Caterpillar to unions: Drop dead

[xchrom]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/caterpillar-to-unions-drop-dead/2012/08/03/7af72d6c-da9f-11e1-9745-d9ae6098d493_story.html

For decades, executives at unionized companies have harbored the fantasy that they could dictate the wages, benefits and working conditions of their employees, just like non-union firms. What stood in their way was the unions’ ability to mount a strike that would prove more costly than paying above-market compensation. In the language of economics, the strike gave workers market power.

Now, at a hydraulics plant in Joliet, Ill., this corporate fantasy is about to become economic reality. Thanks to globalization, declining union density and years of chipping away at labor laws, Caterpillar is set to prove that even unionized companies can operate as if they have no union at all.

It’s no longer just a matter of getting unions to agree to “concessions” and “give-backs” in order to save their plants or avoid corporate bankruptcy, as happened in the steel and auto industries. As Caterpillar aims to demonstrate in Joliet, even a thriving, global powerhouse posting record profits can take a strike and impose market-level wages and benefits on its unionized workers.

It’s been three months since Local 851 of the International Association of Machinists voted overwhelming to reject Caterpillar’s “best and final” offer and go out on strike. In terms of negotiations, there really haven’t been any. From the outset, Caterpillar made it clear that there really wasn’t anything to negotiate.

[Ilsa]

1. Caterpillar is near completion in building

A huge manufacturing plant in south Texas (Victoria). Of course, Texas is a Right-To-Work-For-Less state. And most folk down here are not familiar with the benefits of being unionized.

[LARED]

2. Actually a very good article

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2012, 08:44 AM - Edit history (1)

The first is to note that when it comes to its executives, managers and engineers, Caterpillar does not use the same criteria of paying the average market wage. In those instances, the company has seen the competitive benefit of paying above the average to attract and retain a cadre of above-average employees and give them sufficient incentive to work hard, take risks and deliver superior performance. There is no evidence to suggest that having better-than-average production workers will not have the same beneficial results. To believe or behave otherwise is nothing more than the sort of class snobbery better suited to the country-club locker room than the executive suite of a modern global corporation.

If union leadership truly worked with management to support better-than-average production workers. it could go a long way to protecting union jobs. My many years of experience with unions is its leadership protects marginal worker at all cost, and does little or nothing to hold accountable poor workers and help productive workers. They abdicate their leadership responsibility when the say accountability is soley managements responsibility.

The reality is that if workers are paid 34% above market just about any company working in a competitive market will close it's doors at some point. Unions would be well served to demand high quality productive work and work rules from it members. Instead they seem more interested in dividing labor in order to increase dues.

[Zalatix]

4. Wow, really? Great job promoting Republican anti-Union propaganda.

Does it occur to you that "market" wages suck? We should be fighting for higher wages for everyone, not knocking down Union workers so they can be reduced to struggling to make ends meet. As for accountability? Management is the LEAST accountable of all.


And you want to know what is MOST tragically wrong with your argument? Caterpillar is making RECORD PROFITS, and is paying its CEO record compensation, while they are demanding lower wages for their workers.

Seriously? I can't believe you wrote that.

[LARED]

6. Nonsense, what is wrote points to the need for Unions

to face reality. The old union model of strict work rules and work rules that create inflexibility and barriers to productivity in order to increase membership is broken and will not work in global market.

My point was that if union leadership worked a different model that promoted the best and most productive workforce and work rules they can better maintain high wages and benefits like management does at Cat for salary workers. If union leadership held members accountable and told worker they would not be supported for poor performance they would have better performance and pay. If union leadership worked to be competitive in a highly competitive global world they might survive.

As it is my 20 plus years of working in management in a manufacturing union environment tells me frontline union leadership fails to better the lives of the rank and file almost every time.

[Zalatix]

8. What is nonsense is your persistent use of Republican spoon-fed CANARDS.

Your entire anti-Union rant is full of lies and distortions.

