Is GM finished?

[kallsop]

The Big 3's average cost of US business (labor) is far higher than the new import non union plants. I wonder how that will play out for the Big 3? (hint - you're seeing it right now).

The best business plan is to go Chapter 11 and start fresh with a lower cost base. The most likely political plan is a bailout, to buy union votes. That is a path to continued market share decline. That's how the Big 3 will die, through attrition.

 

[Toke]

Have you heard of henry ford raising wages during the depression?

I have heard alot of bs about how higher bonuses to management will make them more effective. Somehow the same principle is not applied to workers.

And the evil union bs is as old as industri.
Trust the company, the company is your friend.

 

[Furcifer]

The Big 3's average cost of US business (labor) is far higher than the new import non union plants. I wonder how that will play out for the Big 3? (hint - you're seeing it right now).

The best business plan is to go Chapter 11 and start fresh with a lower cost base. The most likely political plan is a bailout, to buy union votes. That is a path to continued market share decline. That's how the Big 3 will die, through attrition.

And you're going to pay for it if it happens (assuming yur American)

How's this going to work? You want to decrease the average pay of 1/10 the population? How are they gonna pay for the product? This isn't your local grocery store, this is a huge industry. Massive amounts of money taken out of a fragile economy. I agree with you on the small scale, at least in principle, but when you look at the bigger picture, this isn't going o work.

 

[Furcifer]

And the evil union bs is as old as industri.
Trust the company, the company is your friend.

That's the thing, in a small company its practical. You get this big and it isn't. You work in a big company and yur a number, you work in a smaller one and yur "Crazy Bob" from accounting. Everyone loves Crazy Bob. Did you hear what happened to Crazy Bob? Every one knows what Crazy Bob did at the Christmas party. Who knows what Master Number 88666 did at the Christmas party? (Master Numbers have been changed to protect the innocent)

 

[davefoc]

Why is it that when the shareholders and making money hand over fist no one is talking about "concessions" to be made, giving something back to the average joe busting his back on the line?

This kind of question is always a little sad to me. People have spent their whole lives listening to this kind of analogy and the idea that it is bogus just doesn't occur to them.

One of the fundamental ideas underlying the idea that capitalism is a good idea is that the law of supply and demand is true. I believe its true. I am no less convinced that the law of supply and demand is correct than that the law of gravity is correct.

What this means with regard to your analogy is that the profits of owners are not unconstrained and that they serve societal purposes. When a company owner makes lots of money other people notice that and they compete with him both providing jobs and reducing the cost of services to society in general. This happens whether there is a union in place or not. In addition the company owner who is making a lot of money usually invests much of his profits back into his business so that he can expand it and make even more money, but along the way society benefits as he hires more people and increases the supply of his product which reduces the prices that society pays for them.

However, union actions that raise the wages of worker above market rates are accompanied with many serious unintended consequences.
1. The factory owner's costs go up. He raises his prices and the demand for his product goes down. He needs less workers and he fires the ones he doesn't need. So the union succeeded in getting higher wages for some workers but it did this by increasing the pool of workers that no longer can work in the industry that they control. So has the union really succeed in getting higher wages for workers if the entire pool of workers is looked at or has the union only succeeded in raising the wages of some workers while harming others an equal or larger amount?
2. As the factory owners labor costs go up he makes decision to automate more and reduce his labor costs, so as his labor costs are raised above market wages the factory owner responds by instituting automation which decreases the number of workers even more. And once again the union members that keep their job through this process are rewarded and if that is all that is taken into account labor unions look like a pretty good idea, but if one is concerned about workers in general and not just union members the picture is not so clear. Detroit is full of the results of this kind of thinking. There are people all over the place that would work for a third of union wages but they can't have jobs because Detroit needs to make its automation decisions based on its artificially high cost structure and not on market wages.
3. During times of recession, factories need to cut costs to stay in business. When unions protect jobs and wages during this kind of situation good companies are driven out of business. In fact that is exactly the reality that almost every business in the US operate under except for the US car industry which because of its political clout may stave off the consequences of intransigent unions in the face of economic realities.
4. As industries mature, advantages of capital and innovation become less significant. Profit through product differentiation and innovation become increasingly difficult. Successful companies in an environment like this are ones that can reduce their costs. Detroit, with it codified above market wage schemes and disastrous work rules can not compete with other companies, even companies manufacturing in the US. Detroit automobile suppliers will die in this kind of environment, regardless of whether the government gives them 25 billion dollars or 250 billion dollars.

