Autoworkers: 'If we go down, so does this town'

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
actually, standing idly by, doing nothing posting on the Internet how much Unions suck and getting paid for it is in my job description

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spacejamz
actually, standing idly by, doing nothing posting on the Internet how much Unions suck and getting paid for it is in my job description

Fixed for accuracy.

who pissed in your cheerios today?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spacejamz
actually, standing idly by, doing nothing posting on the Internet how much Unions suck and getting paid for it is in my job description

Fixed for accuracy.

are you a union member? if so, UAW?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spacejamz
actually, standing idly by, doing nothing posting on the Internet how much Unions suck and getting paid for it is in my job description

Fixed for accuracy.

are you a union member? if so, UAW?

No, he used to be in a union when he worked. Carpenter's IIRC, but it doesn't much matter, union members from any union can become union fluffers for all unions.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spacejamz
actually, standing idly by, doing nothing posting on the Internet how much Unions suck and getting paid for it is in my job description

Fixed for accuracy.

are you a union member? if so, UAW?

No, he used to be in a union when he worked. Carpenter's IIRC, but it doesn't much matter, union members from any union can become union fluffers for all unions.

When I worked? FYI I'm still working but not as a Union Carpenter, the back gave out. Thankfully I was Union when it happened as I was able to get all my medical expenses taken care of and be retrained. If I wasn't I would of have been SOL like many Carpenters who weren't Union.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spacejamz
actually, standing idly by, doing nothing posting on the Internet how much Unions suck and getting paid for it is in my job description

Fixed for accuracy.

who pissed in your cheerios today?

Truth is Truth

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang
I know union workers could all agree to work for free and hand over $5 every day on their way in the door and you guys still wouldn't be happy, but have I missed something?

Has an agreement been reached between the UAW and Chrysler that's not good enough for you guys? GM? Has either company gone under yet? Did I miss that?

If there's been some new development, please share it.

I ask because I'm trying to figure out just what it is you're all bitching about. It sounds like the same old shit that you've been expressing for years. It mostly boils down to, somebody is making more money than I am!

Here's the arguments we've got so far.
They make too much money.
They need to get training and move. (No suggestions on what field, how to sell their home, etc.)
They're dumb fucks to even have the job.
I'm entitled to benefits if I'm laid off, but they shouldn't be. (Because they make too much.)
You're a dumb ass, because you don't understand, management has all the answers. (A real favorite of mine)

To top it off, the overwhelming majority of you wouldn't be caught dead in a domestic car. You hate their products, the company and most of all the workers. You're bitching now and you'll be bitching when they're gone. Have you thought of who your new whipping boy is going to be? You're going to need one.

If that is your assessment of the current situation, I don't think anyone here would be able to provide you an explanation that you will accept.

If you cannot see for yourself how these unions are are big contributor to the Big 3's downfall, no one here can help you. Sorry.

It's not my assessment of the situation, it's my assessment of the thread. It's another pointless thread bashing the very people our tax dollars will soon be supporting. If it's more important to you that they all lose their jobs to prove some kind of point, well so be it.

You can't change the past. The future is all we have. That future has the potential for another million or more of unemployed to be supported by those that still have a job. What's the point of this continual arguing about the pay of autoworkers? When the contract concessions are made public, pick up the argument at that point.

As I said, it will never be enough for most of you.

This thread represents each posters' perspective on this subject...obviously, many people are frustated with what the unions have done to the Big 3.

Based on recent discussions, it still does not appear the Union understands what position they are in (IMO). Instead of trying to help save a sinking ship, they standing idly by, doing nothing to improve the situation. It really doesn't appear that they will be changing their stance anytime soon.

What is it you expect from them right now? They have a deadline to reach an agreement. That date is not here yet. Are you pissed off because they haven't reached one ahead of the deadline or what?

How can you say they are standing idly by? I keep saying the same thing, until they reach an agreement, all talk of this nature has no value and is totally pointless. Can you see my position on this?

I understand your position regarding unions. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But based on your reply here, you should be equally angry with the bond holders because they haven't reached an agreement either.

They have a timeframe with an end date to reach an agreement. Until that date, what's the use of all this?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: woodie1
Mr. boomerang,

I, for one, drive a domestic car, just not one built by the UAW. From what I read on this board I am not alone. I've watched the UAW dig its grave since the 1960s and think they may have finally completed the job.
The attitude they continue to show us today says volumes about them and hasn't really changed in over 50 years. About the same amount of time I have spent buying non-UAW built cars. I don't want them or their families to starve - but its time for a reality check.

