Help me understand UAW Unions.

[episodic]

In clear English - why can't the Big 3 automakers simply fire all of the union employees and hire non-union employees and be aggressive in a new non-union stance like many companies are today (think one of the world's largest retailers).


Why?

 

[DaWhim]

because they signed a contract?

 

Not another thread on this.
This will, without a doubt, degenerate into nothingness.

Not trying to get down on you, fyi.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

Pretty much. Breaking the contract would end up costing them more than keeping it in effect i would think.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

I guess I relate everything to 'at will' employment. Why can't you fire anyone you want whenever you want? If I owned a business, and a bunch of people were being lazy and not pulling their weight, I'd fire them. If they became too expensive, I would cut their wages. Why do I have to consult with anyone? If I cut their wage, they can either work or fark off and become someone elses problem. . .

 

[DaWhim]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

I guess I relate everything to 'at will' employment. Why can't you fire anyone you want whenever you want? If I owned a business, and a bunch of people were being lazy and not pulling their weight, I'd fire them. If they became too expensive, I would cut their wages. Why do I have to consult with anyone? If I cut their wage, they can either work or fark off and become someone elses problem. . .

they will strike...

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

I guess I relate everything to 'at will' employment. Why can't you fire anyone you want whenever you want? If I owned a business, and a bunch of people were being lazy and not pulling their weight, I'd fire them. If they became too expensive, I would cut their wages. Why do I have to consult with anyone? If I cut their wage, they can either work or fark off and become someone elses problem. . .

You must have missed the part about "signed a contract"

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: DaWhim

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

I guess I relate everything to 'at will' employment. Why can't you fire anyone you want whenever you want? If I owned a business, and a bunch of people were being lazy and not pulling their weight, I'd fire them. If they became too expensive, I would cut their wages. Why do I have to consult with anyone? If I cut their wage, they can either work or fark off and become someone elses problem. . .

they will strike...

Again, so?

Let em stand out front all year with picket signs. Replace em, move on.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

I guess I relate everything to 'at will' employment. Why can't you fire anyone you want whenever you want? If I owned a business, and a bunch of people were being lazy and not pulling their weight, I'd fire them. If they became too expensive, I would cut their wages. Why do I have to consult with anyone? If I cut their wage, they can either work or fark off and become someone elses problem. . .

You must have missed the part about "signed a contract"

They did not sign a contract with the employees. Fire the employees. File banruptcy. Get out of contract.

Businesses do this all the time.

 

[marvdmartian]

Then there's the part where the unions have agreements with each other, to support each other. Let's say that your union "A" contract is coming up for renewal, and you decide you don't want to have union labor doing those jobs anymore, so you tell the union to pack sand, you don't need them anymore.
Before you know it, every other union member, in the other unions that do work for you, are going to be on strike to support "their bretheren" in the union you're trying to get rid of. Result? Even if you've already brought in "scab" (non-union) employees to take over those previously union positions, you're not going to be able to produce squat, since the other unions control every other aspect of your business. This includes the union employees at most of your parts suppliers, so you're quickly going to run out of parts to manufacture your product.

The airlines deal with this as well, as the pilots, the mechanics, the flight attendants, etc, etc, ad nauseum, all support each other, and will support each other's strikes.

The only way you're ever going to see this cycle broken is if the government steps in and puts a stop to it, which will NEVER happen. Why?? Because guess whose unions tend to support the re-election of our elected politicians with large amounts of $$$??? Not to mention that most union employees will vote the direction that their union tells them to, so if you have the backing of the union, you've just won a TON of votes. And if you tick off the unions, you've lost a bunch.......in other words, political suicide.

Unions had their day in the sun, when they fought for true working rights for the blue collar folks. Nowadays, they're just a leech that holds way too much power, imho.

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: DaWhim
because they signed a contract?

I guess I relate everything to 'at will' employment. Why can't you fire anyone you want whenever you want? If I owned a business, and a bunch of people were being lazy and not pulling their weight, I'd fire them. If they became too expensive, I would cut their wages. Why do I have to consult with anyone? If I cut their wage, they can either work or fark off and become someone elses problem. . .

You must have missed the part about "signed a contract"

They did not sign a contract with the employees. Fire the employees. File banruptcy. Get out of contract.

Businesses do this all the time.

So what makes you think they're not?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: middlehead
I'd rather see them fire all the union people and start fresh

The NLRB would pin their ass to the wall and fvck them raw.

There's your answer.

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: episodic
In clear English - why can't the Big 3 automakers simply fire all of the union employees and hire non-union employees and be aggressive in a new non-union stance like many companies are today (think one of the world's largest retailers).


