No, comparing conditions in first world nations with some ideals of social and environmental responsibility to those of China, a brutal serf 'n elite state if there ever was one, is pretty out there. I have witnessed conditions in Chinese household goods and electronic manufacturing, and it is not nearly to a European or Japanese standard seen in the past century. These people have no hope of ever really having anything, they have little rights and live in conditions that would not have been tolerated in the places you mention at the times you mention. I understand these conditions are what some are hoping to have for the North American and European worker, but this should not be supported.
Certainly foreign automakers have been bashed, especially Asian makers, but I don't see this as the same.
I pretty much agree with your assessment of the situation. And to a certain extent we all feel some entitlement living in the USA. It just has ranged so far into out daily existence to where we are somewhat enslaved. As much as some would like not to believe you can become enslaved to the Union mindset. My 45 years of Union membership was not all rosy. I fought with Union leaders over many issues. The truth is they are not keeping up with OUR Globalization. If as some here believe we are entitled to build cars with Union labor. We should be entitled to make TVs and Tennis shoes. There is no difference to the guy that lost his job in manufacturing. For US to turn the tide of the Global economy would be impossible. We all have to face up to reality.
Reality IS. Toyota building a Sequoia SUV in Indiana is making a better vehicle than GMC building a PU truck in Indiana. I am not saying it is the UAW that is at fault. The people in Indiana are probably about the same whether they are Union or Non-Union. To be competitive a given vehicle has to be of equal quality to demand equal pricing. My 2005 GMC Hybrid PU was NOT equal to my 2007 Sequoia SUV. Except in the entertainment electronics. So it seems that GMC has a better company in China building there stereo systems.
To put it simply if Toyota has a loaded hourly worker rate of $50 compared to GMC with a loaded hourly rate of $65, there is only a few choices. GMC can cut the quality which they have done. Or they can charge more which will not fly. Either the UAW has to get the Toyota workers to sign up or allow cuts in the workers wages and benefits. It may be harsh for those feeling they are entitled to what Union people had in the past. It is a new world order and like it or not we are stuck with it.
Very good Steve. I think that says it all... At least the kids that were smart enough to take advantage of mom and dad's willingness to send them to college.
For those that do not think a college education is important today in this country, are in for a shock. A close friend with 10 years network experience just applied for a job as a network engineer. An easy job for him to handle. He was turned down because he does not have a degree. I saw it coming in the 1960s at Pacific Telephone. They were only hiring college grads for promotion into management. Anything passed 2nd level was a no go without the degree.
As the manufacturing jobs continue to go away it behooves anyone not in a position to retire to get that degree.
For those that do not think a college education is important today in this country, are in for a shock. A close friend with 10 years network experience just applied for a job as a network engineer. An easy job for him to handle. He was turned down because he does not have a degree. I saw it coming in the 1960s at Pacific Telephone. They were only hiring college grads for promotion into management. Anything passed 2nd level was a no go without the degree.
Gagrice, you are exactly right. A close friend of mine from HS (we graduated in '90) has an associates degree in network technology. He has been a network engineer (most of his education has been provided through employment) for at least 5 years. He was looking for a new job and many turned him down because he didn't have a BS degree. Fair or not fair, that is the way it is. He just started a new job last week as a network engineer for a very good school system, so he did find the job he wanted, but it took a while.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that now days a degree can pay for itself. Obviously it still will require hard work and making the right decisions. Some without a degree can still be successful but they will have to counter the lack of a degree with smarts and talent. Bottomline, if you want to succeed you have to offer value to an employer. Seems some don't understand or are unwilling to accept it.
I think it's sad really how some view those who worked their [non-permissible content removed] of for a degree whether mommy or daddy paid for it is irrelevant and certainly doesn't mean they were spoiled brats with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Some families just choose to sacrifice today for the future of their children, thus possibly making this country better for everyone instead of sending young adults that are more likely to be a drain on society instead of contributing.
My sister's best friend's family sacrificed by reducing spending at Christmas when the kids reached the age where they didn't believe in Santa anymore. From the age of 8 or so they made an effort to add that money to the kids college savings (so they didn't get as many useless toys). That helped her parents afford to send her to a good state university where she got her mechanical engineering degree and went on to law school (she had to borrow for that) and now her and her husband (whom she met in law school) are both patent attorneys raking in about 300k/yr together while just turning 30 years old. Yeah they have about $100k in student loans (chump change considering their earnings).
My wife and I along with my parents feel the exact same way. We started savings for college when our kids were born. My parents contribute to a 529 for our kids college savings too. While they don't have degrees themselves they realize it's a way to help them get ahead as it did with my wife and I.
As for the UAW, I'm not rooting for them to go away, I just don't agree with work rules that impede productivity which makes it even harder for the Ford, GM, and Chrysler to keep jobs here. It's a tough situation.
That's an irritant to me too. Alaska employers used to be good about hiring anyone who walked in the door who expressed a willingness to work. My wife hired a guy who had no college degree but had a big interest in the field over some mild objections of her managers and he's still at that old place of employment and has moved up the chain.
The UAW, IBEW, and the rest of them have apprentice programs. I know one guy who dropped out of the journeyman electrician program because he didn't want to hack the course of study. He could coast through an undergrad program.
On the other hand, these barriers to entry turn some of the HS grads into big time entrepreneurs out of necessity (insert your favorite Bill Gates quote here). So getting that degree fosters its own set of entitlement issues.
Maybe the UAW should offer more management type courses for its members and encourage more of a revolving door policy where they celebrate their former members moving over to supervisory roles. Maybe someone in the ranks can speak to this, but I have the impression that the UAW is loathe to see one of their own cross over into management.
Maybe someone in the ranks can speak to this, but I have the impression that the UAW is loathe to see one of their own cross over into management.
That's not true as long as the guy doesn't let the power go to his head. We had guys that left the union to go into management and ended up being the best boss you could askfor. They remembered where they came from and understood what we were going through. The same as I said apply's in the autoplants. The guy going into management can make or break how he's perceived by his peers.
I'd say for the most part yes, with the influence of Boeing (who are often seen as whiners) and the port workers/longshoremen. However, these combined are not like the autoworkers in the midwest, so it is probably a different mentality. Lots of corporate office type jobs here which pay well enough so there isn't a lot of union pressure. But it's not anti-union anyway. The northwest was a huge pro-union base back in the day, IWW and all of that.
This question is spurred by silverfox's original question "What should the UAW do...?"
I've never worked in a union shop, but I know quite a few people who have. I've heard stories (and I believe read them online here as well) that union workers are assigned "Jobs" and that they have to stay within that "Job". As an example, my impression is that if you put on wheels, then you can't do windshields, you can't do sweeping, you can't set up a non-wheel machine, etc. Is this true?
I know in my own professional, non-union field, we have a lot of flexibility about the work. If we need more of skill B today, and we have a lot of skill A staff without enough to do, then we train some of the A staff on B skills so we have a more flexible workforce. It's also better for the workers, as they have more skills, are more versatile, are more valuable, and have a more varied job instead of doing the same thing all the time. Then someday they learn skills C, D, etc.
When promotions are considered or staff are going to be assigned to a project, we all want the staff who have as many of the skills as we can get, because that means we can move quicker, cover for vacations, sick, etc. The project runs more effectively because as the skill needs shift, we can use the same staffers to cover everything. Any they like it better, too.
If in fact this is NOT the way it works in an assembly plant, then I don't understand it. I don't think I'd want to do the same thing on end for years. Variety helps keep the mind and body strong. Any inputs on this?
So silverfox, I think the UAW should allow flexibility in their "work rules" in this way, if it is not already there.
i work at freudenberg nok, a auto supplier for the big 3 and toyota....we average $15 an hour...i think with the global economy it is unrealistic for us to be making 70,000 a year...there is just too much cheap labor in world...energy prices are really hurting the economy too...plus hospitals and taxes....in philippines and india, cost of health care is 80% less than it is here..prescription drugs are outrageous too...i think the middle class will continue to shrink in usa
"It pretty much has transitioned to this before this contract at some of the plants and is going to be expanded even more."
