Michigan Passes Right to Work Bill

[Disclaimer]

No... I'm just saying that if someone is going to judge some things as "communist" vs. "free market" that, the same standards need to be applied to all "groups".

You can't rail against one, but then enjoy the benefits of it either. I mean, you can.... but that's the definition of hypocrisy.

[Tpoppa]

Being part of a group ins't anti-American or communist. Your analogy is quite a stretch.

[Disclaimer]

Then why are unions communist? Not sure if you just said it in jest, and then seconded Magz comment, or if you were semi-serious.

[ReconRat]

The roots of trade unions is in Socialism. Particularly the founders that immigrated from Europe.

[smashweights]

One of the few things that Michigan has going for it is a lot of experienced auto workers. Unfortunately, when foreign automakers build plants in the US they tend to build them in right to work states. They would rather build their own workforce somewhere else than take advantage of experienced auto workers in MI (or OH). Those non-union jobs are just as desirable as union jobs, despite what the UAW would want you to believe.

Maybe, just maybe, Michigan can lure a foreign automakers to build some new plants there by going right to work. The working man ultimately wins.

Weird how all those autos that aren't made by Michigan unionheads consistently get better reviews and outperform their Detroit counterparts? Consumer wins?

[Disclaimer]

This IS weird because it's wrong, unless you're going to offer information to back it up?

http://autos.jdpower.com/ratings/dependability.htm

I see a lot of union made cars on that list, along with the non-union made ones. So...

[Rod38um]

The problem with unions is that they support the democratic party for no other reason than kick backs. Companies have to compete on the world stage. All cost factors figure in to their ability to do this. Unions demand higher wages and benefits, this adds in. They support democrats who continually lobby for higher corporate taxes, license, fee's and regulation making costs higher, it figures in. The democrats constantly attack energy production making the cost higher, it figures in. The democrats constantly look for ways to make investing cost more........ All the while, other countries have been implementing measures to bring down a companies cost and lure that company to their shores. Some of our companies have moved out, some just could no longer compete with those who found cheaper operating costs elsewhere. Either way, our decline in the economic world is directly the fault of liberals who continue to play the class warfare game and paint those with responsible policy ideas as "being for the rich" The liberal class warfare idiots would rather be unemployed and living in third world conditions than accept that another man may have more than him. Its a sad, sad mental problem.

Doing business here benefits all of us. Driving it out benefits foreigners.

[Casper]

This IS weird because it's wrong, unless you're going to offer information to back it up?

http://autos.jdpower.com/ratings/dependability.htm

I see a lot of union made cars on that list, along with the non-union made ones. So...

I see 30 "imports" to to 12 "domestics" in that list. I use the terms imports and domestics lightly.

[Disclaimer]

Don't confuse "import" and "domestic" for union vs. non-union.

Guess how many German automobiles (that are manufactured there) are union? All of them.

Japanese Auto Workers (JAW) also... though I can't find the exact makes/models they're producing right now -- I'll keep looking.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/

Edited December 18, 2012 by JRMMiii

[Tpoppa]

UAW = poor work ethic, sense of entitlement, us vs. them mentality, and inflexibility.

Perhaps German and Japanese unions don't have these problems

[Disclaimer]

Ahhh, so it's our fellow Americans that are the problem...

How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

[Tpoppa]

Ahhh, so it's our fellow Americans that are the problem...

If you mean our fellow Ameicans that are members of the UAW, then yes. They are a big part of the problem. Hopefully, MI as a right to work state is a step toward solving that problem.

[Disclaimer]

Like I said in the Hostess thread... it's funny how it's never the corporations fault.

They agree to the union contracts. If it was bad for business then it's on them signing something detrimental to their business.

And just like the cop threads -- you let a couple goobers spoil the entire barrel. I'm enjoying my vacation days from work right now. I'm not in a union, but I have these vacation days because of the Labor movement.

[Tpoppa]

Like I said in the Hostess thread... it's funny how it's never the corporations fault.

