Is GM finished?

[Furcifer]

The government gave them enough money to keep them alive for a few more months without any of the stakeholders being forced to make the kinds of concessions necessary for GM to become a sustainable enterprise again.

All the executives and board members that scammed so successfully to burn up bond holder and stock holder equity to keep themselves well stocked in massive salaries and bonuses while they were doing it are still in place.

Pure rhetoric.

What do you mean by "stakeholders"? The board members? They scammed? What scam? Massive salaries? What bonuses?

I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about here at all. If you have any figures; the salaries, the bonuses feel free to post them. I'm curious what you think are massive salaries, especially in relation to companies the make (or lose) Billions each year. What do you think has been paid out to the board members in the last few months?

In Detroit, cuts have been made, layoffs issued, shutdowns announced, closures announced, salaries cut etc.

I really think you are confusing GM with the banks and what those crooks did. Well not confusing them, but extending what you've heard about them to GM.

 

[davefoc]

Pure rhetoric.

What do you mean by "stakeholders"? The board members? They scammed? What scam? Massive salaries? What bonuses?

I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about here at all. If you have any figures; the salaries, the bonuses feel free to post them. I'm curious what you think are massive salaries, especially in relation to companies the make (or lose) Billions each year. What do you think has been paid out to the board members in the last few months?

In Detroit, cuts have been made, layoffs issued, shutdowns announced, closures announced, salaries cut etc.

I really think you are confusing GM with the banks and what those crooks did. Well not confusing them, but extending what you've heard about them to GM.

The union leaders and the corporate leaders made a deal that would guarantee the failure of GM. The corporate leaders got to pretend they were making profits that they weren't actually making because they had given the company away in return for temporary labor peace. It was a good scam for everybody involved. The company leaders got to get bonuses for non-existent profits and the union leaders got to pretend they had gotten the workers benefits that didn't really exist because the GM in the long run would never be able to pay pensions to fifty year olds who would live on a pension longer than they actually worked.

Now, the time has come to pay the piper. GM leaders that have been burning through assets to keep their sham enterprise alive are now forced to admit that the GM assets are gone and the company can't keep going with the deals that GM management has put in place.

Except now people like 3bodyproblem think that it wasn't enough that GM unions have driven the company into the ground, he thinks that everybody in the US should help the bogus enterprise stay afloat. I think that sucks.

GM and Detroit have a real chance to move forward again. After the shareholders have lost their stake, the bondholders, the redundant dealers and the pension holders need to make major concessions or the bankruptcy court can force those concessions on them.

Most importantly, GM needs to be cut loose from crushing self defeating labor deals.

And when all that is done, GM might be able to compete again in the world car market. And until that is done the only thing that giving billions to GM will accomplish is to transfer more wealth into a non-productive enterprise and its various mix of non-productive hangers on trying to maneuver the US government into giving them money.

 

[davefoc]

What about the people who are currently living on those benefits, the ones they went on strike for (correct me if I'm wrong on that) and worked for years to attain?

What about the circuit city workers that just lost their jobs? What about the Home Express or the Virgin megastore or the Line 'n things work force? What about people all over this country who are struggling in this recession to adjust to this economy?

Why are GM workers some special class. They made a deal that savaged their company with liabilities that it could never sustain and they made a good wage while the deal was in place. Now GM doesn't have the assets to pay them. There are all sorts of programs to provide them with some mitigation of their problems. Why should the government step in and provide specialized GM worker mitigation programs?

Right now, the government has worked to stop GM from beginning the process of returning to stability. It provided a bunch of money that has been burned through and the people who needed to make concessions didn't make concessions while that money was around to burn through. Do you think that the government should give GM some more money to burn through so that the bond holders, pensioners, solitaire players, and the unions can avoid making the hard choices for another few months?

 

[Blue Mountain]

The union leaders and the corporate leaders made a deal that would guarantee the failure of GM. The corporate leaders got to pretend they were making profits that they weren't actually making because they had given the company away in return for temporary labor peace. It was a good scam for everybody involved. The company leaders got to get bonuses for non-existent profits and the union leaders got to pretend they had gotten the workers benefits that didn't really exist because the GM in the long run would never be able to pay pensions to fifty year olds who would live on a pension longer than they actually worked.

Can you back up any of the bolded claims with evidence?

What about the circuit city workers that just lost their jobs? What about the Home Express or the Virgin megastore or the Line 'n things work force? What about people all over this country who are struggling in this recession to adjust to this economy?