Alright, a reasonable post. What is the attitude they have continued to show? Negotiations are going on right now. Chrysler is getting the focus because their deadline is looming quickly. What have I missed in the news, what information or links can you provide showing that they are being stubborn belligerent assholes that refuse to budge?

They're negotiating right now. Until the results are known, everyone here is beating a dead horse.

Whether they did or did not contribute to the problems of the domestic manufacturers is a polarized viewpoint of which I expect no one to change their mind. Too many deep seated feelings. But right now no one has the right to say they are not making the changes necessary. We don't know the outcome yet. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking right now.

This is the point I'm desperately trying to make, and everyone is injecting the past into the present.

If they cut their wages and benefits are you folks going to be happy with the results? I'm betting no, because the deep seated resentments whether justified or unjustified are not going away.

If they are never going to give enough to make you happy, just say so and the discussion is over. I understand your position but I don't agree with it.

 

[boomerang]

In typing all the above, on the radio I now hear that Chrysler is expected to file bankruptcy next week. A judge will then decide the terms of the contract with the UAW, or, he may throw it out in it's entirety.

If he changes their pay and benefits, is it going to be enough for everyone here, or must blood run in the streets for you to feel that justice is served? If he throws out the contract and Chrysler must hire everyone anew, what wage rate is going to make you happy?

It's easy to make these type of judgments when it doesn't affect you. A typical worker with a mortgage, two car payments, a child or two in college is going to end up making some enormous changes under this scenario. I understand that your heart is cold and you feel these changes are deserved but when he loses his house and his one car gets repossessed, when he can't afford to put his kids through college, I know you'll feel smug but is it really what's best for the country and the economy? I'm guessing you think yes.

You want revenge pure and simple. Revenge for dirty deeds done either directly or indirectly. I don't deny you your right to feel that way.

I've said this numerous times in the Garage. IMO, Chrysler is a goner. IMO, GM is too. These companies will not emerge from bankruptcy. The car market is so depressed right now, that there is no way they can survive. They're in the business to sell cars and cars aren't selling. No amount of restructuring, no contractual changes, no concessions from the bondholders are going to be enough for these companies to hang on long enough for this economy to turn around. They're over with, through and done.

I don't forsee any buyers stepping forward to even buy up assets. It would be suicide to get into the car business right now. It would take someone with the biggest, heaviest set of balls in the world to do so and he'd better be partially crazy on top of it.

My further prediction is that Ford will be begging for loans this summer. By then public sentiment will be so against it, that the funds may not be available. This is notwithstanding the supplier issue that everyone seems to think is bullshit.

You guys are going to get your wish. Those rotten UAW fuckers are going to get what they've deserved. If you think you're going to be happy with the long-term consequences of it, I think you're going to be in for a shock. Not a surprise, a shock.

This country is hanging on by a thread. A thread that is unraveling. It's not going to take much to snap that thread at this point. Is the liquidation of these two companies enough to do it? I don't know. But when you combine it with the rest of the bad juju coming down the pike and that which is being covered up, the future does not look bright.

And when it's all said and done, you'll be blaming the UAW because tunnel vision will have set in. Don't forget about the laws, rules and regulations that started changing three administration back. The laws and regulations that were relaxed to "free up the markets". The ones that Congress did not lift a finger to either question or negate. The changes that were endorsed by three presidential terms and are still not being addressed today. The greed of the masters of the universe put all this in motion.

But blame whomever lets you sleep at night.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: boomerang
In typing all the above, on the radio I now hear that Chrysler is expected to file bankruptcy next week. A judge will then decide the terms of the contract with the UAW, or, he may throw it out in it's entirety.

If he changes their pay and benefits, is it going to be enough for everyone here, or must blood run in the streets for you to feel that justice is served? If he throws out the contract and Chrysler must hire everyone anew, what wage rate is going to make you happy?

It's easy to make these type of judgments when it doesn't affect you. A typical worker with a mortgage, two car payments, a child or two in college is going to end up making some enormous changes under this scenario. I understand that your heart is cold and you feel these changes are deserved but when he loses his house and his one car gets repossessed, when he can't afford to put his kids through college, I know you'll feel smug but is it really what's best for the country and the economy? I'm guessing you think yes.

You want revenge pure and simple. Revenge for dirty deeds done either directly or indirectly. I don't deny you your right to feel that way.

I've said this numerous times in the Garage. IMO, Chrysler is a goner. IMO, GM is too. These companies will not emerge from bankruptcy. The car market is so depressed right now, that there is no way they can survive. They're in the business to sell cars and cars aren't selling. No amount of restructuring, no contractual changes, no concessions from the bondholders are going to be enough for these companies to hang on long enough for this economy to turn around. They're over with, through and done.

