Time to cut wages

[mit]

Just wait till all those folks taking electrician and trade jobs get done their apprenticeships - Top wages will be about $15/hr - Happened when their was a big effort to train truck drivers - After 15 years they are starting to be appreciated for their work but not by much.
Private companies have an advantage over public ones as they do not have to share profits - Most private firms - the owners look at their bank account and say - I better invest in something or I am going to get whacked at tax time - So they put their money in what they know best - their business. Jimmy Pattison did not become a billionaire by squandering his wealth on fancy houses, he buys things - Guiness World Book of Records is one of his companies. If you buy meat at the grocery store (Plastic Tray) - check out a billboard - go grocery shopping - look at an election sign (Corroplast) or buy a car in certain areas you are interacting with his companies. Public Companies where the BOSS is subject to the whims of the Board of Directors do not have this luxury - If they have extra cash they usually spend it on dividends to avoid takeovers - Structures Public/Private companies where the CEO controls the votes (Magna) do better - Some of these companies traded this freedom for the Public Stock Market and not only lost control but the company - Remember Seagrams? Their foray in to Hollywood was a disaster.

 

[JLM]

Who gets paid what is fixed by the market forces. It is usually decided by supply and demand, the smaller the supply, the greater that particular group gets paid. Hence the high incomes earned by doctors, lawyers etc.

As to blue collar workers, their wages are decided by the unions. Human nature being what it is, unions often get greedy and price the workers out of a job. Thus the auto industry workers negotiated fat pay packets for themselves (my friends knows somebody in auto industry, doing an unskilled job, he says this worker get 85 $ an hour).

It appears they are pricing themselves out of a job. While the wages in big three are around 70 $ an hour, those in other auto factories (Toyota etc.) are 48 $ an hour. Unless the wages are negotiated down, the bailout money won’t do much good, the big three will be out of business in a few more years.

So here again, wages are determined by the market forces. It is no good crying fair or unfair to anything. Nobody deserves to get paid more than market forces dictate. The only place for the state to intervene is to get rid of systemic, institutionalized discrimination against women, by enacting pay equity. Other than that, leave the market forces alone to decide the wages.

You've hit the nail right on the head, Sir Rupe.

 

[missile]

If the staate is bailing out the auto industries, then they should have the right to dictate what the workers and bosses earn. They are private industries no longer.

 

[JLM]

If the staate is bailing out the auto industries, then they should have the right to dictate what the workers and bosses earn. They are private industries no longer.

Absolutely- but don't hold your breath.

 

[missile]

I'm mad at the unions for refusing to take a cut in pay, even tho their companies were facing bankruptcy. it doesn't seem like they give a damn for anything but their own pockets.

 

[JLM]

I'm mad at the unions for refusing to take a cut in pay, even tho their companies were facing bankruptcy. it doesn't seem like they give a damn for anything but their own pockets.

Exactamente- absolutely no savvy about money, until it reaches their pockets.

 

[missile]

I remember a time when my union held us out on the picket lines for two extra weeks over 1 penny. I was selling my possessions then just to keep some food on the table for my wife and kids. Damn CUPW!

 

[Machjo]

Who gets paid what is fixed by the market forces. It is usually decided by supply and demand, the smaller the supply, the greater that particular group gets paid. Hence the high incomes earned by doctors, lawyers etc.

As to blue collar workers, their wages are decided by the unions. Human nature being what it is, unions often get greedy and price the workers out of a job. Thus the auto industry workers negotiated fat pay packets for themselves (my friends knows somebody in auto industry, doing an unskilled job, he says this worker get 85 $ an hour).

It appears they are pricing themselves out of a job. While the wages in big three are around 70 $ an hour, those in other auto factories (Toyota etc.) are 48 $ an hour. Unless the wages are negotiated down, the bailout money won’t do much good, the big three will be out of business in a few more years.

So here again, wages are determined by the market forces. It is no good crying fair or unfair to anything. Nobody deserves to get paid more than market forces dictate. The only place for the state to intervene is to get rid of systemic, institutionalized discrimination against women, by enacting pay equity. Other than that, leave the market forces alone to decide the wages.

