Union rejects Harley's ‘pay cuts for jobs’ proposal

[Bob]

The United Steel Workers Union has rejected a “lower wages for new hires” offer by Harley-Davidson.

In return for the cuts, Harley had promised a $120 million expansion in Milwaukee of larger motorcycle engines and transmissions. The cuts – which would have lowered wages for new hires by as much as one-third and reduced health and pension benefits for all workers - are needed to manage costs over the long term, said Rod Copes, vice president and general manager of the company's Pilgrim Road Powertrain Operations.

The vote does not put jobs in Milwaukee in jeopardy, but it does mean Harley will be look to expand elsewhere, a company official said. It employs about 4,500 people in the Milwaukee area.

[Lou Girardin]

They'll build them in China, just like their aftermarket stuff.

[Pwalo]

That's going to help build quality.

[The Pastor]

you can get very good quality in china, you just have to (like everywhere else) pay for it.

[oldrider]

Typical union thinking, they want no part of being responsible for the business they sponge off unless it is to share in the profits the business makes during good times.

Ask them to share in the loss during bad times and that is not their problem!

Eventually the parasite consumes the host and they all die! :doh: Unions are just shallow thinking grabbers with hidden agendas! (IMHO) :yes: John.

[Paul in NZ]

That's going to help build quality.


Sadly - it probably will...

[ManDownUnder]

Typical union thinking, they want no part of being responsible for the business they sponge off unless it is to share in the profits the business makes during good times.

Ask them to share in the loss during bad times and that is not their problem!

Eventually the parasite consumes the host and they all die! :doh: Unions are just shallow thinking grabbers with hidden agendas! (IMHO) :yes: John.

Very (and sadly) true. But then, here's an example of the free market doing it's thing. The Union will say no, the company won't be able to afford to expand and it's all downhill from there.

Workers get laid off, or compeition will eat profits and then workers get laid off... and things spiral downhill.

[Ixion]

Typical union thinking, they want no part of being responsible for the business they sponge off unless it is to share in the profits the business makes during good times.

Ask them to share in the loss during bad times and that is not their problem!

Eventually the parasite consumes the host and they all die! :doh: Unions are just shallow thinking grabbers with hidden agendas! (IMHO) :yes: John.

Shocking ain't it. Pity to let the FACTS get in the way.

Truth is that there ARE no bad times. HD profits are soaring .


Harley-Davidson 3Q Profit Up 18 Percent


By EMILY FREDRIX
AP Business Writer
Published October 12, 2006, 12:51 PM CDT

MILWAUKEE -- Harley-Davidson Inc. said Thursday its third-quarter profit jumped 18 percent, lifted by a rise in retail sales of its namesake motorcycles.

Net income for the quarter ended Sept. 24 totaled $312.7 million, or $1.20 per share, compared with a profit of $265 million, or 96 cents per share, a year ago. Revenue climbed 14 percent to $1.64 billion from $1.43 billion last year.

Analysts expected a profit of $1.10 on revenue of $1.58 billion, according to a poll by Thomson Financial.

Worldwide retail sales of Harley-Davidson motorcycles grew 8.9 percent. Shipments grew 10.8 percent to 97,046 units. Domestic retail sales were up 6.7 percent, while international sales were up 18.7 percent overall, the Milwaukee-based company said.



So, HD management are saying to the workers "Well done . You've all done very well. Worked hard, and now profits are at an all time high . In fact business is so good we can hardly keep up with the demand, so we are going to expand capacity. So, in exchange for all your hard work ,loyalty and dedication, we want you all to take a swingeing big pay cut. OK ?"

What you YOU say to such a proposal?

Seems to me its the management that are being parasitic here , not the workers. I suspect that HD , like most companies , could lose an awful lot of bean counters and HR droids without noticing any problems. Losing the same number of guys who actually PRODUCE THE GOODS might be another matter.

[Macktheknife]

Shocking ain't it. Pity to let the FACTS get in the way.

Truth is that there ARE no bad times. HD profits are soaring .


