• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Nice "Non-Work" For The UAW

Mike

Well-known member
GM Anti-Jobs Bank: Nice Nonwork If You Can Get It

One issue contributing to the UAW's strike against GM is that negotiations reached an impasse regarding the future of the "jobs bank," or what the Wall Street Journal calls "GM's Anti-Jobs Bank, the company's euphemism for a post-employment limbo in which GM pays laid off members of the United Auto Workers not to work." As the WSJ points out today, it's "Nice nonwork, if you can get it."

There probably isn't a single issue that better highlights the problems facing GM and the UAW than the "Jobs Bank," which they both agreed to in 1984. Here is what the WSJ had to say about it in a 2005 editorial "GM's Anti-Jobs Bank":

If you want to know why GM's costs are too high for the number of cars it sells, here's one explanation - the Jobs Bank.

GM doesn't like to talk about the "jobs bank," to the point that it won't disclose how many idled workers are in the bank or even how much it costs the company. However, the Detroit Free Press has dug around and reported that the "bank" holds some 5,000-6,000 employees, at an annual cost of as much as $800 million a year. And that's just the beginning of the damage it does.

The jobs bank was created in 1984 at a time when it became fashionable to worry that automation would cause robots to replace workers on factory floors. So in exchange for the right to introduce productivity improvements in factories, GM, Ford and Chrysler all consented to jobs banks. The idea was that in exchange for educating themselves, doing community service or in some cases just sitting around a factory, workers would continue to collect pay and benefits until the automaker could find another job for them.

One trouble is that U.S. car makers have been shrinking more than growing in the two decades since, meaning people have stayed in the bank longer than envisioned. The commitment to find a new job for those workers only made sense in an environment in which GM's demand for labor was stable or growing. Instead, that demand has been steadily shrinking as productivity has increased and market share has decreased.

The jobs bank sends a message that downsizing is temporary, and that GM can accommodate those workers somewhere. The reality is that many of them are simply waiting out retirement.

GM has a host of problems, from the attractiveness of its product lines to the health-care costs it pays for its one million retirees. But a major one is size: It is a smaller company than it was or expected to be when it made the promises it's now trying to keep both to retirees and current workers. GM has some of the most productive industrial workers in the world, but it has too many of them for the number of cars it can sell today.

The jobs bank is both cause and symptom of that problem. We don't wish hardship on those workers, but the company's future now rests on its ability to make its payroll match its production. If the jobs bank -- and the self-deception it represents -- cannot be fixed, that millstone will continue to drag down what was once one of America's great companies.

MP: Only when and if GM and the UAW agree to eliminate the "jobs bank," will there be any hope that either will survive.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
GM Anti-Jobs Bank: Nice Nonwork If You Can Get It

One issue contributing to the UAW's strike against GM is that negotiations reached an impasse regarding the future of the "jobs bank," or what the Wall Street Journal calls "GM's Anti-Jobs Bank, the company's euphemism for a post-employment limbo in which GM pays laid off members of the United Auto Workers not to work." As the WSJ points out today, it's "Nice nonwork, if you can get it."

There probably isn't a single issue that better highlights the problems facing GM and the UAW than the "Jobs Bank," which they both agreed to in 1984. Here is what the WSJ had to say about it in a 2005 editorial "GM's Anti-Jobs Bank":

If you want to know why GM's costs are too high for the number of cars it sells, here's one explanation - the Jobs Bank.

GM doesn't like to talk about the "jobs bank," to the point that it won't disclose how many idled workers are in the bank or even how much it costs the company. However, the Detroit Free Press has dug around and reported that the "bank" holds some 5,000-6,000 employees, at an annual cost of as much as $800 million a year. And that's just the beginning of the damage it does.

The jobs bank was created in 1984 at a time when it became fashionable to worry that automation would cause robots to replace workers on factory floors. So in exchange for the right to introduce productivity improvements in factories, GM, Ford and Chrysler all consented to jobs banks. The idea was that in exchange for educating themselves, doing community service or in some cases just sitting around a factory, workers would continue to collect pay and benefits until the automaker could find another job for them.

