thugs, was nearly assassinated in an unsolved crime, that Vic Reuther lost an eye, and Ken Morris was beaten so badly he lived the rest of his life with a metal plate in his head. If union thugs beat up Henry Ford or his buddy Bennett please tell the story.

[Mikeg]

Where'd you get your statistics that there is no correlation?

Let's start with your initial statement:

I agree with Brother Benchich that "concessions will not solve this dilemma. There is no more to give." Despite the myth that autoworkers are lazy drunks the fact is autoworkers work hard. Productivity increases over the past decade or two are huge; the percentage increase in productivity pretty much matches job losses.

You and "Brother Benchich" were clearly talking about auto industry productivity and UAW job losses. I clearly responded with a description of what happened to UAW workers at GM, Chrysler and Ford. Job "losses" due to productivity improvements at their plants were protected by the jobs bank - as were job losses due to their declining market share. The UAW and the Detroit 3 were operating with an unsustainable business model that decoupled the size of their labor force from from all negative productivity and market pressures. Therefore I think that pretty much disproves your claim that UAW job losses were due to productivity increases at the Detroit 3. Why do I need to add statistics to make you see the reality of what happened?

The link you provided addresses US manufacturing as a whole, and yes, in the real manufacturing world outside the former fantasy world of the National UAW contracts with the Detroit 3, there is a correlation between productivity and employment levels.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "constant turnover in the workforce due to the brutality of the work"

It's called "hard work", Nobody stood over these folks with a bullwhip or club. We're talking about human beings here, each of us know what is humane and what is not. Did they work hard? I'm sure they did. Did they get compensated fairly, sure they did. Was anyone forcing them to be there? Hell no. People were flocking from the south for those jobs. For the times, they were extremely good jobs.

Quote: "labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high". "

Still is, they rotate workers now and probably did then.

Quote: ""Over the course of 1913, the company had to hire 963 workers for every 100 it needed to maintain on the payroll."

The difference now, they have to keep those 863 folks because of the UAW.

Quote: "The higher wages - and more stable workforce - produced a doubling of profits."

If they were making so much more money because of the UAW, why did they fight so hard to get rid of them? Your points contradict and make no sense whatsoever.

Quote: "I know that Walter Reuther was beaten by Harry Bennett's company thugs, was nearly assassinated in an unsolved crime, that Vic Reuther lost an eye, and Ken Morris was beaten so badly he lived the rest of his life with a metal plate in his head."

Is this how you thank someone for increasing your profits?

Quote: "If union thugs beat up Henry Ford or his buddy Bennett please tell the story."

I'll save the Google search looking for something to copy and paste. The advent of the industrial revolution made an opportunity for parasites like labor organizers to exploit the employees and companies that hired them. Fast forward to present day, here we are now, those "members" now are in jeopardy of losing their retirement and their kids and grandkids have no place to work. So let me ask you, who took home the prize? I'll answer for you, the UAW.

[Glowblue]

SStashmoo is the reason things are so bad in America right now. Every increase in the standard of living of Americans came either from independent labor unions or from the government [[spurred on by labor unions). Capitalism before unions and government regulation was tenement slums and child labor and stagnant economic growth. It is no coincidence that the decline of labor unions in the United States has coincided with economic stagnation for all but the parasitic rich.

[unclefrank]

SStashmoo is the reason things are so bad in America right now. Every increase in the standard of living of Americans came either from independent labor unions or from the government [[spurred on by labor unions). Capitalism before unions and government regulation was tenement slums and child labor and stagnant economic growth. It is no coincidence that the decline of labor unions in the United States has coincided with economic stagnation for all but the parasitic rich.

It's too bad that our under educated masses don't know our history very well. At one time WE were in the position that China is now.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "SStashmoo is the reason things are so bad in America right now. "

If I had control of it, things would not be this way, you can bank on that.


Quote: "Every increase in the standard of living of Americans came either from independent labor unions or from the government"

It's the evolution of man and society. The UAW had very little to do with it.

