KBear said:
The difference here is that the guy selling hot dogs probably can not hit a 95 mph fastball or play short like Mr Macdonald. If you are the best in the world at what you do you get paid for that ability,
CAW- Next Contract
- Thread starter The Bandit
- Start date
The difference here is that the guy selling hot dogs probably can not hit a 95 mph fastball or play short like Mr Macdonald. If you are the best in the world at what you do you get paid for that ability,
executive salary at the highest levels is set by a compensation committee at the largest corporations. This committee is ussually formed from the board of directors with input from outside sources. The problem is that directors frequently sit on multiple boards along with the CEO for a particular company, the you scratch my back........ syndrom happens alot. The concept of Jack Welch at G.T. making 8 figures with salary and options works fine as long as G.E. is one of the best run and most proffitable companies on the planet. The big three are not in the above catagory, they are overwieght both in the head office and on the shop floor. Paying a line worker $30.00 odd dollars an hour for unskilled labour is silly, skilled trades make about that outside the auto industry. At the same time pazying senior executivesa huge amounts to ride the ship ddown in flames is stupid.
The cash component of car asswmblies is indeed 5-7% of the vehical cost, it goes up big time when the benefits are added in. The comparative numbers are Big three 70.00 per hour ( a bit more than that acctually), the imports about 40.00 per hour. That is the big killer.
Congress in the states took the correct approach yesterday, come back and explain how all this taxpayers money is to be used to guarentee the jobs and the industry before we lay out a cent.
The plan should include how all the managment bleeds all over the floor to make it work, how the workers bleed all over the shop floor to make it work the suppliers are also going to have to come up with ways to cut costs.
The congress critters and fairygod senators are scared shi...less about two things .
1) Giving the money out and having it wasted
2) Not giving the money out and having to explain it.
Interesting times
The cash component of car asswmblies is indeed 5-7% of the vehical cost, it goes up big time when the benefits are added in. The comparative numbers are Big three 70.00 per hour ( a bit more than that acctually), the imports about 40.00 per hour. That is the big killer.
Congress in the states took the correct approach yesterday, come back and explain how all this taxpayers money is to be used to guarentee the jobs and the industry before we lay out a cent.
The plan should include how all the managment bleeds all over the floor to make it work, how the workers bleed all over the shop floor to make it work the suppliers are also going to have to come up with ways to cut costs.
The congress critters and fairygod senators are scared shi...less about two things .
1) Giving the money out and having it wasted
2) Not giving the money out and having to explain it.
Interesting times
landscaper said:
Yes, seems odd. Are executives receiving bonuses at this point when the company is going down?
It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.
tboy said:
No it's not. If that was the definition, extortion would be meaningless. A union saying it will strike if it doesn't get an X% raise is not committing extortion. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
If your kid asks for a lollipop or is going to cry, is that extortion? C'mon, get real.
If management doesn't have the balls to say No, then it gets what it deserves. Management gets the big bucks because it's supposed to make the tough decisions. Unfortunately there are far too many managers that don't have the leadership or balls to make those tough decisions. And if you are going to say Yes, then you need to have the balls to live up to your commitments and not whine about how you were, "coerced."
Keebler Elf said:No it's not. If that was the definition, extortion would be meaningless. A union saying it will strike if it doesn't get an X% raise is not committing extortion. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
If your kid asks for a lollipop or is going to cry, is that extortion? C'mon, get real.
If management doesn't have the balls to say No, then it gets what it deserves. Management gets the big bucks because it's supposed to make the tough decisions. Unfortunately there are far too many managers that don't have the leadership or balls to make those tough decisions. And if you are going to say Yes, then you need to have the balls to live up to your commitments and not whine about how you were, "coerced."
Thats funny you should compare a child's behavior to that of the unions.
How appropriate.
When I tried this with my parents (as a kid).
They told me firmly
"No lollipop, in fact no treats fro a week until you understand that that type of behavior is unacceptable"
and if I did not get the next thing I heard was
"I will give something to cry about"
I eventually learned you can get far more if you co-operate with the person you want more from
The bottom line issue is the over production & excessive wage / benefit / legacy costs have made this industry uncompetitive. Unions will have to give up something if they want to have any jobs.
Its so simple a child could understand
As far as management getting the big bucks to make the hard decisions
They have known for years the cost structure (ie collective agreement) was unsustainable.
However if they tried to fix it they get a strike
This was a no win situation
Well now someone will have to pay for the decades of excess or the industry will go down the tubes
A job @ lower wage / benefits / legacy costs is better than no job at all
ah yes ...another uppermanagement corporate kissass...
