Bad News for Labour

[WWWTT]

Saying things like the quality of the cars is management's responsibility shows, once again, how ignorant you are on the subject of running a business.

Actually management,especially the higher up you go,earn greater salaries and bonuses.Therefore have greater responsibility.

But now you are saying that management is not responsible for something as important as quality?!?!?

And on top of that you then claim that I am ignorant for stating this?!?!

I am not sure if I should laugh or be very concerned?

WWWTT

[ironstone]

If a business has a problem with labour, who's responsibility is it to solve that problem then?

I have little sympathy for big labour in Canada to be honest.Many of these union bosses are every bit as greedy as these fat cats in the corporate boardrooms.I have no sympathy at all for the public servants,they are coddled from day one and have it much easier than most workers in the private sector.

In the automotive sector,why is it that heavily unionized GM,Ford and Chryler have historically had a rather adversarial relationship in comparison with the non-union foreign competition?I have been a union member at one time(Teamsters)and got fed up with the union fighting tooth and nail for the useless employees.

[cybercoma]

I have little sympathy for big labour in Canada to be honest.Many of these union bosses are every bit as greedy as these fat cats in the corporate boardrooms.I have no sympathy at all for the public servants,they are coddled from day one and have it much easier than most workers in the private sector.

In the automotive sector,why is it that heavily unionized GM,Ford and Chryler have historically had a rather adversarial relationship in comparison with the non-union foreign competition?I have been a union member at one time(Teamsters)and got fed up with the union fighting tooth and nail for the useless employees.

Care to answer the question you're responding to?

[Moonbox]

Actually management,especially the higher up you go,earn greater salaries and bonuses.Therefore have greater responsibility.

But now you are saying that management is not responsible for something as important as quality?!?!?

Did you read my post or did you just snip that one sentence out of it? Yeah. That's what I thought. The UAW and CAW made it IMPOSSIBLE to compete on value and quality. Through the 70's and early 80's management didn't give a shit about quality, and they can be fully blamed for that. Once the market opened up, however, and Honda/Toyota entered the game, the UAW auto makers were unable to adapt. The writing was on the wall that the companies weren't competitive anymore and the labour cost numbers were debated endlessly, but what it all boiled down to was Toyota could assemble a car with an average labour cost per hour of $33. It was $73 for GM and the UAW fought tooth and nail all through the late 90's up to 2008 against any sort of concessions to their pay and benefits. What a shocker when the companies finally folded. The only reason Ford survived is that the UAW/CAW finally woke up when they saw GM and Chrysler flop.

And on top of that you then claim that I am ignorant for stating this?!?!

I claim that you're ignorant about a great many things. A great, great great many things. On top of that you debate like a moron. My previous post showed, by the numbers, how uncompetitive the UAW and CAW made the Big Three. The best response you could come up with was take one sentence I wrote out of context and say "gotcha". Well done.

[Moonbox]

Care to answer the question you're responding to?

Why bother? It's a really dumb question. The kind of logic you're implying with the question doesn't hold water. Party A is blameless because Party B couldn't check them? Nope. That doesn't work anywhere, except maybe if you're dealing with children.

A greedy union insisting on unsustainable wages/benefits isn't blameless because the company they're dealing with can't negotiate concessions.

[WWWTT]

On top of that you debate like a moron.

Here's another sentence I snipped out for all to see.

Hurling insults like this is against the forum rules.

Don't worry I reported it.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

My previous post showed, by the numbers, how uncompetitive the UAW and CAW made the Big Three. The best response you could come up with was take one sentence I wrote out of context and say "gotcha". Well done.

Ya actually you threw out a bunch of numbers without providing any links.

Now I am not one for providing links much either,but I wouldn't stand so firm on something without a little back up.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Why bother? It's a really dumb question. The kind of logic you're implying with the question doesn't hold water. Party A is blameless because Party B couldn't check them? Nope. That doesn't work anywhere, except maybe if you're dealing with children.

A greedy union insisting on unsustainable wages/benefits isn't blameless because the company they're dealing with can't negotiate concessions.

