Nissan Corp. bullying American employees.
 

UAW calls on US State Department to help with Nissan plant - Autoblog

Someone needs to remind Nissan this is a free country. :shakes head:

Eh, it's the UAW. Screw the UAW.

yeah, i doubt anything the UAW is saying is true other than the fact that they cant get a foodhold in there.

As a longtime union member (not UAW, by the way), I think the UAW may not be the best representative of union labor in our country. In a time where "right to work" hits home with me here in Pa., I am not only a passionate union member, I'm also a firm believer that people have the right to chose how to support themselves and their families, Union or Open shop. If the time came when my brotherhood were to employ tactics that were used in the past by many others, I would walk away in a heartbeat.
There are other ways to achieve your goals without sacrificing your dignity, and sense of morality. Just my .02

:iagree:

I'm not completely anti-union. I'm 100% anti-UAW. They make people hate unions because they're shady as ****.

As far as I've heard nissan pays their employees pretty decently, as for the article I read it on Yahoo a couple days ago and came to the conclusion that the uaw is throwing a temper tantrum since they couldn't get their foot in the door after being voted out of the vw plant a couple months ago and are desperate for money and since nissan is the next major auto maker that doesn't support unions it made them a pretty good scapegoat for the uaw

Yep.

i read toyota plants are doing exceptionally well without uaw.

no reason why nissan should have them either.

I dunno, man... the UAW doesn't have any skeletons in its collective closet worse than any auto manufacturer -- at worst, they're the lesser of the evils, and they certainly don't have the kind of wealth and influence that car company CEO's have.

I'm 100% for unionization and collective bargaining for employees, no matter what the shirt collar is. A lone worker has absolutely no leverage on his or her own.

Corporations are organizations and they are organized to ensure that profits go to the tippy-top, but historically very rarely allow any to even lightly trickle down without some collective effort from those who actually do the work.

Un-organized workers have fewer (or no) resources at their disposal to ensure a fair share of the profits from their work... lack of worker organization in the US has steadily eroded salaries for the past 30+ years, which is why CEO pay is stratospheric and everyone else's wages are stagnant.

I find it hard to believe that Nissan (or any large corporation) better represent the "good guys" here.

So, while your point is well taken -- it's pretty hard for me to not side with the UAW. There may be some genuine villainy within them, but it is historically always lesser in scope and magnitude than the companies they wrangle with.

BTW: Japan has strong unionization, but if a Japanese auto company opens a plant here, they simply don't support it. So, UAW does have a legitimate dog in this fight.

I couldn't disagree with you more on the specific points you made about the UAW, so I'll leave it at that. :tiphat:

Title of the thread is misleading. Nissan has been accused, but there is no evidence and the investigation is ongoing.

The UAW has been trying to unionize Nissan since Nissan showed up in the states. Methinks that the UAW butthurt is strong, especially concerning how things ended up at the VW plant recently. Nothing to see here, really.

eh, unions have their place in the workforce...mainly 60 years ago.

I am ANTI UNION. I won't hide it, their time has come and gone. They hurt their workers far more then help them.

I agree with all of you, as long as we're not talking about New York. Unions are the only reason why people survive in New York city. In the La La Land of the Midwest where everything is happy and blue.unions most likely do not have a place.

Notwithstanding recent examples of roll-over of unions to CEO's and corporations (e.g., the UAW during the autobailouts), surrendering hard fought pensions, job security, safe work conditions, a manageable work schedule, etc etc,, the 30+ years of stagnant wages, the vast outpacing of the middle class by many other industrialized nations, and the continued stratospheric rise of CEO salaries suggests we need organized workers more than ever.

As union membership and presence increased, wages went up, even for non-union shops. As union membership and presence has decreased, wages have dropped or stagnated. They were needed 60 years ago to even things out for the workers and are needed today just as much.

You can criticize unions for failing to live up to their expectations here and there, but I don't understand how anyone who is aware of history and current events can write them off as useless or even harmful.

Ethics aside, if you own a billion dollar corporation and don't like the idea of your workers having some say in their pay, security and safety -- fine. If not, you are rooting for the wrong team...

This isn't hippy bullcrap -- this is how it is.

In my last position in aviation we had a unionized workforce that turned the wrenches. When they went on stike because $34 an hour wasn't enough money, the salaried folks had to step in and fill the roles of aircraft mechanics. By day 2 production increased 42% and we flew more sorties in the 8 week period than ever before or since. True story. Unions can go **** themselves right out of existence.:tiphat:

IMO there are 2 problems with Unions.

