By on January 18, 2011

Once again, the UAW-Transplant battle has produced the most memorable auto-related quote today, as union boss Bob King tells Reuters

If we don’t organize the transnationals, I don’t think there is a long-term future for the UAW

The stakes in the UAW’s crusade were already high, but with this latest gem, King confirms that that it’s all or nothing. Which is an interesting way to frame a campaign that even the objective reporters at Reuters are forced to conclude is something of a fool’s errand. After all, it’s not as if the UAW hasn’t tried to organize transplant factories before, and they have yet to come close to succeeding. But with the rhetoric turned up to “11,” the UAW is on a one-way trip to destiny… and King’s best last-minute pitch to the defiant transplants is

We want to be on the cutting edge of labor relations. That is the opportunity for all these companies.

A tempting idea, to be sure, but now that King has informed the world that the union’s alternative to success is death, the transplants have more incentive than ever to say “thanks, but no thanks.” And it’s already starting. Is this the beginning of the end of the United Auto Workers?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

52 Comments on “Quote Of The Day: The UAW’s Last Stand Edition...”


  • avatar
    ComfortablyNumb

    This really exposes their true motives.  He didn’t say, “We want to organize the transnationals to protect their workers’ rights”, he said [paraphrasing], “We need them to bring in enough dues to stay afloat”.  This isn’t about protecting workers, it’s about collecting dues.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      In the US, workers unions outlived their usefulness after key worker protection legislation was enacted.  After that, their reason to be was self preservation.  This is doubly true for the UAW, as well as prison guard unions, grocery worker unions, teachers unions, etc.
       
      Of course, public employee unions have a hand in the ongoing budget crisis many states are faced with.
       
      Unions are needed in Southeast Asia, South America and Africa.  They are no longer needed in the US or Canada.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Which also means no more GM or Chrysler! Taking off the shackles is going to feel so good for those of us who spend half of each year as slaves to the organized cretins that own the left wing politicians that buy their votes with our money and freedom. Break the loop! 

  • avatar

    I suppose a series entitled “UAW Deathwatch” would be in poor taste…

  • avatar
    MikeAR

    Actually given the right results in the next election, the end of the UAW will begin in 2013 when a special prosecutor is apointed to look into the auto bailout.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Oh, yeah, sure.  Right after we dig into the last ten years and two or three administration’s worth of shenanigans.  Please.  The last time we got a “special prosecutor” involved was for a blow job, and that was because it was easy and safe to do.
       
      I half-expected the Democrats to have a field day with the Bush administration that would have made Iran-Contra look like a parking infraction.  Instead what I came to realize is that accumulated political dirt is kind of like a nuclear arsenal, and there’s a mutually-assured-destruction deterrent in play.
       
      Put it this way: in America, today, you can suspend civil rights and funnel whatever cash to whatever pet causes you want.  The only thing you can’t do is have consensual sex out of wedlock.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      It was oral sex with a subordinate employee, which was, in and of itself, defined as sexual harrassment, regardless of whether it was consensual.

      Which parties defined it this way? Hint - they weren’t conservative Republicans or libertarians. It was people who supported Clinton’s candidacy in 1992, and had used their clout to have people fired and demoted for similar acts. Clinton was just being held to the same standards as everyone else.

      And the current administration’s decision to keep several Bush policies in place is called growing up and learning that the world looks different from the Oval Office than it does from the campaign trail or the offices of ANSWER.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian


      It was oral sex with a subordinate employee, which was, in and of itself, defined as sexual harrassment, regardless of whether it was consensual.
       
      That sort of depends on the employee’s take and yes, I agree with you, but really, I’m not interested in playing the game of political scorecard/red-versus-blue here.  I don’t care what (or who) Clinton did or didn’t do and it’s not material to the point I was making.
       
      The point I was making is that we don’t prosecute people for “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” regardless of your political stripe because both parties are up to their armpits in dirt and have no moral high-ground. If we take the Obama administration to task over the auto bailouts, then we need to take members of the Bush administration to task for Extraordinary Rendition, warrantless wiretapping (yeah, I know, Obama’s team did it too) and so forth.  And then we get into Clinton’s actions.  And then Bush.  And then we’re back into Iran-Contra, and so forth.
       
