My current employer (non-unionized) has been focusing a great deal on unions in the work place as well as current political trends in Washington D.C.

As some of you know, the US federal government is currently debating an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act) that would adjust (to the favor of union-minded employees) labor laws, making it easier to unionize.

From Wiki EFCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act):
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (H.R. 1409, S. 560) is a legislative bill (a proposed law) in the United States. Its text states that it would "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."[1] The latest version was introduced into both chambers of the U.S. Congress on March 10, 2009.[2]

In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues.[3] If at least 30% of the workers in a workplace bargaining unit sign the cards, the employer may request that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hold a secret ballot election to decide whether the workers want to be in a union.[3] In practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.[3] If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

As last introduced in the U.S. Congress, the EFCA, if enacted, would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards.[1] It would take away employers' present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.[3][4] The proposed legislation would also establish stricter penalties for employers who violate provisions of the NLRA when workers seek to form a union, and set in place new mediation and arbitration procedures for disputes.

In late July, 2009, news media reported that key Senate advocates of the EFCA have proposed to drop the provision of the bill allowing a union to become certified only on the basis of majority sign-up (card check), while leaving other provisions of the bill intact.[5]

Will this hurt, or help American industry around the world, especially considering the shoddy job unions have done in protecting American steel and auto workers or their role in lowering efficiency of American industry?

~String

especially considering the shoddy job unions have done in protecting American steel and auto workers or their role in lowering efficiency of American industry? Even supposing that were somehow accurate description, what's that got to do with it?

Even supposing that were somehow accurate description, what's that got to do with it?

Well, judging from the bang-up job unions have done in reducing individual accountability by eliminating performance based compensation (through bonuses and raises) I can't see how increasing union representation would help American industry in the long run. One need only look at workers at non-unionized factories (Toyota, Honda, Kia) to see the superior products produced there. At those factories, if you come in drunk, call off too much, have a negative attitude or produce less, you're fired. Try getting that same result at unionized work places.

I worked for UPS (Teamsters) in college. My union contract forbade UPS from firing me (after my 90 day review) for "substance abuse issues" until they sent me to treatment. Result: fellow workers coming to work buzzed--if not drunk--on a regular basis. Where I work, the two times I saw intoxicated behavior, I sent the worker to get a piss test. One just walked off the job, and never came back. The other went, tested positive, and was termed.

When I was a manager at Costco, each of my employees got raises every six months that weren't tied to their reviews. Where I work now, a raise can go anywhere between 0% and 6% based on their productivity. Moreover, at Costco, if an employee wasn't "producing" in one area, I had to find them another job. Where I work now, they are given a performance counseling and if they don't work out after 90 days, they are let go. My work place actually works, my work place at Costco was a constant negotiation between what unions wanted and what actually worked. Costco usually suffered in the end.

American unions have done a great job in lowering American productivity and giving Americans an entitlement mentality, one which I constantly battle every time I walk through the doors of my employer.

~String

I don't support the proposed changes in labor law. That said, I don't think unions represent a threat to well run organizations. It is only those organizations with weak management that need worry.

Look at all the non unionized auto manufacturing facilities. They are well run and employees are quite content without union representation. I view an unionized shop as a prime example of poor managment. So if I were the owner of an organization threatened with unionization I would have to question the value of my management.

To me "free choice" means a secret ballot. Without the secret ballot to create the union the possibilities of coercion are to great.

I don't support the proposed changes in labor law. That said, I don't think unions represent a threat to well run organizations. It is only those organizations with weak management that need worry.

Look at all the non unionized auto manufacturing facilities. They are well run and employees are quite content without union representation. I view an unionized shop as a prime example of poor managment. So if I were the owner of an organization threatened with unionization I would have to question the value of my management.

Yup.

And when the union comes it's true, eventually it will bring the company down. Might take many many years but it will. However, never forget UNIONS OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE OF BAD BOSSES.

There needs to be a way to get rid of bad unions, basically.

My father is a retired U.A.W executive. And I can tell you that blaming the UAW is nothing more then a Republican talking point. GM's labor cost is only 10% of the cost of making a vehicle. The other 90% covers R & D, marketing, and management overhead. So it's disingenuous and completely moronic to to place the blame on the Unions. The unions have made numerous concessions prior to the economic collapse. In fact, the plant where my father worked, for the last 5 years they've barely hired any GM employee's. 90% of the new workers are temps, who can't join the Union, and they don't receive benefits. My brother worked at the plant for 1 year as a temp, then they laid him off. The Union wages at this plant in question were $28 dollars an hour to start. And trust me you earned every dime of it. There's no easy jobs on the production line. And if you fuck up, the entire line has to stop so everyone has to operate at maximum efficiency. However, if you're a temp, you're hired at 14 dollars an hour with no benefits.