You refuse to acknowledge the BASIC fact that the 'global market' is entire driven by a wages race to the bottom. Global competition is another word for "cheap, low wage labor". Worse yet, your argument is severely undermined by the fact that non-union workers are also losing their jobs to offshoring.

Your argument flies in the fact of the FACT that American worker productivity has risen by 300% since 1950 while wages have only gone up by 100%, which means wages have also fallen behind inflation.

You completely DISREGARD the fact that Caterpillar's profits are way up, and its CEO compensation is way up, but its wages are being pushed down.

Your entire canard-filled post blames UNIONS and completely holds MANAGEMENT innocent. A CLASSIC Republican CANARD / talking point.

Please, explain how Caterpillar's profits can go up, their CEO salary can go up, and yet you feel the WORKERS should suffer wage losses. Explain this and show me why any DEMOCRAT should accept this.

I say we raise the minimum wage, CAP CEO benefits, tax the FUCK out of companies that lower workers' pay while enjoying gobstoppingly high profits, AND slap a monstrous tariff on low wage nations. Protectionism all the way. No apologies, no retreat, no backing down.

[LARED]

14. Here's some reality for you

Your entire anti-Union rant is full of lies and distortions.


I said not a single anti-union thing


You refuse to acknowledge the BASIC fact that the 'global market' is entire driven by a wages race to the bottom. Global competition is another word for "cheap, low wage labor". Worse yet, your argument is severely undermined by the fact that non-union workers are also losing their jobs to offshoring.

You are right. Unions can adapt to that reality or become obsolete. My point was that if unions adapted models that encouraged the best trained and productive employees, they might have a better shot at surviving.

Your argument flies in the fact of the FACT that American worker productivity has risen by 300% since 1950 while wages have only gone up by 100%, which means wages have also fallen behind inflation.

That is an incomplete picture. productivitiy is a function of labor, technology and business processes. The reality is much of the productivity gained is around technology. Labor certainilty has a piece but it's likely far smaller than you think.

You completely DISREGARD the fact that Caterpillar's profits are way up, and its CEO compensation is way up, but its wages are being pushed down.

In the real world of competiion profits and wages have not much of a relationship. If you think that screaming about high profits is going to work in keeping union jobs, I'll see you on the unemployment line.

Your entire canard-filled post blames UNIONS and completely holds MANAGEMENT innocent. A CLASSIC Republican CANARD / talking point.

Nonsense. I was speaking about unions and how they can be improved. Management has plenty of problems. Unions thinking that blaming managment for all the problems are going down a road to nowhere.

Please, explain how Caterpillar's profits can go up, their CEO salary can go up, and yet you feel the WORKERS should suffer wage losses. Explain this and show me why any DEMOCRAT should accept this.

Where did I say workers should suffer wage losses? I'm pretty sure I was making the case that to secure better wages union need to adapt better business models.

I say we raise the minimum wage, CAP CEO benefits, tax the FUCK out of companies that lower workers' pay while enjoying gobstoppingly high profits, AND slap a monstrous tariff on low wage nations. Protectionism all the way. No apologies, no retreat, no backing down.

Sounds great, wonderful fighting words. But the reality is none of that is going to happen. So let try something else.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. And who defines "productivity"?..........

That's the job of management. And you're saying that the worker has no say in setting productivity goals. And nowdays and for the bigger, publically traded compaines, it's usually the stock market and the banks that set the goals by setting the amount of profit expected. So any sort of ridiculous "productivity" goals can be enacted by management, no matter how detrimental to the workforce, in order to meet the projections of Wall Street.

In your babble the worker has no say at all.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Union leaders do not protect marginal workers at all cost. That is a lie!!!

They are by federal law required to provide fair representation at all times. If they fail to do that the member/employee can take legal action against the union. By the way, in RTW states unions have to provide fair representation even to those that are not dues paying members.

Also, you paint a wide brush on all unions when you believe your own limited experience is the same for all unions. Not all unions have the same type of resources or the same structure. And their resources are not used to train employees to be better employees. That is the function of the employer.