They're just supposed to be happy with the contract they negotiated. As soon as the shareholders lose a few bucks people start screaming "concessions" to the UAW. Where did the profits go? I'll tell you where, out of the country and hoarded by these Congressman's cronies by way of foreign cars, trips and properties, or super huge bank accounts.

You might not like it but when a business in the US loses money it goes out of business. One of the issues that can be addressed in chapter 11 bankruptcies are union contracts. At that point the union contract is legally broken. For almost every business in the US with a union contract this is exactly what will happen if its costs exceed its income. The alternative would be for the government to step in and force the company to abide by its contract in which case the company will probably be forced into chapter 9 and then the everybody will lose their jobs. The proposal on the table is that Detroit is to be treated differently and that money from people from all over the US will be gathered up by force and given to the Detroit automakers so they can continue to pay their workers more than the vast majority of workers in the US who were forced to supply the money for this.

Currently 1% of the population holds 40% of the World's wealth, the gap between the rich and poor has grown over the last decade. Not all, but alot of this transfer of wealth can be indirectly attributed to the automotive industry, by way of oil and steel.

What other body has fought to redistribute this wealth back to the average Joe working the line? Not only directly to its members, but indirectly to the 1 in 10 Americans who rely on this industry? The UAW. And not by force mind you, but by negotiating a fair contract. I can't think of any other body that has done this, but then again I'm entrenched, being so close to Detroit.

I think you can see from what I've written above I don't agree with you. The UAW has almost destroyed the Detroit automakers and Detroit along with it. The effect of the UAW on Detroit has been far more devastating than ten 9/11 attacks.

For every 1 alleged bribe by the UAW, there's at least 1 on the other side doing the same. At least 1, if not more. But then do you really want to go there? Government is dirty, always has been always will. So is the Union. On a plus side, I truly believe Obama's Government will be better. Not perfect, but better.

Well here we have some common ground for sure. It is a very serious problem with capitalism that the concentration of power leads to a concentration of efforts to get congress to act for the special interest ahead of the general interest. The failure of the Bush administration to restrain the corrupt congress may in the long run be the most significant failure of the Bush administration (and there is no shortage of Bushco failures to compete with on this). And I think Obama's government will be better also.

Why is it the Government's responsibility to do anything? Please, I can't believe members of this forum falling prey to this "Free Market" woo. All of the World's Governments have a vested interest in protecting their industries. Why else would there be a WTO? From grants, subsidies, tax breaks to inflating or deflating their currencies, all of them have and continue to protect their economies by protecting their industries.

Why would you allow one of your biggest industries to fail while blindly following this "Free Market" religion that doesn't exist? Can't you see the problem this ideal is causing, a monopoly on the World's currency? Are you really ignorant of the money the Japanese, Chinese and Europeans have pumped into this industry in the past?

Or is this just sour grapes you don't make Union wages and your first car was a Chevette?

As I stated above I am not completely opposed to a bail out if a formula could be found to create a sustainable industry. My sense of it is that Ford and maybe Chrysler might be in that boat. Without bankruptcy, I don't see how GM can be fixed. It has too many brands, it has too many dealerships, it has disastrously high labor costs, and it has disastrous legacy costs. The existence of even one of those problems would be daunting. The existence of all of them seems irreparable. The worldwide automobile industry seems to have excess capacity. The reality is that some of it probably needs to be eliminated. A GM bankruptcy that either addressed its problems successfully or a GM bankruptcy that resulted in a strengthened Ford and Chrysler might be exactly the right answer.

 

[Toke]

However, union actions that raise the wages of worker above market rates are accompanied with many serious unintended consequences.

The marked rate is whatever people is paying.
It may not be "fair", but for the capitalists to whine about it is the top of hipocrism.

We heard the same story of exorbitant wages during the west coast lockout of longshoremen. We newer found out what they were really paid.

Why do I hear of most us incomes not ricing above inflation the last 20 years.
It does not fit with a blodsucking union.
Are the high wages just company propaganda?
Or do they mean higher than asian sweatshops?

 

[egslim]

And the evil union bs is as old as industri.

Neither side is evil, but they do have an adversal relation, and therein lies the problem. If the business wins, the workers get squeezed. If the union wins, the business get squeezed - which is what's happening now.

