Originally Posted By RoadTrip The Big Three (2) Bailout has tanked because of the UAW's refusal to accept any concessions prior to the end of their existing contract in 2011. I hope the weenie Bush doesn’t bail them out. At this point it is not a Big Three Bailout - it is a UAW Bailout. Let the automakers declare bankruptcy and void the union contracts. I hope the union ends up with a lot less than they would have if they had done it voluntarily.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I konw I don't hear you right here RT. There isn't a single Deomcrat that really feels this way...is there? ;-p
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Reminds me of Eastern Airlines back in the 80's. The same exact thing happened there. Well to be fair to unions, Frank Lorenzo was probably the real cause of the failure but he and the union could not reach an agreement. So if memory serves, he had to let the airline die, and the airline became the largest bankruptcy in history at that time.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Unions had their place and time, but it is not here and not now. Many of the items unions originally pushed for... safe working conditions, overtime after a certain number of hours worked, etc. are now required by law. The purpose of unions today seems to be to force employers to pay more in wages and benefits than the market provides. If they are successful, they end up putting their employers out of business.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Of course, there's more to the story, as always. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13uaw.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12...uaw.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Mr. Gettelfinger said Friday that there was no way to tell what Mr. Corker meant by competitive wage and benefit rates, which differ depending on the company and the location of the automakers’ plants. He went on, “The G.O.P. caucus was insisting the restructuring had to be done on the backs of workers and retirees rather than have all stakeholders come to the table.”>> That lack of specific definition would have given the UAW plenty of wiggle room when it came to making specific cuts. They were just unwilling to accept a 2009 timeframe. As for labor concessions not being required of the banking companies bailed out: 1) Hourly banking employees do not receive wages and benefits costing $70 per hour. 2) Hourly banking employees are almost never unionized.
Originally Posted By hopemax > 1) Hourly banking employees do not receive wages and benefits costing $70 per hour. Neither do UAW workers. This is the big lie that is being sold, to make the union the bad guys. The salary for UAW workers tops out at about $27. Then they do receive health care and other benefits. This does not take it up to $70 though. Only about $35 an hour. So where does the $70 figure come from? The math: $70 per hour = [(Wages and benefits of current workers) + (BENEFITS OF ALL RETIRED WORKERS)] / (number of current workers) <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/askfa...han.html</a> Of course, since the foreign auto makers have been in US shorter, they don't have the legacy costs the US auto makers do. BUT, everyone wants to bring the UAW workers compensation = Foreign auto workers. Well, that might actually mean a RAISE in compensation for the workers currently working in Detroit. <a href="http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boost_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_struggle.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.aftermarketnews.com...gle.aspx</a> In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.
Originally Posted By hopemax Posted too soon... No one would argue that a fair calculation of YOUR compensation should include the benefits that your parents and grandparents receive. But that is what is going on here. What people want to happen is for the auto companies to default on their obligations. Now, while I think that is probably what is going to happen, I'm not happy with it. If a person defaults on their mortgage, or their credit cards, we gnash our teeth over someone not living up to their financial obligations. But in this case, many are DEMANDING that the companies do not fulfill theirs, and THEN put the blame on the workers. RT, did you not enter your contract with good faith that you would be a good worker for the University for as long as you were employed, and in exchange you would receive financial compensation now (wages) and later (pension)? Are you at fault, if later the state could not fulfill their obligation? Would you not feel perturbed if at that time, others say you don't deserve it, and aren't entitled to receive it?
