Actually snowman, I lost my last job because of a union. The papermill that i picked up at for almost 10 years went out of business mostly because the union there refused to re-negotiate thier contract even when told that the company was on the brink. They shut thier doors soon after putting over 300 people out of work. The union wasnt much help to them after that! My trucking company held on a little while longer but with the cost of fuel ended up closing its doors and put me out of work. Oh well, i went and found another job.
As for being young and idealistic, I also dont think thats a bad thing. All of us have been there. I've been in the seat for 16 years now and am about to hit my 44th birthday in a few weeks.
I'm not against unions its just that I'm not high on them and have been in far too many plants and loading docks sitting for 4-6hrs watching the union guys screw around that I have become jaded.
Some companies are greedy, most are not. They exist for the profit of the shareholders. If anyone out there has a 401k or an IRA, and ALL OF YOU SHOULD, then guess what? You are an owner and benefit from the companies profits. In this global economy everyone had better wake up. its not 1950 anymore. Companies are going to move overseas if its cheaper to make the products there and ship them here for sale. This is just a fact of life.

 

Yes, unions have done a great job in this country. They have single handedly killed the steel industry and have done a good job of nearly killing the U.S. auto industry. They may still kill the auto industry. Until about 20 or so years ago virtually all the American auto manufacturers made their cars in this country. The smart manufacturers are moving their facilities down south or abroad to get away from the forced unionization. Most of the southern states don't force people to join a union and we still manage to earn a decent living without killing our employers.

 

[quote="GMAN"]Yes, unions have done a great job in this country. They have single handedly killed the steel industry and have done a good job of nearly killing the U.S. auto industry. They may still kill the auto industry. Until about 20 or so years ago virtually all the American auto manufacturers made their cars in this country. The smart manufacturers are moving their facilities down south or abroad to get away from the forced unionization. Most of the southern states don't force people to join a union and we still manage to earn a decent living without killing our employers.[/quote
Tell me about it, I picked up at Bethlehem Steel in Allentown for several years. The auto companies are on the verge and the bonds of these companies are rated junk for a reason and foreign companies that have plants in the south that are not union are doing fine for the most part.

 

There is a U.S. Steel plant that I have picked up in Gary, IN. This is a HUGE facility. I believe it is about 1 mile long. The last time I was there it was nearly shut down. The main reason was the union. When I got loaded there were about half a dozen people standing around watching one guy load my truck. Talk about productivity!! :roll: There is still a lot of steel processed in this country, but not that much being manufactured. It is now less expensive to import it and process it here even with the higher shipping costs than to make it in the U.S. You will find a lot steel coming into the ports such as Houston or Savannah. Think of all the jobs the union and greed have lost. There is another steel plant in Portage, IN that I will NEVER again pick up. First shift sat around until second came in to load us. Supposedly they were redoing a load for the first guy while the rest of us waited. I was third in line. There was no way to get out of the plant the way the drive area was set up. I sat there for 6 hours. I was supposed to have received detention time. It has been several years and I still haven't received the detention pay. When the second shift people came in it didn't take long to get us loaded and on our way. One second shift guy told me that the first shift people simply were not working. It was obvious to all of us who were waiting that they weren't working. This was also a union shop. This type of behavior would NOT have been tolerated in a non-union shop. There are other examples I could give about union shops. Unions take the accountability away from the workers. They also pit management against the workers. That is not a good thing. I find it interesting at the attitude of union workers. Most of them seem to consider management as the enemy. I think it is the union that is the enemy. :shock:

 

Hmmmm....guess you should talk to Rick Waggoner, the CEO of GM. He made $15.7 million while GM lost over $38 billion last year. :shock: This doesn't include stock options, golden parachutes, lifetime pension & insurance, company limos, etc.

And that's just the head honcho. Look at what the COO, CFO, CIO, treasurer, untold number of VP's, etc made. It's all there in black and white in the annual report.

I don't see too many of those guys taking paycuts, do you? So why is it always the workingman who's expected to make concessions when times are tough?