So you're suggesting a seventy year old person who can reasonably expect to live another ten or fifteen years should return to the work force because you want to kill off the pension that he thought would keep him into his elder years? A very compassionate approach, I must say.

Why are GM workers some special class. They made a deal that savaged their company with liabilities that it could never sustain and they made a good wage while the deal was in place. Now GM doesn't have the assets to pay them. There are all sorts of programs to provide them with some mitigation of their problems.

Such as?

Why should the government step in and provide specialized GM worker mitigation programs?

Here we probably are in agreement--as long as the workers who are currently collecting a GM pension aren't left destitute if the pensions are killed. It would be foolish, of course, to have the taxpayers pay 100% of the pension that GM can no longer afford to pay. But it is also bloody cold-hearted to tell all these pensioners they now have no income aside from Social Security.

Regardless of your obvious antipathy toward unions, we're talking about people who made plans based on contracts they believed were guaranteed. Now some of them are likely too old to recover from the loss of a pension. A fifty year old can probably find another job. A sixty year old, I'm not so sure. And who the hell is going to hire a seventy year old?

 

[davefoc]

On the issue of deals that were guaranteed to force the failure of GM:
1. Deals that forced GM to pay non-workers. As previously noted GM made a deal that during a serious downturn it would continue to pay workers even if there was no work. Recessions are a certainty. Paradigm changes are a certainty. Both situations would leave GM horribly exposed with a liability that would deepen just as it was becoming weakened by other difficult conditions.

2. Pension plans that allowed people to retire after thirty years. This guaranteed huge numbers of GM pensioners many of whom had the potential to live longer on a pension than they did as workers for GM.

3. Work rules that guaranteed that GM would gradually become less competitive as newer companies gained market share because of GM's weaknesses.

4. Wages that were significantly above market.

As to programs in place to help GM pensioners:
Would the workers be eligible for PBGC?

And let's suppose for a moment that PBGC doesn't protect the pensioners here. What is the justification of a specialized government GM pension bailout? If you believe that GM pensioners deserve government protection what about all the other people who depended on insolvent pensions. Why should the government step in and protect GM pensioners with a special GM plan and not the other workers?

And let's suppose for a moment that there is some kind of justification for a specialized GM pensioner bailout. Why is dumping money into GM a good way to accomplish that? GM executives will glom a chunk of it. GM dealers will get another big chunk as they are compensated for the closing down of their dealerships, the existing workers will get another big chunk as they are relieved of some of the need to make concessions and bondholders will be given another reason to not mitigate their claims against GM. So all and all the pensioners may get a small infusion of cash from some kind of government handout to GM when if the government just decided that a specialized GM pensioner bailout was a good idea they'd get all the money.

 

[Furcifer]

The union leaders and the corporate leaders made a deal that would guarantee the failure of GM. The corporate leaders got to pretend they were making profits that they weren't actually making because they had given the company away in return for temporary labor peace.

lol, the Company and the Union have been doing business for quite some time. What do you think the last contrct negotiation broke GM? The one before?

Which contract broke the company and sold off the future of the business? They were doing fine for about 75 years. Be specific please, you seem to have it all figured out.

I can't believe you asked what the difference between GM and Circuit City is. Unbeleivable people could be so out of touch with how the economy works.

GM is one of the largest companies in the World, employing millions of people directly or indirectly. Millions of decent paying, middle class jobs.

Cicuit City is a big box import company that employed 30000 people nation wide.

That's the equivalent of 1 shift at 1 GM plant (spin off + wages)

Oh, and Circuit City went out of business and still paid their executives, upper and middle management their outrageous company breaking salaries. And they did it while in bankruptcy.

 

[Furcifer]

On the issue of deals that were guaranteed to force the failure of GM:
1. Deals that forced GM to pay non-workers. As previously noted GM made a deal that during a serious downturn it would continue to pay workers even if there was no work. Recessions are a certainty. Paradigm changes are a certainty. Both situations would leave GM horribly exposed with a liability that would deepen just as it was becoming weakened by other difficult conditions.

"Non-workers"? You mean unemployed workers? If so, that's an insurance policy so that the effects of a slow down are bore by a select few, but instead felt company wide.

If paradigm changes were a certainty we wouldn't be in this mess like we are now. Everyone would have insulated themselves from the effects. The truth is we were all a little foolish for not taking our elders who went through the depression seriously and saved something for a rainy day.