      Saying we’ll get a special prosecutor is wishful dreaming.  Would you like pony as well?
       
      And as much as I really enjoy watching this kind of stuff splashed all over the media by Wikileaks, I don’t think the duopoly that is American politics would handle it without a kind of dirty-laundry M.A.D.
       
      And the current administration’s decision to keep several Bush policies in place is called growing up and learning that the world looks different from the Oval Office than it does from the campaign trail or the offices of ANSWER.
       
      No, it’s a sign of the policy bankruptcy of the Democrats and the general lack of differentiation between both parties.  You have socially liberal globalists on one side, and socially conservatives on the other.  Do you see the lack of perspective here?
       
      I look forward to the starry-eyed Tea Party-derived Libertarians suffering the same, actually.

    • 0 avatar
      windswords

      Geeber is right. I remember some big wig CEO got his pink slip because he did the same thing that Clinton did and the lefties were like sharks with blood in the water. Then the pres got caught in the same situation and all of a sudden it was a private matter.

    • 0 avatar

      Put it this way: in America, today, you can suspend civil rights and funnel whatever cash to whatever pet causes you want.  The only thing you can’t do is have consensual sex out of wedlock.
      Psar, Google [mark steyn ezra levant canada human rights commission] and then tell me about civil liberties. Oh, and you can’t say “faggot” on Canadian radio either. Don’t they know fag is Brit speak for cigarette?
      I guess some free speech is less equal than others.
      Also, getting lectured to by morally superior Canadians gets a little tired after the umpteenth time. Boy, the lefties took a shellacking in the Toronto mayoral election, didn’t they? People are getting pissed about the nannies telling them how to live their lives.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      You guys really have problems stepping out of the partisan mindset, huh?
       
      If you’d read my point, instead of automatically going into circle-the-wagons mode when I dared criticize your home team you’d see I tarred both sides of your, well, I can’t say spectrum because it’s not one, equally.

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      You are all actually missing the point.  The special prosecutor was to see if he lied under oath about it. Enough about Bill Clinton though.

      But, back to the point. Say a special prosecutor was appointed because of the bailout: auto, bank… you name it. Who are they going to go after? The only thing they might do is go after Bush for spending the money when congress didn’t approve it. They really can’t go after GM, Chrysler, or the UAW. I am not sure what you think that can be done about this.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      <i>psarhjinian: No, it’s a sign of the policy bankruptcy of the Democrats and the general lack of differentiation between both parties.  You have socially liberal globalists on one side, and socially conservatives on the other.  Do you see the lack of perspective here?</i>

      I haven’t seen any great change in Great Britain with Tony Blair’s ejection from office. For that matter, supposedly “liberal” European countries – France - can be pretty brutal in dealing with terrorists. The French don’t fool around when it comes to capturing, detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists.

      Attempting to call a hard stance on terrorism as “social bankruptcy” and suggesting that is somehow uniquely American is a rather limited view.

  • avatar

    the UAW began their downward spiral when they began taking company bribes under the guise of “Quality of Worklife” and carried through to the billions of VEBA given to Solidarity House to manage and in turn receive hundreds of millions in management fees that exceed any paid in dues. Reuther warned of the day when union leaders made more than the members they were elected to represent. of course, there are no longer elections in this one party rule appropriately nicknamed the Concession Caucus. it’s become organized crime and the hourly workforce is the victim, and you can take that to the bank!

  • avatar
    oboylepr

    Is this the beginning of the end of the United Auto Workers?
    The beginning of the end was some time ago. Exactly when is a matter of opinion but the UAW membership has been in decline for years. King’s rhetoric regarding the transplants is a sign that things are getting desperate on the membership front. That said, the end is coming and timing is critical. if they are going to organise the non-D3, they better do it before GM and Chrysler’s respective chapter 7′s or their financial base will go the route of their membership. Getting it done before Mr. Obama leaves the Whitehouse might not be a bad idea either. I don’t think the UAW has been quite as active in organising non auto workers as the CAW has. Is that fair to say? Maybe someone in the know could weigh in. At this point the CAW is into everthing. Not much chance of them disappearing anytime soon.

