UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike

[fuzzymoomoo]

24 minutes ago, akirby said:

This is what a lot of folks don’t understand.  In the 70s it didn’t really matter what the mfrs paid the workers as long as it was the same at all 3 because there was no other competition.  So the union could extort much higher than market wages and other compensation.  But that’s no longer the case.

And that’s where the union messed up way back then. They didn’t bother to fight to organize all of these plants from foreign companies. 

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

And that’s where the union messed up way back then. They didn’t bother to fight to organize all of these plants from foreign companies. 

Why?  So they could use strikes to extort higher than market wages from other companies?   You can’t force a union on a company who doesn’t want it in a right to work state where majority of workers don’t want it.  The workers in these non-union plants are well compensated and happy with their jobs.

[fuzzymoomoo]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

Why?  So they could use strikes to extort higher than market wages from other companies?   You can’t force a union on a company who doesn’t want it in a right to work state where majority of workers don’t want it.  The workers in these non-union plants are well compensated and happy with their jobs.

The more they organize, the more they get to set what the market rate is. In the 70s and prior when the big 3 was the only game in town the union set what the market rate was. That’s how the middle class was built.

 

Sorry you think the middle class shouldn’t exist anymore. 

[jasonj80]

18 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

The more they organize, the more they get to set what the market rate is. In the 70s and prior when the big 3 was the only game in town the union set what the market rate was. That’s how the middle class was built.

 

Sorry you think the middle class shouldn’t exist anymore. 

The problem is the world is considerably more global now which wasn't the case in the 70's and what the UAW workers had then wasn't middle class, it was upper middle class. (The metro Detroit region was very rich compared to the rest of the country then, which now is very opposite as the now current middle class jobs are elsewhere in the nation) The strike in 1970 led to a unsustainable wage period and benefits that started to come crashing down in the early 80's, then again in the early 90's then divesting of business in the late 90's to raise capital and lower costs and finally  bankruptcy.

Importing vehicles is also very easy today, and only becomes easier with electric as there are no emission hurdles. GM builds less than 50% of its vehicles in the US, Stellantis builds around 55%. The automotive industry in the south has continued to say they don't want unions and they keep expanding. While for UAW represented companies they keep expanding in Mexico and closing US factories. So what the UAW is doing is actually building the middle class of Mexico.

 

I completely believe in fair pay and that someone should be able to live comfortably, have money for vacations and to raise a family and own a home, should have reasonable job security. But what the UAW has come to demand what the market is today for jobs, they protect may people who should be fired, require companies to keep people on the payroll that serve no purpose, have people that do more to stir the pot and worse intentionally do things to vehicles to create problems later because they feel screwed by someone. They feel they either owed a job, or their family always worked for XXXX so they have to as well or are connected to union people so they don't have to do anything. Some hear of the industry glory days in the 70's but don't understand that will never happen again; because it never should have happened to begin with it was short lived gain but set the companies down a disastrous path that allowed lower cost companies to come in and shrink their size and market share.

As for BOC being unionized it doesn't make a difference - the workers don't have to pay union dues. They also have to hold an election to be unionized -- What if BOC chooses in the vote to not have union representation? (Which is a possibility in the south)

 

 

[akirby]

What Jason said. ?

 

I was just going to add that “market” means “free market” which is the opposite of a union controlled market.  And the market is bigger than just automobile factories and bigger than just the US and the union can’t control everything.  
 

The fact that workers in SC, GA, TN and AL have repeatedly voted down union representation should tell you something.

[Oac98]

13 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Ho boy where do I begin? First off above all it didn’t lower the cost of anything and over time it ended up making things way more expensive. The marketplace website couldn’t stay online for more than 6 seconds because like government does it wasn’t prepared to handle the traffic. Most of those marketplaces run by the individual states ended up insolvent. There’s myriad examples of the whole “if you like your doctor you can keep it” thing being completely untrue. My personal doctor has told me stories of how much it’s complicated doing business on their end. I’m sure there’s more I’m forgetting but it’s 4am and I haven’t had any coffee yet lol. 

Yikes! Well that does sound like a disaster. No way in hell does not cost reductions make it any good. F that shit!

[Oac98]

9 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

Always Coffee first Fuzzy!?  The fines were cheaper than actually getting insurance so the healthy pool was considerable smaller than proposed, the taxes that were to be paid on high tier plans (the plans UAW members get) got scrapped so there wasn't the revenue to offset the credits so it became considerably more expensive. Hospitals still can't refuse treatment so why have insurance if they will treat you in the ED anyways.

