Foxconn Sees New Source of Cheap Labor: The United States 430
hackingbear writes "Foxconn is planning to build manufacturing plants in the U.S., probably in cites such as Detroit and Los Angeles. 'Since the manufacturing of Apple's products is rather complicated, the market watchers expect the rumored plants to focus on LCD TV production, which can be highly automated and easier.' Foxconn chairman Terry Guo, at a recent public event, noted that the company is planning a training program for US-based engineers, bringing them to Taiwan or China to learn the processes of product design and manufacturing."
This is good for the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans may have invented a lot of the manufacturing processes used for consumer electronics, but China and other Far Eastern countries have a big edge on us now. Let's put our egos aside and learn what we can from the Chinese.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Informative)
Why does this keep getting spread? The US is the second largest manufacturing base in the world, second to only china and that just, just barely and despite having less than 1/3 the population and the presence of strong labor and environmentally laws. Just because the US doesn't make cheap (in terms of quality and type, not price) consumer products doesn't mean that the US doesn't know how to manufacture any more.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Insightful)
It keeps being repeated because it's almost true. Manufacturing hasn't gone down in the USA, but manufacturing employment has. Just like in the first industrial revolution, the number of people required to manufacture goods has dropped considerably. China had a small short-term advantage because, for certain things, it was cheaper to use poorly-paid workers than machines, but even that's changing. Lots of people are talking as if Chinese factory workers are competing against American factory workers and winning because they're paid a fraction of the amount, but that's not really the case. 10-100 Chinese factory workers are competing against one American factory worker and a large automated assembly line. They were winning because they have lower capital costs, but higher operational costs. Now that companies like Foxconn have large amounts of capital to play with, they're starting to lose again.
People keep talking as if bringing manufacturing back to the USA will make a difference for the local economy, but it won't. The mindset that a new factory will employ thousands of people and provide employment either directly or indirectly for an entire town is obsolete. This doesn't, of course, stop local governments giving companies millions of dollars in tax breaks to build a factory, and then acting surprised when it only creates a hundred or so new jobs.
The first industrial revolution had a lot of social unrest because of the wealth-redistribution that the automation caused, concentrating it in the hands of the factory owners. This one is likely to have many of the same problems. Unfortunately, we didn't find a good solution last time.
Re: (Score:3)
Irony is hard to detect over the interwebs.
So I'm going to play it on the safe side and say: "Fuck the Chinese AND the Far East."
Interwebs are indeed tricky, I was sure this was a thread about assisted suicide. Please also note that America IS China's Far East.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Au contraire, Foxconn's suicide rate being lower than the average is due they got all that bad press for being Apple's supplier.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And um, to add something, it's probably easier to train fresh engineers who haven't developed bad habits, than to hire expensive production engineers with experience. Undoubtedly the Chinese have a lot of experience in manufacturing, but it's not as if the West has been reduced to grubbing in the dirt with sticks - there's still a LOT of manufacturing going on in the US and elsewhere outside of China. If anything the Chinese are going to have to adapt to a whole bunch of new o
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Funny)
Let's put our egos aside and learn what we can from the Chinese.
Like maintaining our Social "safety net"?
I think he meant specifically learning from Foxconn's experience. Like maintaining "safety nets" in the alleys around the factories.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know much about manufacturing, but what is it about an iPhone that we need 5+ years to learn to do here?
1. Learn to earn as little as the Chinese workers.
2. Learn to work 16 hours a day, standing.
3. Learn to show up at work 3AM in the morning, on a 15 minute notice.
Oh yes, they will give you a cup of tea and a biscuit when you show up to work at 3AM in the morning.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Funny)
Screw that. Coffee and a doughnut or I'm staying in bed.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Funny)
You clearly have much to learn, and Foxconn is willing to teach you.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been working in China for 3.5 years, I get to sit for my 16 hour work day, and we get free dinner!
Problem is, I have a Chinese boss who doubts my leadership skills when I point out that working employees to death is not good for the company.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Learn to earn as little as the Chinese workers.
What we also need to remember is that we could triple the minimum wage and it still won't mean shit if the rate of decline of the dollar's buying power continues to increase.
Re:This is good for the US (Score:5, Insightful)
The first page of this new york times article basically answers your question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html [nytimes.com]
Re:patent battle defense? (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect a significant part of this decision comes from supply chain considerations. Consider that the US is still one of the largest markets for the electronic gadgets they make. If they ship their products on the ocean from China to the US, it will probably take 4 to 5 weeks to arrive in the US warehouses. Even if they go by air, it may take up to 14 days by the time it clears customs.