1. the big ones spend most of their time working to justify their existance and think that membership, size etc are whats gives them prominence. They need to flare up in size and in places where they are needed and then leave when they have done their job.
(P.S teachers unions need to gear up. teachers need more pay.. why do we always cut eductation funding first..wtf)

2. Most works now days just arent really motivated. You have a union to protect you... come in, be lazy, work slow. Unions should do better to identify when workers are being efficient, motivated etc and make that a part of their membership. US auto workers get paid more than the european ones and were around 35% less efficient (i believe those were the numbers in a study a few years ago)

As in Falcon fixers example. Alot of these arent really super skilled jobs. Which means they need to put in the effort to stay employed and stay relelvant (be a good worker, efficient, not lazy) instead of having a union to sit on. Unfortunately, its the unskilled workers that also need the most protection from constant turnover.

Fair enough -- unions tend to create "wage compression", meaning that they tend to leverage earnings closer to white collar workers (although, note that some white collar jobs -- such as teachers -- also have unions...), but the end result is typically that more people have a shot at earning a decent living, so I get what you are saying, but its hard for me to fault that as a general principal.

Frankly, even salaried workers (and the entire service industry) should be organized -- its just primarily a blue collar production oriented beast by nature.

BTW, by shifting the work to you guys, the aviation company saved themselves money, no doubt -- but did you guys at least earn overtime?

It's a tug of war -- the primary purpose of organized labor/collective bargaining is to have a mechanism by which to tug things in the direction of the workers. It doesn't have to be a good vs evil thing... but a mechanism by which more people can earn a decent living is probably more good than not.

Straight time after 45 hours.

There are good companies and there are bad companies. There are good unions and there are bad unions. I've worked for companies where we laughed at the union organizers that showed up and I have been a union (OCAW) rep at places where a union really was needed.

It works great when the union and the company realize that they are not always enemies and when both sides try to increase the bottom line for everybody. But either side can throw a monkey wrench in the works. I've seen too much greed on both sides of the table.

Ergh... well that kind of sucks, but at least you guys were paid for your time, and not just had extra work piled on, which frequently happens in organizations if they lay people off.

It could be worse than the UAW.:rofl2: My dad spent a big chunk of his career working with the Teamsters in trucking on the East coast. Some of the stories would turn your hair white. It's some Sopranos **** for sure.

Right. But you can evaluate specific metrics like compensation, profits, etc and its not as if corporations and unions (or even union bosses) are equally winning.

UAW really cut their own throats during the auto bailout in terms of public image (and actual effectiveness), but an anti-union sentiment rarely results in better pay or working conditions for anyone -- except the bosses, who are quite few in number relative to everyone else.

A lot of good, valid points made here, some not so much. I am a Superintendent for a Commercial Contractor, and we hire through the local union hall. (where I came up through). We get 20 or so guys on a job, and if they are not up to snuff, or slack off, we send them back to the bench, and pick up fresh ones. Noone is lazy, leaning on shovels, ect...... If you do, you're out. Simple as that. I have worked in open shop for many years before joining the union as well, and have seen first hand both sides of the coin. The union has changed my life for the better in many ways.
A local family owned brewery (which happens to be Americas oldest) Was a union shop since its inception, after the owner reached Billionaire staus on the backs of union labor, he built a new brewery in a nearby town, and when the union contract was up recently, told his employees that if they did not cut ties with the union, he would shut the brewery down, and put them all out of work. I know more than a few people that worked there, 2 of which took early retirement over it.
Good and bad on both sides... Don't stereotype all unions over the actions of a few. To the hard-core Anti-union, I say you're welcome for weekends off, overtime pay, 8 hour work days, and the hourly wage you now get from your employer. Without organized labor, you would have none of these things today.:tiphat: Open your mind, and let each man chose his own path.

Unions have indeed given us all of those things. They have also given us higher than necessary prices on many domestic commodities and manufactured goods, significant world trade imbalance, movement of entire industries off-shore, loss of countless domestic jobs, closed factories, bankrupted cities, a severely ailing educational system.

As you say...pluses and minuses.


/

Greed is a horrible thing, indeed.

Indeed it can be. Greed by corporations, greed by unions. Plenty of greed to go around. It's an occasional-but unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, the foundation of the US economy. Fortunately, there are laws about that now. Yes....thanks in large part to unions, from back in the days when they were more useful than harmful to the US economy.

From my POV it's not really a Union or Company problem but a people problem. If you have "good" people on both sides of the table some pretty wonderful things can be accomplished - the company and investors make money, the workers get a higher standard of living and better working conditions, and the local economy benefits. But it only takes one bad apple.

Much like buying a car, it's very easy to slip into adversarial positions.