It's a perfectly valid question. You said it's not management's responsibility. I'm asking you whose responsibility labour problems are then. I didn't make any argument. I didn't imply anything. I didn't say anyone was blameless. I simply asked who was responsible for resolving labour problems and apparently that dumb question is much too difficult for you to answer. Edited August 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[Moonbox]

Ya actually you threw out a bunch of numbers without providing any links.

Now I am not one for providing links much either,but I wouldn't stand so firm on something without a little back up.

WWWTT

Holy crap man. Links? My post was an enormously simplified production cost equation. All it was trying to show you was how a company with double the labour costs of its competitor CANNOT compete on the value side. The figures for labour costs of the Big Three vs foreign competitors was common knowledge. You can still look that up. The numbers are different depending on where you're getting the info from but the non-union auto companies paid a total of ~$40-45 an hour vs $73 for GM. Since you need a link for EVERYTHING before you're willing to discuss it, here's one:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/industry/4292379

Hurling insults like this is against the forum rules.

Hey, I'm sorry. You're right. You really need to start thinking before talking though, and that ought to be a forum rule too. Looking back through this thread, we have you here nattering about everything, quoting everyone and throwing back glib, trolling remarks without knowing a thing about what you're talking about. Here's a response to one of Bill's comments:

So why did you not mention that earlier???

Am I supposed to read your mind every time you write something here so I do not offend you?

Maybe you should think about some of these things when you write(think being the key word here)

You believe that after writing this comment I will now forget about how you are ignorant to the fact that it was the upper management that was responsible for Chrysler's woes???

Do you sincerely believe that insulting others will make you look or sound more intelligent???

Bill shows very clearly that you don't have a freaking clue about the auto industry's history and what led up to its collapse, and your response is basically that "How was I supposed to know?" Not only do you make it obvious that you don't know crap about what we're discussing, you also can't accept that fact with good grace. You go on to call BILL ignorant when he clearly knows WAY more than you about this.

Here's the deal. It's YOUR responsibility to know something about what you're discussing. We're not going to hold your hand. If you can't speak intelligently on the topic, stay out of it. If all you're here for is to get people riled up with 'gotchas', that's trolling, and we don't have to go far in your posting history to see a ton of that going on.

It's a perfectly valid question. You said it's not management's responsibility. I'm asking you whose responsibility labour problems are then. I didn't make any argument.

It's a question that doesn't need to be asked. Labour problems are both parties' fault. Nobody should feel bad for CAW/UAW workers. They brought it on themselves. The companies are equally to blame, but nobody feels bad for a corporation and nobody is defending them anyways. I made that very clear in my first post responding to WWWTT. He chose to take one sentence out of context from my statement and post it here to try and score points or something.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Moonbox

[WWWTT]

I made that very clear in my first post responding to WWWTT. He chose to take one sentence out of context from my statement and post it here to try and score points or something.

You wrote it,not me.

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

It's a perfectly valid question. You said it's not management's responsibility. I'm asking you whose responsibility labour problems are then. I didn't make any argument. I didn't imply anything. I didn't say anyone was blameless. I simply asked who was responsible for resolving labour problems and apparently that dumb question is much too difficult for you to answer.

The answer is that BOTH management and labour share responsibility for problems, CC. At least in a union situation.

In a small private company, if a worker keeps making mistakes the boss will have to address the problem if he wants to stay profitable and keep everyone's paycheck from bouncing. It may mean a bit of extra training. It may mean the worker is just not suited for that particular job and he will give him a different one.

Or he may just have a bad worker. If he can't be made to show a better attitude then you sack him!

In a union shop, it is MUCH more complicated! First off, let's suppose the manager is lucky and the employee HAS a good work ethic! A bit of observation and perhaps some hints may be enough. A bit of retraining can be done if truly necessary.

