Fiat CEO to Chrysler (UAW) Unions: Cut Costs or We Walk

[Darth Wong]

In other words, Solauren is complaining that the workers in these positions are treated like almost all non-union private-sector employees in this country, none of whom are entitled to the protections you speak of. Still hard to shed a tear. You're in Finland, which has much different laws. Solauren is in Canada, and he should know how his countrymen live. He apparently does not.

[Edi]

In other words, Solauren is complaining that the workers in these positions are treated like almost all non-union private-sector employees in this country, none of whom are entitled to the protections you speak of. Still hard to shed a tear. You're in Finland, which has much different laws. Solauren is in Canada, and he should know how his countrymen live. He apparently does not.

Pretty much. I don't pretend to know what kind of worker protection laws you have over there, but given the way our system is set up, the situation and nature of the complaint was fairly obvious to me.

One of the most assholish things about those temporary contracts is that depending on the way they're done, people never accumulate vacation time or other benefits that kick in only after a certain time, because they're never in the same position. Every contract is a "new" job. That's a cost cutting measure for some, but our employment laws make it a dicey prospect to do for long. It can be got around in some ways, for example a temp contract worker has a full time indefinite position with a temp agency and is assigned into projects with the companies that use the temp agency to hire people, so there is some protection, but how these things are done depends on the temp agency. Some of them are real assholes, some do good by their temps. I've had experience of both. Obviously the temp only gets paid when he's on a project, so it's in-between at best.

I have a full time, indefinite position now, though I started out as a temp hire and had six months stretches three times in a row before the company I work for actually recruited me into their rolls. If they hadn't, I would have walked as soon as I found another job and my bosses and some other people I knew inside the company who were involved with the temp-to-company transfers knew it, so they took me on full time. It was a good deal for them, because I'm competent at what I do and have a fairly wide skillset that comes in useful for other things as well, so that I can fill in for a good number of other stuff on short notice.

Employment laws and other such are always a thorny issue, it's difficult to get the balance of worker protection, business interests, regulation and other stuff down so that it works for everyone instead of being just a zero sum game where someone (or even everyone) loses. It doesn't help that many people don't understand the first thing about it beyond some simplistic black-and-white sloganeering or gazing at their own navel.

[Stark]

Like Edi, I've started as a 'casual' employee and later become 'permanent'. In AU this difference is one of wage, benefits and rights, and it's not really 'permanent' as in 'last forever'. It just means severance laws andcorp benefits apply, whereas 'casual' is asituation with no obligation either way.

[Ekiqa]

Pensions were mentioned, saying that CAW/UAW had the best pensions, next to unionized public servants.
Completely wrong. Public servants have shit pensions. Politicians have excellent pensions, those in the financial sector have the best. Management pensions are better than line workers. Public servants have very poor pensions.

Wong, you do not think it is wrong, that a position which is essential is hired as a temporary contract? 5 months pay, one month off unpaid, repeat, for 20 years? Any sane business would have made that contractor an employee.

Those employee protection laws were put in place due to the actions of the unions. Without them, you'd be working 80 plus hours a week for peanuts. It's unions you have to thank for lunch breaks, minimum wage, 40 hour weeks. As soon as they get broken, as you so desperately hope for, those breaks and wages will dissappear.

You sound like Stephen Harper here. Attacking unions and public servants.

[Darth Wong]

Pensions were mentioned, saying that CAW/UAW had the best pensions, next to unionized public servants.
Completely wrong. Public servants have shit pensions. Politicians have excellent pensions, those in the financial sector have the best. Management pensions are better than line workers. Public servants have very poor pensions.

You have "shit" pensions compared to what? The zero pensions which most employees in the private sector have?

Wong, you do not think it is wrong, that a position which is essential is hired as a temporary contract? 5 months pay, one month off unpaid, repeat, for 20 years? Any sane business would have made that contractor an employee.

I'm an engineer, fucktard. People in my profession live like that for their entire careers in some cases. Take your greasy violin somewhere else if you want sympathy.

Those employee protection laws were put in place due to the actions of the unions. Without them, you'd be working 80 plus hours a week for peanuts.

I never said unions should be completely outlawed. However, many of the kinds of contract stipulations they habitually insist on should be outlawed. And you should produce some kind of actual evidence that there would be no worker protection laws without giant unions like yours, the CAW, or the UAW.

It's unions you have to thank for lunch breaks, minimum wage, 40 hour weeks. As soon as they get broken, as you so desperately hope for, those breaks and wages will dissappear.

Where's your evidence for this bullshit claim?