Now think about the volatile nature of the markets for these products - they are difficult to forecast accurately, and small things can cause large swings in demand... rushes on product that empty store shelves, or a popular review that points out some flaw in the product. Plus these products have a relatively short "shelf life" of being "hot". As an example, the Nexus 32 GB came out 6 months after the Nexus 8GB.
4 weeks of slack in your supply chain represents 4 weeks of tied up capital that is not doing anything but costing money. Additionally, it makes you 4 weeks further from being able to respond to changes in the market. Let's say your product has a fatal (in terms of the market... you have to hold it "just so" to get reception) flaw and sales tank sortly after launch. You already have 4 weeks of product sitting on the water. On the other hand, let's say the product takes off far more than forecasted. Store shelves are empty and it's going to be 4 weeks before you can stock them up again.
At the other end of it, because your supply chain is less responsive to the market changes, you have a greater risk of having more obsolete product at the end of its lifecycle. You can destroy it and write off the costs, or you can try to liquidate to make more revenue - but then you have old products competing against your new ones.
You can mitigate some of these issues by moving some of your manufacturing capacity to "near shore" or "on shore" with respect to the market you're selling in. You can still use "cheaper" Chinese production to manufacture some large percentage of your product line at cheaper cost, then use the nearby manufacturing to be able to quickly respond to market changes.
For a car analogy, 1 mile of train takes a long time to start and stop, but carries weight efficiently. 1 mile of trucks can start and stop much more quickly, but at greater cost. A combination of both probably gives you an optimal transportation mix - minimizing cost balanced with maximizing responsiveness.
Re:patent battle defense? (Score:4, Interesting)
actually what your describing is part of the supply chain problem.
The supply chain right now is so tight time wise that any temporary disruption is felt the entire way down the chain. The problem is that items sitting on shelves isn't efficient. However there is little disaster planning. take a look at what happened to hard drives a couple of years ago.
Or look at japan's car production lines shutting down for three months after the fuskisma earth quake. The factories were open but they couldn't get parts to build.
We are heading toward just in time manufacturing. Where you it won't be built until you order it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We are heading toward just in time manufacturing. Where you it won't be built until you order it.
You're right. JIT's an ideal for supply chain efficiency, but the problem is that many purchases are impulse buys. The customer goes into a store to buy toilet paper and suddenly decides to buy the tablet computer they've been thinking about.
Plus, you can't do direct-to-the-consumer sales from China. Consumers have been made accustomed to getting the product they want right when the want it, which often mean
poor choices for locations (Score:5, Interesting)
They would do better to build their factories in flyover country, where cots of living are lower, average wage is lower, cost of utilities is lower, and all that jazz.
The central US is well connected for large freight shipments by rail.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but detroit is a shit hole of desperation and low wages
poor choices for enforcement. (Score:5, Funny)
But...but...you have Robocop!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Proximity (Score:3)
It cost more to rail a container from LA to NY than it does to ship it from China to NY. The rail networks are laid out in a way that there isn't much capacity for this 'flyover country.' Major rail lines connect LA, Chicago, Houston, and Newark. Everywhere not in close proximity to one of these cities is expensive as hell to ship to and from.
Re: (Score:3)
I work in the ports industry and have visibility into nationwide container movement. The issue here is an electronics manufacturing facility is going to be getting all its parts from asia, so youre going to have them come into LA, ship inland, then have to ship them to coastal cities because thats where all the big box dsitribution centers are. The inland rail depot competition collapsed in 2007 so most low pop locations are natural monopolies. While they are still cheaper than OTR, trucks movement more
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Interesting)
Detroit has one thing that a lot of states are in desperate need of:
Water.
A lot of factories need fresh water, so locating near the Great Lakes does make sense. Anywhere else in the US risks water shortages.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:4, Insightful)
Genuinely curious, but how much water would a company like foxconn need, for making electronics?
Could someone explain to me where water would come in the manufacturing process of LCDs?
Large amounts (Score:5, Informative)
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they could set up in *any* metro area in the US. Pay minimum wage. Make all the employees part time, so they don't have to pay benefits. 2 20hr/wk employees are cheaper than 1 40hr/wk or salary employee. They can maintain a barely OSHA compliant workplace, and items that are too expensive, they can just absorb the cost of fines. Their customers have financial and political leverage, so I'm sure lots could be ignored, especially if they're going to take a few thousand people off of the unemployment rolls, even though they'll make less working.