I don't forsee any buyers stepping forward to even buy up assets. It would be suicide to get into the car business right now. It would take someone with the biggest, heaviest set of balls in the world to do so and he'd better be partially crazy on top of it.

My further prediction is that Ford will be begging for loans this summer. By then public sentiment will be so against it, that the funds may not be available. This is notwithstanding the supplier issue that everyone seems to think is bullshit.

You guys are going to get your wish. Those rotten UAW fuckers are going to get what they've deserved. If you think you're going to be happy with the long-term consequences of it, I think you're going to be in for a shock. Not a surprise, a shock.

This country is hanging on by a thread. A thread that is unraveling. It's not going to take much to snap that thread at this point. Is the liquidation of these two companies enough to do it? I don't know. But when you combine it with the rest of the bad juju coming down the pike and that which is being covered up, the future does not look bright.

And when it's all said and done, you'll be blaming the UAW because tunnel vision will have set in. Don't forget about the laws, rules and regulations that started changing three administration back. The laws and regulations that were relaxed to "free up the markets". The ones that Congress did not lift a finger to either question or negate. The changes that were endorsed by three presidential terms and are still not being addressed today. The greed of the masters of the universe put all this in motion.

But blame whomever lets you sleep at night.

You really are ungodly clueless arent you?

How is a company with a poor business model failing bad long term for America? No one is calling for heads (no one except the union fucks calling for management's heads). I really am sorry that some laborers were duped by unions into thinking they would protect them and then something like this happens. The very organization that they joined, either because they had to or because they didnt know better, to protect them has lead to the downfall of the industry that supports it.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This evenings disclosure about Treasurys bk plan for Chrysler should bring a sigh of relief for the UAW and workers. It appears they have clearly signaled that they will protect workers, and even retiree's bennies through the bk process putting them ahead of even the secured debt holders. And gives a strong indication that they will do the same in GM's case.

On the others hand this is bad for bondholders and catostrophic for stakeholders who will be comletely wiped out. I expect GM's stock to drop off the map starting tomorrow

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: boomerang
In typing all the above, on the radio I now hear that Chrysler is expected to file bankruptcy next week. A judge will then decide the terms of the contract with the UAW, or, he may throw it out in it's entirety.

If he changes their pay and benefits, is it going to be enough for everyone here, or must blood run in the streets for you to feel that justice is served? If he throws out the contract and Chrysler must hire everyone anew, what wage rate is going to make you happy?

It's easy to make these type of judgments when it doesn't affect you. A typical worker with a mortgage, two car payments, a child or two in college is going to end up making some enormous changes under this scenario. I understand that your heart is cold and you feel these changes are deserved but when he loses his house and his one car gets repossessed, when he can't afford to put his kids through college, I know you'll feel smug but is it really what's best for the country and the economy? I'm guessing you think yes.

You want revenge pure and simple. Revenge for dirty deeds done either directly or indirectly. I don't deny you your right to feel that way.

I've said this numerous times in the Garage. IMO, Chrysler is a goner. IMO, GM is too. These companies will not emerge from bankruptcy. The car market is so depressed right now, that there is no way they can survive. They're in the business to sell cars and cars aren't selling. No amount of restructuring, no contractual changes, no concessions from the bondholders are going to be enough for these companies to hang on long enough for this economy to turn around. They're over with, through and done.

I don't forsee any buyers stepping forward to even buy up assets. It would be suicide to get into the car business right now. It would take someone with the biggest, heaviest set of balls in the world to do so and he'd better be partially crazy on top of it.

My further prediction is that Ford will be begging for loans this summer. By then public sentiment will be so against it, that the funds may not be available. This is notwithstanding the supplier issue that everyone seems to think is bullshit.

You guys are going to get your wish. Those rotten UAW fuckers are going to get what they've deserved. If you think you're going to be happy with the long-term consequences of it, I think you're going to be in for a shock. Not a surprise, a shock.

This country is hanging on by a thread. A thread that is unraveling. It's not going to take much to snap that thread at this point. Is the liquidation of these two companies enough to do it? I don't know. But when you combine it with the rest of the bad juju coming down the pike and that which is being covered up, the future does not look bright.

And when it's all said and done, you'll be blaming the UAW because tunnel vision will have set in. Don't forget about the laws, rules and regulations that started changing three administration back. The laws and regulations that were relaxed to "free up the markets". The ones that Congress did not lift a finger to either question or negate. The changes that were endorsed by three presidential terms and are still not being addressed today. The greed of the masters of the universe put all this in motion.

But blame whomever lets you sleep at night.

