Union cutting their throats?

[Veliko]

I'm unions had some influence but some had to do with politicians as well. None the less they're the law now and if unions ceased to exist would remain in effect

How very naive.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm unions had some influence but some had to do with politicians as well. None the less they're the law now and if unions ceased to exist would remain in effect

Until the corporations and their "bought and paid" congressmen did away with them.

I remember how hard conservatives and the corporations lobbied against OSHA..."We don't need no stinkin safety laws."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Until the corporations and their "bought and paid" congressmen did away with them.

I remember how hard conservatives and the corporations lobbied against OSHA..."We don't need no stinkin safety laws."

Obviously the line of work you're in doesn't have to prove low TRIR to attain contracts. Job safety is here to stay.

 

[Zaap]

Germany is very unforgiving of lazy people. If you are an adult who plays video games you will be looked down on as immature.

The don't care much for slackers, and they also don't tolerate people coming in illegally and turning all the jobs into "Jobs Germans won't do." Their word for debt pretty much means 'shame' so it's not a borrow endlessly from your children to pay for your laziness today society or government like people here think is the norm.

As usual, most of the people crowing on about EU nations that do well, don't know jack shit about the differences in the societies there.

 

[Zaap]

Or he would be crying about have to pay real income taxes or wonder why all the crap he used to buy at Walmart cost 25% more than they do here. Protectionism comes at a cost.

Actually German taxes don't seem that bad- because theirs isn't a crazy out of control government running on endless unsustainable debt. Prices comparably aren't bad either, because people use real money, not endless credit card debt. Everything about Germany seems to actually be run with a real world consideration for it being sustainable or not. We're almost the exact opposite- sustainability isn't the remotest concern for our government with anything.

 

[trenchfoot]

The auto industry was an object that generated a plethora of accusations that the unions were to blame for the failure of that industry to keep/gain market share. Well, notice how those accusations simply vanished when, after the bailouts occurred and the Auto execs realized that their....shall we say, "predicament" to let themselves get rid of the unions by going bankrupt didn't work, miraculously recovered in grand fashion and have since took back a huge chunk of the market that they lost WITH the very same unions that were representing their employees before the economy crashed.

So here we have an industry that adjusted itself and recovered with unionized labor pushing out a product that is very competitive with any and all of their non-unionized counterparts, with nary a single voice of complaint, spin or excuse coming from the anti-union proponents as to why an industry that is so heavily unionized was able to miraculously turn itself around on a dime and perform the way it does at present.

Facts, meet fiction.

Could it possibly be that it was how those auto companies were being managed that caused this wild swing rather than the "demands" of hourly workers who were/are doing the same jobs at the same speeds with the same commitment they have for providing a quality product at a competitive price?

Ask yourselves who makes all the critical decisions that really matter as far as producing a product that compels a consumer to buy one over any of the other products the competition offers?

Who directs the market research, the designing, the prototyping, the advertising, the design of the assembly lines, the location in which to manufacture in, the quality of the product and yes, who decides what is an acceptable bargaining agreement with their employees? Obviously, its Management.

The only things that the hourly employees can have a say in is, by law, the working conditions they have to operate in, the rules by which they must abide by, and the pay and benefits they receive in compensation. Everything else in the way of how a company can survive and prosper in the environment they wish to compete in is not the rank and file's to make. The employees can only rely on their management to make the right decisions for their sustainability and prosperity, which was clearly exemplified in the recovery of our domestic auto industry.

Management changed course and *poof* *alakazam* all of a sudden our domestic auto industry became competitive and profitable again. Obviously, there was no way the unions could ever make things happen that way. The only things their hourly employees (represented by their elected union leadership) did during all of this turmoil was make the necessary concessions and carry on as they were/are directed by their management.

If anyone thinks that our nation's businesses, especially those big ones, are at the mercy of their employees to survive in a highly competitive world market (you see how ridiculous that sounds?), they need to look at the big picture and realize that management always have, and always will have the upper hand in their relationship with their hourly paid employees. In all but those few exceptional cases, it's management that makes all of the critical decisions that determines their survivability, and not their employees. Yet, anti-unionists are always there accusing the unions of greed when negotiations get difficult and go public.