I should clarify that I did get off topic in this thread in that I was not necessarily responding to the OP in favour of cutting salaries. I haven't thought about that too much yet because as you say it depends in part on the market.

I woudl agree though that society has a duty to teach a man to fish so that he can catch his own. In this respect, education is grossly underfunded. We should point out too though that we may need to give more thought to the principles underlying the current educaiton system. We need to introduce a more critical component to every curriculum. In other words, the students should be tought not only how to do a job, but to understand the wider impact of this job on society. He should be taught how to do the job in such a way as it benefits society. In business courses, for instance, what about the psychological and socionlogical impact of marketing. It's larger macro-economic costs, etc. You'd be surprised how much legal marketing is highly morally questionable. It's improved over the years, but we still target children like crazy. Still lots of 'fine print' advertising, etc. Yet it's not much questioned in business courses. I exaggerated last night. It is covered, but not nearly enough in my opinion.

Same ought to apply to all trades and professions.

 

[Liberalman]

SirJosephPorter

As to blue collar workers, their wages are decided by the unions. Human nature being what it is, unions often get greedy and price the workers out of a job. Thus the auto industry workers negotiated fat pay packets for themselves (my friends knows somebody in auto industry, doing an unskilled job, he says this worker get 85 $ an hour).

Union does not decide on what the worker will get paid the union negotiates with the carmaker of what the worker gets paid and the carmaker accepts it or rejects it.

The reason companies accept it is because they could afford it and their shareholders wanted the deal done so that they can earn those dividend cheque.

Union workers have always made North American cars to company specifications.

The companies failed to meet the needs of the buyer in designing cars that they want.

People are still buying cars of the foreign carmakers because they have the cars that they want.

The carmakers have to go to the car designers and tell them what they in cars and trucks.

With the car bailouts I am afraid nothing will change and it will be business as usual and the carmakers execs will continue to sip their Champaign at the country clubs

 

[JLM]

SirJosephPorter



Union does not decide on what the worker will get paid the union negotiates with the carmaker of what the worker gets paid and the carmaker accepts it or rejects it.

The reason companies accept it is because they could afford it and their shareholders wanted the deal done so that they can earn those dividend cheque.

Union workers have always made North American cars to company specifications.

The companies failed to meet the needs of the buyer in designing cars that they want.

People are still buying cars of the foreign carmakers because they have the cars that they want.

The carmakers have to go to the car designers and tell them what they in cars and trucks.

With the car bailouts I am afraid nothing will change and it will be business as usual and the carmakers execs will continue to sip their Champaign at the country clubs

"The reason companies accept it is because they could afford it"- Generally speaking NO- they accept it because they have no choice. It's up to the people doing the bailing to get the C.E.O.s to sign a notorized statement, specifying a wage cut and no perks.

 

[Machjo]

@ Machjo:

The principle of business IS to make money not to help with society, the question I would ask is why did you take a university course you did not want to be involved in?

If I took medical courses and specialized in stem cell usage, It would seem odd for me to be disgusted by the courses basic premise and complain that it turned me off education.

I had chosen the course in the hopes of applying this knowledge to my own business (things happened in my life that prevented that so far, but that's another matter; and over time I got more interested in languages, again another matter).

I had a different idea about business; to manage the company's resources, human and material, to make them produce as efficiently as possible.

Of course not all graduates of business courses go into business. Some go into management position sin NGO's, the government, etc.

The course I went through did cover those areas but very briefly, and that's fine. But once it got into the business part, it placed a high emphasys not on the most efficient ways of making producing, but how to be competitive. Not at all the same thing. For instance, in economics we have the concept of a 'natural monopoly' (i.e. a business that functions more efficiently as a monopoly than in competition). Yet natural monopolies in Canada are either government owned, highly government regulated, or outright prohibited from becoming a monopoly by law. As for government owned or regulated monolopies, that makes sence. But why would we prevent a business from becoming a monopoly if it is provent to be a natural monopoly? Isn't efficiency the ultimate goal? Government woudl require it to split and become more inefficient in order ensure 'competition' (in other words competition overrides efficiency). The argument is to maintain checks and balances. Yet would it not make more sence to simply convert it into a workers' co-op and warn if of criminal prosecution if it abuses its monopoly status? Either that or nationalize it (with fair compensation of course) if it's an essential service? We should never discourage efficiency in the market.

