[CSM]

"This doesn't discount what I say at all. The efficiency of a revamped line built on a 20th century factory floor is different from one built to fit."

The only immovable assets that would prevent efficiency improvements are major presses or other large capital equipment. Most of those are not at the assembly plant, therefore the immovable assets are not a hinderance to the efficiency of assembly. Even in a brand new assembly plant, when UAW labor is used, the efficiency is lower than the non union transplants.

"I'm not saying unions cause no problems for productivity, just that measuring productivity on the basis you prescribe isn't entirely accurate."

You might not like it, but that is the accepted method of measuring productivity in the automotive industry.

"Why would they let the company sacrifice their members for efficiency when their intention is to represent the workers? If the company thinks it can do better, it should. That's what the free market is about. To say unions are at fault for trying to maximize their income for their property (their labor) is to say only factory owners should get reward for their risk-taking."

Sure, the UAW would rather have a garunteed number of jobs at a company that doesn't exist. That is what they don't realize, the UAW officials always state that the company is lying, but the reality is that the innefficient companies that produce a more costly product will be eliminated from the market.

"Not at all. That UAW can't 'infiltrate' new companies isn't necessarily because all unions are bad. UAW can't 'infiltrate' China, either, and there, unions would do much good to alleviate poor worker treatment."

The UAW can't get into the transplants because the workers realize that they already get treated well and that they are well compensated. The only advantage would be to the UAW officials in a growth of their ability to gather dues. The workers realize that they wouldn't see a benefit at all, and would most likely end up in an antogonistic relationship with management that would harm them in the long run.

With regards to China, the workers already have representation that sets policies regarding employer behavior. It is called the government. Any thing the government sees fit to mandate, will be mandated. You may consider their working conditions deplorable, but you are comparing them to the US. By their own standards the working conditions are a step up in their standard of living. Would you rather they live in a mud hut with no food, or work for $1 an hour? I would prefer to leave that choice to them. Keep in mind that their neighbor is working for $0.50 an hour.

"I don't think it would, because if I worked a line all day, I'd want to be narcotized, too. But I have no idea what your point is. That workers for the UAW are druggies, so they shouldn't be members of unions?"

My point is that they are able to engage in this behavior because management has no ability to eradicate the labor force from the "slugs". The UAW protects them regardless of their unacceptable behavior. Another example of a hit to productivity.

"Oops, maybe I was supposed to conclude that we should make those damned union slackers pay somehow? Maybe force them to work for the benefit of the owner without compensation?"

What the heck are you trying to say here? If you reread the example, you will see that the expectation is that the union member gets to get paid for doing nothing. That is the theft referenced. They sit on their hands, then start again at OT pay. Another hit to productivity. This exact issue is what GM was trying to change a few years ago and it cost them $5 Billion.

The rest of your post is basically trashing Management of a company. I agree, bad management causes as many problems as the UAW. This was a discussion about unions, not management, so I replied accordingly. The bottom line is that the contracts are signed after the company is held hostage. GM attempted to root out a lot of problems with the UAW contract and it ended up costing the $5B at the time and a few more billion, until their recent recovery. The bottom line is that in order to keep from losing billions the auto companies give in to this. Then they lose market share to the competition, they lose money by being inefficient and end up in jeopardy of going out of business.

With regards to risk. The individual employee has taken no risk by working in the plant. That labor is only as efficient as the thinkers have allowed them to be. The ton of steel today produced by someone's labor would not be possible without the people that invented the production process. Instead, that labor is only worth the few pounds of steel that a blacksmith could have produced in midevil times! The owner takes all the risk by investing in the property and equipment.

No one is entitled to a job, they must exchange their time in as efficient a way as possible to increase their time's worth. Instead, the union tries to increase the value of the worker's time without allowing for increases in their productivity. In other words, the goal of the union is to try to get as much money for the least efficient work force as is possible. This is not a positive in a free market and will eventually cause the demise of the business as a whole.

[LibertarianInExile]

The only immovable assets that would prevent efficiency improvements are major presses or other large capital equipment. Most of those are not at the assembly plant, therefore the immovable assets are not a hinderance to the efficiency of assembly. Even in a brand new assembly plant, when UAW labor is used, the efficiency is lower than the non union transplants.

---In the U.S., maybe. You still haven't managed to address what I said about Japan or Korea. Not that you've managed to supply any more than assertions about union labor vs. non-union in similar assembly plants.

"I'm not saying unions cause no problems for productivity, just that measuring productivity on the basis you prescribe isn't entirely accurate."

You might not like it, but that is the accepted method of measuring productivity in the automotive industry.

---I might not like it? No, I might not agree with your broad assertions of truth as opposed to documentation thereof. Show me the numbers. I don't doubt that unions are harder to police, but I would be surprised to see you compare much in the way of union vs. non-union plants in the same company and finding big differences.

"Why would they let the company sacrifice their members for efficiency when their intention is to represent the workers? If the company thinks it can do better, it should. That's what the free market is about. To say unions are at fault for trying to maximize their income for their property (their labor) is to say only factory owners should get reward for their risk-taking."

Sure, the UAW would rather have a garunteed number of jobs at a company that doesn't exist. That is what they don't realize, the UAW officials always state that the company is lying, but the reality is that the innefficient companies that produce a more costly product will be eliminated from the market.

---So we agree here, then, that unions are just trying to get what they want. That they aren't inherently inefficient. What's inefficient is agreeing with their demands when it'l break a company to do so.

"Not at all. That UAW can't 'infiltrate' new companies isn't necessarily because all unions are bad. UAW can't 'infiltrate' China, either, and there, unions would do much good to alleviate poor worker treatment."