Pretty much, they'll act just like Walmart. A whole bunch of employees who fall below the poverty line.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid you're exactly right.
When you start globalizing and opening yourself up to competition with countries that have no labour or environmental laws to speak of, you by default undercut your own industries to the point where they are not competitive.
Free trade with developing countries is a horrendously bad idea for this reason. Tarriffs can be a mitigating factor - to a point, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Free trade with developing nations is only bad for the developing nations (obviously, otherwise developed nations wouldn't push so hard for them). Developing nations import most of their industrialized goods, with free trade they're imported free of tariffs from the developed nation and kill both the almost non-existent local industry and a source of income for the government.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:4, Interesting)
If anything, this should show you that highly developed countries with a high living standard are in a very bad situation when it comes to free trade. Who really benefits is the large corporations, not the countries. The cost of living in the US is heaps higher than in China, and it's even worse for other countries. I've been to countries where tipping someone 5 bucks makes him (literally) fall to his knees and worship your feet for being so incredibly generous 'cause you just doubled his income. Add now that labour laws and environment laws even more are near nonexistent in large parts of this world.
How should you sensibly compete with that? You cannot manufacture domestic goods competitively that way.
Actually, BOTH, developing and developed countries lose big time in free global trade. The only winners are corporations who can pick the best of both worlds, cheap labour in developing countries and high prices in developed ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Free trade with developing countries is a horrendously bad idea for this reason. Tarriffs can be a mitigating factor - to a point, of course.
Free Trade could be a good idea, if a condition for a country to participate is, that they have to have legally protected workers' unions, worker safety protection regulation, minimum wage laws, and an enforcement body whose effectiveness is validated through unbiased 3rd party auditing
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:4, Interesting)
if Foxconn is willing to pay the average manufacturing wage D.O.E. (and would not go out of their way to crush unionization efforts if it came to that) then it would be a whole different story.
Re: (Score:3)
As I understood it, Mr. Sam Walton was quite for America and American family values. There were community efforts, and things that you probably never noticed, like no alc
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not going to pay minimum wage. Didn't you read TFS? They're just going to use machines, and employ a couple of engineers to watch over the production line, just like most other American manufacturers.
The real cheap labor is not labor at all.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:4, Insightful)
You must have never worked in a factory. You're right that they'll only employ a handful of engineers (actually, it'll be a handful of mechanics and maybe two engineers), but they will still need a couple hundred rednecks to load and unload trucks, make sure the parts hoppers are always full, and clear the backups on the line when a box goes into the heat shrinker sideways.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but detroit is a shit hole of desperation and low wages
Foxconn will fit in perfectly there.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:5, Informative)
Detroit is centrally located, has very low wages and costs of living (compared to Los Angeles) and, thanks to the auto industry, has a very well developed distribution network via rail and the St. Lawrence Seaway. It also has a strong manufacturing history.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, if I was looking to exploit workers and skirt regulations, I'd pick a backwater state, too.
The people there are so stupid they'll even think you're doing them a favour.
Re:poor choices for locations (Score:4, Funny)
So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Chinese companies are more willing to be self sufficient and train workers than American companies, who are constantly whining that the government should do it. And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerfull. Good job, assholes.
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you have any experience at all in the Chinese labor market. It is very difficult to retain labor. If an employee finds a job in another factory for an extra 25 cents a day, they just don't show up again. Turnover is terrible, even in highly skilled positions such as engineering. People don't wait around to be promoted - instead, they hop from job to job, earning small title and salary increases each time.
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Funny)
People don't wait around to be promoted - instead, they hop from job to job, earning small title and salary increases each time.
Man, where have I seen that before?
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes and no - the less skilled the job, the harder you have to deal with employee turnover.
For engineers though, providing you are running things well, you'll usually only have a big burst of turnover around the national holiday in March, when everyone gets paid a 13th salary as a bonus. The rest of the year though, everyone just waits until March so they don't lose their bonus. Turnover seems to be getting better too however - we only lost 2 from a team of 20 this past March (compared to 4-5 the previous year, and 5-7 the year before.)
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerful.
This may very well be why they are trying to establish a base in the United States. The Chinese political situation is far from stable now, so things could go very bad very quickly, and they could lose their entire operations. Having a backup in the US is a good idea.