Like the auto manufacturers, there are thousands of other companies that work in harmony with their employees who prefer to have their interests represented collectively. These successful working relationships are quietly ignored by anti-unionists. No need to mention why, is there? Yet, in most instances where doubt can be exploited, we have these alarmists screaming anti-union mantra without finding out the facts of the matter.

Admittedly, unions can and do become their own worst enemies. This usually have more to do with in-fighting and members exploiting their unions for personal gain, revenge, etc. From my experience, it's extremely rare where unions drive themselves and the companies they have representation at out of business, and it's even more rare where the sole reason is greed on the union's part. After all, it takes two to tango.

 

[Agent11]

What is your explanation for Boeing's union troubles then?

 

[trenchfoot]

What is your explanation for Boeing's union troubles then?

Without actually participating in the behind the scenes activity where all of the meaningful activity is going on, I can only offer my best guess.

Like in any "adversarial" relationship where frenemies haggle over who gets a bigger piece of the proverbial pie of profits, what I think is going on at the moment is the usual posturing and positioning for advantage. It's a game that both sides have had to play once the whole affair went public, where the added influence of public opinion is brought to bear.

The end game is near though, where concessions from both sides usually occur, but only if both sides share an sincere interest in resolving their differences toward keeping production going at their present location. If even one side thinks they have a stronger hand, they will keep pressing for concessions. This is the point where outside influences really start to come into play, whether it be political interests, financial interests or pressure from the public at large.

It's my guess that since both sides have been willing to endure the bruises they've given each other over such an extended period of time, some kind of agreement will be reached where, IMO, the union members will have to give more in concessions than what they'd originally thought in return for job security, although the union would insist on getting something in return to save face, even it's just having to keep what they already have, with no gains whatsoever in the bargaining agreement. Sometimes just keeping what you have is a major victory.

There's all kinds of proviso's that can be employed to reach an agreement. One is to keep the front end of their potential agreement undervalued for various reasons, yet be more generous at the back end where possible favorable projected economic conditions would allow. Then there's sunset clauses and limited re-openers/re-joiners that can be negotiated far out of the sight and mind from the public for resolving some sticky issue that got in the way of progress.

Eh, just noticed I went off topic. Apologies given.

 

[Agent11]

You sound like you have intimate knowledge of negotiations. Thanks for sharing.

Would you say that the stock price has made the union feel entitled to a larger slice of the pie?

 

[Matt1970]

Until the corporations and their "bought and paid" congressmen did away with them.

I remember how hard conservatives and the corporations lobbied against OSHA..."We don't need no stinkin safety laws."

Really?

In the mid-1960s, growing awareness of the environmental impact of many chemicals had led to a politically powerful environmental movement. Some labor leaders seized on the public's growing unease over chemicals in the environment, arguing that the effect of these compounds on worker health was even worse than the low-level exposure plants and animals received in the wild.[12][13] On January 23, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson submitted a comprehensive occupational health and safety bill to Congress.[9] Led by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, the legislation was widely opposed by business.[14] Many labor leaders, including the leadership of the AFL-CIO, did not fight for the legislation, claiming workers had little interest in the bill.[14] The legislation died in committee.[7]

On April 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon introduced two bills into Congress which would have also protected worker health and safety.[7] The Nixon legislation was much less prescriptive than the Johnson bill, and workplace health and safety regulation would be advisory rather than mandatory.[9] However, Representative James G. O'Hara and Senator Harrison A. Williams introduced a much stricter bill similar to the Johnson legislation of the year before.[7]

Companion legislation introduced in the House also imposed an all-purpose "general duty" clause on the enforcing agency as well.[7] With the stricter approach of the Democratic bill apparently favored by a majority of both chambers,[7] and unions now strongly supporting a bill,[12][13] Republicans introduced a new, competing bill.[7] The compromise bill established the independent research and standard-setting board favored by Nixon, while creating a new enforcement agency. The compromise bill also gave the Department of Labor the power to litigate on the enforcement agency's behalf (as in the Democratic bill).[7] In November 1970, both chambers acted: The House passed the Republican compromise bill, while the Senate passed the stricter Democratic bill (which now included the general duty clause).[7]

A conference committee considered the final bill in early December 1970. Union leaders pressured members of the conference committee to place the standard-setting function in the Department of Labor rather than an independent board. In return, unions agreed to let an independent review commission have veto power over enforcement actions.[14] Unions also agreed to removal of a provision in the legislation which would have let the Secretary of Labor shut down plants or stop manufacturing procedures which put workers in "imminent danger" of harm.[14] In exchange for a Republican proposal to establish an independent occupational health and safety research agency, Democrats won inclusion of the "general duty" clause and the right for union representatives to accompany a federal inspector during inspections.[14] The conference committee bill passed both chambers on December 17, 1970, and President Nixon signed the bill on December 29, 1970.[7]

The Act went into effect on April 28, 1971 (now celebrated as Workers' Memorial Day by American labor unions).

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

 

[charrison]

The auto industry was an object that generated a plethora of accusations that the unions were to blame for the failure of that industry to keep/gain market share. Well, notice how those accusations simply vanished when, after the bailouts occurred and the Auto execs realized that their....shall we say, "predicament" to let themselves get rid of the unions by going bankrupt didn't work, miraculously recovered in grand fashion and have since took back a huge chunk of the market that they lost WITH the very same unions that were representing their employees before the economy crashed.

So here we have an industry that adjusted itself and recovered with unionized labor pushing out a product that is very competitive with any and all of their non-unionized counterparts, with nary a single voice of complaint, spin or excuse coming from the anti-union proponents as to why an industry that is so heavily unionized was able to miraculously turn itself around on a dime and perform the way it does at present.

Facts, meet fiction.

The facts is the unions did not win this round. The unions got rightsized in this downturn. There were significant layoffs, plant closures, 2 tier wages , removal of stupid work rules and increase automation.

 

[trenchfoot]

You sound like you have intimate knowledge of negotiations. Thanks for sharing.

Would you say that the stock price has made the union feel entitled to a larger slice of the pie?

In this regard, I'd say your guess is as good as mine. Methinks the overall improvement in the economy and whatever favorable economic projections the union's researchers came up with had more to do with the union's negotiators playing hardball. Hard data is a very strong negotiating tool. Too, and in a very significant way, if the union, through its various sources found some valuable data that Management was either using or hiding to give themselves the upper hand in negotiations, they would be able to leverage such information into big pluses for their side. Even a small comment overheard by the "wrong" ears can lead to big shifts in the power curve. And yes, that works both ways. Then there's all of the negotiating points that both sides save for the very last, or save as a big bludgeon if they get themselves cornered. Timing is also critical in the overall strategy each side utilizes.

The facts is the unions did not win this round. The unions got rightsized in this downturn. There were significant layoffs, plant closures, 2 tier wages , removal of stupid work rules and increase automation.

I totally agree. Notice my mention of the necessary concessions made by the unions to save the jobs of their members along with saving the jobs of those thousands of non-union workers that ancillary companies employ to support the major car manufacturers. And with the improving economy and the large gains recently made by our domestic auto manufacturers, a lot of those unionized workers who got laid off probably got their jobs back, along with some of the benefits lost when the auto makers were suffering their worst moments and needed the unions to give back some of the gains they had negotiated for themselves over the good times.

edit - Since I've been retired, I have joyously and purposefully ignored anything to do with local and national union business. I got sick and tired of representing some known bad egg union members who played the system for fun and profit at the expense of souring relations with management, along with other members who expected me to bend over backwards AND forwards to pursue what was obviously ludicrous and totally unwinnable grievances and complaints. So my opinions should be weighed with that in mind.

 

[hal2kilo]

Union voted no by over a 2 to 1 margin.

Oh well. Definately going to be less work done in this state. They were going to continue to outsource and automate anyway. Got to get those pesky human wages out of the profit margin mix.

I guess you can always find steady work as a janitor.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Union voted no by over a 2 to 1 margin.

Oh well. Definately going to be less work done in this state. They were going to continue to outsource and automate anyway. Got to get those pesky human wages out of the profit margin mix.

I guess you can always find steady work as a janitor.

There are thousands of janitorial positions listed in the help wanted sections

Wonder how many will now pack up and move to follow 777 work with their tail between their legs.

Housing market in the Everett area is going to slump quickly as soon as Boeing announces the move.

 

[Brainonska511]

Union voted no by over a 2 to 1 margin.

