|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jan 18, 2011 9:38:45 GMT -6
UAW's King says survival hinges on unionizing transplants January 17, 2011 - 11:23 pm ET King: "We want to be on the cutting edge of labor relations." WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The future of the UAW likely depends on whether it can organize factories in the United States run mainly by Asian automakers, the union's president said. In an escalation of his rhetoric on the issue, Bob King told the opening of the union's legislative conference that companies such as Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co., and Honda Motor Co. "don't fear us." He said the union must aggressively reverse its decades-long slide in membership and its gradual loss of power if it is to survive. "If we don't organize the transnationals, I don't think there is a long-term future for the UAW," King said. In a December interview with Automotive News, King said his campaign to unionize the transplants would begin this month. Membership at the UAW, which represents workers at all three Detroit automakers, is down to about 400,000 active workers and another 600,000 retirees. The UAW has never successfully organized a major U.S. auto factory apart from those run by Chrysler, General Motors and Ford Motor Co. A push to organize Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., plant in 2007 fizzled. Another attempt at Nissan's Smyrna, Tenn., plant also failed. 1 successful drive King hopes to have one successful organizing drive in 2011, but he would not disclose where the union would start its campaign. "We're weighing a number of factors and deciding which one we will focus on first," King said, adding that he hopes to make an announcement within 90 days. Overseas automakers have established their U.S. presence mainly in the non-union South. Japan's Toyota, Nissan, and Honda and Korea's Hyundai Motor Co and Kia Motors have extensive U.S. manufacturing facilities. Germany's Volkswagen is building a plant in the United States. King said overseas manufacturers are good companies, and that the UAW would work with them to build their businesses. "We want to be on the cutting edge of labor relations," King said. "That is the opportunity for all these companies." The UAW negotiated steep concessions with Detroit manufacturers in 2009 as part of the deep restructuring of the industry that included bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler. Asian auto brands represent nearly 50 percent of U.S. auto sales. Contact Automotive News Read more: www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110117/OEM01/110119792/1424#ixzz1BOwHYyBt++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Good luck with that. Maybe union officials could have seriously looked at that option 20 years ago when the transplants first arrived. I suspect that many host communities along with workers at these transplants will take a peek at the Detroit metro area and say No Thank You. I am sure that young workers would be delighted with subsidizing 600 thousand retirees. Let's see GM is growing by leaps and bounds by outsourcing engine, transmission, and stamping plants to the far east, paying a fraction of unionized labor wages and benefits. Now the union wants to crush the Korean transplants with union representation. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 18, 2011 9:53:28 GMT -6
Membership at the UAW, which represents workers at all three Detroit automakers, is down to about 400,000 active workers and another 600,000 retirees. Therein lies the biggest problem with unions of today. The current numbers do not support the retired numbers. As you pointed out, SSDM, there's no reason new workers would want to subsidize the retired ones. The days of a strong UAW are gone. To be honest, I'm surprised to hear the numbers of current active workers are so small at 400,000. I'm amazed that they still yield so much power in Congress. That's changing though. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jan 18, 2011 9:55:00 GMT -6
Maybe the UAW should seek advice from AFSCME. The later sure has been successful in crushing the private sector taxpayers of Illinois... you can throw in the NEA as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jan 18, 2011 11:44:35 GMT -6
Casey and Mac,
One can only wonder if the pension recipients in the public sector will grow in the next 10 -15 years to make the imbalances noted with the UAW look like a "walk in the park". Of course with the "letter of the law" and taxpayer's open wallet, I suspect the public sector has little to fear.
