Germans Get Jobs for Life as Export Boom Shrinks Worker Pool
December 09, 2010, 6:06 PM EST


Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) --- Germany’s export-driven industry is embracing an
asset closer to home: domestic workers.

BASF SE, the world’s largest chemicals maker, last month followed
Siemens AG in granting job security for the 33,000 workers at its
Ludwigshafen plant. Siemens, the biggest German company by market value,
said in September it will indefinitely secure locations and jobs for all
its 128,000 domestic employees in the most sweeping concession to local
workers yet. Utility E.ON AG and carmaker Porsche AG have similar accords.

Unemployment in Europe’s largest economy has tumbled to the lowest level
in 18 years, as companies seek skilled workers to sustain an economic
rebound that shows few signs of cooling. The demand for local talent
marks a shift from a decade-long trend of companies moving production
abroad to escape high wages and German labor market regulation that
hampered hiring and firing.

“The way BASF is positioned today in Ludwigshafen in terms of internal
flexibility and social partnership arrangements, we now outclass any
other region in the world in our industry,� said Hans-Carsten Hansen,
head of human resources at the world’s largest chemicals company.
“Sometimes I want to spend less time negotiating, but you get out what
you put in.�

Back in Favor

Between 1990 and 2007, BASF reduced its workforce by more than 40
percent at its home site. Siemens, based in Munich, also chipped away at
its domestic workforce. In 1995, the company had 203,000 workers in
Germany, equal to 54 percent of the total, a figure that has since
shrunk to 128,000, or 32 percent.

“German companies have progressed on the learning curve, with
competition from abroad holding their feet to the fire,� said Ralph
Wiechers, chief economist at the Frankfurt-based VDMA machine makers’
association. “The pendulum has swung back in recent years to balance out
production abroad and at home.�

German workers have more clout than in other countries because they are
represented in the highest echelons of company management. Every
supervisory board of publicly traded companies is evenly split between
representatives for management and employees. That system, unique to
Germany, gives works councils and union members more sway over strategy,
hiring and firing, as well as the pay of senior executives.

“When I left General Electric, I thought this can’t possibly work, you
can’t run a company with all these labor representatives on the board,�
Peter Solmssen, who joined Siemens’s management board in 2007, said in
an interview in Munich on Dec. 1.

Master Craftsmen

Solmssen, a U.S. citizen who oversees compliance at the engineering
company, said he has since revised his opinion, as Siemens “gains more
from working with the labor representatives than what we give up.�

Germany, with 82 million people and a gross domestic product of 2.4
trillion euros ($3.3 trillion), relies on an apprentice system rooted in
the tradition of master craftsmen handing down their expertise to young
people, producing a steady stream of qualified workers.

Siemens Chief Executive Officer Peter Loescher said he’s “desperately
seeking engineers,� with about 3,000 unfilled positions in Germany,
twice the number from the middle of last year. Most openings are for
engineers, computer and natural scientists, according to Siemens.

The country may have a shortage of as many as 220,000 engineers and
scientists by 2014, a deficit that may swell to 425,000 by 2020, the
Cologne-based IW economic institute estimates. While the number of
university graduates for engineering jobs is “somewhat encouraging�
lately, the number of unfilled positions continues to rise, said Oliver
Koppel, senior economist at the institute.

Flexible Hours

Siemens spearheaded agreements with workers for more flexible work hours
in 2004, helping both sides preserve jobs even as demand dwindled. When
the global financial crisis hit demand in 2008, the company put workers
on reduced hours to avoid outright layoffs.

Daimler AG reduced hours of about 120,000 people, almost its entire
German workforce in production and administration. Robert Bosch GmbH,
the world’s largest automotive supplier, put as many as 100,000 of its
270,000 employees on shorter shifts.

“We demand noticeably higher flexibility from our employees, and this
flexibility is a success story,� Juergen Hambrecht, CEO of BASF, told a
conference on Nov. 25 in Berlin.

As a reward for concessions during the global economic contraction after
2008, Siemens aims to spend 310 million euros on a bonus for
non-management employees and bring forward a 2.7 percent pay increase
for workers in Germany. The company is also spending 100 million euros
revamping facilities in Berlin, which remains its largest global
manufacturing hub.

‘Competitive Edge’

“The agreement is good for employees as it gives them secure jobs, and
good for the company as it gives Siemens a competitive edge in getting
skilled workers and engineers,� said Dieter Scheitor, who represents the
IG Metall labor union on the Siemens supervisory board.

Reforms backed by employees helped make the German labor market more
flexible. The government cut jobless benefits, asked workers to pay part
of their health-care costs, and put pressure on the unemployed to take
low-paid work. Companies were given more flexibility in their use of
temporary workers. The government also subsidized the shortened working
hour model.

The program supported up to 1.5 million employees at some 63,000
companies and saved as many as 478,251 jobs last year, according to the
Federal Labor Agency.

Network Intact

“What’s been called the German job miracle was no miracle, but the
result of preparation for critical times, noticeably shorter work weeks
and higher flexibility,� Klaus Engel, CEO of Evonik Industries AG, said
in Berlin on Nov. 25.

Germany’s unemployment rate dropped to 7.5 percent this November, the
lowest in more than 18 years, from 9.1 percent in June 2007. In the
U.S., it more than doubled to 9.8 percent from 4.6 percent in the same
period. In 2005, Germany’s 10-year growth rate was half that of the
U.S., and its unemployment rate more than double. Today, Germany is
growing faster than the U.S.