Oh well. Definately going to be less work done in this state. They were going to continue to outsource and automate anyway. Got to get those pesky human wages out of the profit margin mix.

I guess you can always find steady work as a janitor.

Outsourcing worked real well for the 787...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Outsourcing worked real well for the 787...

Boeing has a habit of applying lessons learned

 

[hal2kilo]

Outsourcing worked real well for the 787...

The experiment you mean. Boeing at least for the time being is not going to build another plane with a carbon fiber fuselage.

 

[trenchfoot]

Relax guys. The game of chicken is still in play. Don't throw in the towel until Boeing submits their last, best and final offer. And even if that happens, there's still the next step in the bargaining process of federal mediation to look forward to.

Both sides realize that there's much to lose if production gets moved elsewhere. No one wants to lose their jobs. However, the Company usually will take things to the very end of the process and then some to show their investors that they did everything they could to hold costs down. Likewise, the union must show their membership that they too took things to the precipice to wring every penny they could out of the "greedy and stingy" company their members work for. However, this possible chain of events can only happen IF Boeing is still interested in staying put.

IMO, the only way this deal is not going to get settled is if Boeing wanted to move their production to another state anyway. You can bet they're negotiating with the highest bidder or have already struck a deal if the numbers come out that moving would be more profitable than any kind of a deal they can make with the union. Prostituting themselves this way is just smart business.

The union realizes that the aforementioned scenario is a distinct possibility. Their strategy to mitigate such a thing from happening is to figure out just where the tipping point is, give it a buffer and shoot for that number. Of course, that number floats from day to day depending on whatever gets discovered from the bargaining process and whatever outside influences come into play.

Hang on to yer lugnuts. The crapshoot is still in progress, but it can end at a moment's notice. It ain't over till it's over. Blah blah blah.

 

[Matt1970]

Actually German taxes don't seem that bad- because theirs isn't a crazy out of control government running on endless unsustainable debt. Prices comparably aren't bad either, because people use real money, not endless credit card debt. Everything about Germany seems to actually be run with a real world consideration for it being sustainable or not. We're almost the exact opposite- sustainability isn't the remotest concern for our government with anything.

The rates are similar to ours only but they have nowhere near the deductions and exemptions we do. In the end pretty much everyone working there pays income taxes. They also tariff the crap out of their imports like we should making their products able to compete.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Given that Boeing has moved some production to Carolina and St Louis and Wichita have spare manufacturing capacity; Boeing is already hold a pair of Aces in the poker game.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Both sides realize that there's much to lose if production gets moved elsewhere.

I don't think so. The union should know it. Boeing however has everything to gain, really. The state offered the 8.7Bn tax incentive, and that's all Boeing has to lose (unless another state offers a tax break.) By moving to another location that is not unionized, Boeing has everything to gain. And as much as I enjoy the Seattle area and want to see it do well, I hope Boeing moves the 777X out of state to drive the message to the union home. Also notably Boeing's stock price rose more than the exchange did as a whole market did on the 14th...so generally speaking investors seem completely fine with the idea of Boeing moving elsewhere.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Relax guys. The game of chicken is still in play. Don't throw in the towel until Boeing submits their last, best and final offer. And even if that happens, there's still the next step in the bargaining process of federal mediation to look forward to.

Both sides realize that there's much to lose if production gets moved elsewhere. No one wants to lose their jobs. However, the Company usually will take things to the very end of the process and then some to show their investors that they did everything they could to hold costs down. Likewise, the union must show their membership that they too took things to the precipice to wring every penny they could out of the "greedy and stingy" company their members work for. However, this possible chain of events can only happen IF Boeing is still interested in staying put.

IMO, the only way this deal is not going to get settled is if Boeing wanted to move their production to another state anyway. You can bet they're negotiating with the highest bidder or have already struck a deal if the numbers come out that moving would be more profitable than any kind of a deal they can make with the union. Prostituting themselves this way is just smart business.

The union realizes that the aforementioned scenario is a distinct possibility. Their strategy to mitigate such a thing from happening is to figure out just where the tipping point is, give it a buffer and shoot for that number. Of course, that number floats from day to day depending on whatever gets discovered from the bargaining process and whatever outside influences come into play.

Hang on to yer lugnuts. The crapshoot is still in progress, but it can end at a moment's notice. It ain't over till it's over. Blah blah blah.