Also social systems are not "free" you pay for them everyday in considerably higher taxes, it is the reason when people come to the U.S. they buy everything they can fit and even take extra suitcases back home or American border cities are filled with Canadian license plates buying goods. Americans would have a real problem knowing it is extremely difficult to sue the Dr for malpractice and it isn't a jury trial when you do. It is before a board that determines if standard of care was followed and there isn't "pain and suffering payments". You can't sue drug companies only the government can (after all they are the ones that assume the costs for an issue). Everything is also basically an HMO, the option of PPO doesn't really exist; Americans that have great insurance plans would have major issues with that

 

Over a 1/3 of my family lives in Canada (including two Drs) who all say the system is at a breaking point. 20% of people in Canada right now do not have a primary care physician and are on a wait list for one. Canadian medical schools are graduating LESS students than the number retiring.  It is getting increasingly common in boarder cities now to send patients across the border to the US for treatment. Also @Oacjay98 I don't know how you make ends meet, even with a 10-20% raise between the million+ dollar home you have to buy or the outrageous rent, an interest rate that isn't locked in so you payment could be considerably higher in later years, the 20% down, the insane property taxes, the condo fees, the $6.50 a gallon fuel, the cost of car insurance, alcohol prices, even the insane cost of food. When I go to visit family in Canada even with the exchange rate of ~30% I cringe. My younger cousins that live in the Toronto know they will most likely never own home until their parents pass. 

That being said the US medial system is also heading for a major reckoning as well. Dr's are getting burned out at a staggering rate, hospitals are being run by people that have no business running them as they are focused on costs yet have complete bloated finance and use travel nurses as that's not a fixed cost and cost 3x the cost of a regular one. The people that have to file bankruptcy even when they have insurance. The people that have to become "poor" so they can quality for a state plan that covers everything and the looming lack of general family doctors because of the debt students need to take on they basically get forced to specialize so they can pay back the $200,000-$400,000 in debt they have.

To circle back to the UAW plan, I can't figure out the retirement medical they want? They created the VEBA for retirement medical before because UAW leadership saw the writing on the wall (which is what Tanked Ford's stock price because they issued shares to do it, when ford issued billion+ shares) Which is why retirees have medical now - had they not done that UAW GM/Chrysler retirees would not have medical like the salary side that lost it. The only thing Fain's rhetoric is going to do is make manufactures move even more jobs faster to Mexico and from the few UAW members I've talked too think he's doing more damage than good. It isn't 1974 labor costs aren't equal across the board at the end of the contract where 95% of the market all pays the same cost.

You’re correct the cost of living up here in the Greater Toronto Area is insane. You summed it up. Everything is expensive housing is insane. All the points you made are valid. I expect we will get a raise it WILL NOT be 40 percent up in Unfor land and UAW ain’t getting 40 percent either. That’s just my pessimistic belief. Fain is aiming for the ceiling which I guess he should but we all know some of the things he’s going for ain’t gonna happen!

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

The fact that workers in SC, GA, TN and AL have repeatedly voted down union representation should tell you something.

 

It tells you that the success of segregationist politicians and business leaders in those states (along with Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Florida) to stifle labor unions in the 1940s had a lasting impact.

[T-dubz]

This sounds shortsighted to me. Ford is literally importing a vehicle from China now. EVs will possibly require 30-40% less labor to build. The writing is on the wall. The UAWs goal should be trying to keep jobs, not speed up the loss of them.
 

 

[akirby]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

It tells you that the success of segregationist politicians and business leaders in those states (along with Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Florida) to stifle labor unions in the 1940s had a lasting impact.

Bullshit.  There is no stifling today.  Companies are offering competitive compensation and treating employees well.  They’ve seen what the UAW has done and want no part of that.  No strike threats.  No grievances.  No protecting bad workers.  No contract drama every 4 years.  

[rperez817]

52 minutes ago, akirby said:

Bullshit.  There is no stifling today.  

 

The modern-day successors to white supremacist, anti-union Southern leaders of the 1940s like Vance Muse have been very effective in suppressing labor union activity throughout the U.S. South in the 21st century. As of 2023, all Southern states except Maryland and Delaware have so called "right to work" laws of the kind that Mr. Muse pioneered in the late 1940s, which are specifically designed to restrict the bargaining power of labor unions.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

The modern-day successors to white supremacist, anti-union Southern leaders of the 1940s like Vance Muse have been very effective in suppressing labor union activity throughout the U.S. South in the 21st century. As of 2023, all Southern states except Maryland and Delaware have so called "right to work" laws of the kind that Mr. Muse pioneered in the late 1940s, which are specifically designed to restrict the bargaining power of labor unions.

