A bit OT: Are guitar factory workers in the U.S. unionized?

[BadDaddy]

Most "union bashers" have no clear idea how labor unions work, and believe all the negative information they've heard.

 

First, let's set the stage a little: Only about 13% of the U.S. workforce is unionized, and a little over half of that is govt. employee unions (which I don't believe in as there is no profit to share), and won't be discussed.

 

The myth that union members are lazy and can't be fired is exactly that, a common myth.

 

Every new hire has to serve a probation period that last usually 3 to 6 months after which the employer and the union must both agree that the employees work performance is acceptable for a permanent position.

 

Union members can be disciplined and fired just like anyone else, but the union ensures that the termination is for just cause, and not the all too common workplace politics.

 

When a union bargains for wages and benefits, they are allowed to look at the books, and see exactly how much profit there actually is, and bargain based on that. Back in the 90's Ford proved to the union that they couldn't not only afford increases in labor costs, but had the union members agree to reduce their wages and benefits.

 

As far as union labor being the cause of the U.S. auto makers demise, think again. The union members didn't design the big S.U.V's that eventually led to the current automakers troubles. Were you aware that the 2005 Guinness book of world records listed Ford Motor Company as the richest company in the world? Over 315 billion dollars in assets all earned using union labor.

 

I have been in the construction industry for over 30 years, and I can spot non union work a mile away. Makes sense when you think about it though. If someone does a job for low pay, it's unlikely they will spend a work career doing the same low pay job.

 

When someone make an excellent living wage and spends a working career doing the same job, they become very good at it, and can do it faster as well.

 

You wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that was made using low paid non union labor would you? Not me.

[sfarfsky]

You wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that was made using low paid non union labor would you? Not me.

Yes, the same way I buy groceries from non union stores

[fragglerick]

Just to get back on subject for a second, I worked for 2 different guitar manufacturers, Parker Guitars and Pedulla Guitars. neither was union.

[rusholmeruffian]

 

Just to get back on subject for a second, I worked for 2 different guitar manufacturers, Parker Guitars and Pedulla Guitars. neither was union.

 

 

Pedulla's a really small shop, isn't it? I can't imagine there'd be much of a perceived need for collective bargaining.

 

BTW, I still wouldn't mind a Thunderbolt 5-string. Mmm.

[fragglerick]

 

Pedulla's a really small shop, isn't it? I can't imagine there'd be much of a perceived need for collective bargaining. BTW, I still wouldn't mind a Thunderbolt 5-string. Mmm.

 

When I was there (about 10 years ago) there was only 6 people in the whole company.

I don't play bass, but I was so tempted to make myself one while I was there.

[zuzuman]

 

Most "union bashers" have no clear idea how labor unions work, and believe all the negative information they've heard. First, let's set the stage a little: Only about 13% of the U.S. workforce is unionized, and a little over half of that is govt. employee unions (which I don't believe in as there is no profit to share), and won't be discussed. The myth that union members are lazy and can't be fired is exactly that, a common myth. Every new hire has to serve a probation period that last usually 3 to 6 months after which the employer and the union must both agree that the employees work performance is acceptable for a permanent position. Union members can be disciplined and fired just like anyone else, but the union ensures that the termination is for just cause, and not the all too common workplace politics. When a union bargains for wages and benefits, they are allowed to look at the books, and see exactly how much profit there actually is, and bargain based on that. Back in the 90's Ford proved to the union that they couldn't not only afford increases in labor costs, but had the union members agree to reduce their wages and benefits. As far as union labor being the cause of the U.S. auto makers demise, think again. The union members didn't design the big S.U.V's that eventually led to the current automakers troubles. Were you aware that the 2005 Guinness book of world records listed Ford Motor Company as the richest company in the world? Over 315 billion dollars in assets all earned using union labor. I have been in the construction industry for over 30 years, and I can spot non union work a mile away. Makes sense when you think about it though. If someone does a job for low pay, it's unlikely they will spend a work career doing the same low pay job. When someone make an excellent living wage and spends a working career doing the same job, they become very good at it, and can do it faster as well. You wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that was made using low paid non union labor would you? Not me.

 

 

A breath of fresh air in an evidence-deprived thread.

 

Although I am generally pro-union, I am not naive enough to think they are without their shortcomings.

 

I would sure like to see some of you union-haters posts some credible evidence (other than the fact that you happen to like working in your non-union job) in support of your claims.

[slodge]

People seem to forget that the reason OSHA regulations exist, as well as things that make life easier and fairer for working people (overtime pay, minimum wage, weekends) are because unions fought for them.

 

The idea that things are good now so there's no use for unions is as absurd as suggesting that we disband police forces because crime is down.

 

 

Still waiting for an answer on whether any guitar shops are union.