Note also that Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, not Chinese, which makes them a convenient target for takeover if the Chinese government decides it needs a distraction. 'We've always been at war with Eastasia," China has always been at war with Taiwan.
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company.
2. Remember how Jiang Zemin came to power in 1989 replacing Zhao Ziyang (who championed the students).
3. Planned for the last 10 years? Bo Xilai anyone?
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
In your other posts today you appeared to be awake and lucid.
Why, thankyou.
Yes, their entire central government is about to change this year, just like it did ten years ago, and just as has been planned for the last ten years.
It's not about the current transfer of power, the risk in that has probably already passed. It's about the growing realization among the Chinese people that the corruption in their government goes to the top, combined with no built-in mechanism for effecting change nonviolently. We are seeing more riots this year than in the past, and frustration over the nepotism is growing (like the Li Gang case, or Ling Gu). The nepotism isn't going to change. People won't submit to authoritarianism and censorship forever.
Now, I'm not saying the country is going to explode today, but it's unstable. There might not be a massive change for another five years, or it might take 60 years (like in the USSR). It's wise to be prepared for it, and a lot of rich Chinese are preparing by moving money out of the country, or by moving themselves out.
the simple reality is a Chinese company expanding overseas
Foxconn is Taiwanese, not Chinese.
Re: (Score:3)
or you could say Taiwan is the real China, and mainland China is the illegal communist imposter that hasnt left.
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
And theyre from a communist country
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely this. The last Communist in China was Mao.
Authoritarian is the word.
Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So it's come to this. . . (Score:4, Informative)
It's "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
No "communist" country has ever called itself communist, because, according to their dogma, communism would be the final stage of the development of their society, and they were on their way there (hence the need for the state and the accompanying oppression machine). The parties called themselves communist since, in theory, their ultimate goal was achieving that mythical communist society; but the countries themselves were always referred to as socialist (hence why it was USSR and not USCR).
Gotta post AC (Score:5, Interesting)
Detroit (Flint as well) is on the list, L.A. is maybe for managing offices, but the largest plant is going to be in the south. Most likely northern Alabama or possibly Louisiana. How do I know? I work in one of the State Governors office and there has been Foxconn AND Pegatron groups in and out since at least, roughly, Christmas 2011
Re:Gotta post AC (Score:4, Insightful)
the largest plant is going to be in the south. Most likely northern Alabama or possibly Louisiana. How do I know? I work in one of the State Governors office and there has been Foxconn AND Pegatron groups in and out since at least, roughly, Christmas 2011
How ironic (and fitting) that a land where people who still to this day wish for the good old days of slavery and cotton farms to return will soon be working in the modern equivalent of the cotton farm.
labor costs vs cost of pissing off your customers (Score:3)
Shipping costs are rising that much? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess high priced oil is working in our favor for once. Considering the majority of their market is here, they might even be realizing consumers with money buy stuff. Who'da thunk.
Nice troll piece (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, it is Apple, an American company who outsourced all its production to China. It is Americans who think iPhone production is to complex for Americans.
Second, building a highly automated plant is NEVER about labor costs. It is about avoiding import duties. Assemble it in the US and it is a US product exempt from import duties and hence cheaper. If Americans were normal people it would also generate some good will, creating jobs in a down economy, that is of course terrible! How dare they insult you? This from the same Forbes that cheers all outsourcing. Damn those Chinese, how dare they outsource back to you! Next thing you know people will actually be having jobs and not leeching from the state!
You will note if you follow the articles, that it is Market Watchers (people who didn't see the crash coming) who talk about iPhone production being to complex. It ain't even for sure yet what will be produced or if the factory will come at all but hey, market watchers already know why it will be producing X and not Y. Even if they don't know what X is.
As for training... gosh... maybe they will train the Americans in English so they can choose between city or sites and not make up new words. Oh wait I forgot, training on the job. BAD. People should have all the required skills from the start or you will bitch you can't find any workers locally and have to import them or outsource.
Exploitation, unions, and you. (Score:5, Insightful)
You jabber on about how unions are bad, how they destroyed this country, but you couldn't be more mistaken. The reason we became a world superpower was because of unions, not in spite of them. When the industrial revolution first made land fall, people left the farms to move into urban factories. There was no health care, no OSHA, no retirement or social security, no educational system, and no child labor laws. Workers would get chewed up by machines and that was that. No lawsuits, no nothing -- your livelihood was destroyed. Quite possibly, you later died of starvation. All of the problems that are present in China today were there at the start of our industrial revolution as well: Corruption, environmental contamination, worker abuse, long hours, low pay, and massive wealth inequity.