The problem with GM has everything to do with the suits. They're beyond incompetent, and they continue to build cars that no one wants. My father toldme that there's probably more Junior VP's at GM then their are autoworkers. And they all command generous salaries. Here's an example of how stupid GM's executives are, and why they, not the unions are the blame. The new Volt hybrid, while it's a very nice vehicle, they're starting at an economically unfriendly price of 40 thousand dollars. The new Toyota Prius, which can park it self, auto correct if you're swerving into the other lane, and best of all, it starts off at 22 thousand. Once again, I want to reiterate GM's labor costs account for 10% of producing car, the other 90% comes from R & D, marketing, and management overhead. Cut that 90% down to 50% then GM will be a profitable auto company again.

Yup.

And when the union comes it's true, eventually it will bring the company down. Might take many many years but it will. However, never forget UNIONS OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE OF BAD BOSSES.

There needs to be a way to get rid of bad unions, basically.

UC Berkeley study finds little union impact on company survival, wages

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 08 September 2004

BERKELEY – Despite popular claims to the contrary, labor unions in recent years have had little impact on either company survival or average wages in private sector manufacturing, according to researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan.

In a working paper for the private, nonprofit and nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, UC Berkeley Assistant Professor of Economics David Lee and University of MichiganProfessor of Economics John DiNardo analyzed firms where union organizing drives narrowly won or lost from 1984 to 1999.

Detailed examination of data about these businesses about 10 percent of them in California - showed little union impact in terms of worker productivity or hours, manufacturing output, total value of shipments, sales volume, the number of company employees, or a firm's ability to stay in business.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/08_union.shtml

The question is will it help workers, and the answer is yes.

Seems a good idea generally. I cast my secret vote for yes.

Oh, damn.

Management is already unionized.

One need only look at workers at non-unionized factories (Toyota, Honda, Kia) to see the superior products produced there. I see superior engineering and superior management, more than superior workforces.

In Germany a few years ago, dunno if still true, the line workers at the Mercedes plant drove Mercedes cars. They were organized, socialized, and they also had better management - hence, high quality product they could afford.

I can remember listening to a Ford exec (at a party) ranting about his production line workers, how lazy and overpaid they were, how they smoked dope and were ungovernable - while Ford was dealing with dozens of major recalls for major design and materials flaws. Same with GM, Chrysler, the lot of them. I remember when these execs got a law passed preventing the publication of cumulative recall stats by brand.

It wasn't a unionized production line worker back in the 80s who, when asked about the poor fit and finish quality of Ford cars compared with any Japanese brand, responded by saying that they had surveyed Ford customers and found that these customers didn't care about that aspect.

Meanwhile, if the management at industry leader GM had let the unions take over health care and pensions, as the unions wanted back in the day, GM would be alive today.

Unions are self defense against the organized forces of capital. The US has been riding on their accomplishments for almost a generation now, gradually losing steam. When they have been gone long enough, you guys will find out why they were invented.

Meanwhile, I don't know about card check or not - the provision is for secret ballots anyway if 30% of the workforce wants them, or if too few workers sign the card check, so this talk of "no secret ballot" is a bit off - but I do think management should have no say in how the vote is taken. Removing management from the process seems reasonable to me.

This law would destroy what is left of American manufactoring and spread the damage to all other sectors of the economy. I was once a member of a union. All of us young, competent employees hated the union. It protected lazy and incompetent employess and caused idiots to be promoted because they had seniority. All they did for us was take our money in initiation fees, union dues, etc. Once in a while a union big wig would come by and they were real scum bags. Super slick politician types who looked like they'd never worked a day in their lives. I respected management far more than those leeches.

Anyway, the idea of taking away the secret ballot is unAmerican. It's unbelievable that they would even propose something like this. Let's hope this bill dies.

It's Democracy in the workplace, it empowers people who previously had no voice in the institution that practically runs their lives. That's the least they can do for stealing most of your waking hours.

This law would destroy what is left of American manufactoring and spread the damage to all other sectors of the economy. I was once a member of a union. All of us young, competent employees hated the union. It protected lazy and incompetent employess and caused idiots to be promoted because they had seniority. All they did for us was take our money in initiation fees, union dues, etc. Once in a while a union big wig would come by and they were real scum bags. Super slick politician types who looked like they'd never worked a day in their lives. I respected management far more than those leeches.

Anyway, the idea of taking away the secret ballot is unAmerican. It's unbelievable that they would even propose something like this. Let's hope this bill dies.
the secret ballot(also known the australian ballot) is fairly new. also 13 countries adpoted it either partially or wholly before the united states.

just remember people unions are a result of the robber barons.

