Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » UAW Making Headway at organizing Toyota Plant in KY « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 766
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Looks like Toyota's free ride is about to end if their proposed restructuring plan screws thier employees. I just thought I'd post here as naysayers point to Union's as the disease which kills Michigan's economic prosperity.

The barbarians are at the gate!!!!!

From today's Auto Beat Daily:

UAW HOPES TO ORGANIZE TOYOTA’S KENTUCKY
WORKERS. The United Auto Workers union has increased its focus on organizing hourly workers at Toyota Motor Corp.’s Georgetown, Ky., assembly plant since the leak of company memos hinting at possible wage cuts. UAW leaders discussed the effort in an online chat with members on the union’s Web site. They say Toyota workers
in Kentucky are showing more interest in unionizing since the leaked documents first appeared in the Detroit Free Press last month.
Those internal memos said the company expects U.S.
manufacturing compensation to increase $900 million by 2011—and said Toyota must cut that amount by one-third. The company says it is looking for ways to reduce costs without cutting wages. Toyota claims that it sees no sign the UAW is making any headway at its U.S. plants. The union has been unable to organize any foreign-owned assembly plants in the U.S.,except for several joint ventures with domestic OEMs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 685
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah unions! Maybe they will bargain for wages that are high enough to price themselves out of their jobs!
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 767
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How true Charlotte! We would not want employees that can actually afford to buy the cars they work on, that would be Un American!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8529
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So should all contractors be paid enough to buy a mansion if that is what they are working on?

In this country a company like Toyota doesn't need to subsidize their sales through their workforce.

Unfortunate but true.

So if they were unionized what benefit would the company or the customers get from it? Serious question
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 768
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The benefits of a well paid workforce benefits that community which residents of that community if they were Toyota Customers would benefit. Toyota would benefit if those customers opted to replace their cars every 3 years as opposed to every 6 years. Same question to you, when Toyota brings that plant on line is Thailand, how does that benefit toyota's customers?
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8530
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thailand plant doesn't help but a unionized work force will more than likely drive more plants into Mexico than keep them here.

I don't Toyota is looking at the impact to a single community and the sales certainly won't be enough to make an impact on their bottom line.

To me, given the option of a plant pricing itself and its jobs out of the US or an area in Kentucky having a little less wealth is a pretty easy choice for me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2770
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is hardly the first UAW foray into those plants. What were the results of their past recruiting efforts? 35 to 40% pro UAW, perhaps. Inquiring minds want to know...
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1599
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is true that the union imbalance between the Big 3 factories and the foreign-owned factories in this country needs to be fixed one way or the other, for the Big 3 to compete. Either the foreign-owned factories need to become unionized, or the Big 3 need to become non-union.

Either scenario would be preferable to the current situation, although personally I'd rather see the Big 3 eventually become non-union, or at least some sort of more lightweight union.

Even moderate liberals such as myself and Jt1 realize that the inertia of too-powerful unions is hurting this city and region.

(hopefully Jt1 is OK with me speaking for him here ;) )
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8532
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speak away. I agree with our entire post.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 8536
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just heard another horror story of the UAW screwing up the office cleaning crew at a client's facility up in Flint.

As an original part of the deal to lease space back to GM after buying one of their plants, my client provided the cleaning service. Provided 18 jobs, sixteen workers and 2 managers, who serviced the whole place very well for about an average of $35k per employee.

UAW stepped in, demanded that GM force the landlord to use union labor, now they have 26 employees with 6 managers...nothing gets done well, nor on-time, and he spends time fielding complaints and guarding the wear-and-tear on his building because these bozos don't respect his stuff...all for an AVERAGE of $65k per for these 32 bodies doing the job that 18 were doing.


Quality down. Cost up.


That is the CURRENT union way...they need some major wake-up, but in their dream-state are sleep walking over a cliff with the rest of the economy.



Some would say that having 32 people doing the job poorly that 18 did well with such a high wage increase is success for the community due to the increased spending power...I just don't understand that mindset.

Just LOOK at all the surplus spend power laying around Flint...oh wait, those are surplus BODIES with potential, although tainted by the expectations of landing a $50k per year job with nearly no skills or schooling.

Used to be amazed by everyone in Chicagoland being so happy to work at whatever job they had, even fast food...when here in SE Michigan the workforce is largely poisoned by this lingering promise of riches and protection guaranteed by the unions.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 769
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I had a similar experience to Gannon's friend when I worked at GM Truck and Bus. GM built an all new office complex and staffed it with contract cleaning crews making 6 to 8 bux an hour. Thefts were rampant, my graphing calculator I was using for my Calc 1 class was swiped. UAW strike of '97 forced them to bring Union Janitors in. The petty thefts stopped. The guy in our building told me he made 80k per year. But he replaced a handful of the contract janitors, did a better job and did not steal our shit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2772
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe those unionized janitors you had didn't steal, but what about the others in the other buildings?