More bullshit.  Right to work protects the workers from being forced to join a union.  It does not suppress unions.  I’m sitting 20 feet from union workers right now and we have a lot of unions in GA.  My wife was in the union for 15 years and hated it because she was a high performer stuck in a seniority based system.  

[rperez817]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

we have a lot of unions in GA.  

 

Georgia has among the lowest worker unionization rates in the U.S., a direct result of misnamed "right-to-work" laws in that state that white supremacists there instituted back in 1947.

 

[silvrsvt]

12 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

 a direct result of misnamed "right-to-work" laws in that state that white supremacists there instituted back in 1947.

 

Oh boy someone has an axe to grind....

[Harley Lover]

51 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Oh boy someone has an axe to grind....

 

Finally seeing true colors with that one.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Georgia has among the lowest worker unionization rates in the U.S., a direct result of misnamed "right-to-work" laws in that state that white supremacists there instituted back in 1947.

3 things.

 

1 - the US Congress (not GA) passed the Taft Hartley act in 1947 which made closed union shops illegal nationwide and allowed states to further outlaw forced union membership and dues illegal.

 

2 - GA is a mostly agricultural state and farms don’t want or need unions.  There are plenty of unions in Atlanta but nothing like the industrial areas.

 

3 - stop playing the race card.

[twintornados]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

3 things.

 

1 - the US Congress (not GA) passed the Taft Hartley act in 1947 which made closed union shops illegal nationwide and allowed states to further outlaw forced union membership and dues illegal.

 

2 - GA is a mostly agricultural state and farms don’t want or need unions.  There are plenty of unions in Atlanta but nothing like the industrial areas.

 

3 - stop playing the race card.

 

Janus v AFSCME changed all that except #3

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

Janus v AFSCME changed all that except #3

It didn’t change any of that as far as I can see.  It reaffirmed that public sector employees cannot be forced to pay union fees reversing a previous decision to the contrary.   And that has nothing to do with Georgia being agricultural.

[jpd80]

The last major UAW action I can think of is when GM closed down four production plants, the workers went on strike but only managed to save one plant. I think the strength and influence of todays UAW is a bit overrated, most members are seeking improved conditions but public statements by its leader are intended to be controversial to whip up interest in what will be a more measured approach inside the negotiating room.

[Oac98]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The last major UAW action I can think of is when GM closed down four production plants, the workers went on strike but only managed to save one plant. I think the strength and influence of todays UAW is a bit overrated, most members are seeking improved conditions but public statements by its leader are intended to be controversial to whip up interest in what will be a more measured approach inside the negotiating room.

One of those 4 plants you mention was GM OSHAWA which closed in 2019 and was resurrected a couple of years later cranking out ICE pick up trucks. Unifor territory.

[jpd80]

17 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

One of those 4 plants you mention was GM OSHAWA which closed in 2019 and was resurrected a couple of years later cranking out ICE pick up trucks. Unifor territory.

Correct, my point being that the strike action at the time had no influence in changing the decision on the other three US plants.

If my memory is correct, UNIFOR did strike over the Oshawa plant / car production line (?) closure but it wasn’t successful 

 

GM reviving the Oshawa plant a few years later showed how a change of product makes all the world of difference 

 

(sorry battling with Autotext changing meaning of words I wanted or post)

Edited August 16, 2023 by jpd80

[Oac98]

The strike that GM had in Canada was the GM CAMI plant in Ingersol, Ontario in 2017. The strike was for a month. GM moved the Terrain and eventually some Equinox production to Mexico and threatened to close the plant now they’re building GM Brightdrop vans with limited production because they don’t have enough batteries. GM I believe knew what they were doing all along and did a legacy dump to get rid of older workers and rehire new cheaper workforce. Only 300 people remained after plant closed as Oshawa was only a stamping operation and test track until it fully reopened. 

[Oac98]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Correct, my point being that the strike action at the time had no influence in changing the decision on the other three US plants.

If my memory is correct, UNIFOR did strike over the Oshawa plant / car production line (?) closure but it wasn’t successful 

 

GM reviving the Oshawa plant a few years later showed how a change of product makes all the world of difference 

 

(sorry battling with Autotext changing meaning of words I wanted or post)

I don’t think that UAW strike at the time was that effective. I don’t remember the details. I do remember GM UAW was down for a month to minimal gains if I’m not mistaken.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:

I don’t think that UAW strike at the time was that effective. I don’t remember the details. I do remember GM UAW was down for a month to minimal gains if I’m not mistaken.

That’s correct, I think it was members just wanting to vent as a reaction to the shock of three closings

[Oac98]

36 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

That’s correct, I think it was members just wanting to vent as a reaction to the shock of three closings

I don’t blame them for fighting that nobody wants their plant to close which is obvious.