Then the unions came, and with it; OSHA, social security, public education, child labor laws, overtime compensation. And you know what happened then? Civilization didn't collapse. In fact, it prospered: The roaring 50s. A single man could now drive a car and live in a house he paid for, in full, and support a wive and two kids, working only 40 hours a week. It was the first generation to grow up with public education, and that literacy reflected in every area of american living; Anyone could invent something new and sell it. America became the land of opportunity. Immigrants flocked to the stars and striped by the millions. The middle class grew, and upward mobility was something just about anyone could achieve. For the first time in modern history, hard work nearly guaranteed a comfortable living. And work hard we did. When Europe was devestated by the world wars, it was american industry and ingenuity that pulled their ass out of the fire, and I'm not talking about the unparalleled capacity to produce ships, tanks, guns, and planes either. We didn't just build our own country -- we rebuilt a dozen others as well in post-war reconstruction. And after all that, you know what we did then? We went to the fucking moon.
Even Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations pointed out that one of the essential duties of government is to provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens. In other words, the work force. America's investment in its labor force resulted in economic gains far in excess of anything even the largest mega-corporations of today can match. And then it all went wrong.
It started with the Boomers. Having been given everything by their parents, they didn't understand the price paid by their predecessors. They assumed that this temporary equilibrium, this golden age, was a permanent feature of America. They felt entitled to it, instead of thankful. And when they seized power in the 70s and 80s, they cut social security, education, defunded OSHA, deregulated... and for a time, it was good. But in the shadows consumer debt piled up. The cost of an education skyrocketed, and illiteracy creeped back in. Our scientific and technological progress peaked, then rapidly deflated as the careers of scientist, engineer, inventor, were removed from public prestige and replaced with ridicule and scorn.
Today, our media holds illiterate opinions as equal to the most established of scientific truths. Our children are unable to afford an education, and we're witnessing the lowest graduation rates from all levels of education that anyone alive can remember. Our economy is in ruins, the middle class is rapidly evaporating, and the few wealthy compete amongst each other to auction off our civil infrastructure and institutions. The bridges and roadways our grandparents built with pride that enabled our economy to prosper grow increasingly deficient, falling into rivers or eating tires and vehicles. Our railway and roadway networks are so badly mangled that the idea of bringing back blimps has been floated a few times as a way of getting goods around. Our air space is managed by state of the art technology... or it was, in 1965.
No, unions made us a super power. And we're going to lose that status because we took what they gave us for granted.
Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's also totally ignore the union thugs who came out to bust Cesar Chavez and his workers. Let's ignore the unions that refused help after the hurricane because keeping their own power was more important. Let's ignore the fact that in some states, you can't even work without being forced to join a union. Let's ignore all the union bosses in prison [google.com] (I didn't even bother to cite specific links as Google is continually populated with new stories on the topic). Let's ignore the racism and sexism of the white male union rank-and-file.
I can't help but notice all the union achievements you list are 50 years old. Once upon a time, there were genuine problems that unions solved. That time has passed.
Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs left the US because shareholder profits came to be considered much more important than paying employees enough to afford the products they made. The concept of noblesse oblige has been entirely replaced by amoral asocial asshattery. Greed became the greatest virtue and our equitable society faded away.
Slashdotters love to fancy themselves as 1%ers (Look at me, I make 70K a year!) and are thus especially useful idiots for big business.
Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to totally ignore any negative experience regarding unions...at all. They're the reason our jobs left.
No, they left because the companies didn't adapt to the changing market place. Look at Germany as an example. Strong labour laws and a strong manufacturing sector. They produce high quality products at reasonable prices because they didn't get into a race to the bottom with China, and all while paying a reasonable living wage. They even managed to absorb the East German economy in the process.
What do you honestly expect workers who are told they must compete with 3rd world labour on wages to do? Default on their mortgage, get a second and third job, pimp out the wife? They were right, cutting wages to unrealistic levels is not the answer, and if you accept it you are even more screwed than if you don't.
Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a second, you are telling me without unions we would have no public education? Are you retarded?