I heard lots of stories from retired or fired (rare, but it can happen) UAW workers bragging about what they got away with. And not all non-unionized janitors steal cheap calculators...
Top of pageBottom of page

Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft

Post Number: 1224
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, Cambrian.

People want to cheap out on labor, but then don't think of the consequences.

Henry Ford the first understood the benefit of paying his workers enough money so they too could buy his Tin Lizzy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 252
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"So should all contractors be paid enough to buy a mansion if that is what they are working on? "

Cambrian's example of worker's being able to afford to buy the car they are working on comes straight from Detroit history Jt1. It was Henry Ford's philosophy, and it worked quite well for both his company and the community.

Obviously if you build skyscrapers, it doesn't mean you should automatically be able to purchase one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8535
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Cambrian's example of worker's being able to afford to buy the car they are working on comes straight from Detroit history Jt1. It was Henry Ford's philosophy, and it worked quite well for both his company and the community.



And how can an economic model from Henry Ford's time be applied today. Making any comparison is pointless.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 251
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The UAW tries to organize transplants all of the time, they usually don't succeed. If they do, it will discourage transplants from coming here so it is hardly something to cheer about.

Yeah, Ford believed in paying a fair wage. He would never be able to operate in the environment we have now though, particularly if he was facing global competition, which he wasn't.

(Message edited by perfectgentleman on March 14, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Warrenite84
Member
Username: Warrenite84

Post Number: 52
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In defence of unions, advances in worker safety, and a 40 hour workweek, all Americans enjoy because of unions.
If unions diminish, so will worker safety. I consider on the job protections the union's highest priority, next to job security.
Before unions, Detroit was once called the eight fingered city, because of workplace accidents.

If the unions collapse, do you think Toyota and Honda will pay prevailing union level wages? Not for a minute!

Detroit has benefitted from that fat union paycheck. That money goes round and round in our local economy, and we have all benefitted.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1407
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The biggest thing that will keep the UAW from organizing Toyota is the fact that Toyota workers are happy. They are treated well by the company and what would a union to to help them. Honestly, do you ever hear of anyone from Toyota complaining about how the company is run or how much they are paid?
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 770
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"If they do, it will discourage transplants from coming here so it is hardly something to cheer about. "


Exporting is VERY expensive, a company would rather under any circumstance produce the products a global region buys in that region. This is how Japan hamstrings US car companies. Their gov't will not allow US cars to be assembled there, however they will allow us to export our models over to them, but since the Japan market is 90% about small cars, no export of anything like a Saturn would ever be profitable. So a company getting miffed and pulling out of a region because thier workers grew some balls is not a likely scenario. It would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Top of pageBottom of page

Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten

Post Number: 75
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One thing to understand here is that Toyota will do what is necessary to keep the union out. Even if it takes overpaying the hourly workers they will do it. Culturally they can not deal with American style unionism. The UAW by its nature is an aggressive confrontational union. It will not become the passive in-house type of union Toyota can deal with. All of the Japanese auto makers looked at the Ford/Mazada experiment with the union and decided that they want no parts of the UAW. Thats why I laughed when Jenny G said she was going after an engine plant for Michigan. The best Michigan will get from a Toyota is a technical center, but anything that requires some assembly from hourly workers.. you'll see pigs fly first.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bob
Member
Username: Bob

Post Number: 1408
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Toyota will not put a plant here because of the union control. The only way they would do it is if it were to win over buyers in MI with something built in MI. But I do not see that happening. Only a tech center for us.
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 4138
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

80k to sweep a floor and empty baskets???? Come on, doesn’t that sound a bit high? My dad works at the DCX headquarters and said that most of the janitors were actually assembly line workers at one time. I guess they either transferred or fucked up in the plant and the UAW wouldn’t let Chrysler get rid of them.

My dad has had tons of shit stolen from his office and cube. Janitors have ben caught several times for this but I am not saying it is only janitors. The whole floor his union so I don’t believe it makes a difference if one is a member of the UAW or not. Calculators, watches, model cars, nice pens…tons of shit.

I can see people being paid reasonable wages and I am all for unions but teachers barely make that much.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8537
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

I can see people being paid reasonable wages and I am all for unions but teachers barely make that much.



Contrary to popular belief the majority of teachers make much less than 80K.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 772
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"80k to sweep a floor and empty baskets????"

Just think, if the union got him that, what could they do for you? Admittedly he would not make that now, that was in the late 90s, a heady time when over time was not seen as evil.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1600
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Haven't nearly all of the unionists moved out of the city of Detroit by now, anyway, with those higher wages? In the old days (the 30's & 40's), Detroit used to be the union town, while the suburbs were non-union. But now, I wouldn't be surprised if a city like Warren had a higher percentage of union-member residents than Detroit does.