One trouble is that U.S. car makers have been shrinking more than growing in the two decades since, meaning people have stayed in the bank longer than envisioned. The commitment to find a new job for those workers only made sense in an environment in which GM's demand for labor was stable or growing. Instead, that demand has been steadily shrinking as productivity has increased and market share has decreased.

The jobs bank sends a message that downsizing is temporary, and that GM can accommodate those workers somewhere. The reality is that many of them are simply waiting out retirement.

GM has a host of problems, from the attractiveness of its product lines to the health-care costs it pays for its one million retirees. But a major one is size: It is a smaller company than it was or expected to be when it made the promises it's now trying to keep both to retirees and current workers. GM has some of the most productive industrial workers in the world, but it has too many of them for the number of cars it can sell today.

The jobs bank is both cause and symptom of that problem. We don't wish hardship on those workers, but the company's future now rests on its ability to make its payroll match its production. If the jobs bank -- and the self-deception it represents -- cannot be fixed, that millstone will continue to drag down what was once one of America's great companies.

MP: Only when and if GM and the UAW agree to eliminate the "jobs bank," will there be any hope that either will survive.

A 2005 editorial got anything more recent Mike?? Contracts have been negotiated since 2005. Do you have any criticisms for the top exec's? Also I guess the union held a gun to the company exec's head to get this "bank".
 

Mike

Well-known member
The date doesn't matter, unless it was 50-100 years ago. :roll:

The automakers had to throw money up a wild hogs rear-end, with nothing in return.

You don't think for a minute that the automakers WANTED to throw money into this bottomless money hole called the Jobs Bank, do you?

Try again............ :shock:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
The date doesn't matter, unless it was 50-100 years ago. :roll:

The automakers had to throw money up a wild hogs rear-end, with nothing in return.

You don't think for a minute that the automakers WANTED to throw money into this bottomless money hole called the Jobs Bank, do you?

Try again............ :shock:

The date doesn't matter for you maybe. The jobs bank as I understand it was created for workers who had lost their jobs due to technological advances primarily. An example: Say you had an assembly line job that was now going to be done by robotics. There were no other jobs available for you. You have worked there for 26yrs and you are 58yrs. old. Should you be kicked out on the street? Evidently the company nor the union thought so as they agreed on the jobs bank to handle such situations. BTW ccontracts have been negotiated since and they did involve the Job Bank among other concessions by the union.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
The date doesn't matter, unless it was 50-100 years ago. :roll:

The automakers had to throw money up a wild hogs rear-end, with nothing in return.

You don't think for a minute that the automakers WANTED to throw money into this bottomless money hole called the Jobs Bank, do you?

Try again............ :shock:

The date doesn't matter for you maybe. The jobs bank as I understand it was created for workers who had lost their jobs due to technological advances primarily. An example: Say you had an assembly line job that was now going to be done by robotics. There were no other jobs available for you. You have worked there for 26yrs and you are 58yrs. old. Should you be kicked out on the street? Evidently the company nor the union thought so as they agreed on the jobs bank to handle such situations. BTW ccontracts have been negotiated since and they did involve the Job Bank among other concessions by the union.

The money is still gone and there is nothing to show for it in the bank. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plus the fact that the UAW still got it's predatory "Dues" payments under the Bank program. :roll: :roll:

I say throw the UAW out on it's ass and hire people that will work for less, instead of wanting my taxes to pay them.

Have you ever known anyone to be assured a lifetime job, except a Federal judge?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
The date doesn't matter, unless it was 50-100 years ago. :roll:

The automakers had to throw money up a wild hogs rear-end, with nothing in return.

You don't think for a minute that the automakers WANTED to throw money into this bottomless money hole called the Jobs Bank, do you?

Try again............ :shock:

The date doesn't matter for you maybe. The jobs bank as I understand it was created for workers who had lost their jobs due to technological advances primarily. An example: Say you had an assembly line job that was now going to be done by robotics. There were no other jobs available for you. You have worked there for 26yrs and you are 58yrs. old. Should you be kicked out on the street? Evidently the company nor the union thought so as they agreed on the jobs bank to handle such situations. BTW ccontracts have been negotiated since and they did involve the Job Bank among other concessions by the union.

