Jobs going overseas, the presidents fault? Not really lets look closer, unions force manufactures to pay people a large amount of money for what is allot of the time unskilled labor. Why should general motors pay someone $20 and hour to put a piece of tape on a vehicle frame? We are the ones driving the jobs overseas. The unions only protect themselves and only hurt us, their usefulness has long since run out. Instead of sending the jobs overseas lets send the labor unions....

Look closer? You haven't looked at all. Unions are, at best, tangentially related to outsoucing, so your premise is false.

Unlike your cut and paste dittohead TV sound bite opinions, some people have actually taken the time to understand this situation. If you understood anything about the subject, you would not have chosen such a poor example. Autos are most often assmbled in their destination market. US auto companies are not bringing cars to the US from the third world, and anyone that tells you that is an idiot. Demand is so high in most third world markets that there is a multi-year waiting list for cars. Further, nobody is putting tape on chassis as soft automation devices (robots to the non-technical) now accomplish close to 100% of all adhesive application.

So, since your examply is now shot full of gaping holes, why not have a quick look at the real issues?

Wages: While wages are much lower in the third world, however productivity is similarly lower. Result, no net gain. Labor is worth what you pay for it as any manager with international experience knows.

Management: Few US managers have any training or experience in how to run a successful manufacturing operation, so they have no idea how to control either their processes or costs. Most would be at the mercy of low level managers and consultants when it came to making decisions regarding capital equipment, i.e. machinery. It is very common for them, after they have screwed it up, to throw up their hands and outsource.

Currency: Several important third world currencies are valued artificially, resulting in substantial trade advantage. The US government has done little about this in recent years.

Shipping time/work in process: Shipping time from overseas plants is measured in weeks, and during that time, a company has their capital invested in the work in process or finished goods in transit. As anti-terrorist security improves at ports of entry, there will be further delays for inspection. Most people don't realize that this has not yet commenced.

Accounting: The accounting fad de jour is to transfer fixed cost overhead to the other side of the balance sheet by using contract manufacturers. While eliminating fixed costs and in some cases some liability exposure. While the advantages are, the costly disadvantages are not. They include loss of process control, loss of quality control, potential loss of proprietary information, long delays on getting engineering changes into the finished product, and loss of control over delivery schedules which requires a massive inventory as opposed to just-in-time manufacturing. Common requirments such as material tracability are next to impossible. Add to this the fact that intellectual property laws in places like China and India are either non-existent or not enforced, and you can pretty much rest assured that any innovation you come with will be copied before you receive the first shipment.

The reasons for outsourcing have little to do with unions and wages, and everything to do with icompetent management. In the end it is simply a fad, and lemming managers are following the leader. When we see German, Japanese, UK, French and recently Chinese companies buying plants in the US, are we to conclude that they are stupid?

If we take a single automotive part, say the camshaft, how would you explain Tyssen Krup investing $500 million in a 2nd Danville, IL plant, Canadian company Linemar buying a plant in Michigan, and Chinese company ITM buying a plant in Michigan? What about the wages, the unions, don't they know what they are doing......?

Before you post shallow opinions based on little or no research, try reading a book and learning something.

oc

number one that is the longest post I have ever seen. Two I guess I shouldn't have posted this somewhere the UAW can see. To elaborate on your point wages are the issue. I agree but just think of this, THEY HAVE NO SKILLS. WHY SHOULD THEY GET PAID LIKE THEY DO.

Short and sweet, I await your socialist response.

To use language you may grasp

Economically the market seems to benefit union members individually over non-union workers, so logically it makes more sese as an employee to join a union than it does to be non-union.
For employers unions reduce the economic benefits of business so they seem illogical - this is a conflicit of interest, it would be illogical for an employee to be non-union and recieve less pay and benfits than to be union and recieve more benfits due to collective bargining strenght.

Plus I may add that is very socialist of you to ask an individual to give up personal benefits for communal benefit.

Your assertion that the workers are unskilled reveals that you know zero about the subject. FYI, I am not a UAW member, nor have I been, but if you pay attention you might learn something.