No, my good and simple-minded detractor, I am simply aware of the fact that the people who ran the factories were the kind of people who, upon seeing a worker get mutilated by the machinery were simply led out the back door as their replacement walked in the front. If they don't value your life they aren't going to consider your education important.
Now I know you've lost it. We went to the moon because of unions?
No, you malignant ball of happy brain death... we built a strong industrial base and developed a large number of highly educated scientists and engineers because of unions, which allowed us to spend money on things like going to the moon, as well as having the expertise to do so.
And he was unionized, I suppose? Just that single person inventing things and selling them, a unionized island to himself.
Without an education, I doubt he'd be inventing much of anything besides idiosyncratic political viewpoints held in such low esteem by the author he wouldn't even pen his name to it. Or perhaps he lost his name in the bottom of a bottle while searching for his misplaced wits...
The unions had nothing to do with that. Union employes always had PENSIONS (well, you would like to think) that keep them from needing social security.
In days of old, when economies were bold, and monies were aplenty... it might be true, these words from you, if a public education you did not benefit. Alas our tale begins, in the darkened days of nineteen thirty two, whereupon there were many old, and the economy had foresaken. Fifty percent, the elderly were, homeless and in need, no pensions had they, no prospects too, when Sir Rosevelt made them all a Deal. He said to them, "I shall save you too, and you, and you, and you!" And with a mighty heave of his pen, he did create pensions for all, where none had existed before.
Most of these people have never had a union, except for certain engineers (and no, I'm talking professional engineer, sanitation engineers have a union, but they ain't real engineers, are they?) and scientists working for a university (and only sometimes then).
Not to put too fine a point on it, you keenly lacking invertebrate of questionable mental faculties and breeding, but they didn't have jobs either.
You must be high or retarded. Perhaps both?
On the internet, asking if someone else is either of those is basically admitting the character defect being accused. Or put in terms your juvenile nature can relate to, "the person who smelt it, dealt it." Good day sir!
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't the 1950s.
So true. In the 50s Americans were smart enough to look out for their own self-interest rather than shill for big business and the free trade religion.
Trickle down economics are going to be having a reckoning, and soon. Enjoy the tailend of the Reagan world order while it lasts.
Opposite day! (Score:5, Funny)
Not a surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
This should surprise nobody. Foxconn has developed as a large international manufacturing conglomerate, and the US has by far the largest manufacturing economy, manufacturing 1.7 trillion dollars a year, compared to China's 1.2 trillion dollars a year.
Taiwan != China (Score:5, Informative)
Just saying.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Gimme a break. Unions are the only thing that defends the middle class from the rich shareholders that demand ever increasing dividends.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Poor union workers are a sign of a manager without the balls to do his job properly!
My union contract (IBEW) has a lot of room to get yourself fired. Right now the big item is personal cell phone use. If I am caught using my personal cell phone at work, I can be fired. Simple as that. The union has even told us flat out that it cannot defend us if we break the corporate policy.
Useless middle managers who won't do their job are the problem. If a manager won't make the workers under him do their job, how
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Though union leaders screw over the members occasionally, it's no where near as bad as what corporate executives do. In fact, unlike corporations, unions have government watchdogs. Union leaders are fiduciaries for their members, so both the members and the government regularly investigate and sue malfeasance. Corporate executives are principally fiduciaries for the corporation, and it's difficult for either the government or shareholders to ensure accountability.
The notion that unions are corrupt, their members slothful knuckle-draggers, is political spin by the GOP and the business community which has unfortunately become common wisdom. Of course there was egregious corruption (and still is, but nothing like 50 years ago). But it wasn't just the unions, sadly. Union corruption is just more memorable. We can identify with stealing cigarettes from a truck, or scotch off a boat. Most people find it hard to wrap their heads around sophisticated corporate embezzlement schemes.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Also no one today was alive when the union movement got started. No one has in fact experience the actual violence and murder perpetrated against early unions who were lobbying for safer working conditions (such as not being forced to work in carbon monoxide polluted environments where people were routinely dying).
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, unions ruined everything, including child labor and slavery. Oh the good old days, when you could lock your workers in a factory, and watch them burn to death. (Actually happened)
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Insightful)
The right to join and form a union is important; but I reject the idea of 'Union Shops', where you are required (if not literally, at least practically) to join, and pay.
It's like flag burning and gun ownership; I have no interest in them now, but if you try take away my right to do so, I will just to protest.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Informative)
Huh? You can't be for unions, but against union shops. If unions didn't have enforceable contracts with companies to only employ union members, then companies simply would never employ union members.
