I wonder if he is contemplating lowering the upper tier to create 1 lower tier???

Why should hard working citizens who do not get ANY break put up with Obama and the democrats paying union workers FAR ABOVE prevailing wages for the rest of us in exchange for campaign contributions and votes? Can the criminals in the Whiite House spell C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N?

Obama and the democrats paying union workers

Obama and the democrats DO NOT pay union workers.

People need to look at the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago - Obama's training ground. Labor unions have been allowed to blackmail the taxpayers while bribing the politicians who turn payoff the bribes. The state is broke and driving employers out! The city is broke and driving employers out! Something big has got to happen to the unions! Or there will be zero money left for their retirement and they too will finally be screwed by labor unions!

Thank you right-wing zealots for more pointless, off-topic diatribes; the disk drive manufacturers for Newsvine's hosting farm send their warm regards as well. Now, a minor question about the the story; I was most interested to see that the labor content was estimated to be 3.3 - 6.7% of the retail price. This doesn't seem out of line at first glance, but will Fiat-Chrysler be able to improve the manufacturing cycle times and material costs by the next contract to give them more leeway for negotiation? I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of (total) manufacturing costs - including rework cycle, scrap rate, and dealer unplanned work upon delivery for comparable models between the major global automotive manufacturers and what the historical trend looks like.

@ Madison From NY - that's right, why should anyone be making $25 per hour when CEO's and Congressmen make $1000 to $200 per hour. It's just doesn't seem fair. Damn Unions!!!

Getting pretty desperate Madison. Go back to the Birther issue. Repugnants got much more traction out of that one.

Madison is right. I work for a private firm and Obama is paying my wage. Can't prove it but somehow he does. Actually I believe the Dems is paying everyone's wage in America.

Of course Chrysler/Fiat want to get rid of the two tier system, its better to have everyone at minimum wage (or less if they can get away with it.) Now that all of the illegal workers have left Alabama, I wonder if they're heading to Detroit.

Madison - what planet do you live on? President Obama and Democrats do not pay union workers. But, of course, the GOP would love to just get rid of anyone who isn't in the top 1% of earners in this country. But, if they do, who will they get to do their slave labor????

Here's an idea for you, Madison, and it's a good one: Join a union.

Union workers making about $25.00 to start, nice, I started and am now up to a wopping $7.53 and they think they have it bad. The workers and the UAW as well as other unions are part of what is causing this country to fall. It is the reason companies are going overseas along with the EPA making changes that manufactures can not afford if they want to stay in business. This country was the greatest and strongest in manufacturing, if it were not we would not have been able to win WW11. These unions and their members need to start thinking about the betterment of our country before they think of the money they can put in their pockets.

Now that the UAW owns the majority of the company, it will shoot itself in the foot, raising wages until they face yet another bankruptcy and -- if this administration is still in power -- yet another union bailout.

There should be a two tier wage system, poor and rich ask any TEABAGGER!

That's a lie. Income disparity has exploded since Obama was elected. Record numbers on welfare, record numbers on unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, and they are actually proud of it.

Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress Jan, 2007. Look it up if you don't believe it. Now it's been 9% for nearly three years with no end in sight.

Facts trump leftist propaganda every time.

yevrah kahn

The companies that are going overseas are the ones that dont even want to pay your wopping 7.53 per hour!! Do you think the people in china are making 7.53 per hour? They are going oversees because they can, if you owned a business would you pay, 25$, 7.53$, or 1.25$ for your labor? The companies that are paying 25$ per hour are at least trying to take care of the people that work for them.

@ Yevrah Khan

In the 1950's (you know, everybodies "good ol' days") The average CEO made 40 times what the worker made. Now they make 400 times. Mostly under Republican rule.

The debt increased so much under Obama because he added the cost of the wars to the deficit - under George II the cost of 10 years worth of war was hidden from you.

How on earth can a CEO ask for $100 million a year when most of us could retire after one year of the salary!

"The next time around, Chrysler may very well seek to get even more of its labor costs linked to its performance, so workers would see major gains during good years while taking pay cuts in the bad times.Whether the UAW and its members would accept that trade-off remains to be seen."

Union workers demand a share of the profits, but when it comes to losses, they say - "That's your problem".

Ha Ha Ha you guys think Unions dont keep pay wages up please give me a break i am in a Union shop and work with these high school dropouts and collage people too the dropouts are better workers better attitude and more on the ball so please stop the class warfare.You know there was a time when people wanted to raise thier self up to what other people were making good money and benifits not drag people down to where thier at,that is the Right Bullsh^^ keep drinking the Koolaid people we wont have anything.

P111...wonder why the unemployment rate was at 4.6%? Was it because the economy was riding a housing boom built on lies? Democrats taking control of the house had nothing to do with the impending mortgage crisis that occurred and that the Whitehouse was warned of in 2004.

Speaking of 2004...Republicans were in charge at that time and there was that Tsunami that devastated India in 2004...hmmmm must be related.

Yevrah Kahn, I suggest you look at Fact Check to see how much regulations have in effecting business in this country and the EPA. It is not the issue Republicans claim it to be...ofcourse you could maybe find a better paying job if that darn EPA didn't prevent people from working with Asbestos.

Also another thing..the mortgage crisis was brought on by unregulated mortgage firms unlike Ron Paul's claims that is was government regulation.

"In the 1950's (you know, everybodies "good ol' days") The average CEO made 40 times what the worker made. Now they make 400 times."

You do realize there were many, many more CEOs in those days, given there are fewer, but much larger firms today? Total CEO compensation expense, as a percentage of total company revenues, has actually dropped since the 1950s.

Unions are nothing more than organized thugs. I will never join a Union as the only people that benefit from a Union are Union leaders.

I would rather make less money per hour than I deserve.Those stupid Union thugs. you people that put down Unions are Dumb asses.Good luck in retirement.

cpm---tasteless. If not for unions you wouldn't even have a concept of a fair wage. Corporations would have never had to provide workman's compensation for job injuries, healthcare, or vacation. An 11 y/o child would have your job. I'm thankful to unions for raising the standard of living in the US. If you have a brain about you, you'll unionize so they don't screw blue collar workers any more.

J.Heron

You are right the housing boom was built on lies. The lie was brought upon us by the Dems. Remember the Dodd Frank bill, (signed by Clinton), which forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford the payments. Republicans had very little to do with the housing crash.

What did the Tsunami have to do with anything?