[Dr Wanker]

Do you bashers actually think that most big corporations treat their employees fairly and honestly?

 

You always seem to hear about companies being taken to court or arbitration for not holding up their side of a legal contract, but seldom unions (I've actually never heard of one).

[Armitage]

Gibsons USED to be unionized. So they moved. The old employees stayed on and created Heritage, and the "new" Gibson is one of the worst companies to work at.

 

"As for Gibson

[oryan]

The best way to kill an industry is to unionize it. I work in the telecommunications field and my shop was once unionized. Luckily we voted them out and low and behold, our wages went up, we were given 4/10 work shifts and our benefits package is much better. The union has tried to weasel it's way back in, but there are too many of us that oppose it. Life is much better.

[slodge]

 

The best way to kill an industry is to unionize it. I work in the telecommunications field and my shop was once unionized. Luckily we voted them out and low and behold, our wages went up, we were given 4/10 work shifts and our benefits package is much better. The union has tried to weasel it's way back in, but there are too many of us that oppose it. Life is much better.

 

 

I call bull{censored}.

[gutter rock]

 

OSHA oversees factories these days, most are pretty guitar manufacturers in the US are open to the public as well (such as Gibson). The conditions are probably some of the best in the world. Most companies do not want to get in trouble with OSHA and have pretty stringent guidelines which is a good thing. I for one believe the days of organized labor have come and gone (they were needed at one time, agreed), we have enough federal and state guidelines and unions have really helped the US become uncompetitive in global manufacturing in negotiating pay beyond what the scale should be and benefits beyond what scale and skill should offer. They encourage mediocrecy in the work force (do the minimum for the most return) and really, they have become money and political machines for the union chiefs. I've worked with people who moved to my right to work state who are former union members and they are just horribly lazy. I worked with a manufacturing company in Texas (not guitars) and got a factory tour -- it was really an amazing place, clean, modern, and safe. Workers were trained on the latest technologies and several still were able to use craftsman skills that few people have. Very happy people and no union!

 

 

Wow, what a overgeneralized stereotypical depiction of union workers. Try working in a Ford assembly plant and waking up each and every day feeling like you have been hit by a train and then talk to me about being paid beyond scale and being "lazy". BTW, the four most productive auto plants in North America were all union shops.

[gutter rock]

 

Unions built and then destroyed this country.. The sooner the last union is abolished, the better off the United States will be.

 

 

Unions in no way destroyed this country. Corporate greed and abusing cheap labor in third world countries is what hurt us. It is funny how little power the union has anymore, but yet all anti-union people act like they are this huge monster with a tight stranglehold on the US economy. Yet, the bankers that really got us in this mess don't garner near as much hatred.

[Alex W]

 

OSHA oversees factories these days, most are pretty guitar manufacturers in the US are open to the public as well (such as Gibson). The conditions are probably some of the best in the world. Most companies do not want to get in trouble with OSHA and have pretty stringent guidelines which is a good thing. I for one believe the days of organized labor have come and gone (they were needed at one time, agreed), we have enough federal and state guidelines and unions have really helped the US become uncompetitive in global manufacturing in negotiating pay beyond what the scale should be and benefits beyond what scale and skill should offer. They encourage mediocrecy in the work force (do the minimum for the most return) and really, they have become money and political machines for the union chiefs. I've worked with people who moved to my right to work state who are former union members and they are just horribly lazy. I worked with a manufacturing company in Texas (not guitars) and got a factory tour -- it was really an amazing place, clean, modern, and safe. Workers were trained on the latest technologies and several still were able to use craftsman skills that few people have. Very happy people and no union!

 

 

Have you ever worked in a factory? I did for a large portion of my working career and I can tell you that OSHA and the state guidelines are a joke. I could give you story after story. I have even seen a guy die because a company removed a safety guard...which the promptly replaced before OSHA investigated.

[boxorox]

Hey, I've lived in Boston. Living in an armpit is a step up.

[Shiny_Surface]

Many unions have become what they originally were formed to stand against, corrupt organizations in and of themselves.

[BadDaddy]

 

OSHA oversees factories these days, most are pretty guitar manufacturers in the US are open to the public as well (such as Gibson). The conditions are probably some of the best in the world. Most companies do not want to get in trouble with OSHA and have pretty stringent guidelines which is a good thing. I for one believe the days of organized labor have come and gone (they were needed at one time, agreed), we have enough federal and state guidelines and unions have really helped the US become uncompetitive in global manufacturing in negotiating pay beyond what the scale should be and benefits beyond what scale and skill should offer. They encourage mediocrecy in the work force (do the minimum for the most return) and really, they have become money and political machines for the union chiefs. I've worked with people who moved to my right to work state who are former union members and they are just horribly lazy. I worked with a manufacturing company in Texas (not guitars) and got a factory tour -- it was really an amazing place, clean, modern, and safe. Workers were trained on the latest technologies and several still were able to use craftsman skills that few people have. Very happy people and no union!