You have to understand the function of unions: to stabilize low-skilled, low-barrier-to-entry labor markets. There's no way to accomplish that stabilization without excluding some part of the labor market. They work by placing restrictions on the labor supply.
It my seem inefficient when you listen to anecdotes, but its often more efficient writ large. You need employment and wage stability in order for people to be able to save and plan ahead. It makes them more productive. You then reroute some of that additional gain to folks who got screwed, in the form of welfare.
That's the economic theory. Feel free to dispute the underlying premises, or debate the efficacy of the scheme. But its undoubtedly sound policy given the right circumstances.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worth noting that union influence on an industry also benefits non-union members. When you're required to adopt good practices and certain wage levels, it drags the bottom up.
union shops are against freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In effect, you'll be trading one bad overlord for another.
You completely ignore you vote on your union leadership. Whereas you don't vote on management.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Informative)
Huh? You can't be for unions, but against union shops. If unions didn't have enforceable contracts with companies to only employ union members, then companies simply would never employ union members.
In Europe the law usually says you can't even ask if someone is a member of a union before employing them, and can't fire them for being one. Most people join unions because it is in their interest to be part of collective bargaining, but it is illegal to require joining to work somewhere.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Interesting)
Where I work our contract includes "fair share" for non members. You DO NOT have to join the union, but YOU DO have to pay your "fair share" portion of the union dues that pays for the operation of the union. Why? Because you benefit from the contract that the union negotiated for the entire group, because BY LAW the union MUST represent you whether you are a member or not.
Time and again the most loud-mouthed, union-bashing, "I make my own way" complainers about the fair share fee were always the first ones in my office wanting to know what the union was going to do to fix their problem, to help them deal with a disciplinary issue, fix their poor performance issues or fight their pending layoff. Suddenly wasn't it nice that there was someone to help them in their time of need? As much as I would have liked to tell them to go deal with it on their own I was bound by law to represent them
I never wanted to work where there was a union, but I was the first one in my area to sign an organizing card - I was tired of getting screwed over. I spent 12 years as a steward with eight of them as chief steward as well as being on the negotiating team. Unlike many on /. that comment on unions I have first hand experience working somewhere that went through the stages of organizing and running a union.
I remember a labor relations professor saying that firms get the unions they deserve. That makes sense. Treat people well and FAIRLY why woul dthey ever want to form a union? Treat people like crap and they will be receptive to a union organizers speech.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Informative)
Citation for the parent post: Triangle Shirtwaist Company [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why go that far back? Here's proof you still need unions today. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
And guess what else? Ever since the union-busting really took off, working conditions and the share of the revenue going to the workforce have declined.
Smart people would notice the correlation.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure how it works in the US. But in Europe a typical valid answer is "if management did not treat the workers like shit, they would not be unionized."
Partly (Score:4, Interesting)
In Holland the Big 11 (largest employers) have actually said they want the strong unions of the past decades back because although they didn't always agree, at least they could negotiate and sort things out. The big companies want "The polder model" back and preferably without the 3rd party, the government, messing things up again.
It is outside north-west Europe (England excepted) that unions seem to have such a terrible relationship, it is an English/Italian thing, to snobby to admit you are just a wage slave at the mercy of your boss and to corrupt to handle money and power. You can't compare a NW European union with an American one but then the relations between workers and bosses are totally different, Romney would not have gotten 50 of the votes in Europe, he would have been seen as the total asshole he is and be spitted out by anyone who works for a living.
You might have noted that in America, many of the working class, call themselves middle class. Here is a hint: If you live paycheck to paycheck and getting fired is going to be an economic disaster, you are working class. Lower class your economy is already a disaster even with a paycheck. Middle class is financially comfortable. And that doesn't mean you can just avoid your credit cards from being canceled each month but that if something major happens, it isn't an immediate issue, loose job, take a year to find a new one. Upper class means you are comfortable for life even if something major happens.
Quick test for Americans: Did it surprise you to find out that YOU are part of the 47% Romney considers to be a leech? Did you even dare to find out if you are in that group?
Re: (Score:3)
It is outside north-west Europe (England excepted) that unions seem to have such a terrible relationship, it is an English/Italian thing, to snobby to admit you are just a wage slave at the mercy of your boss and to corrupt to handle money and power.
