Unions will be the death of Australian car manufacturing

[prydey]

Originally Posted by fte50

We are in the new phase (although its reality) where the worker is continually threatened with the argument of accept less or lose your jobs to the Asian competitors etc.
We don't eat a bowl of rice a week, we don't live at work - we eat steak, drink beer and on average drive 200kms per week between work alone.
The average mtg is approx. 400K and utilities are up 17% in one yr.

What good would it be for anyone to have a manufacturing presence, but its workers are living below the economy scale???
There are 2 sides of the union debate !

its all well and good to claim hardship and increased cost of living, but where does the extra money come from? if the company isn't doing fantastic surely demanding even higher wages is going to hasten the demise.

and if 'mtg' stands for mortgage, then to me that right there is the problem. to me, you can't bury yourself in that much debt and then blame everyone else for your high cost of living.

[Madaya]

Heard it all before, and tired of hearing it.
Spoke to a bloke the other day who worked security for a big bank over here in WA.
Lunchtime for all the execs was catered for with a French chef, wait staff, fine food and 'libations'. Yeah, that was lunch only. I was surprised.
Some of us here would be embarrassed by this excess, that's why we don't get those type of jobs.
That's why we have unions.
Remember when the auto groups went to Washington, cap in hand - flying in on private jets, limo service and 5 star hotels. At a whim, ready to fire a work force or two.
An insult to the common man.

[Kometes]

Originally Posted by jpd80

How much are they offering?

Toyota was looking at around 4 weeks per year of service, capped at 90. I'd imagine Holden would be similar

[olds]

Ford announce all manufacturing to cease 1000 jobs gone . 1500 jobs to remain ,a lot of dead wood in that forest

[Bossxr8]

Who the hell wrote that article and where do they get their supposed "facts" from.

The unions never threatened strikes with our EBA's, why the hell would we, the company only had us working 3 and 4 day weeks, why would they give 2 stuffs if we went on strike, it would have saved them more money cause they wouldn't have to pay us anything for down days. We had absolutely no bargaining power and basically just excepted the small pay increase the company offered, and we took a superannuation cut for it. These articles are always such beat ups.

It really doesn't matter how much the auto manufacturers pay their workers if they are only building in tiny numbers, its the brutality of small rates of scale that are killing them all, wages have very little to do with it. If Holden doubled their production numbers wages wouldn't mean jack, they would be raking in the dough.

Wages only make up a small fraction of costs, its things like the massive increases in electricity and gas that have made a massive spike in manufacturing costs.

[Brazen]

Scale is the key, the plants need to be making over 100,000 cars a year to be viable. A 5% pay cut isn't going to change a thing. Labour isn't the problem for the auto industry - actually it is one of the strength, they are flexible, don't strike, and highly trained.

[olds]

Its not the guy on the production lines fault the product isn't - up to date ,well advertised or unpopular with the market . They only do the nuts and bolts stuff

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Madaya

Spoke to a bloke the other day who worked security for a big bank over here in WA.

Ahh the good old us vs them argument. The I heard from a guy down the pub they do this and that the rest.
Fact is neither 'side' puts real value in what the other 'side does'. The worker is replaceable the manager doesnt do anything and both 'sides' could do the job the other does and probably better.

And its exactly the way our economic model wants it. Suspicion and adversarial conduct, love and hate, rather than open honest dialogue and knowing ones place based on facts rather than speculation.

But it's ingrained, teach your children to learn and research rather than take as a given fact based on bias and fear and the newer generations may stand a better chance of working together rather than against each other.

JP

[Brazen]

Meanwhile one of the GM plants in Thailand has had the workforce on strike, it is estimated to cost GM $6.5 million a day, the strike went for 3 months. Suddenly Australia doesn't seem so expensive.

There are many risks that you have in low cost countries.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by prydey

its all well and good to claim hardship and increased cost of living, but where does the extra money come from? if the company isn't doing fantastic surely demanding even higher wages is going to hasten the demise.

and if 'mtg' stands for mortgage, then to me that right there is the problem. to me, you can't bury yourself in that much debt and then blame everyone else for your high cost of living.