The UAW can't get into the transplants because the workers realize that they already get treated well and that they are well compensated. The only advantage would be to the UAW officials in a growth of their ability to gather dues. The workers realize that they wouldn't see a benefit at all, and would most likely end up in an antogonistic relationship with management that would harm them in the long run.

---No, there is government intervention there preventing it in lots of places, and you admit it below.

With regards to China, the workers already have representation that sets policies regarding employer behavior. It is called the government. Any thing the government sees fit to mandate, will be mandated. You may consider their working conditions deplorable, but you are comparing them to the US. By their own standards the working conditions are a step up in their standard of living. Would you rather they live in a mud hut with no food, or work for $1 an hour? I would prefer to leave that choice to them. Keep in mind that their neighbor is working for $0.50 an hour.

---Okay, so you think that government should set working conditions, and anything they do is okay. You are an absolutely wonderful conservative. And let me point out that you think that unions are without value, and I should judge China in from THEIR cultural perspective, yet your bias against unions is from YOUR cultural perspective. That you defend China's labor practices is frankly unconscionable, and that you act like China has any such thing as worker representation is shameful. I cannot disagree more.

"I don't think it would, because if I worked a line all day, I'd want to be narcotized, too. But I have no idea what your point is. That workers for the UAW are druggies, so they shouldn't be members of unions?"

My point is that they are able to engage in this behavior because management has no ability to eradicate the labor force from the "slugs". The UAW protects them regardless of their unacceptable behavior. Another example of a hit to productivity.

---You mentioned this was during their lunch break. Explain how productivity was affected during an hour they weren't working? However, again, you're quibbling over something that unions SHOULD be doing to protect their workers, since they're negotiating to protect current members (not future ones). Unions (which ARE productive for their members) can protect workers (who could be unproductive from a management perspective in all sorts of ways) because unproductive management signs unproductive contracts.

"Oops, maybe I was supposed to conclude that we should make those damned union slackers pay somehow? Maybe force them to work for the benefit of the owner without compensation?"

What the heck are you trying to say here? If you reread the example, you will see that the expectation is that the union member gets to get paid for doing nothing. That is the theft referenced. They sit on their hands, then start again at OT pay. Another hit to productivity. This exact issue is what GM was trying to change a few years ago and it cost them $5 Billion.

---I will say exactly what I am trying to point out about your argument, slowly. And I'll use small words, just for you.
You say that it is wrong that workers get to do what they're doing. Yet you float no ideas as to what you'd have them do. This forces me to figure out what you'd do to solve the problem you see. My guess is that you'd have them work at the same pay rate and for the additional two hours, or not pay them because the line is down. You are saying that workers should be forced to take a hit because the line doesn't work, instead of the owner. Why is this any more right than the owner eating the cost? I don't disagree the situation's lousy, but GM negotiated the contract and that makes THEM stupid and inefficient. Not the union.

The rest of your post is basically trashing Management of a company. I agree, bad management causes as many problems as the UAW. This was a discussion about unions, not management, so I replied accordingly.

---Yes, but you seem to think that the UAW is inherently more EVIL than poor management...as you go on to state below. I'm not trashing management to say that management is the problem, not the unions, who are rationally pursuing their goal of making the most money for the least work. Management is obviously not pursuing its goal of maximizing shareholder value vigorously enough, or we would have no complaints about unions.

The bottom line is that the contracts are signed after the company is held hostage. GM attempted to root out a lot of problems with the UAW contract and it ended up costing the $5B at the time and a few more billion, until their recent recovery. The bottom line is that in order to keep from losing billions the auto companies give in to this. Then they lose market share to the competition, they lose money by being inefficient and end up in jeopardy of going out of business.

---That workers don't want to do the work for less doesn't make them evil, no matter your portrayal of them as 'holding the company hostage.' It just makes them rational actors. The market takes care of inefficient companies, and the managers should make their decision rationally. If they didn't think the contract was okay, they shouldn't have signed it.

With regards to risk. The individual employee has taken no risk by working in the plant. That labor is only as efficient as the thinkers have allowed them to be. The ton of steel today produced by someone's labor would not be possible without the people that invented the production process. Instead, that labor is only worth the few pounds of steel that a blacksmith could have produced in midevil times! The owner takes all the risk by investing in the property and equipment.

---Uh huh. So if you work in a plant straight out of high school instead of college, you take no risk? If you work a line until you're fifty, you take no risk? C'mon. Everyone gambles something every day. That's how the market works. From a money perspective, owners have more to lose, but workers have the primary property they own to lose, too. Risk is relative, and you see it as infinitesimal at best on the part of the worker, which is horse crap. To a person who works 8 hours, that's a day's labor. To a person who's worked 20 years on the line, that's a lifetime's work.

Just calling labor valueless doesn't mean that the owner or the laborer doesn't place value on it.

No one is entitled to a job, they must exchange their time in as efficient a way as possible to increase their time's worth. Instead, the union tries to increase the value of the worker's time without allowing for increases in their productivity. In other words, the goal of the union is to try to get as much money for the least efficient work force as is possible. This is not a positive in a free market and will eventually cause the demise of the business as a whole.

---I think you mistake the union goals--they want to get as much money as possible for the least WORK. Not least efficient. That may be the least efficient, but not always. If you want to claim that this is not a positive in the labor market, imagine a work force where all the workers were randomly irrational actors who did NOT want the best for themselves. How would companies attract workers at all? They wouldn't know how!

And I never said anyone WAS entitled to a job. Thanks for the econ lecture, Grampa Smith. Unions are just a tangible expression of worker greed and discontent that you can point your finger at, instead of grumbling at management stupidity for letting workplace discontent get out of hand in the first place. If management had fired grumblers and fixed safety issues and fairly paid and hired workers in the first place, the unions wouldn't be any problem today.