Rocky, I'm afraid you are somewhat mistaken in making such claims. That "transition" you reference hasn't gone anywhere near far enough, and there's still considerable resistance to moving it forward.
Shop floor flexibility hasn't been adopted as much as you would have us believe, and change hasn't occurred at that many plants.
There have been some improvements in a few areas, but truth be told, those few improvements are mostly superficial in nature.
There is still a huge disparity between existing "Job and Classification Precedents" prevailent in all current UAW/CAW collective agreements, and measures needed to close gaps on costs or efficiencies.
On a National level, both UAW and CAW hierachy have clearly drawn a line in the sand on "concessions"--these include layoffs due to "technological improvements" which might result from such things as job/task re-engineering, flexible work rules, technology, etc.
On the local level, many union officials have gone so far as to declare war if any more changes occur!
The President of the CAW, Buzz Hargrove, just recently announced that he is prepared to "take the country down" on these same issues!
Most, if not all existing contract language speaks directly to attempts by employers in making improvements in efficiency---called "job security safeguards". They effectively restrict changes through contractual obligations by employers.
Such language has historically been considered inviolate, and the UAW isn't going to give up easily on agreeing to changes which are necessary---or so it seems.
Thanks for your input on what might just be "a key question" needed to be addressed by UAW hierarchy.
Regardless of Rockylee's optimism, there's still much resistance throughout UAW leadership and rank and file to flexible work. (See my previous post)
Re your query:.."Variety helps keep the mind and body strong. Any inputs on this?"
On the face of it, your observation is true--and applying it to the shop floor certainly has merit.
Speaking from personal experience, I can speak to much success in its application.
Furthermore, I know of a good many studies re shop floor practices which point to decidedly more positive than negatives.
Needless to say, the prevailing union philosophy where "seniority" governs job assignments/opportunities tends to discourage the kind of flexibility you're familiar with.
There is somewhat of a downside to the practice however. I've learned that some folks actually seek to remain on the same job, and aren't at all comfortable moving about.
IMO, the best shop floor practice would be one which respects the skills, abilities and comfort levels of as many of the work force as possible.
I find it amazing silverfox5, you asked the question of what more the UAW, can do to help improve the competiveness and then slam me for giving my take which is supported by not myths but actual facts from supervision and UAW employees. Since you are obviously a expert on the UAW, and know what the job rules are then why did you ask the question ??? :confuse:
I do have first hand knowledge of the job classifications as I still have quite a few relatives working at GM & Delphi, but you know better than they do. :confuse:
Also their is data "links" from harbour research a independent company that study's the auto-industry that has been posted on here before supporting that the UAW, workers are just as competitive as their non-union counterparts. In many cases they are more productive but I guess you would disregard that data also. :confuse:
With the new contracts in place the UAW, has closed the cost gap with the transplants whether or not you like it or not !!! I know that doesn't fit your agenda silverfox5, but I thought the other forum posters should get some factual data for a change if they didn't read the edmunds.com, detroit news, posts from a few months ago highlighting the new contracts.
Talked to dad, this morning about the VEBA, and he said everyone is going to have to go to a traditional Blue Cross & Blue Shield insurance plan pretty much the same plan he had before because not living in a major city he was not elgible for the HMO/PPO plans. So everyone is going to have to convert to his plan.
IMO, the best shop floor practice would be one which respects the skills, abilities and comfort levels of as many of the work force as possible.
I consider protection of seniority of the highest importance in any Union Contract. Job classifications are a two edged sword that many times are more harmful to Union employees than to the company. When member A will only do one job and member B with less seniority is classified to do a different job, the Senior employee becomes expendable. It does behoove management to place people in the position they are best suited for. Placing a 55 year old in a position of extreme physical exertion because a 25 year old is not classified for that job makes little sense to me.
After 45 years in 3 different Unions I found the wider the job classification the better for the employees and company as well. The boss wants me to sweep the floor for journeyman wages, NO problem. If there is enough floor sweeping to hire a janitor then the company is wasting money. That is NOT the place of the Union to decide. It is a distinct right of the company to place people where needed. I fear the rank and file UAW membership has not figured that out. The UAW is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. I have witnessed too many Union shops being busted due to lack of flexibility. At one time Alaska was a very strong Union State. It is no longer the case. I would not want to be depending on a Union in this global economy. Our contract was severely denigrated two months after I retired. The times they are a changing.
I sense a confrontational approach developing in your rebuttal Rocky.
That's exactly the way NOT to resolve a difference of opinion
I think you would be wise to take another look at that Harbour Report.
Here's a partial quote from its lead in statements:....
"Assembly plants: how they compare - Harbour Report on automobile assembly plant productivity Automotive Manufacturing & Production, August, 2007
(I Paraphrased this for brevity)....First and second place went to Offshore automakers...............
........the best of the traditional domestics is Ford, which requires 3.09 workers per vehicle. GM requires more workers per vehicle than any of the other major builders - 3.47 - but compared with others, its rate of improvement is best: 4.8% better than last year. "
Read the whole report Rocky, then come back and tell us the UAW plants are as competitive as our UAW shops! (NOT!!!)
Rocky, FYI, here's another excerpt from the Harbour Report which further underscores my contention that Domestic Automakers still need improvements in productivity--among other issues:....
"The United Auto Workers and Canadian Auto Workers were more proactive in 2007 than ever before in creating a more competitive environment among the companies whose hourly workers they represent. Chrysler, General Motors and especially Ford negotiated more flexible local labor agreements prior to this summer’s pivotal national talks with the UAW. However, they must go further to overcome their persistent health care and pension cost disadvantage vs. Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Restrictive labor agreements that create cost disadvantages still exist and could jeopardize the survival of certain automakers."
They are making progress Rocky, but those "restrictive labour agreements" are a restrictive factor in making that progress.
With the new contracts in place the UAW, has closed the cost gap with the transplants
That is only part of the problem. The Big 3 did get concessions on starting pay, retirees and benefits. Can they send the least senior guy to a plant 30 miles away if that is where he is needed? Can they move a member to another job in the plant if that is needed? If the boss says sweep the floor will he be grieved?
I sense a confrontational approach developing in your rebuttal Rocky.
That's exactly the way NOT to resolve a difference of opinion
Wow, I'm the confrontational person when you have slam every post I make with propaganda ??? Okay !!!! :surprise: :confuse:
I think you would be wise to take another look at that Harbour Report.
Here's a partial quote from its lead in statements:....
"Assembly plants: how they compare - Harbour Report on automobile assembly plant productivity Automotive Manufacturing & Production, August, 2007
(I Paraphrased this for brevity)....First and second place went to Offshore automakers...............
Wages and labor costs How many UAW members work at the companies that will be a part of this year’s auto talks?
There are 180,681 UAW members employed at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Of these, 177,498 are covered by the national agreements that will expire Sept. 14, 2007. The remaining 3,183 UAW members at Chrysler Jeep in Toledo, Ohio, negotiate a local contract distinct from the national agreement. Certain Delphi employees who have rights under the GM Benefit Guarantee also will be affected by the outcome of these negotiations.
An additional 419,621 retired members and 120,723 surviving spouses will also be covered by the agreements negotiated this year. Their pension payments and retiree health care benefits are subject to the terms of the UAW national auto industry agreements.
Employer Active members Retired members Surviving spouses Totals Chrysler* 48,927 55,183 23,252 127,362 Ford** 58,300 94,824 28,183 181,307 General Motors 73,454 269,614 69,288 412,356 Totals 180,681 419,621 120,723 721,025
* Includes workers at Chrysler Jeep, Toledo, Ohio ** Ford active total includes 7,180 workers at Automotive Components Holdings
Source: United Auto Workers based on company data. Figures are for the end of the first quarter 2007
How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
The CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006.
The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM. These substantial sums do not include the value of stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation.
