Print Story My father was a union man
Diary
By Phil the Canuck (Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM EST) (all tags)


Sad that people still think unions can save them from the inevitable.

Dad worked in a factory all his life, a union shop, to make money to raise a family. He was among the most clever people I've ever known, and could have done many things with his life. Still, he was happy making a living wage and putting a roof over our heads, food on the table.

He knew that his job would go away some day. I don't know when he realized it, I was just a kid and not concerned with matters of employment, but he knew the skills he brought to work were nothing special. He understood that the world was moving on, understood it well before most people. He pushed us as kids, afraid that we'd end up in his job or something like it.

His job lasted until I was, as the youngest, old enough to provide for myself. When the factory closed, his employer was one of the few that openly acknowledged they were packing up and leaving Canada because of the US-Canada free trade agreement. Dad had always just missed being in the layoff group at slow times, almost always by a year or so of seniority, but he couldn't escape this one.

He pushed us to go to college. I fought him for a while, always the one to push against the pressure of authority, but eventually I did what he always wanted me to do. He knew that factory jobs were a trap. It didn't matter if you worked for some rusted-out old hole always on the brink of bankruptcy, or the shiny new GM plant with its state-of-the-art production capabilities.

Factory jobs were a trap. They trapped you with money you couldn't make somewhere else, and you could make it right away. You didn't need to be burdened by student loan debt or spend four years making nothing. You walked into a job and bam, instant $20+/hour. What they didn't tell you was you'd spend twenty years doing things that no other employers would ever need, then be cast aside like a dirty Kleenex. That you would, just as you were starting to get comfortable, end up working the day shift at Arby's.

Do any of these damn fools think they were ever anything but another piece of equipment on the line? Do none of them realize that the world is moving on? Do they honestly believe that they can, with no appreciable skills to offer, continue pretending to be important? Are they just now, thirteen years after his death, seventeen years after his factory closed, learning the lesson he spent his life teaching me and my siblings?

Dad would be ashamed. Not because unions got fat, not because they got lazy, because they got so damn stupid.

< Worst. Movies. Ever. | Summer Time >
My father was a union man | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Management is stupid, too by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
they were pushing SUVs and trucks because the profit margins were so huge, with no thought to fuel economy. At least those execs will be able to pay someone to wipe away their tears.




GM is a dinosaur by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
The union looks that much more stupid for believing in them.

[ Parent ]

I hope they pull of fuel cells by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
not just because they have an R&D plant near us, it's one way to get past oil.


[ Parent ]

sure. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
as long as you break water to get your hydrogen instead of manipulate oil/gas to get it.

My brother was on a submarine, where they break water for the Oxygen -- and you'd figure it'd be pretty important for that process to be stable and reliable. It wasn't. They'd regularly have to snorkle or even burn phosphorous oxide candles when the bomb stopped working, and it's not like they were lacking in power.

[ Parent ]

well... by clock (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST
...you're right.  no one should believe that the culture that makes factories like that profitable could last forever.  and tying yourself to a dinosaur of an organization and thinking that somehow a contract is worth more than the paper it's on is out of date at best.

that said, someone has to run the press.  someone has to assemble the pieces.  someone has to slaughter the hogs.  someone has to push the broom.  and i don't know about where anyone else works, but there are only so many desks where i work and the toilet still needs to be unclogged.

but i get what you're saying.


Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface



It's not that I don't value their contributions by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 1) #6 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
I was raised on union factory wages. Many people enjoyed drinking Pepsi products out of cans that Dad helped to make. He was just never under the illusion that he was indispensable, or somehow special, just because he was part of a collective bargaining group. When his factory closed he didn't blockade the corporate office and demand they make everything 1960 again.

[ Parent ]

i completely agree... by clock (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST
...and i know you get it.  my mom worked for a union forever and we have some static from time to time about how the world is vs. how it was.  i dunno.  fewer answers than questions, methinks.


Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface

[ Parent ]

The good thing about factory jobs. by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #5 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:11:16 PM EST
They gave good employment to people on the left hand side of the bell curve. The people who weren't going to go to college because they didn't really have the mental capacity for it. Now those people are stuck working the desk at ExtendedStayAmerica Hotels at $12/hr with no benefits.

Because we outsourced all the (relatively) mindless factory work, because we wanted cheaper products at WalMart and Target.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)



Don't forget more reliable and economical by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
there's no reason American automakers couldn't have made reliable economical cars. There's no reason an American owned company couldn't make a new $4000 motorcycle.


[ Parent ]

Reliable, indeed by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM EST
My Ford Fusion, made in Mexico, at a plant that consistently scores at the top of Ford's internal quality surveys. Fusions, made in Mexico, that have reliability numbers that look more like Camrys that anything that's come out of a US or Canadian plant in forty years. If the average US union worker wants to justify their wages, they need to look inward a bit more.