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      Okay…you asked… CAW LOCAL 222
                      GM canada
                      Johnson Controls
                      Atlas logistics
                      Lear Corp
                     Durham Region Transport
                    Syncreon Automotive
                     Auto Warehousing Canada
                     AGS Auto
                    Amada tool works
                   Americus Logistics
                   Woodbridge Foam
                  St Marys Cement
                  Pilkington Glass
                  Mills Pontiac Buick
                 Trentway-Wager Transit
                 City Wide Taxi
                 CEVA Logistics supplier park
                 Roy Nichols Motors
                Kerr Industries
                 Minacs Worldwide
                 Syncreon Supplier park
                 Columbus McKinnon
                 United Way
                 Abednego Environmental

       Keep in mind thats only one local. The CAW is fairly diversified.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Minacs?  Really?

    • 0 avatar
      mikey

      @ psar ….Minacs Worldwide….yeah, I  was shocked also. I took the list from my December union paper,

  • avatar
    lw

    The only way to save the UAW is via competition.   EVERYONE/EVERYTHING is judged in relationship to an alternative.
    Car X is only good, because it’s cheaper / faster than Y.  Without Y, Car X could be amazing, but how would you know?
    Do you want to save the UAW?  Take all the former UAW members, organize them into the “AWU” (Auto Workers Union) and the AWU and UAW can compete for the business of providing skilled auto assembly labor.
    Then they can both survive… Otherwise, bye bye UAW…  You had nothing to compare against so we assumed we were getting screwed.
    Also don’t tell me you can compare the UAW against any joe six pack off the street.. the “how hard is it to put lug nuts of wheels argument”..  This is for the most part highly skilled or at least highly dedicated labor, except of course for the drunks/druggies that you find in any workplace.

  • avatar

    And remember, no matter how awful UAW is, they are not the worst. Racist thugs that savegely beaten Ken Gladney were from SEIU (Service Employees International Union).

    • 0 avatar

      And those SEIU workers were most likely public employees. Eventually the actual labor unions, the ones that represent people who do labor, who actually produce goods, add value, will realize that they have contrary interests to the public employees who now dominate the labor movement. Though the now weakened private sector unions ally themselves with AFSCME and SEIU and other public sector unions for political purposes, the movement as a whole ignores the needs of private sector workers. The president of the AFL-CIO recently said that his primary focus was serving the interests of public employees. If that’s the case, then why should a private sector union affiliate?
      Public employees have their hands in all of our pockets. They’re the primary reason for the insolvency of most states and municipalities that are facing budget crises. They’re greedy, act entitled and from my perspective have little of the accountability that most private sector employees have.
      Not long ago I got called a m*&herf%$er by a parks & rec employee. A private sector worker would have gotten fired for that. Instead, the city protected that employee. When I went to speak to the city council the mayor waned me that they’d cut off the mic if I mentioned the employee’s name, and this was after they told me he was reprimanded. A uniformed cop censored my prepared remarks.
      So screw the leeches. They have no loyalty or gratitude to the taxpayers. Public employee unions should be illegal and at the very least campaign contributions or contributions in kind by public employee unions should be seen as the corruption that it is.
      3…2…1, cue the public employees who will tell us how grateful we should that people so much smarter and well qualified than us deign to work for only 100% more than those in the private sector.

    • 0 avatar
      Omnifan

      SEIU represents hotel maids, janitors, and the like.  Past presidents of the union have been convicted of fraud as they stole the union blind.  SEIU members are not public employees.

      If Ronnie doesn’t like public employees, then he should get engaged in the politics that made them overpaid servants of the public.  Overstated politician pensions just don’t appear, they’re often crafted by folks who get them approved as a part of some innocuous bill.

    • 0 avatar
      Tommy Boy

      SEIU isn’t entirely government employees, but increasingly they are.  In California (and we know the havoc the public sector unions have done to that former “Golden State”) SEIU is one of the major public sector unions.
       
      And remember too that many “private sector” SEIU members are actually quasi-public sector, such as 1199 in New York, representing “private” workers whose incomes are actually government-derived, such as healthcare / nursing home workers whose employers live off of Medicare / Medicaid “reimbursements.”  This dynamic only accelerates under Obamacare’s de facto government takeover of healthcare.