Why?

Because its illegal in many states (and canada).

I live in a town that has a huge huge toyota plant, they pay a very very competitive wage and benefits compared to the CAW plants but have their workers work harder. They are doing everything they can to keep the CAW out.

The problem with the CAW is not that the workers demand too much money or benefits but just that the union HAS to stick up for everyone, even those who don't deserve it. My dad is a union rep in a CAW shop and has to deal with this crap all the time.

Not sure of the validity of this statistic but I was told that GM has more people on pension than they do working right now and its driving them into a big hole.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: eakers

Originally posted by: episodic
In clear English - why can't the Big 3 automakers simply fire all of the union employees and hire non-union employees and be aggressive in a new non-union stance like many companies are today (think one of the world's largest retailers).


Why?

Because its illegal in many states (and canada).

I live in a town that has a huge huge toyota plant, they pay a very very competitive wage and benefits compared to the CAW plants but have their workers work harder. They are doing everything they can to keep the CAW out.

The problem with the CAW is not that the workers demand too much money or benefits but just that the union HAS to stick up for everyone, even those who don't deserve it. My dad is a union rep in a CAW shop and has to deal with this crap all the time.

Not sure of the validity of this statistic but I was told that GM has more people on pension than they do working right now and its driving them into a big hole.

Ok, how can businesses like Wal-mart keep out unions, but auto plants can't? I can't fathom why?

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: episodic




Ok, how can businesses like Wal-mart keep out unions, but auto plants can't? I can't fathom why?

because many people have the wrong idea of unions...

most people think they take 25% of their pay and do nothing for them...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: eakers

Originally posted by: episodic
In clear English - why can't the Big 3 automakers simply fire all of the union employees and hire non-union employees and be aggressive in a new non-union stance like many companies are today (think one of the world's largest retailers).


Why?

Because its illegal in many states (and canada).

I live in a town that has a huge huge toyota plant, they pay a very very competitive wage and benefits compared to the CAW plants but have their workers work harder. They are doing everything they can to keep the CAW out.

The problem with the CAW is not that the workers demand too much money or benefits but just that the union HAS to stick up for everyone, even those who don't deserve it. My dad is a union rep in a CAW shop and has to deal with this crap all the time.

Not sure of the validity of this statistic but I was told that GM has more people on pension than they do working right now and its driving them into a big hole.

Ok, how can businesses like Wal-mart keep out unions, but auto plants can't? I can't fathom why?

Not to flame, but apparently you don't understand what a contract is.

It is a legally binding agreement to said terms and conditions of what you can and cannot do (what you must and must not do), along with financial penalties for not adhearing to said contract.

Firing everybody or even a single person has financial penalties along with how it can be done. I would assume firing 50-100% of the work force would have a pretty frickin out of this world penalty, it at the very least it is "breach of contract."

When a breach happens the contract has ways to deal with this and what it costs.

This isn't just unions, this is any business contract.

I'm not a lawyer or anything but I have negotiated many contracts and been involved with corporate lawyers. So I've read and signed many. Paying special attention of course to sign with my company name so that I am not personally held responsible.

-edit- Again, I'm not trying to flame but you seem to have no idea of how business works.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: eakers

Originally posted by: episodic
In clear English - why can't the Big 3 automakers simply fire all of the union employees and hire non-union employees and be aggressive in a new non-union stance like many companies are today (think one of the world's largest retailers).


Why?

Because its illegal in many states (and canada).

I live in a town that has a huge huge toyota plant, they pay a very very competitive wage and benefits compared to the CAW plants but have their workers work harder. They are doing everything they can to keep the CAW out.

The problem with the CAW is not that the workers demand too much money or benefits but just that the union HAS to stick up for everyone, even those who don't deserve it. My dad is a union rep in a CAW shop and has to deal with this crap all the time.

Not sure of the validity of this statistic but I was told that GM has more people on pension than they do working right now and its driving them into a big hole.

Ok, how can businesses like Wal-mart keep out unions, but auto plants can't? I can't fathom why?

Unions are already so deeply ingrained in the auto industry, nothing short of bankruptcy or an act of Congress will remove them. And since the unions already have almost all the Democrats and a couple of the Republicans in Congress in their pocket, the "act of Congress" bit isnt going to happen. So, the UAW will continue to make short sighted demands of the auto industry until all of the currently union auto jobs are shipped overseas and/or the Big Three all declare bankruptcy.