Marketing is another issue. Psychological aspects of marketing that are morally questionable (targetting children, especially common in junk food industries) can often be legal, but not questioned enough in such courses.

Arms industries, etc. The list doesn't stop. Of course it's up to the student to decide how he'll apply this knowledge, but the point is, if many are tought taht the bottom line is money through competition over eficiency, then many simpletons will take it to heart. And then we wonder why all the corruption, and questionable practices in business, etc.

 

[Machjo]

@ Machjo:

As for wages:

The Autoworkers deserve every penny they get and forcing the unions to drop wages? Fug that!

Nobody deserves anything. The market decides that. But I do agree that society ought to provide free education so that people can learn to become self sufficient. Remember though that the money for such free education would mean having to increae taxes. So no we have no right to any particular wage. We don't even have a right to low taxes. We just have a right to learn the skills we need to learn to become productive citizens in society.

You aren't bailing the unions out, you are bailing the shareholders out and lets be serious about that. The unions are a supplier, they supply labour used to make the vehicle.

Partly agree. I think part of that money is bailing the union, part the management and shareholders. i totally oppose the bail out. If they go bankrupt, re-educate them for the new jobs. That's the right they get. We teach them how to fish, and they do what they want with that knoweledge.

If you are going to force people to charge you less for supplies you are entering soviet territory , why not force their parts suppliers to sell them cheaper parts, or their sales agents to take less commission.

Not at all. If I'm going to lend someone my money, I have every right to make conditions on that loan just as he has every right to turn down the loan. So the govenrment has every right to attach all the strings it wants, and the automakers are free to accept or decline the offer. Fair is fair.

 

[Liberalman]

Missile

I remember a time when my union held us out on the picket lines for two extra weeks over 1 penny. I was selling my possessions then just to keep some food on the table for my wife and kids. Damn CUPW!

The CAW and the rest of the union movement owe a lot to the CUPW or Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Letter Carrier Union of Canada.

Before these union came onto the scene most unions were pussies and wimps and held in name only but the workers really never supported.

The first postal union was formed by the truck drivers in the 1960s and they successfully shut down the post office until their demands were met.

Then in the post office two unions were formed CUPW the inside workers and the Letter Carrier Union or the outside workers which included the truck drivers and letter carriers.

The reason two union were formed is because the inside workers liked their jobs as they were and really did not want it to change that much where the outside workers wanted more change.

They were also one of the first unions that were formed inside the government of Canada.

Throughout the years the outside fought for change to bring dignity to their members and the inside workers benefited by it because they got the same deal after the outside had to fight hard to get their deal.

When Mulroney’s Conservatives got into power they decided to once and for all break the postal unions and under his term in office the postal strikes became the most violent ones not seen since the Winnipeg 1930s strike.

Men and women fighting for better working conditions, that’s all.

Those years the tax payers got their monies worth, police on their horses beating strikers with their clubs just like the scene in Doctor Zhivago when the soldiers were beating the peasants on their horses.

We can’t forget the helicopters that the Conservative government hired to get non-union workers into the various processing plants looked and sounded like a war zone.

At the end all the Conservative government could do is amalgamate all the postal unions into one called the CUPW.

I heard on the news that Ontario government lost the right to ban unions from the farm fields which means farm workers can live in dignity instead of third world conditions here in Canada.

 

[L Gilbert]

I see the problem being that the large companies and major corporations gouge the everyday person to benefit the few investors. So the wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Gov'ts tend to favor that situation because of corporate pressure by lobbying and political funding.
Unions don't help because they aren't concerned about the everyday person either. The best of them are only concerned about their members and the worst of them are only concerned about power.

 

[JLM]

"I see the problem being that the large companies and major corporations gouge the everyday person to benefit the few investors."- If an investor is going to risk his money he has every right to expect a fair return on it and right now (if you've been following the stock market), investors are making diddly.

 

[Machjo]

One problem I see with unions is that it's confrontational. Why not get rid of unions and instead do like in Germany and ensure that workers are entitled a share of the seats at the board of directors, and then let labour and management work together rather than waste time in conflict?