You can ignore reality but the fact remains - with or without wage issues, the writing is on the wall....This is purely a media grab, a mass national conditioning of the public prior to the fall.

And yes those are the 'average' mortgage rates, which as stated are an average only but are representative of our times and should not be dismissed.

When times were good all our profits were heading offshore propping up GMs fallen home grown heros such as Oldsmobile as 1 example. And this went on for the better part of a decade (and fair enuff too).

But as soon as things seem to go pear shaped in Australia, lets not worry about support and cut the worker ??

Words are cheap, but never in my whole working life have I nor would I instruct or delegate or move a position upon someone if I weren't prepared to do it myself.

Corporates want too see wage adjustments etc - lead by example I say !

[fte50]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Meanwhile one of the GM plants in Thailand has had the workforce on strike, it is estimated to cost GM $6.5 million a day, the strike went for 3 months. Suddenly Australia doesn't seem so expensive.

There are many risks that you have in low cost countries.

And this will continue to happen in unstable countries as employees rise to the conditions we take for granted.

The same thing was happening in South Korea the last 2 decades, only their trade union activists were put in military prison to prevent any uprising.

Yes you pay more in Australia, but as the saying goes - you get what you pay for.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by fte50

And yes those are the 'average' mortgage rates, which as stated are an average only but are representative of our times and should not be dismissed.

wow thats scary. 'keeping up with the joneses' sundrome maybe??

it may be representative of our times, and if so it does indeed represent why so many people seem to be in financial hardship these days. yes, its tough, but why make it tougher! live within your means.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by prydey

wow thats scary. 'keeping up with the joneses' sundrome maybe??

it may be representative of our times, and if so it does indeed represent why so many people seem to be in financial hardship these days. yes, its tough, but why make it tougher! live within your means.

Where I am a mortgage will cost us an extra 500 a month for exactly the same thing.

Rent is getting ******* ridiculous. There's some towns where renting is more expensive than buying. It's not as simple as "live within your means and don't get a mortgage" for a lot of people.

[MAD]

The demise of all businesses is due to greed. Shareholders in particular.
Why should shareholders get paid by a company they don't work for? simply because they took a gamble and the business did well.

Companies needing to meet the requests of the shareholder is what has driven the ever increasing search for ways to maximise profits. If it weren't for the stock market, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[fte50]

Yes it is scary no doubt, but how else will the new gen do it when a house is 500K.
Do we deny them their Aussie dream of home ownership to keep the multinationals happy ?
Again im certain we both understand each others plus / minus arguments and all play a valid part but surely not 1 sided. We can agree to that.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by MAD

The demise of all businesses is due to greed. Shareholders in particular.
Why should shareholders get paid by a company they don't work for? simply because they took a gamble and the business did well.

Companies needing to meet the requests of the shareholder is what has driven the ever increasing search for ways to maximise profits. If it weren't for the stock market, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Ahh lusting after 1980's USSR.

Companies driven to succeed is what drives the economy. Greed is on all sides, the workers and the companies.

Greed is good, greed works.

[fte50]

Originally Posted by MAD

The demise of all businesses is due to greed. Shareholders in particular.
Why should shareholders get paid by a company they don't work for? simply because they took a gamble and the business did well.

Companies needing to meet the requests of the shareholder is what has driven the ever increasing search for ways to maximise profits. If it weren't for the stock market, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Bingo - Well said, and that is where it starts and stops. Full stop.

[Ibanezteve]

Originally Posted by MAD

The demise of all businesses is due to greed. Shareholders in particular.
Why should shareholders get paid by a company they don't work for? simply because they took a gamble and the business did well.

Companies needing to meet the requests of the shareholder is what has driven the ever increasing search for ways to maximise profits. If it weren't for the stock market, we wouldn't be in this mess.

So if you invested $20k into a business, wouldn't you expect anything back?
Shareholders don't work for the company, they OWN the company.