Why is the figure cited as hourly labor costs by the companies so much higher than the wage rates?
In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400,2 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.
This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures 2005 data
2 UAW Research Department, based on hours-per-vehicle data from the 2007 Harbour Report and labor costs as reported in the companies’ 10-Ks
That is only part of the problem. The Big 3 did get concessions on starting pay, retirees and benefits. Can they send the least senior guy to a plant 30 miles away if that is where he is needed? Can they move a member to another job in the plant if that is needed? If the boss says sweep the floor will he be grieved?
My cousin George, was moved from Grand Rapids, to the Lansing MI Delta plant about a 1 1/2 away. So to answer your question yes !!! Sweeping the floor has always been in the job description. Dad, always had to sweep his work station and fix his own machine. People in non-union shops would call out the skill trades for basic repairs. That was the way it was in the non-union places I worked !!!!
According to Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California-Berkeley,[1] unions are associated with higher productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce.
Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:
Productivity Competitiveness Product or service delivery and quality Training Turnover Solvency of the firm Workplace health and safety Economic development Productivity
According to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on unions and productivity: “The available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between unions and productivity in the U.S. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[2]
Some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between unions and productivity. According to Brown and Medoff, “unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[3]
Product/ Service Delivery and Quality According to Professors Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago,[4] heart attack recovery rates are higher in hospitals where nurses are unionized than in non-union hospitals.
Another study looked at the relationship between unionization and product quality in the auto industry.[5] According to a summary of this study prepared by American Rights at Work:
“The author examines the system of co-management created through the General Motors-United Auto Workers partnership at the Saturn Corporation The author credits the union with building a dense communications network throughout Saturn's management system. Compared to non-represented advisors, union advisors showed greater levels of lateral communication and coordination, which had a significant positive impact on quality performance.”
Training Several studies in have found a positive association between unionization and the amount and quality of workforce training. Unionized establishments are more likely to offer formal training.[6] This is especially true for small firms. There are a number of reasons for this: less turnover among union workers, making the employer more likely to offer training; collective bargaining agreements that require employers to provide training; and finally, unions often conduct their own training.
Turnover Professor Shaiken also finds that unions reduce turnover. He cites Freeman and Medoff’s finding that “about one fifth of the union productivity effect stemmed from lower worker turnover. Unions improve communication channels giving workers the ability to improve their conditions short of ‘exiting.’”[7]
Solvency Labor’s enemies assert that unions drive employers out of business, but academic research refutes this claim. According to Professors Richard Freeman and Morris Kleiner, unionism has a statistically insignificant effect (meaning no effect) on firm solvency.[8] Freeman and Kleiner conclude “unions do not, on average, drive firms or business lines out of business or produce high displacement rates for unionized workers.”
Workplace Health and Safety Employers should be concerned about workplace health and safety as a matter of enlightened self-interest. According to an American Rights at Work summary of a study by John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts:
“Only one factor effectively moves workers who are in subordinate positions to actively cope with hazards: membership in an independent labor union. These findings suggest that union growth could indirectly reduce job stress by giving workers the voice to cope effectively with job hazards.”[9]
Economic Development Unions also play a positive role in economic development. One good example is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, “an association of 125 employers and unions dedicated to family-supporting jobs in a competitive business environment. WRTP members have stabilized manufacturing employment in the Milwaukee metro area, and contributed about 6,000 additional industrial jobs to it over the past five years. Among member firms, productivity is way up--exceeding productivity growth in nonmember firms.”[10]
[2] Christos Doucouliagos and Patrice Laroche, “The Impact of U.S. Unions on Producivity: A Bootstrap Meta-analysis,” Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, 2004. See also, by the same authors, “What Do Unions Do to Productivity: A Meta-analysis,” Industrial Relations, Volume 42 Issue 4 October 2003:
[3] Charles Brown and James L. Medoff, “Trade Unions in the Production Process.” Journal of Political
[4] Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago, “The effect of registered nurses' unions on heart-attack mortality,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Apr. 2004), pp. 422-442.
[5] Saul A. Rubinstein, “The Impact of Co-Management on Quality Performance: The Case of the Saturn Corporation.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, No. 197 (January 2000).
[6] Harley J. Frazis, Diane E. Herz and Michael W. Horrigan, “Employer-Provided Training: Results from a New Survey.” Monthly Labor Review (May 1995): 3–17.
[7] Harley Shaiken, cited earlier, quoting Richard Freeman and James Medoff, What Do Unions Do? New York, Basic Books, 1984.
[8] Richard B. Freeman and Morris M. Kleiner, “Do Unions Make Enterprises Insolvent?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 52, no. 4 (July 1999): 510–527.
[9] John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts, “Workplace Hazards, Unions and Coping Styles.” Labor
Studies Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer 2004).
[10] Annette Bernhardt, Laura Dresser, and Joel Rogers, “Taking the High Road in Milwaukee: The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership.” Working USA, Vol. 5, Issue 3 (January 31, 2002).
How do UAW-represented plants stack up against the competition in terms of quality and productivity?
Recent studies by J.D. Power and Associates and Harbour Associates demonstrate that UAW-represented plants all over the United States are achieving impressive quality and productivity results.
According to J.D. Power’s study of initial vehicle quality, UAW members build the top-ranked full-size pickup, the top-ranked full-size SUV and the top-ranked compact van.
The Harbour Report, which measures factory productivity, found that four of the top 10 assembly plants in North America are UAW-represented. Ford’s Chicago plant, for example, which takes 17.71 hours to assemble a midsize car, and Ford’s Atlanta plant, which takes 17.78 hours, both outrank Toyota’s Georgetown plant, which required more than 20 hours to assemble a mid-size vehicle.
Harbour found that UAW-represented plants set the benchmark in plants representing six of 14 vehicle segments: compact car, sports car, full-size SUV, minivan, large van and mid-luxury car.
How did UAW plants perform in the 2003 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS)? All three of the top-rated plants in the 2003 J.D. Power and Initial Quality Study (IQS) for North and South America are union plants, rating ahead of the Asian and European automakers’ nonunion assembly plants in North America.
Gold Award: GM, Oshawa #1 plant, Ontario, Canada – Chevrolet Impala, Monte Carlo (Canadian Auto Workers)
Silver Award: GM, Lansing Grand River plant, Michigan – Cadillac CTS (UAW Local 652)
Bronze Award: Ford, Atlanta – Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable (UAW Local 882)
The 2003 J.D. Power IQS found that “the initial quality gap between Domestic, European, Japanese and Korean brands continues to narrow. While Domestics trailed their European and Japanese counterparts by at least 19 PP100 (problems per 100 vehicles) five years ago, Domestics and Europeans are now equal, and both trail the Japanese by 9 PP100.” (J.D. Power and Associates news release, May 6, 2003.)
Eighteen vehicles assembled by UAW members ranked among the top three vehicles in their respective segments.
Compact Car Second: Toyota Corolla – UAW Local 2244, NUMMI (GM-Toyota joint venture)
Entry Midsize Car Highest ranked: Chevrolet Malibu – UAW Local 1999 Third: Pontiac Grand Am – UAW Local 602
Premium Midsize Car Highest ranked: Mercury Sable – UAW Locals 551 and 882
Full-Size Car Second: Buick LeSabre – UAW Locals 5960 and 22 Third: Pontiac Bonneville – UAW Local 5960
Entry Luxury Car Second: Cadillac CTS – UAW Local 652
Mid-Luxury Car Third: Cadillac DeVille – UAW Local 22
Sporty Car Second: Chrysler Sebring coupe – UAW Local 2488 Third: Dodge Stratus coupe – UAW Local 2488
Compact Pickup Second: Ford Ranger – UAW Locals 879 and 980
Full-Size Pickup Highest ranked: Ford F-Series LD – UAW Locals 249 and 919 Second: Chevrolet Silverado LD – UAW Locals 594, 598 and 2209 Third: Dodge Ram HD – UAW Local 136
Full-Size SUV Highest ranked: Chevrolet Suburban – UAW Locals 594, 598 and 2209 Second: Chevrolet Tahoe – UAW Locals 95 and 276 Third: GMC Yukon – UAW Locals 95 and 275
Compact Van Highest ranked: Oldsmobile Silhouette – UAW Local 10 Third: Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan – UAW Local 110
Although many people assume that quality is higher in the Japanese and German automakers’ nonunion U.S. assembly plants than in UAW-Big Three plants, several major “transplant” products didn’t rank in the top three vehicles in their respective segments in the 2003 J.D. Power ISQ, including Toyota Camry, Toyota Avalon, Toyota Tundra, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Altima and Nissan Maxima.