[ Parent ]

You can engineer quality in from the beginning by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
but the domestic automakers didn't care, since if GM, Ford and Dodge are all equally bad, there's no alternative.

So W. Edwards Deming went to Japan, and found an audience who would apply what he knew.


[ Parent ]

I know auto workers by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 1) #13 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
They all, to the last (save the ones from Toyota Cambridge), strive for mediocrity. It's a culture of sticking it to The Man, even though The Man has been pretty damn nice to you.

[ Parent ]

It's definitely a corporate culture thing by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST
but the problems go all the way back to the designers and engineers.

One example, changing the rear/turn signal lights in a 1982 Escort Station wagon requiring removing the whole assembly, 4 big screws.

In a 1982 Mitsubishi Colt, you pop off an interior panel.


[ Parent ]

At least until the early 2000s by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:47:45 PM EST
GM was still like that with many models. They want you to give up and bring your car to the dealer, where they can charge you $70 to install a $3 bulb.

[ Parent ]

Just where do you think by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #38 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:31:52 PM EST
the Camrys are made?

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Cambridge, Ontario by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #41 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM EST
By non-union workers in a different corporate culture.

[ Parent ]

True, that by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM EST
And I don't mean to knock people who work in factories. I've done it myself, and like I said in my reply to clock, I was raised on those wages. Whether the outsourcing of unskilled labor is right or wrong is not the point. It was a simple inevitability. Those people that are making $12/hr now, as cold as it sounds, were never worth $20+/hr to their employer. Unions made their members' wage scales top-heavy, and whenever the bottom falls out of corporate profits they collapse in on themselves.

[ Parent ]

a simple inevitability by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #15 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
But what do we replace those good jobs with? Many of the factory workers had good middle-class lives, vital parts of their communities, went to Church on Sunday, etc. Now they're poor and living on charity or welfare.

Maybe they were never worth $20+/hr to their employer, but maybe they were worth that to society.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

I don't see society offering them much sympathy by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
Eight years of neo-cons and all.

[ Parent ]

Quite by Herring (4.00 / 1) #19 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
When the company offshores (this is not a word) jobs, they win in terms of profit. Taxpayers/everybody then have to pick up the welfare, the healthcare costs (in the US) and other consequences like crime.

I lived for a while in a coal mining area during the time when the tories started closing the remaining pits. For unskilled (albeit unpleasant and dangerous) work, coal mining paid pretty well - enough to keep whole communities going. People recckoned that for each miner's job that went, 2-3 other jobs would be lost as well. Yes, it would've been cheaper for the government to continue subsidising the coal industry (at the time the UK was importing from Germany where they had far higher subsidies).

It caused a lot of ill feeling around there - not least because it was the heartland of the UDM who had defied Scargill in '84.

Anyway, before I wen off on that tangent, I guess my point was that while the company may win by offshoring, it's governments and public money that end up picking up the pieces.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

I never thought of it quite like that by gzt (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
But that's a good way of putting it.

[ Parent ]

Well, in a perfect world by MartiniPhilosopher (4.00 / 1) #28 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:49 PM EST
The companies wouldn't have to close. They'd be able to lower costs, including wages, to a point where they would be competitive while still being able to stay locally. That is highly contingent on several things like stockholders not being unreasonable on the profit situation and traders not being motivated by fear.

Nor can I see putting this situation all at the feet of the unions. While their ignorance (and/or greed) may have been part of the contribution, there have been other greedy people working the factory system over as well.

Six months into my first job out of college, I was laid off due to the company being bought out by corporate raiders. Amongst their "cost cutting" measures was the idea to boost their margins by getting rid of as much physical properties as was possible. To that end, six of the seven factories that were owned by the company were closed. The last one was kept open but is now only a specialized assembly plant. Half it is even rented out to someone else. The idea in that is to reduce the amount of outstanding capital costs by selling off these properties. On paper, this (sort-of) works, depending on what numbers you look at. Those doing this sort of thing hope that everybody that cares only sees their wonderful accounting wizardry of counting the sales of the capital as part of the profit for the year in which the sell off has happened before flipping the company to another buyer. Who isn't really getting much for their money. The capital that had been built up is gone. At best the new buyers end up with a brand that might prove useful in marketing someone else's good.

It is more than just the good jobs that have been lost in these trends. It has also been the physical capital needed to produce goods.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.
[ Parent ]

stockholders by garlic (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:47:32 PM EST
most stockholders are assholes, worried about stock growth on long established companies, instead of dividends. I don't want my mangagers worrying about growing the value of the companies stock, I want them worried about making money off our business. If that grows the stock, that's ok I guess, but that shouldn't be their main concern. Any stock holder worried about growth doesn't really care about owning the company, they are the same as people flipping real estate not caring about the communities.

