Right-to-work law: yay or nay?

I am talking about the vast majority or "workers " out there, who are not moving up the ladder and who have jobs that are not subject to higher education. Manufacturing jobs where you have a repeating function with less problem solving skills required, higher ups decide how to do the job more efficiently. If you have the right pedigree, maybe you move up but that does not fit the masses in general. "the world needs ditch diggers too" Danny.
You seem to have had a good run with a good employer and show drive and skills, but that is not the general work force in manufacturing.

 

I have a question:

Is Toyota(N.A) manufacturing Unionized?

 

IIRC the last union shop was NUMMI in Fremont CA that's closed

 

It wasn't up till 2005.

 

So if Toyota is mainly a Non- Unionized manufacturing plant why did you Pro-Union guys purchase a Toyota?

Quote from a 2010 Article on the UAW in NY times:

"A Toyota spokesman, Mike Goss, said the company recognized its workers’ right to unionize but that they had not chosen to do so in more than 20 years of manufacturing in this country. The company employees 34,000 blue-collar and management workers in the United States.
“Our job as a company is to give them good pay and benefits, which we know we do, and to have open communication between team members and management,” Mr. Goss, said. “It’s also our job to operate our company with some employment stability in mind.”


Professor Liker said morale among Toyota workers soared to “historic highs” during the recession, as U.A.W.-represented plants closed but Toyota kept its work force intact. The company halted some production as demand fell, but employees were still asked to report every day, often for training.
“People were extremely grateful when they looked at their neighbors losing their jobs and medical benefits, and Toyota was still bringing them in with full pay and benefits and not laying anybody off,” Professor Liker said.
Accordingly, convincing Toyota workers that the U.A.W. offers any better job protection than they already have could prove difficult. The U.A.W. needs Toyota workers to suffer more of a hardship before most would be willing to put themselves through the risks that inherently come with trying to unionize, said Gary N. Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

 

I set back and watch the poor deluded fools who think that their employers have their best interests at heart. That may have been the case in the 1950s but I doubt it even then. The people at the top are interested in how much cash they can pull home at the end of the day and how they can spend it to make more money. To most employers the employees that work for him or her are just a means to an end and are disposable. Payroll is an expense. Workers are just cheaper than retooling to put in machines that are expensive to purchase and costly to replace. People are neither.

Right to work states are not that. They are states that allow people to get the rights that were bargained for by collective bargaining agreements for nothing. Which gets the rank and file saying why am I paying for representation when employee x gets it for free. Then the next thing you know you are paying for higher healthcare, you have lost your pension, and your wages have been either cut or frozen for the last decade while the men at the top give themselves stock incentives and bonuses.

If there were no need for such things why would most states have a Bureau of Labor and Industries? Why would we need a Department of Labor? Work to right states have low wages, heavy overtime, and low or no benefits. Figure it out.

 

I've never been a part of a union, my state is a right to work state and I live in one of the top 5 cities in the US as rated by Forbes and many other magazines. Our unemployment is around 5% and has been since the crash happened. Please let me know again how low my wages are and how crappy it is to live in a right to work state.

 

Why was that shop closed?

 

Read the book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Those people needed a union. Nowadays, not so much.

 

pretty close, I have been out work once after college for 1 month, even with 4 mergers, making yourself indispensable thru training and or further education almost always wins.

 

because the partner,GM, laid most of their workforce off from that venture and Toyota was not going to make product for GM that was not holding up their end of the deal.

 

It was co-run by GM and when they pulled out, Toyota decided to abandon the community (even though two extremely popular models were built there, the Yaris and my tacoma), they ditched the unions in favor of a non-union shop in texas. The plant was profitable and they could have found another partner, now Tesla is their building electric cars.

 

It doesn't matter what the employers true interest is, bottom line if you don't have quality employees your company won't make a profit. The number one way to have quality employees is to pay them competitively. If I was in a union I wouldn't have gotten the big raise and promotion I got last year without even asking because I'm a damn good employee, instead I would get the agreed increase that the rest of the morons all got too.

Pensions are a joke, welcome to the real world where most people don't have them and you have to actually plan for your future and not rely on a hand out.

And the reason we don't need unions is because we now have a department of labor to regulate things.

 

"These kinds of spending, which unions report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The unions' reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent over the same period on political activity."

Are you sure you know where your "dues" are going?

 

The Atlantic City Casinos were voted in 1976 to provide good jobs with benefits to the area.They employ 90% part timers now ,without benefits.The exception are the union workers,full time with benefits.

 

Are the employees in China quality where most of the U.S manufacturing is moving to? When it's cheaper to make something overseas, then ship it back here to sell it we have a problem. If we are talking about manufacturing assembly line jobs it doesn't matter how much quality they are, most likely they are not. By allowing the free movement of goods, services and labor these jobs become at risk. A company exists to maximize their profit margin and they will do whatever they can in the rule book to do so. That's what ppl at the top get paid so much, figure out how to make more money.

 

When you talk about manufacturing in the U.S. you have the problem of unions forcing a company to employ X number of employees at a given rate when only 1/2 X are needed for the current demand. So then a company is forced to shutter an entire plant and ship the work overseas where they can properly adjust their workforce to meet their current production levels. It's a chicken and egg argument that can be argued in circles non stop.

And don't think the issue only exists in manufacturing. I work in software where companies love outsourcing to India. They look at the bottom line and say I can hire two people there for the same cost as one in the US. Then they slowly come to realize that the one US employee is doing the same amount of work as three outsourced employees.

 

That's all true. Why shouldn't it be? The employer isn't your mommy or daddy, fretting endlessly over your best interests. He has a job which needs to be done and is willing to pay this amount. You, qualified for that job, accepted it for that amount. Why should he now magically pay you more for the exact same job? If you want more money (benefits, etc), increase your skills to get a better job within the company or move to another company which pays more for that same job. That's how a free-market workplace works.

That's been true nearly forever. For example, years ago when employees worked for the same company (assembly line) for decades, they increased their pay (benefits, etc) by moving up within the company (ever more complex jobs, floor supervisor, shift supervisor, etc). Unions members are the only ones who seem to think you should get more for doing absolutely nothing more.

By the way, I used "you" and "your" in the collective sense, not addressing you directly, RedTacoDriver.

 

And since your own sig does not show where are you located, we can assume that you live in "Paradise"?

So what, you think unions are the only ones spending money in lobbysts?
Guess again!

I used to think that way, that is why I earned undergrad and graduate degrees in Accounting. Then I learned about the realities of life, and they have VERY little to do with education, and all to do with greed and who gets first to the table.

 

Bottom line is that it's cheaper to build somethign outside the US. Focusing on Michigan, companies are opening factories in teh south, Mexico ect...it's a matter of time before the Big 3 will be making Mustangs in China. Most of the parts are already made there, they're just assembled in Michigan. Why????? These jobs don't require a whole lot and not worth what they are paying. Entry level at most plants is somethign like $18/hr?