Here in the REAL world, I used to be part of a summer haying crew when I was a kid. We had a mower, a stacker, two sweeps and rake. The guy that I worked for bought a swather and a big baler and the hay crew went from 5 to 2 and I lost my job. I don't remember him funding a jobs bank for me. I accepted reality and got another job.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
Mike said:
The date doesn't matter, unless it was 50-100 years ago. :roll:

The automakers had to throw money up a wild hogs rear-end, with nothing in return.

You don't think for a minute that the automakers WANTED to throw money into this bottomless money hole called the Jobs Bank, do you?

Try again............ :shock:

The date doesn't matter for you maybe. The jobs bank as I understand it was created for workers who had lost their jobs due to technological advances primarily. An example: Say you had an assembly line job that was now going to be done by robotics. There were no other jobs available for you. You have worked there for 26yrs and you are 58yrs. old. Should you be kicked out on the street? Evidently the company nor the union thought so as they agreed on the jobs bank to handle such situations. BTW ccontracts have been negotiated since and they did involve the Job Bank among other concessions by the union.

The money is still gone and there is nothing to show for it in the bank. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plus the fact that the UAW still got it's predatory "Dues" payments under the Bank program. :roll: :roll:

I say throw the UAW out on it's ass and hire people that will work for less, instead of wanting my taxes to pay them.

Have you ever known anyone to be assured a lifetime job, except a Federal judge?

YESSIREE lets see if we can get the standard of living for the middle class down to that of say Mexico, then our kids and grandkids can try to cross the border to the south. Darn American worker how dare they try to better themselves! :???: :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
TSR said:
The date doesn't matter for you maybe. The jobs bank as I understand it was created for workers who had lost their jobs due to technological advances primarily. An example: Say you had an assembly line job that was now going to be done by robotics. There were no other jobs available for you. You have worked there for 26yrs and you are 58yrs. old. Should you be kicked out on the street? Evidently the company nor the union thought so as they agreed on the jobs bank to handle such situations. BTW ccontracts have been negotiated since and they did involve the Job Bank among other concessions by the union.

The money is still gone and there is nothing to show for it in the bank. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plus the fact that the UAW still got it's predatory "Dues" payments under the Bank program. :roll: :roll:

I say throw the UAW out on it's ass and hire people that will work for less, instead of wanting my taxes to pay them.

Have you ever known anyone to be assured a lifetime job, except a Federal judge?

YESSIREE lets see if we can get the standard of living for the middle class down to that of say Mexico, then our kids and grandkids can try to cross the border to the south. Darn American worker how dare they try to better themselves! :???: :???:

Yea.......down to $75K or so?

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
Mike said:
The money is still gone and there is nothing to show for it in the bank. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plus the fact that the UAW still got it's predatory "Dues" payments under the Bank program. :roll: :roll:

I say throw the UAW out on it's ass and hire people that will work for less, instead of wanting my taxes to pay them.

Have you ever known anyone to be assured a lifetime job, except a Federal judge?

YESSIREE lets see if we can get the standard of living for the middle class down to that of say Mexico, then our kids and grandkids can try to cross the border to the south. Darn American worker how dare they try to better themselves! :???: :???:

Yea.......down to $75K or so?

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

Lets see illegal immigrant worker- free medical, free school, free food, subsidized housing, plus a great deal of the money goes back to Mexico. If we can just get the American worker to that level we will be making progress. :???: I like the Abe Lincoln approach of keeping jobs and money right here in America. BTW if I understand the Job Bank correctly the company was supposed to find jobs for those workers who were displaced by technology,etc. I know lots of Goodyear workers moved to different states to not lose their jobs over plant closings etc. but they were at least offered jobs by the company to make up for the hardship they encountered.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Why don't you just quit digging, TSR?

The automakers were forced to pay people not to work or the UAW would have gone on strike.

This has directly contributed to the Big 3's demise.

You have no credible argument. You're embarrassing yourself. :roll:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
So let's get this right, you want the guy makin ten or twelve bucks an hour subsidize the worker who is making 75 bucks. To top it off let the guy makin 75 bucks an hour hire a thug to make sure they give em the 75 bucks. And you are for the underdog, ya right
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Why don't you just quit digging, TSR?

The automakers were forced to pay people not to work or the UAW would have gone on strike.

This has directly contributed to the Big 3's demise.

You have no credible argument. You're embarrassing yourself. :roll:

Well you are entitled to your opinion, its a free country. But if the company had found jobs for those in the Job Bank like they said, the job bank would have had limited use. I can't see blaming the workers for something both agreed to, and that wasn't the only details in the contract. The Job Bank may have been to GM's advantage when one looks at the concessions the Union made in other areas. Here I am speaking primarily of the contract ratified in Sept. of 2007.

Sandhusker when you were taking up that hay and your job was replaced by technology, had you been doing it until you were in your late 50's, did you have a family to worry about?? It would seem to me that the job market for an assembly line worker in their mid to late 50's might not be that great. Security would be a big issue. Surely you must have some empathy for someone in such a position being the conservative you profess to be, don't you?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Yes, TSR I do have empathy for them, but at the same time, they made that decision long ago to take that job. They had 30 years to go to the local community college, trade school, etc...... to create a back-up. I also look the much-higher-than-average wages they were drawing for all those years. They had a greater opportunity to save money than most other folks. To me this comes down once again to personal responsibility. The company owes you a fair days wages for a fair days work, and the worker owes them the fair days work. That's as far as it goes. Neither owes the other anything more or less.

I'll also tell you that I was a union member for 10 years, and I am NOT anti-union. I believe they have their place, and I've seen both the good and the bad. I don't think I would of liked to work where I did without a union, but at the same time, it seemed to me that the union created about as many problems as they solved.

Larry made a good point. With the proposed bailout, workers making $10 an hour are supporting those making more than 5 times that. That is fair? Ranchers working 60 hours a week for $30,000 and no benefits have to pitch in so somebody else can work 40 hours a week for $70,000 and full benefits? I can't sign on to that deal.
 

jodywy

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
Why don't you just quit digging, TSR?

The automakers were forced to pay people not to work or the UAW would have gone on strike.

This has directly contributed to the Big 3's demise.

You have no credible argument. You're embarrassing yourself. :roll:

Well you are entitled to your opinion, its a free country. But if the company had found jobs for those in the Job Bank like they said, the job bank would have had limited use. I can't see blaming the workers for something both agreed to, and that wasn't the only details in the contract. The Job Bank may have been to GM's advantage when one looks at the concessions the Union made in other areas. Here I am speaking primarily of the contract ratified in Sept. of 2007.

Sandhusker when you were taking up that hay and your job was replaced by technology, had you been doing it until you were in your late 50's, did you have a family to worry about?? It would seem to me that the job market for an assembly line worker in their mid to late 50's might not be that great. Security would be a big issue. Surely you must have some empathy for someone in such a position being the conservative you profess to be, don't you?
Well Comrade TSR, why do auto workers in their fifties do not have to take risk like anybody else…gee at &75/hr they should have some stashed away for a hard time or to supplement them if they lost their job and had to push a broom at the local school.
Risk should be left in the business world, from management to labor. We are breeding nothing but trouble when we take away the right to FAIL…
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Yes, TSR I do have empathy for them, but at the same time, they made that decision long ago to take that job. They had 30 years to go to the local community college, trade school, etc...... to create a back-up. I also look the much-higher-than-average wages they were drawing for all those years. They had a greater opportunity to save money than most other folks. To me this comes down once again to personal responsibility. The company owes you a fair days wages for a fair days work, and the worker owes them the fair days work. That's as far as it goes. Neither owes the other anything more or less.

I'll also tell you that I was a union member for 10 years, and I am NOT anti-union. I believe they have their place, and I've seen both the good and the bad. I don't think I would of liked to work where I did without a union, but at the same time, it seemed to me that the union created about as many problems as they solved.

Larry made a good point. With the proposed bailout, workers making $10 an hour are supporting those making more than 5 times that. That is fair? Ranchers working 60 hours a week for $30,000 and no benefits have to pitch in so somebody else can work 40 hours a week for $70,000 and full benefits? I can't sign on to that deal.