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    Without knowing the context of the quote: “If we don’t organize the transnationals, I don’t think there is a long-term future for the UAW,” it might me they’re headin’ to China! They’re all “transnational” now.

    • 0 avatar
      redmondjp

      Nah,
      They have a brutally simple method of preventing union organization over there, and it involves an all-hands meeting behind the plant and some high-velocity recycled car battery plate material.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      It is the sensible thing for the UAW to do if it wants to survive, but someone would whisper “comintern” and that would be the end of that.

      Globalizing the UAW also presents some formidable obstacles. Auto workers in many other countries are already unionized, and the German or Korean unions wouldn’t appreciate the UAW waltzing in with the white man’s burden. Countries where autoworkers are not unionized tend to be places where union organizers disappear into jails or gutters, if they’re not simply shot at the front gate. I don’t think Bob King is the sort who would give up a lifestyle of comfortable rhetoricizing to actually risk life or limb.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    If we don’t organize the transnationals, I don’t think there is a long-term future for the UAW

    Perhaps the union ought to consider going transnational as well?  You might see a little more bargaining ability (and the end to tariffs, outsourcing and economic jingoism) if you could leverage middle-class solidarity across nations the way corporations have been able to leverage their power transnationally.

    The very idea probably gives the wealthy palpitations.

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      “Perhaps the union ought to consider going transnational as well?”

      However, American are so deeply chauvinistic that they would refuse to trust any transnational labor organization, no matter how US-centric it was. I can only imagine the reaction at Fox News to any efforts to form such an organization. Glenn Beck would devote every show to destroying it before it could get off the ground. I doubt that even the UAW rank and file would be willing to reach past NAFTA territory.

    • 0 avatar

      The very idea probably gives the wealthy palpitations.
       
      Boy, you really are consumed with envy and a sense of moral superiority, aren’t you? All the rich people that I know give philanthropically and generously too. Why do you think that money coerced by the government at the threat of imprisonment is a morally superior means of helping the less fortunate than voluntary philanthropy?
      You think that somehow wealth makes a person evil and poverty makes a person noble. If I can’t get a little biblical, the Torah teaches that a judge should be careful not to favor either a rich or poor man. He shouldn’t let his compassion for the poor cloud his judgment, just as he should regard the rich man’s power likewise.
      Search on Maimonides’ hierarchy of charity and then come back here and tell me that he’s wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Boy, you really are consumed with envy and a sense of moral superiority, aren’t you?
       
      No, not really.  What galls me the karmic “get of jail free card” we give the wealthy when it comes to increasing their wealth, but somehow it’s immoral for the rest of us to try to act collectively?
       
      That sounds an awful lot like a modern take on the Divine Right of Kings.  Thanks, but no thanks.
       
      All the rich people that I know give philanthropically and generously too.
       
      All the ones that I know do, too.  Those same rich guys who put up a hundreds of thousands to finance the local YMCA also put the screws to their own HR department to cut back benefits, wages and headcount for their own employees.  Not very philanthropic in their own home, as it were.
       
      I also find it interesting that the urge to be philanthropic seems to take hold later on.  Since you bring up up the Torah, I’ll throw in Matthew 19:24 and what it tells us about the incompatibility of real altruism and the pursuit of wealth and riches. It tell us that it’s very easy to be philanthropic when you’re already rich, but much harder to shake oneself free from greed.**
       
      Why do you think that money coerced by the government at the threat of imprisonment is a morally superior means of helping the less fortunate than voluntary philanthropy?
       
      It’s not morality as much as it’s pragmatisim; it’s naive to think you can support a society larger than, say, a small town on the whims of philanthrop.  But I will take a moral dig at how it’s awfully self-serving to listen to the wealthy grouse about paying taxes when their wealth and the ability to increase it is largely built on the backs of the infrastructure and security that government provides.
       
      I don’t think many people really appreciate how much of the opportunity and freedom we take for granted carries a high externalized cost.
       
      You think that somehow wealth makes a person evil and poverty makes a person noble.
       