You sound like Stephen Harper here. Attacking unions and public servants.

Ah, guilt through association! Nope, it's not working, I'm not bothered by it. Try actually producing a real argument instead.

[Broomstick]

Contract employees. A little over half of the people I've worked within in the government are on contract. Some of them have been on contract for 20 years at the same job, with it up for renewal every 6 months.

Really?

I've been working 25+ years here in the U S of A. I have NEVER had a job contract. NEVER. From what I read here I suppose they are routine in other parts of the world, but HERE they are extremely rare outside of the executive-level positions, or something like pro sports.

The vast majority of US workers have not, do not, and never will have an employment contract.

I'm sorry, but after 5+ years, with some of the postions being classified as essential so they are filled in the event of a strike, those jobs should not be contract anymore. They should be made permanent positions. None of them are as of right now.

In the US, even "permanent" employees can typically be replaced more or less without notice (those in unions being a notable exception).

Retirement packages and continued health coverage instead of pensions would probably be a better idea.

What the hell do you think a pension is? It's a retirement benefit which, by the way, was promised to those workers during all those years they worked.

Granted, if the company goes belly up you're out the pension entirely, but the point here is that summarily yanking a promised benefit is, um, usually considered bad.

Instead of paying out $2000 a month (or whatever a CAW/UAW/BIG 3 pension is), for who knows how long, give them a fixed retirement pay-off/package based on rate of pay/length of employeement to supplement there government pensions, continued health-care coverage (those jobs are murder on the body sometimes), maybe a discount on future purchase from the company, and then cut them lose.

Uh.. our "government pension" is Social Security. It's pathetically small, well under the poverty level for a person. Our retirement medical care (from the government) is Medicare, which has things like deductibles and out of pocket requirements that, absent other funds, must come out of the already inadequate "government pension". In other words, yank all the retirement benefits from GM retirees and you are plunging them all into abject poverty and inferior medical care (unless they have some other funds stashed away - possible, but rare below management level).

If the retiree can afford to live after that, it shouldn't be the Union, or Companies, responsiblity. Same as while they are working for the company.

Except our nation relied so heavily on the private sector to provide for retirement that no one peeped when the government safety net was gutted. No, on just government benefits you can't afford to live like a human being.

[Broomstick]

A whole two weeks? Wow, that's extravagant; usually I've seen more along the lines of "effective immediately, and we didn't tell you even though we've known it was coming for weeks because we were afraid you'd slack off if we did." The one time I've been laid off, they didn't plan on telling me until I'd clocked out on my last day; I only found out a few hours in advance because I asked why I wasn't on the next week's schedule.

You're right: they pay severance but they usually want you out the door the same day. My favourite firing story was the guy in Ottawa who was working at a badge-in security building. They held a fire drill, and when it came time to re-enter the building, his badge no longer worked. They brought his stuff out to him and told him to go home and not come back.

Wow. I hope he deserved a good firing if they were that harsh about it.

That sort of "try to get in the building, your badge doesn't work, here's your stuff, get the fuck out of here" is actually becoming pretty standard in corporate America. I've seen it happen a lot. Yes, sometimes there is cause, but I've also seen it as a "corporate policy" for terminating employees for any reason, and also because some managers are too chickenshit to look someone in the eye when and say "you're not working here anymore".

[aerius]

Pensions were mentioned, saying that CAW/UAW had the best pensions, next to unionized public servants.
Completely wrong. Public servants have shit pensions. Politicians have excellent pensions, those in the financial sector have the best. Management pensions are better than line workers. Public servants have very poor pensions.

Let me get this straight, are you trying to compare public servant pensions to bank CEO golden parachutes? How about comparing a typical government pension to say, a bank teller instead.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. My dad worked for Ontario Hydro, his take home pension is the same as his take home pay. I'm in Customs. When I retire, my take home pension will be higher than my current take home pay. I have the tax forms to prove it. Yeah, our public servant pensions really suck dick.

Wong, you do not think it is wrong, that a position which is essential is hired as a temporary contract? 5 months pay, one month off unpaid, repeat, for 20 years? Any sane business would have made that contractor an employee.

That's how it works in the real world. I was in the electronics manufacturing industry before I got on the taxpayer tit, if a job can be put on contract work, it will be, because companies don't want to pay out fulltime benefits if they can help it. 6-18 month contracts, renew as needed, hire to fulltime only when absolutely necessary.

Those employee protection laws were put in place due to the actions of the unions.

Yeah, and now that the laws are there, we don't need the unions anymore. Just like we don't need jackasses like Jesse Jackson anymore now that we have laws to protect against racial discrimination. The big unions, like Jesse Jackson, are shit-disturbing assholes who use the "plight of the workers/oppressed" to further their own agendas and play power games.

