  Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 860 Registered: 10-2006 |
Thoughts??? http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070814/B IZ/708140392&&imw=Y During the toughest economic times for organized labor in decades, union leaders are more likely to keep their jobs and get raises than the members they serve. A Detroit News analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data revealed a growing pay divide between labor bosses and the rank and file who pay their salaries with their dues. Michigan's biggest unions represented 60,000 fewer workers in 2006 compared with 2002. While membership plummeted 14 percent, jobs at union halls remained safe, dropping less than 1 percent. Workers who kept their jobs saw the disparity between their paychecks and those of their union bosses grow. The pay gap between the state's 50 top-paid labor leaders and union workers has grown by $18,000 since 2002 -- an economic chasm expanding by almost $10 a day. Records supplied to the Labor Department by the unions themselves show that the state's 50 top-paid union officials now earn an average of $186,000. More than 1,000 labor officers and staffers in Michigan made more than $100,000 in 2006, more than twice as much as the average union worker. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 9 Registered: 08-2007 |
A labor leader uses much the same skill set that a CEO would. the article cites that more than 1,000 labor officers and staffers in Michigan made more than $100,000 in 2006, more than twice as much as the average union worker. wooptidoo, more than twice as much. According to the Institute for Policy Studies - United for a Fair Economy, CEO's of Fortune 500 companies made 411 times what the avcerage worker made in 2005. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about some highly-skilled labor leaders making that kind of chump change for their skill set is all about. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2586 Registered: 06-2004 |
attempt to divide and conquer the union bashing has gotten really bad in Michigan hopefully some of the strike actions possible in other places will occur, so people will be reminded of what it's all about | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 990 Registered: 10-2003 |
Its all about the wallets in the labor bosses' pockets...we were just reminded | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2587 Registered: 06-2004 |
I think Frankg has the right take on it. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 213 Registered: 07-2005 |
Comparing the top 1,000 union management officials in MI to Fortune 500 CEOs is beyond absurd. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4072 Registered: 10-2003 |
The Detroit News article sounds like something produced by an anti-labor think tank that avoids some elephants in the room. This appears to be editorial opinion posing as news. It would have been more fair and balanced if it answered these questions. How does this compare with the gaps between their workers and the state's 50 top paid business executives? I am willing to bet the farm that it is far, far more. How does the compensation paid the to 50 union leaders ,relative to the revenue of their organization's revenue, compare with the going rate in the private and public sectors. E.g. what is the average executive compensation paid to the president of a company with, say, a billion dollars annual revenue? Again I am willing to bet the farm that compensation paid to union and public sector employees are way on the lower end. Having been a union member [and still am a member of the Graphic Artists Guild], I have always advocated that leadership compensation be limited to triple the highest hourly wage in the local or if national officer, in the union. And that is about what most, but more often less, are now paid. When is the last time you heard of a union official leaving the job with a $200 million Golden Parachute? When is the last time you heard of a union official being brought in, like Ford's Mullally, and get paid around $30 million for less that year's work -- from a company worse off than any? | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1344 Registered: 12-2003 |
Not surprised to see the byline is Ron French. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 861 Registered: 10-2006 |
I also didn't think the salaries were out of line. But what did raise my eyebrows is that they have the same number of union leaders covering vastly fewer workers. While I understand that unions are opposed to laying offs, I do feel sympathy for the remaining rank and file workers who are struggling to pay for the same - or higher - level of benefits for the labor elite while they are being forced to take less and less. Is this fair? | ||
Dannaroo Member Username: Dannaroo Post Number: 125 Registered: 05-2006 |
Lowell said: quote: I like this idea a lot. I think I remember reading somewhere that the salary of Costco's CEO is limited to something like 8-times the highest full-time hourly employee's annual pay. I know this is a bit more than "3 times" like Lowell suggest (and I am also pretty confident that Costco's CEO probably has some nice stock options), but the idea of tying the pay of the management/leadership directly to the pay of the regular employees is a great idea in my book. This provides more of an incentive for leadership to ensure that labor's wages are rising at an appropriate level and when a board feels that things have been going great and wants to reward themselves, it will force them to reward labor as well. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4074 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yvette, I would agree with you if the article spoke of union leaders greatly increasing their compensation while membership was declining. However, this is clearly not the case. Contrast this with the Mullally case, or with the recent increases of pay to Northwest Airline executives following wage concessions by employees. In fairness, I also do not think union heads should greatly increase their compensation when membership increases. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 10 Registered: 08-2007 |