Quote: "Capitalism before unions and government regulation was tenement slums and child labor and stagnant economic growth."

Ironically, where our society is heading with the presence of labor unions. I'm sure they don't talk about this much at the "hall", but we have labor laws, and civil laws, etc. Your boss cannot mistreat you. Asking you to work the 8 hours he or she is paying you for is not negligence on his or her part. .

Quote: "It is no coincidence that the decline of labor unions in the United States has coincided with economic stagnation for all but the parasitic rich."

The current situation can be blamed largely on trade, and yes the wealthy are getting wealthier from it. Organized labor and it's unbudging stanceand higher wage has exacerbated this problem and provided further justification and incentive for many of these companies to offshore.

[wobbly]

Quote: ""Over the course of 1913, the company had to hire 963 workers for every 100 it needed to maintain on the payroll."
Moo: The difference now, they have to keep those 863 folks because of the UAW.

Wrong again. The difference was the workers together - unions - were able to end the favoritism, the worst conditions, the tens of thousands of on the job deaths, require things like job rotation, breaks, and days less than 10-12 hours.

Quote: "The higher wages - and more stable workforce - produced a doubling of profits."
Moo: If they were making so much more money because of the UAW,

Wrong again. There was no UAW in 1913. Why bother with facts when conservative mythology fits your argument so much better. Go back to your Ayn Rand comic books & your dreams of a world without rights for workers.

[kryptonite]

Very true Uncle frank, when I was a boy the midwestern manufacturing cities were still thriving and people were coming here from all over the world to work. We were the country that manufactured a huge amount of the world's durable goods. I can remember that in the 60's relatively few Europeans were still coming here, the bulk of them arrived after WWII. But there were still plenty of factories and jobs for the midwestern states to continue to attract workers from around the country. Boy, things have sure changed since then. Many southerners moved back to the south, including all of my family. I am the last one left in Michigan and none in Ohio any longer.

[unclefrank]

Very true Uncle frank, when I was a boy the midwestern manufacturing cities were still thriving and people were coming here from all over the world to work. We were the country that manufactured a huge amount of the world's durable goods. I can remember that in the 60's relatively few Europeans were still coming here, the bulk of them arrived after WWII. But there were still plenty of factories and jobs for the midwestern states to continue to attract workers from around the country. Boy, things have sure changed since then. Many southerners moved back to the south, including all of my family. I am the last one left in Michigan and none in Ohio any longer.

You bet. I just lost my position with EDS/HP the other day, and the South is starting to look very attractive. If the economy dumps again soon [[many economists say it will) Michigan will be home to just cave dwellers.

[Papasito]

Yeah let's run these bastards right out of the state. "Lawsuit"? You are kidding right? Somebody opens a plant here, and you start building a case against them. With this mentality, Detroit and Michigan are doomed.

AS IF Michigan's industry isn't already doomed? This mentality is just ensuring the nails are fully hammered into American Industry's coffiin....

[detmsp]

Who gives a flying F whether unions caused our prosperity back in the day or whether they caused our decline back in the [[more recent) day. That's the past and it says little about the present or future. Saying they were responsible for blah blah way back in 19## makes them no more/less relevant today.

[Glowblue]

Quote: "SStashmoo is the reason things are so bad in America right now. "

If I had control of it, things would not be this way, you can bank on that.

Yeah, they'd be much, much worse.

Quote: "Every increase in the standard of living of Americans came either from independent labor unions or from the government"

It's the evolution of man and society. The UAW had very little to do with it.

More evolved societies have strong organized labor and a welfare state, this is true. Less evolved societies have laissez-faire capitalism. It is not a coincidence that the countries with the highest rates of unionization [[the Scandinavian countries) also have the highest standards of living.

Quote: "Capitalism before unions and government regulation was tenement slums and child labor and stagnant economic growth."