2. Pension plans that allowed people to retire after thirty years. This guaranteed huge numbers of GM pensioners many of whom had the potential to live longer on a pension than they did as workers for GM.

Yes, people over the age of 55 should be put out on an ice flow. It's their duty if we want to have a productive society. Also, woman should be forced to have at least 4 children, 2 male and 2 female by the age of 30. If GM would have lobbied for this things would be different. They didn't and now they must pay the price.

3. Work rules that guaranteed that GM would gradually become less competitive as newer companies gained market share because of GM's weaknesses.

Worker safety is holding the US back. China has it figured out. Getting killed at work is your own fault, plus it makes way for new workers. If these other companies are willing to sacrifice a few workers we have to as well.

4. Wages that were significantly above market.

GM and Ford are the market.

If you believe that GM pensioners deserve government protection what about all the other people who depended on insolvent pensions. Why should the government step in and protect GM pensioners with a special GM plan and not the other workers?

Because the manufacturing sector built this economy. The banks have ruined it. Banks aren't going to revitalize the economy, manufacturing will. The Government made the mistake of bailing out the banks. Why make it worse?

And let's suppose for a moment that there is some kind of justification for a specialized GM pensioner bailout. Why is dumping money into GM a good way to accomplish that? GM executives will glom a chunk of it. GM dealers will get another big chunk as they are compensated for the closing down of their dealerships, the existing workers will get another big chunk as they are relieved of some of the need to make concessions and bondholders will be given another reason to not mitigate their claims against GM. So all and all the pensioners may get a small infusion of cash from some kind of government handout to GM when if the government just decided that a specialized GM pensioner bailout was a good idea they'd get all the money.

Pensioner bailout doesn't make any sense. The company needs to remain viable and take care of their workers, retired or not.

Please don't take this personally Dave, I don't think you are entirely wrong. Poor decisions were made at GM. It's just that from what I see, consessions have been made. People need jobs, productive ones, to go to and get the country going again. I don't think this will happen unless a substantial portion of the automotive sector remains intact during this recession.

What are your thoughts on AIG?

 

[Blue Mountain]

On the issue of deals that were guaranteed to force the failure of GM:
1. Deals that forced GM to pay non-workers. As previously noted GM made a deal that during a serious downturn it would continue to pay workers even if there was no work. Recessions are a certainty. Paradigm changes are a certainty. Both situations would leave GM horribly exposed with a liability that would deepen just as it was becoming weakened by other difficult conditions.

Score one for you. On the face of it that sounds like a really crazy thing to agree to. But I wonder:

• Was the "pay for no work" deal intended to be open-ended? Perhaps all the union was trying to do was get some certainty in case GM had to stop a line for two weeks or a month due to a large inventory of a particular vehicle.
• Was the deal at 100% of salary? If that's the case, the union really scored big with GM.

2. Pension plans that allowed people to retire after thirty years. This guaranteed huge numbers of GM pensioners many of whom had the potential to live longer on a pension than they did as workers for GM.

Do you know when that was signed? (I don't.) Was it back in a day when demographics were different? 65 was apparently chosen as the retirement age because people very often didn't make it to seventy. Add in the idea that GM might have been expecting to hire people in their late twenties, a thirty year career would have them retiring at, say, 58. If GM expected them to die at about seventy, they'd be paying a pension for 12 years. Instead, maybe they hired 21 year old kids who retired at 51 and lived to 85.

3. Work rules that guaranteed that GM would gradually become less competitive as newer companies gained market share because of GM's weaknesses.

Such as?

4. Wages that were significantly above market.

These wages were negotiated by a union at a company that was (at the time) making billions of dollars in profits. The workers wanted a piece of that action, since it was their labour that helped GM get where it was.

As to programs in place to help GM pensioners:
Would the workers be eligible for PBGC?

Sorry, no idea. You're the one suggesting we kill the GM pensions, thus cutting off benefits to people who would be unable to find work due to their age.

And let's suppose for a moment that PBGC doesn't protect the pensioners here. What is the justification of a specialized government GM pension bailout? If you believe that GM pensioners deserve government protection what about all the other people who depended on insolvent pensions. Why should the government step in and protect GM pensioners with a special GM plan and not the other workers?

What part of the word contract do you not understand? In the case of the pensioners, there was a contract in place: I'll give you thirty-some years of my labour, and you'll look after me in my old age. The pensioners fulfilled their part of the bargain. Do we just tell the sixty, seventy, and eighty year olds that they must now subsist on social security?