I'm still curious about how denying management the power to force management's preferred style of election comes to be described as taking the secret ballot away.

Why should that be management's decision?

for christ sake, i cant belive how the surposed capitilists are against unions. Right to associate is a fundermental right in the "free market", you cant have it both ways, either the free market is great and workers have a right to associate freely or the free market is wrong and everything should be directed by legislation INCLUDING executive bonuses.

Unions are the ONLY way low paid workers have of balancing power against greedy employers. Just look at the way companies are currently 100:1 difference in pay from the CEO to the lowest paid worker? 500:1? 1000:1?

Thats apsolutly rediculas. I would love to see a law written that TOTAL exec pay could be no more than 10 times the lowest paid worker in the company, that would end the need for unions

Employees have the right to unionize, Asguard. There are, after all, a huge number of unions in the USA. I live in a city that touts itself as the most unionized city in America (you'll hear Clevelanders argue this fact with Detroiter).

The question is if the EFCA is a good thing for America or not.

~String

I'm still curious about how denying management the power to force management's preferred style of election comes to be described as taking the secret ballot away.

Why should that be management's decision?

Poor management is, of course, to blame for this. Bad bosses drive their employees to unionize. Few employees unionize anymore over pay. It's almost always over management style. In fact, when surveyed, most employees list "pay" as fifth on their lists of important factors in a workplace. Recognition, advancement opportunities, clear communication/direction and safe conditions rank as the top four.

My corporation has a "face" reaction and a "behind the scenes" reaction.

The first way to prevent unions is to be an active, visible, empathetic manager. Never try to stop union talk, don't break union chat up, don't do anything but listen, answer questions, offer the corporate belief on unions and perhaps offer your opinion.

The "behind the scenes" reaction is quite different. Like most non-unionized employers in the US, it sets a chain of events rolling at the corporate office that involves upper management, attorneys, labor specialists and whatnot; all who set up shop at said location until the issue is resolved.

Once unionized, however, you see the trend continue to spiral downwards. A wall that divides management and the employees continues, resentment builds, until the point where there's a cold war between leadership and the workforce. People site the German model as what is possible, but that ignores the innate German culture. It doesn't exist here. American unions are themselves inherently antagonistic. I belonged to one. I had to sit and listen to bullshit about how I constantly deserved more money, how poorly UPS was managed.

The best we can hope for is to copy the Japanese or Korean models because the standard American union is inherently interested in their own expansion. What most Americans don't know is that a union is a corporation, few are "non profit", most operate along the same lines as other corporate models. In that, they look to expand and increase the bottom line: profits and customers. It's a business, and it's a dirty one.

~String

Once unionized, however, you see the trend continue to spiral downwards.

I would like to see any evidence that led you to this conclusion. Or is this just your opinion?


People site the German model as what is possible, but that ignores the innate German culture. It doesn't exist here.

What doesn't exist here?

I would like to see any evidence that led you to this conclusion. Or is this just your opinion?

It's my opinion. One that is supported by a great deal of evidence, especially concerning horrific pay conditions imposed on companies by unions (see: Delphi, GM, etc).

What doesn't exist here?

A cultural obsession with high quality coupled with a union tradition of cooperation and compromise. Both exist in Germany. Neither exist here in the USA.

~String

My observations have been that union leaders are more interested in their personal pocketbooks than the pocketbooks for those they represent. I don't want to get down on unions, they have made positive contributions to society and our economy. But they are not without pitfalls.

It's my opinion. One that is supported by a great deal of evidence, especially concerning horrific pay conditions imposed on companies by unions (see: Delphi, GM, etc).

You don't have any evidence of horrific pay conditions from a neutral source because the evidence doesn't exist. As I mentioned in a previous post, labor costs only account for 10% of the total cost to make a car. The other 90% is for R&D, marketing, and management overhead. So It's puzzling to me how you can conclude that it's horrific that labor accounts for 10% of making a car.



A cultural obsession with high quality coupled with a union tradition of cooperation and compromise. Both exist in Germany. Neither exist here in the USA.

~String

So you're implying that Unions aren't the problem only the American people who run them?

My observations have been that union leaders are more interested in their personal pocketbooks than the pocketbooks for those they represent. I don't want to get down on unions, they have made positive contributions to society and our economy. But they are not without pitfalls.

When the U.A.W is negotiating with GM their main concerns are safe work conditions, health insurance, paid leave, and workers rights. The Union bosses who negotiate with GM are elected leaders. If they don't deliver they're quickly voted out.