It might make sense for the UAW to move its headquarters to Warren, that would be a great symbolic gesture.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 8537
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I need to make plain that I think unions CANNOT and should not go away, the history of abuses of corporate capitalism is very clear on this.

The pendulum swung far in the direction of union power at a time when the industry could afford to placate them, now it needs to swing back a bit in order to achieve equilibrium in the new reality.

(the REAL reality, because advanced production with worldwide marketing and little competition during the post-war boom when Made in America meant something was certainly an inflated false reality, like that produced by cheap oil overall in the last hundred years.)


My client specifically said there were NO complaints about theft before the unions took over, but they had trouble afterwards with the union folk. He was paying a minimum of $10 per hour eighteen years ago, so this was a healthy wage.

His biggest troubles were the lack of quality work and any sort of desire to make the system improve for the WAY higher labor rate...and the UGLY unified face of the union tightening their circle with shields exposed any time there was any sort of criticism or threat of job cutbacks/firings.


Kinda like how Oldredfordette sounds with Karl sometimes...although I'd be the first to admit he digs for the reactionary response.



I understand that those within an organization need to defend it, but they sound so dogmatic defending the good things that they did in the past...as so perfectly detailed in that great Stargate sculpture in Hart Plaza that I venerate with every walk or jog down there...while never admitting the abuses of the present day and how they are hurting the system overall by refusing to accept the fact that the national provision of labor is obviously fungible.


Skateboarders kept me from walking the spiral yesterday, though...I usually will walk it and consider the things and concepts and accomplishments sprinkled around that unique piece of art.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1105
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Henry Ford began paying the then-unheard of rate of $5/day (about twice the going rate then) in 1914 in an effort to reduce the 300% turnover rate then being experienced in most all auto plants. Just when you got a man trained on a machine or procedure they were gone--like Burger King is today. One thing that is important to remember when discussing Henry Ford is to not give the "St. Henry" version we all got in Detroit public schools. Henry had a little thing called the Ford Sociological Department--representatives of the company would visit your home or apartment and inspect it, judging workers on the cleanliness of their home, whether there was evidence of alcohol or tobacco in the home, whether the children of immigrants spoke English or their parent's native tongue. The rate of pay was based on how you scored with the sociological department's visits, $5/day being the highest attainable wage. The Ford sociological department also gave mandatory English lessons to immigrant workers.
Ford was also the last major manufacturer to agree to the union, least ye forget the rouge bridge incident involving Reuther, Frankensteen and Ford's corporate goons, who beat the shit out of anyone who got in the way of what Henry wanted or needed.
Henry's vision of a simple car everyone could afford was realized by adapting the mass-production methods already in use in the manufacture of sewing machines and guns (no, Henry didn't invent the assembly line, nor did he invent the first car) working a lot of people hard in the process, and exerting a modicum of control that would be wholly unacceptable today.

(Message edited by 56packman on March 14, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lvnthed
Member
Username: Lvnthed

Post Number: 10
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 4:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The destruction of unions will set off a feeding frenzy of enormous proportion.
Free-market sympathizers have always had it in for unions. The problem is, absent the union YOU WILL TURN ON EACH OTHER.

If union makes 24$ you complain that, they don't deserve that much, and you would do it for 20$ and less benefits, not complain, and smile all the way to the bank.

Now with absolutely no protections for your job, the feeding frenzy starts.

A couple years go by and the company needs to restructure so that the shareholders will stay happy. So, a new group of haters pop up, they complain about you being overpaid and you are hurting the company.

They say i'll do that job for 17$ and pay a larger portion of my insurance. This new crop replaces the last crop who are now unemployed and disgraced.

A couple years later the company says our legacy cost are to high, they need a little give-back, so they threaten job loss in an effort to reclaim monies in their pension fund. During those negotiations a new group shows up and says you are greedy and you don't deserve those good jobs. They will do them for 14$ and no benefits.
Shortly after giving up your pension, you are REPLACED. Wall street Rejoices and the Stock the soars. Meanwhile, the new crop of workers show up and the cycle continues.

Fast-forward Ten years in the Future and what do you see? Employees making min. wage with no benefits, no security, and no options. And a company packing up the u-haul in the middle of the night, headed for the border!

Wall Street Rejoices, stocks soar, and share holders are cashin-in.

Is this truly the future you wan't for america?
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1106
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lvnthed--did you stop and think about the workers in China or India who will do the job for $2.50 US (or LESS), no benefits? that's the big picture on this, that's who you are up against.
Your neighbor who will work non-union is working and paying taxes in this country at least.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lvnthed
Member
Username: Lvnthed

Post Number: 11
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

56packman, I can agree with you on the China/India angle; but only to a point.