I think everybody in Michigan agrees that Ron Gettelfinger,as President of the UAW, has the toughest job in Detroit these days. What was his salary, somewhere in the neighborhoob of $150K? Please, this man is the most underpaid man in Detroit. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 864 Registered: 10-2006 |
I think Gettlefinger's salary is way higher than that. I did some work at HQ and knew some of the salaries. Even the entry level people were around $80k -- and that was 7,8 years ago. But still, I agree that the salaries are fair. My issue was on how much dues rank and file workers have to pay to keep top-heavy leaders in their jobs. When I was a manager at Kroger, my part-time workers complained loudly about how much union dues were being taken out of their checks when they weren't getting any benefits. AND the dues were mandatory -- they were not allowed to opt out. For my $40k meat cutter it wasn't a problem. But for my cashiers making $250/week.... | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 11 Registered: 08-2007 |
Ron Gettelfinger made $158,530 in 2006. Again, the most underpaid job in Detroit! Regarding the Kroger workers... can you imagine how much less they would make if there wasn't a union? They are getting their money's worth... | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 1801 Registered: 01-2005 |
Good posts from Lowell and Frankg. I couldn't agree more. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 216 Registered: 07-2005 |
I have no problem with the union leaders getting paid as much as they need to be paid to attract qualified candidates to the position. That's how all pay should be determined, by the market. It's kind of funny hearing the union apologists agreeing with this line of thinking in this case. The problem is that with Unions it is about perception as much as anything. The UAW has been saying that everyone has to "share in the pain. Dividends have been cut, white collar pay and benefits have been cut and now the UAW will likely (hopefully) take significant pay and/or benefit cuts. Amidst all of this does the UAW leadership plan on "sharing in the pain?" | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 873 Registered: 01-2005 |
I agree with Lowell on this one as well. Union members, unlike corporate shareholders, get to vote directly for or against their leaders. They can rise up and throw them out if they don't like the job the leader's doing. Apparently, most union members are satisfied that their leaders are getting paid commensurate with their abilities and the jobs they're doing. It would be great if shareholders had the same voting rights as union members. All we as s/hs can do is vote for or against Directors who are as often as not in bed with Management and rubber stamp compensation decisions (made by Mgmt.) The number of overpaid corporate executives is appalling. And even though the small s/hs have little say in the matter of compensation the major s/hs do have the clout but few use it. Chrysler hied Nardelli after he was fired by Home Depot; the stock went up while he was there but there's a big question as to the significance of the role he played. And HD paid the guy a couple of hundred million in the process. Where's the outrage from s/hs? (At least Nardelli is only getting a dollar a year from Chrysler plus some stock options. That's not unfair provided the guy doesn't own the company as a result of the number of options they granted him.) I think that running Ford Motor Company is not rocket science. There's probably a thousand people who could run Ford better than it has been and who'd be willing to do it for a lot less than Mullally. (My guess is that Boeing paid Ford to take him and thereby got out of all it's pension liability and deferred comp owed to him, which Ford picked up.) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2600 Registered: 06-2004 |
3rdWC I think you're greatly underestimating what it takes to function, more or less profit, as a major automaker in the US. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 875 Registered: 01-2005 |
Lilpup: I don't think so. The car companies would love to have people believe that. I have many friends and business associates who have been or are successful suppliers to the auto manufacturers. They own foundries, stamping plants etc. Small guys for the most part. Many of them have made huge amounts of money doing that, surviving and prospering despite having to deal with some of the most poorly run companies in the world. Companies that never missed a chance to screw their suppliers. I was with a friend in his plane starting our approach to the Harbor Springs airport one afternoon when Roger Smith in a GM jet cut us off and we had to go around. My friend supplied most of GM's prototype products (I'm not saying what because the company might be identified.) My friend hated Roger Smith with a passion for his incompetence and huge compensation package. 25 years ago he and legions of others were predicting the situation GM, Ford and Chrysler now find themselves. This is a big surprise? Now, my friend only graduated from high school but he started a group of companies that sell specialized parts to both the auto and aerospace businesses. He became very, very wealthy. He, and hundreds more businessmen like him, could have run those car companies far better than the corporate honcho's that have been running them. Have no doubt about that. For years the car company big shots have been hugely compensated (far more than their Japanese brethren) but have delivered what? Nothing. They and the union leaders (who were just doing their jobs, but with no more foresight than the management) have run those companies into the ground and they are now reaping what they sowed. I don't feel sorry for any of them or the employees who rode the ill-fated gravy train for so many years. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2601 Registered: 06-2004 |
Auto industry suppliers vs end product designers and assemblers? No comparison. It's a hell of a lot easier to handle the pieces than it is to assembled the puzzle properly. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 876 Registered: 01-2005 |
No it's not. It's about It being smart about business. Small ones or big ones, the principles are all the same. It's about common sense. It's about looking beyond the next quarter. It's about not letting Wall Street tell you how to run your business and that you'd better not miss a projection by a penny or they'll burn you. Do you honestly think those people have "assembled the puzzle properly?" (Whatever the hell that means.) I remember my college friends who were engineering co-op students in the late '50's. They spent the summers in the car factories escorting Japanese car people through our factories and encouraging them to take all the pictures pictures they wanted. The policy was to show our new friends how it was done. Of course, they were taking pictures back to show how it should not be done. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2604 Registered: 06-2004 |
Cars and trucks are the most complex mass produced product in the world, then throw in all kinds of major regulatory issues, consumer product liabilities that people don't hesitate to take advantage of, direct to consumer marketing requirements, the usual marketplace competition, etc. In theory the principles may be the same, but the processes and variables involved are radically more complex for an automaker than a parts supplier, or virtually any other product manufacturer. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 2126 Registered: 11-2006 |
Making big money for being corrupt and killing the industry in which they work and on whom they depend? Why didn't they just go into politics and cut out the middle man? | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 877 Registered: 01-2005 |
Lilpup: If it's so distressingly complex, how come the Japanese, Germans, Koreans and so on get it right year after year | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2605 Registered: 06-2004 |
Historically they don't any more than the Americans do. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 257 Registered: 02-2007 |
Comparing a backlot tierX supplier with one of the big 3 automakers from an operational standpoint is like comparing a hang glider to the space shuttle. Blaming the Auto's woes of late on mismanagement is more Monday morning QB'ing. They were sucker punched here in the US by the oil industry. Plain and simple. Why didn't they build smaller cars? They weren't selling. Same for when gas goes back down, they will have a poor market once again and tough to resell. I've seen this cycle repeat over and over. I remember there was a 1 year waiting list for the VW diesel rabbit in 75, few years later when oil prices dropped, couldn't give them away. If memory serves me correct everyone was buying SUV's a few short years ago. In business, you build what sells. Not what MIGHT sell IF this or that happens. Having a hard time understanding the near-sightedness. Gas goes up 50 cents, and it's "Oh my, we gotta get something that will save us $5 a month". So what do they do? They run down to the dealer with the big comfy SUV and take a beating on it because it's a "gas-guzzler", the money they'll save driving a shoe? they just spent it. It's ridiculous and an hyper-sensitivity to fuel prices and way over-reaction. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 878 Registered: 01-2005 |
Lilpup: Please. What's this "historical" business? Toyota has more cash than GM's mkt cap. The tooth fairy didn't just drop it off at Toyota's bank. You sound as if you must have some sort of automotive background, and I don't understand how you can make a statement like you just did with a straight face. I'd be glad to look at any facts you have to back it up. We've been talking about the alleged poor quality of GM's long term management. I've parroted for years what my associates in the business say about the car company's management and it's this: If the 100 highest paid employees of all the car companies dropped dead the same day, nobody would notice and they would just keep rolling along as if nothing happened. Maybe that's not so far off base. The car companies have bought off countless thousands of blue and white collar employees in the past 2 or 3 years and the places run better now (I'm told) than they did with all those excess employees. Somebody was responsible for hiring all those folks in the first place as they built up their fiefdoms and nobody apparently noticed how bloated those companies had become. (I know you'll say that technology and such made those employees unnecessary but neither I nor anyone else that I know that's involved in the business apparently believes that. One doesn't see WalMart, the biggest employer in the country by far, falling into that trap. WalMart folks know how to run a business, The car companies haven't for a long time.) Example: I have a good friend who was a production guru at GM and heavy into robotics years ago. He left GM and joined the largest robotics manufacturer, He specialized in setting up robotic production lines for the car manufacturers and just completed a 3 year complete overhaul of an existing assembly plant for one of the big three. Then, after 14 years, he was fired. There were no more big jobs in the pipeline. (He enjoyed a month off and then immediately got another job elsewhere. My point is that GM would never have fired the guy when there was no work. That's one of their problems. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2606 Registered: 06-2004 |
I can't believe anyone is stupid enough to compare Wal*Mart to GM or any other automaker. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 879 Registered: 01-2005 |
I am probably much more stupid than you are but we're talking here about the ability to run a business, any business. The car business is not a lot more complicated than any other businesses, including the aerospace business. The U.S. car companies are the equivalent of Airbus and the rest of the world's automakers (except China) are equivalent to Boeing. GE owns many businesses that are as complicated as the car business (jet engines w/ world-wide competition, locomotives, high tech medical equipment etc.) How would you compare GE's management abilities to our car companies? [I may be stupid so I sure must be lucky.] | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 217 Registered: 07-2005 |
The automakers are a victim of their own success. They were so wildly profitable that they were forced to provide unaffordable and inefficient compensation packages to their hourly employees (in an industry with historically high labor costs). Getting a transformational change from their workers, in terms of a new union contract, is essential to their survival. If this happens management will suddenly look a lot smarter. It's easy to criticize the big three from afar, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But please, some schmuck with a high school diploma who runs a miniscule, albeit successful, supplier would likely not have been able to do "far better." In terms of comparing GM with GE, GM has over the years successfully managed a number of disparate (and complicated) businesses including: Hughes, EDS and GMAC. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 880 Registered: 01-2005 |
Sparticus, are you and Lilput collaborating to outdo each other w/ nonsensical responses? (You've obviously detected that I don't feel like working much today and you feel you ought to give me something to occupy my time.) You state the automakers were "wildly profitable." Not in my long lifetime. A good year would result in profits which were maybe 12% ROI, a number that was towards the middle of the pack among manufacturers. What's this about being "forced to provide unaffordable and inefficient compensation packages to their employees?" Were the folks doing the forcing arrested and convicted of armed robbery? Funny no one was made aware that they operated their businesses with guns to their heads. I've never seen that argument made to excuse very bad business judgment. Just like "the Devil made me do it." WOW. Nobody's criticizing them "from afar with the benefit of hindsight." Knowledgable people have been predicting this situation for many years. I mean, these guys viewed the car business the same way the S & L crooks of the '80's viewed the real estate market, that it would continue to grow for eternity and the bubble would never burst. Have you read my previous posts? Haven't I been saying that the big problem is that these guys rarely looked beyond the next quarter. They're such bad managers because they didn't see this coming or if they did refused to take the necessary steps when they could to address the problems. They wanted those big bonuses. My friend was not a schmuck. That is, unless a guy who dies (as he did recently) and leaves a $30,000,000 estate, not including his 6 very successful businesses which he had already conveyed to his family, who now run them. And he did not supply anything to the car companies that was used in a car; he handled their tooling, at prices and terms he set and the car companies agreed to. He had nothing but disdain for automobile company management and I sure value his judgment more than yours and Lilputs' together. Finally, get serious about GM's alleged successes with Hughes, EDS and GMAC. True, GMAC is a success story primarily because it had a captive customer base. It did do well in areas where it did not, I acknowledge, such as home loans and possibly credit cards. Who knows about the latter. As far as EDS is concerned, it bought a very successful company from Perot and then got rid of its biggest asset, Perot himself. Then they screwed it up and it became the sole supplier of computers etc to GM, at prices far in excess of what GM would have to have paid for the same stuff from Best Buy. I know they were trying to move money and profits out of GM but they did a lousy job of it. I acknowledge they made money on Hughes apparently. The fact is that their involvement in those business (except GMAC) have been the subject of much criticism because they should have concentrated on running the car business instead of trying to become the flavor-of-the month conglomerateur. "Forced" to make bad business decisions. I love that one. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 262 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "Nobody's criticizing them "from afar with the benefit of hindsight." Knowledgable people have been predicting this situation for many years." Just a few short years ago, Michigan Truck plant was the most profitable manufacturing facility in the world for its size, per capita etc. What were you saying then? This is just a cycle that repeats and plays itself out. Layoffs come, the media declares its over for Detroit, a few years later it's back on its feet. Since your predictions have been so precise, I'll try one. Things are going to tighten way up on the importers and Oil in the next few years. Unbalanced and unfair trade is killing this country and anyone with any common sense can see it. | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2007 |
Regarding 3rdworldcity's earlier comments about the Big 3 being bloated. This bloating was caused by several factors. First, an oligopoly market for years allowed the companies to charge higher prices than needed. Second, easy access to capital, with the growth in post-WWII, the companies did not have to go to the financial markets for capital for new car projects. Third, internal divisional structure and competition that hindered effectiveness, especially at GM. These factors together led to a culture that did not focus on quality and customer satisfaction. I think we should give the Big 3 a pat on the back for all the work they have done to overcome those inertial forces to produce such fine vahicles at such a price as they do today. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2608 Registered: 06-2004 |
3rd, no one said your friend was a schmuck, but a $30 million estate and six businesses don't mean he was capable of running a large automaker. Seriously, $30 million is pocket change in the auto industry. ps: turn around time for a new auto design is about three years, so these guys have to look well beyond the next quarter (Message edited by lilpup on August 15, 2007) | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 5779 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: This or something similar comes up in every Anti-Union thread. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 218 Registered: 07-2005 |
I used the word "schmuck." My comment wasn't about this one guy per se, it was a response to this comment: "He, and hundreds more businessmen like him, could have run those car companies far better than the corporate honcho's that have been running them. Have no doubt about that." I've seen tons of shop rat types with high school diplomas become very rich at running relatively small manufacturing businesses. I have seen some of these same people lose their fortunes when their business grew too big to manage. I was merely criticizing the notion that a successful owner of a small business could step in and run an enormous manufacturing company. Not forced??? So 3rdworld you're one of the guys who think that GM should have simply refused UAW demands. That's probably what your buddy told you, "I wouldn't have signed those contracts if I was in charge" If only it were that simple, if only they didn't have the power to shut the entire company down with a strike at a handful of plants. I'm not sure what GM's ROI was in the 40's and 50's, but I've always been under the impression that they were incredibly profitable. Maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what their ROI would have been in the 80's and 90's if they were able to pay market wages and benefits? | ||
Soulhawk Member Username: Soulhawk Post Number: 316 Registered: 04-2004 |
As a dues paying member of local 223, I do not think that the salaries are out of line. I will echo the sentiment of some earlier posters; Gettelfinger is way underpaid. This was a clear attempt at divide and conquer. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 883 Registered: 01-2005 |
I can't respond to all these comments until tomorrow because I'm late for a meeting. But, I shall. By way of background, although I have never been a GM employee I get an employee discount. So, in the last 20 years I have purchased at least 50 new cars and trucks for myself, family and businesses. My contact at GM for a long time had the ability to assign the employee discount to other, non-family members. I have referred at least 30 people who have bought GM cars or trucks under that program. My contact currently has only the ability to assign Supplier - friends discounts (not as good as employee discounts) to unlimited numbers of people. I've done 2 of those in the last 2 weeks, a Buick Lucern and yesterday, to a friend in TX, a new Tahoe. I'm trying to do my part to keep GM afloat, believe me. But, I need some help. Tune in tomorrow, same time, same station. I've got some hot come-backs. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 869 Registered: 10-2006 |
Did anybody notice (or even care) that this news article never mentioned the UAW? The article was an analysis of service unions which typically earns much less than auto workers. Even in Detroit, there are other unions. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2609 Registered: 06-2004 |
um, it did mention the UAW (along with the others) and it brought up Mulally's compensation, too | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 871 Registered: 10-2006 |
Did not!!! - LOL (at least, that wasn't the focus of the article) |