How did UAW plants perform in the 2003 Harbour Report study of auto plant productivity?
It’s widely assumed that nonunion assembly plants invariably have higher productivity than unionized facilities – in fact, we wish we had a dollar for every time we’ve read about inflexible union work rules holding back the productivity of the Big Three U.S. automakers.
In the real world, a wide range of factors affect a plant’s productivity – including vehicle design, quality of plant process engineering, condition of equipment, management, volume, steady flow of quality parts and the overall robustness of a company’s manufacturing system.
Based on the Harbour Report’s standard of hours per vehicle (HPV), the top unionized assembly plants in North America compared favorably to their nonunion counterparts.
The UAW represents workers at four of the top 10 assembly plants in The Harbour Report North America 2003: Ford Motor Co.’s Atlanta (UAW Local 882) and Chicago (UAW Local 551) assembly plants ranked third and fourth, respectively, and GM’s Lansing M (UAW Local 602) and Lansing C (UAW Local 652) assembly plants ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. Harbour’s second-and third-rated North American assembly plant are unionized plants as well – GM’s Oshawa #1 and Oshawa #2 plants, represented by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). Chrysler Group’s St. Louis North Assembly Plant (UAW Local 136) posted the greatest year-over-year improvement (28.6 percent) during the launch of the Dodge Ram heavy-duty pickup truck. And Chrysler Group’s Kokomo (Ind.) Transmission Plant (UAW Local 685) set the benchmark in the front-wheel drive transmission segment. GM’s Toledo transmission plant (UAW Local 14) was the most productive transmission plant in North America, while GM’s Romulus (Mich.) engine plant (UAW Local 163) was the top-rated V-8 engine plant. The UAW represents workers at the two most productive metal stamping plants in North America: GM Lansing (UAW Local 652) and GM Parma, Ohio (UAW Local 1005). UAW-represented assembly plants set the benchmark in six of 14 segments:
Compact Car – GM, Lansing M, UAW Local 602 (Chevrolet Malibu, Pontiac Grand Am)
Sports Car – Ford, Dearborn, Mich., Local 600 (Ford Mustang)
Full-size SUV – GM, Arlington, Texas, UAW Local 276 (Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon XL)
What I think this shows is that the employees per se aren't the problem so much as the quality of the components and the engineering that goes into the vehicle. I believe Bob Lutz was talking to the GM "beancounters" and he asked them if they invested another $500 per car for better components and that made the vehicle more attractive to the point of being able to reduce the "cash on the hood" from $4000 to $2000, wouldn't that mean that GM just "made" an extra $1500? They said technically yes, but they don't see it that way. They saw it as spending an extra $500 on the product. Technically, they would be right, as it would be a gamble that you would be able to sell it for $1500 more, but so far, as we see with the Malibu and CTS, the gamble seems to be paying off.
Anyone know off-hand what the average age of a UAW auto plant is compared to the non-union shops? Seems like all the new NA plants have been built by foreign makes in the South and you'd assume that a newer plant would offer built in efficiency savings (ties in with that "condition of equipment" factor mentioned above).
I'd say that if an auto company spends 5,6,7 HUNDRED MILLION dollars to renovate a plant, they should be as efficient as a newer plant. That's an awful lot of money to spend and not have any be on newer equiptment (as opposed to a "retool") or on energy efficient lighting, toilets, etc.
Cooter has a point---getting quality, product, component design, and engineering right are certainly part of the equation--but don't marginalize how costs are affected by those workers on the shop floor.
Well, to help Rocky's point a little, if the non-union shops in the south decided to unionize and asked for the same "Big 3" contract, how do you think this would affect those foreign companies???? I don't see it causing poorer workmanship on their part, and considering the weakness of the dollar, coupled with what I would see as a political "backlash" by the public, moving production back "home" would be out of the question.
The average age for the Big 3 UAW worker was like 52 or 53 years old. Now with all the buyouts I assume it's been lowered a little. Dad's plant up until he retired was in the mid 50's years old age bracket.
I was curious about the age of the factories ... but even with the buyouts I bet the average age of a UAW worker is older than a non-union auto worker.
Would you say that an older average age is a bad thing (in terms of experience, that is)???? In my department, out of 22 people, my 17 years puts me 6th from the bottom in seniority.
Yes it is much higher at UAW, big 3 plants across the board. However with all the disadvantages of a older workforce their is the advantage of experience and that my friend is something you can't put a price tag on.
So Rocky---I take it you are implying those of us who have pushed back on your position "haven't got it"?
Those are your words not mine.
My friend, you're still a young person, and eventually you'll come to realize there are no such things in life as "absolutes".
I don't see what my age has to do with anything ??? There is no such thing as absolutes but having a union contract is a better guarantee than none at all. (If that was what you are implying ? )
Cooter has a point---getting quality, product, component design, and engineering right are certainly part of the equation--but don't marginalize how costs are affected by those workers on the shop floor.
I don't think nobody has but it seems some people in general and especially executives always look at the bottom of the totem pole for cost savings for the company. It's viewed as unfair by the small fry when they absorb all if not most of the cut backs and at the same token executive bonuses are paid out by the hundreds of millions like seen at Delphi. If you read the Delphi, forum you would see what I'm talking about. Not to just pick on Delphi, but it seems like this is pretty common practice today as to keep it automotive in topic I will use what is going on at Ford, and Chrysler, as well.
-Rocky
P.S. One of my former employers was also supplier to the automotive industry thus I've been in quite a few plants.
My step-grandfather said Boeing, is going to hire several thousand employees he read and told me about it today. If I can work it around my car sales job schedule I might take a sheet metal class in the near future at a vocational school. I'm going to look into it and see if this type of class is offered around here ??? He read about it in his union magazine and is suppose to be sending me it.
It's not a bad thing in terms of experience (unless there's info out there that a factory line worker isn't as productive as someone who may be stronger and healthier).
Worker's comp is a bigger concern for the employer than for a younger worker, but other issues seem to balance out, to read what the AARP says about older workers.
Japanese society may venerate their elderly but Toyota may not want to hire a bunch of old guys like me down in Blue Springs, whereas GM may not be able to fire old guys because of union rules.
"the average UAW member at the Big Three is 46.3 years of age, with 19.6 years of service" (link)
I see a couple of articles that say the average age of a US Toyota worker is 37. (link).
>buyouts I bet the average age of a UAW worker is older than a non-union auto worker.
The problems listed last year at the Toyota plant in Georgetown included the company finding ways to "push out" the older employees. This is often done with medical problems; by not putting the worker back at work stations which they are physically able to staff, the worker gives up and leaves. No union.
And they are using more parttime workers. I would agree the age of the workers will stay lower despite buyouts at UAW/IUE plants.
The physical age of the plants for auto manufacturing is certainly older. The newest plant I know of is the Moraine plant building SUVs. It was built about 1980. The transplants build about then and since then. Manufacturing technology has increased rapidly since the 1980 date. The plants built later and later are increasingly efficient in terms of manhour usage.
Many plants that were Delphi nee Delco in this area have been torn down or have recently been on the closed list in this area. These were mostly older buildings, which certainly was a factor in their operation and efficiency.
