The United Auto Workers: Busted?

GM blurs the line between union and management

By Daniel Gross | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 2, 2009 | Updated: 5:05  p.m. ET Jun 2, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ammar_osman1 @ 06/20/2009 9:16:02 AM

    I think it difficult time for UAW to show the plan declare supporting the workers & how UAW can solve problem come in the coming days ?

  • Posted By: ammar_osman1 @ 06/20/2009 9:15:29 AM

    I think it difficult time for UAW to show the plan declare supporting the workers & how UAW can solve problem come in the coming days ?

  • Posted By: Cobra500 @ 06/14/2009 9:57:46 AM

    UNIONS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: vtvtvt @ 06/11/2009 5:04:01 PM

    June 10, 2009
    General Motors Corporation
    P.O. Box 33170
    Detroit Michigan, 48232-5170


    Troy A. Clarke
    Group Vice President
    President GM North America

    Troy, I just received a letter thanking me for being a loyal GM customer, explaining the new GM and offering an incentive. Yes, I have been a loyal GM customer and a proud supporter of US based shareholder owned corporations producing competitive ???Made in USA??? products. My latest autos have been:

    2002 Chevy Silverado (bought new)
    2006 GMC Sierra (bought new)

    Recently I was thinking about buying a Traverse.

    But, I am also a GM shareholder. And today, I am firing both GM and the UAW for incompetence. I will most certainly never purchase any auto manufactured with UAW labor or from a company owned in any part by the UAW or it???s benefit trust. I will also never hold an investment of any type in any company that is owned by or uses UAW labor.

    GM management never did their job by standing up to the UAW and demand that they work with management to compete across all market segments with profitable US manufacturing. The UAW is about coercing management into providing jobs short term, never working with management to compete in the market and sustain jobs in the USA. I have been in GM plants and have friends and relatives that work there both as hourly UAW and management. We are all appalled at the anti-competitive combative nature of the UAW labor within your plants.

    Yes, GM made money on $50,000 SUVs and pickups, but these are not sustainable mainstream market segments. The Aveo, Cobalt and Uplander are good examples of white flags of surrender as are many of your other products past, present and future.

    Today, because of current and past incompetence, you are not even an US public company with private shareholder ownership. Your rightful private (secured debt holders) owners were robbed of their assets to appease the UAW and US government. The UAW/US government is already calling the shots directly as your new owner (UAW small car plant instead of importing). What is the new GM? It is not a for-profit competitive private shareholder owned US auto manufacturer. The new GM looks like an UAW/US government jobs program and an embarrassment to anyone who supported GM in the past and competitive US manufacturing in general.

    Sincerely,

    Vern

    CC: Fritz Henderson President, General Motors Corporation
    Edward Whitacre Jr. Chairman of the Board, General Motors Corporation

  • Posted By: xeyeldinTX @ 06/03/2009 1:52:08 PM

    Corporate America has systematically over the last 30 years won the propaganda war. The agenda has been clear, drive down the cost of labor, not to make the cost of the product cheaper, but to increase executive compensation and the wealth of the investor class. Hint: if you are not a multimillionaire, you are not part of the investor class. Your 401K, or day trader status is chump change and is largely another ticket to enrich a small group of people through fees and "administration costs. By opening up the labor markets of the world, by tying health care to employment corporate America has succeeded in creating an atmosphere of fear and envy. It has been both deliberate and stunningly successful. These Union jobs so decried at one time allowed the average American to support a family, send children to college without saddling them with staggering debt, and to save for a secure retirement. As they have vanished it has inexorably driven DOWN wages of every one else in this country. For those people earning less than $250,000/annum their wages have stagnated or fallen and their dollar buys less and less. Effectively, as we have become a "consumer" driven economy the problem has been masked by the explosion in consumer debt. But the ride is over. Corporate America has effectively choked the goose that laid the golden egg. But they are not tied to America's success or stability any more and will gleefully take their cheaply produced goods to the next burgeoning market. America's work force and small business owners will be left in mire of debt, tapped out consumers will no longer be able to make discretionary purchases on a whim, and it will further depress wages. This is not the fault of unions, it is the agenda of large corporations. What we do to fix this problem is the wild ride we are now all embarking on. Wages are directly tied to the supply of labor. Corporations have achieved ballooning that supply by tapping into poorer countries and hiring illegals. But labor, all labor, must have higher wages if our consumer economy is ever going to rally.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/03/2009 2:08:29 PM