I'm sure your last line applies to the ''line workers" only...cause your corporate buddies have done nothing wrong at all...they were in a no win situation...
There is lots of blame to go around...on both sides...
The bigger issue is..what is the right way to fix it...let it crash and burn..or bailout..
N2G
JohnLarue said:
I'm sure your last line applies to the ''line workers" only...cause your corporate buddies have done nothing wrong at all...they were in a no win situation...
There is lots of blame to go around...on both sides...
The bigger issue is..what is the right way to fix it...let it crash and burn..or bailout..
N2G
JohnLarue said:
So they did nothing. Yeah, there's leadership for ya.
When you're in a no-win situation, the answer is which is less painful. And you live with the consequences.
I have never understood why CAW workers get 100% UI benefits while the rest of Canadians have to settle with so much less. This is DISCRIMINATION IMHO, and the government should say either give up your privileges and settle for a reasonable wage or take your chances with bankruptcy court and we will start with a clean sheet of paper.
Before you go bashing the SENIOR Executive levels (CEO, President, etc) consider the following:
1) How many of US are on call 24 hours a day/7 days a week/365 days a year, at the whim of the Board of Directors? (many of whom come from Private Equity companies who have bought into the company, NOT CEO's from other companies)
2) How many of US hold the jobs and livelihoods of literally thousands of employees in our grasp with any decision they make? While I am sure there are some who could care less about the "grunts", I also choose to believe that there are FAR more CEO's who struggle with their decisions for this very reason.
3) How many of US risk GOING TO PRISON, if we read a report wrong, or fail to fully verify information provided by an underling, before signing off on it on a quarterly basis? (This is a VERY real possibility with any company publicly traded in the US, especially since the Enron collapse)
I am NOT excusing the actions and/or compensation of the few who have caused SO MUCH havoc to the world economy. However, the (clerical) employee, who certainly provides a valuable contribution to the billion-dollar company, is in no way worth 1/10 or even 1/100 of the top level executive who must live with these choices every waking hour of their life.
And the guy who bolts the same part on the same model of automobile every 72 seconds on the assembly line is NOT worth $70-$100K per year (plus benefits) for this work!
If HE/SHE misses a bolt, or does not tighten it enough, what are the consequences? Most likely nothing. Worse case, the customer who bought the vehicle can PROVE the defect was caused by the company, so they sue the company and win a large verdict. Is the individual who was at fault held accountable? Of course not. Is the CEO, whose company just had to payout a multi-million dollar settlement, which impacts the company's profitably, which impacts the company's share price, held accountable by the Board of Directors and the shareholders? Far more likely!
99.9% of us could not handle the stress of the CEO position. Do not begrudge them their compensation, because most of you cannot relate to what they face.
1) How many of US are on call 24 hours a day/7 days a week/365 days a year, at the whim of the Board of Directors? (many of whom come from Private Equity companies who have bought into the company, NOT CEO's from other companies)
2) How many of US hold the jobs and livelihoods of literally thousands of employees in our grasp with any decision they make? While I am sure there are some who could care less about the "grunts", I also choose to believe that there are FAR more CEO's who struggle with their decisions for this very reason.
3) How many of US risk GOING TO PRISON, if we read a report wrong, or fail to fully verify information provided by an underling, before signing off on it on a quarterly basis? (This is a VERY real possibility with any company publicly traded in the US, especially since the Enron collapse)
I am NOT excusing the actions and/or compensation of the few who have caused SO MUCH havoc to the world economy. However, the (clerical) employee, who certainly provides a valuable contribution to the billion-dollar company, is in no way worth 1/10 or even 1/100 of the top level executive who must live with these choices every waking hour of their life.
And the guy who bolts the same part on the same model of automobile every 72 seconds on the assembly line is NOT worth $70-$100K per year (plus benefits) for this work!
If HE/SHE misses a bolt, or does not tighten it enough, what are the consequences? Most likely nothing. Worse case, the customer who bought the vehicle can PROVE the defect was caused by the company, so they sue the company and win a large verdict. Is the individual who was at fault held accountable? Of course not. Is the CEO, whose company just had to payout a multi-million dollar settlement, which impacts the company's profitably, which impacts the company's share price, held accountable by the Board of Directors and the shareholders? Far more likely!
99.9% of us could not handle the stress of the CEO position. Do not begrudge them their compensation, because most of you cannot relate to what they face.
new2game said:I'm sure your last line applies to the ''line workers" only...cause your corporate buddies have done nothing wrong at all...they were in a no win situation...