[MAD]

Invest/Gamble, same same.

Of course you'd expect it, unfortunately the opportunities exist where this can be done. That's why the bosses move the factories to China.

[Itsme]

With out the unions I hate to imagine what our wages & living conditions would be like, definitely less for most employees, the unions have done well for most workers & don't forget that fact.

Of course you get some rogue unions same as you get A** H*** employers.

Cheers.

[Madaya]

Invest and gamble are a little bit apart.
How many investors in this or that company who got their garments manufactured in the factory that collapsed in BANGLADESH and killed about 1000 people, would have sleepless nights or shed a tear - err, probably none.
I'm 50 years old. Never been rich - could have been, but was to busy raising a family, kept the dollars tight.
My previous post on this topic says it all.
These people are rich people - it has got nothing to do with how much money they have in their purse/wallet. It is a state of mind.
Unions don't want silver service for all, but maybe a bit of bronze service might keep folk in touch with the Bangladesh of this world.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by trublu

With out the unions I hate to imagine what our wages & living conditions would be like, definitely less for most employees, the unions have done well for most workers & don't forget that fact.

and that's why houses are so expensive cause every tom dick and harry could afford a McMansion cause their wages grew to fast. hell don't just stop at one buy an investment house too to realy drive up demand.

JP

[Ibanezteve]

With the way international economics work and this profit driven capitalist market we have chosen as a country to adopt, these sorts of scenarios are inevitable. We could be living in a third world country such as Africa, with no industry, rife with crime and no food or clean water. I for one am very happy with the state of Australia compared to other nations.
We do a lot of winging for such a lucky bunch.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Ibanezteve

We do a lot of winging for such a lucky bunch.

You are so right but our nation was forged on moderation and fairness which has given us the title of lucky country which in turn allows us to discuss the finer things in life.

JP

[Crazy Dazz]

Workers need to be protected from “exploitation,” however there are a number of things fundamentally wrong with unions in this country.
• They are far too political and most senior officials are simply looking for their ticket into the Labor party. They care more about the “political power” of the union that the welfare of their members.
• At the lower levels they enlist stupid thugs as reps, people who like making trouble but don’t actually understand the issues.
• They see power in conflict, and start futile arguments purely to consolidate that power.
• The cling to and promote an “us versus them” mentality that lost its relevance about 200 years ago.
• They big-note themselves by lying to their members and casting themselves as the workers’ only champion against “evil” management, when in fact a lot of the “management” are simply working stiffs too.
• They constantly fight AGAINST productivity improvements, refusing to understand that productivity improvements ultimately BENEFIT the workers.
• They interpret “protecting the worker” as providing the MOST protection to those scum most deserving of the BOOT.
• They have entrenched the overpayment of unskilled unproductive workers, and encouraged the dumbing down of entire segments of the Australian population. Not much incentive to study hard, get a degree, and become an Engineer when the TA sweeping the floor makes more money and has better job security.
• They act as though their members are the only “workers” in the country, and must be protected from any wider economic effects. When the economy turns down, the guy who mows lawns for a living, the guy running the local store, the guy who fixes your car and the woman who does your hair, THEY ALL feel the pinch. Why should union members be protected?

[gtfpv]

ahhh yes . we have a big corporation once again trying to make things better for Australians by cutting pay .
In 500 hundred years that has been their solution for everything . funny that

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by prydey

its all well and good to claim hardship and increased cost of living, but where does the extra money come from? if the company isn't doing fantastic surely demanding even higher wages is going to hasten the demise.

and if 'mtg' stands for mortgage, then to me that right there is the problem. to me, you can't bury yourself in that much debt and then blame everyone else for your high cost of living.

I Think there are a lot of people that strongly agree with you . . i see many many many people under 30 who are following your advice . they are single or newly wedded and living at home with mum and dad . refusing to buy anything which will grossly put them in debt .
the question is , IF THESE PEOPLE TAKE MORE PAYCUTS , will this solve holdens problems and make life better for our country .
TIME WILL TELL IF YOUR RIGHT PRYDY - GOOD LUCK !!!

