Ford-UAW Settlement: Does this make Sense?

[DGS49]

Ford, UAW reach tentative deal to end strike including record pay raise

The United Auto Workers union reached a tentative labor deal with Ford, the first of Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers to negotiate a settlement to strikes joined by 45,000 workers.

www.reuters.com

Forget everything you know about this strike and settlement, and ponder the following scenario:

Imagine you form a company to make primitive widgets, and you hire a number of people to assemble them for you. Assembly takes no special skills, and after a half day's OJT the assemblers know everything they need to know about making them properly.

Over time, manufacturing screwups by assemblers become a problem, so you implement some automation, to minimize the number of assembler screw-ups. Over time you improve the widgets and the company becomes more and more profitable.

At first, you pay your assemblers about what the market dictates for unskilled, reliable people, and they are "happy" to have those jobs. As the cost of living goes up, you increase their pay accordingly. Then they form a union, against your wishes, but that's their right under the law so you deal with the union. As time goes by, you are required by successive contracts to provide them with a cornucopia of benefits - healthcare, lots of vacation time, pensions, etc. - and you do so.

Then your engineers develop Widget 2.0(!), which becomes a very profitable product, and the company's profits soar. Mind you, the assemblers are still doing the same basic stuff that one can be trained to do in half a day; it just results in a much, much more valuable product.

At the expiration of the next union contract, the union notes the increased profitability of the company and demand their "fair share."

By what principle are they entitled to more compensation? They are the same unskilled workers that they have been since the beginning go the company. They are not working any harder or any smarter; the increase in profits has been the result of technical innovations that they had nothing to do with. In theory (and in practice), you could fire the lot of them and be back in production within a week, with no lost efficiency or quality.

Aside from cost of living raises, why are THEY entitled to a share of the increased profits? What did THEY do to increase the profits?

Nothing.

And there you have it. The UAW strike in a nutshell. People who did nothing to make their companies profitable, but who demand a share of the increased profits. Whoever refers to this as their "fair" share is an economic ignoramus.

 

[1srelluc]

Given the F150 Lightning recall evidently quality was not job #1.....Needs more robots.

 

[rightwinger]

Ford, UAW reach tentative deal to end strike including record pay raise

The United Auto Workers union reached a tentative labor deal with Ford, the first of Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers to negotiate a settlement to strikes joined by 45,000 workers.

www.reuters.com

Forget everything you know about this strike and settlement, and ponder the following scenario:

Imagine you form a company to make primitive widgets, and you hire a number of people to assemble them for you. Assembly takes no special skills, and after a half day's OJT the assemblers know everything they need to know about making them properly.

Over time, manufacturing screwups by assemblers become a problem, so you implement some automation, to minimize the number of assembler screw-ups. Over time you improve the widgets and the company becomes more and more profitable.

At first, you pay your assemblers about what the market dictates for unskilled, reliable people, and they are "happy" to have those jobs. As the cost of living goes up, you increase their pay accordingly. Then they form a union, against your wishes, but that's their right under the law so you deal with the union. As time goes by, you are required by successive contracts to provide them with a cornucopia of benefits - healthcare, lots of vacation time, pensions, etc. - and you do so.

Then your engineers develop Widget 2.0(!), which becomes a very profitable product, and the company's profits soar. Mind you, the assemblers are still doing the same basic stuff that one can be trained to do in half a day; it just results in a much, much more valuable product.

At the expiration of the next union contract, the union notes the increased profitability of the company and demand their "fair share."

By what principle are they entitled to more compensation? They are the same unskilled workers that they have been since the beginning go the company. They are not working any harder or any smarter; the increase in profits has been the result of technical innovations that they had nothing to do with. In theory (and in practice), you could fire the lot of them and be back in production within a week, with no lost efficiency or quality.

Aside from cost of living raises, why are THEY entitled to a share of the increased profits? What did THEY do to increase the profits?

Nothing.

And there you have it. The UAW strike in a nutshell. People who did nothing to make their companies profitable, but who demand a share of the increased profits. Whoever refers to this as their "fair" share is an economic ignoramus.