The two sides need to cooperate, if the business does well employees get a pay rise, if business is hard labour costs are brought down to improve the company's competativeness. Long term such a cooperative relation is more survivable than an adverseral one.

Long term that would even benefit shareholders, because while it will lower their dividends, the shares will retain their value better.

 

[Toke]

I tend to agree with you, but coorporation is difficult without trust.
And the rise in corporate greed and shortsightednes have eliminated any trust.

In countries with higher wages you are expectet to automate production to keep each worker competitive. That requires investments in both industry and in the countrys educational system to give you workers that can opperate an advanced factory.

Looks like the 3 dumb have not improved their factories and that the us have started testing instead of teaching.

 

[Furcifer]

This kind of question is always a little sad to me. People have spent their whole lives listening to this kind of analogy and the idea that it is bogus just doesn't occur to them.

If there were no greed in the World you'd be right. Corporate greed and unfair labour practises created and keep the Union in business.

One of the fundamental ideas underlying the idea that capitalism is a good idea is that the law of supply and demand is true. I believe its true. I am no less convinced that the law of supply and demand is correct than that the law of gravity is correct.
What this means with regard to your analogy is that the profits of owners are not unconstrained and that they serve societal purposes. When a company owner makes lots of money other people notice that and they compete with him both providing jobs and reducing the cost of services to society in general. This happens whether there is a union in place or not. In addition the company owner who is making a lot of money usually invests much of his profits back into his business so that he can expand it and make even more money, but along the way society benefits as he hires more people and increases the supply of his product which reduces the prices that society pays for them.

The problem with Capitalism is the fact that it caters to the masses "wants" and not "needs". Essentially this is what caused the current situation. People demanded things they couldn't afford. The way I see it, it's the Governments job to properly curtail the demand of the people, in their own best interest. Had the Government listened to the Big Three in the early 90's, and imposed a $0.75/gallon tax on fuel, they would have created a demand for smaller more efficient cars. This type of intervention in the supply and demand cycle could have saved us the problem we are in now. The law of supply and demand may be true, but it isn't always right and in the best interest of a society.

However, union actions that raise the wages of worker above market rates are accompanied with many serious unintended consequences.

1. The factory owner's costs go up. He raises his prices and the demand for his product goes down. He needs less workers and he fires the ones he doesn't need. So the union succeeded in getting higher wages for some workers but it did this by increasing the pool of workers that no longer can work in the industry that they control. So has the union really succeed in getting higher wages for workers if the entire pool of workers is looked at or has the union only succeeded in raising the wages of some workers while harming others an equal or larger amount?

Or he reduces profit margins, keeping prices the same and maintains demand for his product while providing a fair working wage for numerous employees. The employees see the sacrifice and appreciate the factory owner for remaining in touch with his workers. The workers are happy and productivity increases, absences decrease. Slowly the profit margins increase, the factory owner, accustomed to his already above average income, invests it back into his workers in productivity bonuses. The workers have a sense of pride in their product, they take interest. Quality improves.

2. As the factory owners labor costs go up he makes decision to automate more and reduce his labor costs, so as his labor costs are raised above market wages the factory owner responds by instituting automation which decreases the number of workers even more.

Ah, somewhat a specialty of mine, factory automation. The body or metal shop has become highly automated over the years. With Union support. Formerly manned jobs have become automated on the most part due to the hazardous nature of the job, heavy objects and repetative strain/stress. Where once 4 guys were getting hurt, now there a two robots and a skilled trade (higher pay) electrician. Due to the tolerances in sheet metal, and the need for the vehicle to flex, the precision inheirent in robots is actually a disadvantage. Welding is itself a nasty process that simply isn't good for humans. In most processes the human touch is required, aticipating and adapting quickly to changes in the product. Less hurt workers, more high pay jobs, lower insurance rates and higher profit margins.

And once again the union members that keep their job through this process are rewarded and if that is all that is taken into account labor unions look like a pretty good idea, but if one is concerned about workers in general and not just union members the picture is not so clear. Detroit is full of the results of this kind of thinking. There are people all over the place that would work for a third of union wages but they can't have jobs because Detroit needs to make its automation decisions based on its artificial decisions based on its artificially high cost structure and not on market wages.

You're over estimating the cost of manpower and the impact of automation in the process.