      Wow, break out the Manifesto. So are we to presume that you see a better system? One that is centrally controlled, perhaps? Where equality is mandated? Hmmmm..... Good luck with that one.

      • Posted By: xeyeldinTX @ 06/03/2009 2:44:57 PM

        Wow, Libertyfirst, talk about copping out. Do I have an answer? No, but without a dialogue there will be no answer. Beyond your broad stroke dismissiveness can you identify areas of my post that you specifically disagree with and offer specific examples of where I am wrong. I assure you that Alan Greenspan in 1997 was quoted in WSJ as saying it was necessary to have a healthy level of fear in the work place in order to keep wages in check. The BLandS site will show you specifically the decline in purchasing power here in the U.S. tracks the opening of labor markets world wide. You can also research the rise of consumer debt and how it tracks this same timeline. Do I believe it is possible to manufacture a perfect world where the government mandates equality? No! But do I believe that Corporate America has successfully manufactured a depression of wages systematically? Absolutely! I would encourage you to study the early history of the U.S. and how the small farmers and merchants demanded protections from foreign markets so they could get on their feet. Those protections argued for by no less than Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine and others, were what stabilized our young economy. Americans are under siege, small business owners and labor should stand and demand protections from the predation being exacted upon this country by multi-national corporations which have effectively bought our government. That portion of the preamble to our constitution which states all men are created equally and have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness are under attack. It is our job to demand our government upholds those ideals and no longer acquiesce to corporations which seek to undermine them. But go ahead, dismiss it out of hand. It might make you feel big for a while longer.

        • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/04/2009 8:40:52 AM

          The pursuit of happiness does not mean that all persons shall have equal amounts of happiness. Nor does it mean that government should make sure that every person has the same opportunites either since opportunities are borne from a huge list of variables that comprises life. Government cannot "equalize" beyond the application of a set of rules we agree to play by. My contention with your argument is that presupposes that it is unfair...and wrong...that an owner of a business should seek to limit the wages of those he/she hires so that he may enjoy more of the fruits of his businesses endeavors. But such wage pressures are part and parcel to capitalism....and we've got mountains of regulations and fair practice acts on the books today to keep the system somewhat in check. But, more importantly, unless you have another model or system you'd like to see in place then I see little benefit to "but the man is keeping me down" mentality that your post emulates. Today's market place is a far cry from the forced labor policies of two hundred years ago; far more complicated, far more diverse, and far more fragmented.