Has anyone done the math to figure out the number of years before our great state is back to raise sales taxes. My thoughts are 5 years or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 19, 2011 6:46:58 GMT -6
Membership at the UAW, which represents workers at all three Detroit automakers, is down to about 400,000 active workers and another 600,000 retirees. Therein lies the biggest problem with unions of today. The current numbers do not support the retired numbers. As you pointed out, SSDM, there's no reason new workers would want to subsidize the retired ones. The days of a strong UAW are gone. To be honest, I'm surprised to hear the numbers of current active workers are so small at 400,000. I'm amazed that they still yield so much power in Congress. That's changing though. that's because Congress and their loyal government workers do not want anyone looking into their own pension system and benefits |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 19, 2011 7:35:59 GMT -6
There was a great opinion piece in yesterday's Tribune and one more reason why I want to move to Indiana. articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-18/news/ct-oped-0118-thomas-20110118_1_personal-income-tax-hike-public-service-indiana-republican-mitch-danielsThe tax beast: Contrasts in black and redJanuary 18, 2011|By Cal Thomas The contrast between what Illinois Democrats did last week and what Republicans have done in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia and New Jersey could not be clearer. In Illinois, Democratic legislators and a Democratic governor pushed through a massive 67 percent personal income tax hike (and a 46 percent boost in corporate taxes), claiming an accompanying "cap" would limit new spending. Sure. Illinois is caught in a trap of its own making, agreeing with unions (the Democrat base) to pay to public employees exorbitant amounts of retirement and health benefits the state cannot afford. Governors in nearby states are inviting Illinois residents and businesses to move from Illinois. California is a failing state, having overpromised public-sector workers at the expense of the private sector. And it's not alone. According to Bloomberg, "More than 80 percent of the nation's 27 million state and local government workers and retirees are covered by public pensions. Yet the median state plan had enough money to pay just 76 percent of its obligations as of Aug. 20, 2010." Data compiled by the University of Rochester and Northwestern University found that "six cities — Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Fla., Philadelphia and St. Paul, Minn. — will run out of pension money by 2020." States that have had enough of this have Republican governors who are committed to reducing spending and taxes. In his State of the State address last week, Indiana Republican Mitch Daniels properly took credit for policies that placed his state among the financially strongest in the nation: lowest property taxes in the country and matching spending to income by eliminating "nice-to-do" programs, focusing instead on "must-do" ones. Daniels noted, "Elsewhere state government payrolls have grown, but here, we have the nation's fewest state employees per capita, fewer than we did in 1978." He said that during the current recession "at least 35 states raised taxes, but Indiana cut them. Since '04, the other 49 states added to their debt, by 40 percent; we paid ours down by 40 percent." Other states went into the red, he said, but in Indiana "our savings account remains strong, and our credit AAA." Daniels spoke of "protecting the taxpayer" and added, "... whatever course others may choose, here in Indiana we live within our means, we put the private sector ahead of government, the taxpayer ahead of everyone, and we will stay in the black, whatever it takes." Unless you're a retired state employee in Illinois, you are probably on your feet shouting, "Yes! This is what I've been waiting to hear!" President Barack Obama and too many other politicians emphasize "public service" as if government work is superior to a vibrant private sector that creates jobs, goods and services people want. Gov. Daniels has the right priority: people and jobs first, government second. If Daniels hasn't decided to run for president, he should. This is a platform that has not only worked in Indiana but, if adopted by the federal government (and other states), would work nationally. Many Democrats who voted for the Illinois tax increases were lame ducks who will pay no political price for their cowardly vote. Besides, it wasn't their money. That's why it's so easy to spend. If politicians in other financially troubled states won't follow Indiana's example, people can move to states with lower taxes. But no one can escape the federal government. Short of term limits or regular turnovers in Congress until they "get it," a more radical approach may be necessary. Suppose there was a groundswell of taxpayers who announced they will no longer pay for government and, in fact, will start reducing payments to government if politicians won't significantly cut spending? That would get their attention. There aren't enough prisons to house thousands, perhaps millions, of taxpayers who cry "enough" and demand that Washington live within its means. It's time to starve the beast. If Dracula doesn't get blood, he dies. If Washington can't suck more money out of us and must stop borrowing, it will be forced to cut back, like so many Americans have done in this recession. Anyone ready to lead this second American Revolution? Tribune Media Services Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist. tmseditors@tribune.com |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jan 19, 2011 13:16:03 GMT -6
There was a great opinion piece in yesterday's Tribune and one more reason why I want to move to Indiana. articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-18/news/ct-oped-0118-thomas-20110118_1_personal-income-tax-hike-public-service-indiana-republican-mitch-danielsThe tax beast: Contrasts in black and redJanuary 18, 2011|By Cal Thomas The contrast between what Illinois Democrats did last week and what Republicans have done in Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia and New Jersey could not be clearer. In Illinois, Democratic legislators and a Democratic governor pushed through a massive 67 percent personal income tax hike (and a 46 percent boost in corporate taxes), claiming an accompanying "cap" would limit new spending. Sure. Illinois is caught in a trap of its own making, agreeing with unions (the Democrat base) to pay to public employees exorbitant amounts of retirement and health benefits the state cannot afford. Governors in nearby states are inviting Illinois residents and businesses to move from Illinois. California is a failing state, having overpromised public-sector workers at the expense of the private sector. And it's not alone. According to Bloomberg, "More than 80 percent of the nation's 27 million state and local government workers and retirees are covered by public pensions. Yet the median state plan had enough money to pay just 76 percent of its