You don't have any evidence of horrific pay conditions from a neutral source because the evidence doesn't exist. As I mentioned in a previous post, labor costs only account for 10% of the total cost to make a car. The other 90% is for R&D, marketing, and management overhead. So It's puzzling to me how you can conclude that it's horrific that labor accounts for 10% of making a car.

I don't know the exact labor costs of making a car, but in any corporation, the largest controllable expense is employee pay. In union corporations, the pay is grossly disproportionate to other non-unionized corporations. Union pay is directly linked to the bankruptcy of GM and Delphi. In both cases, workers earned an average of over $70 per hour (bonuses, benefits, direct pay) compared to Toyota workers who made over $25 per hour less for screwing in the same widget (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/). We're not talking about upwardly mobile positions, but line workers. Americans have a "it's my right to be rich" mentality that is readily fed by unions. And, what's better, it's not like Toyota and Honda make their workers skimp by with little pay, in fact, they are paid quite well. It's just that, worker pay is in line with productivity. If you want to be rich, become a doctor, or executive.

The unions have saddled GM with ridiculous pension, health care and "idle worker" costs that add over a grand to each car. Union workers have also caused ineffency issues on GM for years. Each time a union leader feels an itch, they shut down the plant. GM still has to pay the workers until the issue is resolved. Toyota has no such issue. If the plant shuts down, nobody gets paid. Workers have an incentive to work things out, innovate and keep the line moving. This, I will note, has come about through no discernible decrease in safety and a MARKED increased in productivity (107% at Toyota plants) and quality (well, there's no disputing Toyota's ability to run circles around GM).

The R&D and marketing of a car are not easily controlled. Payroll is. And I'd LOVE to see your figures that show exactly what "management" accounts for in the manufacturing of a car.

So you're implying that Unions aren't the problem only the American people who run them?

I'm implying both. One has to look at this issue holistically. American workers are spoiled, unions feed that entitlement mentality. Unions served their major purpose in the early half of the 20th century, and have served little more than to create little socialist fiefs in the Big Three since the 1950's.

~String

When the U.A.W is negotiating with GM their main concerns are safe work conditions, health insurance, paid leave, and workers rights. The Union bosses who negotiate with GM are elected leaders. If they don't deliver they're quickly voted out.

So, the fact that unions are for-profit corporations, with a view to increase their market share, regularly spy and sabotage competing unions and have an illustrious history of thuggery that compares favorably to any baronesque US corporation doesn't register with you?

One need only look at the history of the Teamsters and various longshoremen unions to see the melding of mob and collective bargaining.

~String

In many ways the United Auto Workers and the American Medical Association remind me of each other, both victims of their own success. The AMA is not classically identified as a trade union, but in effect that is what they are, a trade union for physicians. Both have been so succesful they have killed the golden goose. In the case of the AMA it is healthcare as we have know it. Healthcare under AMA rule is now too expensive, too inefficient, and quality is lacking. In the case of the UAW, it is the American auto industry afflicted with similar problems. It would appear to me that labor costs made it less attractive for the industry to change in an industry already victimized with bad corporate management. Granted, the union did make changes/concessions a few years ago but those were too few and modest and far too late.

The AMA bought a weak and corrupt congress....this includes both Republicans and Democrats over nearly a century. And in the case of the UAE, inept automotive management allowed them to run over the auto industry.

I have seen those represented by the UAW but working for other companies get sold down the river because the UAW didn't like the percentages. UAE leaders liked the dues, but did not want to spend a lot on their membership in this particular company. So in the cases where the UAW represented individuals outside the auto industry, the workers were bled by the union. They would have been far better if they were not represented by the union.

So that is why it has been my observation that the UAW is out for the interests of its leadership and membership interests are secondary. One could say the same thing of our congress, congressmen are too often out for themselves first and not the individuals they represent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Auto_Workers

So, the fact that unions are for-profit corporations, with a view to increase their market share, regularly spy and sabotage competing unions and have an illustrious history of thuggery that compares favorably to any baronesque US corporation doesn't register with you?

One need only look at the history of the Teamsters and various longshoremen unions to see the melding of mob and collective bargaining.

~String

What you explained takes place in every single fortune 500 corporation in America.

Union pay is directly linked to the bankruptcy of GM and Delphi. In both cases, workers earned an average of over $70 per hour (bonuses, benefits, direct pay) compared to Toyota workers who made over $25 per hour less for screwing in the same widget. Bullshit. The employees at GM made nowhere near $70 an hour, and the comparisons with Toyota don't figure in Japanese health care, transit, and other perks.