During times of recession, factories need to cut costs to stay in business. When unions protect jobs and wages during this kind of situation good companies are driven out of business. In fact that is exactly the reality that almost every business in the US operate under except for the US car industry which because of its political clout may stave off the consequences of intransigent unions in the face of economic realities.

Agreed. And as of this week, the country is in a recession and the Union is making consessions.

4. As industries mature, advantages of capital and innovation become less significant. Profit through product differentiation and innovation become increasingly difficult. Successful companies in an environment like this are ones that can reduce their costs. Detroit, with it codified above market wage schemes and disastrous work rules can not compete with other companies, even companies manufacturing in the US. Detroit automobile suppliers will die in this kind of environment, regardless of whether the government gives them 25 billion dollars or 250 billion dollars.

No they can't compete because the US Congress has foolishly granted foreign automakers exemptions and special tax status in this country, while at home these companies are also recieving big grants and subsidies from their governments. Something the Union has fought tooth and nail against with little succes. Listen, if you want to talk about the Unions making consessions during a time of recession, then how about the industry making consessions too? It was thought that the economy could support the encrochment of foreign automakers on US soil. It can't, they need to go. We need to stop selling off industry to foreign markets and keep it here or we are going to be in bigger trouble than we are now. There's nothing wrong with protecting our industries and keeping our jobs. The US is worse off than us here in Canada. At least we have natural resources and a healthy export market. The US is exhausted and pissed off the rest of the World, if they lose this domestic industry what are you gonna do?

You might not like it but when a business in the US loses money it goes out of business. One of the issues that can be addressed in chapter 11 bankruptcies are union contracts. At that point the union contract is legally broken. For almost every business in the US with a union contract this is exactly what will happen if its costs exceed its income. The alternative would be for the government to step in and force the company to abide by its contract in which case the company will probably be forced into chapter 9 and then the everybody will lose their jobs. The proposal on the table is that Detroit is to be treated differently and that money from people from all over the US will be gathered up by force and given to the Detroit automakers so they can continue to pay their workers more than the vast majority of workers in the US who were forced to supply the money for this.

If it losses money to the domestic market, it really isn't lost, just transfered around a bit. When it's going out of the country I'm not sure it's the same. Granted it's not all going out, but alot of it is. I just don't think this is a good thing. We've come along way to establish a working class here in North America. A decent living for us and our kids and a decent retirement.

The UAW has almost destroyed the Detroit automakers and Detroit along with it. The effect of the UAW on Detroit has been far more devastating than ten 9/11 attacks.

I don't think you mean this. There's no comparison to be made here.

Well here we have some common ground for sure. It is a very serious problem with capitalism that the concentration of power leads to a concentration of efforts to get congress to act for the special interest ahead of the general interest. The failure of the Bush administration to restrain the corrupt congress may in the long run be the most significant failure of the Bush administration (and there is no shortage of Bushco failures to compete with on this). And I think Obama's government will be better also.

As I stated above I am not completely opposed to a bail out if a formula could be found to create a sustainable industry. My sense of it is that Ford and maybe Chrysler might be in that boat. Without bankruptcy, I don't see how GM can be fixed. It has too many brands, it has too many dealerships, it has disastrously high labor costs, and it has disastrous legacy costs. The existence of even one of those problems would be daunting. The existence of all of them seems irreparable. The worldwide automobile industry seems to have excess capacity. The reality is that some of it probably needs to be eliminated. A GM bankruptcy that either addressed its problems successfully or a GM bankruptcy that resulted in a strengthened Ford and Chrysler might be exactly the right answer.

I think you present some good points, and I don't totally disagree with you Dave. I think you may be a little misinformed on how manpower figures into the equation and a little bitter with the Union. I don't want to see an end to the Union, I want to see a Union that protects its workers from unfair labour practises and establishes a fair wage for its members. Fair on all accounts. They can't negotiate for their members sitting across the table from CEO's and board members taking in outrageous salaries.

 

[Furcifer]

Just some quick math for everyone here talking about Union wages and how uncompetative they make manufacturers. A vehicle rolls off the line every 45-48 seconds on the average assembly line. There are usually no more than 2000 people on the line in any given factory. Each person gets about $0.50 per vehicle at $30/hr. That's an average of $1000 labour per vehicle. Toyota, at best, is paying $500 by the same logic.

You think this is a significant factor in the cost of a vehicle? I don't.