Still, likely the union steward will immediately get involved anyway! He will begin by stating the manager has no right to question the worker's abilities. He will insist that any problems are the direct result of management having poorly thought out the job process or in sufficient FORMAL training! Management will be expected to give the employee a formal instruction course, meaning anything from a few days to a few weeks. On company time, of course.

If the problem is actually the worker has a bad attitude, the union steward will just defend him all the harder.

If management tries to transfer the worker to another job there may be other problems. Is there another job? The company cannot displace another worker - that too is not allowed. Even equal pay may not be enough. There may be differences in physical effort.

The process can be so long, stretched out and aggravating that many companies get lazy and just try to avoid the confrontations. Of course, the quality problems don't simply vanish. In such situations they actually will get worse. Why not? There is no correction to worry about.

That was often the way it was in the "old days". Then came wave after wave of better quality imports and customers began to vote with their feet. Which car company has the highest level of customer satisfaction today?

Toyota!

Please don't try to say I am exaggerating. My father was a union steel worker and would tell us of how some guys would deliberately break machinery in order to get some hours of idle time sitting around! We would hear of how someone was, in my dad's opinion anyway, the laziest and poorest worker ever hired would successfully resist any attempt by the company to address him as a problem, with the aid of the union.

I used to have a neighbour who was also a union steelworker. He had not worked in years, being listed as disabled. I watched him build an above ground pool in his back yard. He held some great parties! I would watch from my own back yard and wow! That man was a fantastic dancer!

When I worked at Westinghouse there were a few bad apples. They were always the ones that would bring their job to a halt over a dispute with a WHMIS issue, or something to do with health and safety. It was never a valid issue but always something nit-picking and ridiculous but the steward would jump in and as much as 3 days could be wasted at a time!

The problem for management is that even if they are absolutely on the side of right it doesn't matter. Sometimes they have a militant union that will fight them to the point of a walkout and beyond! This costs an incredible amount of lost time and the temptation to just let it slide is overwhelming.

I am not trying to say that the majority of union workers are bad apples. The problem is that only a few can cause real problems and in virtually ALL cases their union will vigorously defend them!

Like most things in real life, the argument is not digital. The union workers are not all bad and management is not all good but the converse is also true. Black and white positions in such arguments are just fantasy and blind partisanship.

[Moonbox]

You wrote it,not me.

WWWTT

Sure I did. I also wrote that both parties are to blame, but like the troll you are you took the one sentence you thought you could score points on, quoted it, and left the rest out. Comments like the one above are clear indications that all you're trying to do here is troll. Reported. I feel like a big man too now.

Learn something about what is being discussed and actually contribute to the discussion and maybe you'll encounter less hostility here. As it is all you seem interested in doing is stirring the pot.

[WWWTT]

but like the troll you are

More name calling.

Don't worry,I'll report this one to.

I hope you get suspended buddy!

Good luck.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

The answer is that BOTH management and labour share responsibility for problems, CC.

When there's a problem with labour, then labour bears part of the responsibility to solve it? Do you mean the union? How exactly do they solve their own problems? What tools do they have at their disposal to do so?

I also find it pretty incredible that you call safety concerns "nit-picking." We've seen what happens, particularly in the mining industry in the US, when safety concerns are treated as nit-picking and routinely ignored.

For the record, that is entirely the management's responsibility. They can be held personally liable for due diligence in Canada.

Edited August 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[Wild Bill]

More name calling.

Don't worry,I'll report this one to.

I hope you get suspended buddy!

Good luck.

WWWTT

WWWTT, while you are getting all "holier than thou" you should ponder the fact that Moonbox is right!

And he is FAR from the only one to feel this way!

You probably don't even realize what you have been doing. It's easy to grow up with friends and family and think we are good at arguments. A debating environment like MLW is a whole different fish kettle! It can be like vacant lot baseball and the big leagues.

To this day my ex wife still thinks she is good at winning arguments. She is, but not in the way she thinks. She doesn't win with logic, evidence and reason. She just gets so shrill and aggravating that people just give in to shut her up! The poor women doesn't even know the difference between the different ways of winning.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a question that doesn't need to be asked. Labour problems are both parties' fault. Nobody should feel bad for CAW/UAW workers. They brought it on themselves. The companies are equally to blame, but nobody feels bad for a corporation and nobody is defending them anyways.