          • Posted By: xeyeldinTX @ 06/04/2009 3:30:54 PM

            Libertyfirst, you clearly are satisfied with the status quo and all is good in your world. You would more than likely have stood with the many at the birth of our country who resisted doing anything so rash as declaring independence from Mother England. But I am not. The words in our constitution and in the Declaration of Independence are purposeful. They set forth that a self governed people owe it to themselves chiefly to look out for the best interest of the whole not of the few. The greatest lie sold by Ronald Reagan to this country is that government is the problem. If we the people are the government how can that be? But in those words President Reagan began the spiral of thinking that has lead us through three Republican and one Democratic administration whose tone and decisions have been harmful to the whole of this country. Corporate America's fortunes were once tied to to the fortunes of this country. Because that is no longer true it serves its own interests to the detriment of America and by buying off our representatives and shutting out the voices of the people it has successfully twisted the laws and regulations to serve its own ends. Do I blame companies for America's consumer debt - certainly they played a masterful hand in it - but, no, the consumer has her/himself to blame. I am appalled by the complacency and complicity by the general public in assisting Corporate America's agenda. And yes, it is a concerted agenda with a mighty propaganda arm. What apparently I did not phrase clearly enough in my earlier post is that we are now reliant on consumerism and as wages fall, or disappear with job losses, and the consumer chokes on the crush of personal debt accumulated feeding needs and wants on an ever shrinking wage the engine that drives this nation will sputter and stall. We will effectively become an Oligarchy. Think Mexico. We will have the very wealthy, and the poor, and no middle class. This was achieved by convincing Americans that unions were bad, that their ills far surpassed any good they did, that Americans don't need manufacturing jobs, and that the wages unions "demanded" were unsustainable. Once again ignoring the fact that those good wages allowed a middle class to thrive, support a family, send children to college and set aside some money for retirement. That Americans should be expected to compete for wages the equivalent of $2/week is ludicrous, exacerbated by the reality that in this country we must pay for a large chunk of our own health care, unlike the workers in China, Japan and India. Those greedy Americans, I want my WalMart bargains. Who cares if the job they take that replaces their union job no longer allows them thrive here in this country. That's their tough luck. That is your status quo. We can all remain silent, or be disdainful of those who voice opposition. But I, for one, do not believe that is the direction intended by either of our two greatest founding documents. And so I speak out

            • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/04/2009 5:30:50 PM

              It isn't a myth purported by Corporate America that Unions become corrupt arms of organized crime and politicians...its a simple fact of what happened. It isn't a myth that they built in ridiculous job protections and artificial wage hikes that escalated the costs of doing business in this country. Are job banks a myth? Long ago, unions stopped serving the little guy, the worker...and began self-insulating their own coffers for then benefits of the few. They force the line worker to pay dues, take the money and buy influence, buy power, and line the pockets of people far removed from the line. Companies are pitted against them and the game is played out until the company goes bankrupt and all the line workers lose in the end. We've seen this played out time and time again. Their day has passed.

              • Posted By: xeyeldinTX @ 06/04/2009 8:59:48 PM

                I don't disagree that Unions have had their nefarious sides. And as the famous Churchill quote goes "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Nonetheless the forces that gave rise to unionism in this country, corrupt corporations which strong arm their workforce overtly and covertly, are alive and well in this country. The job banks were an ill-conceived, poorly designed, and horribly managed contract flaw, which the UAW were quick to concede this past winter. The intent was to try to keep a minimum floor of employment here in this country. But the lure of no health insurance obligations in Canada and even cheaper operating conditions in Mexico made it actually more attractive to take the jobs elsewhere. And they were more attractive simply because the laws that once protected workers from corporate predation such as this were nullified. Please note there was not a commensurate drop in prices of vehicles. But it doesn't negate the fact that the Unions have been making concessions for 30 years and as a result the majority of wages (union and non-union) and therefore purchasing power have either stagnated or fallen. And you cannot look at only your income and say all is good. This is measured by the number of jobs at given pay scales. You cannot replace $20/hr jobs with $10/hr for long and maintain the same sort of economy. The cost of living has gone up, but the cost of labor has fallen or stagnated, this means the fewer people can afford the standard of living once enjoyed in this country. College enrollment by American citizens has started to decline, and now the U.S. is not the obvious 1st choice for foreign employment, which means we now have a declining education level in the work force. We are, quite frankly, directionally challenged and it isn't new with the Obama administration but has been carefully orchestrated over the past 30 years. We can continue to head down this path, or we the people can rest control of our government away from undue corporate influence. BTW the strongest union in this country is the unofficial one - its members are the BODs and executives of the major corporations iwhere they seem oddly immune to the market forces of capitalism.

            • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/04/2009 5:18:45 PM

        • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/04/2009 8:57:14 AM

          Less I continue to "cop out" from addressing your post; if we take the flip side of your arguments...that corporations are keeping us down (your argument distilled to its basics) then what should be done about it? Should we do away with them? Should we mandate who should make what and when? I mean, its one thing to see the negative about any economic model or entity but to draw an image of the evil multinational 'articifically depressing wages" brushes aside the realities that corporations are comprised of many, many people all trying to make a buck, get ahead, be creative, enjoy the perks, live their life as they see fit....and on and on. When companies succeed, so do its people. Equally? Of course not. But just because I don't make as much as the CEO doesn't mean that I haven't benefited in ways that I enjoy, need, or want.

        • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 3:17:49 PM

          AMEN!!!!!

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/04/2009 9:09:43 AM

      We lost the Propoganda War? Didn't know we had one... So the corporation I work for won, huh? Does that mean I won? Or just the CEO? Or how about our community board? Did they win? I know my wages are being driven down...sounds painful. Does that mean that its an illusion that I make more today than I did a few years ago? Yes, I can buy less today...have less earning power...although housing is fairly cheap now; cheaper than in 2006. Well, and computers...they're a bit cheaper too....But nevermind that. Our consumer debt is WAY bad. And we have corporations to blame for that too, huh? How dare them lend us credit to feed our insatiable desire to have things here and now. Damn them for that. But, as you say...the 'ride is over." So now what? Do I get off the ride? Go hide in a cave or something? I suppose those evil multinationals are going to find me though. What about Obama and the Government of Giving? Should I look to them for help? Are they going to create a new ride for us? I hear consumerism is now very bad. So what will the new "ism" be? Please, xeyeldinTx...tell us?

  • Posted By: cmyhtrod @ 06/04/2009 5:04:12 PM

    Getting rid off the unions is probably the best thing the big 3 can do. its about time that the unions were thrown out. UAW, usually avoiding work

  • Posted By: The Messiah @ 06/03/2009 1:15:56 PM

    Now that the U.S. tax payers are part owners of GM and Chrysler not a single job or part should be produced or purchased from outside of the U.S. and Canada. Neither GM nor Chrysler should be allowed to build cars in Korea or elsewhere and import them to the U.S.

    America needs jobs. We have staggering unemployment thanks to Bama's massacre of the U.S. economy. It's time that Bama and the rest of these criminals be held accountable for their crimes.

    • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 3:22:50 PM

      Obama's massacre of the economy. I'm sorry I thought our economy started tanking during the Bush administration. I'm not saying it's Bush's fault but to blame this on Obama just shows a high level of ignorance.

      • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 06/03/2009 7:02:35 PM

        The economy is the direct result of GW Bush's trickledown economic policy, he learned well when his father was Reagans VP.
        Come to think about it The Bush's owned Silverado Savings and Loan that got 68 billion in Reagans bail out.
        In Bush's bailout the money is much harder to trace. No one knows what happened to the first 350 billion of TARP money.
        If you want to criticize Obama do it because he is putting a band aid on a country that has just been run over by a truck.

        • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 06/04/2009 5:01:32 PM

          Actually, Clinton pushed for and got with the help of a republican congress the repeal of many of the safe guards that were put in place in the 1930's to avoid debaulkle such as the great depression in the 1920 under the guise of something called "moderization"! Removal or relaxing of these safeguards allowed for unbrideled economic up lifting during the Clinton era that the dems all seem to swoon over, but that was the crest of the tsunami that has finally landed in the taxpayers nether region! It takes a while to completely destroy something as large and powerfull as the U.S. economy was and the idiotic concept of "trickle down" sure helped to speed the eventual demise and now Obama's insistance for not allowing the car manufacturers to get their just deserts is just prolonging the pain and really forcing the American taxpayer to pay for GM's greed, corruption and denial of guilt!

  • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 06/04/2009 2:33:25 PM

    GM's demise was further proof that the system is unsafe for any investor. The system as it is now allows for the corporations to sell pieces of it's self to unsupecting citizens who believe that these corps. will be run as if the idea was to remain in business but as it turns out is a method of enriching only the very top echelon of management! The bonuses and unsubstanciated salaries have literaly bled out the life blood capital leaving those unfortunate pensioners without a pot!