[ Parent ]

I suspect its worse that that. by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #39 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:51:16 PM EST
"Growth" generally implies an outlook longer than a couple of quarters. Also a large chunk of stockowners hold the stock in some sort of mutual fund; the stock is then controlled by someone who is 1. looking for just one better quarter, and 2. wants to get in on that gravytrain (preferably on the board of directors or something) and will try to side with management.

I strongly suspect that allowing all stock owners to allow proxy control (run by Wall Street, USPirg, the young fascists, or the Church of Your Choice) would force companies to begin to listen to the stockholders. HP managed to fend off owners' attempts to stop them from running into the ground, only the Ford family seems to be able to have much control over the company they (somewhat) own.

I'm hardly certain this would be all very nice. The only thing I would count on is less CEOs getting away with ripping off the company.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

The whole situation make me laugh. by me0w (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
The writing has been on the wall for a long time now - frequent plant down time, shift cuts, etc. GM didn't even panic when American Axle went on strike shutting down the lines in Oshawa- it saved them money. The union thinks the company owes them something. Now maybe they will realize that GM owes them nothing.

The CAW is dumb (as a former member I can attest to that) and the workers have been brainwashed. They strive toward mediocrity and below. They are overpaid idiots (there were maintenance workers making over $100k/year to sweep the floors), idiots who should have seen the end coming and prepared by updating their skills.

 
"There's really only one sexually related thing I'm good at: Producing incredibly volumous amounts of spooge on a regular basis." - ni


What if their skills aren't updateable? by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
What if they are, at heart, mediocre?

Let's face it, most of the people on this website, and most of our friends, are much better equipped to deal with the knowledge (really, intelligence) based economy.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

McDonalds is always hiring by me0w (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
Then they will have to accept the jobs that are within their skill level - and have to deal with the fact that they will no longer be making $36+/hour(nor will they likely make that much again).

And perhaps they will now have to face the consequences of poor past planning. Maybe they should have finished high school, or pursued a trade, or upgraded skills as a special interest.


"There's really only one sexually related thing I'm good at: Producing incredibly volumous amounts of spooge on a regular basis." - ni
[ Parent ]

Just to fuel the fire by Gedvondur (4.00 / 3) #21 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:35 PM EST
This isn't a union problem.  This is a people problem.  Nobody likes change, especially the workers at that Canadian plant that were told they would be converted into a light truck production plant.  Now they are being told they are being eliminated. 

GM promised and didn't deliver.  Mind you, GM can't deliver in this particular scenario, but there it is.  That's why people are pissed.  They are blockading because they are empowered, unlike many of the other corporate sheep.

I read a lot of things on this site that talk about "not being a sheep" and bucking the corporate system.  Yet when Union members do it, they are mocked as "not being realistic".

The complaining I see from the Union members upset that their jobs are leaving and changing is eerily similar to some other bitching I have heard on this site.

You know, the bitching about how they are outsourcing programming jobs to India and other places.  Come on, programmers.  You can't expect to be the high priests of technology forever.  You guys get paid a ton to do work on languages that get easier and easier.  Soon, you will be the janitors of the computing set. 

Don't bitch, though.  Wouldn't want to be an unrealistic dinosaur.

Gedvondur
"If you do not sin, then you too may some day float like a big pink Goodyear blimp of The Lord." -theboz


The difference, from where I sit by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 2) #23 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
I've never met an IT person/programmer with more than an ounce of common sense who considered themselves irreplaceable. Thus the job-jumping economy, where the worst thing you could do was get comfortable somewhere. Get comfortable just in time to have the rug pulled out from under you. GM is dealing with an economic reality. The unions have their heads in the sand.

[ Parent ]

Did you ever think by Gedvondur (4.00 / 1) #25 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
That the unions are doing what they are designed to do?  Protect the workers.

What do you want them to do, roll over without a word?

Is it unrealistic?  Probably.  But it is their job.  That's what Unions do.

As to IT persons, you must work with a better class of them than I did.  No, they didn't consider themselves irreplaceable, but "highly paid" is certainly in their vocabulary.  Instead of being arrogant about the company they work for, IT people are arrogant about the entire industry.  "I can get a job anywhere, I'm that good.  I'll probably get a raise too."

While the entire time companies are doing their best to turn everyone but the most senior people into low-pay data janitors.  The situation isn't all that different, really. 

Gedvondur
"If you do not sin, then you too may some day float like a big pink Goodyear blimp of The Lord." -theboz
[ Parent ]

I'm sure they think they're protecting by Phil the Canuck (2.00 / 0) #36 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:10:32 PM EST
In reality they're doing a shitty job of it.  Really protecting them would involve preparing them for the bad times.  I suspect that unions are these days all about protecting their own income, and are no more 'for the worker' than their corporate adversaries.