 

[balrog666]

I had tentatively concluded that you were a member of the UAW. Now I suspect that you are a member of the UAW management and here solely to shill for the UAW team by spewing disinformation.

If there were no greed in the World you'd be right. Corporate greed and unfair labour practises created and keep the Union in business.

Utter nonsense. Greed on the part of union organizers, union managers, and Demo-politicians is all that keeps unions in business. Nothing else.

The problem with Capitalism is the fact that it caters to the masses "wants" and not "needs". Essentially this is what caused the current situation. People demanded things they couldn't afford. The way I see it, it's the Governments job to properly curtail the demand of the people, in their own best interest. Had the Government listened to the Big Three in the early 90's, and imposed a $0.75/gallon tax on fuel, they would have created a demand for smaller more efficient cars. This type of intervention in the supply and demand cycle could have saved us the problem we are in now. The law of supply and demand may be true, but it isn't always right and in the best interest of a society.

According to the Constitution, it is no one else's business to decide what are, or how to fulfill, someone else's "needs" - most especially the government.

It is no one else's business what kind of car I drive or what mileage my vehicle gets.

The law of supply and demand is always correct. Union members throwing monkey wrenches into the production line are no longer in demand.

Or he reduces profit margins, keeping prices the same and maintains demand for his product while providing a fair working wage for numerous employees. The employees see the sacrifice and appreciate the factory owner for remaining in touch with his workers. The workers are happy and productivity increases, absences decrease. Slowly the profit margins increase, the factory owner, accustomed to his already above average income, invests it back into his workers in productivity bonuses. The workers have a sense of pride in their product, they take interest. Quality improves.

Production engineering is a useful discipline that dumps your happy, little pipe-dream into the trash.

As I stated before, the concept of a "fair wage" is economic nonsense. If the factory manager can hire monkeys at 2cents/hour to fulfill his labor needs, he is legal obligated to do just that.

Ah, somewhat a specialty of mine, factory automation. The body or metal shop has become highly automated over the years. With Union support. Formerly manned jobs have become automated on the most part due to the hazardous nature of the job, heavy objects and repetative strain/stress. Where once 4 guys were getting hurt, now there a two robots and a skilled trade (higher pay) electrician. Due to the tolerances in sheet metal, and the need for the vehicle to flex, the precision inheirent in robots is actually a disadvantage. Welding is itself a nasty process that simply isn't good for humans. In most processes the human touch is required, aticipating and adapting quickly to changes in the product. Less hurt workers, more high pay jobs, lower insurance rates and higher profit margins.

Increasing the capital infusion for machinery to reduce long term costs is a useful management function. The labor pool shifts from many mindless monkeys turning a wrench all day to skilled operators, repairmen, programmers and such earning high wages for valuable performance.

On the other hand, the otherwise unskilled UAW members end up unemployed or in the Job Bank, and sucking on the teats of the productive via Unemployment Compensation and union-contract payments for idleness.

[snip]

Agreed. And as of this week, the country is in a recession and the Union is making consessions.

More utter nonsense. The union has agreed to nothing more than to consider the obvious concessions: they agreed (ha!) to allow a delay in the medical service trust fund payments because companies that are broke won't be making them anyway. And the UAW hasn't agreed to any labor cost cuts or labor changes or the Job Bank would have been history this morning.

No they can't compete because the US Congress has foolishly granted foreign automakers exemptions and special tax status in this country, while at home these companies are also recieving big grants and subsidies from their governments. Something the Union has fought tooth and nail against with little succes. Listen, if you want to talk about the Unions making consessions during a time of recession, then how about the industry making consessions too? It was thought that the economy could support the encrochment of foreign automakers on US soil. It can't, they need to go. We need to stop selling off industry to foreign markets and keep it here or we are going to be in bigger trouble than we are now. There's nothing wrong with protecting our industries and keeping our jobs. The US is worse off than us here in Canada. At least we have natural resources and a healthy export market. The US is exhausted and pissed off the rest of the World, if they lose this domestic industry what are you gonna do?

If I thought your spelling was a ruse, I'd ask if you were a lawyer for the union playing a role here for pay.

If it losses money to the domestic market, it really isn't lost, just transfered around a bit. When it's going out of the country I'm not sure it's the same. Granted it's not all going out, but alot of it is. I just don't think this is a good thing. We've come along way to establish a working class here in North America.