So, HD management are saying to the workers "Well done . You've all done very well. Worked hard, and now profits are at an all time high . In fact business is so good we can hardly keep up with the demand, so we are going to expand capacity. So, in exchange for all your hard work ,loyalty and dedication, we want you all to take a swingeing big pay cut. OK ?"

What you YOU say to such a proposal?

Seems to me its the management that are being parasitic here , not the workers. I suspect that HD , like most companies , could lose an awful lot of bean counters and HR droids without noticing any problems. Losing the same number of guys who actually PRODUCE THE GOODS might be another matter.

I too thought that HD had experienced a strong growth period, what the hell do they need to try and screw the workforce for? Increasing sales and profits across the board, strong forecasts of more of the same, lets cut wages and benefits and see how much we can milk this baby!
I have no problem with businesses making good profits but why would you screw your workforce to get it? Makes better sense to me to build a strong workforce with high loyalty to the company, sustainable growth and enduring profits.

[Paul in NZ]

It's a common problem - how does HD reduce the unit cost and maximise the profit while still giving the impression that these bikes are made in the good ole US of A buy steel working union labour etc etc...

Well this aint it....

A commentary on a recent tour of the US led a friend to remark just how many businesses and houses in rural areas were plain abandoned. Went bust and walked away abandoned.... The common answer was when the jobs went, so did the people and the US (like all countries), the consumers and the businesses that are native to those countries need to be a little careful.

Lower wages mean more profit and easier to compete in the market but what is the point when the market's ability to purchase the goods reduces?

HD has deliberately priced the bikes high and restricted supply to keep the demand high. Extra capacity could be a mistake and without going into the detail, antagonising the already po'd unions could be a grave mistake. No matter how many bikes they sell to rock stars, once HD looses the working / middle class dream market they will be in big trouble.

Oh well - WTF do I care - let them eat cake I say...

[oldrider]

Maybe some of us need glasses, I read that HD were proposing to start the new workers in the new plant at a lower rate than their existing workers that have helped carry them along the path to success but the union would not play ball, they want all the new staff to be paid at the higher rate!
Displaying a lack of flexibility by the union to work in with the management!
Read it again! Maybe you haven't got all the FACTS right you self. John.

[Ixion]

Not quite


But union president James Wheiland told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that more than two-thirds of the union's 1,500 members voted against the proposal, which would have lowered wages for new hires by as much as one-third and reduced health and pension benefits for all workers.


So managment wanted to shaft ALL their workers , but new ones even worse. Health and pension benefits are a part of pay. How about I suggest you take a one third cut in YOUR pension and give the money to me? Still reckon that wouldn't be a pay cut?

And what about MANAGEMENT displaying some flexibility to work in with the work force ?

Why is it always the worker that is supposed to willingly take a pay cut? Bet you any money management weren't proposing to cut their own salaries or benefits. Or the shareholders dividend.

There might be a a case for expecting the workers (and bad mouthing "the union" is just a euphemism for bad mouthing the workers. The decision was a democratic vote) to take a pay cut . But when the company is rolling in the money its just an insult.

[oldrider]

Not quite


So managment wanted to shaft ALL their workers , but new ones even worse. Health and pension benefits are a part of pay. How about I suggest you take a one third cut in YOUR pension and give the money to me? Still reckon that wouldn't be a pay cut?

And what about MANAGEMENT displaying some flexibility to work in with the work force ?

Why is it always the worker that is supposed to willingly take a pay cut? Bet you any money management weren't proposing to cut their own salaries or benefits. Or the shareholders dividend.

There might be a a case for expecting the workers (and bad mouthing "the union" is just a euphemism for bad mouthing the workers. The decision was a democratic vote) to take a pay cut . But when the company is rolling in the money its just an insult.

Suit your self, I think unions are the ones who need the confrontational workplace and they are the ones who keep it going.

If there is no common enemy why would they need to "unite"? Why would they need a union? Who then would be out of a job? John.

[Lou Girardin]

If there is no common enemy why would they need to "unite"? Why would they need a union? Who then would be out of a job? John.

Perhaps they want a 40 hour week. Remember that?
Now they call it "work, life balance". Still have to work all the hours you're told though. It's up to you to balance the rest
Perhaps they wanted to stop child labour.
Perhaps they want to be treated with simple human dignity and receive a fair days pay for a fair days work.
Perhaps laissez fair capitalism is the true parasite.

