Yes, but had management NOT agreed to these CB agreements, a whole new set of problems would have been produced (strikes/walkouts/holding your breath til you turn blue/etc).

 

You deal with those whole set of problems. Having been involved in a fair number of CBA negotiations, management better be prepared to deal with those problems. If management isn't prepared, you end up signing bad CBAs. Long and the short of it, GM got so fat and happy, they were willing to give the union whatever the union wanted to keep the cars coming. Management failed miserably to forecast the arrival of the Asian auto manufacturers and the impact they would have on the US manufacturers. Then again, so did the union leaders.

You deal with those whole set of problems. Having been involved in a fair number of CBA negotiations, management better be prepared to deal with those problems. If management isn't prepared, you end up signing bad CBAs. Long and the short of it, GM got so fat and happy, they were willing to give the union whatever the union wanted to keep the cars coming. Management failed miserably to forecast the arrival of the Asian auto manufacturers and the impact they would have on the US manufacturers. Then again, so did the union leaders.

The problem is the unions really aren't losing out here are they? I agree that there is enough blame to go around but shareholders are taking the brunt of the hit on this one. The unions got themselves a couple of car companies.

At one time there was a time and a place for unions. They were needed and they served their purpose. There probably still is a time and place for them. The problem is they have breed greed and laziness. When Accuride in Henderson went on strike the union cost over 300 workers their jobs.

At one time there was a time and a place for unions. They were needed and they served their purpose. There probably still is a time and place for them. The problem is they have breed greed and laziness. When Accuride in Henderson went on strike the union cost over 300 workers their jobs.

 

Places like Hong Kong or Malaysia where rigidly enforced labor laws do not exist.

 

Times like pre-labor law eras in this country when workers, including children, were at the mercy of employers.

 

I can't think of a single place in this country, in current times, where labor unions are necessary.

I'm concerned about Ford. Not because I think Ford is headed in the same direction as GM (on the contrary, they are trying to dig out of their situation the right way), but because the current administration now has an interest in the competition (and probably some resentment against the lone holdout from nationalization). The thing that kinda drove this home was Citigroup's downgrade of Ford stock today (they gave a target price of $2). This is financial advice from a company that was just nationalized and is under the influence of the administration. It is directly contrary to Goldman Sachs target of $6 last month (this recommendation was taken by many investors as an indicator that despite a long tough road ahead, Ford will actually make it). Ford recently did a stock issue that, while irritating a lot of investors and diluting the share price, was the right thing to do for the company in the long run. It raised money needed to keep the UAW from owning a stake in Ford in payment for pensions. They're actually doing everything right. I fear that we are looking at the administration actively targeting the companies that will not go willingly into submission.

Ford, Toyota and every other non-government owned car makers should be very worried now. The US government now has both monetary and political capital on the line. If GM and Chrysler still do not make it the tax payers are out the money and the politicians are out the support and crediability. We have seen that this administration will use smears and threats of unleashing mob violience to get what it wants. It is a dangerous situation.

 

The government role in a free market is to be the referee and keep the game level amongst the competitors. When it becomes a player and has a stake in the winning and losing of a business it is very bad for the competitors in that marketplace.

Edited June 3, 200917 yr by Bluegrasscard
Fix spelling

I'm now hearing that the union ownership of GM was a payoff to Obama's union supporters.

I'm now hearing that the union ownership of GM was a payoff to Obama's union supporters.

Ya think?

I'm now hearing that the union ownership of GM was a payoff to Obama's union supporters.

 

Political favors for supporters?? I thought O was supposed to bring us "change".

There is still a need for unions today.

There is still a need for unions today.

 

Would you be willing to elaborate on this?

There is still a need for unions today.

 

Please elaborate.