 

 

You haven't got a clue.

 

Over the last 37 years I have worked in industries that were regulated by OSHA and I have never seen OSHA do an inspection. I'm sure they have inspected some facilities I have worked at, but not that I was ever aware of and I have owned my own company for the last 15yrs without inspection.

 

Right to work states are a joke, and are just another way for employers to exploit the workforce. American wages have been in decline since 1971 when adjusted for inflation. Wonder why?

 

The need for labor unions is as great today as ever. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the United States and most of their employees earn a poverty wage with lousy benefits. The Walton family fortune is the largest fortune in the world, yet Wal-Mart has been caught forcing employees to punch out and work "off the clock". Several years ago the largest food chain in the South West (right to work states) was caught doing the same thing. Why?

 

It's true that the rich are getting richer, and that the poor are getting poorer, and it's because the workforce is not being paid their fair share.

[artiem]

It's true that the rich are getting richer, and that the poor are getting poorer, and it's because the workforce is not being paid their fair share.

Right on, man. The U.S. should become more like the workers paradises of Cuba and North Korea...they have 100% literacy and free health care. Plus, no rich people.

[Father_William]

 

Unions in no way destroyed this country. Corporate greed and abusing cheap labor in third world countries is what hurt us. It is funny how little power the union has anymore, but yet all anti-union people act like they are this huge monster with a tight stranglehold on the US economy. Yet, the bankers that really got us in this mess don't garner near as much hatred.

 

 

Absolutely. It seems many people are just jealous of what they THINK unions can, and do do, that they just feel left out and angry. Why having a legal and binding contract with a list of what you'll do, and what the company will do, is a bad thing, is beyond me.

We've given our jobs and future away for cheaper goods made elsewhere, that we won't be able to buy without a job.

Manufacturing has moved to China, engineering has moved to India and Africa is now rising as another low wage country looking for business.

There seems to be only a few ways to may money. You grow it, design it, manufacture it, service it or invest it. We seldom grow it, design it, manufacture it any more, and you can only service things when people can afford to hire you, and you have to HAVE it to invest.

[Alex W]

Too much inflation? Well then, someone should tell all the people who work at Wal-Mart that they have much better employment options elsewhere! Seriously, I'm sure Wal-Mart would be happy to double the pay of their employees, if you and I and everyone else were willing to pay 25-50% more for our toilet paper, beer, or underwear. Right on, man. The U.S. should become more like the workers paradises of Cuba and North Korea...they have 100% literacy and free health care. Plus, no rich people.

 

Ok captain capitalism...

 

1979-2005

[artiem]

Ok captain capitalism... 1979-2005

 

1. If you cite a chart, you need to show your source.

 

2. Your chart only shows the top/bottom % of the population, but we should not assume that the same group of individuals who were in the bottom 20% in 1979 are also in the bottom 20% in 2005. Given that the US takes in so many immigrants, wouldn't mobility of those in the bottom quintile be something of interest?

 

3. I never directly contested the assertion that real buying power of the poor is not increasing, but you can't blame the commercial world for not keeping up with the money-printing policies of several successive Fed Chairmen & Presidents (the blame here is bi-partisan, believe me).

 

Arguments about the share of the national wealth and who is getting it are tiresome. In a growing economy, the rich are ALWAYS going to get richer in $ terms than the poor. (Think about it: If a guy making $20k a year and a guy making $200k both get 10% raises, the gap increases.)

 

The objective of an economy is to improve the quality of life for the bottom. If you don't think this last point matters, ask yourself whether you'd rather be a member of the bottom 20% in the U.S., or in Mexico, or in Haiti? At one point in time, say 200 or 300 years ago, there was no meaningful difference in living standards in these places. So what accounts for the difference?

[BadDaddy]

 

1. If you cite a chart, you need to show your source. 2. Your chart only shows the top/bottom % of the population, but we should not assume that the same group of individuals who were in the bottom 20% in 1979 are also in the bottom 20% in 2005. Given that the US takes in so many immigrants, wouldn't mobility of those in the bottom quintile be something of interest? 3. I never directly contested the assertion that real buying power of the poor is not increasing, but you can't blame the commercial world for not keeping up with the money-printing policies of several successive Fed Chairmen & Presidents (the blame here is bi-partisan, believe me). Arguments about the share of the national wealth and who is getting it are tiresome. In a growing economy, the rich are ALWAYS going to get richer in $ terms than the poor. (Think about it: If a guy making $20k a year and a guy making $200k both get 10% raises, the gap increases.) The objective of an economy is to improve the quality of life for the bottom. If you don't think this last point matters, ask yourself whether you'd rather be a member of the bottom 20% in the U.S., or in Mexico, or in Haiti? At one point in time, say 200 or 300 years ago, there was no meaningful difference in living standards in these places. So what accounts for the difference?