The main point of my post was to hi-light the sharp divisions in the american work-force,
To hi-lite the tactics used by the business community to divide the workforce. Without that division it would be harder for companies to justify the out-soursing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2779
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And the Indonesians are now causing concern to China because they are undercutting them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Patrick
Member
Username: Patrick

Post Number: 4145
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is just a matter of time before some other nation knocks China and India off the map as the cheapest labor producer. Isnt the pay in Vietnam and Malaysia worse?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lvnthed
Member
Username: Lvnthed

Post Number: 13
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patrick & LY, Can't we all just get along! LOL
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 44
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Its a cycle with the people down there. They live in poverty, a plant moves in for the cheap labor, for two years they are elated to have a job, then the newness wears off, greed sets in and they strike for a union and better pay. They get it and a year later the plant closes. Totally stupid. It replays over and over.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 777
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just think how insulting it is when your employer is in the news all the time bragging about thier profits and how they are handing it to the big 3. Then they have the nerve to start cost cutting rumours aimed at scaring the people who have worked so hard to get them where they are now.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 45
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cambrian,

Quality of personnel is relative to their cost. Companies know this. They know for a long term relationship with an employee that will be earnestly interested in their product, want it to grow and genuinely concerned about quality. And brings something to the table in regard to personal aptitude, can contribute to the company's development, they have to pay them more. They know dropping below a certain threshold in pay scale is putting them in dangerous territory.

Thats exactly why Henry started paying everyone 3 times more than the going rate when he wasn't being forced to, by any organization. He had to from a responsible business standpoint.

And the speculation that workers will be treated unfairly without a union is UAW propaganda. We have labor laws, state and federal that are adhered to and enforced.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 1700
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Ford Sociological Department

Wasn't it called the Ford Service Department with Harry Bennett, et al?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1440
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Fast-forward ten years in the future and what do you see? Employees making minimum wage with no benefits, no security, and no options. And a company packing up the U-Haul in the middle of the night, headed for the border!

Wall Street Rejoices, stocks soar, and share holders are cashing in.

Is this truly the future you want for America?"


I think I'd better buy up some stock.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1107
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jimaz--the name changed into the service department later. The Sociological department began in 1913, Bennett was probably still boxing at that time.
One other thing Ford and his goons did: they had "service department" goons in the bathrooms. If you had to do your big #2 business they were there to look in the bowl after you were done to make sure that you really had to go and weren't ducking out of work. No dukie in the bowl, you're gone!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jeff_of_dayton
Member
Username: Jeff_of_dayton

Post Number: 3
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's not impossible to have unions in Kentucky. I lived in KY for many years, and know that the coal mines used to be unionized (with quite a bit of union loyalty there), and the blue collar workforce in Louisville also used to be pretty heavily union (including UAW at the two Ford plants in Lou).

So, unions can happen in Kentucky, too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 1702
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 7:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

56packman, thanks. For years I've been picking up tidbits of that fascinating slice of Ford history. It almost seems like people don't want to discuss it. Maybe it's too painful.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 256
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 7:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Remember they are not taking pay cuts in the real sense, they will be asked to take less of a PAY INCREASE than was planned. I don't think this will be enough to go for a union.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cambrian
Member
Username: Cambrian

Post Number: 779
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 7:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes Packman my Grampa worked at Rouge from 1934 - 46. There is a news story somewhere of him betting his paycheck against a much younger man and fellow rouge employee to who could win a 100 yard dash. My grampa won. We would love to get a hold of that story. Anyways grampa had very few nice things to say of Henry. He would say when Henry walked through the plant, that if you looked up from your work station, the next thing you know there would be a foreman tapping you on the shoulder and telling you were fired.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lvnthed
Member
Username: Lvnthed

Post Number: 15
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 7:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If companies Used more tact with unions instead of taking the hard line, it could be very profitable.

My Dad works a Ford Rouge, He is the only one in my family left in the auto industry. Yet we as a whole still only buy fords. Between All of us in the immediate family that accounts for about 10-15 purchase/lease a year. Now if he worked for a company that treated him like dirt, I couldn't say that this support would 100% be there.

Just a simple observation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mjb3
Member
Username: Mjb3

Post Number: 146
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If the UAW gets in Toyota Georgetown, then the workers can drink Jim Beam at lunchtime instead of 6-pack like Michigan UAW.

The issue is control. Toyota will pay union wages but they want to run the plant, not have to ask a steward to move people to different stations. Toyota wants to be able to fire people for nonperformance.

They might organize a transplant when the avg worker age in those plants gets over 45-50. Then they will have medical issues and want a cake job.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.