Without them, you'd be working 80 plus hours a week for peanuts. It's unions you have to thank for lunch breaks, minimum wage, 40 hour weeks. As soon as they get broken, as you so desperately hope for, those breaks and wages will dissappear.

Uh, yeah. Ain't no fucking union in the electronics manufacturing industry, I was making more there than I am now. Or maybe you can talk to my friend in the oil industry who was pulling in 6 figures straight out of university, no union there either. We're paid those wages along with decent benefits because that's the only way the companies can hire & retain the workers they need.

[Big Phil]

Contract employees. A little over half of the people I've worked within in the government are on contract. Some of them have been on contract for 20 years at the same job, with it up for renewal every 6 months.

Really?

I've been working 25+ years here in the U S of A. I have NEVER had a job contract. NEVER. From what I read here I suppose they are routine in other parts of the world, but HERE they are extremely rare outside of the executive-level positions, or something like pro sports.

The vast majority of US workers have not, do not, and never will have an employment contract.

They are fairly common in the high tech sector. At Microsoft, contracters work for 12 or 13 months as a contracter, then have to take a month off before they can be rehired. Its not ideal, as there is less job security than for full-time employees (they don't have to rehire you), and there's that month off without pay, but to offset that, contract positions typically pay up to 30% more than the equivalent full time position, usually with pretty decent benefits (health, dental, 401k, etc.).

[Broomstick]

Contract employees. A little over half of the people I've worked within in the government are on contract. Some of them have been on contract for 20 years at the same job, with it up for renewal every 6 months.

Really?

I've been working 25+ years here in the U S of A. I have NEVER had a job contract. NEVER. From what I read here I suppose they are routine in other parts of the world, but HERE they are extremely rare outside of the executive-level positions, or something like pro sports.

The vast majority of US workers have not, do not, and never will have an employment contract.

They are fairly common in the high tech sector.

The "high tech sector" is a minority of the overall group called "workers" in the US. Hence, I said "majority" rather than "all."

At Microsoft, contracters work for 12 or 13 months as a contracter, then have to take a month off before they can be rehired. Its not ideal, as there is less job security than for full-time employees (they don't have to rehire you), and there's that month off without pay, but to offset that, contract positions typically pay up to 30% more than the equivalent full time position, usually with pretty decent benefits (health, dental, 401k, etc.).

No, you dumbshit, I'm talking NO CONTRACT AT ALL. Not as "contractors", I mean, no contract. No long-term commitment on the side of the employer. Sure, you're a "permanent" employee but the employer can point you to the door and say "leave" at any time for any reason outside of a very, very small list of "you can't fire people for these reasons". Which still happens anyway.

A lot of full time, permanent employees in the US do NOT, in fact, have ANY health insurance, no dental, no vision, no 401(k), no pension....

[aerius]

They are fairly common in the high tech sector. At Microsoft, contracters work for 12 or 13 months as a contracter, then have to take a month off before they can be rehired. Its not ideal, as there is less job security than for full-time employees (they don't have to rehire you), and there's that month off without pay, but to offset that, contract positions typically pay up to 30% more than the equivalent full time position, usually with pretty decent benefits (health, dental, 401k, etc.).

It was a lot like that in my former line of work, except we didn't have to take a month off between contracts plus we didn't get the premium pay. Healthcare & dental benefits were the same but fulltime workers had a better life insurance & disability package plus more paid holidays and sick days. In practice there wasn't much difference since most of us were workaholics and only took a week off work at most.

[Ekiqa]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. My dad worked for Ontario Hydro, his take home pension is the same as his take home pay. I'm in Customs. When I retire, my take home pension will be higher than my current take home pay. I have the tax forms to prove it. Yeah, our public servant pensions really suck dick.

Those I know who work for the feds, have a 2% a year pension. Which means the only way they will get a pension above their pay is by working 51 years.

[Ekiqa]

I never said unions should be completely outlawed. However, many of the kinds of contract stipulations they habitually insist on should be outlawed. And you should produce some kind of actual evidence that there would be no worker protection laws without giant unions like yours, the CAW, or the UAW.

Your hero Harper has started it already. Female employee's of the government can no longer try for equal pay for equal work. It's part of the new stimulus budget bill that Iggy loves. As well as pay cuts to government workers. This while the CAW is giving up concessions.