 

 

You really don't get it. I'm sure that personally you are doing fine, but that's not the case for the majority of the American people.

 

I try to look at the "big" picture, and not just my situation. I do better than most, but I also see the American workforce is being systematically screwed.

 

In 1985 the workers at the Wal-Mart distribution center in Arkansas petitioned for better (and safer) working conditions. Sam Walton (the richest man in America) told them the money just wasn't there for what they were asking for. He could chosen to be the second richest man in America and given in to their request as well as paid all of Wal-Mart employees a decent wage, but there's never enough. If not for minimum wage laws the pay scale would be even lower. Why not? After all Wal-Mart systematically put competing American retailers and manufacturers out of business and has an ever growing pool of people that they can exploit.

 

In 1980 the top 1% of the wealthiest in America owned 7% of the wealth in America. By 2008 the top 1% owned 24% of the wealth. See a trend here?

[artiem]

 

You really don't get it. I'm sure that personally you are doing fine, but that's not the case for the majority of the American people. In 1985 the workers at the Wal-Mart distribution center in Arkansas petitioned for better (and safer) working conditions. Sam Walton (the richest man in America) told them the money just wasn't there for what they were asking for. He could chosen to be the second richest man in America and given in to their request as well as paid all of Wal-Mart employees a decent wage, but there's never enough.

 

 

With all due respect, I'm not sure you get it.

 

The wealth of the Walton family isn't really a factor here. From what I can tell in a quick Google search, the Walton family owns 43% of all Wal-Mart stock. If there is to be a reinvestment in the company in the form of higher employee wages, it would have to be borne by all shareholders. The other 57% includes many regular-Joe Americans, often through pension funds (yes, even union pension funds), retirement plans, etc. It's 2010, and a lot of people besides the filthy rich own stocks. The Waltons are just an easy target because unlike, say, the shareholders of Target or Costco, there isn't a highly-visible individual or single family for all the blame to be pointed at.

 

Let's suppose the shareholders decide to take it upon themselves give back their wealth to Wal-Mart employees in the form of higher wages. Wal-Mart currently employs 2.1 million people, so increasing their pay/benefits an average of $10,000/year would cost $21 billion A YEAR. This could only be sustained for a few years before the Walton family net worth was drained completely, so then what would happen? Shut down the whole operation, and put 2.1 million people out of work? Or pass along the price increases to the customers, which have the same effect (i.e. send customers to Target and Costco instead of Wal-Mart/Sams)?

 

While Wal-Mart, like most companies, deserves its share of criticism, today's world just isn't as simple as the rich taking from the poor.

[BadDaddy]

 

With all due respect, I'm not sure you get it. The wealth of the Walton family isn't really a factor here. From what I can tell in a quick Google search, the Walton family owns 43% of all Wal-Mart stock. If there is to be a reinvestment in the company in the form of higher employee wages, it would have to be borne by all shareholders. The other 57% includes many regular-Joe Americans, often through pension funds (yes, even union pension funds), retirement plans, etc. It's 2010, and a lot of people besides the filthy rich own stocks. The Waltons are just an easy target because unlike, say, the shareholders of Target or Costco, there isn't a highly-visible individual or single family for all the blame to be pointed at. Let's suppose the shareholders decide to take it upon themselves give back their wealth to Wal-Mart employees in the form of higher wages. Wal-Mart currently employs 2.1 million people, so increasing their pay/benefits an average of $10,000/year would cost $21 billion A YEAR. This could only be sustained for a few years before the Walton family net worth was drained completely, so then what would happen? Shut down the whole operation, and put 2.1 million people out of work? Or pass along the price increases to the customers, which have the same effect (i.e. send customers to Target and Costco instead of Wal-Mart/Sams)? While Wal-Mart, like most companies, deserves its share of criticism, today's world just isn't as simple as the rich taking from the poor.

 

 

Wal-Mart has 1.2 million employees, and while a 10 billion dollar increase in wages and benefits would be unsustainable, there is certainly enough profit to increase wages and benefits beyond there current levels while still allowing enormous profits for shareholders. BTW, the Walton family still owns the majority of voting stock and can (and do) operate the company as they see fit. Sam Walton ruled the company absolutely.

 

Wealth is mostly amassed and not created. There is only so much wealth to share in, and with our current trade deficits the amount of wealth to go around is shrinking.

 

If the trend of income in America continues as it has over the last 40yrs, we will revert to the economy of pre-WWII where the majority of the American people were poor. That's not the direction of the country I want.