A more dramatically enlightening comparison would be between GM management and Toyota management. One has to look at this issue holistically. American workers are spoiled, unions feed that entitlement mentality Americans work longer hours under worse conditions with less vacation and lousier health care than in several (the upper tier) Western industrial countries. You can't say the same for American corporate management. If we are going to worry about "entitlement mentality", let's start with the more flagrant arenas of its influence.

I agree with your description of American unions as often a dirty business. So is American corporate management. Blaming the unions for what happened to GM is missing most of the story, and all of the point.

If bad management causes unions, that doesn't mean unions should be discouraged, after all. Why protect bad management from its consequences?

And now that we are no longer having hysterics about "taking the secret ballot away" and other corporate agenda agitprop, what about the actual legislation? Is there some reason corporate management should have a definitive say in how their employees choose to organize into unions? Or is there something else wrong here?

In Germany a few years ago, dunno if still true, the line workers at the Mercedes plant drove Mercedes cars. They were organized, socialized, and they also had better management - hence, high quality product they could afford.

Well, that and the generous employee discounts Mercedes offers.

American unions have done a great job in lowering American productivity

This whole tack of criticizing unions for making management's job more difficult is really backwards.

You could make the same "productivity" arguments about child labor laws, weekends, minimum wage, workplace safety regulations, etc. And you'd miss the point just as badly.

You might as well criticize criminal defense attorneys for making it more laborious and time-consuming to imprison people, malpractice lawyers for driving up the cost of healthcare (and perhaps unsurprisingly, most anti-union types do exactly that).

Exactly. This is America without unions:

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/00813u.preview.jpg

February 1911. Biloxi, Miss.
Alma Croslen, 3, daughter of Mrs. Cora Croslen, of Baltimore.
Both work at Barataria Canning Co. (shucking oysters).
The mother said, 'I'm learnin' her the trade.'"

Americans work longer hours under worse conditions with less vacation and lousier health care than in several (the upper tier) Western industrial countries.

This is true for pretty much all workers in the US, not just the blue collar chaps working in factories. In fact, I would say the average white collar worker has it worse than most of the Unionized blue collar types, who, as String pointed out, are much less accountable and able to negotiate much more "friendly" working conditions. And union employees, of course, cannot just be fired for no reason, which is what hangs over a substantial portion of the rest of the workforce.

You can't say the same for American corporate management.

I do not think anybody can make such judgments, but I'd wager, based on culture, if nothing else, that US CEOs work harder than most of their worldwide counterparts. It's just American culture to work more than much of the rest of the world.

I do not think anybody can make such judgments, but I'd wager, based on culture, if nothing else, that US CEOs work harder than most of their worldwide counterparts. It's just American culture to work more than much of the rest of the world. an earlier tee time doesn't mean they are working harder.

god i love lissioning to all your crap. even if true that the workers earned 70 an hour how much per hour did the top 5 execs earn?

you think unions are the reason GM went bankrupt? HA why do you think Holden is still trading and wasnt sold off by GM? irs unionised

mangagement is the issue not the bottom workers. those being paid MILLIONS. as i said i would love to see a law forcing execs pay to be no more than 10 times the lowest paid worker. let them learn what its like to put all your energy into a company to recive nothing and be kicked in the guts

I don't know the exact labor costs of making a car, but in any corporation, the largest controllable expense is employee pay.

Which creates a huge incentive for management to pass the costs of their failures onto the employee payroll. Hence the need for collective representation of the labor force.


In union corporations, the pay is grossly disproportionate to other non-unionized corporations.

Which indicates only that unions are effective. It does not address the question of which group of employees is receiving suitable compensation.


Americans have a "it's my right to be rich" mentality that is readily fed by unions.

It's fed by inhabiting the richest, most bountiful country in the history of the world. Which is why entitlement is a near-universal feature of Americans, in no way confined to unionized labor. Do you really imagine that the executives who've run GM into the ground don't exhibit similar feelings of entitlement?

More to the point: so what? Americans DO have a right to be rich. We're an inherently rich country: why shouldn't everyone feel entitled to their share?


The unions have saddled GM with ridiculous pension, health care and "idle worker" costs that add over a grand to each car.

Funny how none of the GM management that agreed to all of these things - you know, the executives - have any responsibility, or even agency, in this little Ayn Rand fantasy...


The R&D and marketing of a car are not easily controlled.

That's why we pay the people who manage those things more than the people who do assembly line work. It's more difficult, and involves greater responsibility. Just because these things are difficult does not somehow absolve management of any responsibility to get them right, nor obligate labor to eat the costs of failure.

Rather, this points out exactly that management's efforts need to be expended on the hard areas. And making it easier for them avoid those areas by dumping on payroll doesn't provide good incentives in that regard.