Also, unions don't hire or fire the employees that are their members. That is the job of the employer. It is the employer's job to hold workers accountable for their productivity. It is the labor union's job to facilitate fair and equal treatment by the employer for their members.

[LARED]

11. I am simply telling my experience

Just once I would like to hear (or hear of) a steward or union leader tell a member to get their act to together or your going to get fired.

Instead I consistently heard over the years union representatives tell members "don't worry we will bring this case to arbitration and you will not lose your job. We are backing you up. No matter how embarrassingly bad of a employee they may be.

And you are absolutely correct. Everything I've said is based on my experience. My experience tell me the union models presently used in manufacturing are broken and not sustainable. In the long run unless union adapt to current market and business models you will become obsolete.

I have to disagree with these statements;

It is the employer's job to hold workers accountable for their productivity. It is the labor union's job to facilitate fair and equal treatment by the employer for their members.

That is the employer's job, and it should be part of the union leaderships role. If that was true, unions would be far better served.

[GrantDem]

13. Bullshit...

I'm not sure what union you are referencing but it sure as fuck are not the unions I'm familiar with.

[LARED]

15. Teamsters, Chemical workers and a few other. nt

Like I said I am only relaying my experiances with local unions. I am sure other unions are different.

[Brickbat]

16. "Just once I would like to hear (or hear of) a steward or union leader tell a member to get their

act to together or your (sic) going to get fired."

Here's a couple of free clues for you. They can't hire or fire anybody. And when they tell a member to shape up, they sure as hell don't do it in front of management.

[LARED]

18. And a free clue for you

Union leadership would better serve their membership if they made it clear that union has no interest in supporting poor performers.

Also another free clue. As management I have a pretty good idea what messages the leadership sends the rank and file behind closed doors, as people love to talk. And your right some leader do tell folks to shape up, but if unions leaders were leaders, the expectation would be clearly communicated that "we as a union expect high performers"

I have rarely seen that in my experience.

[socialist_n_TN]

20. What part of Federal law REQUIRING unions to represent............

ALL workers, even the ones who AREN'T union members, to the best of their ability or face legal penalties don't you understand?

If a union rep has to defend EVERYONE, even nonmembers, how are they going to be able to threaten members with firing for not being productive enough?

[GrantDem]

22. +1

[Teamster Jeff]

21. And when the Union clearly states that " we expect high performers"

(which is your job) and when the Union doesn't support "poor performers" (which is a violation of labor law) THEN.............The company demands wage and benefit cuts every time. Cheap labor is the only goal. Sorry but you are full of shit

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Your last sentence says it all.........

[Starry Messenger]

34. +++

[ret5hd]

30. And there we have it. You want the unions to do YOUR job.

[cap]

39. Your 20 years in management says it all

You want the rank and file to go back to the days when they were supported by their children in their old age, had no health care, and we're paid subsistence wages.

Are your poor performers to expect that kind of life style? It wou
D be great if

How about this as an alternative model. Let's return to some good old fashioned values. Sounds good to some with 20 years of management experience, doesnt it? Let's look at the Amish model of communitarianism. The Amish have a high incidence of birth defects and intellectual disability. Yet they provide for everyone.

[Bluzmann57]

27. I was a Union Steward at one time

And me and another steward told more than one person they were on the verge of being fired if they didn't straighten up and fly right. Now admittedly, word filtered down to us from management people, but we saved at least three jobs by that method that I know of. So there you have it. You have heard of a Steward telling an employee he is about to lose his job if things don't change.

[LiberalFighter]

31. What you remember hearing and what was actually stated are entirely different.

I seriously doubt that you heard first hand what a union representative stated to a member how they would help them save their job. And in the way you think they stated it. And you likely don't know every case you local union handle regarding termination cases.


If you think that it should be the union leadership's role to do management's job then they should also have the right to fire every damn incompetent intolerant salary person too. But it is the employer that pays the wages and benefits for all of their employees. Again, the union serves the members not the employer. And it is the union's function to bargain and enforce a contract.

