Ford reaches tentative UAW contract.

[WVcampground]

Who would of thunk?

How would you like to get a $9000 ratification bonus on top of your raise along with no healthcare cost increases or changes in coverage? And $3500 if you're a temp?

Anyone wanna bet the price of that $74000.00 F350 is soon to be $79,000.00? :B

[philh]

ShinerBock wrote:

So at what point does it not become bashing to you? What if the UAW asked for $120k salaries and $15k bonuses and paying no health care? At what point would you say they are being greedy just like we are or do they get a pass simply because they are union?

It's greed when they make more than I do 😉

[goducks10]

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
Fact of the matter is, apples to apples, same job, same state, a union person is usually better off.

Yes, in this scenario there are probably more benefits to being in a union.

I will admit I am not union material. I could not stand that seniority was more important than knowledge and how well you did the job. My work ethic forced me to be the best at whatever I did and a structure where even a dumb a$$ has more ranking than me just because he applied for the job sooner than I did not jive with me.

I also was not happy making what others made. I was willing to work harder if it got me more pay, but the union guys hated that and preferred that everyone got the same pay like some kind of communist country. They were happy with the union negotiating their pay, but I wasn't. I wanted to negotiate my own pay and benefits like I do now.

I guess to each their own. I would rather carve my own path based on my own merit. It comes with a lot risks and its own sacrifices, but the reward is high which is why CEO's and executives make so much. However, I can understand how someone would want to take the safer path and be apart of a collective. Negotiating your own worth and being forced to prove it year over year is not for everyone. Some prefer the safer "known" route with less risk.

Different unions for different jobs. Being in the Carpenters Union you either did the work or you hit the road. There really wasn't seniority so to speak in the union. If there was any it was for the shop you worked for. Bust your butt, do good work and you can take yourself to the top. No different than any other job I suppose. Nothing "safe" about it. Do the work, keep your job.

[ShinerBock]

Huntindog wrote:


You seem to want to point to a single point in time when the 40 hour week became the standard. And you want it to be Ford in 1926.. And you do not want to give unions any credit for it. The truth is that this was a HEAVY lift, and it took a long time, with Unions being involved in the effort long before Ford got on the bandwagon. The tide was already shifting when he made his move. If you were to actually read my link with all of the different events and time periods, you would see that unions had been involved it the effort for a long time. And that Fords move was NOT the end of the effort. That happened quite a few years later. And yes unions were involved in the effort BEFORE, and AFTER Fords move.
I give Ford credit for being an astute buisiness man and recognizing that he could get great press by accepting the inevitable before many others... He got to own the moment in time. That behaviour is still going on today.

For example:

Read the news and you will see quite a few companies are jumping on the 15.00 HR minimum wage bandwagon. It hasn't happened nation wide..... YET. But it does appear that this too will happen at some point. So these companies are jumping on board early for the favorable press.... And yes most Unions support this effort.... I personally wish they wouldn't, but they are.

I said he created it as in the first to initiate it in his factories without union presence. So me saying that Henry Ford was the first to create the 40 hour work week in his factories was false? And what evidence do you have that he only did it for publicity? Everything I read said he did it for other reasons like believing that people would buy more if they had more leisure time on Saturday. And being that he was very religious, he believed they should go to church on Sunday.

Can you please show this evidence so I can be enlightened.

Also, the unions never fought for a 5 day 40 hour work week like Henry Ford first created in his plants. They may have been instrumental in the 8 hour work day, but not a 5 day 40 hour week. It was Henry Ford who did that first. Is this incorrect?

[Huntindog]

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

Shinerbock wrote:
Actually, no one here is bashing union in general.

Oh there have been a few general bashings.... I think Fish was one of the first.

I have been a Union organizer, member and Shop steward since 1994.

I can tell you from experience, that not all Unions have it as good as the UAW, or the public sector Unions. They are the most sucessful, perhaps too suscessful for their long term good, and some of them like the UAW get a lot of press.... Some public sector Unions such as teachers enjoy good press.... In spite of the built in negotiating advantage they have as public sector Unions.

Many Unions are still fighting the battle to get their members into the middle class..... Which Unions were a prime driver of creating.

Many things that we now enjoy, and think of as a normal right came about because of Unions. OSHA, 40 hour work week, vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, greivances for unfair discipline, etc.

These things (and more) exist now in both Union, and non Union companies because of Union efforts. The non Union companies went along and provided them or were forced to by legislation to keep up with the Union standards.

The UAW has members that often do highly specialized jobs,(skills) that will not transfer easily to another company.... And the automakers have a highly cylical business that makes obscene profits in boom times. With that much money available, thay are often able to secure contracts that are unheard of in other industries.... But they usually suffer in downturns.

As for the bad actors that pop up in Unions occasionally... Whenever there is a huge pot of money available, there will be those that cannot resist partaking in it... It is part of the human condition.
I will point out that there have been PLENTY of people in the management/company side that fall into this catagory as well.

I have worked both Union and non Union, and have seen the benefits, and downsides first hand.

I believe that Unions are necessary to balance the unfettered power that companies other wise would have.
If they were to disappear from the workplace, we would see many benefits that we take for granted disappearing as well. This would go for Union and non Union workers alike.

This is false. I was fed this propaganda too until I researched it myself.

The 40 hour work week was created by Henry Ford long before his plants were unionized because he thought that his employees would buy more Model T's if they had time off to enjoy them. Henry Ford, along with Jewish(Saturday) and Christian(Sunday) religion, also played a big role in the two day weekend long before his factories were unionized.

Paid sick leave was first created in foreign countries, and is still not a law in the US even though most companies, union and non-union, give it to their employees.

Paid vacation came about because employers in the early 1900's saw that their employees having time off made them more productive.

Holiday pay is not required in the US and is up the the employers discretion. Many companies offer it for the same reason they offer vacation and sick pay, to attract workers. There have been recordings of Holiday pay in US companies long before unions were even established here.

There are many other things that unions take credit for, but had little or no impact on their implementation. Many of these things just took a natural progression as communication became more instant and the traveling time between places decreased. People were able to be more selective on where they wanted to work, and employers had to find way to entice the best employees.

Ummm, here is some more for you to research on.
Henry Ford was late to the party. He did what businesses are still doing today; He saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to jump in and look like a hero.

History of the 40 hour work week

And what I stated was true. If you look at the link you posted, all they talked about hours per day worked and it was common to work six or seven days a week so that would 48 or 56 hours a week working eight hours a day. Henry Ford was the first implement a five day 40 hour work week(as it stated in your link) without any of his factories being unionized. If you click on the "statement" link in the article you posted, it will take you to this article which is exactly what I stated.

The 40-Hour Revolution

You seem to want to point to a single point in time when the 40 hour week became the standard. And you want it to be Ford in 1926.. And you do not want to give unions any credit for it. The truth is that this was a HEAVY lift, and it took a long time, with Unions being involved in the effort long before Ford got on the bandwagon. The tide was already shifting when he made his move. If you were to actually read my link with all of the different events and time periods, you would see that unions had been involved it the effort for a long time. And that Fords move was NOT the end of the effort. That happened quite a few years later. And yes unions were involved in the effort BEFORE, and AFTER Fords move.
I give Ford credit for being an astute buisiness man and recognizing that he could get great press by accepting the inevitable before many others... He got to own the moment in time. That behaviour is still going on today.

For example:

Read the news and you will see quite a few companies are jumping on the 15.00 HR minimum wage bandwagon. It hasn't happened nation wide..... YET. But it does appear that this too will happen at some point. So these companies are jumping on board early for the favorable press.... And yes most Unions support this effort.... I personally wish they wouldn't, but they are.

[ShinerBock]

goducks10 wrote:
Fact of the matter is, apples to apples, same job, same state, a union person is usually better off.

Yes, in this scenario there are probably more benefits to being in a union.

I will admit I am not union material. I could not stand that seniority was more important than knowledge and how well you did the job. My work ethic forced me to be the best at whatever I did and a structure where even a dumb a$$ has more ranking than me just because he applied for the job sooner than I did not jive with me.

I also was not happy making what others made. I was willing to work harder if it got me more pay, but the union guys hated that and preferred that everyone got the same pay like some kind of communist country. They were happy with the union negotiating their pay, but I wasn't. I wanted to negotiate my own pay and benefits like I do now.

I guess to each their own. I would rather carve my own path based on my own merit. It comes with a lot risks and its own sacrifices, but the reward is high which is why CEO's and executives make so much. However, I can understand how someone would want to take the safer path and be apart of a collective. Negotiating your own worth and being forced to prove it year over year is not for everyone. Some prefer the safer "known" route with less risk.

[SidecarFlip]

Bedlam wrote:
You had me going for minute with GOA: I was trying figure out what the Portuguese had to this with topic until I remembered Larry...

Sometimes I think you are like me but you have more toys than I do...lol. at least wheeled ones. Most of my toys go bang.;)

I also belong to MGA but they don't offer a banner flag.

[goducks10]

Fact of the matter is, apples to apples, same job, same state, a union person is usually better off.

[ShinerBock]

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

Shinerbock wrote:
Actually, no one here is bashing union in general.

Oh there have been a few general bashings.... I think Fish was one of the first.

I have been a Union organizer, member and Shop steward since 1994.

I can tell you from experience, that not all Unions have it as good as the UAW, or the public sector Unions. They are the most sucessful, perhaps too suscessful for their long term good, and some of them like the UAW get a lot of press.... Some public sector Unions such as teachers enjoy good press.... In spite of the built in negotiating advantage they have as public sector Unions.

Many Unions are still fighting the battle to get their members into the middle class..... Which Unions were a prime driver of creating.

Many things that we now enjoy, and think of as a normal right came about because of Unions. OSHA, 40 hour work week, vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, greivances for unfair discipline, etc.

These things (and more) exist now in both Union, and non Union companies because of Union efforts. The non Union companies went along and provided them or were forced to by legislation to keep up with the Union standards.

The UAW has members that often do highly specialized jobs,(skills) that will not transfer easily to another company.... And the automakers have a highly cylical business that makes obscene profits in boom times. With that much money available, thay are often able to secure contracts that are unheard of in other industries.... But they usually suffer in downturns.

As for the bad actors that pop up in Unions occasionally... Whenever there is a huge pot of money available, there will be those that cannot resist partaking in it... It is part of the human condition.
I will point out that there have been PLENTY of people in the management/company side that fall into this catagory as well.

I have worked both Union and non Union, and have seen the benefits, and downsides first hand.

I believe that Unions are necessary to balance the unfettered power that companies other wise would have.
If they were to disappear from the workplace, we would see many benefits that we take for granted disappearing as well. This would go for Union and non Union workers alike.

This is false. I was fed this propaganda too until I researched it myself.

The 40 hour work week was created by Henry Ford long before his plants were unionized because he thought that his employees would buy more Model T's if they had time off to enjoy them. Henry Ford, along with Jewish(Saturday) and Christian(Sunday) religion, also played a big role in the two day weekend long before his factories were unionized.

Paid sick leave was first created in foreign countries, and is still not a law in the US even though most companies, union and non-union, give it to their employees.

Paid vacation came about because employers in the early 1900's saw that their employees having time off made them more productive.

Holiday pay is not required in the US and is up the the employers discretion. Many companies offer it for the same reason they offer vacation and sick pay, to attract workers. There have been recordings of Holiday pay in US companies long before unions were even established here.

There are many other things that unions take credit for, but had little or no impact on their implementation. Many of these things just took a natural progression as communication became more instant and the traveling time between places decreased. People were able to be more selective on where they wanted to work, and employers had to find way to entice the best employees.

Ummm, here is some more for you to research on.
Henry Ford was late to the party. He did what businesses are still doing today; He saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to jump in and look like a hero.

History of the 40 hour work week

And what I stated was true. If you look at the link you posted, all they talked about hours per day worked and it was common to work six or seven days a week so that would 48 or 56 hours a week working eight hours a day. Henry Ford was the first implement a five day 40 hour work week(as it stated in your link) without any of his factories being unionized. If you click on the "statement" link in the article you posted, it will take you to this article which is exactly what I stated.

The 40-Hour Revolution

[Huntindog]

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

Shinerbock wrote:
Actually, no one here is bashing union in general.

Oh there have been a few general bashings.... I think Fish was one of the first.

I have been a Union organizer, member and Shop steward since 1994.

I can tell you from experience, that not all Unions have it as good as the UAW, or the public sector Unions. They are the most sucessful, perhaps too suscessful for their long term good, and some of them like the UAW get a lot of press.... Some public sector Unions such as teachers enjoy good press.... In spite of the built in negotiating advantage they have as public sector Unions.

Many Unions are still fighting the battle to get their members into the middle class..... Which Unions were a prime driver of creating.

Many things that we now enjoy, and think of as a normal right came about because of Unions. OSHA, 40 hour work week, vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, greivances for unfair discipline, etc.

These things (and more) exist now in both Union, and non Union companies because of Union efforts. The non Union companies went along and provided them or were forced to by legislation to keep up with the Union standards.

The UAW has members that often do highly specialized jobs,(skills) that will not transfer easily to another company.... And the automakers have a highly cylical business that makes obscene profits in boom times. With that much money available, thay are often able to secure contracts that are unheard of in other industries.... But they usually suffer in downturns.

As for the bad actors that pop up in Unions occasionally... Whenever there is a huge pot of money available, there will be those that cannot resist partaking in it... It is part of the human condition.
I will point out that there have been PLENTY of people in the management/company side that fall into this catagory as well.

I have worked both Union and non Union, and have seen the benefits, and downsides first hand.

I believe that Unions are necessary to balance the unfettered power that companies other wise would have.
If they were to disappear from the workplace, we would see many benefits that we take for granted disappearing as well. This would go for Union and non Union workers alike.

This is false. I was fed this propaganda too until I researched it myself.

The 40 hour work week was created by Henry Ford long before his plants were unionized because he thought that his employees would buy more Model T's if they had time off to enjoy them. Henry Ford, along with Jewish(Saturday) and Christian(Sunday) religion, also played a big role in the two day weekend long before his factories were unionized.

Paid sick leave was first created in foreign countries, and is still not a law in the US even though most companies, union and non-union, give it to their employees.

Paid vacation came about because employers in the early 1900's saw that their employees having time off made them more productive.

Holiday pay is not required in the US and is up the the employers discretion. Many companies offer it for the same reason they offer vacation and sick pay, to attract workers. There have been recordings of Holiday pay in US companies long before unions were even established here.

There are many other things that unions take credit for, but had little or no impact on their implementation. Many of these things just took a natural progression as communication became more instant and the traveling time between places decreased. People were able to be more selective on where they wanted to work, and employers had to find way to entice the best employees.

Ummm, here is some more for you to research on.
Henry Ford was late to the party. He did what businesses are still doing today; He saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to jump in and look like a hero.

History of the 40 hour work week

Pay attention to the timeline:
1867 and Mayday.
1926 and Ford goes to 40 hour week

[TurnThePage]

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
You know who loves unions? The non union workers that do the same work in the same town as union workers.
When unions leave wages drop.

A side note to this is that right to work states generally have lower cost of living and higher employment rates. It is a fact based on US data that on average non-RTW states have considerably more unions and a much higher the cost of living. A higher salary is needed to cover the higher cost of goods because the producers of those goods had to increase the salaries of their workers. It is a perpetual and never ending cycle. Another thing that increases the cost of living is taxes and regulations which most unions give to the political side that generally likes to increase these things whenever they can.

So just because the average salary is higher, does not necessarily mean they are better off when you consider all things.

Not saying that all union are bad. I am just saying that you have to take all things into account when weighing the pros and cons of it all. You can't just look at one single thing and say one is better(or worse) than the other.

I live in a RTW state but work in a unionized state. Yep, it costs more to live over there, but virtually every metric is better. Especially for low income groups, single women, non-whites, etc. Better education, better health care, higher income, better outcomes in general. By far in most cases. Of course, I was forced to join a union against my will and still feel a little bent about it, but my future is far better off than it would have been if I'd not crossed the border to work. It's actually VERY common around here.

[Bedlam]

You had me going for minute with GOA: I was trying figure out what the Portuguese had to this with topic until I remembered Larry...

[SidecarFlip]

Dadoffourgirls wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:

Dadoffourgirls wrote:
I just hope that all the local UAW members now support all the Union Teachers in getting pay raises and no increase to their health care as well. The Teachers gave back and froze salaries just like the UAW members.

I disagree.

Especially here in Michigan with MTA as a negotiator in contracts. Considering the quality of students educators are turning out here, they need a pay cut not a raise.

Just voted NO on the local bond issue. They get enough of my tax money as it is. Show me you can actually educate students to become productive member of society and I'll consider compensating you accordingly.

as it stands, Michigan teachers aren't showing me anything but terrible SAT scores and a poor product.

I'd like to have had a job where I worked 1/2 the year and got paid for the entire year. Talk about cushy.

I wish you would educate yourself on education in Michigan. There are many issues within the education process. Slamming teachers shows me exactly what type of retired union person you are.

Hopefully all of those non-productive youngsters do not take advantage of the old guy in the neighborhood.

I have more than once. You see almost my entire family on my wife's side are all Michigan educators, except her 2 brothers who are engineers, one at GM, one a Fords. and the rest, I'm surprised they can tie their shoes and all have their Masters and Doctorates in various disciplines.

Far as neighborhood goes, I don't. I'm a farmer and live in a very rural setting. nearest neighbor is 3/4 mile away. I don't worry about kids anyway. My flagpole out front flies an American Flag, under that is an NRA flag and below that is a GOA flag. You'd have to pretty dumb or high not to know better than mess around here. I think the big black Chow in the yard is a good deterrent as well.

I live just close enough to Toledo and Detroit to get a whiff of their stink when the wind blows right.

They say you can always tell an autoworker, retired or working, but the number of toys in their yard. Guess I fit right in. Lots of toys here.

[Dadoffourgirls]

SidecarFlip wrote:

Dadoffourgirls wrote:
I just hope that all the local UAW members now support all the Union Teachers in getting pay raises and no increase to their health care as well. The Teachers gave back and froze salaries just like the UAW members.

I disagree.

Especially here in Michigan with MTA as a negotiator in contracts. Considering the quality of students educators are turning out here, they need a pay cut not a raise.

Just voted NO on the local bond issue. They get enough of my tax money as it is. Show me you can actually educate students to become productive member of society and I'll consider compensating you accordingly.

as it stands, Michigan teachers aren't showing me anything but terrible SAT scores and a poor product.

I'd like to have had a job where I worked 1/2 the year and got paid for the entire year. Talk about cushy.

I wish you would educate yourself on education in Michigan. There are many issues within the education process. Slamming teachers shows me exactly what type of retired union person you are.

Hopefully all of those non-productive youngsters do not take advantage of the old guy in the neighborhood.

[ShinerBock]

goducks10 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
You know who loves unions? The non union workers that do the same work in the same town as union workers.
When unions leave wages drop.

A side note to this is that right to work states generally have lower cost of living and higher employment rates. It is a fact based on US data that on average non-RTW states have considerably more unions and a much higher the cost of living. A higher salary is needed to cover the higher cost of goods because the producers of those goods had to increase the salaries of their workers. It is a perpetual and never ending cycle. Another thing that increases the cost of living is taxes and regulations which most unions give to the political side that generally likes to increase these things whenever they can.

So just because the average salary is higher, does not necessarily mean they are better off when you consider all things.

Not saying that all union are bad. I am just saying that you have to take all things into account when weighing the pros and cons of it all. You can't just look at one single thing and say one is better(or worse) than the other.

Ask those non union workers if they're getting the same benefits as their union counter parts. Earning lower wages when things are cheaper is fine except when it comes time to save for retirement.

This is true and is another aspect to look at. Unfortunately, that is data neither of us have so we cannot say for 100% certain. We can make assumptions, but nothing factual with actual numbers like you can with cost of living and earnings. Although, if you continue to stay in that higher cost of living state then your cost of living will still be higher so you will need more money to compensate. That is unless you move to a RTW-state to take advantage of lower cost due to not having heavy union presence.