[Big Phil]

No, you dumbshit, I'm talking NO CONTRACT AT ALL. Not as "contractors", I mean, no contract. No long-term commitment on the side of the employer. Sure, you're a "permanent" employee but the employer can point you to the door and say "leave" at any time for any reason outside of a very, very small list of "you can't fire people for these reasons". Which still happens anyway.

A lot of full time, permanent employees in the US do NOT, in fact, have ANY health insurance, no dental, no vision, no 401(k), no pension....

That's a surprising level of rage when all I'm doing is pointing out that a) contracts are more common than you think in a specific sector of the economy, and the b) explaining how it works in that sector. Are you feeling alright? You're normally more reasoned and less emotional, so this rageholic response is somewhat out of character for you.

[Darth Wong]

I never said unions should be completely outlawed. However, many of the kinds of contract stipulations they habitually insist on should be outlawed. And you should produce some kind of actual evidence that there would be no worker protection laws without giant unions like yours, the CAW, or the UAW.

Your hero Harper has started it already.

I see you're incapable of debating this without assuming I support the Conservative government even though I specifically denied that charge earlier. Is this really how feeble-minded you are? You don't know how to argue a point without resorting to tribalism?

Female employee's of the government can no longer try for equal pay for equal work.

I don't know the specifics of that law, so I can't comment on it. If it was truly a bad thing to do, then I'm against it. Do you know much about that equal pay law? How did it determine what was "equal work"?

BTW, learn how to use a fucking apostrophe. Few things spell "semi-literate" better than morons who think that you pluralize a noun by adding an apostrophe followed by an s.

It's part of the new stimulus budget bill that Iggy loves. As well as pay cuts to government workers. This while the CAW is giving up concessions.

I hope there are more pay cuts to government workers. As a matter of principle, average government worker compensation (including all of their benefits and pensions) should be comparable to what similar workers in the private sector receive on average. That is not the case today, and has not been the case for a long time.

Do you believe that the government workers are entitled to total compensation well in excess of the average private-sector worker whose taxes pay their salaries? If so, how do you justify what appears to be a disgustingly self-serving position?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Certainly I consider my ultimate aspiration to work under a Finnish-style legal system for job contracts, for example; and I have to say I have to had some sympathy, at least, for Broomstick's response. The American employment market is ruthless and contributes no small amount of stress, especially to her and the circumstances it's put her through. I've ultimately come to the opinion that, really, it's a fundamental human right for people to be able to work under a Finnish-style employment law system, more fundamental than even the right to shelter that some have advocated. Better to live on a friend's couch, broadly speaking, than to have the job instability that Americans suffer and the fear and chronic uncertainty that comes with it and that I've experienced first-hand. I'd accept very substantial reductions in pay over what's typically offered in America for a particular position, for the chance to have such a job contract and healthcare. Does she not have a right to be bitter that the security she frankly needs, considering her husband's medical conditions, is denied to her for purely ideological reasons in the United States? That 400 million Europeans presently enjoy what she will never be able to obtain, and the lack of which has very nearly come damn close to destroying her life?

I am damned lucky that I really will be employable anywhere in the world by the time my education is done.

[Darth Wong]

I find Broomstick's irritability to be quite understandable; she has been put under stresses that SanchezTheWhaler cannot comprehend. It's easy for him to say "Oh, if I were in your position I would not react that way."

[Darth Wong]

The American employment market is ruthless and contributes no small amount of stress, especially to her and the circumstances it's put her through. I've ultimately come to the opinion that, really, it's a fundamental human right for people to be able to work under a Finnish-style employment law system, more fundamental than even the right to shelter that some have advocated.

The problem with the American labour market is not the ease with which workers can be fired: it's the fact that their society is designed in such a way that dismissal can absolutely devastate peoples' lives. I know people who have changed jobs many times but are still unreasonably happy, in large part because the social safety net keeps the demons away.

People can get new jobs, but it really helps to do so without feeling like they're in the Pit with the Pendulum in the meantime. Worker protection laws which make it extremely difficult to fire people can paradoxically be harmful to employee morale: one of the most annoying phenomena in the workplace is to interact with worthless employees who can't be fired.

[Stark]

I think that's it for sure. When I've had job instability I've been pretty stressed, but there's no way in hell my life can get as bad as it can in America. At absolute worst I buy less 360 games and cook my own food, I'm not ending up on a park bench chased by loan sharks.

However, the 'entrenched workforce' situation also has serious downsides, and not just 'worthless employee' stuff. It can be very difficult to get a job in these situations (or keep it past the probationary period) if there's any reason for the employer to think you're going to be negative later, because it's really hard to fire anyone. In the 90s in AU, people caught stealing trivial shit from work (staplers etc) had to be given warnings and put through training/counselling before they could be fired, which is probably in the mind of any employer when hiring.