    Fix the freakin' problem, don't reward these entities with more taxpayer money, these lousy legislators that are supposed representatives have the power to force combined criminal liability with the ability to be publicly traded! Do your jobs, protect our best interests or it will be the representatives that will be held culpable!

  • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 06/04/2009 1:10:56 PM

    It seems that my beliefs of the job of a national representtive was first and foremost to DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE MAJORITY, evidently that is the last consideration of any of our representatives even those that are supposed democrats since the extreme minority is always taken care of and seldom is the majority even a recipient of any consideration!

  • Posted By: jiannone @ 06/04/2009 10:46:11 AM

    (I mean, it would be like a bunch of investment bankers who own big chunks of stock in their own firm engaging in insanely reckless practices designed to produce massive short-term gains without regard to the ways in which those bets could destroy their entire net worth if they don't work out.)

    I see what you did there.

  • Posted By: concerned liberal @ 06/04/2009 10:09:25 AM

    If anyone believes that the free givaways for the UAW from Barrack Unions First Obama are over with, think again! I predict that union will have tax subsides into 2050! Love that majority rule, wooohoo, the will of the people, so righteous!

  • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/03/2009 7:35:10 PM

    Interesting article.

    My question is this - What is to stop the UAW from making the concessions necessary to allow GM and Chrysler to recover, and once the stock price goes up, sell their ownership interest? The answer - nothing. After which we will be right back to the same dysfunctional union versus management conflict that caused this problem in the first place.

    I think this is going to turn out to be one big mess. The only real question is whether or not the Government will be able to dump its ownership interest before it happens or if we taxpayers are going to have to write another check.

    Oui Vay !!!

  • Posted By: cwillat @ 06/03/2009 4:03:15 PM

    If it isn't the end of the UAW, it should be. For decades the UAW has raped the auto industry. They are to blame for most of the high cost of manufacturing in the US. Why do you think the foreign automakers were able to get such a strong foot hold in this country. If the UAW had been more reasonable with their demands, the Big 3 wouldn't be in the shape they are now. I'm not against unions, but $64.00 an hour, give me a break.

    • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 06/03/2009 6:53:46 PM

      The UAW doesn't get $64 per hour, the fact is they get the same as the workers at Toyota.
      The difference is Toyota uses part time and contract workers who receive no retirement or health care.
      The greater part of employee cost in Detroit is health care just as it is at many US companies.
      If you want to rant about the sot of labor in this country then rant about the insurance companies, none of whom with the exception of AIG is hurting.

    • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 4:06:44 PM

      The UAw is bad but they are childs play compared to the Teachers Union. The UAW has a huge hand to play in the downfall of the US auto industry but management has their equal share of the blame. The Teacher's Union though has a special place in hell waiting for them.

  • Posted By: daveparsons @ 06/03/2009 4:30:10 PM

    By receiving bailouts, the auto companies are really just serving as conduits for social payments to people who wouldn't have jobs if the companies had gone chapter 11 to begin with. Here's the sad part - by keeping them going with a failed business model and products that no one wants to buy gives the workers false hope and more discouragement down the road when everyone is still scratching their heads over fuirther failure. It's unfair to the workers, the taxpayers, and our children who must pick up the tab.

  • Posted By: marley07 @ 06/03/2009 2:06:53 PM

    Seriously, what has happened to this country? The media is a joke and misses the facts and the point to everything, our government is trying to take over our lives, and some of people in this country are buying into it. What has happened? If you set politics aside and really look at each issue, do you really believe in the road this admin is taking? Spending you can't even comprehend, taxes are going to go much much higher for ANYONE who pays taxes. I am not just talking about income taxes, I am talking about anything they can tax. We are going to try and create a helathcare system run by the gov't which will be a disaster. We are running around the world apologizing thinking everyone will be at peace..guess what, not going to happen, all we are doing is becoming weaker and weaker in the minds of those who are evil, period. We are cutting back on defense by the way. We are going to treat terrorists like a U.S. citizen. See the trend here? Not a good path to take.

    • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 2:22:34 PM

      We are not cutting back on defense. We are reallocating funds from unnecessary projects to other projects. If you actually took your head out of Rush Limbaugh's massive rear you would have seen that the current administration is actually spending more the the last administration. You would also know that the re-allocation plan was first initiated by Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. Gates and Obama are simply following through with the plan.

      • Posted By: devildogs @ 06/03/2009 3:00:20 PM

        Is one of those projects using tax dollars to pay for State Department employees to take their "live partners" with them on overseas work???? Hillary Clinton is changing the State Departments policy and allowing them to go and providing them with passports, security, heathcare and Military post and paying for housing.

        Question.... When did the Federal Law on same sex marriage change?????? Oh I forgot Hillary like all other Democrates make their own rules and are not to be questioned, unless you want a visit from the local Secret Service.

        • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 3:27:36 PM

          What does this have to do with the Defense Budget? And kudos to Hillary, even though I can't stand her, it's high time we start recognizing same sex couples and providing them with the same rights allowed to heterosexual couples.

          By the way an overall sad attempt at trying to counter my point.

          • Posted By: devildogs @ 06/03/2009 3:38:01 PM

            Wasn't trying to counter your posting. All Democratic President's cut the Military budget, but then deploy them to every corner of the earth. I don't have anything against same sex marriage, but why should tax dollars pay for a perk that the Federal Law says NO to??????

            • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 3:46:03 PM

              Well Obama did not cut military spending which counters what marley07 said. Also the re-allocation of funds was an initiative started by the Bush administration. As to your point, our tax dollars already go to cover same sex couples who work for the government. All federal government employees can have their live in partner covered under their health coverage same as a hetero couple can. The only thing Hillary did was extend the same benefit of overseas housing to same sex couples that is already offered to hetero couples. Equality is a great thing.

  • Posted By: The Messiah @ 06/03/2009 9:11:09 AM

    The human devastation from Bama's economic massacre of America, is forever.

    • Posted By: x2c2 @ 06/03/2009 12:13:29 PM

      Right, blame Obama for the the last 8 years of bushit! It is truly amazing that one man can so totally destroy the US economy in just a few months, right? Are you out of your freaking mind. What rock did you just crawl out from under? If you are the Messiah, then I will happily do without the second coming of ignorance!

      • Posted By: devildogs @ 06/03/2009 12:38:31 PM

        Obama is not the only a fault. It is all of the Demacrates that pushed the lending institutions to lower the approval requirements for getting a home loan. I have a video that shows all the members of the "Black Caucus" of the Senate attending a dinner put on but Fannie Mae. The CEO was thanking them for thier support in getting the regulations modified so they could lend more. Obama was on the stage and his wife was in the audience. Fannie and Freddie were major contributors to his campaign. When the Bush administration tried to get the Bill reversed, the Demacrates got it smashed before it even got to the floor for a vote.

        The loans were being consolidated and resold serveral times, and no one tracking the paper trail. When the loans begain to mature and investors wanted a return, the paper loans where worthless. This type of irresponsibility is what started the enconomy on a downward cycle. They all tried to blame Bush, but he tried to stop it.

        • Posted By: nabuc74 @ 06/03/2009 3:36:57 PM

          Actually both parties are responsible for this mess. The Democrats, under Clinton, pushed for less stringent guidelines for mortgages. At the same time though the Republican controlled the Senate and House so the bill needed their support in order to pass. It was the Republicans who where the driving force behind the deregulation of banks that also attributed to this mess.

      • Posted By: CallYourBluff @ 06/03/2009 12:30:43 PM

        If you want to factually correct, then you would want to blame Bush for the first 6 years and the Democrat controlled congress for he last 2 years. There is no justification for blaming Obama for the destruction of the economy in the last few months. We can only blame him for the destruction of the economy for the next few decades.