One has to look at this issue holistically. American workers are spoiled, unions feed that entitlement mentality.

So, holistically, the proper goal of national labor policy is to reduce entitlement mentality?

Anyway, the idea of taking away the secret ballot is unAmerican. It's unbelievable that they would even propose something like this. Let's hope this bill dies.

Let us review:

In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues. If at least 30% of the workers in a workplace bargaining unit sign the cards, the employer may request that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hold a secret ballot election to decide whether the workers want to be in a union. In practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards. If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

As last introduced in the U.S. Congress, the EFCA, if enacted, would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards. It would take away employers' present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.

(Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act))

Your feelings about labor unions are your own, sir, but as your concern is exactly opposite the situation put before us in the topic post, I would ask you to please either bring us the information that persuades you otherwise, or at least make some effort to correct the grotesque error of your token justification.
____________________

Notes:

"Employee Free Choice Act". Wikipedia.com. September 1, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

an earlier tee time doesn't mean they are working harder.

Well, if you want to deal in those kind of stereotypes, go right ahead. But I doubt CEO-golfing is limited to Americans. I seem to recall, for example, that the Japanese are fond of the sport. . .

Well, if you want to deal in those kind of stereotypes, go right ahead. But I doubt CEO-golfing is limited to Americans. I seem to recall, for example, that the Japanese are fond of the sport. . .

Yes but if the japanese CEO fucks up he gets fired, has a hard time getting a new job, is shamed, and may end up driving a sword throw his gut to deal with said shame. The american just gets a severence package worth more than most employees of the company will make in their entire lives and probably gets a new job in 6 months. and secondly I implied that other nations CEO's golf the word earlier implies others do it.

Bullshit. The employees at GM made nowhere near $70 an hour, and the comparisons with Toyota don't figure in Japanese health care, transit, and other perks.

Actually, including benefits, yes, GM employees did. I provided the link. Can you discredit it? I'd like to see something showing what GM employees made.

In fact, the total GM compensation for unionized workers, on average, is $73 per hour.

Moreover, the link I provided shows the costs of Toyota employees in the USA not Japan.

A more dramatically enlightening comparison would be between GM management and Toyota management. Americans work longer hours under worse conditions with less vacation and lousier health care than in several (the upper tier) Western industrial countries. You can't say the same for American corporate management. If we are going to worry about "entitlement mentality", let's start with the more flagrant arenas of its influence.

Since we're comparing apples to apples (Toyota USA to GM USA), the comparison stands.

Again, avail yourself of the link I provided.

I agree with your description of American unions as often a dirty business. So is American corporate management. Blaming the unions for what happened to GM is missing most of the story, and all of the point.

I haven't missed the point one bit. GM upper management was just as culpable because it gave into the entitlement mentality. IT was pervasive and the rats just stayed on the ship too long because the pickings were just too good for everybody.

Why protect bad management from its consequences?

One shouldn't. And companies that drive their employees to unionize deserve what they get. Once unionized, though, it's obvious where most unionized work places end up. One wrong, in this case, doesn't justify the raping of a corporation by its employees.

Is there some reason corporate management should have a definitive say in how their employees choose to organize into unions?

Yes, since it directly effects the overall business, how much the actual owners of the company make (the shareholders) and how competitive the business is when compared to other competitors.

~String

Actually, including benefits, yes, GM employees did. I provided the link. Can you discredit it? I'd like to see something showing what GM employees made.

Well, according to your link the average hourly wage for assembly-line workers is $31.35/hour at GM and $27/hour at Toyota.

The higher number--that "Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker"--factors in benefits like health care and, importantly, retiree (pension) benefits being paid out to retired employees (spreading out the costs of retiree benefits over currently active workers) . Now look at the North American Workforce numbers in your link:


GM:
White collar: 36,000
Production: 106,000.
Retirees: 460,000

Toyota:
White collar: 17,000
Production: 21,000
Retirees: 1,600

The ratio of retirees to active workers is substantially different between the two companies. Thus projecting the costs each company is incurring through its responsibilities to retirees onto the active work force makes it look like active workers at GM are getting much,much more than their Toyota counterparts. It isn't clear that the differential is as large as this figure makes it appear.

thats the problem with your stupid system. Medical isnt goverment funded and retirement isnt funded by the indervidual employee through something like super. This means if a company goes bankrupt the employees are on there own where as here it would mean they lose maybe a months worth of super at max because it has to be paid into the super fund monthly.

Of corse lots of people lost alot of there super in the GFC but i cant see that being different in a company and certainly not if the employer goes bust.