[Scouse]

Typical union thinking, they want no part of being responsible for the business they sponge off unless it is to share in the profits the business makes during good times.

Ask them to share in the loss during bad times and that is not their problem!

Eventually the parasite consumes the host and they all die! :doh: Unions are just shallow thinking grabbers with hidden agendas! (IMHO) :yes: John.Fuck take that record off its scrached and keeps repeting its self
Oh and by the way your a Cock unions are a necesary evil because of facists twats like yourself

[oldrider]

Fuck take that record off its scrached and keeps repeting its self
Oh and by the way your a Cock unions are a necesary evil because of facists twats like yourself

My opinion, your opinion, you don't "have" to read it! There is no censorship here, is there? John.

[PLUG]

My opinion, your opinion, you don't "have" to read it! There is no censorship here, is there? John.

... well said OR ... rather restrained of you i must say ...

... cut him some slack ... he probably spilt his latte, whilst stuck in a traffic jam, scalding the meat & two vege to the point it was down right uncomfortable for him to put on his tutu & attend ballet practice ... so he's stuck at home, in a less than delightful mood, with a pack of frozen peas on his unmentionables & what was once a small external organ is now an internal one & his mum want to put some cream on it but she can't find the magnifying glass & tweezers ... all the time he's on the phone to his therapest who tells him to let it out & you just happened to cop it ...

:Offtopic:

... wonder what part the main stream media has to play in this ... they love negative confrontational stuff & seem to never let fact get in the way of a good headline ... i'm sure we are only hearing spun versions of each sides objectives ... interested to see how it will play out ...

[Bob]

Time to clamber off my usual neutral perch...

Unions - why do we need them? Because without them, the laws that exist today to protect us in the workplace would not be there. So we'd be expected to work as long as we were told. We would be expected to work in whatever unsafe and unsanitary conditions our employers felt "fit". We would be expected to work for whatever pittance our employers felt fit to throw us out of their bulging moneybags.

My father was a Union Rep - and sat on sub-committies that put together things like the Shops, Offices and Warehouses Act. An act that ensured decent working conditions, safety devices being provided and so forth.

Without unions, do you really expect your employers would have brought in these things out of the goodness of their own hearts? You need a balance in this world. Unions provide it.

But back to H-D...

At present, H-D are generating the largest profits in company history. They do realise that they need to move into other areas to maintain this (baby boomer generation getting older, not sure how much of a pull Buell is at getting the younger riders on board, who will turn into H-D riders in time etc). Which means building more export machinery.

BUT, they're expecting the existing workforce to reduce their pensions and lose benefits. And also create a two-tier workforce, where you get paid more just because you were there before the new plan came in. So that isn't going to generate unhappiness, disparity and a "2nd class" worker then?

What the union is doing in this case is not to be disruptive or deliberately arguementative - they are looking to protect the interests of ALL their membership/entire workforce, both existing and future.

OK, not heard if there are any gestures from the management - but I do wonder if THEY have offered to take paycuts, lose benefits etc to help fund this expansion and stand alongside their workforce? And why do I doubt that has happened?

Of course, Indian are going to be looking at recruiting soon... I bet there are going to be a few disgruntled H-D workers that wouldn't mind an approach.

[Bob]

... ... he probably spilt his latte, whilst stuck in a traffic jam, scalding the meat & two vege to the point it was down right uncomfortable for him to put on his tutu & attend ballet practice ...

Someone DEFENDING a union being described in terms of "spilling lattes, attending ballet practice" etc? Shum mishtake shurely?

[oldrider]

My comments were deliberately provocative but not personal, the post by Bob was a headline brief and therefore not complete but he did give a lead to where the full report could be found.

The news item is of interest to this forum because it is about a motorcycle company that is of "great" interest to many of our KB members.

It is a company with a long history as a motorcycle producer and if it went the way of many other of our classic motorcycle brands, it would be another tragedy.

It is not inconceivable that HD could end up closing it's doors because of this type of incident and it will have it's origins because of some bad decisions being made by the parties involved,rather than the failure of the "brand" or the "bike".