The union members (as different from the union leaders) have probably seen what will happen. Either way they're going to get screwed. Giving up benefits for employment security only leads to work being outsourced. 787 worldwide production anyone? So they prefer to go down fighting or getting screwed on their own terms. Their trump card may be the tax break offered by WA and the fact they are probably the best trained / experienced workforce that Boeing the find right away.


..

 

[trenchfoot]

Given that Boeing has moved some production to Carolina and St Louis and Wichita have spare manufacturing capacity; Boeing is already hold a pair of Aces in the poker game.

IMO, Management almost always have the upper hand in negotiating contracts. Mainly, they have a lot more "options" to play with than the union membership have so as to keep the union negotiators on the defensive, or weaker bargaining position.

I don't think so. The union should know it. Boeing however has everything to gain, really. The state offered the 8.7Bn tax incentive, and that's all Boeing has to lose (unless another state offers a tax break.) By moving to another location that is not unionized, Boeing has everything to gain. And as much as I enjoy the Seattle area and want to see it do well, I hope Boeing moves the 777X out of state to drive the message to the union home. Also notably Boeing's stock price rose more than the exchange did as a whole market did on the 14th...so generally speaking investors seem completely fine with the idea of Boeing moving elsewhere.

I tend to agree with most of what you're commenting on. However, I'm guessing the cost of relocating is a major factor in the decision making process, along with a host of ancillary expenses that go along with that, of which can easily add up to be more than the actual relocating/startup costs. Forgive me for being somewhat vague in my response, as I'd need a lot of data to be more definitive. Also, a lot of facts and figures are being very closely guarded at the moment by both sides as negotiations are still ongoing.

The union members (as different from the union leaders) have probably seen what will happen. Either way they're going to get screwed. Giving up benefits for employment security only leads to work being outsourced. 787 worldwide production anyone? So they prefer to go down fighting or getting screwed on their own terms. Their trump card may be the tax break offered by WA and the fact they are probably the best trained / experienced workforce that Boeing the find right away...

Please enlighten me on this as I don't see where one has to do with the other. It would help me to better understand what's going on over there.

And I like it that you made the distinction between union leadership and union membership. I point this out because quite frequently, there are conflicts between the two, especially when their agendas apparently run contrary to each other. Management will, upon seeing a rift, exploit that for everything they can get out of it, as one of the most effective tools at their disposal is the "divide and conquer" one. Most times though, a lack of communication is the problem between membership and leadership. Along with that is the necessity of the leadership to withhold information from the membership during negotiations. As in most cases, due to the complexity, fluidity and nuance required in negotiating, providing the membership with a detailed description of events only creates misunderstandings and conflict among the members, and will often tip their hand to management strategy-wise. A huge no-go-no-no.

In reference to the second bolded comment of yours, in my experience I have never run into that kind of suicidal attitude that you're describing among membership while negotiations are in progress. However, there are always those few members who have the personality and rationale to feel that way. The only time I've run into that kind of mindset among members is when all hope is exhausted and lost, anger and frustration is at its peak and one individual convinces the others that the only recourse left is to take down the opposition with them. That kind of mentality is very infectious at times like that. Usually though, complete surrender to management's demands ensue so as to minimize damage as much as possible.

Again, what I'm sharing here is stuff I have personally experienced and may be quite different from what's actually going on at Boeing. You wouldn't think it, but during negotiations, especially very heated ones, personalities and how they mix will often influence negotiations more than they should, which makes each negotiation very unique from any other.

 

[BUnit1701]

Union greed... MY ASS!!!!! More like CEO greed, going from a moderate slice of the pie to the whole gawd damn thing. Closing in on 1000x what their average employee makes? CRIMINAL!!!!!!

...

You act as if the CEO sets their own pay. The Board of Directors pay a CEO such high salaries so that the CEOs dont start trying to embezzle the billions they are in control of.

 

[Brainonska511]

You act as if the CEO sets their own pay. The Board of Directors pay a CEO such high salaries so that the CEOs dont start trying to embezzle the billions they are in control of.

Sounds like they're hiring stand-up individuals to lead companies. Pay exorbitant salaries so they don't steal from the company? LOL You could have at least gone for a more cliche line like "the value and experience they bring into the company."