Labor Day Fact -- Unions Unpopular
While Americans now celebrate the end of summer over Labor Day weekend, Labor Day originally began in the 1890s as a celebration of “the strength and esprit de corps” of labor unions. In their early days unions fought primarily to improve working conditions and protect workers rights. Large majorities of Americans have long approved of role labor unions play in society.
Until this Labor Day.
Gallup reports that, for the first time since they began polling Americans on the question in the 1930s, less than half of Americans – 48 percent – approve of labor unions. This represents a sharp drop from just a year ago, when 59 percent of Americans approved of labor unions.
Americans now look at labor unions with skeptical eyes. By a 51 to 39 percent margin Americans say that unions mostly hurt the economy. 62 percent of Americans believe unions mostly hurt non-union members, while only 29 percent say unions help those outside their ranks. And by a 42 to 25 percent margin most Americans want unions to have less influence in our country.
Why have average Americans become deeply suspicious of the self-proclaimed defenders of average Americans? Perhaps because over the past year unions have shown both that they harm the companies they organize and that they no less selfish than the CEOs they criticize.
The United Auto Workers (UAW) contracts drove General Motors off a financial cliff, as any observer could see. Unions destroyed what was once America’s largest and most successful company. Labor then used its political clout to successfully press for taxpayer bailouts of the Big Three. Most taxpayers opposed seeing their tax dollars preserving the earnings of union members earning triple that of the average worker.
And then there is Organized Labor’s well publicized political agenda. The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would effectively strip workers of their right to a secret ballot election. Unions very publicly want Congress to take away workers rights. Organized labor has lead the fight for government dominated healthcare – an unpopular position, to say the least. They have fought to repeal financial transparency measures that allow workers to hold their unions accountable.
Over the past year organized labor has repeatedly put its own self interest above the rights of workers and the common good. No wonder the number of Americans toasting labor unions this Labor Day has fallen.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
What is with our culture and the need to constantly poll everything? Every poll can tell you something different. The reality is, all that matters is a type of meta-analysis to see if it's valid. Not one study. One study tells you nothing, even if you incorporate the "margin of error."
That said, the poll does have a +- 4% margin of error.
It's also not surprising. Most Americans are probably responding solely to auto unions and how their VEBA got over a little over 17% of the new GM. It'll probably be back up next year.
Also, once again, Heritage Foundation misconstrue the facts. Did the unions play a role of being too aggressive? Absolutely. However, to place the blame solely on the auto unions for the failure of the big three is absurd. Obviously their failure have nothing to do with sales dropping from 70% control of the market in the 90s to 53% in 2008. It also has nothing to do with the fact the Big 3 are the largest producers of SUVs / Trucks (gas guzzlers) and the oil price spike causes sales and loyal customers to diminish. It has nothing to do with the credit crisis making it impossible for GM to obtain credit that it would've been able to in a normal market. No of course not. That didn't play a role at all. It was the SOLELY the unions fault. Give me a break.
The unions were hurting the Big 3 and they were putting more pressure on the companies for wages / benefits as they saw their sales decline; but really, to blame the unions for the drop in sales ,which was the primary cause, is absurd. Then again, maybe I'm not "any observer" - maybe I rely on factual information unlike the propoganda outlet known as the "Heritage Foundation."
...but you also have to ask yourself what role the unions played in all of them. For example, did the sales drop because American cars were becoming more and more expensive to build due to the disproportionate amount that went to the unions in the form of outrageous salaries and pension plans? Many experts would say yes.
It is also very difficult to deny the stranglehold that unions have on the American automobile manufacturing industry. Piss a union off and you are not making any cars, period. Everyone knows this, especially the management at the "Big 3."
And the fact is, many American trucks get equal or better gas mileage than their Japanese counterparts. My 4Runner, for example, with its V6, got an appalling 16MPG from the factory. The Explorer doesn't fare much better, but still higher at 18MPG (or 19 for the 2WD version or the Sport-Trac). And you can get 20MPG out of a 7200lbs Dodge Ram with a cummins turbo-diesel. Too bad you can't get the turbo-diesel 4Runner here.