In this instance it is most likely to be attributed to either "Management" or the "Union". There will be many other factors but these are the big obvious ones that will be reported.

In these cases the unions always take the high moral ground and blame the management and that is the line projected by the media when they become involved.

I wanted to make the observation that it is not necessarily always the case and despite all that Bob has said about the historic facts being true, there are and have been many cases that I know of where the unions of today have provoked divide and conquer tactics to the detriment of all involved.

Just because history suggests unions were necessary in the past, does that mean that they are automatically without question, necessarily as relevant today.

Many Labour party supporters are still as loyal today as they were in days gone by because, they personally have not changed their views and seek more of what Labour gave to them, or their parents were Labour supporters and they carry on the family tradition of voting Labour regardless.

Like Bob's undying loyalty to his father's involvement in the Union movement.

My question really is, are the unions of today as relevant as the unions of yesteryear and are they projecting the benefits for their "members" or are they simply feathering their own nests at the "expense" of their members!

Does industry require the divide and conquer mechanisms of "them and us" today, who needs it the most and who projects it the most?

Do the workers of today follow blindly without question, the direction projected by the union (against the "common" enemy) or do they listen carefully to what their employer is saying that they (the company) needs to make the business work?

Today we have a far more educated public and workforce than was the case when unions were "necessary", industry needs educated workers and all of the parties involved need to be focused on the objectives of their given business process just to stay in the game.

So who needs division the most? Not the managers or the workers, they have common objectives but without division and discontent, the union executives would not be needed and therefore even cease to exist!

Again, the question, are unions as relevant today as they were yesterday or are they simply carrying on with the battles despite the war having been won?

Have you ever heard of a rabbit board that ever got rid of all of the rabbits? No rabbits, no rabbit board, no jobs, no need, solution, continue to farm rabbits!

All I ask is that people think for themselves, instead of being blindly lead by someone else following his own agenda but flying the flag that attracts the most blind believers.

Motorcyclists tend to be more the individualist and free thinking than most and as one of you I just like to present another point of view.

I also hope that sanity prevails in the HD situation and that we do not lose another motorcycle "icon" brand for all the wrong reasons.

As for my going on like a cracked record, I accept the criticism and thank you for expressing it but as a KB member I reserve the right to do so as long as there are police bashing threads etc appearing ad nauseam on this forum. John.

[Paul in NZ]

Have you ever heard of a rabbit board that ever got rid of all of the rabbits? No rabbits, no rabbit board, no jobs, no need, solution, continue to farm rabbits!

John.

erm - you may want to choose another example there John - once the rabbit boards went there was not really much of an improvement that I can see but I'll happily accept correction, you are closer to the burrow than me...

I'm not sure HD is a great example to choose either. The marketing of the brand is very well done and the purchase price is not a big deal in the greater scheme of things as it is an aspirational product. The limited supply keeps the used price high and that acts as a reasonable incentive to stretch the budget to purchase. The models are relatively long lived as well which also helps. What will kill them is falling too far behind technically (small risk) or loosing the 'image' which will kill sales quicker than anything. There will always be a core of died in the wool enthusiasts but history has shown (in the AMC years) that these folks don't buy enough every year for HD to survive.

HD moving into new markets has been tried before and it's not something that they have done well with. In many ways it devalues the brand and HD should think carefully before repeating the mistakes of the 60's and 70's.

Frankly - unionised labour forces are the least of their worries...

[Bend-it]

I don't see the problem here... If people are happy to work underthose conditions, then good for them! Existing workers aren't getting a pay cut at all, just new hires...

[Bonez]

HD moving into new markets has been tried before and it's not something that they have done well with. In many ways it devalues the brand and HD should think carefully before repeating the mistakes of the 60's and 70's.

HD have only survived because of vevies placed on other brands by the Govt or have folk forgotten that?

[eliot-ness]

there are and have been many cases that I know of where the unions of today have provoked divide and conquer tactics to the detriment of all involved.[QUOTE]

In this case it would seem it's the management who are using the divide and conquer routine. It's they who are proposing a two tier wage system.