Well it's too bad for all the people that will be losing their job, union or non union workers, suppliers, dealers and yeap CEO, CIO and CFO's. When a company goes down, everyone in the whole organization, including the dealership/suppliers deserve some blame one way or the other. It's undeniable that UAW and their rigid rules and salary/pension structure make it less flexible for management to deal with big changes in the industry and the demand. It is definitely part of the problem with big 3, and of course it is not the only problem.

In the end, company is not there to provide the employee their mortgage, car loans and kid's education. It's there to make profit, and if it doesn't, it goes bankrupted and everyone lose. It's a simple concept that UAW and union supporter don't seem to understand when they keep insisting on the above market salary, pension, and rigid work schedule/layoff rules.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This evenings disclosure about Treasurys bk plan for Chrysler should bring a sigh of relief for the UAW and workers. It appears they have clearly signaled that they will protect workers, and even retiree's bennies through the bk process putting them ahead of even the secured debt holders. And gives a strong indication that they will do the same in GM's case.

On the others hand this is bad for bondholders and catostrophic for stakeholders who will be comletely wiped out. I expect GM's stock to drop off the map starting tomorrow

Yep, big :thumbsdown: for not letting a FAILING business model fail.

 

[ProfJohn]

Nice cost of living comparison web site
link

$60,000 in Kokomo, Indiana is equal to:

$80,000 in Orlando Florida (where I live)
$141,357 in New York City
$108,658 in Chicago
$109,64 in Boston
$133,761 in Los Angeles

Overall the cities cost of living 30% lower than the rest of the country.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro


You really are ungodly clueless arent you?

How is a company with a poor business model failing bad long term for America? No one is calling for heads (no one except the union fucks calling for management's heads). I really am sorry that some laborers were duped by unions into thinking they would protect them and then something like this happens. The very organization that they joined, either because they had to or because they didnt know better, to protect them has lead to the downfall of the industry that supports it.

It's supposed to be unusually warm today with rain this morning. I hope it doesn't rain too much.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This evenings disclosure about Treasurys bk plan for Chrysler should bring a sigh of relief for the UAW and workers. It appears they have clearly signaled that they will protect workers, and even retiree's bennies through the bk process putting them ahead of even the secured debt holders. And gives a strong indication that they will do the same in GM's case.

On the others hand this is bad for bondholders and catostrophic for stakeholders who will be comletely wiped out. I expect GM's stock to drop off the map starting tomorrow

That is absolutely RETARDED. Who the fuck is going to want to lend to that industry when youre told that basically some subcontractor's retirement plan is put ahead of your claim on a physical asset. Fucking retarded.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Blaming unions here is pretty short-sighted. The unions have made concessions far more than management and the stock/bondholders. Chrysler (and the other domestics) have much bigger problems than union pay/benefits. Even if we suddenly outlawed unions and immedeately reset pay/benefits to the non-union standards, we'd still be in the same position, just without the scapegoat.

It is sad to hear about that town though. The loss of a manufacturing plant will hit any community pretty hard, so to hear that one will not recover in the event of a possible shutdown isn't surprising. Hell, look at a lot of smaller towns that are nearly deserted when all the textile mills left for Mexico and South America. There really isn't any difference, imho.

That right the is the reason why unions are pulling down US industry - for whatever reason they consider themselves capital owners/partners w/o putting any money at risk. That is if the company doesn't do as well, they will still want the same wage, yet if the company does better they want part of the profit.

I disagree. Labor is a definite partner in the operation of any industry, but usually it isn't under formal organization (unions). Just because they don't have millions/billions in direct capital on the line doesn't mean that they don't assume risk. They put their futures on the line, whether it be well-being in retirement (pensions/etc), in the near future (healthcare), or right then (the almighty paycheck). Unions have a definite stake in the well being and profitability of a company, as those benefits/jobs evaporate without it.

Can you say the same about overpaid, cushy management/executive/board jobs? What about those at the top who can afford to take risks and have severence packages that amount to more than any union worker makes in a year? It sure seems that the risk-takers at the top engage in the same behavior, as you put it, 'doing better if the company does better, but expecting the same wage/benefits when the company doesn't do as well.'

You disagree because you either don't understand what you are saying or you are too ignorant to know better.

Labor, in non-ownership sharing companies, is as much of a partner as the next subcontractor that works with the company (they aren't a partner, they are a stakeholder). If the company has an ESOP or something similar then you can say labor is a partner.