obligations as of Aug. 20, 2010." Data compiled by the University of Rochester and Northwestern University found that "six cities — Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, Fla., Philadelphia and St. Paul, Minn. — will run out of pension money by 2020." States that have had enough of this have Republican governors who are committed to reducing spending and taxes. In his State of the State address last week, Indiana Republican Mitch Daniels properly took credit for policies that placed his state among the financially strongest in the nation: lowest property taxes in the country and matching spending to income by eliminating "nice-to-do" programs, focusing instead on "must-do" ones. Daniels noted, "Elsewhere state government payrolls have grown, but here, we have the nation's fewest state employees per capita, fewer than we did in 1978." He said that during the current recession "at least 35 states raised taxes, but Indiana cut them. Since '04, the other 49 states added to their debt, by 40 percent; we paid ours down by 40 percent." Other states went into the red, he said, but in Indiana "our savings account remains strong, and our credit AAA." Daniels spoke of "protecting the taxpayer" and added, "... whatever course others may choose, here in Indiana we live within our means, we put the private sector ahead of government, the taxpayer ahead of everyone, and we will stay in the black, whatever it takes." Unless you're a retired state employee in Illinois, you are probably on your feet shouting, "Yes! This is what I've been waiting to hear!" President Barack Obama and too many other politicians emphasize "public service" as if government work is superior to a vibrant private sector that creates jobs, goods and services people want. Gov. Daniels has the right priority: people and jobs first, government second. If Daniels hasn't decided to run for president, he should. This is a platform that has not only worked in Indiana but, if adopted by the federal government (and other states), would work nationally. Many Democrats who voted for the Illinois tax increases were lame ducks who will pay no political price for their cowardly vote. Besides, it wasn't their money. That's why it's so easy to spend. If politicians in other financially troubled states won't follow Indiana's example, people can move to states with lower taxes. But no one can escape the federal government. Short of term limits or regular turnovers in Congress until they "get it," a more radical approach may be necessary. Suppose there was a groundswell of taxpayers who announced they will no longer pay for government and, in fact, will start reducing payments to government if politicians won't significantly cut spending? That would get their attention. There aren't enough prisons to house thousands, perhaps millions, of taxpayers who cry "enough" and demand that Washington live within its means. It's time to starve the beast. If Dracula doesn't get blood, he dies. If Washington can't suck more money out of us and must stop borrowing, it will be forced to cut back, like so many Americans have done in this recession. Anyone ready to lead this second American Revolution? Tribune Media Services Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist. tmseditors@tribune.com Yes it is Casey. Juxtapose that article with the LTE below: Pensions are earned January 18, 2011 Your editorial of Jan. 14 states that "the skyrocketing pension and health care costs for retired public employees are the No. 1 reason why Springfield has been unable to pay its bills for everything else." What about the fact that Springfield failed to make the needed contributions to the pension systems for many years? I contributed 8 percent of my salary to the pension system every year. (Yes, the State of Illinois has been mismanaged. So has the Tribune.) So far, we pensioners largely have remained silent during your drumbeat against us. I take it personally. Here is my story. After taking six years in graduate school to earn a PhD from Yale University, I joined the faculty of UIC in 1971 as an assistant professor of economics. We had high hopes for a public university that, at long last, was established in the city of Chicago. While those hopes have not been fulfilled completely, it is not because of me. I rose from assistant professor to professor to research center director to department head (of three different departments at various times) to senior associate dean to interim dean of the College of Business Administration, and devoted 38 years to UIC. My original salary was $13,000 - and I was underpaid for many years. I was not a member of a union, and oppose faculty unions for major universities. John McDonald, River Forest winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/stop_quinn_top_100_pensions.pdf (you can see Mr. McDonald's Pension in the right column of the pdf) While I agree, in principle, with what Mr. McDonald says, there is one important "but" . Those salaries and/or pensions are almost exclusively set by parties who are not entirely disinterested in the outcome and could hardly be called a "counterparty" as that term is understood in the legal and professional community as it applies to contracts. Pensions are set by a stated formula under Illinois law. The law is made by legislators, who themselves fall under the same system and have a vested interest in the outcome. The only true counterparty is the taxpayer. The person responsible for paying what is required under the contract. In addition, what do we make of the fact that our elected officials, who created the law, refuse, time and again, to fund the pension expense? Perhaps they believe it was never an arms length transaction in the first place? If anyone wants to see how this ends, review Professor Barlett's series on exponential math: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSYThat's where we're headed, tax increase or no. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 19, 2011 14:35:51 GMT -6
"I contributed 8 percent of my salary to the pension system every year."
Pay in 8% a year and draw 80%+ a year in many case... F* me, sign me up since that's so perfectly sustainable... Sheesh
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Jan 19, 2011 16:57:19 GMT -6
Very interesting.
For what it's worth, Mr. McDonald's pension (in which he does not pay ANY taxes and does not pay anything for his healthcare premiums) is almost $200,000. He says he was underpaid for many years ($13,000 in 1971). Well, I didn't graduate PHd from Yale or start working in 1971 but I only made a little over his salary in 1987. I worked at a well-known Chicago ad agency and made $13,500. That's 16 years later for basically the same money. Now granted my agency work doesn't equate to being a professor at Yale but the reference is this is 16 years later at the same pay. I certainly was underpaid but there wasn't any future pension for me if I stayed there for 30 years like he had. Also, today's dollar is worth less than 1971's quarter. That means his $13,000 salary is worth $52,000 in today's dollars. Not crazy money given his credentials but certainly not awful.