 

[L Gilbert]

"I see the problem being that the large companies and major corporations gouge the everyday person to benefit the few investors."- If an investor is going to risk his money he has every right to expect a fair return on it and right now (if you've been following the stock market), investors are making diddly.

Quite right about investor motive for investing and the downturn in investment return. So? Market fluctuations happen and that affects investors' returns.
You are telling me that corp'ns and companies are NOT concerned with investors?

 

[L Gilbert]

One problem I see with unions is that it's confrontational. Why not get rid of unions and instead do like in Germany and ensure that workers are entitled a share of the seats at the board of directors, and then let labour and management work together rather than waste time in conflict?

Because we have developed our society to be confrontational and are resistant to changing that system.

 

[Tyr]

Missile



The CAW and the rest of the union movement owe a lot to the CUPW or Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Letter Carrier Union of Canada.

Before these union came onto the scene most unions were pussies and wimps and held in name only but the workers really never supported.

The first postal union was formed by the truck drivers in the 1960s and they successfully shut down the post office until their demands were met.

Then in the post office two unions were formed CUPW the inside workers and the Letter Carrier Union or the outside workers which included the truck drivers and letter carriers.

The reason two union were formed is because the inside workers liked their jobs as they were and really did not want it to change that much where the outside workers wanted more change.

They were also one of the first unions that were formed inside the government of Canada.

Throughout the years the outside fought for change to bring dignity to their members and the inside workers benefited by it because they got the same deal after the outside had to fight hard to get their deal.

When Mulroney’s Conservatives got into power they decided to once and for all break the postal unions and under his term in office the postal strikes became the most violent ones not seen since the Winnipeg 1930s strike.

Men and women fighting for better working conditions, that’s all.

Those years the tax payers got their monies worth, police on their horses beating strikers with their clubs just like the scene in Doctor Zhivago when the soldiers were beating the peasants on their horses.

We can’t forget the helicopters that the Conservative government hired to get non-union workers into the various processing plants looked and sounded like a war zone.

At the end all the Conservative government could do is amalgamate all the postal unions into one called the CUPW.

I heard on the news that Ontario government lost the right to ban unions from the farm fields which means farm workers can live in dignity instead of third world conditions here in Canada.

Men and women fighting for better working conditions, that’s all.

Bull

Unions make highly speculative demands and contribute very little to the well being of their members. They reward complacency and discourage initiative.

I believe that unions have a place in the workforce where a workers life may be subject to unsafe or hazardous working conditions.

But a union in the post office or the government? The nurses or schoolteachers? Give me a break.

They get paid based on ability and market demands. Nurses are in high demand, hence make big bucks. Gov't clerks. little demand, still big bucks based on their qualifications

Something wrong with that picture???? Definitely.

Union "demands" have contributed to the bankrupting of the forestry and auto industries.

The diffference between what a worker at a Toyota plant's total earnings (pension, benefits and salary) and what a worker at GM cost? $16/hr. That doesn't factor in the retirees benefits and pension. It's much higher if you want to count in those figures

Will a union worker take a $16/hr pay cut to keep his/her job? Not likely.

There has to be a total reworking of the union package to reflect reality. If not, they will need to put all of the workers out in the streets in order to keep paying retirees pensions and benefits.

Drastic situations require drastic measures. The UAW doesn't seem to be taking the measures needed to keep GM and Ford viable. They can forget Chrysler, the union demands will force it into bankruptcy

 

[tracy]

If you think nurses make big bucks or that they aren't subject to unsafe working conditions, you must be in another field!!!

Supply and demand are not all that determine wages. Nurses have been in high demand in Canada for a fairly long time, but in some provinces it took work actions and even illegal walk outs to get a reasonable raise. IMO, unions are simply a response to bad management. If workers feel safe and that their managers are fair, they'd never join a union. Unions will occasionally accept losses in their contract negotiations, you just have to look at BC nurses' last contract.

The problem with the big 3 auto makers isn't the unions. It isn't the wages. It's the fact that they make cars people don't want to buy. If they weren't churning out gas guzzling, unreliable pieces of crap they'd still be making money.