Regulations play a huge part in our nations business. If we could drill for oil we could add up to a million new jobs, and costs for companies using oil related products decline. It sure would be better if we could have nuclear power plants rather than coal burners. I could come up with more examples but you should get the point.

" Also another thing..the mortgage crisis was brought on by unregulated mortgage firms unlike Ron Paul's claims that is was government regulation." Ron Paul is right, under federal regulations, banks and mortgage firms were forced to make loans to people who could not afford them. See Frank Dodd again.

J.Heron "P111...wonder why the unemployment rate was at 4.6%? Was it because the economy was riding a housing boom built on lies? Democrats taking control of the house had nothing to do with the impending mortgage crisis that occurred and that the Whitehouse was warned of in 2004."

Actually, Bush warned about possible problems with housing only 3 months after he took office in 2001, but the Democrats blocked Bush's constant attempts to regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Here's some history - WITH REFERENCES (do YOU have references?).

For those who want to blame the Bush Administration for lack of concern over the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis until it was too late, consider this:

2001 April (Only 3 months after Bush took office): The Bush Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002 May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003 February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

2003 September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

2003 September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

2003 October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

2003 November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

2004 February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

2004 April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

2004 June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005 April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2005 July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

2007 August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)

2007 December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008 February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

2008 March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

2008 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

2008 May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08) "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

2008 June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

2008 July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

2008 September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08) Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03) Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07) President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs. Political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership: Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08) Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08) Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)

You can bet he will have to work a lot harder for that additional money. Most of those who complain about how much UAW workers get paid could not last two days in a auto plant.

Devil's son, you are so full of @!$%#. I know how hard Union workers work, not. I have worked them. The breaks last longer than the work.

agreed devil

are you serious the union will keep your job even if your caught sleeping the USMC is alot or at least was a lot harder than any auto plant ( that is the United States Marine Corp) I know how union people read

The union people suck. If you really want to know what they make look at the pay after there union dues are paid. The unions are skimming all there union members for everything they can. So pay your union boss's all you want as they are part of the 1%. You are the stupid ones.

Sad to say but I believe unions and civil service have a bad rap. These orgs tend to attract lazy, unproductive lifers in hope of giving as little as possible while gaining outrageous benefits and job security. I speak from some personal experience. Especially in civil service, it is nearly impossible to outright fire someone for incompetence.

My husband was a supervisor in a Ford plant a few years back, and the UAW were the laziest bunch of people i ever saw.

How did you see it? Did you go to work with your husband? Or did you rely solely on what he told you?

Well of course she heard if from her husband you idiot. Do you think he carries his wife to work on his back like your man-purse? You're calling her husband a liar? Nice...way to put your best foot forward.

The union workers do not work for the car company, they work for the union. The car company needs something done during a shift. The union says the workers don't 'have' to do it. Which side does the union worker take? You tell me.

Hey Chanin Miller if its so bad why is he working there? Quit and try to go out and find another job somehwere else that pays as well, he wouldn't have to put up with the BS. Oh wait he might as well be out on Wall Street with the Occupy group because he wouldn't have a job. How about stop complaining about what you have and start thinking of ways to get people to what you have. Don't believe everything you hear. Unions aren't all bad, people aren't all lazy, I'll agree with you there are some, and they need to be dealt with but don't assume the same for all.

I experienced similar attitudes and issues at a defense contractor in CT. Not all workers are that bad but even the good ones don't want to be singled out by the union as sucking up to management. So they watch their buddies dodge work and do or say nothing to stop it. They file frivolous grievances and go out of their way to slow down the work flow especially if they loose their overtime.

It is bad for the country, but it is hard to feel sorry for these union workers if their jobs move overseas. They brought it on themselves. I have heard too many times "not my job man". Well in many cases that is now true, it is someone's job in India or China. The union needs to stay the hell out of the day to day operations of businesses. If there is a grievance filed, management needs to quit "rolling over" to the union bosses and back the first line supervisors who are the ones really driving the production and quality control.

So your husband was a supervisor...not a union worker. I wonder how much of his opinion was formed out of envy for what the united workers were able to earn as opposed to what he had to beg for on his own from the corporation.

Well of course she heard if from her husband you idiot.

LOL!

You're calling her husband a liar? Nice...way to put your best foot forward.

We all know spouses never lie cheat or steal. Just ask Bernard Madoff's wife.

Supervisors always has a bad view of union workers.

I'm sure there were plenty in management that were slackers. Look at Bob Nardelli!

I heard that if there was no union, the company would pay minimum wage? I dont know!!

Ron - if there were no Unions - there would be no minimum wage. Everyone would be making $2 per hour. (Michelle Bachman said as much in one of her speeches)

Unfortunately, power breeds corruption so until a CEO making $400 million a year can see fit out of the kindness of his heart to offer jobs that pay $25/hr without the need for a Union contract we will always need an organization to force his hand.

I am amazed that every Republican claims to be a Christian yet the Bible is full of statements about the evil of greed and helping those less fortunate than themselves.

Going to church doesn't make you a Christian - actions make you a Christian and it appears that Congress is filled with non-believers.

Yeah the incompetent managers and supervisors like your husband had nothing to do with the failures of the big 3...it was all those mean worker unions...sheesh

To blanket all union workers as lazy is just not true. I've been in union shops and there were some lazy folks. A friend of mine works in a large company in the defense sector and the laziness there it pathetically abusive. I've also known some unions guys that truly bust their butts to get the work done and root out the lazy ones at that.

It's like arguing with your child. You need to pick the right times to stand your ground and know when it's just not worth it.

Unions just need to do one thing to gain credibility: eliminate seniority

If they did that, they would set a new tone going forward that the hardest and best will be rewarded and the junk will be thrown out with the trash. People would be willing to pay more for highly skilled, highly motivated workers.

Yes Rick you are correct,it was the Unions that killed the big three. Do you realize that just GM alone had four plants,employing over 3.000 people each,that had hardly no work,but they could not shut the doors because of Union contracts. They were paying all those people to do nothing.When the car companies took the bailout from the Government they then had a new owner and had to renegotiate their contract,this allowed them to shut down all these un needed factories and save BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of jobs.I work in a non factory plant and make a GOOD living ,don't need no union Mafia bosses here.

My godfather was a union man and a Korean War veteran. He never walked away from a hard day's work in his life. Being in union allowed him and my godmother to put four of my cousins through college. He's done more for his country than all of the blithering right-wingers on this thread combined.