Well, what reason would there be to fire an older worker??? I've seen a situation where a worker here w/ 35 yrs was caught golfing on overtime. He was suspended w/o pay "indefinitely". After about 90 days he was "allowed" to retire. As pissed as management was, I don't believe even they wanted to fire a person w/ that many yrs of service for 1 incedent. Now if I did that (at the time I had 9 yrs) I would've been shown the door, and probably never gotten my job back.
But, for the average 50 something yr old, being unceremoniously "pushed out the door" just because they are old and may have some health issues is WRONG!!!! As long as they show up every day and do their job, that's fine.
like I said, you are young and you have time to take classes that Boeing would look favorably on. They are big on degrees right now but you wouldn't hurt your chances at all by taking a sheet metal course, or something else you could find out that they need. It's a good job and rocky, it's unionized.
My step-grandfather said Boeing, is going to hire several thousand employees he read and told me about it today. If I can work it around my car sales job schedule I might take a sheet metal class in the near future at a vocational school. I'm going to look into it and see if this type of class is offered around here ??? He read about it in his union magazine and is suppose to be sending me it.
Rock,
That would be a great to pursue if you believe you would be happy doing that type of work. I keep reading and hearing how many skilled tradesmen/women are in short supply. There has to be a technical/vocational school in your area that can provide the type of training you would need.
The cost experience for health care is higher with older employees. The older employees may use days off for sickness at a greater rate, whether they are paid or not paid. The older employees in some situations have greater vacation time. The older employees know more about an operation and may not be rollovers for new ideas some managers wish to implement; also they may know the tricks or techniques to achieve end results involved in some operations that are not proper and gum up the works by reporting things that are "illegal" or improper. They also may simply know that some workers aren't going things as well as should be done. That is a threat to some manager types.
Well, I'm sure others can point out situations where a company was delighted to get rid of someone who was near retirement since an early retirement situation can result in a smaller pension leaving more money on the company books.
I know a gentleman who was a middle manager for Exxon (he started back in the Esso days). When he hit 60, the company started moving him to different regions every year, hoping that he'd retire early. Companies do risk lawsuits if workers can show a pattern of such behavior, but it's tough to get to that point.
And if your golfing co-worker had been UAW? Any guesses on whether the auto company would have just fired him and then fought the UAW grievance?
And if your golfing co-worker had been UAW? Any guesses on whether the auto company would have just fired him and then fought the UAW grievance?
I would guess with 35 yrs. the same would've happened to him. Hell, the company "took" 90 days pay from him before they allowed him to retire. NOBODY would agree with what he did, and would be hard pressed to feel sorry for him. It would be the most humane thing to do. It's not as if the union has much to hang it's hat on in that case, other than (presumably) a clean 35 year work record. Really all they could do is beg for some mercy.
Comments
Certainly foreign automakers have been bashed, especially Asian makers, but I don't see this as the same.
I pretty much agree with your assessment of the situation. And to a certain extent we all feel some entitlement living in the USA. It just has ranged so far into out daily existence to where we are somewhat enslaved. As much as some would like not to believe you can become enslaved to the Union mindset. My 45 years of Union membership was not all rosy. I fought with Union leaders over many issues. The truth is they are not keeping up with OUR Globalization. If as some here believe we are entitled to build cars with Union labor. We should be entitled to make TVs and Tennis shoes. There is no difference to the guy that lost his job in manufacturing. For US to turn the tide of the Global economy would be impossible. We all have to face up to reality.
Reality IS. Toyota building a Sequoia SUV in Indiana is making a better vehicle than GMC building a PU truck in Indiana. I am not saying it is the UAW that is at fault. The people in Indiana are probably about the same whether they are Union or Non-Union. To be competitive a given vehicle has to be of equal quality to demand equal pricing. My 2005 GMC Hybrid PU was NOT equal to my 2007 Sequoia SUV. Except in the entertainment electronics. So it seems that GMC has a better company in China building there stereo systems.
To put it simply if Toyota has a loaded hourly worker rate of $50 compared to GMC with a loaded hourly rate of $65, there is only a few choices. GMC can cut the quality which they have done. Or they can charge more which will not fly. Either the UAW has to get the Toyota workers to sign up or allow cuts in the workers wages and benefits. It may be harsh for those feeling they are entitled to what Union people had in the past. It is a new world order and like it or not we are stuck with it.
For those that do not think a college education is important today in this country, are in for a shock. A close friend with 10 years network experience just applied for a job as a network engineer. An easy job for him to handle. He was turned down because he does not have a degree. I saw it coming in the 1960s at Pacific Telephone. They were only hiring college grads for promotion into management. Anything passed 2nd level was a no go without the degree.
As the manufacturing jobs continue to go away it behooves anyone not in a position to retire to get that degree.
Gagrice, you are exactly right. A close friend of mine from HS (we graduated in '90) has an associates degree in network technology. He has been a network engineer (most of his education has been provided through employment) for at least 5 years. He was looking for a new job and many turned him down because he didn't have a BS degree. Fair or not fair, that is the way it is. He just started a new job last week as a network engineer for a very good school system, so he did find the job he wanted, but it took a while.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that now days a degree can pay for itself. Obviously it still will require hard work and making the right decisions. Some without a degree can still be successful but they will have to counter the lack of a degree with smarts and talent. Bottomline, if you want to succeed you have to offer value to an employer. Seems some don't understand or are unwilling to accept it.
I think it's sad really how some view those who worked their [non-permissible content removed] of for a degree whether mommy or daddy paid for it is irrelevant and certainly doesn't mean they were spoiled brats with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Some families just choose to sacrifice today for the future of their children, thus possibly making this country better for everyone instead of sending young adults that are more likely to be a drain on society instead of contributing.
My sister's best friend's family sacrificed by reducing spending at Christmas when the kids reached the age where they didn't believe in Santa anymore. From the age of 8 or so they made an effort to add that money to the kids college savings (so they didn't get as many useless toys). That helped her parents afford to send her to a good state university where she got her mechanical engineering degree and went on to law school (she had to borrow for that) and now her and her husband (whom she met in law school) are both patent attorneys raking in about 300k/yr together while just turning 30 years old. Yeah they have about $100k in student loans (chump change considering their earnings).
My wife and I along with my parents feel the exact same way. We started savings for college when our kids were born. My parents contribute to a 529 for our kids college savings too. While they don't have degrees themselves they realize it's a way to help them get ahead as it did with my wife and I.
As for the UAW, I'm not rooting for them to go away, I just don't agree with work rules that impede productivity which makes it even harder for the Ford, GM, and Chrysler to keep jobs here. It's a tough situation.
That's an irritant to me too. Alaska employers used to be good about hiring anyone who walked in the door who expressed a willingness to work. My wife hired a guy who had no college degree but had a big interest in the field over some mild objections of her managers and he's still at that old place of employment and has moved up the chain.
The UAW, IBEW, and the rest of them have apprentice programs. I know one guy who dropped out of the journeyman electrician program because he didn't want to hack the course of study. He could coast through an undergrad program.
On the other hand, these barriers to entry turn some of the HS grads into big time entrepreneurs out of necessity (insert your favorite Bill Gates quote here). So getting that degree fosters its own set of entitlement issues.
Maybe the UAW should offer more management type courses for its members and encourage more of a revolving door policy where they celebrate their former members moving over to supervisory roles. Maybe someone in the ranks can speak to this, but I have the impression that the UAW is loathe to see one of their own cross over into management.
That's not true as long as the guy doesn't let the power go to his head. We had guys that left the union to go into management and ended up being the best boss you could askfor. They remembered where they came from and understood what we were going through. The same as I said apply's in the autoplants. The guy going into management can make or break how he's perceived by his peers.
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
I've never worked in a union shop, but I know quite a few people who have. I've heard stories (and I believe read them online here as well) that union workers are assigned "Jobs" and that they have to stay within that "Job". As an example, my impression is that if you put on wheels, then you can't do windshields, you can't do sweeping, you can't set up a non-wheel machine, etc. Is this true?