More economic nonsense - the Big, Dumb 3 imports subassemblies and auto parts from China, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, and a hundred other places outside this country.

[snip]

I think you present some good points, and I don't totally disagree with you Dave. I think you may be a little misinformed on how manpower figures into the equation and a little bitter with the Union. I don't want to see an end to the Union, I want to see a Union that protects its workers from unfair labour practises and establishes a fair wage for its members. Fair on all accounts. They can't negotiate for their members sitting across the table from CEO's and board members taking in outrageous salaries.

That red herring is really starting to stink. CEO's salaries (and shareholder dividends) have nothing to do with union pay rates.

If you think otherwise, just consider that the GM CEO is going to get a salary of $1 next year. Does that change what the UAW line workers will get paid?

,

 

[Furcifer]

I had tentatively concluded that you were a member of the UAW. Now I suspect that you are a member of the UAW management and here solely to shill for the UAW team by spewing disinformation.

7 years a card carrying member of one of the biggest locals in the country, 444. Then hired as management, per diem supervisor, at plant 6. I also worked on the product launch of the Pacifica in plant 3, trouble shooting and running issues from the front end back to Body in White. Plant 6 closed due to falling fleet sales and the company not wanting to invest millions retooling the plant to meet side impact standards, I never worked for Chrysler again. I worked a stint afterwords for a JIT supplier, Tenneco Automotive (Monroe), doing supervision and implementing the QMS, changing from ISO 9001 to TS16949. They Unionized just before I was hired, part of the reason I was hired was due to my Union experience. I've never once had a grievance filed against me. Conclude what you like, I have intimate knowledge on both sides of the fence.

Utter nonsense. Greed on the part of union organizers, union managers, and Demo-politicians is all that keeps unions in business. Nothing else.

Negotiated greed none the less. The Unions could have been broken had the companies not done what they did and continue to do. They are becoming less and less powerful because of what you mentioned and because of legislation protecting workers.

According to the Constitution, it is no one else's business to decide what are, or how to fulfill, someone else's "needs" - most especially the government.

BS. They do and they will. You need to wear your seat belt buddy. Where's your Constitution now? In your own car, Government telling you what you need. OMG!

It is no one else's business what kind of car I drive or what mileage my vehicle gets.

As a citizen of this planet its my business. You're wrecking my lungs, my environment. Not just for me but for my kids.

The law of supply and demand is always correct. Union members throwing monkey wrenches into the production line are no longer in demand.

No it isn't. People are idiots. They need intelligent leaders that listen to experts to guide them or they fail as a society. They need more than just a "demand" ,they need to be educated and helped along the way.

Union members throwing monkey wrenches? Hehe, that's an ancient cliché.

As I stated before, the concept of a "fair wage" is economic nonsense. If the factory manager can hire monkeys at 2cents/hour to fulfill his labor needs, he is legal obligated to do just that.

Yes and no. I mean setting a specific wage and saying it's fair is hard to do. But I know what it is. It allows a mother to stay at home and raise her kids while they're young, keeps food on the table, a car running. A vacation for the family here and there. When a child goes off to school to better themselves, it doesn't pay for tuition but helps them along the way. It keeps the family healthy by way of coverage. It takes care of them in old age. That's a fair wage.

Increasing the capital infusion for machinery to reduce long term costs is a useful management function. The labor pool shifts from many mindless monkeys turning a wrench all day to skilled operators, repairmen, programmers and such earning high wages for valuable performance.

On the other hand, the otherwise unskilled UAW members end up unemployed or in the Job Bank, and sucking on the teats of the productive via Unemployment Compensation and union-contract payments for idleness.

? I don't think you really know about manufacturing, automation or the UAW. In the two plants I've worked in any automation that could be implemented was. There was an irrational fear years ago, but those days are gone. The UAW stopped blocking this before my time. I think you need to spend a few years in a plant on the line and working with the UAW, like I have, to understand this.

More utter nonsense. The union has agreed to nothing more than to consider the obvious concessions: they agreed (ha!) to allow a delay in the medical service trust fund payments because companies that are broke won't be making them anyway. And the UAW hasn't agreed to any labor cost cuts or labor changes or the Job Bank would have been history this morning.

I think you missed a meeting.

If I thought your spelling was a ruse, I'd ask if you were a lawyer for the union playing a role here for pay.