Now I'm not saying management is not without blame in the American auto industry . I mean, Ford had something like 72 different platforms a couple of years ago. What kind of nonsense is that? But they saw the err in that strategy and have cut back to around 24. But the fact is, it's more expensive to build the same quality car in a UAW shop than it is to build it elsewhere, and consumers pay that difference. Therefore, when faced with the option of $20,000 Toyota Camry, which will run until the wheels fall off, or a $20,000 Chevy Malibu, which will run until the transmission drops out about a week after you buy it, American consumers wisely choose the former option.
Firstly, thanks for the intelligent reply =)
Secondly, I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think (my fault for not making my stance clear). I hate the Heritage Foundation since I think they blatantly lie. I was commenting on the them placing the sole blame on the unions .
I agree the unions were far to aggressive and needed to lay off. I don't think they even gave enough up in the restructuring plan, but I suppose it's better than before.
Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of available data about how unions effect the profit margin. I would say they don't effect sales since most Toyota's are more expensive than the Big 3 cars (and more Toyota's with a similar body-style and cost range are sold than the Big 3's similar versions). I submit that it is possible that the Big 3 would be more able to survive if their profit margin was greater because the unions are so demanding; however, I would also submit I don't think that would be enough to prevent their crisis. I think it would reduce their crisis, but I don't think it would have prevented it.
Again, I'd say the unions played a relatively large role. I was merely submitted that poor business models not developed for the global economy were more responsible for the break down.
As said before, unfortunately, their isn't a lot of (reliable) data on the effects of profit margin in relations to unions. Maybe the unions intentionally make sure the Big 3 don't release the necessary data to make those conclusions, I'm not sure; but I would like to see it none the less so everyone could make a better conclusion.
I too obviously missed on a big point. As you made clear, cost is not the biggest selling point on a given class of car, but rather, reliability. I think that in order to keep costs down, the Big 3 have sacrificed reliability.
Another thing they did wrong was trying to reinvent the wheel (pardon the pun) every other year. The Toyota Camry, the Honda Accord, the Corolla, etc. are beating the crap out of their American competitors not because they started out as the best cars on the market, but because they developed into the best selling cars on the market. Instead of trying to replace these platforms, each year they improved something that was already there. If there were problems in last year's model with the reliability of the idler pulley, they fixed it. They didn't release a whole new model, they fixed the one they had.
This approach has two positive effects: first, there is far less R&D required for next years model. It's basically the same, except with new color options, and the new and improved idler pulley. Second, since it's so much the same, the technicians are familiar with it, and if one can fix your '09 Camry, he can probably do a bang up job on your '01 Camry as well. They're really not that far apart.
So while the car is maybe a couple grand more expensive than its American competitor, it's as way more reliable. In order to get the same reliability in American car, you have to make a huge leap in price. But then, why not buy a Lexus/Infiniti/Acura for the same price, maybe a couple grand more? And this trend continues no matter how high your price range is.
I'd just like to point it's such a shame the unions have enough control over the corporate governors that they could never answer the questions about reliability, cost, profit margin etc. In relation to unions.
I remember watching an interview with some GM senior vice president (or something like that). He was asked some of those questions and he was dodging tremendously. I could really only think that the unions would have him fired in a few weeks if he told the truthful answers!
...I personally don't blame the unions for the reliability. I think the guys on the assembly lines most likely build everything to specs. I blame the management for that piece.
The first reason was already pointed out with the countless new models. But second, they just don't care. I bought an American vehicle (whose brand shall remain nameless, regardless of my contempt for the company) in 2001. In 2002 the transmission failed. I later came to find out that the transmission in my car had the same fatal flaw in 1995 when it was first introduced. At least half a dozen cars had this same transmission with the same problem. When they stopped making my car in '07 it still had this same problem.
A company in Chicago that rebuilds transmissions was able to identify and correct this problem in their shop. I bought a rebuilt transmission from that shop, and have had no problems since. If the car company had fixed it, this car would have been top-notch. But instead, they let these transmissions keep going into their cars, because the majority failed after the crappy warranty that they offered, so it really wasn't costing them anything. Except sales that is. Until the American car companies straighten up, I'm through buying their crap.
Anyway, the point of that rant is, the unions didn't design the transmission ; they didn't ignore the pleas from consumers to fix the transmission; they merely installed the transmission. So while I am not a huge union fan, I think they are innocent of this one.
I think I remember that interview, by the way. Not much you can say when somebody points out you're peddling garbage and has the numbers to back it up. Oh well.