Under federal law unions cannot:
1) Threaten employees with job loss if they don't support the union
2) Refuse to process grievances of employees who criticize union officials or do not join the union
3) Act in a discriminatory way when making job referrals from a hiring hall
4) Cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against employees because of their union-related activity
5) Take other adverse action against employees who do not support the union

[susanr516]

40. I was a job steward for over 12 years

Believe me, I told several people they were out of excuses and they had better make some big changes, and quickly. Of course, management never heard about it. Once the employee is facing disciplinary action, the union must represent the employee's interests. I can assure you that union stewards and officers DO tell poor performers their jobs are in jeopardy, but that is a private conversation between the steward and the employee. I worked in "right to work for less" Texas. I was required to defend everyone, even non-members, if they asked for union representation.

Heck, I lost count of the times a MANAGER called me into his/her office and told me I needed to talk with an employee about a substance abuse problem. The company wanted the employee to enter the union EAP program, rather than its own. I was a steward throughout the 80s, when cocaine was a massive problem at my workplace. Of course, the managers never reported the employee who was selling to them. On two occasions, employees ended up curled in a fetal position in a restroom from job stress. Management sent ME in to talk them into going to a hospital to be evaluated. And I did all this in addition to having every second of my day at the call center monitored for efficiency.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you would be a better manager if you quit looking at the union as your personal enemy.

[kurtzapril4]

42. I used to live with a guy

with a great union job at a manufacturing plant in Melrose Park, IL. $15/hr was a great wage in 1984.

This union had strict standards for its members. If you were late more than 3 times, you were fired. He was fired when he walked in late the 4th time.

[Ikonoklast]

43. And I will relate my experience as a shop steward, in one instance concerning work rules

and the need for them to exist.

Management took it upon themselves to let all the housekeeping people go in order to save money, and then told our membership that one person from each department, on a rotating basis, would now have to clean the restrooms.

To a person, they all refused to do so, as it was not in their job classification or job description as agreed to between the employer and the union.

Management's position was, "Too fucking bad", employees will do as they were told or face disciplinary action.

When the first person scheduled to clean the restrooms turn came up, they called in sick, using their contractual rights to a paid sick day. As scheduled hours were so tight as to have no slack in any department, as per management dictates, the job went undone that day.

Then the second person did the same, the third, and so on.


This went on for almost a month, and needless to say, the Health Department got a phone call to come out and inspect the state of cleanliness in the restrooms.

The inspector threatened to close the store on the spot if not immediately remedied...no soap in the dispensers, no towels to dry hands with, no toilet paper, you get the picture.

Owners got fined pretty stiffly for that little fit of stupidity.

There are work rules for a very good reason, and if management doesn't like them, then they should bargain with the membership to change them. If they cannot do so, then they should never agree to a contract in the first place and risk labor action, instead of signing it and then bellyaching about it.


And I find it funny that management in Germany, with some of the strongest unions on Earth with some extremely restrictive work rules to deal with, have no problems when dealing with organized employees on a fair and equitable basis.

But then, for the most part upper level German management aren't raping the companies for all they are worth as fast as they can, then moving on as they do in this country.

[hay rick]

45. You won't hear if you don't listen.

I spent many years as a steward (NALC). I handled many discipline cases. My job was not only to defend employees, but also to inform them. I told them about their rights and also about their obligations. I told people to " get their act to together or you're going to get fired..." on a regular basis. I told them that because it was true.

I also told them because I didn't want to see them as repeat customers. Discipline was progressive and could result in the employee being fired. This was more than a theoretical possibility. I represented 40 people, and in the last 2+ years that I was a steward I had to fight 10 "letters of removal"- i.e., attempts by management to fire employees. The contract, signed by both management and labor, called for disciplinary procedures that were supposed to be "corrective, not punitive"- but management routinely abused the discipline articles of the contract as an intimidation tactic.

I won every removal case.

The contract included productivity rules. Management's rights included a 90-day probationary period during which employees could be terminated without recourse to any contractual appeal. Unproductive employees were quickly weeded out before the union could represent them in the disciplinary process. The ones who made it through the probationary period were capable employees and deserved consideration and respectful treatment.