Most unions in England are in many ways very similar to the model in the rest of NW Europe; generally trying to serve their members (and persuade non-members to join without the ability to force them) but not wanting to strike except when management have decided to be total jerks. Occasionally a union gets a more leftist executive and becomes more bolshie (with this being more likely in some industries than others for historical reasons) but that's mostly pretty rare as their members want to work and have t
Re: (Score:3)
Why stop there? Sure, you can make a lot more money without paying your employees well, but why pay them at all?
Slavery greatly increases labor efficiency. Instead of providing a salary that your workers will inevitably waste on unnecessary items like iPhones and designer shirts, you simply provide your workers with the necessities directly.
If you want to blame someone for killing American manufacturing, blame Lincoln.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Slaves make incredibly shitty workers. They only work hard enough to not get whipped. And you have to pay someone to stand behind them with a whip all day. The hard collar for draft animals basically ended slavery's economic viability. The rest was just social inertia.
That is one of those inconvenient truths that some people don't want to hear. Free people, with lives and expenses, have a far greater labor efficiency then slaves.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions done wrong fuck the system up. Builds adversarial us (the workers) vs them (the management) mentalities. Unions done right, can and does work very well. It is collaborative, where everyone works together to make the company better, struggle through the bad times etc. This collaboration works both ways, if the company is hitting hard times, the board, management should be taking paycuts themselves, stopping bonuses. They have failed to lead the company into a properous position. Before they have the cheek to ask the workers to cut their salaries, they should be severely cutting their own pay first. Put their hands up in the air, and claim "Yes, we fucked up", so how can we get through this? The CEO has taken a paycut of 80% sacrificing $25 million saving about 300 jobs, can you guys cut 15% until we get through this?
Both Germany and Japan after the second world war had written into their constitutions by Eisenhower, MacArthur and their aides various protections and rights for workers to bargain and act collectively. They both have become some of the biggest players in the automotive industry, and this is not by coinicendence, it is by design.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:5, Interesting)
Chicken and egg question here. I don't know much about Japan, but from my French perspective German unions do an awesome job, and are probably one of the reasons (though not the sole) why Germany still does pretty well economically compared to other EU countries.
By contrast, the situation is pretty shitty in France. Polls have shown that among the OECD, French people put a higher value to work than most, but also that they tend to hate their workplace. Interestingly, French workers show less insatisfaction when they work for foreign companies. Some economists pin this on the fact that French economy is largely based on inheritance, and it results in a fundamental lack of trust between the various strates of workplace hierarchies. The workers, the middle management, the bosses, no one trusts another.
In the light of what you say about post-WWII, I wonder if Germany didn't ultimately benefit from getting rid of their higher ups, most of which having been in bed with the Third Reich.
Re:Get rid of the unions (Score:4, Informative)
Unions are parasites that ruined American labor.
They were a necessary evil to combat the exploitive corporations killing workers for profit (usually through negligence, but occassionally through murder). The corporations started it, then complained when the playing field was leveled. If the companies didn't fight so hard against worker rights, the unions wouldn't have gotten to where they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah things like the 40 hour work week and paid overtime just destroyed US manufacturing. They were doing much better when they paid 3 dollars a day for 16 hours labor and you shopped at the company store on credit so you couldn't quit for another job because you owed the store 5 months of your pay. Oh for the good old days.
Re: (Score:3)
Union strike? In China?
We've all seen what happens when Chinese people rise up against the establishment [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ha ha hahahahahahaha... Sorry not laughing with you. Oh and your ignorance is showing, might want to put that away before you scare someone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Government (under Clinton) provided the groundwork for the subprime crisis to begin with by rewriting the CRA and reapplying it to REQUIRE a certain percentage of loans to go to those who would otherwise not qualify. Remember, the CRA was signed into law by Carter. The rules and regulations of the CRA were tweaked by successive administrations to reel it in, or in the case of Clinton, to let more line out so the artificial bubble he rode during his 2nd term was intact (by perception) when he left office
Re:Big mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, almost none of the liars' loans made by the brokers and banks fulfilled the requirements of CRA, but it makes a good story for those who want to excuse the thieves and blame it on the government.
I know one former investor who lost $3M dollars (75% of his net worth) because of what the banks did to him - and he wanted to blame it on Obama (who wasn't even in office when most of the theft occurred). I wouldn't care that much if you need your deluded beliefs, but your delusions keep the crooks out of jail and that is a shame.
Re: (Score:3)