“Germany’s network of industrial manufacturing is its own microcosm and
the envy of other economies,� said Wiechers, the VDMA economist. “And
that network remained intact during the crisis, unlike those of other
countries, where holes started appearing. You can’t go fishing with a
net that has holes.�

Wage Demands

While wage restraint has helped Germany succeed, the greater flexibility
over pay has come at a price. More than 7 million people in Germany work
in the low-wage jobs today, according to estimates by the IG Metall
labor union. Germany was the only one of 27 European Union countries
where wages fell between 2000 and 2008, according to the Hans Boeckler
Foundation, a union-sponsored economic institute.

Still, as the economy rebounds, workers in some industries are asking
for their share of the recovery. Germany’s chemical workers union on
Dec. 7 demanded up to 7 percent more pay. The IG Metall has demanded a 6
percent increase for workers at Volkswagen.

“This workforce has put in extra shifts without end to help satisfy
demand,� Bernd Osterloh, the chief labor representative at VW, Europe’s
largest carmaker, told 2,000 workers at its Wolfsburg headquarters
yesterday. “There are more than 90,000 workers who stand behind this
company. And that’s also why the economic crisis never really took hold
at Volkswagen.�

- - -

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:


In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?


So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

On 12/12/10 4:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:


In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?


So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.


Big corporations don't care about anything except themselves: the
public, the country be damned.

On Dec 12, 3:14*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog



wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from *Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:14:11 -0800, wrote:

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

All shareholder corporations, big and small, have to be concerned
about profits. It is their only reason for existence. Are you
proposing that manufacturing be done by government owned collectives?

PS, that has been tried elsewhere. It failed miserably.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:53:18 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Dec 12, 3:14*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog



wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from *Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

What about it do your find in error Mr. Dog?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:06:56 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:14:11 -0800, wrote:

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

All shareholder corporations, big and small, have to be concerned
about profits. It is their only reason for existence. Are you
proposing that manufacturing be done by government owned collectives?

PS, that has been tried elsewhere. It failed miserably.

No, I'm proposing that claiming "liberal"-owned corporations (as
though GE is somehow a liberal corp) are somehow worse than any other
corporation.

Actually, it's been tried here in the US, at least corps have been
heavily regulated, and it wasn't a failure, e.g., the airline industry
before the major deregulation.

On Dec 12, 5:23*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:53:18 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog



wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:14 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

What about it do your find in error Mr. Dog?

Very little actually, however your summation gives quite a glimmer of
negativity. Profit is not a bad thing. All must work on a profit.
Hourly wage earners make a profit.

Now what is considered a 'fair' or an 'obscene' profit is yet to be or
never determined. What seems fair to one may be obscene to another.

I must say I am rather tickled when I hear or see retailers
advertisments stating that they are selling what ever good at "the
lowest possible price"

"Possible?"

However low, chances are there is still a profit.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:53:20 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Dec 12, 5:23*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:53:18 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog



wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:14 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:02:08 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog

wrote:

In striking contrast, General Electric, the American industrial giant
and Siemens competitor, is looking out for its shareholders by granting
its second dividend of the year. They've gotta do something with that
$20 billion in cash they have laying around. GE will make about $7
billion in profits this year, but about $3 billion of that it is from
the bank it owns, GE Capital. That would be the same GE Capital bailed
out by the taxpayers. CEO Jeffery Immelt will collect a salary of about
$10 million, choosing for the second year to forego a huge bonus.
Meanwhile, GE is demanding Massachusetts pay them $25 million to keep a
factory open.

Speaking of General Electric and their motive for extorting funds
from Massachusetts while in a sucking for survival mode. Lets take a
look at who is at the helm. The article is a year and a half out of
date, however not much has changed with the corporation's leadership.

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker20.html

"This brief look at GE's boardroom clearly demonstrates that
representatives of the world's leading liberal philanthropies have no
qualms in maintaining intimate and profitable links to a leading
corporation in the US's military-industrial complex. Such a revelation
should give progressive activists much food for thought.

Rather than being a haven for warmongers, GE could be more accurately
described as a haven for well known liberal funders. Moreover, many of
the liberal foundations that GE board members have connections with
actually fund the most influential parts of the antiwar movement
within the United States. This is a problematic situation for
activists intent on bringing the military-industrial-media-foundation
complex to its knees. However, to date it is an issue that has rarely
been broached by the peace movement. This must change and liberal
foundation funding must be raised as an agenda item at future antiwar
meetings.?

So, in summation, big corporations do not have the best interest of
the United States in mind. They care one and only about profits.

That is your summation, D'Plume.

What about it do your find in error Mr. Dog?

Very little actually, however your summation gives quite a glimmer of
negativity. Profit is not a bad thing. All must work on a profit.
Hourly wage earners make a profit.

My summation was neither positive nor negative. I was stating fact.
Big corporations (for profit) don't care about the country except when
the country forces them to care either through regulation or
litigation.

All work doesn't have to be for profit, since there are many
non-profits that have existed for quite a while.

Now what is considered a 'fair' or an 'obscene' profit is yet to be or
never determined. What seems fair to one may be obscene to another.

I agree! So, the question is whether the profit is at the expense of
the community/country. If it is, do you believe that's still
acceptable? Is it ok to recklessly spill toxins into the community
water supply in the name of profit without regulation?

I must say I am rather tickled when I hear or see retailers
advertisments stating that they are selling what ever good at "the
lowest possible price"

"Possible?"

However low, chances are there is still a profit.

Sometimes, but not always. There are many examples of lost-leader
sales and dumping isn't uncommon to gain market share.