No one said that laborers dont assume risk. I think everyone agrees that laborers have some risks but you don't earn anything for not taking any risk. Part of your paycheck and benefits are a way of compensating you for taking the risk of working at company X (the major part being compensation for your skills/abilities, unless you are in a union then its compensation for how long you have been working). It is the same type of compensation with any subcontractor that works with the company.

Your last sentence in your first paragraph is where you show just how confused you are. Unions dont have ANY stake in ANY company. They didnt start the company, they didnt put up $ for the company, they didnt make the decisions that got the company to the point where it looked attractive for unions to organize it. All unions do for a company is turn a partner type relationship (laborers & management) into a subcontractor type relationship (unions & management). You may think im arguing semantics but what you are saying is just 100% wrong.

Onto your second paragraph. Who are you to say who can afford to take risks and who cant? The ones in your "cushy management/executive/board jobs" are paid the way they are because they have the skill set to direct what a multi-billion dollar company does. Being responsible for that amount of value warrants highly skilled, intelligent executives and they dont come cheep.

Again your last sentence is the one where you REALLY show how ignorant you are. The payment structure at most companies for management gives them a small guaranteed salary ~100k with bonuses for performance. They dont get the bonus if the company doesnt do well.

You need to stop blindly defending unions and take a long hard look at reality. That is of course if your interested in having an informed opinion and you dont have some stake in unions.

This. Just to clarify some points:

Labor gets paid based on production (hourly) with only minimal linkage to the company performance and no downside.

Equity stakeholders get paid solely based on company performance, which possible downside (losing money). As such, they are also entitled to the upside (profits) if the company does well.

Anyone that claims that Labor is a "partner" (aside from performance incentives paid from profits) just doesn't understand capital budgeting and finance. Since Labor faces no downside risk, they are entitled to NO upside.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This evenings disclosure about Treasurys bk plan for Chrysler should bring a sigh of relief for the UAW and workers. It appears they have clearly signaled that they will protect workers, and even retiree's bennies through the bk process putting them ahead of even the secured debt holders. And gives a strong indication that they will do the same in GM's case.

On the others hand this is bad for bondholders and catostrophic for stakeholders who will be comletely wiped out. I expect GM's stock to drop off the map starting tomorrow

That is absolutely RETARDED. Who the fuck is going to want to lend to that industry when youre told that basically some subcontractor's retirement plan is put ahead of your claim on a physical asset. Fucking retarded.

Yeah,
big 1.5 (or whatever they're considered) cost of capital via debt just skyrocketed. Bad policy, whoever thought that up (dems im sure) doesn't have enough of finance to realize the effects of this.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang
I know union workers could all agree to work for free and hand over $5 every day on their way in the door and you guys still wouldn't be happy, but have I missed something?

Has an agreement been reached between the UAW and Chrysler that's not good enough for you guys? GM? Has either company gone under yet? Did I miss that?

If there's been some new development, please share it.

I ask because I'm trying to figure out just what it is you're all bitching about. It sounds like the same old shit that you've been expressing for years. It mostly boils down to, somebody is making more money than I am!

Here's the arguments we've got so far.
They make too much money.
They need to get training and move. (No suggestions on what field, how to sell their home, etc.)
They're dumb fucks to even have the job.
I'm entitled to benefits if I'm laid off, but they shouldn't be. (Because they make too much.)
You're a dumb ass, because you don't understand, management has all the answers. (A real favorite of mine)

To top it off, the overwhelming majority of you wouldn't be caught dead in a domestic car. You hate their products, the company and most of all the workers. You're bitching now and you'll be bitching when they're gone. Have you thought of who your new whipping boy is going to be? You're going to need one.

If that is your assessment of the current situation, I don't think anyone here would be able to provide you an explanation that you will accept.

If you cannot see for yourself how these unions are are big contributor to the Big 3's downfall, no one here can help you. Sorry.

It's not my assessment of the situation, it's my assessment of the thread. It's another pointless thread bashing the very people our tax dollars will soon be supporting. If it's more important to you that they all lose their jobs to prove some kind of point, well so be it.

You can't change the past. The future is all we have. That future has the potential for another million or more of unemployed to be supported by those that still have a job. What's the point of this continual arguing about the pay of autoworkers? When the contract concessions are made public, pick up the argument at that point.

As I said, it will never be enough for most of you.

This thread represents each posters' perspective on this subject...obviously, many people are frustated with what the unions have done to the Big 3.

Based on recent discussions, it still does not appear the Union understands what position they are in (IMO). Instead of trying to help save a sinking ship, they standing idly by, doing nothing to improve the situation. It really doesn't appear that they will be changing their stance anytime soon.

What is it you expect from them right now? They have a deadline to reach an agreement. That date is not here yet. Are you pissed off because they haven't reached one ahead of the deadline or what?