Ironically, where our society is heading with the presence of labor unions. I'm sure they don't talk about this much at the "hall", but we have labor laws, and civil laws, etc. Your boss cannot mistreat you. Asking you to work the 8 hours he or she is paying you for is not negligence on his or her part.

Enforcement of labor protection laws has been extremely slack since the decline of labor unions. You can go on about labor laws, but unless their is a strong labor movement to hold the government's feet to the fire with regard to enforcement of those laws, they aren't worth much. After all, corporations will always lean hard on the government to not enforce those laws. Furthermore, without a strong labor movement there is no force to pass new laws necessary to protect labor in the changing economy.

Quote: "It is no coincidence that the decline of labor unions in the United States has coincided with economic stagnation for all but the parasitic rich."

The current situation can be blamed largely on trade, and yes the wealthy are getting wealthier from it. Organized labor and it's unbudging stanceand higher wage has exacerbated this problem and provided further justification and incentive for many of these companies to offshore.

Trade actually has little to do with the massive upward transfer of wealth we've seen in the last 30 or so years. Other countries, with far more powerful labor unions, have seen less drastic shifts than the United States. It ha more to do with tax policy, welfare policy, and labor policy. Also, why do you blame labor for the decisions of capital? Seems like blaming the victim to me.

[Sstashmoo]

So, Higher labor costs are the answer eh?

No wonder this country is going down the tubes.

[Danny]

The UAW will fight back against GM non-union workforce. They always do. Those GM Board of Directors will be swearing at them at their next stockholder's meeting.

[unclefrank]

The UAW will fight back against GM non-union workforce. They always do. Those GM Board of Directors will be swearing at them at their next stockholder's meeting.

I thought that the UAW pension board were big stockholders.

[Glowblue]

So, Higher labor costs are the answer eh?

No wonder this country is going down the tubes.

Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have gone way up, yet you think the US pays its workers too much? You've really bought into the corporatist, right-wing propaganda.

I mean, you seem to think the way to raise the standard of living for the American people is to work them harder for less money. How can an honest and sane person think this way?

[gumby]

How can an honest and sane person think this way?

I think you answered your own question.

[Det_ard]

Yea unions! Strengthening Michigan one plant closing at a time.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I mean, you seem to think the way to raise the standard of living for the American people is to work them harder for less money."

People are in charge of their standard of living, not companies. That is the whole privatized welfare that you and yours advocate. A job isn't a situation for you, it's a contractual marriage whereby the employees band together and demand compensation, whether warranted or not. It is extortion. It undermines free market principle, it is unsustainable model, doomed for failure.

Quote: "Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have gone way up, yet you think the US pays its workers too much? You've really bought into the corporatist, right-wing propaganda."

What a load.. You're taking result of other factors and using them to support your argument.

Again, Please explain how high wages [[costs) help sustain companies.

[Glowblue]

Quote: "I mean, you seem to think the way to raise the standard of living for the American people is to work them harder for less money."

People are in charge of their standard of living, not companies. That is the whole privatized welfare that you and yours advocate. A job isn't a situation for you, it's a contractual marriage whereby the employees band together and demand compensation, whether warranted or not. It is extortion. It undermines free market principle, it is unsustainable model, doomed for failure.

Who decided whether compaensation is warranted or not? The holy corporation? Also, explain how workers deciding not to work for a certain wage is different from a corporation deciding not to pay workers a certain wage.

Quote: "Real wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits have gone way up, yet you think the US pays its workers too much? You've really bought into the corporatist, right-wing propaganda."

What a load.. You're taking result of other factors and using them to support your argument.

Again, Please explain how high wages [[costs) help sustain companies.

Who gives a shit about companies? Companies are legal fictions created by government fiat. The purpose of functional economies is to sustain people, not legal fictions.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Please explain why Executive Compensation is still off the charts? These guys are being paid ridiculous wages to run companies in the ground, then they get a bonus on the way out the freakin door. Yet,when things go south, it's always the working stiffs fault.