I hope the members of the CAW don't have the balls to ask for an increase again in their next contract negotiations. I heard a couple of days ago from their Union President that they weren't making any concessions to help keep their jobs. 
CAW- Next Contract
- Thread starter The Bandit
- Start date
I think there needs to be SERIOUS concessions on the part of labour AND SERIOUS concessions on the part of management.
For example....
No more corporate jets.
No more executive lunch rooms.
Paid not more than 10 times what the average line worker makes.
The entire north American auto industry is fucked unless they start getting radical.
For example....
No more corporate jets.
No more executive lunch rooms.
Paid not more than 10 times what the average line worker makes.
The entire north American auto industry is fucked unless they start getting radical.
james t kirk said:
If they will not make concessions, I say FUCK THEM!! Start laying them off, and they will soon find out that making concessions is better than minimum wage!!
Typical FUCKING union. They would rather see jobs leave, than make concessions to keep them.
Caw
Most Unions are the same - just simply way too greedy. The Unions and the members could care less about anything - as long as they are getting more money and more benefits. They have done it to themselves with their insatiable desire for more more more. At this point - I could care less what happens to them!
Most Unions are the same - just simply way too greedy. The Unions and the members could care less about anything - as long as they are getting more money and more benefits. They have done it to themselves with their insatiable desire for more more more. At this point - I could care less what happens to them!
james t kirk said:
What is the problem with paying the market rate for the talent needed for the job? These executives did not threaten to shut down the company if they where not paid what they wanted. They negotiated fairly for their pay.
KBear said:
if it were strictly in private hands, sure. but if they ask for handouts then the govt is a player. since taxpayers fund the handouts, taxpayers should have a say and i say wage cuts for top mgmt who've been getting performance bonuses for losing money. imagine if they made money, bonuses will be thru the roof!
KBear said:
None of them are worth that kind of money given the mistakes that they have made, or otherwise. Do you think Harley Earl made 200 times what the guy on the line made?
I used to work for Consumers Distributing in the 80's- early 90's, before they closed down they had contracted out but it still didn't work. A couple of years prior, we were with Teamsters and if the company had come to us and asked us to take a pay cut, I know for a fact that the Union, and fellow workers would never had taken it. Well you know what, it took me 15 years to finally start making what I made back then.
james t kirk said:
How much more do baseball players make then the guys selling tickets or hot dogs. Baseball players also make lots of mistakes. There are a few people who can earn high salaries, as other people are willing to pay for the talent.
If the companies go into some sort of controlled bankruptcy, new talent can be hired for the boardroom, and for the floor at market rates.
And the Union did something different??
Yea..they held all the CEO's hostage with guns to their heads
..no execs threaten to leave, leaving these companies with a void that...for whatever reason..they thought they could not fill...so they overpay for these white collar stuffshirts
....you sound like a typical upper management suckass Kbear..
The union contracts were negotiated fairly as well
The landscape has change dramatically, both management and the CAW had better get their heads out of their asses...both are going to have to make major concessions to get this deal on track...
No more CEO's making 500 times what workers make
The end of 6 figure incomes for line workers
Are you trying to tell me that one is worse than the other KBear??
N2G
KBear said:
Yea..they held all the CEO's hostage with guns to their heads
..no execs threaten to leave, leaving these companies with a void that...for whatever reason..they thought they could not fill...so they overpay for these white collar stuffshirts
....you sound like a typical upper management suckass Kbear..
The union contracts were negotiated fairly as well
The landscape has change dramatically, both management and the CAW had better get their heads out of their asses...both are going to have to make major concessions to get this deal on track...
No more CEO's making 500 times what workers make
The end of 6 figure incomes for line workers
Are you trying to tell me that one is worse than the other KBear??
N2G
Come on, we ALL know that unions are very short sighted. Take the last time when Ioccoca went to the US government for a handout? THree weeks after Chrysler opened the plants again, the union struck for higher wages...
What makes you think it will be any different this time?
What makes you think it will be any different this time?
new2game said:
Guess it depends on your definition of fair negotiations. When the union says pay what we demand, or we will shut the company and all its suppliers down, I don’t see this as a fair market negotiation. I see it more as extortion, but maybe you could explain it to me.
KBear said:
Will do. Extortion is illegal. Strike and lockouts are not. Going on strike is a legitimate tactic recognized by the courts of law. So are lockouts by employers. It is often called the "strike weapon" because it looms over the parties' heads as a repercussion if they cannot come to agreement.