The workers “piece of the pie” has been shrinking for decades
The main reason is the demise of unions

 

[rightwinger]

 

[initforme]

Ford, UAW reach tentative deal to end strike including record pay raise

The United Auto Workers union reached a tentative labor deal with Ford, the first of Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers to negotiate a settlement to strikes joined by 45,000 workers.

www.reuters.com

Forget everything you know about this strike and settlement, and ponder the following scenario:

Imagine you form a company to make primitive widgets, and you hire a number of people to assemble them for you. Assembly takes no special skills, and after a half day's OJT the assemblers know everything they need to know about making them properly.

Over time, manufacturing screwups by assemblers become a problem, so you implement some automation, to minimize the number of assembler screw-ups. Over time you improve the widgets and the company becomes more and more profitable.

At first, you pay your assemblers about what the market dictates for unskilled, reliable people, and they are "happy" to have those jobs. As the cost of living goes up, you increase their pay accordingly. Then they form a union, against your wishes, but that's their right under the law so you deal with the union. As time goes by, you are required by successive contracts to provide them with a cornucopia of benefits - healthcare, lots of vacation time, pensions, etc. - and you do so.

Then your engineers develop Widget 2.0(!), which becomes a very profitable product, and the company's profits soar. Mind you, the assemblers are still doing the same basic stuff that one can be trained to do in half a day; it just results in a much, much more valuable product.

At the expiration of the next union contract, the union notes the increased profitability of the company and demand their "fair share."

By what principle are they entitled to more compensation? They are the same unskilled workers that they have been since the beginning go the company. They are not working any harder or any smarter; the increase in profits has been the result of technical innovations that they had nothing to do with. In theory (and in practice), you could fire the lot of them and be back in production within a week, with no lost efficiency or quality.

Aside from cost of living raises, why are THEY entitled to a share of the increased profits? What did THEY do to increase the profits?

Nothing.

And there you have it. The UAW strike in a nutshell. People who did nothing to make their companies profitable, but who demand a share of the increased profits. Whoever refers to this as their "fair" share is an economic ignoramus.

The settlement is fair to both sides. This is a good outcome for all sides

 

[Meister]

I heard something about 40.00 dollars an hour?
Sounds like the consumer is going to have to bend over and just suck it up.

 

[Meister]

View attachment 848913

1 CEO per company? Or are there more?

 

[Meister]

The settlement is fair to both sides. This is a good outcome for all sides

All sides except for the consumer?

 

[Rambunctious]

All of these striking workers are saying something... they are saying the economy sucks and they can't afford to live on their old salary... I wonder how many of them voted for this.... for those that did vote for Joe I hope you've learned something...

 

[Donald H]

Ford, UAW reach tentative deal to end strike including record pay raise

The United Auto Workers union reached a tentative labor deal with Ford, the first of Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers to negotiate a settlement to strikes joined by 45,000 workers.

www.reuters.com

Forget everything you know about this strike and settlement, and ponder the following scenario:

Imagine you form a company to make primitive widgets, and you hire a number of people to assemble them for you. Assembly takes no special skills, and after a half day's OJT the assemblers know everything they need to know about making them properly.

Over time, manufacturing screwups by assemblers become a problem, so you implement some automation, to minimize the number of assembler screw-ups. Over time you improve the widgets and the company becomes more and more profitable.

At first, you pay your assemblers about what the market dictates for unskilled, reliable people, and they are "happy" to have those jobs. As the cost of living goes up, you increase their pay accordingly. Then they form a union, against your wishes, but that's their right under the law so you deal with the union. As time goes by, you are required by successive contracts to provide them with a cornucopia of benefits - healthcare, lots of vacation time, pensions, etc. - and you do so.

Then your engineers develop Widget 2.0(!), which becomes a very profitable product, and the company's profits soar. Mind you, the assemblers are still doing the same basic stuff that one can be trained to do in half a day; it just results in a much, much more valuable product.

At the expiration of the next union contract, the union notes the increased profitability of the company and demand their "fair share."

By what principle are they entitled to more compensation? They are the same unskilled workers that they have been since the beginning go the company. They are not working any harder or any smarter; the increase in profits has been the result of technical innovations that they had nothing to do with. In theory (and in practice), you could fire the lot of them and be back in production within a week, with no lost efficiency or quality.

The principle of the collective agreement that has been signed by both parties.

That's where you lost track of the process that is capitalism.

Aside from cost of living raises, why are THEY entitled to a share of the increased profits? What did THEY do to increase the profits?

Nothing.

They bargained a collective agreement. You need to learn about how that comes about.

And there you have it. The UAW strike in a nutshell. People who did nothing to make their companies profitable, but who demand a share of the increased profits. Whoever refers to this as their "fair" share is an economic ignoramus.

Fair shares isn't language that is contained in a collective agreement.

This isn't complicated. Colllective agreements serve the employer's interests as well as the interests of the workers

With this scenario in which you formed a successful company, you said nothing about a collective agreement. They don't just occur by magic you know!


Try again by either including a C.A. or not including a C.A. There are easy answers for your questions either way.

 

[initforme]

In the scheme of things a veteran worker making $40 isn't all that much. I know painters who make double that not including materials

 

[DGS49]

I know exactly how a CBA comes into existence. That has nothing to do with the principles I've invoked. These are easily-replaceable workers, and the only reason why they are not replaced is the threat of violence by the union against the replacement workers, the managers, and the facilities. Federal law requires that management negotiate in good faith, but negotiating in good faith should not be conducted under a veiled threat of violence.

Were market forces to prevail, they would be making about $$20/hr, and glad of it. What the CEO of the company makes is none of your business or concern. Why should it be?

Can't support a family on $20/hr? Get a valuable skill/trade, go to college, put your wife to work, or start your own business and make what you are REALLY worth.

Unions are a form of socialism, which is why they are evil.

 

[gipper]

Ford, UAW reach tentative deal to end strike including record pay raise

The United Auto Workers union reached a tentative labor deal with Ford, the first of Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers to negotiate a settlement to strikes joined by 45,000 workers.

www.reuters.com

Forget everything you know about this strike and settlement, and ponder the following scenario:

Imagine you form a company to make primitive widgets, and you hire a number of people to assemble them for you. Assembly takes no special skills, and after a half day's OJT the assemblers know everything they need to know about making them properly.

Over time, manufacturing screwups by assemblers become a problem, so you implement some automation, to minimize the number of assembler screw-ups. Over time you improve the widgets and the company becomes more and more profitable.

At first, you pay your assemblers about what the market dictates for unskilled, reliable people, and they are "happy" to have those jobs. As the cost of living goes up, you increase their pay accordingly. Then they form a union, against your wishes, but that's their right under the law so you deal with the union. As time goes by, you are required by successive contracts to provide them with a cornucopia of benefits - healthcare, lots of vacation time, pensions, etc. - and you do so.

Then your engineers develop Widget 2.0(!), which becomes a very profitable product, and the company's profits soar. Mind you, the assemblers are still doing the same basic stuff that one can be trained to do in half a day; it just results in a much, much more valuable product.

At the expiration of the next union contract, the union notes the increased profitability of the company and demand their "fair share."

By what principle are they entitled to more compensation? They are the same unskilled workers that they have been since the beginning go the company. They are not working any harder or any smarter; the increase in profits has been the result of technical innovations that they had nothing to do with. In theory (and in practice), you could fire the lot of them and be back in production within a week, with no lost efficiency or quality.

Aside from cost of living raises, why are THEY entitled to a share of the increased profits? What did THEY do to increase the profits?

Nothing.

And there you have it. The UAW strike in a nutshell. People who did nothing to make their companies profitable, but who demand a share of the increased profits. Whoever refers to this as their "fair" share is an economic ignoramus.

How do you make a product without labor? You can’t. As such, they should be paid fairly. When you pay senior executives enormous salaries and benefits, the laborers naturally find this unacceptable.

I don’t think complaining about the working class is right, particularly when they are losing big time in this country.

 

[initforme]

Anyone who complains about $40 per hour for a veteran worker is indeed anti american in every aspect.

 

[Synthaholic]

There are at least 3 threads here that cheer Trump for speaking to UAW workers. He never did. He talked to non-union members and trashed the UAW.






ANOTHER TRUMP FAILURE