[chevypower]

If the demands put the company at a disadvantage with its global competitors, of course it will pull the plug. Or one day file bankruptcy to wipe these obligations. The laws that require these auto companies to run so inefficiently make no sense because then they need to be subsidized by tax payers because they can't stay above water on their own. Might as well fire half the employees and put them on welfare, I think the result to the tax payer would be similar. If everyone was required to study and understand basic economics, we would make laws that support companies, we would have more jobs, and a lower cost of living. Lefties don't look at it that way. They see it as either supporting companies or supporting employees. They don't believe in win/win or lose/lose scenarios.

[Lotte]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up guys (those criticising the younger gen for wanting to buy their own home etc anyway), wages aren't the reason housing prices are through the roof. They may be a tiny part of the problem (funny that, high wages seem to get blamed for everything when there's a much larger picture), but they're not the be all and end all.
In 1990 average debt as a percentage if disposable income ration was 45% its now now 155%. This indicates high wages aren't the only factor.
We also need to take into consideration the following factors:
- Removal of cgt on primary property, a good move, housing is a basic human right, and why should one pay more tax simply to put a roof over their head? It still made it more feasible to buy and sell.
- Lossening of credit criteria. This was a worldwide phenomenon. And my mother who worked in banking pegged the gfc before it happened of it.
- Lowering of deposits required for home loans
- high population growth, ours is the highest in the world, bigger population, more demand for housing.
- Increase in average floor size
- Cgt concession to 50% and negative gearing
- changes to foreign investment rules in 2008; encouraging foreign investors to invest. Changes had to be made to these rules in 2010 to prevent am advantage being taken of the system.

Now. Between 1998 and 2008 inflation was about 38% for the ten year period. In that time property prices increased by in excess of 300% in all capital cities except Melbourne (280%) and Sydney (180%).
This can't squarely be blamed on wage increases, as wages are generally raised in relation to inflation.

20-30 years ago you could buy a house on a single income. Now you can't. I'm on the "average" wage, and if I was to buy (within my means, not the pre determined means as indicated by the banks, who think I can afford much more than I do), I'd have to move even further from work. I already live an hour from the city.
How many people criticising us for getting into somuch debt at such a young age were able to buy a house before you were 30? How mamy have one or more investment property, and contributed to the property bubble by investing heavily in land? Now I'm not saying this is the case for anyone in particular here, but I've had this conversation with someone in the past who owns over five investment properties, and bought them all at the start of the boom.

To clarify, I am in no way saying that any of these points were a bad idea, individually, but failure is a sum of the whole, not the individual parts, and the sum of this whole is what had landed this country in the veritable **** storm we're in today.

It's getting harder to rent, families are living in cars, and as I said earlier, the difference between rent and a mortgage, for a lot of people, makes a mortgage a much more sensible option. It's got nothing to do with "keeping up with the Jones's", and everything to do with the fact yhat Australian society and government has set up an extremely **** situation for the current generation. A situation that seems to be taken for granted by previous generations.
Just my 2 Bob anyway.

As for unions, without them we wouldn't have annual, sick and long service leave, overtime rates or casual rates. Yep, there's some bad apples in the crop, but they decades ago fought for rights we take for granted today.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by MAD

The demise of all businesses is due to greed. Shareholders in particular.
Why should shareholders get paid by a company they don't work for? simply because they took a gamble and the business did well.

Companies needing to meet the requests of the shareholder is what has driven the ever increasing search for ways to maximise profits. If it weren't for the stock market, we wouldn't be in this mess.

It's not just shareholders. Here's a question for you - do you have a super fund?

There's billions of dollars per annum that super funds must invest in to something. That something is the share market.

If you have a super fund, then you are technically a share holder. Do you want your fund to increase in value? It can only do that if the companies in which it is invested can make a profit. The bigger the better.

We are all complicit for this reason alone. It's inescapable.