The union "protecting nonproductive employees" is a stereotype worthy of Fox News. Of all the employees who I defended over the years, I had exactly one who I believed should really be fired. All the rest were being abused and I was proud to put a stop to it. The one employee who should have been fired: I saved his job twice and then I talked him into resigning.

[sabrina 1]

46. current market and business models have destroyed the middle class in this country, in South America

in Europe and anywhere this 'global market and business model' has reared its ugly head. I can't imagine why anyone would be trying to get workers anywhere, here or elsewhere, to adjust to a totally failed 'business model'. I think it's 'management' that needs to 'face reality'. The working class in case you haven't noticed, all over the world is rising up against this failed model.

Things are changing fast all over the world, because the HAVE TO. Workers are going global now too. The ONLY reason this 'business model' worked up to now is because Corporations, which went Global long before the people understood what was going on, could go to slave labor countries and use child labor, take our tax dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, and maximize their profits, taking jobs out of the country, forcing workers in First World Countries to compete with slave labor and from every study on what this has done to workers everywhere, it is a failure.

You are basically saying workers should accept what is now for the first time being recognized as a disaster for workers everywhere, including those in third world countries, rather than join forces with workers everywhere, become Global like the Corporations, which is beginning to happen and insist on improving the standards everywhere.

You're not facing the current reality, workers everywhere have had enough of the 'business model' that has destroyed the living standards of all but a few.

[NNN0LHI]

37. People who promote that lie always think they can suck the bosses ass better than everybody else

That has been my experience anyway.

Don

[99Forever]

10. I find anti-union propaganda and lies...

.. to be especially vile, evil, and disgusting. Please don't ask what I think of those that spread them, you won't like the answer.

[LARED]

12. I agree nt

[RetroLounge]

19. Your anti-union bullshit should get you TS'd

But this is DU, where repug talking points are embraced.

PFO

RL

[leftstreet]

35. +1

What you said

[NNN0LHI]

38. I agree with that statement 100%

Been going on around here forever.

Don

[2ndAmForComputers]

44. Your post is factually correct.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. +1

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

29. Ummmmm excuse me

but it's the job of management to hold workers accountable. No union willingly protects bad workers. The old 'unions protect marginal/bad workers' line is management propaganda. A contract exists between the two parties. If the union worker is not holding up his end, he can be fired. That means management has to do some work to prove it. It's easier to sit in the office and bitch about the union and have folks like you repeat the bullshit.

[Zorra]

33. ***U.S. Leads Productivity Ranking; China Gains***. Your whole schtick is bankster bullpoopie.

We're totally getting screwed, dude.

Ever read Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer? He tricks other kids into whitewashing a fence for him for nothing, getting him out of doing the work, and making them think they are getting a great deal at the same time.

It's just like the same Koch Bros. Scott Walker Reaganite pro-Wall St. globalist, anti-union bankster poop that has been pounded into us since 1980 that has brainwashed poverty stricken Fox News viewers into believing that unions are bad for them, and one primary reason why our economy is in the toilet.

Corporations want to bleed workers of their last drop of blood, and they want it at rock bottom cost.

Please, stop buying into this retro-Feudalist ideology , and stop trying to spread it. It's deadly poison for America.

U.S. Leads Productivity Ranking

DUBLIN, Sept. 3 (Reuters) — American workers are the world’s most productive, followed by the Irish, though productivity is rising fastest in China and much of the rest of Asia, according to the International Labor Organization.

U.S. Economy: Worker Productivity Surges and Labor Costs Drop

The productivity of U.S. workers grew in the second quarter at the fastest pace in almost six years as employers slashed payrolls to bolster profits.

Productivity, a measure of how much an employee produces for each hour worked, rose at an annual 6.4 percent pace, more than forecast, after a 0.3 percent gain the prior three months, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. Labor costs fell by the most in eight years.

Labor Unions: Good for Workers, Not for U.S. Competitiveness

The favorability ratings for labor unions remain at nearly their lowest level in a quarter century with 45% expressing a positive view. Yet the public expresses similar opinions about business corporations -- 47% have a favorable impression -- and this rating is also near a historic low.