Unions dont have a hold on Walmart right now. Walmart knows that once the unions get a foothold in their business, they wont be able to remove them. Ergo, Wally-World is fighting like hell to prevent unions from unionizing any of their stores.

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: eakers

Originally posted by: episodic
In clear English - why can't the Big 3 automakers simply fire all of the union employees and hire non-union employees and be aggressive in a new non-union stance like many companies are today (think one of the world's largest retailers).


Why?

Because its illegal in many states (and canada).

I live in a town that has a huge huge toyota plant, they pay a very very competitive wage and benefits compared to the CAW plants but have their workers work harder. They are doing everything they can to keep the CAW out.

The problem with the CAW is not that the workers demand too much money or benefits but just that the union HAS to stick up for everyone, even those who don't deserve it. My dad is a union rep in a CAW shop and has to deal with this crap all the time.

Not sure of the validity of this statistic but I was told that GM has more people on pension than they do working right now and its driving them into a big hole.

Ok, how can businesses like Wal-mart keep out unions, but auto plants can't? I can't fathom why?

they can.

I worked for a company once and there started to be rumours of the CAW getting started and the owner put up a big sign saying "IF A UNION EVER HAPPENS I WILL CLOSE THIS PLACE DOWN AND REOPEN IT SOMEWHERE ELSE". Needless to say, it never happened.

Toytoa kind of has the same unspoken rule going on in its shop here too... but toyota keeps their workers happy by giving them a good wage and benefits so there isn't the push for a union. (though, the CAW keeps trying to get in there)

 

[Ornery]

In clear English -

• Oh the world owes me a living
  Deedle dardle doodle deedle dum

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: Ornery

In clear English -

• Oh the world owes me a living
  Deedle dardle doodle deedle dum

Please stop while you are ahead...

 

[43st]

The "Big 3" suck because they make a car/truck/SUV that I, an American, don't want to purchase. They can try to blame the Unions but in the end the crap models, crap design, crap quality, and crap marketing killed them.

 

[Ornery]

1. "At least I don't have to deal with the robot's union." - Henry Ford
   
   
   
   
   Keeping the Nation at Risk
   • 
     
     Before significant reforms to our education system can be widely introduced, the power of the public education establishment, mainly the teacher unions, to block reforms must be curbed.- David Salisbury, Myron Lieberman
   
   
   
   
   Union Paid Protestors make $6/hr to protest Wal-Mart

   Originally posted by: Ornery
   
   Hmmm, the union can't be bothered to pay "union wages" to these "grunts", yet Walmart should pay their unskilled workers top dollar? Damn, if that doesn't sound like our typical ATOT, Democrat/Socialist, world-owes-me-a-living, liberal indoctrinated college kiddies. :roll:

 

[FeuerFrei]

When I worked at Wal-Mart we were instructed not to speak to any union reps or accept any literature from them. If we were approached then we were to turn them down and tell management.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: Ornery

1. "At least I don't have to deal with the robot's union." - Henry Ford
   
   
   
   
   Keeping the Nation at Risk
   • 
     
     Before significant reforms to our education system can be widely introduced, the power of the public education establishment, mainly the teacher unions, to block reforms must be curbed.- David Salisbury, Myron Lieberman
   
   
   
   
   Union Paid Protestors make $6/hr to protest Wal-Mart

   Originally posted by: Ornery
   
   Hmmm, the union can't be bothered to pay "union wages" to these "grunts", yet Walmart should pay their unskilled workers top dollar? Damn, if that doesn't sound like our typical ATOT, Democrat/Socialist, world-owes-me-a-living, liberal indoctrinated college kiddies. :roll:

LOL?Henry Ford, now there is a man that new how to treat his workforce. Maybe you could throw in some quotes from Rockefeller too?:roll:


Here you are lumping all types of unions together?the teachers union and the UAW are in no way shape or form affiliated.

And please stop with bullshit about ?the world owes me a living? and the whole idea of self entitlement. As a union member, you a bound to the agreement that were reach in a COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement.

As a union member myself, I don?t feel I am owed a job. Everyday I have to perform or I?m filling for unemployment. We have to go to our training center on our own time to learn new procedures and new technologies.


So please stop with the generalizations and misinformation that you always throw out?

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic nation that is have free and independent labor unions.

Martin Luther King, Jr.:
In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
When I worked at Wal-Mart we were instructed not to speak to any union reps or accept any literature from them. If we were approached then we were to turn them down and tell management.

You have every right under the law to speak to a union rep. Not on company time however. If you were to be terminated as a result of talking to this union rep, it would have been an illegal termination.