I don't see the distinction. Paying someone for not doing their job (UAW) or doing their job poorly (GM mgmt.) is a disincentive.
Yes GM has had some poor managment, but that is business, everyone f's up at some point in time. But honestly they are only human they will make mistakes and they are trying to correct those mistakes. And they will come out in the end just fine.
It shouldn't be that way in my opinion. If a union members screws up, they should be held accountable instead of hiding behind the union. The same goes for top-level management -- but unfortunately, since large mutual funds own the bulk of outstanding shares, little investors like me cannot hold management accountable to their actions. It goes both ways.
You can fire management though at GM, its pretty easy to fire any non-UAW guy. In fact I've seen many people in my office fired because of being late, being lazy, and being incompident, however I've only saw one UAW guy get fired and taht was after his 32nd offense and he took pictures of a GMT 900.
Then I blame your boss for perpetuating the cycle instead of trying to effect change and I blame the moron who broke the hood. Both of them were wrong -- but that's no fault of the union itself in my opinion.
My boss couldn't fight the union, the UAW is to powerful at GM. Trust me, he tried many times and that is why he stayed at a level 9 and was never promoted. It's every fault of the unions for protecting idiots like that. Because if he had been fired, he could have appealed and gotten his job back with in 3 days.
It's not the money... GM's got billions in cash and other liquid investments. It's the principle of the thing. Both your boss and the guy should have been fired.
It is about money too, I mean breaking a GMT 800 side mirror would be 70 bucks out of the budget, breaking a hood that is over a hundred thousand dollars takes a good stab at the budget. The truck division I worked at had only x amount of money to spend per year. And they were spending most of that on a more advanced facility.
Whoever told you that is only exacerbating the issue.
Actually I meant to say
wasn't my fault but someone had to be blamed. It was just easier to blame me then try to fight the UAW. I really didn't care because after that incident my boss proceed to put my request through to Milford in order to do truck testing. He also approved of a raise for me so I was making 20 bucks an hour. But he knew that it was wrong to blame me, but the UAW makes it so you have to. It is very frustrating working around them.
No, but my father is a member of the CWA (has been for 25 years) and I've worked with other union members when I worked at the Sugar Factory. So yes, I have union experience -- just not with the UAW.
Other unions could be different, I've never known another union other then the UAW. I can't speak for other unions because that would be stupid. I would sound like Young_Warrior and try to talk about stuff I don't know about.
Do you believe Reagan did the right thing when he "dissolved" PATCO? Do you think something similar should happen with the UAW? Just curious...
PATCO was with the government, the UAW really isn't. But I think what Reagan did was right, I mean they did violate a law by going on strike. But honestly I don't know a ton about it, all I know is air traffic controllers went on strike, which violated the law saying they couldn't, Reagan told them to go back to work, they refused, they lost their jobs. But honestly after looking it up to find more info on it their demands were pretty bad. I mean a 32 hour work week? Hell I work 50-60 hours a week and go to school, you don't see me complaining about it.
But the UAW shouldn't be dissolved, but they should be revamped because there is no need for that kind of power. I mean ya they should be intitled to benfits and all that other jazz, because well I mean I am so I can't say they aren't intitled to it. But I think the UAW needs a good overhaul.
. Ya thats really the only people who own them near me.