There is lots of blame to go around...on both sides...
The bigger issue is..what is the right way to fix it...let it crash and burn..or bailout..
N2G
I have never indicated the management is not to blame.
Their latest stunt with private planes indicates this is a very arrogant group who may not be up to the task of turning this industry around.
However, rather than just criticize my view, perhaps you can enlighten us with how 10 years ago you would have deal with a union who put demands in front of you that you knew will lead to future trouble. (like we are seeing now)
The union has also singled your company out and will strike you if you do not agree to their wage / benefit / legacy / job security demands.
You are under a lot of pressure to ensure your production does not stop, maintain / grow your market share, deliver returns to the shareholders, maintain a safe work environment, allocate money to new fuel-efficient research, meet the payroll, meet the demands of your creditors, deal with the demands of the dealers and drive down the cost of raw materials and supplied goods
Please tell me you have the solution they should have taken say 10 years ago
1. Negotiate in good faith with the unions, pointing out their demands would lead to future trouble. I am sure they would cave in (yeah right)
2. Let them strike & watch as the Japanese steal even more market share because you could not deliver product.
3. Sign the agreement and hope you can pump up the volume of production to cover the cost.
I think it was a no win situation for the management (smart or not so smart)
However I would love to hear your solution
It will be interesting to see how things play out. I do not see a leader on the horizon to carry the flag for the industry. Look back to '80, when Iacocca came to Chrysler. Love him or hate him, he took a pay cut to $1/year (which I suspect did not include bonuses), as a symbolic measure, got out there in ads and in public with his heart on his sleeve, and by the grace of the not so great unlamemted K-car (probably a good car for it's time) and a second kick at the minivan (Henry Ford vetoed it at Ford), turned the company around. No arriving in town on the corporate jet. My gut feel is these guys are out of touch with the real world.
Having said all that, my real sympathies are with the hundreds of thousands of workers for the automotive suppliers. The automotive companies are little more than marketing companies that do some assembly. A lot of the engineering and manufacturing lies with the auto suppliers. Given the tough times for the industry the past few years, the big boys have done what they do well, squeeze the life out of the suppliers. And the real risk in my mind is if one or more of the big boys goes down, many of the suppliers will go as well, taking the entire industry down. Imagine the scrambling when a fuel filter, fuel pump, catylitic converter or other widget manufacturer goes under, and there is no approved backup. Suddenly plants, or the entire industry goes down while everyone scramble to reengineer the parts with a new vendor. Not to mention being able to get that widget when it breaks 15 years from now!
Having said all that, my real sympathies are with the hundreds of thousands of workers for the automotive suppliers. The automotive companies are little more than marketing companies that do some assembly. A lot of the engineering and manufacturing lies with the auto suppliers. Given the tough times for the industry the past few years, the big boys have done what they do well, squeeze the life out of the suppliers. And the real risk in my mind is if one or more of the big boys goes down, many of the suppliers will go as well, taking the entire industry down. Imagine the scrambling when a fuel filter, fuel pump, catylitic converter or other widget manufacturer goes under, and there is no approved backup. Suddenly plants, or the entire industry goes down while everyone scramble to reengineer the parts with a new vendor. Not to mention being able to get that widget when it breaks 15 years from now!
Lots of blame to go around...it's easy to blame unions...but when those contracts were signed they were signed by both sides. Just a bad situation from every way you look at it...almost. Production costs too high, unfunded liabilities for pensions and benefits, overall not the most efficient plants in the world...and worst of all - they missed making what the market wanted. Or at least got caught when the market changed very very quickly.
Sub-benefits to top up the EI. it is a part of what is written into the collective bargaining agreement. I'm not sure if it is the company, the union, or private insurance that pays those.nottyboi said:
Keebler Elf said:No it's not. If that was the definition, extortion would be meaningless. A union saying it will strike if it doesn't get an X% raise is not committing extortion. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
If your kid asks for a lollipop or is going to cry, is that extortion? C'mon, get real.
If management doesn't have the balls to say No, then it gets what it deserves. Management gets the big bucks because it's supposed to make the tough decisions. Unfortunately there are far too many managers that don't have the leadership or balls to make those tough decisions. And if you are going to say Yes, then you need to have the balls to live up to your commitments and not whine about how you were, "coerced."
THat's a poor analogy, the one making the request is doing the "suffering" in your example. A better example would be a kid saying to his parents: I want a lollipop and if you don't give it to me I'll tell your boss you're raping me.....
That is the equivolent of what the unions do.