This seems correct to me, but the question is about ultimate responsibility. The shareholders will replace management if they can't manage - it's a lot easier than replacing labour. Lots of places can turn out a good product with union shops.

Also, Bill's examples seem rather dated. I can't believe that in the current environment, gross negligence is ignored even by the union but I have to admit I don't know.

[WWWTT]

When there's a problem with labour, then labour bears part of the responsibility to solve it? Do you mean the union? How exactly do they solve their own problems? What tools do they have at their disposal to do so?

Actually it would be in the unions best interest to work with management if there was a problem worker.

Keep in mind that a problem worker is probably a problem filled person and unions are pretty quick to cut away someone that will give everyone a bad name.

It is usually in managements best interest to have a union,that way the union takes care of undesirable workers and the reps try to coax the workers to accept the companies offers.

This happens all the time.

Wild Bill is making a mountain out of perhaps a few examples were the worker is so freekin lazy or useless they will use any means to stay on board.These examples are few and happen everywhere.Not just union environments.

I personally knew of one person(God I hate the guy too) who worked at GM in Oshawa.He was so freekin lazy that he tried everything to stay on after numerous errors and mistakes/screw ups.In the end he collected disability claiming stress!

I'm sure the plant had a party after that guy left!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

WWWTT, while you are getting all "holier than thou" you should ponder the fact that Moonbox is right!

I should ponder the fact(according to you) that Moonbox is right in saying that management has less responsibility than the workers????

I read what he wrote and commented accordingly.

WWWTT

[bleeding heart]

Ok, they are lazy or stupid.

Ok, but this isn't a political opinion so much as it is an elitist worldview.

One that we don't share.

[bleeding heart]

Union members speak only for their own selfishness - not the good of the country

If they're fulfilling the (stated) capitalist ethos in such an explicit way, what's your issue with them?

Edited August 14, 2012 by bleeding heart

[PIK]

More name calling.

Don't worry,I'll report this one to.

I hope you get suspended buddy!

Good luck.

WWWTT

I was at another board and it was shut down by people complaining about what people said, if you are not capable to handle it please leave. Nothing worse then a snitch. It is a tough world out there, and I would hate to see this board disappear. If you want to complain then complain about this ethemnike guy and his spam threads that are popping up all over here.

Edited August 28, 2012 by PIK

[Handsome Rob]

And problems with labour are problems for management to solve.

In my experience this sort of attitude most often creates problems that cannot be solved within the scope of labor law and profitability. I work for such an employer & union, of which neither party looks out for the best interest of the employees and we are faced with many such problems that will ultimately end in failure.

I believe the two parties have to work together jointly to find success.

[Handsome Rob]

Chicken-egg problem. Are businesses spending less on wages because people want to spend less or do people want to spend less because businesses are spending less on wages?

I would say it isn't the case when you see people making above average wages parking their BMW's in WalMart's parking lot.

I just spent my holiday in a medium sized American town that doesn't have a single franchise. Every single commercial enterprise is mom & pop, and the community is flourishing. 20 miles up the road is franchise/multi-national city, and its a dump.

[cybercoma]

I would say it isn't the case when you see people making above average wages parking their BMW's in WalMart's parking lot.

I just spent my holiday in a medium sized American town that doesn't have a single franchise. Every single commercial enterprise is mom & pop, and the community is flourishing. 20 miles up the road is franchise/multi-national city, and its a dump.

The BMW thing very well may be true, but when people only want to buy cheap stuff it drives down the wages of workers who can then only afford to buy cheap stuff, making it a self-perpetuating cycle.

[Handsome Rob]

The BMW thing very well may be true, but when people only want to buy cheap stuff it drives down the wages of workers who can then only afford to buy cheap stuff, making it a self-perpetuating cycle.

Making it 10x more important to try and influence consumers rather than corporations or governments.