And let's suppose for a moment that there is some kind of justification for a specialized GM pensioner bailout. Why is dumping money into GM a good way to accomplish that? GM executives will glom a chunk of it. GM dealers will get another big chunk as they are compensated for the closing down of their dealerships, the existing workers will get another big chunk as they are relieved of some of the need to make concessions and bondholders will be given another reason to not mitigate their claims against GM. So all and all the pensioners may get a small infusion of cash from some kind of government handout to GM when if the government just decided that a specialized GM pensioner bailout was a good idea they'd get all the money.

I agree with you that throwing money into GM as a way of maintaining their pensions is a bad idea.

 

[Furcifer]

Score one for you. On the face of it that sounds like a really crazy thing to agree to. But I wonder:

• Was the "pay for no work" deal intended to be open-ended? Perhaps all the union was trying to do was get some certainty in case GM had to stop a line for two weeks or a month due to a large inventory of a particular vehicle.
• Was the deal at 100% of salary? If that's the case, the union really scored big with GM.

The SUB (supplement unemployment benefit) is a top up of regular unemployment benefits paid by the state or province to approximately 90% of a regular 40 hour work week.

Depending on where you live and how many hours you have banked, your unemplyment rate is about 65% of your regular earnings. There is a cap to this amount. Here in Ontario an average Union worker laid off would recieve the maximum allowable rate from the province of approximately $472 per week. The company would then "top up" the amount to 90% of whatever the average 40 hour week was.

The misrepresentation is that the company pays the entire amount. People forget unemployment pays most of it depending on the state or province you live in.

The purpose was to ensure people continue to feed their families and make mortgage payments while laid off. It is also to ensure companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler do their best to spread the wealth. You'd be surprised at the capacity of these plants to produce vehicles. If the compnay wanted to, they could run 3 months steady, 7 days a week, then shutdown for 2, then start up again.(shutting down and starting back up isn't as easy at that mind you) There's so many factors involved in production, suppliers, weather, loan repayment etc. It's a roller coaster ride of ups and downs. The Union just wanted to ensure workers got 40 hours per week, 50 some weeks per year for workers company wide. Plus, salaried workers recieved full pay during layoff/shutdown. The intent was to remain consistent and fair. It worked well for some 25 years. Granted, this was a boom, very few layoffs and the market was strong. As you've pointed out, contracts are contracts. They tend to last 4 years. The market changes quicker than that.

 

[davefoc]

...
I can't believe you asked what the difference between GM and Circuit City is. Unbeleivable people could be so out of touch with how the economy works.

GM is one of the largest companies in the World, employing millions of people directly or indirectly. Millions of decent paying, middle class jobs.

Circuit City is a big box import company that employed 30000 people nation wide.

We disagree about enough stuff on this without inventing more. I asked the question about what was the difference between one group of workers who have lost their jobs in this down turn and another. What is the justification for treating one group differently than another?

We both agree that saving GM is probably a good idea. We just disagree about how to approach the problem.

I think like in any other bankruptcy GM shareholders should loose their equity completely. I also think like in any other chapter 11 bankruptcy GM needs to be relieved of various burdens that the company can no longer afford.

I think the approach you advocate of giving GM money before the obvious move of relieving of it of various liabilities that can no longer be funded from its daily operations has been accomplished is harmful to almost everybody concerned except the people who will rake in a few government bucks before the uselessness of this approach is revealed.

My sense of it is that GM top management should lose their jobs. Allowing people who have presided over long term losing enterprises to keep their jobs through a chapter 11 type bankruptcy just sends the wrong message. The right message is if you're in charge when your company becomes insolvent you lose your job. Right now under the current GM scheme company leaders not only raked in massive salaries as they burned through the GM corporate capital they get to keep their jobs when their failed management strategies have become obvious.

 

[davefoc]

Score one for you. On the face of it that sounds like a really crazy thing to agree to. But I wonder:

• Was the "pay for no work" deal intended to be open-ended? Perhaps all the union was trying to do was get some certainty in case GM had to stop a line for two weeks or a month due to a large inventory of a particular vehicle.
• Was the deal at 100% of salary? If that's the case, the union really scored big with GM.

I don't know the answer to your questions. How long is GM required to continue to fund an employee after it doesn't have useful work for that employee to do under the current contract. Obviously, whatever that time period is I think it should be cut to zero under GM's current economic situation.

Do you know when that was signed? (I don't.) Was it back in a day when demographics were different? 65 was apparently chosen as the retirement age because people very often didn't make it to seventy. Add in the idea that GM might have been expecting to hire people in their late twenties, a thirty year career would have them retiring at, say, 58. If GM expected them to die at about seventy, they'd be paying a pension for 12 years. Instead, maybe they hired 21 year old kids who retired at 51 and lived to 85.

More interesting questions that I don't know the detailed answer to. What was the average retirement age for people drawing GM pensions? There could theoretically be some 48 year olds who accomplished it. I wonder if that happened very often.

Such as ? [work rules harmful to productivity]

GM had a 2000 page plus book of contract imposed work rules. Those rules take people to enforce, they stand in the way of repurposing people as conditions change and they absolutely are not designed to help GM be a world competitive company. However, I don't know the details of what they are.

These wages were negotiated by a union at a company that was (at the time) making billions of dollars in profits. The workers wanted a piece of that action, since it was their labour that helped GM get where it was.

I doubt that GM has made a real profit for twenty years or so if the full cost of pensions, health plans, paying people for which GM no longer has useful employment for and government subsidies like the SUV/truck tax rebate program are taken into account.

My supposition is that the management has understood this for a long time and just allowed the company to gradually slide toward insolvency rather than confront the problem.

Sorry, no idea [On the issue of whether the federal pension guarantee program would help GM pensioners in the event of a GM bankruptcy]. You're the one suggesting we kill the GM pensions, thus cutting off benefits to people who would be unable to find work due to their age.

I have no reason to believe it wouldn't but I'm not an expert. I also assume that their social security benefits would not be eliminated in the event of a GM bankruptcy.

What part of the word contract do you not understand? In the case of the pensioners, there was a contract in place: I'll give you thirty-some years of my labour, and you'll look after me in my old age. The pensioners fulfilled their part of the bargain. Do we just tell the sixty, seventy, and eighty year olds that they must now subsist on social security?

I think you are missing an important element of what contract means here. The contract in question is between GM and the pensioners. They don't have a contract with the other US citizens that if GM is bankrupt that they get to take money from the taxpayers to enforce the deal that they made with GM.

I agree with you that throwing money into GM as a way of maintaining their pensions is a bad idea.

I think we might agree on more than that.

 

[Furcifer]

We disagree about enough stuff on this without inventing more. I asked the question about what was the difference between one group of workers who have lost their jobs in this down turn and another. What is the justification for treating one group differently than another?

Sorry, my apologies. I kind of skimmed over the post.

The justification is in what they can contribute to the economy as opposed to the burden of bailing them out. If this is solely in regards to bailing out the retirees, its not really worth addressing. I could probably bailout the Circuit City retiree fund

We both agree that saving GM is probably a good idea. We just disagree about how to approach the problem.

I think like in any other bankruptcy GM shareholders should loose their equity completely. I also think like in any other chapter 11 bankruptcy GM needs to be relieved of various burdens that the company can no longer afford.

I think the approach you advocate of giving GM money before the obvious move of relieving of it of various liabilities that can no longer be funded from its daily operations has been accomplished is harmful to almost everybody concerned except the people who will rake in a few government bucks before the uselessness of this approach is revealed.

My sense of it is that GM top management should lose their jobs. Allowing people who have presided over long term losing enterprises to keep their jobs through a chapter 11 type bankruptcy just sends the wrong message. The right message is if you're in charge when your company becomes insolvent you lose your job. Right now under the current GM scheme company leaders not only raked in massive salaries as they burned through the GM corporate capital they get to keep their jobs when their failed management strategies have become obvious.

Shares are at $1.45, I'm not sure how dropping that to zero serves any purpose.

Everyone has made consessions, things are being stripped down. The thing is there is nothing to indicate the market is returning anytime soon. I think the reality is the people who build cars are the people who buy cars in this country. If they become unemployed, who will buy cars? Even foreign ones.

There's the very real issue with a cascade effect. If GM is bankrupted the whole supplier network could come tumbling down. Ford and Chrysler could come to a standstill, idled until things get figured out. If this happens who is going to sort it out? You've already got people working on keeping this ball rolling, why screw that up? People know that if this happens it could be years before it is sorted out. Can the economy sustain a loss of 2 Million more jobs? How many others that didn't directly depend on the Big 3 will go with them? Service jobs, travel etc.

If you want to change the board, so be it. I'm not sure if you can assemble another team with as much experience. I hate to say it, but they at least know what not to do. I've never used that line in a job interview though "Well, I couldn't do any worse than I did at my last job"

 

[balrog666]

I think the approach you advocate of giving GM money before the obvious move of relieving of it of various liabilities that can no longer be funded from its daily operations has been accomplished is harmful to almost everybody concerned except the people who will rake in a few government bucks before the uselessness of this approach is revealed.

My sense of it is that GM top management should lose their jobs. Allowing people who have presided over long term losing enterprises to keep their jobs through a chapter 11 type bankruptcy just sends the wrong message. The right message is if you're in charge when your company becomes insolvent you lose your job. Right now under the current GM scheme company leaders not only raked in massive salaries as they burned through the GM corporate capital they get to keep their jobs when their failed management strategies have become obvious.

Well, well, that's my guess why they have chosen to avoid bankruptcy too ...

 

[WildCat]

lol, the Company and the Union have been doing business for quite some time. What do you think the last contrct negotiation broke GM? The one before?

That's like asking which piece of lumber broke the suspension of this car...

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, well, that's my guess why they have chosen to avoid bankruptcy too ...

I've said so in another thread.

One thing about going through bankruptcy court: Suddenly, all that dirty laundry gets aired. You learn about executive perks, salaries, bennies. You learn about not only the Golden Parachutes, but the Silver ones as well, the ones you don't hear about, but which add up over time.

And you also learn about how the unions have betrayed their members, and what the unions have done to undermine the long term health of these companies. Yes, the employees have a right to ask for a share of the profits; they have earned them. But I'll be damned if I can figure out how grabbing all they can before the checks have finally cleared the bank has benefited anyone in this sad tale.

Chrysler is just about out. A mechanic told me he hates working on Chrysler products; when you buy a new Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, whatever, you don't get a dipstick for the automatic transmission. You have to buy one, and that runs $81.

It's that kind of focus on short term profit that's undercut the American automaker. It's why we'll ultimately lose both Chrysler and GM, leaving Ford the only American automaker. (Yes, I know. Chrysler is looking at merging with Fiat. Finance it again, Tony. [Stet] Good luck with that.) Personally, if GM goes under, it will be because of the greed of its past CEOs, with the exception of Stempel. And that's sad.

 

[Roadtoad]

That's like asking which piece of lumber broke the suspension of this car...

Admit it. You've been waiting years to use that one.

 

[WildCat]

These wages were negotiated by a union at a company that was (at the time) making billions of dollars in profits. The workers wanted a piece of that action, since it was their labour that helped GM get where it was.

Now that GM is recording billions of dollars in losses is the union prepared to give the money back? Do the workers likewise claim that their labor helped put GM where it is now, a complete basket case?

Or does labor only claim credit when the times are good and deny any responsibility when times are bad?

 

[WildCat]

Admit it. You've been waiting years to use that one.

I love it when a plan comes together...

 

[Blue Mountain]

Now that GM is recording billions of dollars in losses is the union prepared to give the money back? Do the workers likewise claim that their labor helped put GM where it is now, a complete basket case?

Probably every bit as much as the management ...

If the union takes the stance "Absolutely no wage or benefit concessions"—usually with the tacked on phrase "because we've conceded enough already"*—then they truly do have their heads up their collective butts (pun sort of intended).

Or does labor only claim credit when the times are good and deny any responsibility when times are bad?

Sadly, I think that's the case with the big unions. It seems once it gets beyond a certain size a union changes from "how can I get a living wage and decent benefits for our members?" to "how can we extract as much as we possibly can from the company?"

I'm really of two minds about unions. They were hugely important back in the 1800s when they were formed to force companies to give decent wages and safe working environments to their workers. These advances were often achieved at personal risk to the members and even greater personal risk to the organizers and leaders.

But they carried on once those aims were achieved, gaining ever greater benefits for themselves while ignoring the cautionary tale of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. GM could well be a textbook case of this when the history of this period is written.

At the same time, however, I'm afraid that if unions ever disappeared, within 50 to 100 years we'd be back to the labour and social conditions that made them necessary in the first place.

 

[Furcifer]

That's like asking which piece of lumber broke the suspension of this car...

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~dylanaverysucksballs/Overload.jpg[/qimg]

That wouldn't have happened if he'd bought a Silverado