The ONLY group in Australia where the employer themselves controls the super is the goverments because they arnt going to go bust

This means if a company goes bankrupt the employees are on there own where as here it would mean they lose maybe a months worth of super at max because it has to be paid into the super fund monthly.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Few, if any, companies provide "pensions" anymore. In most cases, the individual funds their own retirement through a "super" fund (managed by a third party) called IRA and 401k (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/iras-401ks-and-you/) as well as a number of others. If the employee is smart, they diversify their retirement savings into several pre and post tax savings funds (usually starting off more aggressively and converting to more stable funds as they approach retirement).

Lastly, before you run around calling another country's system "stupid", stop and think about what you want to say before you post it. As "stupid" as, apparently, Americans are, we at least can spell and use spell check. If being insulted stings a bit, then next time do a little thinking before you insult an entire nation.

~String

GM upper management was just as culpable because it gave into the entitlement mentality.

Not "just as" culpable. Fully culpable. Management bears all executive responsibility for the operations of the corporation.

The correct way to phrase your sentence is: GM management failed in their appointed tasks, as evidenced by the unsustainable deals they signed with the unions. And since the shareholders did not take sufficient action to change management's course, we must assume that they approved of it.

And that is the end of the story, as far as "responsibility" is concerned.


IT was pervasive and the rats just stayed on the ship too long because the pickings were just too good for everybody.

Yet somehow the unions are the big problem here, because they managed to get labor their fair share of the carcass of the company that management ran aground?

Few, if any, companies provide "pensions" anymore.

GM does.

Unions are not inherently bad or good. They can be both, in the case of GM they obviously were not good for anyone but union employees and the incompetent GM management.

Look at Ford, UAW was at work at Ford too but you saw a different outcome..because of better management at Ford.

GM does.

Exhibit "A" in how poorly run GM continues to be and how stupid and short-sighted the unions are in demanding it.

~String

Not "just as" culpable. Fully culpable. Management bears all executive responsibility for the operations of the corporation.

No. Just as culpable. Unions have long had a say in how GM is run, thus the point of actually unionizing, Quad. From production factors (removing the "kill switch" which allowed individual employees to stop production over quality issues); to demanding costly benefits and retirement on the threat of shutting down the corporation (what were executives to say? "NO?"); to saddling the company with inefficient work practices (job titles and job descriptions which demand excess work-force because one employee does one job [example: having to call a "specialist" to come screw in a light bulb, sweep up floors due to union protected job titles], something not seen in Toyota, Honda and Hyundai/Kia); to removing individual accountability through pay incentives (GM and Ford employees are all given the same raises and bonuses within a workgroup, nothing tied to individual or group productivity; Toyota terminates workers over productivity and rewards workers with bonuses and pay raises for efficiency and productivity); to widening the wall between management (integrated management being the key to higher productivity in places like Hyundai and Toyota).

~String

Exhibit "A" in how poorly run GM continues to be and how stupid and short-sighted the unions are in demanding it.

Also Exhibit "A" in how Asguard's comments are highly relevant to the thread in question, and how it is disingenuous of you to respond to him as you did.


No. Just as culpable. Unions have long had a say in how GM is run, thus the point of actually unionizing, Quad.

Having input is not the same as having responsibility. Many entities have "input:" customers, stockholders, Congress, the general public, etc.

But it's management that has the responsiblity to aggregate all this input, make a decision, execute it, and stand by the results. That's what management is.


to demanding costly benefits and retirement on the threat of shutting down the corporation (what were executives to say? "NO?")

That is exactly what they were supposed to say, supposing they didn't want to make those changes. The unions need the corporation to keep operating just as much as the executives do. So if management can't play hard-ball, that's their problem. There is no shortage of executives that can.


to saddling the company with inefficient work practices

How does a union "saddle" a company with anything?

It's management that decides what the work practices will be. If they unwisely agreed to certain union demands, then that's their problem. There's no reason to think that a more timid union would have led to a better outcome overall.

Actually, including benefits, yes, GM employees did. I provided the link. Can you discredit it? The $70 @hr figure has been so widely and publicly discredited, including on this forum in threads you posted in, that I wonder at your spamming yet another thread with it.

It includes large fixed costs and prior contracted obligations, overhead items, (such as health care and pension and other retirement benefits and obligations of GM), that are not incurred by hours of labor currently being performed, and do not represent wages or benefits accruing to current employees of GM.

If GM had one hourly employee, and paid them $5 @hr with no benefits, that method of calculation would put their compensation at hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour.