How can you say they are standing idly by? I keep saying the same thing, until they reach an agreement, all talk of this nature has no value and is totally pointless. Can you see my position on this?

I understand your position regarding unions. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But based on your reply here, you should be equally angry with the bond holders because they haven't reached an agreement either.

They have a timeframe with an end date to reach an agreement. Until that date, what's the use of all this?

Did you just started following this story??? I am asking because it appears that you are completely oblivious to what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years and the union demands that have caused the big 3 to be where they are today...

How much out of each new GM car sold covers a cost for employees who no longer work at GM?? How can you have a profitable business with these expenses?? Did the bond holders make these demands?

How can you have employees that make $60K to sit around and watch TV all day in their 'job banks'? Did the bond holders make the demands for these types of benefits??

or how about GM shutting down some of their plant for two months but the workers are still going to receive 75% of their normal pay? Did the bond holders make these demands?

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This evenings disclosure about Treasurys bk plan for Chrysler should bring a sigh of relief for the UAW and workers. It appears they have clearly signaled that they will protect workers, and even retiree's bennies through the bk process putting them ahead of even the secured debt holders. And gives a strong indication that they will do the same in GM's case.

On the others hand this is bad for bondholders and catostrophic for stakeholders who will be comletely wiped out. I expect GM's stock to drop off the map starting tomorrow

That is absolutely RETARDED. Who the fuck is going to want to lend to that industry when youre told that basically some subcontractor's retirement plan is put ahead of your claim on a physical asset. Fucking retarded.

Yeah,
big 1.5 (or whatever they're considered) cost of capital via debt just skyrocketed. Bad policy, whoever thought that up (dems im sure) doesn't have enough of finance to realize the effects of this.

This is the biggest problem with this whole mess. Ignorance is going to kill this country.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Blaming unions here is pretty short-sighted. The unions have made concessions far more than management and the stock/bondholders. Chrysler (and the other domestics) have much bigger problems than union pay/benefits. Even if we suddenly outlawed unions and immedeately reset pay/benefits to the non-union standards, we'd still be in the same position, just without the scapegoat.

It is sad to hear about that town though. The loss of a manufacturing plant will hit any community pretty hard, so to hear that one will not recover in the event of a possible shutdown isn't surprising. Hell, look at a lot of smaller towns that are nearly deserted when all the textile mills left for Mexico and South America. There really isn't any difference, imho.

That right the is the reason why unions are pulling down US industry - for whatever reason they consider themselves capital owners/partners w/o putting any money at risk. That is if the company doesn't do as well, they will still want the same wage, yet if the company does better they want part of the profit.

I disagree. Labor is a definite partner in the operation of any industry, but usually it isn't under formal organization (unions). Just because they don't have millions/billions in direct capital on the line doesn't mean that they don't assume risk. They put their futures on the line, whether it be well-being in retirement (pensions/etc), in the near future (healthcare), or right then (the almighty paycheck). Unions have a definite stake in the well being and profitability of a company, as those benefits/jobs evaporate without it.

Can you say the same about overpaid, cushy management/executive/board jobs? What about those at the top who can afford to take risks and have severence packages that amount to more than any union worker makes in a year? It sure seems that the risk-takers at the top engage in the same behavior, as you put it, 'doing better if the company does better, but expecting the same wage/benefits when the company doesn't do as well.'

You disagree because you either don't understand what you are saying or you are too ignorant to know better.

Labor, in non-ownership sharing companies, is as much of a partner as the next subcontractor that works with the company (they aren't a partner, they are a stakeholder). If the company has an ESOP or something similar then you can say labor is a partner.

No one said that laborers dont assume risk. I think everyone agrees that laborers have some risks but you don't earn anything for not taking any risk. Part of your paycheck and benefits are a way of compensating you for taking the risk of working at company X (the major part being compensation for your skills/abilities, unless you are in a union then its compensation for how long you have been working). It is the same type of compensation with any subcontractor that works with the company.

Your last sentence in your first paragraph is where you show just how confused you are. Unions dont have ANY stake in ANY company. They didnt start the company, they didnt put up $ for the company, they didnt make the decisions that got the company to the point where it looked attractive for unions to organize it. All unions do for a company is turn a partner type relationship (laborers & management) into a subcontractor type relationship (unions & management). You may think im arguing semantics but what you are saying is just 100% wrong.

Onto your second paragraph. Who are you to say who can afford to take risks and who cant? The ones in your "cushy management/executive/board jobs" are paid the way they are because they have the skill set to direct what a multi-billion dollar company does. Being responsible for that amount of value warrants highly skilled, intelligent executives and they dont come cheep.