[bobalot]

In Australia, it was the unions who really helped bring about OH&S regulations. The employers associations fought them every step of the way. I know how damn useful (if at times annoying) they are.

I'm not sure how it's done in America or Canada.

We have the enterprise bargaining system for about half the workforce, where pay and conditions are negotiated between management and the unions and is dependent on increases in worker productivity.

If we didn't have the unions, we would probably end up like America, where worker productivity has actually grown but wages have remained relatively stagnant for most of the work force.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Job uncertainty in America SUCKS. I've been in Environmental consulting for about 5 years, and I've had three different jobs. On only ONE of those jobs was I given notice that I would be let go, the other two I showed up for work and was handed a pay envelope and a one-weeks' severence envelope. I have no union, no redress, only unemployment to apply for (which is barely enough for a single guy to survive on). What's more, I usually go 3-6 months between jobs (because I don't have a lot of years yet, I'm not super desirable), and I actually had to MOVE to my last job, which I worked for 15 months before I was let go.

In America, if you lose your job the best you can expect from a society is 'Wow, that sucks. How much do you have saved?' That being said, it would be INSANE for them to try and unionize my field, because there's just too much economic and political uncertainty to it. Drillers, chemists, all of us don't have contracts, they just keep us as long as they need us and then let us go.

That's why I'm going to try and become a science teacher. Get me some of that fat unionion living.

[Dahak]

I find it perplexing that there seems to be no real drive for a change in legislation towards a more employee-friendly regulation. Sure, employers might resist, but other countries clearly show that it is possible.
I could not imagine to live and work in such an environment. I don't know the difference between a Finnish system and the German one, but it could not be a huge difference. To live with the constant fear that tomorrow I could get fired and be out of work, it would eat me inside I guess. I could *get* fired tomorrow, but still I would have three months to find a new job. And if they wanted me to not show up at work for security reasons, I had three months at homr with full payment. On the other hand, this doesn't make it easy if *you* want to leave the job but your boss won't let you go earlier (but might be a luxury problem...).

[aerius]

Those I know who work for the feds, have a 2% a year pension. Which means the only way they will get a pension above their pay is by working 51 years.

Someone's never filled out an income tax return, or he'd know about EI premiums, CPP contributions, and union dues. Hint. Pension income doesn't get hit for any of the above, plus old age security payments kick in after age 65 along with a bunch of tax deductions. The end result is the net income ends up being the same after retirement.

[Enigma]

There are numerous positions in the government that, by there own requirements and regulations, are supposed to be made 'permanent' (i.e minimum number of auditors, tax collectors and field agents per regional office, minimum number of security for a given building's size/staff, etc). While this doesn't guarantee job security, it does increase it.

What does it mean to make a position "permanent"? If the rules say they need 50 people in an office doing a certain job, why does it matter whether they keep hiring 50 contract workers to do that job or call it a "permanent position"?

Depending on some "permanent" jobs entitles the employee to job benefits whereas contract employees get squat unless it is in the contract.

Personally I find a lot of the unions to be bloated assbags. They've gone beyond their duty and are just plain greedy. But nevertheless, stripped down to the basics, the unions can do good. For example, a bit before moving to the U.S. while still a courier, I saw a letter posted in the warehouse about the postal union approaching the biker couriers about joining them. I've talked to a few bikers and they all want to join them saying that they are being screwed around. Apparently all of Ottawa's bikers want to join up.

Actually, having to think on that, the bikers wanting to join up is just them suffering from sour grapes because they are sub contracted, in other words they are self employed and if they don't like it then they can go somewhere else. If they get unionized, then the courier companies can sack them all and pass the work on to the drivers.

[Darth Wong]

In Australia, it was the unions who really helped bring about OH&S regulations. The employers associations fought them every step of the way. I know how damn useful (if at times annoying) they are.

I'm not sure how it's done in America or Canada.

How do you know the unions were responsible? In Canada, it is liberal political parties which are primarily responsible for passage of such laws. It could be argued that unions tend to support those parties, but it's a pretty big stretch to go from that to "unions are responsible".

In the US, would you say that unions are responsible for everything the Democratic Party has ever done, by virtue of the same proxy responsibility logic? I don't buy that.

In fact, unions spend most of their time lobbying for benefits which will affect their own members but either harm or do nothing for everyone else. Of all the thousands of union-paid political ads I've ever seen and heard in my entire lifetime, I don't recall even one which promoted labour protection for all workers, as opposed to just their own members.