No, my poor spelling is a result of a poor INTERNET connection and intending to go back and spell check but simply being content with getting it to "submit reply". And this stupid laptop keyboard. Sorry.

More economic nonsense - the Big, Dumb 3 imports sub assemblies and auto parts from China, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, and a hundred other places outside this country.

[snip]

Some things are imported as sub-assemblies (even entire vehicles) from other countries and sold here. The point is the big 3 are head quartered here and subject to our laws.

That red herring is really starting to stink. CEO's salaries (and shareholder dividends) have nothing to do with union pay rates.
If you think otherwise, just consider that the GM CEO is going to get a salary of $1 next year. Does that change what the UAW line workers will get paid?
,

I think you're being contrary here just to be contrary. It's hard to tell workers they need to take a pay cut because the company is losing money when the CEO's and management are pulling in MASSIVE amounts of money. People see this, they know. They talk about it and it festers in their minds. They think about it when they accept or reject contracts. In the grand scheme of things does it matter? Not directly, no. What management makes is a drop in the bucket compared to what these companies make when they are profitable. The real point is the Union is going dig their heels in until they see management making concessions that at least equal what their members are facing.

You're talking like you've never really been a member of a Union or Management. You don't have a feel for what is going on on either side.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Why are we even considering bailing them out again? Why are they going to get free money to waste and keep the products they sell?

The government should just buy us cars with all that dam money instead of giving it away. Better yet buy lots of cars themselves and auction them off to the people at much lower prices!
Do anything other then just giving them free money.

 

[Furcifer]

Why are we even considering bailing them out again? Why are they going to get free money to waste and keep the products they sell?

The government should just buy us cars with all that dam money instead of giving it away. Better yet buy lots of cars themselves and auction them off to the people at much lower prices!
Do anything other then just giving them free money.

Again? Do you mean the 1982 Chrysler Bailout,a loan, which turned a profit for the Government?

This is another misinformed statement, an example of how ignorant the public is of what's going on.

I've got a better idea, why not find out where the $700 Billion went and give that back to the average working joe so he can reinvest it in the industries that are failing.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Again? Do you mean the 1982 Chrysler Bailout,a loan, which turned a profit for the Government?

This is another misinformed statement, an example of how ignorant the public is of what's going on.

I've got a better idea, why not find out where the $700 Billion went and give that back to the average working joe so he can reinvest it in the industries that are failing.

Why do i attract the attention of the ignorant? Misinformed statement? I could have agreed with childish in manor, but misinformed?....

http://mises.org/story/3202
"General Motors has once again approached the federal government with its hand out. It should not be forgotten that in September of 2008, Congress gave the "big three" automakers a loan totaling $25 billion. Now they are back. This time they say that with a mere $50 billion they can turn things around and become profitable in the future."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/09/24/a-25-billion-lifeline-for-gm-ford-and-chrysler.html
"With Congress preoccupied with the massive, $700 billion bailout plan for the financial industry, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have finally secured Part One of their own federal rescue plan. A bill set to be passed by Congress and signed by President Bush as early as this weekend—separate from the controversial Wall Street bailout plan—includes $25 billion in loans for the beleaguered Detroit automakers and several of their suppliers."

http://www.ridelust.com/the-economics-of-another-gm-bailout/
"GM and Ford are once again begging at the doorstep of every honest, tax-paying American. Just two months ago, Congress gave the Detroit Three $25 billion dollars worth of bailout money, and now they want more. They say this time it’s different; this time, with only $50 billion, they can become profitable. The worst part is GM’s argument for the bailout: they say if the taxpayers don’t bail them out, it’ll spell horrible doom for the economy."

I would really like a written apology expressing how sincerely sorry you are for purposely insulting my intelligence. Clearly i knew the difference between the $700 Billion WallStreet bailout plan and the bailout for GM a few months ago. clearly you were unaware, or part of that ignorant public you speak of.

 

[WildCat]

Have you heard of henry ford raising wages during the depression?

I have heard alot of bs about how higher bonuses to management will make them more effective. Somehow the same principle is not applied to workers.

And the evil union bs is as old as industri.
Trust the company, the company is your friend.

The reason the same priciple can't be applied to union workers is that the unions are against it.

Everyone gets paid the same amount if they have the same seniority, doesn't matter if he's the best worker on the line or spends most of his day goofing off.

Pay for performance and unions simply do not mix.