Americans express mixed views of the impact of labor unions on salaries and working conditions, international competitiveness, job availability and productivity.

About half (53%) say unions have had a positive effect on the salaries and benefits of union workers, while just 17% say they have had a negative effect. Views are similar about the impact of unions on working conditions for all workers (51% positive, 17% negative).

The excerpt above shows that really, really stupid people have been brainwashed into believing that they should be paid less, with no benefits, and no labor representation, in order that we may have fewer jobs with more labor competition, and work ever harder, so that the multi-national corporations that sent their jobs overseas could make record profits.

How stupid is that?



Come into the light.

[dordtrecht5]

49. it is important to remember one thing

Whether you like it or not, whether someone may be union or non-union, if you work in a manufacturing facility in the US you are facing a GLOBAL MARKET. You are faced with the prospect of how the company views you as labor. What this means to you and I is the fact has to be faced that you are not bargaining like it was back in the 50s where US manufactures competed against the cost of the US worker alone. What I mean by that is right now, if you work for a international company like Caterpillar, you are not worth the US dollar, you are only worth the cheapest currency of the lowest paid worker within the same field. For example, if I am a machinist (of which I am not) and I make $20/hr at a Cat facility in the US, Cat doesn't look at me with eyes of admiration because I am a skilled worker and take pride in my job being willing to pay higher wages because its a moral thing to do. To Caterpillar you are really only worth the fifty cent per hour worker in China because that person will do the job for that, NOT BECAUSE he isn't a good worker or doesn't take pride.

US manufacturers do NOT sell their product cheaper because they are paying cheaper wages. Their only interest is PROFIT margin: decreasing cost to increase profit.

[jp11]

36. What you are suggesting seems it would have the great potential

to fuel more anti-union sentiment among the population. If unions were to transition to some kind of 'elite' workforce, and I don't know how they do this, you push out a great many 'average' workers along with all those you consider to be marginal. While seemingly setting the standards to make people work to death to 'prove' they are superior as you make it easier to fire people.

In today's job market nearly every worker has to be better than average or they are on a clock until they get fired or have to deal with reduced hours, being skipped over or otherwise subtly told "quit cause you are going nowhere here". I wouldn't disagree there are some really horrible 'workers' in the workforce and they somehow manage to stay employed union or no union. I'd love to see those people that made my job harder, didn't do their fair share or otherwise let other people do their job for them fixed to stop doing that or just let go. BUT at the same time you will be setting some standard, and I don't know where you go with it, that everyone must adhere to making the entry point even harder/higher for jobs.

In many fields it makes sense that workers have a certain amount of training/competence but many others have no such requirement and the only real way I can see to judge them as being 'superior' to other non-skilled workers is about treating them like slave labor. It seems to me you either go that route with employees that have to put on this hyper cheery facade then submit to whatever management suggests, work overtime, stay late, come in on your day off, work that holiday, work through your vacation, and so on. The only other thing that comes to mind is some sort of employee tracking/data collection but it seems that would just put an extra burden on management as well as the employee to track their 'performance' all in the hopes of counting how long they take to do this, how many units they produce or how often they take an extra minute or three for lunch and so on. That easily has the characteristic of treating people like machines, who can get me the most bang for my buck per hour regardless of what that does to their life, health etc because we are only concerned about their cost per hour. With not enough jobs there are people willing to sacrifice their lives/health/etc to work and that pushes out those who can't.

I can see a point in unions taking more or some responsibility to have members be 'better' but the question of how you do that I raise above is a roadblock to that as well as kicking out/refusing membership to employees is yet another weapon against an already weakened establishment. Envision the 'marginal' employees and those that just didn't work hard/fast enough to keep their jobs on the news trashing unions.