I know in my own professional, non-union field, we have a lot of flexibility about the work. If we need more of skill B today, and we have a lot of skill A staff without enough to do, then we train some of the A staff on B skills so we have a more flexible workforce. It's also better for the workers, as they have more skills, are more versatile, are more valuable, and have a more varied job instead of doing the same thing all the time. Then someday they learn skills C, D, etc.
When promotions are considered or staff are going to be assigned to a project, we all want the staff who have as many of the skills as we can get, because that means we can move quicker, cover for vacations, sick, etc. The project runs more effectively because as the skill needs shift, we can use the same staffers to cover everything. Any they like it better, too.
If in fact this is NOT the way it works in an assembly plant, then I don't understand it. I don't think I'd want to do the same thing on end for years. Variety helps keep the mind and body strong. Any inputs on this?
So silverfox, I think the UAW should allow flexibility in their "work rules" in this way, if it is not already there.
-Rocky
Rocky, I'm afraid you are somewhat mistaken in making such claims.
That "transition" you reference hasn't gone anywhere near far enough, and there's still considerable resistance to moving it forward.
Shop floor flexibility hasn't been adopted as much as you would have us believe, and change hasn't occurred at that many plants.
There have been some improvements in a few areas, but truth be told, those few improvements are mostly superficial in nature.
There is still a huge disparity between existing "Job and Classification Precedents" prevailent in all current UAW/CAW collective agreements, and measures needed to close gaps on costs or efficiencies.
On a National level, both UAW and CAW hierachy have clearly drawn a line in the sand on "concessions"--these include layoffs due to "technological improvements" which might result from such things as job/task re-engineering, flexible work rules, technology, etc.
On the local level, many union officials have gone so far as to declare war if any more changes occur!
The President of the CAW, Buzz Hargrove, just recently announced that he is prepared to "take the country down" on these same issues!
Most, if not all existing contract language speaks directly to attempts by employers in making improvements in efficiency---called "job security safeguards". They effectively restrict changes through contractual obligations by employers.
Such language has historically been considered inviolate, and the UAW isn't going to give up easily on agreeing to changes which are necessary---or so it seems.
Regardless of Rockylee's optimism, there's still much resistance throughout UAW leadership and rank and file to flexible work. (See my previous post)
Re your query:.."Variety helps keep the mind and body strong. Any inputs on this?"
On the face of it, your observation is true--and applying it to the shop floor certainly has merit.
Speaking from personal experience, I can speak to much success in its application.
Furthermore, I know of a good many studies re shop floor practices which point to decidedly more positive than negatives.
Needless to say, the prevailing union philosophy where "seniority" governs job assignments/opportunities tends to discourage the kind of flexibility you're familiar with.
There is somewhat of a downside to the practice however. I've learned that some folks actually seek to remain on the same job, and aren't at all comfortable moving about.
IMO, the best shop floor practice would be one which respects the skills, abilities and comfort levels of as many of the work force as possible.
Might that be a realistic expectation?
I do have first hand knowledge of the job classifications as I still have quite a few relatives working at GM & Delphi, but you know better than they do. :confuse:
Also their is data "links" from harbour research a independent company that study's the auto-industry that has been posted on here before supporting that the UAW, workers are just as competitive as their non-union counterparts.
With the new contracts in place the UAW, has closed the cost gap with the transplants whether or not you like it or not !!! I know that doesn't fit your agenda silverfox5, but I thought the other forum posters should get some factual data for a change if they didn't read the edmunds.com, detroit news, posts from a few months ago highlighting the new contracts.
-Rocky
-Rocky
I consider protection of seniority of the highest importance in any Union Contract. Job classifications are a two edged sword that many times are more harmful to Union employees than to the company. When member A will only do one job and member B with less seniority is classified to do a different job, the Senior employee becomes expendable. It does behoove management to place people in the position they are best suited for. Placing a 55 year old in a position of extreme physical exertion because a 25 year old is not classified for that job makes little sense to me.
After 45 years in 3 different Unions I found the wider the job classification the better for the employees and company as well. The boss wants me to sweep the floor for journeyman wages, NO problem. If there is enough floor sweeping to hire a janitor then the company is wasting money. That is NOT the place of the Union to decide. It is a distinct right of the company to place people where needed. I fear the rank and file UAW membership has not figured that out. The UAW is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. I have witnessed too many Union shops being busted due to lack of flexibility. At one time Alaska was a very strong Union State. It is no longer the case. I would not want to be depending on a Union in this global economy. Our contract was severely denigrated two months after I retired. The times they are a changing.
That's exactly the way NOT to resolve a difference of opinion
I think you would be wise to take another look at that Harbour Report.
Here's a partial quote from its lead in statements:....
"Assembly plants: how they compare - Harbour Report on automobile assembly plant productivity
Automotive Manufacturing & Production, August, 2007
(I Paraphrased this for brevity)....First and second place went to Offshore automakers...............
........the best of the traditional domestics is Ford, which requires 3.09 workers per vehicle. GM requires more workers per vehicle than any of the other major builders - 3.47 - but compared with others, its rate of improvement is best: 4.8% better than last year. "
Read the whole report Rocky, then come back and tell us the UAW plants are as competitive as our UAW shops! (NOT!!!)
"The United Auto Workers and Canadian Auto Workers were more proactive in 2007 than ever before in creating a more competitive environment among the companies whose hourly workers they represent. Chrysler, General Motors and especially Ford negotiated more flexible local labor agreements prior to this summer’s pivotal national talks with the UAW. However, they must go further to overcome their persistent health care and pension cost disadvantage vs. Honda, Nissan and Toyota.
Restrictive labor agreements that create cost disadvantages still exist and could jeopardize the survival of certain automakers."
They are making progress Rocky, but those "restrictive labour agreements" are a restrictive factor in making that progress.
That is only part of the problem. The Big 3 did get concessions on starting pay, retirees and benefits. Can they send the least senior guy to a plant 30 miles away if that is where he is needed? Can they move a member to another job in the plant if that is needed? If the boss says sweep the floor will he be grieved?
That's exactly the way NOT to resolve a difference of opinion
Wow, I'm the confrontational person when you have slam every post I make with propaganda ??? Okay !!!! :surprise: :confuse:
I think you would be wise to take another look at that Harbour Report.
Here's a partial quote from its lead in statements:....
"Assembly plants: how they compare - Harbour Report on automobile assembly plant productivity
Automotive Manufacturing & Production, August, 2007
(I Paraphrased this for brevity)....First and second place went to Offshore automakers...............
Wages and labor costs
How many UAW members work at the companies that will be a part of this year’s auto talks?
There are 180,681 UAW members employed at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Of these, 177,498 are covered by the national agreements that will expire Sept. 14, 2007. The remaining 3,183 UAW members at Chrysler Jeep in Toledo, Ohio, negotiate a local contract distinct from the national agreement. Certain Delphi employees who have rights under the GM Benefit Guarantee also will be affected by the outcome of these negotiations.
An additional 419,621 retired members and 120,723 surviving spouses will also be covered by the agreements negotiated this year. Their pension payments and retiree health care benefits are subject to the terms of the UAW national auto industry agreements.
Employer Active members Retired members Surviving spouses Totals
Chrysler* 48,927 55,183 23,252 127,362
Ford** 58,300 94,824 28,183 181,307
General Motors 73,454 269,614 69,288 412,356
Totals 180,681 419,621 120,723 721,025
* Includes workers at Chrysler Jeep, Toledo, Ohio
** Ford active total includes 7,180 workers at Automotive Components Holdings
Source: United Auto Workers based on company data. Figures are for the end of the first quarter 2007
How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
The CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006.
The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM. These substantial sums do not include the value of stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation.
Why is the figure cited as hourly labor costs by the companies so much higher than the wage rates?
In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400,2 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.