From today's sun online:
"Anthony Faria, an auto industry specialist at the University of Windsor, estimates that Canadian employees of the Detroit Three are costing their employers about $25 more an hour than their U.S. counterparts. But Canadian Auto Workers president Ken Lewenza has said his union will not bend on wages or benefits."
Hmmmm just so I understand this, the company is on the verge of going bankrupt and closing it's doors, and the CAW says it won't take any cuts. That just goes along with my opinion that unions are very short sighted. If they have a choice of taking less money, or NO money, they'll choose no money....LOL yeah, that's smart thinking!
"Anthony Faria, an auto industry specialist at the University of Windsor, estimates that Canadian employees of the Detroit Three are costing their employers about $25 more an hour than their U.S. counterparts. But Canadian Auto Workers president Ken Lewenza has said his union will not bend on wages or benefits."
Hmmmm just so I understand this, the company is on the verge of going bankrupt and closing it's doors, and the CAW says it won't take any cuts. That just goes along with my opinion that unions are very short sighted. If they have a choice of taking less money, or NO money, they'll choose no money....LOL yeah, that's smart thinking!
I am no fan of the CAW and think it is self destructive, however, the problem with the big three in Canada and the US is historically more the result of short sighted management.
Back a couple of decades ago the UAW would select a strike target and begin negotiations with that company. If the negotiations broke down and resulted in a strike the other big three companies ramped up production to increase their market share. This put emormous pressure on the struck company forcing it to accept the union demands. The union was then able to push the other companies into the same contract. If all three companies has stuck together the union would not have been able to divide and conquer.
As long as the big three were almost the only manufacturers they sofferred no competitive disadvantage by this tactic, but now the resulting cost structure is a disaster.
A bail-out is not needed. The companies with problems should use the Chapter 11 and comparable Canadian statute to restructure. Labour and management costs are then on the table for review.
Back a couple of decades ago the UAW would select a strike target and begin negotiations with that company. If the negotiations broke down and resulted in a strike the other big three companies ramped up production to increase their market share. This put emormous pressure on the struck company forcing it to accept the union demands. The union was then able to push the other companies into the same contract. If all three companies has stuck together the union would not have been able to divide and conquer.
As long as the big three were almost the only manufacturers they sofferred no competitive disadvantage by this tactic, but now the resulting cost structure is a disaster.
A bail-out is not needed. The companies with problems should use the Chapter 11 and comparable Canadian statute to restructure. Labour and management costs are then on the table for review.
Yeah, we dump on the unions a lot but freely admit that they aren't the only problem. I mean, I was involved with CTC back in the 80's and management found out a union rep was going to be giving a speech on a certain day to the warehouse workers.
The day before they shut down the various warehouses and HR did a prep of what the workers were getting (a great benefit and profit sharing package) and what they should expect to get from joining a union.
When the union rep when in to do his dog and pony show the workers were informed and basically kicked the guy out. You see, what the company was giving them was better than what the union could offer. It wasn't necessarily in a wage rate, but when you included the profit sharing plans etc they would be getting about 25% more annually than what the union could offer.
Now this is something the big 3 ought to have done before getting stuck with the unions which were needed because they were abusing the workers. Now CTC has been around since the 30's and have avoided becoming union since so why can't they? (they couldn't...until now).
But as I said: it isn't only the union's fault, but company direction and management as well. Which is why the US congress said "GM and the UNIONS have to come up with a viable business plan".......
The day before they shut down the various warehouses and HR did a prep of what the workers were getting (a great benefit and profit sharing package) and what they should expect to get from joining a union.
When the union rep when in to do his dog and pony show the workers were informed and basically kicked the guy out. You see, what the company was giving them was better than what the union could offer. It wasn't necessarily in a wage rate, but when you included the profit sharing plans etc they would be getting about 25% more annually than what the union could offer.
Now this is something the big 3 ought to have done before getting stuck with the unions which were needed because they were abusing the workers. Now CTC has been around since the 30's and have avoided becoming union since so why can't they? (they couldn't...until now).
But as I said: it isn't only the union's fault, but company direction and management as well. Which is why the US congress said "GM and the UNIONS have to come up with a viable business plan".......
Mencken said:
Mencken - The market did not change "very very quickly" at all - it has been at least 10 years and probably closer to 20 years where we have known that we were being beaten up as far as a quality product goes - and as far as where the consumer was likely to go.
Management is to blame for not keeping on top re: producing a quality product and producing a product taht was obviously going to be in demand.
The Unioinized workers are also to blame - they were just so content to keep taking home their HUGE paycheques - that's as far as they could see, or cared to see in all of this!
