UAW

[Flash]

Unions had their place many years ago, but no longer.

They ought to pull what Ronald Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers and move along.

Sponsored

 

[sajohnson]

10-4, I was a union member for 23 years and understand the process. I've been on strike a few times. The initial demands by the UAW were unrealistic.

Negotiate is the process yes, but the public image of their demands didn't help their stand IMO.

It's a vicious cycle of rising costs, profit margins, etc.

My initial post was my concern of how expensive the Sport is getting. It's a unique vehicle but if I bought a 2024 BL, equipped like my 2021, the out the door cost would be $50K, including 10% taxes and other costs.

Justified, I guess for those willing to pay the price. I'm not one of them at this point.

"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave..." That's the ATU's policy.

I spent 27+ years at Metro (D.C.) and retired in 2010. I still haven't reached the traditional 'gold watch' age (65) so I can't complain. Retirees remain union members, although the dues are much lower. There was no love lost between myself and the Local, but I support unionism.

[The following is not directed at you, just a general statement]:

A common claim is some variation of, 'unions may have been necessary 100 years ago but not today.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Unions allow people to get reasonable pay and benefits. For example, if it were not for the ATU, my former coworkers and I would have made about half the salary we earned (IBM and Xerox were paying literally half of Metro's wages when I started in '83). We also would not have a pension and health insurance in retirement.

The proper response when people are made aware of unionized workers' pay and benefits is not to attempt to drag them down, but to organize and improve their own situation. I'll admit that on occasion I've seen union wages that seemed excessive, but in the vast majority of cases, union workers make a reasonable amount, and non-union workers deserve more.

I totally agree about car prices. One thing that made me feel better about paying ~$39,000 (out the door) for our BS BL was taking the amount we paid for our '97 RAV4 and adjusting it for inflation. It actually came out very close!

My father likes to tell the story of how his first car, a Model A, cost $75. Inflation will git ya every time.

Still, $50,000 is a different story. We like the BL, but for $50K, I'd be looking around to see what else we could get.

Labor costs are a factor, but only one of many, including the cost of factories; equipment; energy; engineering/design/testing; parts, and fat executive salaries. Labor costs get the most scrutiny, in large part because they are the most 'visible'. Wages are reported in the news, the other costs remain buried.

Theoretically, in a CEO's dream, all unions could be eliminated, and wages and benefits slashed. At some point though, people are better off on welfare. If a person is willing to get up every day, go to work, and put in 8+ hours, they deserve to at least make enough to have a decent lifestyle.

Many people think it's a great idea to slash wages -- until it's their turn.

 

[Bucko]

I can understand the pro union supporters, and their reasoning. My thoughts pertaining to unions are that all the benefits that unions strike for are ultimately paid for by the consumer due to higher prices having to be paid out for the product.

I don't get lifetime benefits when I retire, I don't get a pension other than the 401 and 403K plans I pay into.

My friend is a strong union member. I tell him to thank me for paying the higher prices for union built products that I purchase!

 

[sajohnson]

I can understand the pro union supporters, and their reasoning. My thoughts pertaining to unions are that all the benefits that unions strike for are ultimately paid for by the consumer due to higher prices having to be paid out for the product.

I don't get lifetime benefits when I retire, I don't get a pension other than the 401 and 403K plans I pay into.

My friend is a strong union member. I tell him to thank me for paying the higher prices for union built products that I purchase!

I think it is outrageous that every worker does not receive a modest pension and health insurance in retirement (which is generally after 20-30 years dep. on occupation). That was the norm not that long ago -- until the greed heads began to replace defined benefit pensions with 401Ks (at Metro there is a self-funded 457 in addition to the pension).

As I said above:

"The proper response when people are made aware of unionized workers' pay and benefits is not to attempt to drag them down, but to organize and improve their own situation. I'll admit that on occasion I've seen union wages that seemed excessive, but in the vast majority of cases, union workers make a reasonable amount, and non-union workers deserve more."

Any anger or resentment should be directed at the the corporate executives that make the policies -- not fellow workers.

Unionized workers do not benefit at the expense of non-union workers. Quite the opposite. For example, why do the non-union automakers in the southern so-called "right to work" (aka, 'right to be exploited') states pay close to what the unionized ones do? Because they realize that if their pay and benefits are much less, their workers will move to unionized factories.

A tactic as old as time is "divide and conquer." CEOs want non-union workers to be envious and bitter about union benefits -- rather than organizing.

There's no doubt that higher costs get passed on to the consumer. Labor is one of those costs, but far from the only one. If the workers producing a product cannot be given decent pay and benefits, then it should not be made.

Sponsored