Again your last sentence is the one where you REALLY show how ignorant you are. The payment structure at most companies for management gives them a small guaranteed salary ~100k with bonuses for performance. They dont get the bonus if the company doesnt do well.

You need to stop blindly defending unions and take a long hard look at reality. That is of course if your interested in having an informed opinion and you dont have some stake in unions.

This. Just to clarify some points:

Labor gets paid based on production (hourly) with only minimal linkage to the company performance and no downside.

Equity stakeholders get paid solely based on company performance, which possible downside (losing money). As such, they are also entitled to the upside (profits) if the company does well.

Anyone that claims that Labor is a "partner" (aside from performance incentives paid from profits) just doesn't understand capital budgeting and finance. Since Labor faces no downside risk, they are entitled to NO upside.

A man by the name of Deming disagrees with that type of adversarial relationship presented above and has proven it over and over again.

9 Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

All 14 points,Deming's 14 points

Deming offered fourteen key principles for management for transforming business effectiveness. The points were first presented in his book Out of the Crisis. (p. 23-24)[21]

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and stay in business, and to provide jobs.
2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move towards a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease cost.
6. Institute training on the job.
7. Institute leadership (see Point 12 and Ch. 8 of "Out of the Crisis"). The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company. (See Ch. 3 of "Out of the Crisis")
9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
11. a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute workmanship.
12. a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective (See Ch. 3 of "Out of the Crisis").
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
14. Put everyone in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everyone's work. "Massive training is required to instill the courage to break with tradition. Every activity and every job is a part of the process." [22]

too bad most companies are unwilling to implement them due to the short term profit mentality that has permeated most companies today.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: lupi
60k a year, that's it?

That's a lot when as the article mentioned the average home price is $75k. Realistically, they should be making more like $40-$45K a year.

So they make almost the value of their home in a year. Not to bad, especially considering the health care benefits they have. I make less than half the value of my house in a year and my house is below the average home value in my area.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: boomerang
I know union workers could all agree to work for free and hand over $5 every day on their way in the door and you guys still wouldn't be happy, but have I missed something?

Has an agreement been reached between the UAW and Chrysler that's not good enough for you guys? GM? Has either company gone under yet? Did I miss that?

If there's been some new development, please share it.

I ask because I'm trying to figure out just what it is you're all bitching about. It sounds like the same old shit that you've been expressing for years. It mostly boils down to, somebody is making more money than I am!

Here's the arguments we've got so far.
They make too much money.
They need to get training and move. (No suggestions on what field, how to sell their home, etc.)
They're dumb fucks to even have the job.
I'm entitled to benefits if I'm laid off, but they shouldn't be. (Because they make too much.)
You're a dumb ass, because you don't understand, management has all the answers. (A real favorite of mine)

To top it off, the overwhelming majority of you wouldn't be caught dead in a domestic car. You hate their products, the company and most of all the workers. You're bitching now and you'll be bitching when they're gone. Have you thought of who your new whipping boy is going to be? You're going to need one.

If that is your assessment of the current situation, I don't think anyone here would be able to provide you an explanation that you will accept.

If you cannot see for yourself how these unions are are big contributor to the Big 3's downfall, no one here can help you. Sorry.

It's not my assessment of the situation, it's my assessment of the thread. It's another pointless thread bashing the very people our tax dollars will soon be supporting. If it's more important to you that they all lose their jobs to prove some kind of point, well so be it.

You can't change the past. The future is all we have. That future has the potential for another million or more of unemployed to be supported by those that still have a job. What's the point of this continual arguing about the pay of autoworkers? When the contract concessions are made public, pick up the argument at that point.

As I said, it will never be enough for most of you.

This thread represents each posters' perspective on this subject...obviously, many people are frustated with what the unions have done to the Big 3.

Based on recent discussions, it still does not appear the Union understands what position they are in (IMO). Instead of trying to help save a sinking ship, they standing idly by, doing nothing to improve the situation. It really doesn't appear that they will be changing their stance anytime soon.

What is it you expect from them right now? They have a deadline to reach an agreement. That date is not here yet. Are you pissed off because they haven't reached one ahead of the deadline or what?

How can you say they are standing idly by? I keep saying the same thing, until they reach an agreement, all talk of this nature has no value and is totally pointless. Can you see my position on this?

I understand your position regarding unions. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But based on your reply here, you should be equally angry with the bond holders because they haven't reached an agreement either.

They have a timeframe with an end date to reach an agreement. Until that date, what's the use of all this?