It is absurdly dishonest as a measure of hourly employee compensation at GM, and has been frequently revealed to be so right here as well as in thousands of media sources. Your reliance on such utter bullshit from the wingnut rant centers casts doubt on everything else you claim on the subject. Do you really have no better idea of how to calculate hourly compensation of a company's employees?
Exhibit "A" in how poorly run GM continues to be and how stupid and short-sighted the unions are in demanding it. My nomination for exhibit A: It was GM management playing hardball that forced the unions to abandon their early attempts to take on health insurance and employee retirement as industry-wide union responsibilities. GM management wanted those large revenue streams in its own account books, under its own control.
You can't say the same for American corporate management.
”
I do not think anybody can make such judgments, but I'd wager, based on culture, if nothing else, that US CEOs work harder than most of their worldwide counterparts. It's a common, standard, routine comparison. Many books have been written, studies done, insider accounts published, etc, which included comparisons of US standards of executive pay and performance expectations with those of other countries - especially Japan: such judgments regarding Japan were a kind of a fad not too long ago (Japan was supposed to be taking over the world, lots of books comparing lean, efficient Japanese management with US sloth and excess, etc.). They were followed by thousands of articles and books discussing the overwork and burnout problems of Japanese executives.

Besides, since when is "hard work" supposed to govern executive compensation? Not only have US auto execs been absurdly overpaid compared with other countries, and still getting raises, but they have been underperforming by any reasonable standard - their companies are obviously badly run. They should be getting paid less than the Toyota equivalent, not more - much less ten or fifteen times as much.
"On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors" (http://openlibrary.org/b/OL4429723M/On-a-clear-day-you-can-see-General-Motors) Was published in 1979, and was far from the first or last book of its kind.

random examples: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0904/112.html
The lean and compact Fukui, like all of his predecessors, is an engineer who started in R&D and later ran the subsidiary. While other auto chief-executives-to-be were punching keyboards in an accounting office, Fukui ran the company's motorcycle racing operations. He's still racing. He hikes the stairs to his tenth-floor desk--tenth floor so he's in the middle of things at Honda's 16-story Tokyo headquarters and a desk because executives at Honda don't have offices. Honda doesn't disclose executive pay in detail, but the sum of salaries and bonuses that Fukui shares with 36 board members, $13 million, is just about enough for the boss at a big American company.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html
http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/LIRSOX2.html
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/gm-ceos-compensation-jumps-64-percent-2007-a-63672/ [quote] DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp (NYSE:GM - News) Chief Executive Rick Wagoner's salary and other compensation rose 64 percent in 2007 to about $15.7 million, mainly due to option grants, according to a proxy filed on Friday.

The GM compensation committee cited significant progress over the past few years in reducing the automaker's health care cost burden, increasing growth internationally and improvements in its cars and trucks in the 2007 awards to executives.

Wagoner's compensation rose from about $9.57 million in 2006. - - - -
- - - - -
Fritz Henderson, who was promoted to president and chief operating officer in March, the No. 2 spot behind Wagoner, received compensation of about $9.3 million in 2007, up from about $5.1 million in 2006.

Vice Chairman Bob Lutz's compensation rose to about $9 million in 2007, from about $5.1 million in 2006.

In 2005 right before all the union battles began he made more than the top 9 Toyota executives combined.
- - - -
In all fairness to Wagoner, he still gets paid way less than other American CEOs who run such large companies. Hell, there have been CEOs that made waaaaaay more than Wagoner just to run their company into the ground. This is a American CEO compensation issue, not a problem with Wagoner specifically.
- - "The total labor cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of the contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree health care costs." "But that's still $9 more than the $53 per hour that GM estimated Toyota now pays in the U.S., and the gap could be even wider. Toyota spokesman Mike Goss said the company's total labor costs at its older U.S. plants are around $48, with about $30 per hour in wages.The remaining difference largely is due to "legacy" costs, the cost of a 100-year-old company paying its retiree pensions, Sapienza said."

Meanwhile: http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php
- - - According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1
- - - - - -
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400,2 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.

This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006.

thats the problem with your stupid system. Medical isnt goverment funded and retirement isnt funded by the indervidual employee through something like super. This means if a company goes bankrupt the employees are on there own where as here it would mean they lose maybe a months worth of super at max because it has to be paid into the super fund monthly.

Of corse lots of people lost alot of there super in the GFC but i cant see that being different in a company and certainly not if the employer goes bust.

The ONLY group in Australia where the employer themselves controls the super is the goverments because they arnt going to go bust

If a company with a company controlled pension plan goes bankrupt there is a federal employee retirement insurance system that provides a safety net. I think I read back when the airlines were reorganizing that the max payable under the federal insurance is 35K per year.

Another thing I would like to add about the hapless executives at GM. Every Manager and above is given a free car and free gas as long as they hold the position. Talk about wasteful spending.