Pablo wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Pablo wrote >>
Unions have made concessions in recent years, probably not enough in management's eyes. This is the same management with a business model that assumed low gas prices would last forever and continually fought CAFE and safety standards and sold Chevy Vegas and Ford Pintos to an unsuspecting public in the 1970s.
Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns didn't have unionized workers so they really should still be in existence and profitable, right?
And the same union that demanded ever increasing wages, pension benefits and created work rules designed to ensure more employees were present than necessary.
Then, toyota, honda, et. al. showed up and started making cars here. Rather than the adversarial system of union vs. management both sides worked together. Management treated workers like adults, listening to their suggestions for improvement. Labor was fairly compensated and worked in a safe environment. Win / win.
Unless you're the UAW or GM / Chrystler, of course. Then you keep fighting, blaming the other side for your problems and kill each other.
No sense in letting management off the hook for their part in Detroit's destruction, but the UAW had a hand in that too.
Agree that both management and labor have responsibility in the decline but I tend to lean a little harder on management since they're the ones creating the products for labor to build. The adversarial relationship between management and labor is the real culprit. It seems to me that both sides had their collective heads in the sand in the 70's and, as an industry, were unable to rapidly adapt to global changes.
“What's good for GM is good for the USAâ€Â
“That's not my job, get the union stewardâ€Â
My ex worked for Honda in Marysville in the 80's and early 90's. The UAW was trying to organize the workers (a lot were for it) but Honda's benefit and wage package was really good at the time so, what was the point? In an odd way, the UAW was forcing Honda to treat the workers well so, philosophically, the UAW was representing the workers (but no union dues for the coffers!). Don't know if that's the case today. In my opinion, the decline of the City of Detroit is purely a jobs issue and not one of a particular political party.
+1
Actually, Detroit's decline has more do with the monolithic presence and influence of the automobile industry in the city than anything else. The auto companies used their influence directly and indirectly to block other industries from taking root in the city. This essentially tied Detroit's fate to the fate of the auto industry, for better or for worse. This is why Detroit was never a true rival for Chicago, which has maintained a far more diverse economy and a generally positive trajectory.
Similarly, while Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo sustained massive economic, job and population losses resulting from the collapse of manufacturing, they still had other industries and assets present (e.g. banking, universities, etc.) that helped them to eventually regain their footing somewhat. Detroit did not have this.
Also, on a smaller yet still comparable scale, Youngstown has profoundly suffered for being a one-industry town. Steel was the life's blood of the Mahoning Valley. When the mills closed down, Youngstown suffered the equivalent of a massive stroke, from which it has yet to recover.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. 