Unions side with their members and 'against' management rightly so simply because management is and has been angling to put more burdens on workers. If workers hadn't been getting screwed over by management there wouldn't have been a need FOR unions. I sadly think the only way to have unions gain a resurgence in this country is for them to fall and die then have workers face all the greedy/crappy policies that wet the dreams of many of the owners/CEO's. Too many don't see how unions made working better or how the decline of unions has hurt the average employee. Many are too focused on someone else having it slightly better or maybe a 'lot' better than them, they say screw the union and the other working person who has it better while wanting to protect the precious fragile uncertain rich 'job creator' they hope to save them or become one day.

You say unions only care about trying to increase dues and I think they are more about trying to get and keep members, perhaps dues is an issue and if so it is because they still think they can buy 'fixes' from politicians. I think we might both agree they really don't have a chance of doing better(in any way) until they realize that they can never buy enough politicians or the kinds of change management can and has been doing for decades.

You are correct any business competing in the lower wage global market financed by our government to offshore jobs while maintaining the status quo, keeping wages stagnant, cutting benefits/pensions/etc could fairly easily be shutdown. The reality is the reason union workers make more than private sector employees in the same jobs is they had a union to fight and bargain with management while the private sector just slashed and burned with virtually no opposition except maybe some politicians they couldn't buy who were probably too weak to stop them anyway. For management it has and is just a matter of time before they buy what they want as they've been doing for so long. If they don't wipe out unions in the next 20 years they can do that in 30, they have virtually unlimited money and the ability to use it with their own aristocratic views on the world.

I just see the issues of trying to move to this 'superior' worker working against unions that already have far too many apathetic to their existence. I could be wrong perhaps if unions could push through what you suggest they'd come out stronger but I just think that management would accept a lower 'quality/productive' worker at reduced wages over union workers who might be 'better' and all uppity as to make demands or expect contracts/etc.

[pampango]

3. I believe that Caterpillar's tactic is called "Boulwarism” after a GE negotiator in the late 1940's.

"for decades GE ... spread whatever gains its unions made to non-union workers, to keep organizing at bay.

But after losing a 1946 strike badly, management adopted a hard-line stance against unions, preaching the gospel of individual responsibility. GE closed plants in the unionized North, shipping jobs South and West, and adopted a “take it or leave it” approach to negotiations, termed “Boulwarism” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulwarism) after its labor relations chief.

The company was a model of de-unionization and corporate triumphalism...

The combined strategies paid off handsomely. The company employed 150,000 union workers in 1969. Last year’s joint bargaining covered just 15,500."

http://www.alternet.org/story/154990/50_percent_pay_cuts_at_ge%27s_plants%3A_is_this_the_future_of_american_jobs

On another note, from the article linked in the OP:

"Caterpillar makes no bones about the fact it intends to bring its “market-based” approach to worker pay and benefits to every location. That message, apparently, was lost on the 465 unionized workers at a 62-year-old locomotive plant in London, Ontario, that Caterpillar bought a few years ago. Those workers had been getting $35 an hour. Caterpillar’s take-it-or-leave-it offer was for half that, along with substantial cuts in benefits. When the workers balked, Caterpillar closed the plant, took its cutting-edge diesel-electric technology and moved production to Muncie, Ind., where workers lined up for a shot at one of $12- to$18-an-hour jobs."

On the surface a win for the US since Caterpillar closed a factory in Canada and moved it to the US. But is it really? Since it is part of Caterpillar's union-breaking strategy can it be considered a win for US workers when union jobs (admittedly in another country) are eliminated and non-union jobs (admittedly in the US) take their place?

[Zalatix]

5. I'm sure you'd be happier if they moved the jobs to China.

Why are you going on about Boulwarism when you've made a reputation here of militantly defending outright offshoring to nations where $12 an hour is outright affluence?

[leftyohiolib]

7. sounds like the machinist's union needs to goto muncie

[GrantDem]

23. +1

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Exactly. By confining this to one plant........

and one local, any talk of solidarity are just words. This needs to spread not only to every Catepiller location, but to every union that has anything to DO with Catepiller.