If you make the assumption that he started teaching at Yale (after his PHd) at age 26 he could have retired with full pension and benefits before age 60. Quit, collect a full pension and start working in the private sector earning through a 401K. Not a bad deal, Mr. McDonald. Keep in mind we don't know what his "true salary" is only that his pension is now $188,000. No sympathy from me John. Just another example of the craziness of the pension system.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 19, 2011 19:23:22 GMT -6
"I contributed 8 percent of my salary to the pension system every year." Pay in 8% a year and draw 80%+ a year in many case... F* me, sign me up since that's so perfectly sustainable... Sheesh Yeah, my heart bleeds for mr McDonald's $188K/year pension. I'd like to see what his total contributions were compared to the 3.75 Million he will happily draw over the next 20 years. That way I could line it up against the 6.2% (FICA-mandatory but worthless) + 15% (401K) +10% (other) = 31.2% I sock away, not to mention the catch-up's I'll need to do soon. Yeah I'm really feeling fer ya buddy. Its entitlement attitudes like this that are going to drive widescale change. The only thing that would make it better would be to find out he's stacking multiple public pensions. P.S. I got a kick out of "After taking six years in graduate school to earn a PhD...". In my book anyone who takes 6 years on their PhD aint 'xactly the brightest bulb in the closet, or they are a "professional student"  I also got a kick out of this "My original salary was $13,000 - and I was underpaid for many years". No one is "underpaid" they are either too stupid to move or have made a conscious decision to be complacent. |
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jan 20, 2011 10:56:51 GMT -6
The United Auto Workers continued its campaign of irrelevancy as its President, Bob King, launched a series of veiled threats at foreign automakers with American plants (such as the Honda plant seen above), while simultaneously stating that the very survival of the UAW is at stake – and the organization of a foreign automaker’s plant is the key to the UAW’s continued existence. “If we don’t organize these transnationals, I don’t think there’s a long term future for the UAW — I really don’t,” said King in a speech to members of a political conference held in Washington, D.C. Despite the fact that foreign automakers offer equivalent or better wages than UAW plants, King is aggressively targeting them, with King planning to pick a target within 90 days. Other actions include targeting dealers of the chosen automaker for protests, and asking automakers to comply with “fair bargaining” principles, despite that fact that it runs counter to the complete absence of collective bargaining in foreign auto plants. “They don’t fear us and they think they can’t get away with it,” King said, in an almost naked display of insecurity regarding his own relevance. King was at least cognizant enough to acknowledge that the UAW was a spent force, stating “Here’s the terrible position we’re in autos. Because we’ve fallen so far in the percent of workers represented by the UAW in autos” the union can’t demand big increases because of non union competitors. “So if we go in, we dramatically raise fixed costs for Ford, General Motors or Chrysler, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. … We don’t want to disadvantage the (Detroit 3) companies.” King ended his speech by telling UAW members that Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 would be beneficial for the UAW, due to his pro-union stance. [Source: The Detroit News] www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/01/uaw-president-tries-to-blackmail-foreign-oems-into-organizing-as-uaw-survival-questioned.html |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jan 20, 2011 12:37:06 GMT -6
And thus King exemplifies the bankrupt thinking of all unions....always us against them, get all you can even if it puts your employer out of business or makes every taxpayer poor paying your * pensions. "We just want what we are "entitled" to...."
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 20, 2011 17:09:25 GMT -6
Displays like Mr King's make me want to sell my 3 high quality american cars and buy a foreign car even though I never have (OK, I confess, I owned a Prius for 3 weeks, but it was a big mistake)
One of my cars is a model in continuous production for 58 years, the second in continuous production for 66 years! Both I would defend vehemently as being to this day the most capable and highest value cars in their relative class. (bonus points for guessing the models, it should be easy).
I am proud to buy American cars, I don't want to wind up like the UK! (with only Morgan left domestic), but the UAW needs to get with the times and stop trying to halt progress through brute force - they almost killed off the big 3 once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jan 20, 2011 20:18:41 GMT -6
Jeep and Corvette.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Jan 21, 2011 6:46:18 GMT -6
winner  I need to buy a Suburban though, those have been in production for 75 years (longest running nameplate). But I digress. My point is America invents, designs, and makes the best products in the world, and we continually screw it up by things like the UAW is doing which bothers me. If all that energy and wasted resource was put towards real innovation and creation, we wouldn't have worries of our jobs and salaries. Instead we are tying ourselves down with baggage of entitlement. If we keep doing that, soon we will be like France, and unable to compete in the world market. |
|