Originally Posted By andyll Current workers do not make much more then toyota and honda workers. Perhaps UAW remember what happened to United Airline workers. They went into bankrupcy.... dumped the pension to the Government (cutting the payments almost in half) and got all the unions to make major concessions. When they came out of it United gave the execitives 100s of millions of dollars in bonuses for a job well done. Doesn't anyone find it odd that some of the mouthest Republican senators have huge non-usa car factories in their states. Country 1st my ass.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, did you not enter your contract with good faith that you would be a good worker for the University for as long as you were employed, and in exchange you would receive financial compensation now (wages) and later (pension)? Are you at fault, if later the state could not fulfill their obligation? Would you not feel perturbed if at that time, others say you don't deserve it, and aren't entitled to receive it?>> Like almost any industry today, the University at times changes the rules after you are hired. They need to if they are to remain in business. Rules that have changed since I started at the University: 1) Employee coverage for the least expensive individual health plan offered had always been at NO COST to the employee. That changed about 5 years ago. 2) The percentage withheld from your paycheck for retirement has increased from 4% to 4-1/2%. It is now scheduled to go to 5% to make up for the recent market downturn. 3) The combination of years of work + age needed for full retirement benefits has gone from "rule of 80" to "rule of 90"; effectively increasing the age for full retirement benefits by five years. 4) Vacation earning rates and maximum vacation accumulation have both been reduced. 5) The University periodically performs market studies to see where their wages fall in comparison to industry wages. Just recently this resulted in a salary DECREASE for some individuals in the Accounting Series of job classifications at the University. 6) Parking for our horses had always been free. Now that we drive cars to work we must pay to park. Just kidding on that one... I haven't been there quite that long. I have watched my parking charge climb from $25 per month to $125 per month though. We have faced all of these changes and this is for employment in what is essentially a state government position. Our conditions of employment have changed FAR LESS than most people face in private industry. So please tell me again why the autoworkers should never have to accept a change in their benefit packages.
Originally Posted By andyll <<So please tell me again why the autoworkers should never have to accept a change in their benefit packages.>> This is where the big lie comes in. They have. There is a big difference from asking new or even current employees from taking cuts and cutting retiree benefits. It is the retiree benefits that are killing them.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It is the retiree benefits that are killing them.>> Maybe it is time for the retirees to 'take one for the team' if their current benefits are that much beyond current industry standards. I would not reduce their current monthly pension, but I could see asking for a reduction in COLA's and perhaps increasing whatever deductibles they currently have for health coverage. The University offers a health plan for retirees at group rates. But they make absolutely no promises as to what the premiums or deductibles will be in the future. It appears to me that the UAW retirement benefits may be far in excess of what virtually anyone else, including government employees, receives. Perhaps they should take a cut.
Originally Posted By johnno52 As a Canadian Auto Worker (CAW) I have been following all the stories about the bailout (loan) in the US Senate. There has been many postings in many news medias on the net. I can't believe the amount of people in the US that actually think we get $70 per hour of wages. I know this is not the case on this site however still people do not know the complete story. I myself have been disabled for 4 years through repetitive strain injuries. I don't know what my present hourly income would be if I was working. But I can tell you for sure it would be around $30 per hour less tax, Unemployment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan. I do have a very good prescription plan which I pay the first $250. Just my wife's annual total for medication is over $8000 and rising. My plant has been slated to close by 2010 and as long as GM stays solvent I can get a pension of $3000 per month if not $1200.I would lose all benefits. Like any worker looking forward to retirement the thought of losing my pension and benefits is worrying. For the last 28 years, I (as many other auto workers)have not only contributed at times in access of $25,000 each per employee to our federal taxes, but many thousands to local schools, Universities and many other benefactors of our spending. Do we deserve this kind of treatment? I don't think so. We did not think twice when we gave freely at our gates for the 911 and Katrina victims. The have given freely billions to your bankers who started this mess but not to your workforce. We have given up millions of dollars in contract obligations the last few years. There are many sites you can go to to read about these concessions. Here is a site that