I said IT workers with an ounce of common sense.  I work with someone now who think's he's God's gift to the NOC.  The helpdesk guy who think's he's underpaid at $12.50/hr.  Somebody forgot to tell him that 2000 ended almost eight years ago while he was in college.  I suspect he's in for a rough life, at least for the next few years.

[ Parent ]

Protecting the workers by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #42 Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:18:05 AM EST
That is indeed what unions are about, and despite being a leftie by politics, I refused to join one in Ireland as none available did that. They put short term interest and political posturing before their members by playing hardball when companies have nothing left to bargin with rather than being co-operative and compromising earlier where it might do some good for the workers and buy them some time.

Protect the workers, certainly but have some strategy as to what this actually means.

[ Parent ]

It's a fair point I think by jayhawk88 (4.00 / 2) #26 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
Imagine some fantasy world where the price of electrons quadruples over a 10 year timeframe, and people use computers less and less, resulting in a bottoming out of the IT field. What would I or any of us realistically do if we were downsized and not able to find another job in the field? Any other knowledge I have obtained via life or schooling is superficial at best; I couldn't go become, say, an accountant, or an architect, or even a lower paying profession such as a teacher.

Computers is all I know. Heck, even in the field, I probably couldn't get past an interview for a programming position, IT support is really all I know. Even though I have a higher education than guys working at GM plant, I couldn't turn that into another profession if I needed to. I'd probably be in that $12/hour Arby's job as well.

You can say that unions and car manufacturers have been shortsighted and made bad decisions, and that's true. But are we in the IT field really so better equipped to deal?

[ Parent ]

depends on the individual by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:17:44 PM EST
all the IT people who lost their jobs around 2001 bounced back in one way or another.  many I know are doing things other than IT work.

they knew the ride wouldn't last forever, and planned for when it failed.  perhaps you should look into the same.

[ Parent ]

Doing what? by jayhawk88 (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:42:22 AM EST
Just out of curiosity?

I like the idea of being able to get a decent job if the bottom were to fall out of the IT Support field obviously, but at the same time (and at the risk of being hypocritical), the IT Support field is relatively solid (it's not like people are buying less computers, or there are less doctors being trained), and just going out and training for some random non-IT related field would seem kind of silly.

[ Parent ]

all kinds of stuff by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:14:30 AM EST
one started a catering business, another remodels houses, another is an HVAC tech, another an electrician, another became a nurse, etc.

[ Parent ]

NO! by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #30 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST
Sys Admins are the janitors of the computing set, and we will fight to the death to keep those nasty programmers in their places!

[ Parent ]

That industry by duxup (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST
All I know is that it seems the American car industry needs to be totally obliterated if it is ever to thrive again.  It needs to be reformed from the ground up by some form of new car companies that don't carry all the union or corporate car industry baggage that these companies carry.  Yeah that would include a lot of lost jobs.

I've often fantasized about starting my own car company.  It would be a simple car company.  duxup Cars.  Simple, reliable, cheap.

Car 1 - Small car.
Car 2 - Family sized car.
Car 3 - Wagon.
Car 5 - Minivan.

Obviously it isn't just that easy but I like the concept.
____


but where is #4? by clock (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST
PROFIT?!?!?!


Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface

[ Parent ]

We don't talk about #4! by duxup (4.00 / 1) #29 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST
NOBODY GOES IN THE #4 PRODUCTION BUILDING!

(zombies, I swear I didn't know it would work out that way)
____
[ Parent ]

clock and i have this discussion all the time by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #32 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:20:23 PM EST
if I were running a car company today, I would.....

we have all kinds of ideas that we just don't understand why US auto makers aren't doing (we assume we're pretty dumb, so our ideas can't be all that original).

[ Parent ]

You never know by duxup (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:41:22 PM EST
How many major car makers are there?  That makes for a pretty great chance of those companies collectively avoiding the obvious and good ideas.
____
[ Parent ]

Some companies show forethought by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 1) #37 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:13:49 PM EST
You can tell by who's doing well.  Toyota.  Hyundai.  Kia.  Honda, always ticking along.  Nissan, revitalized by Renault.  The big three of those, at the very least, are investing heavily in next-gen hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles.

[ Parent ]

I call my dream car 'The Homer'... by chuckles (4.00 / 2) #40 Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST

I want something like a VW Westfalia camper, but with the off-road capability of a lightweight SUV (such as a Jeep Cherokee). While a hybrid would be great, the range extender needs to run on diesel (thus could also run on biodiesel), although it doesn't need to be a diesel technology engine.

I would also like a pony.



Skateboarding is a crime.


[ Parent ]

My father was a union man | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback