Unions don’t force companies into bad decisions. Bad leadership, is just that. How do unions change a company’s principles of leadership? Who decides the direction of company? Your using unions as scapegoats for poor leadership, ineffective or outdated business plans.
If you blame unions for the demise of a company, Then we can blame them for their successes. So, by your model unions are directly responsible for the success of a company. The success of Fedex and southwest are directly related to the union? It’s because of the union’s ability to determine the principles of leadership and the direction of these company’s, that they are successful. Probably not.
Those CEOs are so powerless and intimidated. “This would be a such a great place if it weren’t for you”.
Scapegoating, a tried and true distraction. Except when there are examples of a good balance between labor and company.
No I do not agree with you. Unions have too much power with ability to destroy a company. The UAW/GM story is a classic example of union power run amok. In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. GM was living on cash flow. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work out, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.
As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.
GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.
The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.
GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of yesterday's agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.
BK followed in 2009 as a result of the unions forcing, with the power of a strike, into a company killing deal.
BTW: I agree there may be examples of a good balance between labor and company, but I can't think of one right now. This board is very pro-union. It stands on a platform that unions can do no harm. I just happen to not agree with that stance and it is my duty to point out the other side. A lot of this comes from my personal experiences as a member of ALPA and IBT. The eternal promise of "more pay and more says off" until of course you have all your days off, without pay.