Speaking UAW specifically...

Ask yourself why you sometimes see big rebates on American cars, while rebates on Japanese cars remain much smaller.

Both American and Japanese automakers deal with the same shifts in demand...so that is not the reason. Hint, the answer is in this thread.

[Disclaimer]

Rebates are a factor of market demand, capacity planning, and inventory liquidation. What does that have to do with the unions?

[magley64]

Rebates are a factor of market demand, capacity planning, and inventory liquidation. What does that have to do with the unions?

the unions is ripping off the 'Murican people, so when they can't sell their overpriced junk they concede to giant rebates to further rip off the 'Murican people in some strange way. those commie bastages.

[Disclaimer]

http://www.edmunds.com/deals-of-month.html

Those are all the deals for this month... Not just UAW mobiles.

And what do rebates have to do with profits? Companies are maximizing profit based on the time value of the products the produce, then offering rebates to eliminate old inventory as new product is rolled out... What does the union have to do with any of those corporate decisions?

[Tpoppa]

Rebates are a factor of market demand, capacity planning, and inventory liquidation. What does that have to do with the unions?

A Rebate is a demand manipulation, resource leveling tool that most auto makers utilize in one form or another.

The reason that American auto makers offer relativelly larger rebates is directly related to workforce (in)flexibility. UAW contracts specify a number of workers on a specific line and a number of hours per week.

American auto makers know just as fast as anyone else when demand is below forecasts. Unfortunately, they cannot adjust output quickly due to an inflexible UAW workforce. In lots of cases, they must keep producing vehicles that they know ahead of time will be sold for deep discounts.

Japanese plants (including those in the US) are more successful in shifting workers to different jobs to adjust to shifting demand. They do it with a very good record of not laying off workers. As a result of this non-UAW flexibility, they aren't forced incent buyers with huge rebates on vehicles they didn't want to produce in the first place.

You could argue that this is partially due to bunring off inventory of supplies that have already been ordered. You could argue that, and you would be wrong. Japanese manufacturers have the similar agreements with their vendors so that is no different. The exception would be if vendor is also a UAW shop.

Every rebate dollar adds up and they are all added into the price of next years vehicles.

The State Legislature of Michigan know this...hence the Right to Work Bill.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Tpoppa

[Disclaimer]

A Rebate is a demand manipulation, resource leveling tool that most auto makers utilize in one form or another.

All automakers... so that is not inherent to unions. We agree.

The reason that American auto makers offer relativelly larger rebates is directly related to workforce (in)flexibility. UAW contracts specify a number of workers on a specific line and a number of hours per week.

Again, why is that the unions fault? Corporate agreed to a contract. I can't have a Ferrari because I agreed to a mortgage. Boo hoo for me.

Regardless, even if that were true, cite your source that it's workforce related because I have firsthand experience that it's not. I'll stick with GM because that's what I know, but by all means, if you find evidence to the contrary in the other UAW constituent companies, present it.

GM workers regularly go on shutdown, and GM has cut hours and production of the Volt due to reduced demand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/business/gm-suspends-production-of-chevrolet-volt.html?_r=0

You know what they give huge rebates on outgoing models? Trucks. You know what has the highest profit margin? Trucks.

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-pickup-truck-deals-20121218,0,2258198.story

So, not only can they afford it, it's got little to nothing to do with the inflexibility as you put it, of the union workforce (as demonstrated by the Volt capacity planning). You're wrong on that point.

American auto makers know just as fast as anyone else when demand is below forecasts. Unfortunately, they cannot adjust output quickly due to an inflexible UAW workforce. In lots of cases, they must keep producing vehicles that they know ahead of time will be sold for deep discounts.