[QUOTE]Just because history suggests unions were necessary in the past, does that mean that they are automatically without question, necessarily as relevant today.'[QUOTE]

I would suggest that the union organizations are more relevant now than they were 40 years ago. When Muldoon started to deregister the unions, the closed shop practice was dropped followed shortly after by the scrapping of wage and conditions agreements fought long and hard for by the unions, leading to wage cuts, in some cases large ones. With the promise from the ruling political party that no one would suffer by dropping out of the union many workers decided that their weekly contribution would be better in their pocket. The result was they had no one to fight their battle and had to suffer the consequences.

[QUOTE]Many Labour party supporters are still as loyal today as they were in days gone by because, they personally have not changed their views and seek more of what Labour gave to them, or their parents were Labour supporters and they carry on the family tradition of voting Labour regardless[QUOTE]

This applies equally to National supporters.

[QUOTE]My question really is, are the unions of today as relevant as the unions of yesteryear and are they projecting the benefits for their "members" or are they simply feathering their own nests at the "expense" of their members![QUOTE]

The unions are the members. That is what the term 'union' means. Decisions are made after a democratic vote, not by suits in the factory offices


[QUOTE] Do the workers of today follow blindly without question, the direction projected by the union (against the "common" enemy) or do they listen carefully to what their employer is saying that they (the company) needs to make the business work?[QUOTE]

You should ask the redundant Feltex workers that question.



[QUOTE]So who needs division the most? Not the managers or the workers, they have common objectives but without division and discontent, the union executives would not be needed and therefore even cease to exist![QUOTE]

It isn't the 'union' who are proposing division. It's the management. Ask yourself, Why are they adamant that pay cuts are the only way they can expand?. Why the threat that the new factory will be built elswhere if workers don't co-operate?. Why should the workforce voutarily scrap agreements they've fought for when they can carry on as they are and lose nothing? When a business expands it usually does so when it is in a secure position, not when it's back is to the wall and is in danger of closing down.

[QUOTE]Again, the question, are unions as relevant today as they were yesterday or are they simply carrying on with the battles despite the war having been won[QUOTE]

Many battles have been won on both sides. The war is still being fought. Without the union of workers it will be a one sided battle.



[QUOTE]All I ask is that people think for themselves, instead of being blindly lead by someone else.
I also hope that sanity prevails in the HD situation and that we do not lose another motorcycle "icon" brand for all the wrong reasons.[QUOTE]

The Triumph factory was kept going by union members who staged a 'sit in' and forced a re-think. Had they had the recources that Harley Davidson seem to have they would still be in business. They, along with BSA, Norton Villiers et al were ulimately closed by political interference when Lord Shawcross was appointed head of the board of directors. If you are infering that those companies were closed because of union intransigence then you are totally wrong.

[QUOTE] As for my going on like a cracked record, I accept the criticism and thank you for expressing it but as a KB member I reserve the right to do so as long as there are police bashing threads etc appearing ad nauseam on this forum. John.

I agree wholeheartedly with that bit. :done:

[PLUG]

... unions/management ... interesting debate ... i know of nothing that polarises people quicker than this ... you're either in one camp or the other ... very little grey around this topic ...

...from my limited experance/knowledge companies that operate the triple bottom line reporting system seem to avoid a lot of these problems ...

... generally speaking (typing) top management are only in that job for that company for short periods (2-5 years) ... so their objectives/planning are what i would call very short term ... maximise profits to keep share holders happy/get the bonuses for KPI's achieved & to hell with the medimium to long term prospects for the company ... generally causing a lot of lurching from one style to the next for the company & staff concerned

... with the triple bottom line reporting management are forced to look further ahead than their own time with in an organisation & involve the company as a whole, so you tend to get better quality decission making ... so it's harder to change the plan big time from one head honcho to the next

... i can see a general picture of maybe what took place for HD to arrive at where they are at ... easiest way to increase profits is to cut costs ... the biggest cost ... labour ... so a plan was devised, probably with in the letter of the law but probably past the fringes of its sprite & this is what they have presented ...

... for each action, there is an equal & opposite reaction ... management have tabled a plan & the work force has reacted ... interested to see how this will unfold.