G.M. To Offer Buyouts To All UAW Workers
 

Just read this on the news and it would seem that GM is ready to get rid of all Union workers.

GM posts loss on North America slump - Yahoo! News

Ron

Union trash is only part of the problem.Bone-headed decisions coming from the 14th floor for the past 40 years is the real issue.

%/

Hasn't that and the lack of quality over several years been one of the biggest problems. Leadership in all levels is not very good at either company I don't think. To much of this worked 20 years ago and it is what we are going to do now.

Ron :(

To those of you who have never worked in the corporate mumbo, jumbo , egotistical, self serving, contemptible, never drink a beer with, low life atmosphere.....Your lucky..

oh you forgot the endless meetings and conference call's from middle management who have nothing else to do
joeg

Boy...you have that right.

Here's a good one. There is a GM plant not too far away from my house. The last time they offered buyouts, 800 out of 1100 took the buyout. Guess what? There weren't enough workers to run the factory anymore, so GM turned around and hired half the old workers back as temps to run the place. They gave them all their benefits and compensation back also. The difference? They couldn't join the union as temps. Although some have been working as temps so long, they apparently are eligible to join the union again!

You would THINK somebody would have thought of this before offering the buyout to all those workers.

Aside from the unions (vomit), the one issue that sticks out in my mind is INOVATION. And that goes for all of the US automakers. Been following Japan's lead for years now. Thats not how you stay #1. Then again, the unions could be the root of it. Maybe its hard to inovate when ya got BILLIONS in obligations to workers and past workers.

Unions killed Eastern Airlines. And they will continue to do so in other industries.

Maybe its hard to be an inovative car company when your primary business is supplying a teat for every auto worker.

Am I being too harsh?:rolleyes:

Mike

To your point-the last innovative thing GM did was the Corvair.:LOL::CRY::confused::eek::mad::JEKYLHYDE

Innovative IDEAS are free. Blame the management/accountants for not putting the good ideas into the vehicles themselves.

Would it be a good idea to stop the pension packages to all the auto workers just like that? I dont think so.

You HAVE to start somewhere. Sometime.

Now is as good as any time. Probably the best.

Mike

:(

I have to agree with Mike on this. If they keep on and go under, there won't be any pension/packages at all. And many of the people that I talk to who have retired from the telephone company in latter years are having their benefits cut nearly every year. I idonotknow if this is happening in other industries, but it sure is here in that one.

Ron :rolleyes:

I read once that the last innovative idea GM had was hidden windshield wipers. That took the industry by storm on the 60's and early 70's.

Ahem...if it was that easy to get rid of a union, I would have done that years ago.

It simply means they are offering the "buy-outs" to the bargaining unit folks (blue-collar if you will) instead of white-collar/management folks as is normally the case. Besides the downsizing effect, it allows for the hiring of lower-cost replacements in what will remain union jobs.

:confused:

Jamo,

I was wondering about that replacement with lower paid employees statement. Does that mean the replacements will still be union workers, and if so, how do they get around the contract they just signed some time back? It would seem to me that if they hire people at a lower rate they couldn't be union people because of the contract and I saw no where they said that was being changed. When they had the buy outs in the telephone companies, the people that I talked to who were hired at a considerable less rate as replacements and less of them, weren't in the union.

Ron :)

Could've sworn I wrote my post in English...maybe it was some ancient Turkish: "...it allows for the hiring of lower-cost replacements in what will remain union jobs."

A "bargaining unit" is composed of jobs which fall under a union's certified right to represent the workers holding those jobs. In essence, it is the JOBS which are unionized, not the people. Depending on the provisions of the union contract, a person taking one of those jobs IS REQUIRED to become and remain a union member (a so-called "closed shop"), has the CHOICE of not joining the union (an "open shop"), or may be required to pay a fee equal to the union's per person administrative costs in providing representation while still having the CHOICE of not becoming a member (a "modified open shop").

The Big 3 have closed shops...any person taking the job will have to become a member unless they are employed in a Right to Work state, such as Arizona.

Replacements may be hired at entry-level wage rates (there are likely ranges of wage rates for these jobs, with higher rates being paid for seniority and/or experience), they may not be entitled to full benfits during an introductory period, and/or they may not receive the same level of benfits after they become full-time due to a multi-tiered benefit system...all of which can lead to much lower labor costs.

Finally, since this involves the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit jobs, all of the offered buyout terms had to have been negotiated with the UAW.

Thus, you drew a conclusion based upon a media article which was assolutely wrong and then started a thread which makes it appear that GM is going non-union, which it is not.

I hope this helps in your upcoming Labor Law Newsletter publication series. :p

Ah, I get it now. Always the real news right here on Club Cobra, who needs Fox. :D

Jamo,even in Az.,if it's a closed shop(UP)then you're in the union or you don't work.

Eh...nope. ;)

Ariz. Const. art. XXV
Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization
No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization. (Addition approved election Nov. 5, 1946, eff. Nov. 25, 1946; amended November 30, 1982.)

Yup, they get two 30s for a 60, but they are still in a phookin union (albiet, with less and less "rights")

Mike (where is the friggin vomit smilie? our smilie selection is not so good)

Not argueing what it says.I'm telling ya,if you are not in a union(UTU or BLE) yer a$$ ain't getting on a train in Az for the UP.Now,since the FRA is involved,there might be a federal spin on this.