 

[Furcifer]

Why do i attract the attention of the ignorant? Misinformed statement? I could have agreed with childish in manor, but misinformed?....

http://mises.org/story/3202
"General Motors has once again approached the federal government with its hand out. It should not be forgotten that in September of 2008, Congress gave the "big three" automakers a loan totaling $25 billion. Now they are back. This time they say that with a mere $50 billion they can turn things around and become profitable in the future."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/09/24/a-25-billion-lifeline-for-gm-ford-and-chrysler.html
"With Congress preoccupied with the massive, $700 billion bailout plan for the financial industry, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have finally secured Part One of their own federal rescue plan. A bill set to be passed by Congress and signed by President Bush as early as this weekend—separate from the controversial Wall Street bailout plan—includes $25 billion in loans for the beleaguered Detroit automakers and several of their suppliers."

http://www.ridelust.com/the-economics-of-another-gm-bailout/
"GM and Ford are once again begging at the doorstep of every honest, tax-paying American. Just two months ago, Congress gave the Detroit Three $25 billion dollars worth of bailout money, and now they want more. They say this time it’s different; this time, with only $50 billion, they can become profitable. The worst part is GM’s argument for the bailout: they say if the taxpayers don’t bail them out, it’ll spell horrible doom for the economy."

I would really like a written apology expressing how sincerely sorry you are for purposely insulting my intelligence. Clearly i knew the difference between the $700 Billion WallStreet bailout plan and the bailout for GM a few months ago. clearly you were unaware, or part of that ignorant public you speak of.

You need to read for comprehension and find more reliable news sources if you want to participate. With issues this big you should know what you are talking about. Remember the internet (especially blogs) isn't the best source of up to date reliable and concise information.

ps-i don't want an apology, just read about what's going on and get your facts straight.

 

[WildCat]

Had the Government listened to the Big Three in the early 90's, and imposed a $0.75/gallon tax on fuel, they would have created a demand for smaller more efficient cars. This type of intervention in the supply and demand cycle could have saved us the problem we are in now.

Nonsense. The problem wasn't that the Big 3 made SUVs. In fact, it was SUV sales that kept them afloat the last decade. SUVs were so successful that Toyota, Honda, Lexus, hell even Porsche (!) came out with their own SUVs.

The problem was poor quality and poor design. Detroit made fuel-efficient vehicles, it's just that nobody bought them because they were a poor value compared to foreign makes.

A gas tax wouldn't have helped Detroit one bit, in fact it would have simply pushed them to this point sooner.

And that's why the bailout won't help Detroit in the long run - their problem is their products compare poorly to others.

 

[Furcifer]

Everyone gets paid the same amount if they have the same seniority, doesn't matter if he's the best worker on the line or spends most of his day goofing off.

Pay for performance and unions simply do not mix.

This is an unfortunate side effect of the Unions that I don't agree with. Pay grades that reflect each workers measurable participation in the process should be allowed. People who take pride in their work, attend regularily and go the extra mile work beside employees recieving the same pay who do nothing. If you don't pay attention and address these issues as a Supervisor things can get ugly fast

 

[Furcifer]

Nonsense. The problem wasn't that the Big 3 made SUVs. In fact, it was SUV sales that kept them afloat the last decade. SUVs were so successful that Toyota, Honda, Lexus, hell even Porsche (!) came out with their own SUVs.

The problem was poor quality and poor design. Detroit made fuel-efficient vehicles, it's just that nobody bought them because they were a poor value compared to foreign makes.

A gas tax wouldn't have helped Detroit one bit, in fact it would have simply pushed them to this point sooner.

And that's why the bailout won't help Detroit in the long run - their problem is their products compare poorly to others.

Rhetoric. You've nothing to back your statements but a lingering myth that has been debunked over and over. The reliability gap closed in the mid 90's, at least to the point of American cars being competative. It's not manufacturing process, Union wages, or the Chevette that caused this problem, it's the sub prime mortage fiasco and the fact there is no more money to lend.

It's pretty is to google "gas tax" and find several Econmics Professors and Automotive experts that disagree with you WC. Had Americans had an incentive after the gas tax hike in 1993 to purchase smaller more efficient vehiles the industry would have went that way (supply and demand). It would have helped the environmnt and urban sprawl.

It's pretty easy to figure out who didn't want gas prices to go up while consumption went down...