 

Actually, Mr. Waggoner's 2007 compensation was $2.05 Million which was 1/3 of the median salary for CEO's in the consumer durable goods sector and ranked #433 out 500 of the executive compensation list. The main reason GM is tanking is the same for the other car companies: legacy costs and health care costs due to outrageous union contracts. I'm not blaming the unions. They made the demands for the best pay they could get from the companies and the companies signed on the dotted line. The unions put almost $30 million into political activities last year second only to the $32 million they spent on member stuff. Why dont the unions spend that money on their members and lower the mandatory union dues for more take home pay?
You sound envious of the pay of CEO's. The cure for that is to become one yourself. In a capitolist society and economic system the top men get the top pay. If that bothers you perhaps you migrate to Europe. The economy in France is booming from my understanding with unemployment over twice that of the US.

 

Most executive compensation is tied to their performance, unlike those of the union workers. If you look more closely at executive compensation with most of the major corporations, much of it involves stock options and bonuses based upon their performance. It would be better for those companies who had unions to require them to tie performance to any new pay or benefits increases. If the union workers performance goes down, then so should their pay. The same is generally true for executive pay. GM has trimmed some of their middle management personnel in recent years. The executives are also working men. Pro union people tend to forget that executives also WORK. In fact, I would suggest that most executives put in a longer day than most of their union employees. Most executives are on a fixed salary. They are not paid overtime for the additional hours they work. I am not sure why you detest executives or managers so much. Without the executives to run and manage the company the union workers would not have a job.

 

Don't give me this crap that he works long hours...that's $15.7 MILLION dollars - comparable to what a pro athtlete or movie star would make. All this while GM LOST $38 billion!!

And that's just thte CEO. Look at all the other head-honchos earning millions upon millions while GM's stock tanks.

GM executives get other perks, too. Access to company limos, plus lifetime health insurance plus a lifetime pension. Bet you didn't know that. Some of these guys put-in 2 years and are set for life with health benefits. How much is that costing shareholders?

I don't see these guys offering to take paycuts, LOL. Nope, always the workingman who has to give back. :roll:

Let's see here. GM lost $38 BILLION...yes that's with a "B". But these guys are earning MILLIONS of dollars in salary in other perks while the company goes down the toilet. :roll:

But far too easy for you to trash the workingman.

WAKE UP!

 

No, you're wrong. His total compensation was $15.7 million in 2007. Much of that was options grants.

His actual base salary was $1.6 million. He also recieved $1.8 million in non-equity incentive compensation and another $700,000 in "perks" such as insurance benefits, security, aircraft expenses and other factors.

So his total base salary plus benefits was more like $4.1 million in 2007. The other $11.7 million was options grants.

Here's some others:

Fritz Henderson, who was promoted to president and chief operating officer in March, received compensation of about $9.3 million in 2007

Vice Chairman Bob Lutz's compensation rose to about $9 million in 2007, from about $5.1 million in 2006. The product chief's salary was raised to $1.75 million, from $1.3 million.

All this, while GM lost $38 billion dollars! :shock:

Hmmm...I guess the fact that US automakers abandoned small, fuel-efficient cars and put all thier money into pick-up trucks and big SUV's had nothing to do with it, right?

And GM no longer pays health-care benefits for its retirees.

I don't think these guys should be getting millions in compensation and other perks while the company loses billions of dollars.

 

Lebron, not everyone who works for a living is a blue collar worker. Without the executives who run the companies there would be no company or job for the blue collar worker. When you get a little more life experience perhaps you will understand how things really work. You complain about the executives of these large companies having medical benefits but don't seem to mind the company paying the same benefits to the blue collar retiree's. These executives often work outside of the office. They do entertaining and traveling in behalf of the company. That is something the hourly workers don't have to deal with. They are not paid additional compensation for these extra hours. They are paid a flat salary. With your way of thinking, perhaps they should receive pay for entertaining clients, travel pay, etc., Oh, that is not the way you think. If the guy wears a tie then he isn't entitled to extra pay. Most executive compensation is tied to performance. They receive a salary and if they achieve their financial goals for the year then they receive a bonus. In most cases they don't receive their bonus unless they meet their objectives. I think ALL workers pay should be tied to their performance. These executives rarely work a 40 hour work week. Most sacrifice greatly for their positions and companies.

You complain at how much these executives are paid but when you look at the size of their companies it doesn't seem so much. You seem so envious of their success. If you apply yourself and get a good education you can be successful.