Have Unions helped or helped destroy Michigan? (Detroit: sales, rentals)

blue curacao · 03-08-2010, 11:35 PM

Just an honest question to people about thier state. It will be interesting to see how people in Michigan feel about big labor...

michigan83 · 03-09-2010, 05:59 AM

Helped destroy.

My take:

The reason that things are so painful right now is that our Union "bubble" has burst. A bubble can't be deflated if it never exists in the first place. People can't lose homes that were never purchased. Workers can't lose wages that they never had.

By negotiating for over-inflated wages and benefits that were unsustainable, the unions have hurt our state in the long-run (management also needs to share in the blame for these contracts, though). It hurts a lot more to fall out of the sky than it does to slip and fall while you are standing on the ground.

Also, the unions have helped to create a political climate that is the absolute opposite of what we need right now. No one in his/her right mind would choose Michigan to start a business, unless huge tax credits are offered. I find it interesting that years of union propaganda caused a populace that is otherwise pretty conservative to vote for union-apologist Democrats year after year. In the end, it has probably cost those same people the opportunity to find employment right now, albeit at a smaller wage.

michmoldman · 03-09-2010, 06:04 AM

Both?

Bydand · 03-09-2010, 07:22 AM

Both really. In the beginning they were very needed, BUT, as labor laws were passed (with help and a big push from unions), they became less and less needed.

Now, for the most part their time is past and it would be better if they looked at things in a realistic manner. It is easy for the people that are going to be paid anyway to threaten to call the workers out on strike. The very people they "protect" are the ones who pay over and over. First with dues and union fees, then with honoring a strike, and finally with the loss of their house, car, etc... when they cannot make their bills because they are out on strike.

I would have no problem with unions if it were written into the union leaders contracts that as long as 1 person that is represented by the union is out on strike, they themselves get the same "strike pay" as the workers, and not one penny more. No drivers, no expense account, no lavish "business" lunches; nothing more than those they represent are getting. If a worker is honoring a union called strike, then the union has to make payments for the workers it represents. That would keep those who have lost sight of what it is like to actually have to work for a living honest. Which has NOT been the case for decades now.

Unions, have both helped and hurt Michigan. Helped build it to the manufacturing powerhouse it once was, and then helped tear it down with their demands.

ShermanJoe · 03-09-2010, 07:34 AM

I didn't vote because this is too complicated an issue to sum up by checking a box. We all know how a pendulum of change can travel between extremes, and many of us have heard of employee excess and abuses due to union protection. None of us should argue that a poor work ethic should be protected by membership in a union.

Never should be forgotten, are workplace conditions and practices before unions came around. My grandfather, who worked in a pre-union factory, told stories of unbelievable disregard for workplace safety. As far as workplace offered health care or other benefits, well, you know.....Big Business wants to maximize profits.

Big business has a way of blaming unions for their ills. In the case of the big automakers, they agreed to union demands back when money was flowing in like there was no tomorrow. Well, tomorrow came, and due to a variety of things which include poor product quality and disregard for buyer trends, big automakers found themselves in their current state. You can't blame unions for the textbook automaker disconnect between product development and customer trends. Many predicted an automaker crisis before the current economic crash had even begun.

Ultimately, the preponderance of blame for the state of the auto industry falls upon industry management.

Wingnatic · 03-09-2010, 07:47 AM

I read once in the Detroit News/Free Press that the added cost of a new vehicle was $2500 because of the perks workers/retiree's received in benefits on top of the high wages . And this was demonstrated by some of the buyouts the automakers had going on before we tanked . But that was kind of like closing the barn door after the animals got out . And the high cost of gas got the ball rolling in regards to the sales of big cars and trucks . I once had a membership at a video rental store . That was until they advertised on their billboard that auto workers get 50% off on all rentals . I'm like what ? !!!! These people make alot of money , charge them the same if anything , so I pulled in a cancelled my membership (with a few parting shots for the manager)

JGatti · 03-09-2010, 08:16 AM

I agree that it has helped in the past as well as hurt. However it did not seem to make major waves until the auto industry began to tank that anyone really took notice. At least it did not seem so wide spread. Like Bydand said there was a time when they were needed. Has that time past? Maybe maybe not. I think the strength of the unions has been reduced because there comes a time when you have to look at the big picture. Auto workers hired today are making far less than they even did 20 years ago.
I'd also like to point out that not all unions give their workers the right to strike. I'm a union worker and it is written into our contract WE CAN NOT STRIKE or cause a work slow down. Our case is different I guess and our union pretty much just secures our job. I personally do not think I need to pay someone $30 a month to secure my job, my attitude and work ethic should take care of that...... until they decide to pay someone $6 an hour less. LOL
I'd love to see a true break down as to what adds how much to each vehicle produced. $2500 on a $30,000 vehicle does not seem like that much in the big picture to me, and when you see a car or truck or mini van priced at nearly 1/2 the price if a person qualifies for EVERY incentive it has to make you wonder how can they sell anything that much less unless they make a buttload on each car/truck.

michigan83 · 03-09-2010, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Well, tomorrow came, and due to a variety of things which include poor product quality and disregard for buyer trends, big automakers found themselves in their current state. You can't blame unions for the textbook automaker disconnect between product development and customer trends. Many predicted an automaker crisis before the current economic crash had even begun.

My only point of contention with this is that I don't really buy the argument that American car companies were completely out of touch with customer trends.

American companies built what people wanted. People wanted gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. The large profits from those vehicles kept the companies afloat. If the Big Three had tried to be visionaries and focus on building small, fuel-efficient cars during the late 90's and early 00's, they all probably would have been bankrupt 10-15 years ago. It is a good thing that people DID want gas guzzlers, or the Big Three would have been royally screwed.

Quote:

I'd love to see a true break down as to what adds how much to each vehicle produced. $2500 on a $30,000 vehicle does not seem like that much in the big picture to me

GM sold 141,535 cars in February. Using those numbers, the total extra cost for union benefits to GM on the cars sold in February would be about $354 million. It adds up quickly. I don't know if the numbers would be the same under the new UAW contract, but you get the idea.

JGatti · 03-09-2010, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michigan83

My only point of contention with this is that I don't really buy the argument that American car companies were completely out of touch with customer trends.

American companies built what people wanted. People wanted gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. The large profits from those vehicles kept the companies afloat. If the Big Three had tried to be visionaries and focus on building small, fuel-efficient cars during the late 90's and early 00's, they all probably would have been bankrupt 10-15 years ago.

Agree 100% with the fact they built what WE WANTED. Hell at least in Michigan and other 4 season states you can at least understand the desire for 4X4's etc. But when I visited Arizona and seen how many there were out there you realize it went beyond being practical.

michigan83 · 03-09-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Agree 100% with the fact they built what WE WANTED. Hell at least in Michigan and other 4 season states you can at least understand the desire for 4X4's etc. But when I visited Arizona and seen how many there were out there you realize it went beyond being practical.

For sure! The question of whether people really NEEDED to be driving around on paved streets in the suburbs in huge 4x4s is another story.