Worker's Power's take said the same thing. http://www.workerspower.net/machinists-battle-caterpillar-in-joliet-il

[Starry Messenger]

17. recommended.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Here's a little more militant take than the Washington Post..........

http://www.workerspower.net/machinists-battle-caterpillar-in-joliet-il

[dordtrecht5]

48. This article helps, but

that doesn't really answer any of the problems inherent within the labor itself. Kudos for helping people to understand why Caterpillar is not labor friendly though. I have always thought it was this type of explanation but was not able to pinpoint the position. This article does that.

Before I respond any further, I would like to say that I am a dues paying member to two unions: International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers and United Steel Workers. I have been an ironworker for 15 years, and I hired onto Caterpillar in 2012. With that caveat I will remind anyone who reads this that I am fully committed to union labor and WILL NOT work non-union. When I worked iron there has always been a sense of pride of putting in a day's work for a day's wages: 8 for 8. It is not uncommon for an ironworker to brag about what he did that day at the local watering hole after the day was done. Or, better yet, to go home to his family and be proud of his labor, desiring to come back to work the next day to do it again.

However, what I have noticed in the shop environment is the constant infighting amongst shift. Bitching about who doesn't do enough. Also, the habitual attitude of being against the company, so much that I have seen workers (who call themselves union brothers) sleep on their shift, read the newspaper while on shift, get a quarter of the work done that is required, etc. Not only that, but it is hidden by other brothers so they are not called a "rat." These same men seem to take a certain pride in "sticking it to the man" in whatever fashion they deem necessary. The plant that I work in is a haven and incubator for laziness and unaccountability. And, YES, it is MOSTLY management's fault. However, the Union holds a bit of responsibility as well, especially when it comes to the amount of bullshit they stick up for in people who have shitty work ethic. You see, if somebody in the Building Trades were to do that he'd be kicking rocks back to the Union Hall begging for another job because the contractor wouldn't put up with that bullshit. In the Building Trades the Steward is there for the best interest of the worker, BUT (and it's a big one too) the Steward is there to serve the company as well. In the shop I work in the Stewards are not allowed to say anything about a worker's performance to the worker. I find it amazing that these same workers can actually be proud to take their paychecks home to their families.

IMO it is OUR responsibility to hold our brothers accountable if management will not do anything. There are very few men and women that I desire lose a job because they have their head up their ass and not working well. However, I believe that we should collectively go to that person and tell them to step up their game. It's called "tough love." If a family member that you love were to screw up and get involved with something they shouldn't, would you stand there and watch them fall? If you would, you're a fucking idiot! It's the same with a union brother, stand up, grow some balls and tell that brother to get their act together.

With that said, there are too many suck-asses who belly up with their managers. Managers, in turn, will not do anything about work performance because they are scared of the backlash it would have on them with other workers in their team. It is a viscous cycle of negative affect. I don't trust anybody in management because they seem to be mostly two-faced, back-stabbers. However, if a slug is a slug get rid of him, but they won't. IMO the reason they won't is because, especially in our shop, the managers are anti-union themselves. I truly believe Caterpillar loves it when a manager won't reprimand a worker for poor work performance because it gives them more power to use against the collective bargaining table during negotiations.

I just got out of the "yearly survey" that Cat does, and at the end told them exactly how I felt about their managers. They are shitty managers that love to blame people for their own lack of management skill. They like to take all the credit when things are going well, but when shit hits the fan they start pointing fingers.

[still_one]

28. The problem is that since reagan I believe the union vote has been split between republicans and

Democrats. In Wisconsin I think 38% of union households voted for scott walker

This did not happen over night, it took years. Why do people vote against their own interest?

I suspect when Jimmy Carter deregulated the airline industry that is what gave republicans their in roads to start their goal of destroying unions

[Populist_Prole]

41. Now THIS should be the stuff of populist campaigning

This is about the working class' very viability. Caterpillar and corporate America want you to think that they would be more fair if we were totally free of unions, that it's all about unions. It is not. They are just hammering unions because it's the only thing that has a chance of putting them in check, and because of the stigma they have in red-stater's minds.

It'll really be open season on the working class if their were no contractual language to protect them.