      I could say that you think the opposite: that you see someone’s who is successful and assume they’re a better class of person for that success, and that poor or unfortunate people deserve to suffer.
       
      No, what I think that being wealthy obliges you to acknowledge and contribute back to the function of the society that enables you to become wealthy.  I also think it’s highly hypocritical to harp on the morality of the less well-off who have the gall to protect themselves collectively because their numbers are the counterbalance to the economic clout they do not have.

      ** and that many reach people start worrying about their legacy and/or their immortal soul and use philathropy to buy their way through the eye of the needle.

    • 0 avatar
      neevers1

       

      psarhjinian

      Your first post is kinda eh, your second one, it’s out of the park, very very well said.

    • 0 avatar

      Since you bring up up the Torah, I’ll throw in Matthew 19:24 and what it tells us about the incompatibility of real altruism and the pursuit of wealth and riches. It tell us that it’s very easy to be philanthropic when you’re already rich, but much harder to shake oneself free from greed.
      I’m no Christian but I do have some background in religious studies and I think you’re reading your own secular philosophy into that verse. The verse says nothing about philanthropy or altruism, rather it talks about the challenges of material possession and using power and wealth wisely. A thief gets no reward for not stealing while sitting in prison. Everyone has a test, the rich have the test of using their money well.
      FWIW, the Talmud has a passage that can be read a couple ways. It says that the most efficacious time to give charity, the situation that will earn you the most spiritual reward is “at a time of straits”. The question is then asked, who’s time of straits, the giver or the recipient. In on case, you earn merit when you give to someone when they badly need it. On the other hand, if you are generous when you yourself are impoverished, it gives the act additional luster.
      It’s interesting that you didn’t answer my question about Maimonides’ hierarchy.  Lefties seldom do.
      Not long ago I read Jews & Capitalism by Jerry Muller. Jews have thrived in market societies because Judaism is a culture that is compatible with commerce, property rights and perhaps most importantly, never regarded poverty as ennobling. To be sure, it also dismisses the value of materialism, to God is the earth and all that fills it, so there are limits to property rights. Material possessions ultimately are only valuable in the good you can do with them.
      The point is that you can do good with your possessions beyond just giving handouts. Can anyone really question what James Glickenhaus is doing with his money? Well, any car enthusiast at least. If you buy a Porsche you’re not just burning the money, you’re helping to employ people. I’d much rather sell someone something than get a handout. I’ve been in both situations. While the old saying that stolen water may taste sweeter may teach us something about psychology, food that I buy tastes more sustaining than food that I’m gvien.
      My uncle was worth $15-20 million before my aunt divorced him. She got half of that but he still wasn’t poor and when he died he left a 7 or 8 figure estate. He owned a mortgage company and was a life long Democrat, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. At his funeral one of my cousins said that his dad looked at money as a tool. You could loan it to someone to build a house or start a business.
      That’s why I suggested that you look up Maimonides’ hierarchy of philanthropy. He makes the point that helping someone start a business is more worthy than giving them a handout, and jobs in the private sector create wealth while make work jobs in the public sector do no such thing. It’s the old give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime. Self sufficiency is always better. I note that Maimonides didn’t include “give money to the government to waste in their bureaucracy” as one of his stages of charity.
      I’d suggest that you read about “learned helplessness”, of which there is ample evidence in Detroit.
      Not long ago three Yale law professors started a web site encouraging the “wealthy” to donate any tax savings to Habitat for Humanity, the Salvation Army and one other worthy non-profit. Nice organizations no doubt but the prof’s stated goal was to promote economic prosperity and job growth and giving money to non-profiits that give handouts will do none of those things. So I emailed one of them whose wife is also a tenured Yale prof. I told him that if he really wanted to help out the less fortunate, with two tenured Yale salaries, he and his wife were fabulously wealthy compared to me and that he was welcome to send me some money, but actually that I’d rather sell him some embroidery. Of course that wouldn’t allow him to take a public stance trumpeting his moral rightness. I never received an answer.
      BTW, it’s not the government that makes commerce possible, it’s a system of laws and contracts which is not the same thing as the government. Actually, it’s when government gets involved in commerce that things get distorted. In general, I’m not a fan of subsidies.
      As P.J. O’Rourke pointed out in Eat The Rich, your kind of socialism only works when a society is rich enough to afford it, like Canada or Scandinavia. However, even the Scandinavians are finding that there are drawbacks to the welfare state.
      The truth is that just as someone has to take out the garbage, someone needs to create wealth in a society for it to thrive. Show me that government can create wealth. So far I remain unconvinced.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Psarhjinian.  You outdid yourself with these posts.  What you said make real sense.  I chuckle at some of the comments as all public sector work as “make work”…
      Interesting about the charitable giving of the rich.  My late uncle was a very high level executive at a variety of companies over the years American Can, Singer, Champion, United Technologies.  After he retired at 55, he became very active in the Catholic Church and was very generous for a variety of causes.  Yet the decisons he (and others) made in the board room destroyed many families and lives, chose to ship manufacturing offshore, and (before it became difiicult) willfully chose less that ethical means of disposing of industrial waste.  So, does giving at this level make up for these choices?  In my opinion, no.  I would really like to know more about how all this worked but he passed before he hit 60.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      I’ve often wondered that. Why does a man collect millions in pay and then leave his employees just getting by.
      That same man – if rich enough – then gives a large lump sum gift to a hospital or university or some other organization who then uses it to build a landmark with his name on a plack or statue or names the building after him.
      “The John E. Doe Library”
      Well I guess that gets him in the local history books. The local history books anyhow.
      I worked for a rich woman once. She lived high and rich (new import convertibles annually, RVs, boats, multiple homes) and denied us 25 cent raises when my coworkers complained. I never complained, was happy to have the job but when I was ready for more income, I just quietly moved to a better job and never spent any of my money at her business. She went out of business a few years after I graduated from college. Then her RV, garage, business and home each burned down – one at a time. Lots of rumors about her then around this small town.
      Back to “John E. Doe’s fortune – why not, over his lifetime, pay your employees better than the competition’s employees? Mr. Doe might not collect $14M per year, he might collect $2M per year but it’s still alot of money and would afford a very nice lifestyle.
      Why not pay his clerks enough that they can afford a home of their own? Or get real particular about how his bonuses can be spent – only on educating themselves or their children, or paying down their mortgages directly. He could write checks directly for tuition or mortgage payments. I’ve met the type who wants to tell you how to spend a gift of money. Their intentions are good, they just don’t their giftee to spend the money on frivolous stuff. Wish somebody would gift me $25K.
      I listened to one old guy talk about how he and his wife struggled through their middle age. How they struggled to provide for their family and pay off their mortgage. Then another time he let it slip that his elders had bestowed on him large (legal) sums of money (value of a new car each year) so that this fellow could pay off his mortgage early. How proud they were to do that.
      And I heard from his children (later) how they were never helped by their parents to do the same thing in their middle age when they were struggling to pay their mortgage and raise their children on a budget.
      None of these people were “rich”. The old guy was secure thanks to his elders but he did not extend the benefits of his security to his own children. I suspect that they got their’s later, much later – when they were empty-nesters and did not NEED the money anymore. I hope they will go on to help their children through that chapter hasn’t happened yet.
      I really think the USA is going down a slippery slope – perhaps the same one that the UK went down ages ago where there was the rich and the poor and very little in between. The rich have the resources to make themselves even more wealthy year after year – if only by compound interest and the working folks can only hope they’ll have a place to work next year. Yes, the working man can invent a new mousetrap but there will always be the unimaginative types who aren’t mentally equipped to build a better mousetrap. They can only hope that there will be other employers for them if their current employer goes under.
      For this reason we need to keep jobs in the USA. I’m not advocating an era of malaise again because there is no outside competition. I mean we need to keep manufacturing here rather than let China make plastic widgets for us b/c they are simply the cheapest game on the planet. Encourage companies to manufacture here just like we have with the transplant auto industry. I think the rust belt is going to need to do away with their union shop laws if they want to compete with the southern states and if they want Detroit to be able to compete.

  • avatar
    kitzler

    no more UAW, a dream come true, it would allow me to consider buying an American product instead of a “foreign” label…. Yahoo, I like that!!!!!

  • avatar
    forraymond

    When the Government (Republicans) wants to destroy your organization, it is pretty hard to keep your Unions going.  UAW has to go after foreign companies and try to organize in countries that really need Unions – like the USA needed them back in the day.

    • 0 avatar

      When your organization is funding your political opponents with hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions ($81 million in the 2010 cycle alone), why isn’t it fair to push back? Dare I quote the guy you probably voted for and say “push back twice as hard”? Or would that be “uncivil”?
      The Democratic Party is a wing of organized labor, not the other way around.
      I’m sure that you would ban corporate lobbying while letting organized labor keep funding the Dems.
      Would you disagree with the following statement?
      “the greatest sin
      that a businessman can commit against a worker is
      to operate a business without a profit because then
      there is no security for the worker.”
      Know who said it? Samuel Gompers, founder of the US labor movement.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      How about a political party that isn’t a wing of the UAW OR the bankers???
      When we get a party like that let me know. I’m ready to vote for them. The two current parties are far too corrupt, too tainted with interests working against the majority of us.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    There was a time and an era for the UAW and unions in general.  But that time has long since passed; come and gone.  The government regulations and mandates placed on employers of all sizes in current times ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees and leave open several avenues to settle differences with management.  Where the UAW went wrong was that they bargained their employers into the grave.  The UAW forgot that theirs was a competitive sales environment and that their employers had to sell in order to remain in business. The UAW-made goods did not measure up in the market place.  That’s why their products lost market share.  The UAW wants to share in the profitable times but does not carry any burden in bad times. Then they lobby for a taxpayer funded bail out when their employers go bankrupt.  Is it any wonder that only UAW members have sympathy for the UAW and themselves?

  • avatar
    gslippy

    The UAW will only achieve success from the ground up.  Beating the transplant managers and owners into submission won’t do it.
     
    Where are the outcries of the downtrodden workers slaving away at the transplants?  Their silence is deafening.  You’d think Bob King could offer a morsel of evidence that those poor souls actually want UAW representation to address some grievance.
     
    IMO, widespread information availability, combined with the regulations enforced by the Bureau of Labor, OSHA, UL, CSA, EPA, Commerce, and others provide a work environment that does not need UAW representation for wages, benefits, or working conditions.

  • avatar
    Steven02

    The UAW end has been long coming.  With more and more plants opening outside the US, not just auto plants, it will be the non union shops that survive.  Not winning the transplants will not matter.  In fact, I expect certainly that the transplants will decline.  If they don’t, I could see plants closing because of this.

  • avatar
    Jimal

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The UAW should go and try to represent workers that are actually being abused and neglected. I’m not being facetious either; go get something started in China or Taiwan. Where is that Foxconn located? Those people need help, not the guys working the line at the Mercedes plant in Alabama. Show the courage of your convictions and seek out those who actually need union representation.
     
    Not only will you help those who are being maltreated by management, you’ll probably drive up the costs on some of those Chinese made good to the point of parity with the U.S. and the rest of the developed world. We could afford to start manufacturing things again.

    • 0 avatar
      Monty

      Perhaps the UAW should be focusing on their brethren working for the various GM partners in China. Oh, but wait, the UAW is also a part owner of those GM co-ventures – the hyprocrisy is astounding. Between ownership of GM, the Tier 2 workers in Orion, and the downtrodden workers in GM-Wuling and GM-SAIC, the UAW has sort of painted themselves into a corner.

      The only workers the UAW truly supports are those operating the union itself.

  • avatar
    HoldenSSVSE

    The Custer’s Last Stand image is very appropriate.  Custer’s “last stand” wasn’t as portrayed in the picture above of an epic battle fought on a flat plain.  The Little Bighorn is a region of rolling hills and gullies in tall grass.  The battle actually lasted for hours and was fought as a series of skirmishes.  Each one chipping away at Custer’s forces slowly.

    His supply line and reserve troops claim they heard, ehem, nothing of the running battle, and an earlier significant engagement had left another part of his force combat ineffective.  Much is said about not taking along his Gatlin gun but even that would have probably not helped strategically or tactically.

    In the end a group of no more than 40 to 50 took up a very weak defensive stand on some high ground; the spot picked was strategically awful, allowing them to be surrounded and slowly picked off one by one.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    The UAW’s chances for long term survival as an auto union went down drastically in Dec 2010 with the end of the 111th Congress.  That was their chance to have “card check” written into law.  It didn’t happen, despite having significant Dem majorities.
    There’s no way that the transplants will voluntarily vote in the UAW in a supervised election.  Card check allowed the union goons to potentially intimidate enough employees to sign up a “majority” of the workforce and thus force unionization.
    Having UAW represented employees is like paying a significant tax for the employer. This tax takes the form of added costs and reduced productivity. If you have competitors that don’t pay this “tax”,  whether foreign or domestic, your chances of being successful long term are poor.

  • avatar
    newfdawg

    The UAW outlived its usefulness in the United States years ago, Bob King needs to get out of his 1936 mindset.  The things the UAW fought for such as the eight hour workday, better working conditions and better pay were achieved long ago and are now part of the workplace.  With the growing technology and automation in the workplace, the terms blue collar and white collar jobs are irrelevant.  If the UAW wants to do something useful it should be looking after GM workers in China.

  • avatar
    lw

    Organize a Chinese plant?!?!
     
    If you don’t like the UAW leaders, pray they go to China and try to organize a plant.  They will be in prison so fast (if they are lucky).
     
    The entire reason China and most of the third world have horrible conditions is because they need to be cheaper to win the business.
     
    it’s cheaper if you don’t have OSHA and don’t care about human rights.  So if you want to fix the world and make it work like you think it should, then you’ll need to do a world domination thang and force everyone to wash their hands after they leave the bathroom and install eye washing stations.
     
    “Your eye’s just burned out?  Then your fired”  is A LOT CHEAPER than calling 911 and dealing with years of lawsuits, workers comp, etc.
     
    Think of it this way.. How much would a car cost if ONLY UAW labor and ONLY factories on American soil were allowed to have any part in it’s manufacturing?

    • 0 avatar
      L'avventura

      Chinese workers are unionized, in fact they are part of the world’s largest union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU). 134 million members.
       
      And you DON’T mess with them.  Period.  They are backed by the Communist party, and you don’t do business in China without the government’s consent.  Let’s up it this way, Walmart in China is unionized, by the ACFTU, not in America.
       
      China’s unions however is very different from those in the West, they are tightly controlled.  Business interest is weighed with labor interests, and its a lot more complicated situation in China due to immigrant labor (immigrant as in different provinces) relative to the overall health of the Chinese economy.

  • avatar
    MrFixit1599

    I have been in and out of UAW plants many times over the past 15 years for machinery repair, and the time required to do basically the exact same job in a non-union plant, vs. a union plant (not just UAW) is roughly twice as much time.  My boss loves for me to go to those plants, knowing he is going to be able to charge them twice as much to get the same job done as a non-union plant.  The sad part is, in general, I find the actual workers to be as good, if not better at their jobs in non union plants.  I honestly see no reason for ANY union to still exist with the evolution of OSHA and all the other government run worker safety programs that are in place.

    On a side note, I will offer this tidbit.  A buddy of mine that I went into the Navy with out of high school went to work at a UAW plant in Northwest Ohio making considerably more than I did for similar work.  At the time we had similar backgrounds, so I asked him what other jobs were available there and what the pay was.  He told me he wasn’t sure what jobs similar to his were, he never told me what he was making, but on the board in the lunchroom was a job posting for a starting level job for a janitor, responsibilties included cleaning the bathroom, pay was 17.50 an hour.  This was 1998.  Needless to say I was a tad dumbfounded that a janitor working at a UAW plant was going to make 50 cents more an hour than I was making at the time.  This in no way is to imply that being a janitor is a bad job, it just seems the UAW valued their worth much more than any other employer.

    And we all wonder why so many UAW jobs have been moved out of the USA.

  • avatar
    andyinsdca

    The real reason that the UAW needs Honda has to do with their pension plan for the rank & file workers. New accounting rules for private pension plans will expose all of the bugs that have been hiding under the rock for decades.

    It’s going to be UGLY.

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/18/labors-last-stand


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India