This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures 2005 data
2 UAW Research Department, based on hours-per-vehicle data from the 2007 Harbour Report and labor costs as reported in the companies’ 10-Ks
3 National Automobile Dealers Association
-Rocky
-Rocky
My cousin George, was moved from Grand Rapids, to the Lansing MI Delta plant about a 1 1/2 away. So to answer your question yes !!! Sweeping the floor has always been in the job description. Dad, always had to sweep his work station and fix his own machine. People in non-union shops would call out the skill trades for basic repairs. That was the way it was in the non-union places I worked !!!!
-Rocky
Prof. Shaiken is not alone. There is a substantial amount of academic literature on the following benefits of unions and unionization to employers and the economy:
Productivity
Competitiveness
Product or service delivery and quality
Training
Turnover
Solvency of the firm
Workplace health and safety
Economic development
Productivity
According to a recent survey of 73 independent studies on unions and productivity: “The available evidence points to a positive and statistically significant association between unions and productivity in the U.S. manufacturing and education sectors, of around 10 and 7 percent, respectively.”[2]
Some scholars have found an even larger positive relationship between unions and productivity. According to Brown and Medoff, “unionized establishments are about 22 percent more productive than those that are not.”[3]
Product/ Service Delivery and Quality
According to Professors Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago,[4] heart attack recovery rates are higher in hospitals where nurses are unionized than in non-union hospitals.
Another study looked at the relationship between unionization and product quality in the auto industry.[5] According to a summary of this study prepared by American Rights at Work:
“The author examines the system of co-management created through the General Motors-United Auto Workers partnership at the Saturn Corporation The author credits the union with building a dense communications network throughout Saturn's management system. Compared to non-represented advisors, union advisors showed greater levels of lateral communication and coordination, which had a significant positive impact on quality performance.”
Training
Several studies in have found a positive association between unionization and the amount and quality of workforce training. Unionized establishments are more likely to offer formal training.[6] This is especially true for small firms. There are a number of reasons for this: less turnover among union workers, making the employer more likely to offer training; collective bargaining agreements that require employers to provide training; and finally, unions often conduct their own training.
Turnover
Professor Shaiken also finds that unions reduce turnover. He cites Freeman and Medoff’s finding that “about one fifth of the union productivity effect stemmed from lower worker turnover. Unions improve communication channels giving workers the ability to improve their conditions short of ‘exiting.’”[7]
Solvency
Labor’s enemies assert that unions drive employers out of business, but academic research refutes this claim. According to Professors Richard Freeman and Morris Kleiner, unionism has a statistically insignificant effect (meaning no effect) on firm solvency.[8] Freeman and Kleiner conclude “unions do not, on average, drive firms or business lines out of business or produce high displacement rates for unionized workers.”
Workplace Health and Safety
Employers should be concerned about workplace health and safety as a matter of enlightened self-interest. According to an American Rights at Work summary of a study by John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts:
“Only one factor effectively moves workers who are in subordinate positions to actively cope with hazards: membership in an independent labor union. These findings suggest that union growth could indirectly reduce job stress by giving workers the voice to cope effectively with job hazards.”[9]
Economic Development
Unions also play a positive role in economic development. One good example is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, “an association of 125 employers and unions dedicated to family-supporting jobs in a competitive business environment. WRTP members have stabilized manufacturing employment in the Milwaukee metro area, and contributed about 6,000 additional industrial jobs to it over the past five years. Among member firms, productivity is way up--exceeding productivity growth in nonmember firms.”[10]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Harley Shaiken, The High Road to a Competitive Economy: A Labor Law Strategy, Center for American Progress, June 25, 2004, pp. 7-8. http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7- D/unionpaper.pdf
[2] Christos Doucouliagos and Patrice Laroche, “The Impact of U.S. Unions on Producivity: A Bootstrap Meta-analysis,” Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, 2004. See also, by the same authors, “What Do Unions Do to Productivity: A Meta-analysis,” Industrial Relations, Volume 42 Issue 4 October 2003:
[3] Charles Brown and James L. Medoff, “Trade Unions in the Production Process.” Journal of Political
Economy, vol. 86, no. 3 (June 1978): 355–378.
[4] Michael Ash and Jean Ann Seago, “The effect of registered nurses' unions on heart-attack mortality,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Apr. 2004), pp. 422-442.
[5] Saul A. Rubinstein, “The Impact of Co-Management on Quality Performance: The Case of the Saturn Corporation.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, No. 197 (January 2000).
[6] Harley J. Frazis, Diane E. Herz and Michael W. Horrigan, “Employer-Provided Training: Results from a New Survey.” Monthly Labor Review (May 1995): 3–17.
[7] Harley Shaiken, cited earlier, quoting Richard Freeman and James Medoff, What Do Unions Do? New York, Basic Books, 1984.
[8] Richard B. Freeman and Morris M. Kleiner, “Do Unions Make Enterprises Insolvent?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 52, no. 4 (July 1999): 510–527.
[9] John E. Baugher and J. Timmons Roberts, “Workplace Hazards, Unions and Coping Styles.” Labor
Studies Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer 2004).
[10] Annette Bernhardt, Laura Dresser, and Joel Rogers, “Taking the High Road in Milwaukee: The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership.” Working USA, Vol. 5, Issue 3 (January 31, 2002).
-Rocky
How do UAW-represented plants stack up against the competition in terms of quality and productivity?
Recent studies by J.D. Power and Associates and Harbour Associates demonstrate that UAW-represented plants all over the United States are achieving impressive quality and productivity results.
According to J.D. Power’s study of initial vehicle quality, UAW members build the top-ranked full-size pickup, the top-ranked full-size SUV and the top-ranked compact van.
The Harbour Report, which measures factory productivity, found that four of the top 10 assembly plants in North America are UAW-represented. Ford’s Chicago plant, for example, which takes 17.71 hours to assemble a midsize car, and Ford’s Atlanta plant, which takes 17.78 hours, both outrank Toyota’s Georgetown plant, which required more than 20 hours to assemble a mid-size vehicle.
Harbour found that UAW-represented plants set the benchmark in plants representing six of 14 vehicle segments: compact car, sports car, full-size SUV, minivan, large van and mid-luxury car.
How did UAW plants perform in the 2003 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS)?
All three of the top-rated plants in the 2003 J.D. Power and Initial Quality Study (IQS) for North and South America are union plants, rating ahead of the Asian and European automakers’ nonunion assembly plants in North America.
Gold Award: GM, Oshawa #1 plant, Ontario, Canada – Chevrolet Impala, Monte Carlo (Canadian Auto Workers)
Silver Award: GM, Lansing Grand River plant, Michigan – Cadillac CTS (UAW Local 652)
Bronze Award: Ford, Atlanta – Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable (UAW Local 882)
The 2003 J.D. Power IQS found that “the initial quality gap between Domestic, European, Japanese and Korean brands continues to narrow. While Domestics trailed their European and Japanese counterparts by at least 19 PP100 (problems per 100 vehicles) five years ago, Domestics and Europeans are now equal, and both trail the Japanese by 9 PP100.” (J.D. Power and Associates news release, May 6, 2003.)
Eighteen vehicles assembled by UAW members ranked among the top three vehicles in their respective segments.
Compact Car
Second: Toyota Corolla – UAW Local 2244, NUMMI (GM-Toyota joint venture)
Entry Midsize Car
Highest ranked: Chevrolet Malibu – UAW Local 1999
Third: Pontiac Grand Am – UAW Local 602
Premium Midsize Car
Highest ranked: Mercury Sable – UAW Locals 551 and 882
Full-Size Car
Second: Buick LeSabre – UAW Locals 5960 and 22
Third: Pontiac Bonneville – UAW Local 5960
Entry Luxury Car
Second: Cadillac CTS – UAW Local 652
Mid-Luxury Car
Third: Cadillac DeVille – UAW Local 22
Sporty Car
Second: Chrysler Sebring coupe – UAW Local 2488
Third: Dodge Stratus coupe – UAW Local 2488
Compact Pickup
Second: Ford Ranger – UAW Locals 879 and 980
Full-Size Pickup
Highest ranked: Ford F-Series LD – UAW Locals 249 and 919
Second: Chevrolet Silverado LD – UAW Locals 594, 598 and 2209
Third: Dodge Ram HD – UAW Local 136
Full-Size SUV
Highest ranked: Chevrolet Suburban – UAW Locals 594, 598 and 2209
Second: Chevrolet Tahoe – UAW Locals 95 and 276
Third: GMC Yukon – UAW Locals 95 and 275
Compact Van
Highest ranked: Oldsmobile Silhouette – UAW Local 10
Third: Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan – UAW Local 110
Although many people assume that quality is higher in the Japanese and German automakers’ nonunion U.S. assembly plants than in UAW-Big Three plants, several major “transplant” products didn’t rank in the top three vehicles in their respective segments in the 2003 J.D. Power ISQ, including Toyota Camry, Toyota Avalon, Toyota Tundra, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Altima and Nissan Maxima.
