I'm in the auto business (as a dealer) and going into this down economy we all knew there would be a drastic drop in the number of cars sold in the United States. Our manufacturers told us this, but we noticed that none of them said they would be cutting back on production, except on SUV's and trucks. I just figured they'd take the same approach: "yes, we know car sales are going to be down, but we've got the all new X Model on the way and it is going to sell faster than we can build them" ....we hear that all the time from every manufacturer. I thought that would be the case, and it was at first, but they've changed their tunes and now the big problem is: Unions.

Let me back-track a minute. The manufacturers I work with don't have Unions as you think of the big three. I work with: Honda, Toyota, Scion, BMW, MINI, smart, Hyundai, VW, Jaguar, Audi, and Porsche.

If they don't have unions, then how are they being affected by them? It is widely accepted that only 11 million vehicles will sell in the United States this year, but the manufacturers are going to build a lot more than that number (over 12 million probably). Knowing that only 11 million are going to sell, why in the world would they build over a million more? Do they really want all that excess? The problem is the unions will not allow their manufacturers to close plants and do the things they have to to cut production. The other manufacturers have to continue competing, so they keep going too. Then you have some of the big three's models being advertised for half off with zero percent financing, and it just drives everything down. The problem with crazy incentives like that is they're a very short-term sales boost, and actually do more long-term harm than short-term good.

Because of this new auto manufacturing cycle this is the first time I've seen non-union brands being so heavily effected by the unions.

Conclusion

So, the unions do not allow production to slow to realistic numbers. In order to move the excess, manufacturers have to create financially hurtful incentives to move the excess. Research & Development gets cut, costs get cut, and everything gets cut except production. The rest have to compete....repeating the same things. The difference between the non-union brands is that they don't have to pay the crazy benefits. Did you know Ford spent over 9 million on Viagra last year?

 

I think however that there is a place for unions. Just not where it's at currently, and you nailed it on the head with the exposure scenario outlined in your post.

The real problem is greed, in the Unions.

This greed makes everyone in the union start asking for conditions over and beyond normal standardized conditions. (Don't take me wrong, they also have the power to raise the bar if it indeed really is too low).

Unions started as a way to level the playing field for workers, but have started to become more than that.

The fact is though, we need unions (to an extent). The Greed from corporate America is far greater than the greed of the Unions. If we did eliminate Unions, corporate America would run us over.

In summary, I believe we need Unions. We've got to curtail their power however and not let the greed mongers of Corporate America go to far.

 

I worked for a company in which the IBEW was the union;I had no choice but to join;when I got laid off it did nothing to find me a new job ;while I was on unemployment it still had it's hand out (union dues)

I say F the unions in the country

I will never work for another unionized shop again

 

well I work at a huge company w/ no union and we do just fine. I think unions are outdated in the sense that it USED to be the case where an employee would stay at a given company for their entire career. In that case, you really need a company to take care of you, because if you get screwed your whole career there is no way to make up for it later. But nowadays, people change jobs very frequently - the employers have to offer competitive salaries and incentives to stay there - or the turnover will kill them.

 

Unions are horrible for business and cost people jobs. Boeing's machinists have been on strike for a week and already 250 people have lost jobs - they are striking because they don't see the 11% annual pay raise as sufficient....

Unions had their place when people worked 7 days a week in dangerous factories, but now they are bleeding American companies dry.

 

I've been anti-union ever since child labor laws and strong OSHA safety enforcement came about. They'd rather get everyone unemployed than stay competitive in a world market.

 

And as an engineer, that is why I no longer work for Boeing. All the other departments have to make cuts in raises to get the lazy overpaid mechanics back to work. And yes most of them made more than me at the time I worked there.

 

I have always lived in right-to-work states with little union representation so I did not have to deal with the issue. Now that I live in a state with higher union representation I see the issues more often.

It is shocking that teachers strike schools here so that children cannot attend PUBLIC schools because of unions. I see serious compromises in education in local systems to avoid union threats.

With a tough economy and high unemployment rates one of the few bright spots in the US was growing exports. Now Boeing is being struck hurting that segment with the unions wanting to retain outdated business practices to bolster local jobs and membership.
The employees are often dissatisfied with the level of dues they must pay but especially how they are spent, often squandered on political campaigns to push union backers.

It is difficult to support union rights with this behavior.

 

Yeah....darn those child labor laws...I bet you lick your chops every time you read Swift's A Modest Proposal.

 

Tatses just like chicken.


I don't think a union is neccesarily incongruent with productivity. I just have yet to see one.