Watching the attempted bailout of the US automakers and the responses of the Union, and the apparent desire of some Republicans to pretty much kill the unions, I'll throw my two cents out there.
The unions must change if they want to survive. The old way of doing business doesn't work in the new age of multi-national corporations, dramatically shifting markets, and ever-changing technology. The current 800lb gorilla method of unions isn't effective anymore and needs to be rethought.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union. It isn't the union's fault that the car companies are in such dire straights, though the constant demands of more more more didn't help things. Unions have done much good, and are necessary to protect workers. But they need to go back to being truly local.
I think a network of truly local unions would be healthier and better for workers and employers then the current model of "local" unions where everything of importance is handled by people brought in by the national headquarters. It would allow unions to tailor contracts to their environment better. Workers in Chicago should make more than workers in Alabama, it costs more to live there.
A case in point. I live near the Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. Workers there have taken cut after cut as Mitsubishi attempts to survive in the US. Workers have taken over the past few years $1200/month wages concessions, assuming they kept their jobs. That is terrible, but they had $1200 in wages to give away. I'm sorry, I am all for people making a decent wage, but that is simply insane.
You've given up $14,400 in yearly wages because the unions kept demanding ever greater pay and benefits. (Yes, those lovely health-care benefits have also done much to shoot the cost of health-care up.) Am I saying that workers should get screwed when their companies make boneheaded decisions? No.
I am saying that getting paid $30/hour plus benefits to put widget A on widget B (without any real technical training) isn't a successful business model anymore. Add to this the protections of getting paid when their is no work (guarenteed 40 hours) and more, the unions have not done real favors when times get tough.
More negotiation needs to be done to tie both exectutive pay, and employee compensation to how the company is doing. Especially at the top levels. When executives can helm a company that is crashing into the ground and walk away with millions in golden parachutes, the employees must be protected as well.
This is disjointed, probably makes no sense, and got lost from the initial point. Though, I suppose that sums up the business climate pretty damn well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ya know, if workers were voting shareholders in their companies you might not even need unions. Unions largely exist because the motivation for the executives (that is: maximum return on shareholders investment) does not necessarily translate to providing a fair and equitable work environment.
I know this is just a watered down version of the communist mantra: "workers should own the means to production."
However it seems like our current capitalist system introduces 2 unnecessary levels of bureaucracy:
1. Investors who most likely have no connection to the companies core business and just (rightfully) want a return on their investment.
2. Unions whose only option for gaining leverage is to grow to gargantuan sizes and therefore become unable to represent the workers with any level of precision (eg rural workers vs. urban)
Now I'm not trying to spout communist rhetoric or anything. ;-) I just think now is an excellent opportunity to reevaluate how we've implemented capitalism: huge multinational corps controlled by Wall St. investors completely disconnected from the core businesses and "means of production."*
Perhaps another option is that the employees of a company get to vote on at least half of the board members. Perhaps this is already how some corps work. I'm woefully uneducated in the ways of corporate governance for how much I like to shoot my mouth off. ;-)
* Had to sneak that in once more because its such a wonderfully incendiary phrase ;-)
I agree. Employee owned companies seem to do well. The employee needs to be invested in his/her job just beyond a paycheck.
Also, corporate executive pay needs to be realigned, ie cut. Not even so much the pay, but the "bonuses" they get paid no matter how good or bad the company did.
I don't have a problem with a big CEO making a few million a year and if the company has a good year getting say 500k in bonuses.
I have a problem with them making a few million and THEN getting millions in bonuses no matter how the company did, and then getting paid millions to go away after they get fired. That's not right. And it effects the bottom line.
The commies don't have it right, but that doesn't mean we can't steal some of their ideas.
Post a Comment