When a union goes on strike the employer can hire whomever it pleases to continue doing the work (including members of the union if they choose to cross picket lines), it can transfer the work to other locations, it can hold tight, or it can basically do whatever it wants since the collective agreement with the unions is no longer in force.
If and when the union pickets and tries to block the front gates, the employer can seek an injunction from the courts (and is almost always granted one). The union will be allowed to slow traffic in and out of the gates but an injunction will prevent traffic from stopping altogether.
The employer pays no wages to striking employees so it's a game of chicken between the union and management over who will crack first. It is not uncommon for striking employees to see all their monetary gains from a successful strike eaten up by the amount they lost by hitting the picket lines.
Btw, strikes/lockouts are down to something like 1% of work stoppages. 99% of collective agreements are settled between the parties without a strike or lockout.
The Bandit said:
The CAW has a longstanding public policy of saying no to concessions. Their view is that most unions that make concessions never get it back and often end up losing their jobs anyways. Better to say no and go down with the ship, which forces the company to look for other ways to save money rather than on the backs of its employees (corporate jets to Washington, perhaps?).
That all being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the CAW does make some concessions in bargaining. Every employer and union makes concessions in bargaining to get what it wants. And in tough times I don't doubt the CAW makes concessions if they know a plant is going to close. But they're not going to publicly say that and they're not going to agree to do that until the absolute last minute.
Keeb, you're a pretty smart guy but if you can't see the difference between blocking traffic, harassing "scabs", and forcing a company to go to the courts to allow them to continue operating, and extortion, then I might have to rethink my opinion of you.
Anytime someone or group of someone's is coerced under threat of action is called extortion. It just so happens that a long time ago the unions were granted this power. Once again, just because it is legal doesn't make it right.
On one note we do argee: I have never understood how one person (ceo, president, etc) are worth 100,000 times what any other employee is. In any organization the guy working the line is often more important that the guy sitting in the ivory tower. In most cases a company will run just fine without the guy on top, but lose one guy on the line and the place could shut down.
Actually, you're right: the CAW did make concessions (or so I understand) with GM to keep Oshawa open and then a month after the contract was signed, GM closed the plant (or announced they were going to) anyways.
No one in their right mind could argue that a company who pays more employees NOT to work than TO work has any right staying in business. No matter what happens THAT practice has to stop, and stop immediately.
Anytime someone or group of someone's is coerced under threat of action is called extortion. It just so happens that a long time ago the unions were granted this power. Once again, just because it is legal doesn't make it right.
On one note we do argee: I have never understood how one person (ceo, president, etc) are worth 100,000 times what any other employee is. In any organization the guy working the line is often more important that the guy sitting in the ivory tower. In most cases a company will run just fine without the guy on top, but lose one guy on the line and the place could shut down.
Actually, you're right: the CAW did make concessions (or so I understand) with GM to keep Oshawa open and then a month after the contract was signed, GM closed the plant (or announced they were going to) anyways.
No one in their right mind could argue that a company who pays more employees NOT to work than TO work has any right staying in business. No matter what happens THAT practice has to stop, and stop immediately.
havingfun said:
The ones who argee with this practice I would guess are the ones making those salaries.
Frankly in a moral sense I see no problem paying people what they are worth. This goes for top execs all the way down to the guy who cleans the toilets. But as with any position or salary it should be commiserate with performance. If a top exec doesn't perform? They don't get paid, no different than the guy who cleans the toilet.
The only problem with the way our and the US's system is set up, the upper ups set their own salaries and sign contracts that also reward poor performance. I cite that head of OPG who was fired for misappropriation of funds and STILL got her golden parachute. That is/was wrong in SO many ways......
I watched TV Ontario on Wednesday and it was clearly stated that wages of the auto worker have nothing to do with the shape of the auto industry.
Now both japaneese and North American auto workers make the same. The wages account for about 5-7% of the vehicle production cost. It's cheaper to amke a car in CANADA because there is no big health insurance premuims as there is in the usa. The panel also made it clear that Honda and Toyota are getting money from there banks in Japan which I found to be interesting.
Now both japaneese and North American auto workers make the same. The wages account for about 5-7% of the vehicle production cost. It's cheaper to amke a car in CANADA because there is no big health insurance premuims as there is in the usa. The panel also made it clear that Honda and Toyota are getting money from there banks in Japan which I found to be interesting.
KBear said:
Market rate?? How is this market rate established? Most of the time CEO salaries and stock options are set by the Board of Directors, many of whom are CEOs of other companies or appointed by the CEO whose salary is being negotiated. This is your version of market value?