How did UAW plants perform in the 2003 Harbour Report study of auto plant productivity?
It’s widely assumed that nonunion assembly plants invariably have higher productivity than unionized facilities – in fact, we wish we had a dollar for every time we’ve read about inflexible union work rules holding back the productivity of the Big Three U.S. automakers.
In the real world, a wide range of factors affect a plant’s productivity – including vehicle design, quality of plant process engineering, condition of equipment, management, volume, steady flow of quality parts and the overall robustness of a company’s manufacturing system.
Based on the Harbour Report’s standard of hours per vehicle (HPV), the top unionized assembly plants in North America compared favorably to their nonunion counterparts.
The UAW represents workers at four of the top 10 assembly plants in The Harbour Report North America 2003: Ford Motor Co.’s Atlanta (UAW Local 882) and Chicago (UAW Local 551) assembly plants ranked third and fourth, respectively, and GM’s Lansing M (UAW Local 602) and Lansing C (UAW Local 652) assembly plants ranked eighth and ninth, respectively. Harbour’s second-and third-rated North American assembly plant are unionized plants as well – GM’s Oshawa #1 and Oshawa #2 plants, represented by the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW).
Chrysler Group’s St. Louis North Assembly Plant (UAW Local 136) posted the greatest year-over-year improvement (28.6 percent) during the launch of the Dodge Ram heavy-duty pickup truck. And Chrysler Group’s Kokomo (Ind.) Transmission Plant (UAW Local 685) set the benchmark in the front-wheel drive transmission segment. GM’s Toledo transmission plant (UAW Local 14) was the most productive transmission plant in North America, while GM’s Romulus (Mich.) engine plant (UAW Local 163) was the top-rated V-8 engine plant.
The UAW represents workers at the two most productive metal stamping plants in North America: GM Lansing (UAW Local 652) and GM Parma, Ohio (UAW Local 1005). UAW-represented assembly plants set the benchmark in six of 14 segments:
Compact Car – GM, Lansing M, UAW Local 602 (Chevrolet Malibu, Pontiac Grand Am)
Sports Car – Ford, Dearborn, Mich., Local 600 (Ford Mustang)
Full-size SUV – GM, Arlington, Texas, UAW Local 276 (Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon XL)
Minivan – GM, Doraville, Ga., UAW Local 10 (Chevrolet Venture, Oldsmobile Silhouette, Pontiac Montana)
Large van – Ford, Lorain, Ohio, UAW Local 425 (Ford Econoline)
Luxury car – GM, Detroit/Hamtramck, UAW Local 22 (Cadillac DeVille, Cadillac Seville, Buick LeSabre)
-Rocky
I'm done arguing with you !!! We can agree to disagree !!!
-Rocky
-Rocky
Well, to help Rocky's point a little, if the non-union shops in the south decided to unionize and asked for the same "Big 3" contract, how do you think this would affect those foreign companies???? I don't see it causing poorer workmanship on their part, and considering the weakness of the dollar, coupled with what I would see as a political "backlash" by the public, moving production back "home" would be out of the question.
-Rocky
-Rocky
Those are your words not mine.
My friend, you're still a young person, and eventually you'll come to realize there are no such things in life as "absolutes".
I don't see what my age has to do with anything ??? There is no such thing as absolutes but having a union contract is a better guarantee than none at all.
(If that was what you are implying ? )
Cooter has a point---getting quality, product, component design, and engineering right are certainly part of the equation--but don't marginalize how costs are affected by those workers on the shop floor.
I don't think nobody has but it seems some people in general and especially executives always look at the bottom of the totem pole for cost savings for the company. It's viewed as unfair by the small fry when they absorb all if not most of the cut backs and at the same token executive bonuses are paid out by the hundreds of millions like seen at Delphi. If you read the Delphi, forum you would see what I'm talking about. Not to just pick on Delphi, but it seems like this is pretty common practice today as to keep it automotive in topic I will use what is going on at Ford, and Chrysler, as well.
-Rocky
P.S. One of my former employers was also supplier to the automotive industry thus I've been in quite a few plants.
-Rocky
It's not a bad thing in terms of experience (unless there's info out there that a factory line worker isn't as productive as someone who may be stronger and healthier).
Worker's comp is a bigger concern for the employer than for a younger worker, but other issues seem to balance out, to read what the AARP says about older workers.
Japanese society may venerate their elderly but Toyota may not want to hire a bunch of old guys like me down in Blue Springs, whereas GM may not be able to fire old guys because of union rules.
"the average UAW member at the Big Three is 46.3 years of age, with 19.6 years of service" (link)
I see a couple of articles that say the average age of a US Toyota worker is 37. (link).
The problems listed last year at the Toyota plant in Georgetown included the company finding ways to "push out" the older employees. This is often done with medical problems; by not putting the worker back at work stations which they are physically able to staff, the worker gives up and leaves. No union.
And they are using more parttime workers. I would agree the age of the workers will stay lower despite buyouts at UAW/IUE plants.
The physical age of the plants for auto manufacturing is certainly older. The newest plant I know of is the Moraine plant building SUVs. It was built about 1980. The transplants build about then and since then. Manufacturing technology has increased rapidly since the 1980 date. The plants built later and later are increasingly efficient in terms of manhour usage.
Many plants that were Delphi nee Delco in this area have been torn down or have recently been on the closed list in this area. These were mostly older buildings, which certainly was a factor in their operation and efficiency.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-Rocky
But, for the average 50 something yr old, being unceremoniously "pushed out the door" just because they are old and may have some health issues is WRONG!!!! As long as they show up every day and do their job, that's fine.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Rock,
That would be a great to pursue if you believe you would be happy doing that type of work. I keep reading and hearing how many skilled tradesmen/women are in short supply. There has to be a technical/vocational school in your area that can provide the type of training you would need.
The older employees may use days off for sickness at a greater rate, whether they are paid or not paid.
The older employees in some situations have greater vacation time.
The older employees know more about an operation and may not be rollovers for new ideas some managers wish to implement; also they may know the tricks or techniques to achieve end results involved in some operations that are not proper and gum up the works by reporting things that are "illegal" or improper.
They also may simply know that some workers aren't going things as well as should be done. That is a threat to some manager types.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I know a gentleman who was a middle manager for Exxon (he started back in the Esso days). When he hit 60, the company started moving him to different regions every year, hoping that he'd retire early. Companies do risk lawsuits if workers can show a pattern of such behavior, but it's tough to get to that point.
And if your golfing co-worker had been UAW? Any guesses on whether the auto company would have just fired him and then fought the UAW grievance?
Perhaps not overall though; depends on whether the company is paying for coverage for dependents. The older worker has fewer dependents generally.
Here's a link about other older worker myths (sorry, it's a #$%#$% pdf file).
I would guess with 35 yrs. the same would've happened to him. Hell, the company "took" 90 days pay from him before they allowed him to retire. NOBODY would agree with what he did, and would be hard pressed to feel sorry for him. It would be the most humane thing to do. It's not as if the union has much to hang it's hat on in that case, other than (presumably) a clean 35 year work record. Really all they could do is beg for some mercy.
How did he score that day?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,