While there are some unions that do more harm than good (UAW and Teamsters come to mind), from what I have seen, unions, in general, are still very valuable. There are still too many companies (the people that run them, actually) that would abuse employees if given half a chance. Certainly not all, but enough.

If nothing else is good about unions, they have been able to dramatically better safety in the workplace. Companies end up spending a little more for hazard/injury prevention but reap the benefits of fewer injuries (much lower expenditures, less lost time, better morale, &c). Win/win.

As a former Nissan employee I cannot stand the idea of a union. Carlos Ghosn is HARDCORE anti-union as is NML. Ghosn has already spent a great amount of money fending off the unions.

The problem is not "Nissan"...it is the subcontracting company Yates and Kelly services in my opinion. Plants like Canton Mississippi consist of predominantly "Yates" contracted employees. These are the ones who are seeking Union representation. Smyrna is majority "NISSAN" employees, while Decherd is a mixed ratio of Yates and Nissan.

As a Nissan employee, the treatment by the company is AWESOME. I enjoyed working for the company every minute I was there and have nothing but great things to say. However, the Yates side of the company is lackluster in my opinion.

I recall seeing DOZENS of employees on my shift rocking "Anti-UAW" shirts and decals on their personal vehicles in the parking lots.

Employees with in-demand skills always have leverage. They don't need a union and in fact would be held back by one.

Good point but, given the vagaries of the job market and economy, one's in-demand status can change quickly. Granted, that alone shouldn't guide one's decision, but feces occurs and a good union can be a big help if for nothing else than finding training and a new job when your skills become obsolete.

And I don't see how a union would necessarily hold them back. I've seen plants where the company and the union co-operated for the good of all. Although it is an us-vs-them relationship all too often, it doesn't have to be.

I'm not particularly pro- or anti- union. They have their place but aren't appropriate for all situations. If you work for a good company, then you don't need a union. Not all people are so fortunate.

Lets keep in mind, that as stated by someone, that the idea of unions is still good and valid. And there is a need. There are alot of smaller unions that still do great things. But there are some (the largest at times) that lose their way. Attempting to justify their existence.

Bad people on both sides many times. Greed exists in individuals, corporations, unions, etc.

When i did a short stint at ATT during school, they had unions there. They presented, etc and pretty much pressured the join. Those who did not join were bullied in a way. When it came down to a incident at work where I followed the released bulliten to the entire enterprise, and my boss did not read it, thus raised the issue as to why I was doing the task. The union, protected her as a long standing member stating that I should not challenge a senior union member who has worked here for a while. I quit.

It is also VERY common for companies (such as the one I work for) to own and operate both union AND open shop at the same time. simple legal loopholes to dance around. We split in 2005 from our parent company, and currently own 7 other Open shop outfits, and work with them hand in hand. There are occasional rough spots, of course, but mainly all moves along smoothly.
If I didn't like where I was working, for whatever reason, I would move on, Union, Open shop.....Whatever. My choice. Just like it is yours.
The men who work for me are highly skilled due to required apprenticeship training, and are extremely hard working. They deserve every penny they get.
The comment regarding a skilled in-demand employee having leverage in their workplace is partially true, but at the same time naïve. Walk into your bosses office, and ask for a cost of living raise (does anyone remember those??) Now run the same scenario with your boss with 35,000 of your brothers at your side............That's leverage.
I don't mean to come off as a book-pounding hardcore union guy, that's just not who I am, I have, and would work on both sides of the fence without any qualms. I just happen to like where I'm at right now.

This is why completely unrestrained capitalism (essentially, the path the US has been on up through the Great Depression, and then again after about 1979 onward) is a bad thing for the vast majority of the people.

Jobs are only coming back to the US because it's recently become cheaper to employ US citizens than workers in offshore sweatshops -- that's nothing to celebrate.

Close relevant tax loopholes and introduce penalties for moving jobs offshore (but good luck seeing such legislature pass...)

The result is the current economy where there is vast wealth in the hands of a very, very small group, a completely obliterated middle class, and (hilariously) jobs coming back to the US 'cause its cheaper.

In short: Further cost cutting isn't the solution and never was.

The invisible hand is not invisible, a force of nature, nor even a hand; it's a well developed, highly controlled, rapaciously grasping razor sharp claw. Organized workers (and citizens who understand this) reflect the only force historically capable of blunting it.

Thank you Mr. President....

;)

Thank FDR :tup:

:usa:

This is not true at all. The salaries are still not cheaper. What has changed is the offshore work is no longer cheap enough to offset the negatives that exist - intellectual property theft, shipping costs, shifting government regulations, cultures that expect bribes as part of standard business, etc.

America is not cheaper, the gap is just much closer when all things are considered these days.