Steve,

Without a minimum wage, everyone would be making what they were worth in the free market. Much as most people are willing to pay more for a stainless steel kitchen utensil than a chromed one, employers will pay more for good workers and less (or nothing) for workers who won't or can't do a good job.

An artificial wage floor (which is what minimum wage is) results in jobs moving overseas or being replaced by automation. It also reduces the incentives for people to improve their skills until it is too late to do so (that being when they can't get a job because their productivity just isn't worth the minimum wage.)

And, no, not everyone would be making $2/hour if there were no minimum wage. Lots of people make way more than minimum wage today (of course, most of these actually work hard and/or studied hard and/or improve their skills on their own) which pretty much disproves your claim.

Ironically, what minimum wage workers should fear most long term is an increase in the minimum wage. Such an increase will more quickly eliminate some jobs which are about ready to topple towards automation anyway.

Why there are still humans at the front counter of Burger King taking orders is hard to fathom. I'd much rather place my order and pay from my Android or even from a kiosk in the store and I don't think I'm in a minority in many areas. I almost always use self checkout at the market and tend to prefer stores that have better self checkout systems (avoiding those that have older systems that are slow and require waiting to scan the next product until the *&^% machine is done with all the processing for the previously scanned product.)

Even without an increase in minimum wage, there will be fewer minimum wage jobs, as a percentage of the population, every year. Unfortunately, for jobs that don't require special skills or virtually any education, Moore's law inexorably marches on and humans continue to evolve at a snail's pace. Get ready for it, there's no stopping it any more than it was possible to stop the progression that resulted in less than 1.9% of the labor force being engaged in agriculture in 2000 when in 1900 41% were so employed (a relative drop of 20x in just 100 years or about 3.5 generations.) A similar trend is occurring in manufacturing and many service industries - prepare yourself and your children (or, please, don't breed.)

What'slegal - not so. Without a minimum wage there would be sweat shops - just like in other countries. Minimum wage was set to protect laborers from the unscrupulous bosses who would pay the least allowed to get a job done.

Oh and I will say back to you "please don't breed!"

Too funny....America is by nature spoiled and lazy. Their would be no sweet shops. Days of hard work are long gone. Now lazy unions or entitlement programs will ensure American's don't work hard.

Illegals are able to get jobs, low paying, because American won't do that kind of work

They would sit home and wait for government check or just not work.

greg m-1174186

America is by nature spoiled and lazy? Can you quote some statistics to support this or are you just basing your convictions on your own work ethic? My grandfather was a labor organizer in the 1930's when American companies literally enslaved work forces and when workers resisted they could be murdered by National Guard or militia troops. What none of you smug right wingers understand is that your own incomes have been enabled by past union efforts whether you're currently members or not. Without unions' historic influence, you'd all be still working 48-hour weeks for poverty level incomes. Read some history!

tpix great post

chanin

Your husband must have also been lazy, because surely you know that as a supervisor he has the right to fire people. It is a misconception that people have that union workers dont have to work because they will be protected no matter what. In fact supervision has the authority to fire people, it just has to be documented and with good reason. He could of written some of those chaps up a couple of times and then terminated them, but maybey he was to lazy to do the extra paperwork.

What's Legal...are you really that naive? Companies will pay as little as they can for people...and when people do not have a choice, that pay will only go lower.

I worked with one guy...he was offered X amount of money to come work at a company I was at...he was already employed at the time...he then became unemployed and suddenly the amount he was offered dropped 20%.

That's reality..that is how these things work. I have also been at a few companies where the guys that do all the work do not get promoted...its the guys who spend their time sucking up to management that make it. That is also another reality that is out there.

Rick,

We didn't bail out the Big 3 as you say. Ford never took any bailout money. As far as the unions go, I have no problem with a union, as long as it doesn't have any rules that require a company to actually lose money. That has been the problem. Look at the situation with Boeing right now. The unions are suing them because they want to open a plant in a state with right to work laws. This is how the unions killed manufacturing in the USA. I have no problems with them negotiating raises and benefits, but when they try to tell a company how to run it's business, they have crossed the line.

Marty: Sorry to disagree but Unions didn't kill the manufacturing in the US. What killed manufacturing is the fact that corporations found more cost-effective to send their operations abroad where there were less restrictive laws (in terms of safety, retirement or health) than in the US. They took the gamble and paid 19 cents in China for a job that otherwise would have costed 20 dollars in the US. But by paying 19 cents they relinquished the quality control demands to which products have to pass in the US. Remember the case of the Chinese sheet-rock panels that came with mold? What do you think would have happened if they would have manufactured that in the US? But as long as it can be done cheaper somewhere else, it does not matter whether Unions are involved or not. And in the pursue of bigger profits at cheaper costs we relinquished out pride of doing things in the US. Nowadays it would be a surprise if you find any item actually made in here. Let me give you a suggestion: Check in any autopart what is the price of a brake pad made in China and one made in the US. When you see the price, ask the clerk which one the customers are buying the most, then you will understand.

I suggest that everyone research the Steel Strike of 1959. Also research the ramifications.

The unfortunate and cold reality of the situation is that labor is a fixed cost just like equipment, and companies do everything they can to minimize them. In industries where quantity of production is more important than quality (i.e. textiles), then they will outsource overseas. When you are making t-shirts, the $.19/hr worker is more attractive than the $20/hr worker. When quality is top priority, then they manufacture in the US. Quality vs. quantity usually defines where manufacturing will take place. No industry exists in the world that America cannot support. We have all of the raw materials, the best supply chain networks, and the best workforce. Our high-end workforce comes with a hefty price tag, and some companies aren't willing to pay for it.

As for the unions, non-union workers envy the fact that union workers have protections in place that protect their jobs. In right-to-work states, none of these protections exist. Workers have no control over compensation, promotion, or termination.

If both the labor unions and employers want to improve their images, then they need to to find a fair, middle-ground that works for everyone. The unions cannot go into labor negotiations on the premise that they are protecting themselves from the corporate Satan. Just reading this thread, that is the common theme. Corporations can't go into negotiations under the premise that they will pinch the workers as hard as the union will tolerate. And a fair, middle-ground is hard to find. As the economy fluctuates, the middle-ground changes. Both sides need to realize that and be willing to re-assess the situation accordingly.

All of the complaining on this post does no good. Bickering back and forth about whose right or wrong does nothing to solve anything. And the bickering is not limited to us. Plastered all over the news are stories about employers and the unions screaming at each other.

So, here is the question. What can both the unions and employers do to improve the labor situation. And no, "they can stop being @$$holes..." is not a valid answer. What are your thoughts?

Reggie they don't make things sold in the dollar stores.loser

I only Buy American, Screw the Imports !

Reggie is the same guy who bought ten Toyotas,HAHAHAHA

Posts by MadisonFromNY must end. ..... I believe in free speech, but we get it --- all your posts are the same, regardless of the topic and it's rather silly at some point.

Madison - I love how you just make things up. Actually I don't - your posts are so filled with lies it is sickening. How can anyone believe the GOP whose only goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term president. The GOP has not done ONE THING to address any problems this country has - they've just dug in and stood in opposition to anything Obama has proposed. The anti-American GOP is in for a shock in 2012.

What "corrupt handout" are you talking about? Name one.

Madison: it's not the unions, it's the fact that for many years, the American auto makers thought they have the market under their nose. They did not improve their models, they use the same designs for most of their models and they position themselves to fail. Toyota introduced to the world the 'cross-training' concept of training everybody to do everybody else's job in order to improve productivity by managing your personnel according to the production needs. It took years to the American companies to react to this process, you know why? because a cross trained person would cost more because of his/her versatility to make several jobs, and they didn't want to pay for that knowledge.

Hey, it finally dawned on me: MadisonFromNY is not a right wing shill, but actually she/he/it (could be an automated bot) is a clever mechanism designed by the disk drive manufacturer for the storage system that Newsvine uses. The purpose is to drive resource utilization high enough to require additional purchases, system upgrades, and perhaps some consulting. Note that space taken by original posts are normally expanded by 2-3 times. Since the posts are just recycled talking points, the algorithm to generate them really isn't that complicated - they certainly didn't spend a lot of time making them relevant to articles or other posts.

Anyway, I try to let myself think that, because there really doesn't seem to any other rational explanation for this drivel and it pains me to consider the alternatives.

When a janitor makes $65k/year sweeping the floors it's just not right.

Have you ever been a janitor in a industial plant?

I don't know, building custodians in some of the buildings where I work deserve their $65k a year... considering sometimes they are involved in management of hazardous waste...

Who do you know makes $65k/year being a janitor?

More BS from a disgruntled right-winger. Without unions, you'd be working 80 hours/week with ZERO benefits for $6.00/hour.

@teahead: im not a "disgruntled right-winger" as you put it and im NOT in a union. i went through college as an engineer from a top 10 program and i make $65k a year (with benefits that I pay out).

so why does a starting line worker with a high school education get starting pay including benefits of $25 / hour (translates to ~$50k)? or even more confusing, a "veteran" line worker get ~$100k annually?

and i know some UAW workers in detroit. i work in the industry. you KNOW something is wrong when the people designing and engineering cars make way less than the people pushing a button on a machine to assemble them.

The sad part is that when they get laid off and are looking for another $65k job in the REAL world, they're shocked to find that their "skills" only fetch $10 - $12 per hour. Then, they scream for the Government to educate them, when they should have been educating themselves all the while like I did.

Right, but you realize during the years they were employed they were paying taxes like everyone else. And part of paying taxes is to ensure that when you're out of work you can collect EI and get education so you can get back into the workforce.

But on top of this -- who cares? If you hate unions so much, don't buy GM, Chrysler, Ford... or even American at all.

If you hate unions so much, don't buy GM, Chrysler, Ford... or even American at all.

And liberals wonder why jobs continue to fly overseas.

Regards,

Mike

Mike - jobs fly overseas because Bush made sure the tax cuts the corporations got had no consequences attached if they continued to send jobs overseas. More jobs went overseas during the 8 years Bush was President than any other time in history.

Would that janitors did make 65K. Why do you begrudge people a decent living? Your degrees say that you've got the better future unless you foul it up with bitterness and resentment.

@citizen k:

because if they made $65k annually at their peak, and had a decent middle class living, then great. enjoy your life. but if they want to become the top 25% and make >$100k annually for working a job that doesn't require college educations or the initiative of starting your own company, then why bother working for it when you're younger? if everyone can complain about not having luxury goods, and gets paid, whats the incentive for this country to become better? eventually, everyone will get handouts and "make a decent living". not everyone can be the top 25%, and unless everyone gets paid exactly the same, then there always will be a disparity.

Afterburner your not very bright are you?How can you say you educated yourself

If the majority of UAW jobs are in Detroit, they can get a mansion for $600/month.

royalstar05

I would say starting out at 14 to 16 an hr is ok , but when rent in alot of these cities starts at 600 or more a month for a 1 bedroom that gets eatin up pretty quick. Plus having to pay your other bills and have a car, its still probably not enough money.

The general notion that anyone with a job should make enough to afford their own apartment, afford their own car and insurance, afford various bills and food and entertainment ...is laughable.

Being able to earn enough in one job to afford all that is 'upper middle class' and it's not a guarantee you get with just any job. It's the result of success at your work and wise decisions leading up to it.

This term 'living wage' is highly debatable and rarely has a realistic viewpoint of what are 'necessities.'

I would not describe a roof over your head (other than your parents when you are an adult,) transportation, food, a phone and a movie to be an upper middle class life style. That is the kind of thinking that is motivating the WSO's - the idea that in the richest most resourced country in the world, the average standard of living should be poverty.

The general notion that anyone with a job should make enough to afford their own apartment, afford their own car and insurance, afford various bills and food and entertainment ...is laughable.

LMAO

If they want a place to live they should learn the time honor tradition of homelessness that so many CEO's learned. Until they are deemed worthy of having such things.

If they want insurance they should tough out that heart attack or cancer until hey are deemed worthy of continued existence in our society.

If they want food they should learn to skip 3 meals a day until some one decides to pay them enough to eat 3 times a day.

gtownhandyman - really???? LMAO. You guys are not even trying to hide it anymore are you?

do ANY of you have ANY idea what real poverty is?! being able to eat every day is a LUXURY that most people in the WORLD do NOT have.

if you can call a place home, eat every day, share a vehicle with your family, and have all the modern creature comforts that your society can offer, THAT IS THE DEFINITION of middle class. says who you ask? the greatest generation. the generation that gave birth to the boomers, and the generation who ACTUALLY DEFINED AMERICA and what middle class living was about.

Rent is too damn high!

You right wing nuts also forget the rising costs of living. Gas used to be so cheap it was almost free. Now I pay roughly 1/11 of my income on freakin GAS to drive to and from work. That's ridiculous. That extra $1500 per year could go a long way.

Oh wait I got it. Despite working full time 40 hours per week I shouldn't be able to afford a car, or three meals per day, or a roof over my head. Those are luxuries that the slaves in china don't have so we shouldn't have them either. Only the top 1% should be able to live decently and we should all be their slaves.

Get this through your thick bigoted right wing brainwashed heads. There's enough money to go around several times and then some. Take 1/4 of the money from the top 1% and you could end unemployment and pay all the new workers a $50 per hour wage or something like that.

Ridiculous diatribe. Greatest generation? BTW the working life of that generation, union membership was at its highest, tax rates were the most progressive and prosperity was most widely distributed.

@capnchronic: so we become communists? cause that worked great for the ussr and n. korea. china isnt really a true communist society, but you dont want that either.

so, lets ask the question. what is it that you really want? it seems like you A) do have a car, B) do have a roof over your head, C) the assumption is you eat 3 meals a day, D) and you have some money left for other expenses so that you have a computer and internet connection.

seems to me that you ARE living a great middle class life. or is it that you want more and you think that you are entitled to have more because someone has it.

quit your belly-aching and be grateful for what you have. if you dont like it, do something about it and work harder.

@charlie: please explain why it was a "ridiculous" diatribe?

note: 'the greatest generation' is the name given to the generation prior to the boomers.

yes, the unions were at their peak then, but that's because it was a necessity then. the working conditions then were truly inhumane. today, people equate inhumane to having to work over 40 hours a week without overtime. unions then were for safe working conditions and pay that would help support a family. today, $40k to $50k a year supports a family. see?

as for tax rates, it depends on which era you're speaking about. they were high during the mid '10s to the mid '20s but they also were at the US's record lowest during the depression and onwards for another 10 years or so. which, to remind you, is again what people now are saying that we are in.

i will agree with you about the income disparity. we are now today at an all time high and the range probably will get bigger. a big reason for that probably is that we are a much richer country now. it doesn't make it right as a society, but having the government control who gets paid what isn't what America and capitalism is about. otherwise... what will we become... France?

Bunt aren't you saying right there that $40-50k per year is a reasonable wage? However now without all the unions most jobs only pay $15-20K per year. That is NOT a good enough wage to raise a family on. Basically it only works if you live at home still or live alone.

Also why is it ok for executive pay to go up by 27% in ONE YEAR while worker wages are expected to remain stagnant till 2020 or something? There's plenty of money to go around. The wealthy are simply hogging it all because our system allows them to and they have no ethics.

I don't propose full blown communism. Simply tax the rich a whole lot more and use that money to put people back to work in high paying government jobs. Raise the minimum wage. Close tax loopholes for the rich.

CapNChronic:

yes sir, i am saying that $40k - $50 is a reasonable wage. i believe that $14k annually is the poverty line and a family definitely needs more than than to live in modern day America. however i feel that $60k to $100k (which is what UAW is demanding) is overkill. that is not middle class. $100k annually including benefits is the top 25%.

also, hyundai, which has a plant in alabama and has increased the size and jobs of that plant multiple times, pays the most in the area and has great benefits. they pay ~$20/h and people love them there. why does detroit and the UAW deserve more?

i think the industries which struggled in the US (such as manufacturing) CEO pay has started to correct themselves. Chrysler (and i keep using them as an example because that's the company highlighted in the article) has set a $500,000 cap to CEO pay. i believe that's not including dividends and bonuses, but you can't win them all. the biggest problems are the banks and financial institutions and their delusions. but again, i concede to your point, any CEO that gets a 30% increase when their company is going down in flames is undeserved (case in point HP. good luck with that one investors.)

i would love the idea of a flat tax. unfortunately, the republicans support that idea and they are either crazy, weak and un-opinionated, or a hack and i cant seem to force myself to like any candidate yet. obmama... doesn't seem much better. theres also the problem that if we implement a flat tax, the taxing structure will be so simplified that the over 100,000 employees of the IRS will probably have no work and would be cut. rock, meet hard place.

oh, the hyundai plant in alabama is NOT unionized.

bunt- you don't have a clue about what is really going on with the KORUS trade agreements. hyundai can sell a car, the sonata for 15-17,000 grand (less than it cost to build it) and take the market share from the American companies to break the unions. How can they afford to do this? remember George W and the axis of evil? and all the foreign aid we gave south korea, where did it go - into the goverment run car companies Kia and Hyundai. Who was on the appropriations comm. Sen Selby of Alabama. Who own the National Bank of Korea-Carlyle Group, who ran the Carlyle Group Bush Sr. Who shot himself in the head - the former President of Korea. If unions are so bad why is Germany doing so well? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a Sonata would cost double there.

Why is whirlpool moving their factory from Germany to Poland?

Why is whirlpool moving their factory from Germany to Poland?

Or increasing salaries will result in increased sales and consumption maybe?

Yeah, btcoates you have it backwards.

It will lead to a $30 cheeseburger.

Forget salaries, all costs go up every year, it's inflation. The metals making up the car, the wiring, the glass, the tires, the plastic.. every part of it costs more every year, and probably at a greater inflation rate than salaries.

So the end result is to either raise the sticker price, or sell more vehicles. You can't keep offsetting overall inflation by lowering wages which is the current strategy, or you end up gutting the middle class -- your main source of customers!

Arifelife, How are your tax dollars paying UAW wages? If you want to bash unions, please come up with a real beef, not one of these ridiculous rightwing nut made-up arguments.

Oh no heaven forbid people should be able to get an honest livable wage for good honest hard work. Nahhhh let's pay them all min wage so the top fatcats can get a few more private jets.

And don't the unions dictate days off, overtime, and vacation time? Do the car companies even get to define what hours constitute first and second shift?

No Roscoe, they don't dictate, as you eloquently put it. They have a bargaining agreement with the company, and that COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement dictates all that you mention.

Does working for a car company really suck so much that the UAW is necessary to protect employees?

No it doesn't suck so much to work for the car companies, because of the union! Have we not seen what companies do when workers aren't protected as in a union. What do you suppose the employees would be making without a union? If they are willing to pay 14-16 dollars an hour with a union, do you think they would even come close to that without one?

You delude yourself thinking any corporation cares about any of it's employees, They don't, plain and simple, it's the bottom line Roscoe, If they can make a more of a profit without you, you are gone. You are an employee number, nothing more, and the larger the corporation the more evident it is. Instead of whining about union workers and their benefits, why don't you side with them and bring back America to what it once was. They ask for a living wage and benefits! And you believe that is too much. I feel bad that you believe union workers are over paid and lazy, why don't you open your eyes to world around you and understand that most of what you see was union built. Those big buildings, bridges, tunnels etc that you trust your life to, were built by the same people, you would like to have less. Thanks, Roscoe

Miker

"No it doesn't suck so much to work for the car companies, because of the union!"

This is a yes or no question. If it does not suck only because of the unions, then yes...it sucks.

"You delude yourself thinking any corporation cares about any of it's employees".

Okay, at what point did I insult you or the UAW? When did I stomp on your picket sign and say unions suck? I didn't. I asked a question. Instead of answering it, you went off making accusations out of thin air. I'm not stupid, so don't treat me like I am. Employees are a fixed cost, same as equipment and warehouses. When companies cut costs, it's a lot cheaper to lay people off then demolish a warehouse or throw out equipment. And when companies can expand, it is a lot cheaper to hire people back than rebuild warehouses and purchase equipment.

"If they can make a more of a profit without you, you are gone."

What exactly is the point of a company if it is not to make a profit? Please, enlighten all of us? I thought people started businesses to make money. Is that not the case?

Profit is tied to 1 thing: sales. As sales increase, companies need more resources in order to fulfill the orders. Hence, they buy equipment and hire employees. When sales decrease, they need less resources to fulfill the orders. So they lay off employees in order to right-size their business to their sales. The economy sucks and sales are down. Companies don't need more employees. When they do, they will begin hiring.

There is one more thing to consider. When it comes to employment pools, the American workforce is the Cadillac of workforces in the world today. We are highly educated, we work hard, and we produce high-quality products. And like a Cadillac, all of those things come with a higher pricetag. If you make cheap products in large quantities and quality is not as critical, there are lower-cost / lower-quality options all over the world.

"You are an employee number..."

Okay, where in American society are you more than a number? Your employer gives you an employee number. The government gives you a social security number. Your bank gives you an account number. Hell, in order to communicate with friends and family, you are issued a phone number. The good old days of everyone knowing everyone have been gone for a long time, and it is never coming back.

"Instead of whining about union workers and their benefits, why don't you side with them and bring back America to what it once was. They ask for a living wage and benefits! And you believe that is too much. I feel bad that you believe union workers are over paid and lazy, why don't you open your eyes to world around you and understand that most of what you see was union built."

OK, scroll up to what I originally wrote. Where do you see any of this BS written up there? You don't. Tell me genius, WHEN DID I SAY UNION WORKERS WERE OVER PAID AND LAZY? WHEN DID I WHINE ABOUT UNION WORKERS AND THEIR BENEFITS? WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT I BELIEVE A LIVING WAGE AND BENEFITS ARE TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR? I DIDN'T!

"you would like to have less. Thanks, Roscoe"

This is you just being an @$$, and I don't think it deserves a response.

There are 'Problem Identifiers' and 'Problem Solvers' in America, and you are obviously a 'Problem Identifier'. You whine and complain about the things that are wrong with this country and offer no solutions to any of them. But don't feel all alone, Congress is packed full of them. Complaining about how much everything sucks has never solved any problem.

'Problem Solvers' come up with ideas to fix America and publish them on forums like this for public discussion and debate. They actual pose solutions to problems and move the country forward. Based on this garbage you just wrote, moving the country forward is not one of your priorities.

Think I'm wrong? You are a 'Problem Solver'? Prove it. Please present everyone reading this thread with your idea for improving labor relations between large corporations and the unions? If you can come up with one constructive idea on how to improve this situation, then I am all hears. If you can't, then shut up because you're not helping.

Well of course she heard if from her husband you idiot. Do you think he carries his wife to work on his back like your man-purse? You're calling her husband a liar? Nice...way to put your best foot forward.

There are actually 3 types, problem solvers, Identifiers, and causers. Which one are you, looking at your own words?

I have offered nothing, yet you continue to ask rhetorical questions? What have you offered?

This is a yes or no question. If it does not suck only because of the unions, then yes...it sucks???

See Roscoe you pose provocative questions such as:

And don't the unions dictate days off, overtime, and vacation time? Do the car companies even get to define what hours constitute first and second shift?

You completely omit the collective bargaining I have aforementioned to you, I thought that was something to offer, since you failed to mention it.

If you want solutions, you must start with, profit is not only tied to sales, but costs.

Employees are a fixed cost, same as equipment and warehouses.

You are right, in today's corporate world people are treated as inanimate objects, sad but true, on this we can agree.

The problem here, in my opinion, is free trade! In today's hyper-connected world, it is easier than ever before to outsource jobs. How do you compete in a manufacturing environment that offer overseas slave wages? You don't, Which is what Alexander Hamilton knew, so he implemented tariffs, to equal the playing field, He did so to keep America's industry competitive, he implemented a 18.9% tariff, as to make manufacturing overseas equal the cost of American made products. Our current tariff is 1.7%. The profit companies see from the non-tariffed, outsourced, manufacturing jobs perpetuate the problem, because now, they can lobby Washington to keep the regulations in place, in order to keep outsourcing and profiting. If this does not end, there will be no unions because there will be no manufacturing here in the U.S.

The free-market was adopted to raise the level of living in third world countries, but the reality is that the advanced countries SOL are lowering to the very countries free trade was suppose to raise. You cannot have an a free trade market with such a disparity in cost of living between countries, the only benefactors are the third world countries and the corporation doing manufacturing there.

Is this a good start, Roscoe?

I have to disagree that non-union shops pay less than 14 - 16 dollars and hour. I know one, Toyota who pays much more than that. They aren't union and it doesn't take a union to bully management to treat people with respect. During the recent slow down at Toyota because of inventory problems in Japan, Toyota did not cut a single hour. Guess what they paid for? They sent their non-union line hands, along with management, out to local parks and improved them for the people of the city. The hands were more than willing to work and never said "that's not my job". It's called a team approach and being in tune with your real employer. The unions do not pay a single persons salary on the lines. They extort money from the workers. Follow one of them union exec's home and see if he lives in the same neighborhood as the line workers do. Then complain about the company exec's who put their hard earned money on the line to create a place for you to make a living. When one non -union worker can produce as much as three union workers for less money than one of you, then perhaps you need to rethink who is stealing from who. Just because you have an extortionist strongarming company owners doesn't make you a hard working citizen. And don't say I am un-American. I have worked on jobs where you have to have one teamster to adjust every two welding machines. You know how many times this has to be done in a shift. Maybe twice. To turn a dial on a machine. The rest of the time they are doing nothing but creating issues for management. That's why America isn't strong anymore. It's called justified laziness because some thug wrote it in a contract. In my opinion, if you can't represent yourself through your work ethic, then you deserve less than minimum wage!

Hi Archie,

I think it's great that Toyota did that for the community, but I feel it is a rare exception. By the way, my union does this all the time. My main point is that too many jobs are gone, sometimes it takes a collective to make any impact on a corporation. Also the company execs are hired just as the other employees, the owners put their money on the line, not the management. Haven't you seen the record profits some companies are making while laying off? The CEO works exclusively for the board and shareholders. You can see the same names on different boards of different corporations, why is that? Because you and I cannot buy into the voting process, the reason being we can't buy enough shares to have an impact. So round and round it goes. The same board of directors votes for the CEOs wage and bonus, meanwhile that CEO is on the BOD of another company where one of the aforementioned BOD members is the CEO.

Listen, I do not begrudge corporations making profits, but there is a great disconnect from CEO to exec to manager to worker. Because of he disconnect, a single person does not make a difference nor matter to the CEO, but maybe 100 or 1000 etc can be make a difference and be heard. I wish everyone were treated fairly in the workplace but the simple fact is they aren't, and I believe without unions, the workers of America would be cut down in pay and benefits to poverty level, including Toyota, who even if they don't have a union, benefit from the fact that there are unions working for middle class standards.

Miker

Yes, this is much better than the last message where you basically called me an @$$hole that hates American workers.

-----

First, I did not include problem causers because they are unavoidable and everywhere. In the real world, there will always be problems. The solutions implemented should be effective in eliminating the causers. Otherwise, they are not solutions.

Second, I am a problem solver. If I do not have a plan to fix a problem, then I do not complain about it. I ask questions and use the answers to try and formulate a plan. That was my intent with the original post, and it is unfortunate that you did not interpret it as intended.

-----

I did see your comment about collective bargaining, and I think it should be done to the benefit of both parties. The union should not go into collective bargaining on the premise that they are working to protect the workers from the corporate Satan that wants to destroy them. If you read through some of these posts, that seems to be a common theme. The corporations should not go into collective bargaining on the premise that they are trying to pinch workers to the maximum they will tolerate it either. It needs to be a partnership that meets in the middle, and that is hard because the middle can & will change. If it does not meet in the middle, then labor strife will eventually tear this country apart. If you look at all of the news relating to labor issues, it is already beginning.

I live in a right-to-work state meaning that my employer can terminate me without any cause. I have no guarantee for raises, pensions, or anything else. Union workers have the benefit of protections from such practices. What I want is a labor environment where all workers are treated equally. They should be hired, fired, receive benefits, and be compensated based on the fair market price for their position and their job performance. Because the union protections do not extend to everyone in this country, it is easy to see why non-union workers tend to frown on the unions.

I think the government should enact labor laws that produce an environment where workers are protected equally without the need for labor unions.

-----

I agree that free trade has caused problems. Free trade that is equally beneficial to all parties is not possible unless all of the parties are economically equivalent. While some people relate trade tariffs to protectionism or isolationism (which I don't see as entirely a bad thing in moderation), they protect our manufacturing sector and the workers that support it.

In an economic / trade sense, standard of living is a double-scale. If two parties with equal SOL conduct free trade, then the scale remains level for both. There is no increase, no decrease, and the free trade opens up more markets. Free trade with Canada is a good example. In the case of the US and the third world, jobs are shifting from the US to the third world. So their SOL is increasing while ours is decreasing. Eventually, the two will even out, but it will be at serious detriment to the US and enormous benefit to the third world. Americans (and rightly so) are not willing to reduce their SOL as a condition to raising the third world's.

-----

Companies will re-invest in America only if it makes financial sense. They will not do it for charity or PR. I think that we should look to impose tariffs first at industries that are subsidized abroad, as that is where America's competitive advantage is lowest.

Solar energy is a perfect example. As long as China is subsidizing their companies, America will never be competitive. A tariff could bring things back into balance.

Other opportunities will be industries where the outsourcing decision is solely based on the cost of labor. Textiles are an excellent example. Most of the textiles consumed in this country are manufactured overseas because labor costs pennies compared to the US. It has nothing to do with availability of raw materials, transportation, or anything else. The outsourcing of the textile industry has killed the local economy in my area over the last 20 years. Imposing a tariff on imported textiles could put many people back to work.

-----

What do you think?

Hi Roscoe,

Sorry if I misunderstood your original posts!

1st, Problem solvers, have to take all data, from all players, not just those in charge to formulate the best strategy. It is too common today that the Corporate solvers do not ask the actual production workers, who identify the problem at a manufacturing level and sometimes have the solution. I think the "us against them" attitude is the main problem. In my field, I have seen many management implemented changes in the work environment, that are in direct conflict quality of production in favor of the quantity of production. The reason being, that they do not interface with the people who know best, the employees themselves. Also, I think American Companies and Corporations have to get back to the customer/ quality first attitude, it will pay dividends in the long run. Corporations have to understand that business is not just profit charts and graphs, and that the consumer directly affects profitability.

As to right to work vs. union states. This in itself is the hardest question. The reason being that too many times, employees are terminated for no reason. Management has complete power over the welfare and livelihood of the employee. The employee works hard, gains raises, benefits, and compensation only to be let go in favor of someone that makes less, because it is determined to save the company money.

What I want is a labor environment where all workers are treated equally. They should be hired, fired, receive benefits, and be compensated based on the fair market price for their position and their job performance.

I believe this is what everyone wants, but the feasibilty of such, is a well intentioned dream. In the days when owners made anywhere from 20 to 100 times that of their employees, there wasn't as much disassociation with the employees, Now corporate leaders are in the 1000 to 3000 range and have no connection with the everyday laborer. There is an exclusitivity involved with CEO's and upper level management to which employees are not part. Right or Wrong, human nature dictates the "us against them" attitude, a segregation leading to distrust and sometimes hatred.

Solar energy is a perfect example. As long as China is subsidizing their companies, America will never be competitive. A tariff could bring things back into balance

China's government subsidizing of the solar industry had removed the ability to compete, and the rest of the world trade org. should not allow it's continuation and China should be held accountable and fiscally penalized for single entity collusion (oxymoron?) through monopolisation. This has allowed China to reinvest in it's own infrastructure at the expense of other nations worldwide.