I addressed this above. It's normally done with trucks and their truck sales have a lot of fleet and government orders that get shifted and moved in and out of the production planning schedule. Again, nothing to do with the inflexible workforce. At the present moment, truck inventories are up, but they're always up in Q3, plus GM is getting ready for a model changeover, so they've built excess old model while the change over occurs.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/gm-to-debut-new-full-size-trucks-thursday/

Japanese plants (including those in the US) are more successful in shifting workers to different jobs to adjust to shifting demand. They do it with a very good record of not laying off workers. As a result of this non-UAW flexibility, they aren't forced incent buyers with huge rebates on vehicles they didn't want to produce in the first place.

Proof? I've just demonstrated it's not due to worker inflexibility. It's a corporate decision. Plus, the issue that management agrees to the UAW contract still goes unaddressed... but continue to blame the UAW for their "inflexibility"

You could argue that this is partially due to bunring off inventory of supplies that have already been ordered. You could argue that, and you would be wrong. Japanese manufacturers have the similar agreements with their vendors so that is no different. The exception would be if vendor is also a UAW shop.

Please, tell me more about my wrongness after I've just provided multiple sources saying I'm not. #CondescendingWonkaPic

Every rebate dollar adds up and they are all added into the price of next years vehicles.

The State Legislature of Michigan know this...hence the Right to Work Bill.

And they'd be wrong... if they "know" this. Which I doubt they've made any statement as such, but feel free to present the evidence for your case.

[Tpoppa]

The UAW has had (past tense) an uneccesary amount of leverage over the Big 3. Much silliness was included in UAW contracts over the years because the Big 3 could not afford mass strikes. It was a cost/benefit analysis, like choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Do you blame the UAW for pressuring the Big 3 or the Big 3 for succumbing to UAW pressure? It really doesn't matter.

Luckily, in the last several rounds of negotiations the UAW has had to give concessions. During the auto bailout there were more concessions. Michigan going Right to Work (26th or 27th state to do so) will lead to further weakening of the UAW. The disadvantage of dealing with the UAW is shrinking.

You are welcome to state all the theory you want and claim it's fact. I am not talking in theory and no it's not all public infomation that can be posted in a link.

[Disclaimer]

It was a cost/benefit analysis, like choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Do you blame the UAW for pressuring the Big 3 or the Big 3 for succumbing to UAW pressure? It really doesn't matter.

Ohh, but it does. Because that's why we're debating in this thread and that's why Michigan went to a "right to work" state. It's about the unions... that's the ONLY reason right to work laws are on the books -- to dissuade unions. So, it DOES matter. Yet, the coin always seems to fall on blaming the common blue collar worker.

Using "the lesser of two evils / cost-benefit" argument for continuing to perpetuate something you think is bad for business makes you a bad businessman. If short term pain would cure a longterm ill, then that makes for a much better cost-benefit case. the Big3 aren't FORCED into signing a contract -- they can hire scabs or retrain commoners off the street for the low skill jobs that people claim the autoworkers have. If they're that low skill that they don't merit the wages they earn, then any burger flipper with or without a GED can be trained to do the same thing, and they'd be lining up around the building for a job like that.

Luckily, in the last several rounds of negotiations the UAW has had to give concessions. During the auto bailout there were more concessions. Michigan going Right to Work (26th or 27th state to do so) will lead to further weakening of the UAW. The disadvantage of dealing with the UAW is shrinking.

I find it sad you use the terms "Luckily" and "disadvantage" when describing blue collar folks trying to earning a living wage for their families. It's even more sad when you consider that it's open and collective bargaining, no one forces either party to sign paperwork. The UAW isn't some big bad boogeyman fighting to keep executive pay in the 7 figures and maintaining golden parachute bailouts for the people responsible for making the business decisions that put these companies in the mess they're in. It's trying to maintain a certain community standard of living for people.

You are welcome to state all the theory you want and claim it's fact. I am not talking in theory and no it's not all public infomation that can be posted in a link.

What theory? I cited articles that back up my opinions. I also have the firsthand experience and credentials that validate my opinions.

You have "Just trust me -- I know how things are" super top secret insider information that would never dare be broached in a public discussion so there's no way I can back it up. That's not really how a rational discussion works man.