Surprise: Early Show Economist Blames 'Selfish' UAW

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Let's hope we haven't seen the last of Peter Morici on CBS. The University of Maryland professor of business and economics, appearing on the Early Show this morning, put the blame for the failure of Big Three bailout squarely on the shoulders of the UAW for its refusal to accept pay cuts putting its members on par with non-union workers at US plants owned by foreign car manufacturers. The Early Show did manage to balance things with some Dem demagoguery from the mayor of a Michigan city.

Morici singled out UAW president Ron Gettelfinger, calling him "unrealistic" and "selfish." Comic relief was later provided by Virg Bernero, mayor of Lansing, Michigan, who seemed to confuse South Carolina with South Korea.

View video here.

[FrankR]

"whats the total after you add in fica, unemployment, health, worker comp, pension, health ...etc etc etc? "

Exactly...the "landed" cost.

It's amazing how all the unions vote for democrats and socialism [read: sameness], but yet they want to make a salary far above the minium wage, and even the average pay most Americans get.

Analyze how the unions operate, and you'll see what the democrats/socialists want our society to be like...a few fat-cat union bosses keeping the rest of us at the same level, no matter how hard we try, how ambitious we are, or how hard we work...the lazy and shiftless among us will get the same rewards as those who work hard...that's socialism.

[EDINVA]

How do we even calculate the damage the unions have done long-term to personal industry? What about incentive?

Why should Worker A do more than Worker B when he knows full well that his salary is set by what he does and how long he’s done it, not by how well he does it or how much more or less of it he may do.

The teachers unions keep killing off ‘merit pay’ that would offer higher salaries to the better teachers, providing an incentive for teachers to improve the quality of their work. Can’t have that. We all have to stay equally mediocre.

I am proud of the GOP Senators who stood their ground against the auto bailout. It reminds me of President Reagan with the Air Traffic Controllers. The unions and some of their members develop a mindset of entitlement to whatever it is they want, or they will pick up their marbles and go home. Maybe it’s time they do go home.

[FrankR]

"Why should Worker A do more than Worker B when he knows full well that his salary is set by what he does and how long he’s done it, not by how well he does it or how much more or less of it he may do. "

I have actual experience with that phenomenon....

Early in my career with the telephone company I was a Digital Data Tech, and we sat at these desks and did troubleshooting on digital data circuits. I remember one really busy day we were all up to our elbows, except for Roosevelt (Yep, that was his name)...he was working a crossword puzzle and talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

Of course, PC and EEO kept any of the managers from saying anything to him, so we piped up and said, "Hey, Roosevelt, how about picking up some of these trouble calls?".

Roosevelt replied, "Why I gotta pick'em up, I gets paid same as you if I pick'm up, or not.". He then continued to work his crossword puzzle and talk to his girlfriend on the phone.

That's the mindset that unions build...but I think it's a bit like hypnotism...they say you can't be hynotized against your will...well, you can't be drawn into the union against your will either.

Oh, they'll call you names (scab) and might even cut your tires in the parking lot, but thuggery is all they have over the rank and file.

[meyer]

Why should Worker A do more than Worker B when he knows full well that his salary is set by what he does and how long he’s done it, not by how well he does it or how much more or less of it he may do.

As one that spent 11 years in a union job, that presents the eternal question. Productivity is way down the list of things that interest the union and most of its membership. They are not unlike the perpetual welfare recipient, trying to game the system to gain as much money as possible for little or no effort on their part.

Change a couple of labor laws and pass a "right-to-work" rule for the entire country and the unions will lose their disproportionate bargaining leverage.

[backtothestreets]

If the UAW does not want to be a partner in finding a solution bankruptcy is quite possibly the best alternative. Other companies would be born to fill the vacuum if Chrysler, Ford and GM disappeared.

We are a mobile society. As such, the collapse of the Big Three would not change the nation from being a mobile society. Other sound business interests would see an opportunity to build vehicles for the consumer and seize the moment.

Yes, many millions of jobs could be lost as a result of the Big Three collapsing. But, the new companies that would rise up to replace the Big Three would employ those same millions.

[70th Division]

It is the legacy costs that are killing the big three. But it is not the hourly wage. Although I agree 60K for un skilled is a bit much. I have worked in the shops. I know. I have a degree a masters, an appraisal license and a brokers license and 35 years experience and I make about what they make per year. No it is not fair. But they make 60K + benifits. I live in a car town. I know.

Hey I am Scotish. You blow my skirt up and you KNOW what you will see. LOL

[FrankR]

So, are you saying that if the big 3 filed bankruptcy, and got rid of the union...they couldn't make it?

Why is it that businesses just can't seem to make it up north without a union, yet the same types of businesses seem to thrive in the south...no union?

go figure

[70th Division]

I am not a union person. BUT the auto companies have a lot of years of legacy costs the the newer southern plants do not. They have state of the art plants and huge tax breaks for moving to southern states.

The Big three have to get rid of the jobs bank, dealerships (way too many) and generally lower costs (stop paying people when they do not work). They can not do all that under the present contracts. What most people do not know is that they have made great progress in this direction.The have lowered labor costs for any new hire.

I am worried that a bankruptcy on one hand will do that but on the other they may go under in the process. I don’t think people will buy cars from a company under bankruptcy. (Worried about service and warentee) There are no good answers.

[FrankR]

"I don’t think people will buy cars from a company under bankruptcy."

So, you think just giving them a few billion everytime the union sews them up in a corner will be the long term answer?

Bush is caving to the union, now it will be never-ending. When the unions get you by the hang-downs, they don't let go.

Insofar as buying their cars...the unions obviouslly do not care - they intend to make the companies support them whether or not the move a single car off the lots. Most of the people I've talked to have said they won't buy a Big-3 car ever again IF they get the bailout...including me.

MAYBE they should stop using "legacy costs" as an excuse and get lean and streamlined like many other American companies, and most foreign companies do. If "A" doesn't work, you try "B".

Either way, giving them money is like giving the car keys to a drunk teenager...very risky. That money is NOT going to save the company, or the pensions...but to bolster the union fat cats and their democrat support system.

In the grand scheme of things, 'property taxes' are miniscule...part of the cost of doing business and usually folded into the product and the consumer pays anyway.

That's my opinion, and I'm done with this discussion.