schansblog

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, 10 October 2007

unions only like it when...

Posted on 13:58 by aryan
...their competition is restricted-- rather than when they're being restricted!

Unions-- cartels in labor markets-- are fine, in and of themselves. But their self-serving use of government policy to restrict their competition in product and labor markets is quite troubling-- since it imposes significant costs on consumers and non-union workers. When the tables are turned-- even outside the legislative process-- they don't like it very much...

From Neal Boudette in today's WSJ, an article on the impending Greensburg, IN Honda plant-- and Honda's plans to restrict employment to a 20-county area which would largely exclude former union workers...

Honda's unusual hiring restriction highlights an often overlooked aspect of the United Auto Workers union's declining power. While Detroit's big auto makers and their unionized suppliers have been slashing jobs, wages and benefits, foreign car companies have added U.S. plants and created thousands of new automotive jobs. Yet they have effectively kept auto workers with UAW membership cards out of their factories, hampering the union from gaining any foothold where the jobs are.

Of the 33 auto, engine and transmission plants in the U.S. that are wholly owned by foreign companies, none have been organized by the UAW, despite repeated attempts. Mainly, foreign auto makers have located plants in Southern states where the UAW has little presence and where right-to-work laws limit union power. When they have ventured into Northern states such as Indiana and Ohio, they have mostly chosen rural locations far from any unionized plants and UAW halls. The moves now are helping the foreign-owned plants begin to lower wage scales...

Under the National Labor Relations Act, companies cannot discriminate against workers because of affiliation with a union. They are, however, allowed to restrict hiring to certain geographical areas if they have a legitimate business reason for doing so, a spokeswoman for the National Labor Relations Board said. UAW officials are gathering information in hopes of filing official complaints with the NLRB or possibly the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Honda spokesman David Iida said the Greensburg hiring policy is not intended to prevent union members from applying. The auto maker just wants workers to live within an hour's drive of the plant so they can get to work on time even in bad weather, he said. The area does include a UAW-organized plant in Indianapolis and one organized by the International Union of Electrical Workers in Connersville, both of which closed and together idled about 1,500 people. Honda won't accept applicants from outside the hiring zone who would be willing to move into it, Mr. Iida said, because that could slow down Honda's "aggressive launch schedule" to start production in late 2008...

Indianapolis, about 50 miles northwest of Greensburg, is the only big city in Honda's hiring zone. It also is the only place in the hiring area where major UAW locals are located. The rest of the zone is predominantly rural and has few manufacturing workers. UAW members in Indianapolis are free to seek jobs in Greensburg, Mr. Iida says. Ms. Ward counters that despite some layoffs, most UAW members in Indianapolis are employed and don't need Honda jobs, unlike in Anderson. "We have a lot of people in Anderson who need jobs, but we can't apply," she says.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2007 (41)
    • ▼  October (41)
      • Toyota and Tech Advance
      • a very useful WSJ data-set on sub-prime/high-risk ...
      • it's much broader than you think: sub-prime/high-r...
      • Joe Huber!
      • sub-prime mortgages IV: policy possibilities going...
      • sub-prime mortgages III: the racial angle
      • sub-prime mortgages II: the moral/ethical angle (f...
      • sub-prime mortgages I: the numbers
      • Econ 101: Profits, Not Unions, Save Jobs
      • why payroll taxes for SS are such an important (ec...
      • voter ID
      • oooh....more fun with corn!
      • run the good race...NOT!
      • Pelosi's prayers
      • C-J goes negative on Clarence Thomas again...
      • principle vs. pragmatism: it's not yes/no, it's a ...
      • cartoon on racial tensions
      • the Religious Right on sexual ethics and public po...
      • the Unabomber, a member of ZZ-Top, or a biblical p...
      • unions only like it when...
      • two different views on Clarence Thomas
      • Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger?! puh-leaze!
      • Bush on Islam...puh-leaze!
      • Schansberg welcomes Sodrel back to the race
      • Bingham on Bennett
      • comments on Hill's recent fund-raising letter
      • renters vs. owners?
      • ok, it's not silver, it's gold...
      • Kool-Aid, Indiana, trans-racial adoption, and bask...
      • Fletcher & Beshear's courageous stand...NOT!
      • David (McCarty) vs. Goliath
      • Howey updates solutions to property tax woes
      • drinking age: 18 vs. 21
      • pardon me...
      • Ogborn wins the Lottery...
      • Is Ron Paul moving into the top tier of Republican...
      • sounds just like our house...
      • should I have scooped Dan Davis about myself?
      • What teachers make...
      • JCPS continues to discriminate vs. individuals bas...
      • is it ok to accept stolen/govt funds?
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

aryan
View my complete profile