  • Posted By: Philvon @ 06/03/2009 6:58:55 AM

    If the unions are so powerful and controlling as many of you seem to think, how in the world did we ever elect any Republicans at all? How did they ever allow any free trade agreements? How did they lose membership year after year? How could other manufacturers stop them from getting to their plant floors?
    You people who constantly blame labor unions for the demise of anything need to stop looking through jealous eyes and read a little more about the policies of our trade deals and see how other countries intervene in their companies. They have problems to be sure but they are hardly the root cause.

    • Posted By: James Brady @ 06/03/2009 3:18:53 PM

      You forgot our Govt allowing trade deals with countries who limit our exports while manipulating their currency to give the dollar more buying power.
      A level playing field would go a long way for the American worker.

  • Posted By: jgmissouri @ 06/03/2009 2:55:27 PM

    It is true, unions are no way entirely to blame - you have to include the idiots of management who allowed the union to basically run the company. Three people doing a one man job - a deserving skilled laborer earning $25 per hr. and a guy tightening lug nuts getting the same wage - the only place in America (other than government) where the employee had virtually no health care cost responsibilities - employees being paid full wages as they sit at home during model changes - and the list goes on and on. The UAW is a useless, costly organization that will ultimately destroy any company they ore involved with.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/02/2009 6:03:29 PM

    "They've met the enemy, and it is them"

    Well, this is good. The autoworkers have wanted the chance to prove they can do better than management now for awhile, and they may have it. Let's hope they realize that they've priced themselves out of the world market salarywise and are going to have to find some way to bring labor costs under control if they ever want to make a competitive car again.

    • Posted By: jtmoy19607 @ 06/03/2009 12:37:45 AM

      Q: Do labor costs make up the majority of the cost of producing a vehicle?
      A: No. Labor costs are about 10 percent of the costs of producing a vehicle. The other 90 percent includes research and development, parts, advertising, marketing and management overhead.

      It is not labor costs that need to be under control it is other wasteful spending, like marketing and management, especially management.

      • Posted By: bono71 @ 06/03/2009 2:46:54 PM

        jtmoy...here is a question for you: Where is the Delta? Hint (think labor costs). Nissan, toyota etc. have much cheaper labor. Doesn't matter that it is only 10 percent of the car...your argument is a red herring. Secondly, the work rules forced on the "american" (my nissan was built in Canton, MS) companies by the unions are totally inflexible...In short, there is a reason why the non-union companies are kicking azz.

      • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 06/03/2009 6:02:01 AM

        10%!! What the @@!!.... are you 13? Did you just finish book report or something that cites the original production of the Model T?

  • Posted By: BBBB7654 @ 06/02/2009 6:39:45 PM

    EVERYONE THINKS LABOR COST FOR GM IS HIGH. WHERE CAR YOU TAKE YOUR CAR AND HAVE SOMEONE PUT A PART ON IT FOR $.86 CENTS? THAT IS WHAT IT COST IN LABOR AT AN GM-UAW PLANT IN THE UNITED STATES. $.86 CENTS TOTAL TO PUT A BATTERY IN, FENDER ON OR ANY OTHER PART PLUS IN THAT $.86 CENTS IS INCLUDING THE BENEFITS. THAT IS THE TOTAL LABOR COST AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE CAR ANYWHERE. THE LINE WORKER COMES TO THE CAR WHEN HE GOES TO WORK AT THE PLANT.

    • Posted By: bono71 @ 06/03/2009 2:42:51 PM

      Yes, BBBB, but in Mississippi, at the Nissan non-unionized plant, well-paid employees "put on" parts for about 50 cents...apples to apples my son.

    • Posted By: bono71 @ 06/03/2009 2:41:13 PM

      Yes, but in Mississippi, a part is "put on" for about $.43. That is about half...you love it...apples to apples my son.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse