When Will the Unions be Fired?

Unions — By Harrison on March 30, 2009 at 7:00 am

Word just came out that the Obama Administration has ordered that GM’s chairman and CEO, Rick Wagoner, quit.  Because  General Motors took government monies to continue operations, Wagoner obviously had no choice in the matter.  After more than 30 years with the company, he is gone.  Considering how GM has been doing financially for the past several years, a new leader is probably a good idea but if Wagoner is taking the fall for GM’s dismal performance when will the head of the UAW quit, too?

The high cost of the UAW on the Big 3

The UAW is living off of contracts negotiated during the golden age of American automotive dominance even though their shrinking market share no longer allows the Big 3 to be so generous.  In fact:

The UAW has been heavily criticized for its role in driving the Detroit automakers to the brink of bankruptcy, mostly for the $70 an hour that active workers earn in wages and benefits. Active and retiree health benefits alone add $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle GM produces.

This added cost places the Big 3 at huge disadvantage when compared to their Japanese competition:

The typical UAW worker at the Big Three earned between $71 and $76 an hour in 2006. This amount is triple the earnings of the typical worker in the private sector and $25 to $30 an hour more than American workers at Japanese auto plants. The average unionized worker at the Big Three earns over $130,000 a year in wages and benefits.

It is not only the people who make the cars that are so well paid… it is even people who don’t make any cars that still collect their salaries:

One such burden the media have ignored are “jobs banks” which companies like Ford and GM created in the mid-80s as a concession to the United Auto Workers. The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford pays out about $140 million per year from Ford’s job bank, Guaranteed Employment Numbers (GEN), to some 1,100 presently-unemployed workers.

So not only are the Big 3 having to pay inflated wages to people making cars, support people who aren’t making cars, but they also have to pay retirement benefits to people who made cars.  No wonder they are losing so much money every year!

It is very true that the Big 3 spent very little money on building compelling cars in the United States… relying on pick-up trucks and SUVs far longer than they should have but products can be changed as we have seen with cars like the Chevy Cobalt, Ford Taurus, and the Cadillac CTS.  Union legacy contracts, on the other hand, cannot be so easily changed, especially when the Democratic party is in the pocket of unions.

It’s not like Rick Wagoner did a bad job… GM is a massive company with more red tape and departments than the Kremin had during the Soviet Union. Wagoner closed Oldsmobile, brought new cars into the Pontiac division, tried to help Buick become relevant, and led a successful rise in the sales of Cadillac.  According to an article today by the Associated Press:

By all accounts, Wagoner made progress in fixing GM. While CEO, he cut its U.S. work force from 177,000 to roughly 92,000 today.

Wagoner also closed factories; shed the unprofitable Oldsmobile brand; globalized GM’s engineering, manufacturing and design to save billions; and led a resurgence in quality and performance of its long-neglected cars. In 2007, the company reached a landmark agreement with the United Auto Workers that shifted massive retiree health care costs to a union-run trust and ushered in a $14-per-hour wage for new hires, about half that of a current laborer.

One problem with having a government ask the head of a private company to step down is that the shareholders, employees, and the public will never know how much of the change was politically motivated.  It is troubling to say the least.

Will the Democrats, who pushed for Card Check to benefit the unions, pander to that group during elections, and created a task force on the American automotive industry (though only one member owns an American car), know what they are doing?

And will any of them get tough on the unions… the biggest reason why the Big 3 are in the red?  Common sense says the answer will be a resounding “no” although I certainly hope that I am wrong.

Like this post? Subscribe to the Conservative perspective of Just Politics..? via RSS or Email and enjoy great articles like this every day or spread the word with one of the share buttons below!

Related posts:

    How Unions Hurt Themselves: Boeing Builds 787s in South Carolina
    Putting a Check on Unions
    9 Hours on a Runway Because of Unions?
    Big Union, Kalifornia, and Green Energy
    Read Obama’s Lips – No New Taxes!
    Obama Makes Americans Pay for World’s Sins

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

    7 Comments

  • adam hartung says:

    This is what happens when you lose your position as #1. It doesn’t take long for people to start envisioning a world without you. GM started on the road to irrelevant years ago by focusing internally rather than on the market – missing all major shifts and becoming also-ran. Obama’s team is telling everyone (auto and banking) that if you can’t prove you know where the market is heading and demonstrate you can get back in front, then there’s little reason to support you. Read more http://www.ThePhoenixPrinciple.com

    • admin says:

      Agreed but it is tough to move forward when you have unions tying you down making it almost impossible to move around your manufacturing or cut costs.

  • askcherlock says:

    Unions have become antiquated with their adversarial tactics. They have been part of the cement which has tied down corporations such as GM.

  • The Hawg! says:

    Here’s what drives me nuts about the whole stranglehold unions have on the auto industry (and a few others, frankly). The abuses that gave rise to unions in the first place have been legislated out of existence. Yes, it seems that unions have been too successful in that regard.

    So what’s left for them to do? Push for inflated wages that make it next to impossible for American companies to compete. Unions are more interested in their own survival than the continued existence of the companies that employ their members.

    Strange, huh?

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled

Why ask?

Trackbacks

Leave a Trackback
Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.