Other opportunities will be industries where the outsourcing decision is solely based on the cost of labor

This is the biggest problem facing America today, America stands no chance in this global economy while outsourcing without tariffing exists. This is causing the unemployment, class warfare, and dissapation of the middle class. The problem is, that the profits of the corporations involved are so large, that they can afford, through lobbying, to keep it this way. Government has to get out of big business' pocket, and get back to the reasons they were elected, to help ALL the the people.

Amen!! The American government needs to put America first and the rest of the world second. It has not been that way in a long time. You are correct, creating a more customer-focused business model as opposed to a short- term, profit-focused business model is much more sustainable in the long term.

Labor-equality is about as likely to happen as world peace...

Maybe one day we will get closer, but it will not be anytime soon...and probably not in my lifetime.

my god. listen. im far from this so called 1%, but if you were to take these CEOs who make millions (and in the big scheme of things, there really are not many), and take their entire salary and spread it back to all of their employees, it does NOT make a huge difference in pay.

what all these comments about "greedy CEOs" are about is just plain belly aching cause someone else is making more than you. period.

example you ask?

2008, the Chrysler CEO made $4.8 million. lets round up to $5 mil. Chrysler has ~51,000 employees. lets round down to 50,000. in the name of "fairness" and " 'murica ", lets distribute the CEO's pay equally. that means each person get $100 more annually. and you get a CEO that gets paid nothing.

The CEO of Chrysler in 2008 was Nardelli (named one of America's worst CEOs). His salary was technically $1 with compensation coming in other forms. Let's just assume it was your 4.8 million number. On April 21, 2009 the government offered Chrysler a 750 million dollar loan that would keep the company out of Chapter 11 but required executive pay capped. Nardelli turned it down and nine days later the company filed for bankruptcy.

How did Nardelli earn that 4.8 million dollars? Instead of capping pay he decided to damn near kill the company. You would say if a worker does a job not worth $25/hr then he doesn't get $25/hr, but will then immediately say the CEO gets whatever he wants. Nardelli, and a lot of American CEOs aren't worth their bloated pay. Hank Greenberg left AIG solid, but his successors ran it into the ground. He was worth the big check; they weren't but still got it. Nardelli took almost 5 million just to declare bankruptcy. Was he worth it? As far as I'm concerned CEOs can make as much as they want, but did they do anything to deserve it?

The same goes for union workers (and all workers). Are you worth the pay? That's a rhetorical question considering it cannot be answered in general terms. But the problem right now is CEOs slash pay and outsource so they can pay themselves more not to help the company.

sorry, got that $4.8 mil figure mixed up w/ Marchionne, the current CEO and what he received last year.

still, the story stands. Nardelli didn't earn it. he was a complete hack, a point we can both agree on. but thats why he was fired.

as for the UAW, easy example. hyundai in alabama. currently outpacing domestics (besides ford, but im a ford fan boy) and they are currently paying ~$20 / hour for their line, all non-union. i personally think $20 / hour is great and fits. heck, even the $25/hour that UAW is at right now is pretty understandable. the $50 - $60/hour that the "veteran" UAW pays? hardly.

but again, $5mil to a company of 50,000 employees? $100.

If you want the job apply for it. The auto companies are currently hiring, put your resume in, if your a good worker you should get in. But don't preach about how you almost got your degree, and didn't because you quit. Sorry but that's a cop out.

There are plenty of jobs in North Dakota, and in South Texas. Both are building out infrastructure to support new oil fields. They need everything from drill rig hands, to policeman, to people that can set up temporary housing ( ie a good pair of hands ).

There are thousands of jobs available in both locations.

I live in Detroit and work for a Auto Manf. Most of the people working the line are Highschool Grads. Some go to college at night to move up to salaried. But for personal reasons, since the top union guys makes more money than 1st line supervisors and some 2nd line managers. Ford ran an ad on local TV WDIV nbc 4 with about 2000 jobs opening up. They interviewed a few of the Union workers who told the Interviewer that this was good because everyone has sons and daughters that need jobs. So basically the jobs are going to be filled using the time old tradition of hiring union family members.

Dear John,

You obviously don't live in Detroit. An industrious autoworker can increase his hourly wage working over-time. Additionally, autoworkers who need a 25-30K vehicle can purchase same at a discount using the employee purchase plan and a cheap car loan available nowadays. If an autoworker is unwilling or unable to take advantage of overtime, then there are used American cars selling at the prices of cheap imports.

God save the Queen and the UAW.

With the A or Z plan if your an autoworker in the Michigan area you can purchase a new mid sized vehicle for about $200 a month or less. But you have to take possession here in Michigan. I personally know Union workers who have seniority and make close to 100k per year in good times.

T. Bill Rate,

You can call it the "my wages and benefits suck so then yours should also" syndrome.

$104,000 per year to work on an assembly line? That's ridiculous.

Whether you think it is ridiculous or not, is not the point. The point is even at $50 an hr the labor is a small fraction of the cost. Where the rest of the $30,000 charged for a new vehicle goes IS the problem!

Go USA,

Even more ridiculous is paying a "supervisor" that much just to drink coffee and play solitaire on the computer.

Horseperson22: Clearly, you have never had the responsibility of managing people.

Ruth, it would be difficult to pay the payments on a $100k home with a $31k job. I think everyone should be able to make a livable wage. My problems with the union is not so much the wages they get. It is the obstructionist day in day out tactics used by the union that hinders making a profit. It's all that "not my job man" stuff that makes it hard to compete with other parts of the world.

Ruth what irresponsible statements?

Here's a site that lets you run the numbers on what a $31,000 salary will buy:

http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/houseafford/houseafford.html

Even at $50 an hour, notes Phillippi, assembly line labor accounts for barely $1,000 to $2,000 of the $30,000 cost of a typical U.S.-built car.

And all these years management has blamed labor for the high cost of building their cars. Perhaps if they built them for nothing management could be persuaded to stop blaming them and be able to turn a profit.

Yo Ruth,

Countrywide Mortgage in Irvine, CA will finance a new $500K condo to sub-prime borrowers who have zero income. Getting a 1% loan with a balloon in 3 years is the way to go. As long as home prices keep going up, everybody's happy. Yahoo!!!

Good post G102011!

Why do you care what others have or how much its growing? I don't.