will give you some interesting information. <a href="http://www.boycottalabamanow.com/" target="_blank">http://www.boycottalabamanow.com/</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy For all the folks out there rooting for the demise of the Big 3 and UAW, I sure hope you have a tidy nest egg. I don't know how the U.S. economy ever recovers under that scenario. The domino effect from a Big 3 bankruptcy could start a chain reaction that ultimately leads to bankruptcy of the federal government. The United States doesn't have the wherewithal to takeover the pension plans of the Big 3 automakers plus all of the auto parts suppliers that will follow suit in bankruptcy and severing their pension agreements. If you think a bailout is expensive, wait until you get the bill for paying the pension costs for the entire U.S. manufacturing labor force. It's scary to even consider. In an economy where wages have been stagnant and not keeping up with inflation, accelerating the decline in real wages by demanding concessions from the labor unions on pay and benefits is probably not going to jump-start the economy in any significant way. Wage deflation = Great Depression. History books are sometimes useful in reminding us about what happens in these circumstances.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The domino effect from a Big 3 bankruptcy could start a chain reaction that ultimately leads to bankruptcy of the federal government.<< Those dominoes have already been set up. If this doesn't get them started, it'll be something else. We can either get it over with now, or make it even worse in the future by adding more government-backed dominoes to the line. The Big 3 (or at least two of them) and the UAW are GOING to go down. We need to stop trying to kid ourselves that the government is going to be able to stop it, and start devoting all our government resources to getting through it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << and start devoting all our government resources to getting through it. >> There aren't any resources left. The government is broke. Goodbye union pension plans. Goodbye Social Security. Goodbye American standard of living for the past 50 years.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<For all the folks out there rooting for the demise of the Big 3 and UAW>> I'm not rooting for the demise of either the Big 3 or the UAW. I just hope the UAW gets smart and accepts the concessions needed so that the companies can survive. There is no way the Feds can pour in enough of our tax money to keep those companies afloat with the current contracts in place. If the UAW refuses and the companies fail I realize that the country will be greatly harmed. That was the basis for my thread title: "UAW to USA: Heck with you - We want ours".
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, Trippy drives a Charger. In fact Trippy has NEVER driven anything in his life other than a Big Three automobile. How may of you out there crying crocodile tears over the demise of the Big Three can make that statement? Talk's cheap. Folks should put their money where their mouth is and maybe we wouldn't have this problem.
Originally Posted By avromark My beater and my collectors car are domestic. My parents have gone back to domestics. Even my ski-doo is domestic. My brother drives a domestic. My sister drives an MX-5. In regards to quality. This is a percieved thing. I'll use my aunt as an example. Her Oldsmobile Omega was a bad car. She can't quite get over it. When her Lexus gives her grievance it's "The mechanics fault". She claims my mom must be treating her van with kids gloves for it to last. She also firmly believes that if her car crashed into a one ton pick up her car would survive better. Perception is usually behind reality. Many people have their own versions of the truth. Few people compare before they buy. They've decided they're getting an Accord. They won't look at a Mazda6 or a Chevy Malibu. It's going to be an Accord. A few things to note about my Japanese vehicle - the lift gate only has one latch in the middle instead of 2 on the side. If you open it during winter, half the time you won't be able to close it since ice forms (mounted at the bottom not the sides of the gate) until you run the rear heater for awhile. Engine Block heater is not accessed through a flip cover plug in the lower fascia. You either leave the cord dangling through the hood or open the hood up each time. Trip computer doesn't warn of Ice conditions depending on tempurature. Non self supporting hood. For me these are basics. Yes I have push button start, yes I have rear back-up camera. But uh, please design a vehicle for the North American market (Only place my CUV is sold) according to conditions in that market. If you note multiple sources state that quality is way up for domestics. You'll also find sales of Fords for example in Europe quite high. In England they even have terms such as "Mondeo Man" (A Ford model). In Thailand (the second biggest pick up market through gross sales numbers) you'll find many many Rangers. (But please note this Ranger is different from the one we get, this one is very good and modern). In Canada you'll find a much higher percentage of domestics than across the border (Save Michigan). I find it odd the place that domestics tend to do worst in is their own home market. Just ask our Ozzie posters what they think of Holden's and Ford (GM/Ford respectively).