Regardless of your desire to reduce this issue to soundbite length, you don't seem to be aware that the general job classification for assembly plant workers is skilled trades.

The only unskilled labor in these plants are the cleaning crews, security guards and the people that drive the new cars off the end of the line. The balance of the unskilled and repetitive tasks were subject to automation during the 1980's. The bulk of the jobs that remain for human workers are jobs too complex for automation because complex judgements must be made by the worker. Being capable of making multiple decisions in furtherence of a task pretty much defines skilled worker does it not?

Furthermore, productivity among US autoworkers outpaces any in the rest of the world outside of Germany, where they are paid even higher wages than in the US.

Wages in China may be 1/10 of those in US plants, however if it takes 10 times as many people to get the work done, how is that an advantage? Are you aware that outside of Japan's focus industries, that Japanese productivity is only 70% of the same industry in the US? That means that for every 10 people needed to staff a hotel in Japan, in the US only 7 people are required to do the same work.

When you assume that auto workers are unskilled, you ignore the fact that you would be unable to complete a single job on the line without extensive training. In addition, all the technicians and analysts with college degrees that are required to keep these plants running are also UAW workers. Vibration analysts, abrasive specialists, industrial automation repair technicians, electricians, electronics techs capable of board level repairs, finish specialists that fill and smooth welds by hand with hot babbit, mechanical techs, millrights, and a host of other skilled trades make up the bulk of the workforce these days. In the manufacturing plants where the parts are made, the work is even more technical. How many of these jobs can you perform?

The reason why these companies are struggling has everything to do with management failures, and little to do with unions. The bad old days of confrontational union leadership when Walter Reuther ran the UAW were over before you were born, unless you are older that 37yr old. The UAW currently cooperates closely with the companies, handles much of the job training functions, and they even joinly sponsor sporting events like NASCAR races.

If you would like me to detail where management has failed regarding product planning and financial and staffing decisions, I would be happy to do so, but even an outline summary would be 50 pages long. The bottom line is that if you make enough wrong decisions, miss enough opportunies and treat you customers capriciously long enough, your business will do poorly.

oc

Not all unions are bad, in fact there are a lot of corrupt unions. But there are some good ones. Unions protected American workers from inhumane working conditions and bettered the lives of the working class in the beginning of the 20th century. The problem lies in the Union boss becoming too "friendly" with the management, and taking pay offs from the company to look the other way. The Service Employees union is a "good" union. The Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, is a "good" union. The airline unions have taken cooperate payoffs. Union jobs also have a higher pay rate and better benefits than non union jobs. So to say all unions are "bad" is foolish. Think about it a little more! Keep your heads up, it's all going to get better soon!

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

Unions are one of the bastions of free enterprise. A union is a company that sells labour. The value of that labour becomes aparrent when the shareholders of the union withdraw that labour.

__________________
I'm too old to worry and too wicked to die

good post queenmandy85

Actually, I have a friend who is the CFO for a large fiber optics prime contracting company with offices coast to coast. He is definitely non-union. However, upon closely examining the retention rates of union vs. non-union employees, it is found that the offices with union employees actually retain workers much, much longer than the offices with non-union employees. For example, if one has worked for a non-union office for two years, that person is considered a "seasoned" worker. Whereas in a union office, it takes up to ten years to be considered a "seasoned" worker.

The union offices actually have lower training costs because the retention rate is so high. Additionally, the work produced is actually better because the people have worked long enough to truly master their craft. In an age where quality control is so vital (in the cable-telecommunications industry), unions actually help a business thrive over the long term.

Union membership, especially in the US and Britian has been declining over the past two decades. And you'll also notice the real wage of the average worker has increased in line with or slightly less than the annual rate of inflation.
This is in comparison to executive compensation which in the US is over 400 times that of its lower level employees.
Not it would make more sence economically to either a) fire this non-performer/s or severly reduce his/her/their pay packets till they start performing.
If a business is doing badly its the managers fault not the workers.