Just because Ranchers are getting screwed by the Corporate Fascist government manipulation of the trade/commodities/anti trust rules and pricing doesn't mean that everyone else should have to work for $5 hour..... :(
 

TSR

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Yes, TSR I do have empathy for them, but at the same time, they made that decision long ago to take that job. They had 30 years to go to the local community college, trade school, etc...... to create a back-up. I also look the much-higher-than-average wages they were drawing for all those years. They had a greater opportunity to save money than most other folks. To me this comes down once again to personal responsibility. The company owes you a fair days wages for a fair days work, and the worker owes them the fair days work. That's as far as it goes. Neither owes the other anything more or less.

I'll also tell you that I was a union member for 10 years, and I am NOT anti-union. I believe they have their place, and I've seen both the good and the bad. I don't think I would of liked to work where I did without a union, but at the same time, it seemed to me that the union created about as many problems as they solved.

Larry made a good point. With the proposed bailout, workers making $10 an hour are supporting those making more than 5 times that. That is fair? Ranchers working 60 hours a week for $30,000 and no benefits have to pitch in so somebody else can work 40 hours a week for $70,000 and full benefits? I can't sign on to that deal.

The debate was about membership in a union and specifically the Job Bank to which Mike referred. The discussion was not about the bailout.
But I have got to say this which I'm sure isn't as true today as it was 10-15 yrs ago. I watched those ranchers/farmers come in to make some of that "easy money" in the factories where I worked. Not all but quite a few were gone after about a week. They couldn't/wouldn't do it-ranching/farming was so much easier. Many of their wives stayed on and worked. I don't want to hear about how I work 60-70 hrs a week on my ranch/farm. In my opinion 1 hr in a factory at least the one where I worked would be equivalent to about 4-5 hrs. ranching. Been there done both. Just telling it like I see it. I guess factory jobs making all that money are still open to all segments of the society. I say all this being a farmer/rancher myself to a large degree.
 

Hooks

Well-known member
for what its worth.................
I think Jody kinda hit it in mentioning risk. Unions want, no check that, demand guarantees; money, job security, benefits, etc. Yet union employees invest nothing in an organization. (Time is not a variable for consideration here). Their investment/risk begins & ends with the timeclock. Their career stays at the factory; it does follow them via phones, computers or meeting with business associates after hours. Business owners, small or large, ag or commercial, LIVE thier careers, 24/7. And they get no guarantees on anything but death & taxes.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Hooks said:
for what its worth.................
I think Jody kinda hit it in mentioning risk. Unions want, no check that, demand guarantees; money, job security, benefits, etc. Yet union employees invest nothing in an organization. (Time is not a variable for consideration here). Their investment/risk begins & ends with the timeclock. Their career stays at the factory; it does follow them via phones, computers or meeting with business associates after hours. Business owners, small or large, ag or commercial, LIVE thier careers, 24/7. And they get no guarantees on anything but death & taxes.


The one thing no one is mentioning is the money the management is making...I have yet to see a union shop where the managers and inside team was making less then the union workers.....I am sure automation also played a role in this job bamk,as these companies have not had to hire as many workers over there years as they had to hire before robotic engineering......

Take a banker like sandhusker,they bring in cash machines which in turn takes away employees ,so not only does the bank save on hiring tellers,they also charge you to use the machine.....If you want to talk about who is really ripping people off its the bank....Banks are the biggest rip off in the land and you people complaining about the auto industry getting a handout,when the banks have already been given help...I am surprised banks do not charge you for the ink you use when signing your signature ..If you want a licence to print money,open up your own bank...
 

Mike

Well-known member
The one thing no one is mentioning is the money the management is making...I have yet to see a union shop where the managers and inside team was making less then the union workers.....

Wrong. AT&T "CWA" "Union" workers/members make substancially more than their immediate "management position" supervisors do.

Some higher up management positions in this organization make a salary in excess of "Union" scale but there are very few people in these positions as compared to the sum of the Union Members.

I know this as fact. My son just turned down a Management position, which is non-union, because of the significant cut in pay.
 
Top