Did you just started following this story??? I am asking because it appears that you are completely oblivious to what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years and the union demands that have caused the big 3 to be where they are today...

How much out of each new GM car sold covers a cost for employees who no longer work at GM?? How can you have a profitable business with these expenses?? Did the bond holders make these demands?

How can you have employees that make $60K to sit around and watch TV all day in their 'job banks'? Did the bond holders make the demands for these types of benefits??

or how about GM shutting down some of their plant for two months but the workers are still going to receive 75% of their normal pay? Did the bond holders make these demands?

Just trying to emphasize the human aspect to the story. But I've got it - really.

Pension plans are bad. The union was really, really bad to ask for them. The company and the BoD have no blame in the situation - got it.

The jobs bank is gone. But we can't let go of the past - OK. The union was bad to ask for it and the company and the BoD can be held blameless - got it.

Shutting down plants and the workers collect unemployment. The union was bad to ask for SUB pay, (you should look into how that is funded, BTW) but the company and the BoD are not responsible for that - got it. Now don't tell me that you resent laid off workers getting unemployment - do you? How about laid off salaried workers collecting unemployment, is that OK?

Obama fired Wagoner and he's pulling in a pension of $20.2 million while now contributing nothing to the company. I imagine this is good - right? Under your reasoning, he and his predecessors are not responsible for anything that negatively affected the company because that damned union is the root of all that is evil.

It's a pretty neat and tidy package. Workers = bad. Management = good.

Bah, I think you just hate the unions. And the workers, and their cars, and the loans. You've found someone convenient to blame and it fits your persona. I guess we're all guilty of that to one degree or another.

I had tunnel vision when I was a young guy. My line of reasoning was the only one that made any fucking sense at all. I scoffed at people down on their luck. People that made what ultimately ended up being bad decisions. My hindsight was 20/20 and the only thing that made any sense anyway.

Decades of being on this earth has taught me far more compassion than I ever would have thought possible when I was in my late teens and early twenties. I left behind thoughts that revolve around 'that's what they deserve' a long time ago.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Blaming unions here is pretty short-sighted. The unions have made concessions far more than management and the stock/bondholders. Chrysler (and the other domestics) have much bigger problems than union pay/benefits. Even if we suddenly outlawed unions and immedeately reset pay/benefits to the non-union standards, we'd still be in the same position, just without the scapegoat.

It is sad to hear about that town though. The loss of a manufacturing plant will hit any community pretty hard, so to hear that one will not recover in the event of a possible shutdown isn't surprising. Hell, look at a lot of smaller towns that are nearly deserted when all the textile mills left for Mexico and South America. There really isn't any difference, imho.

Where do you get that BS from? The big 3 are paying through the nose on benefits and inflated salaries and legacy costs because of union contracts that have GM/Chrysler/Ford paying for old timers medical expenses and viagra.

The big 3 are hurting now because they are paying for bad decisions made 20+ years ago to offer grandeous retirement packages.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: TheoPetro

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Blaming unions here is pretty short-sighted. The unions have made concessions far more than management and the stock/bondholders. Chrysler (and the other domestics) have much bigger problems than union pay/benefits. Even if we suddenly outlawed unions and immedeately reset pay/benefits to the non-union standards, we'd still be in the same position, just without the scapegoat.

It is sad to hear about that town though. The loss of a manufacturing plant will hit any community pretty hard, so to hear that one will not recover in the event of a possible shutdown isn't surprising. Hell, look at a lot of smaller towns that are nearly deserted when all the textile mills left for Mexico and South America. There really isn't any difference, imho.

That right the is the reason why unions are pulling down US industry - for whatever reason they consider themselves capital owners/partners w/o putting any money at risk. That is if the company doesn't do as well, they will still want the same wage, yet if the company does better they want part of the profit.

I disagree. Labor is a definite partner in the operation of any industry, but usually it isn't under formal organization (unions). Just because they don't have millions/billions in direct capital on the line doesn't mean that they don't assume risk. They put their futures on the line, whether it be well-being in retirement (pensions/etc), in the near future (healthcare), or right then (the almighty paycheck). Unions have a definite stake in the well being and profitability of a company, as those benefits/jobs evaporate without it.

Can you say the same about overpaid, cushy management/executive/board jobs? What about those at the top who can afford to take risks and have severence packages that amount to more than any union worker makes in a year? It sure seems that the risk-takers at the top engage in the same behavior, as you put it, 'doing better if the company does better, but expecting the same wage/benefits when the company doesn't do as well.'

You disagree because you either don't understand what you are saying or you are too ignorant to know better.

Labor, in non-ownership sharing companies, is as much of a partner as the next subcontractor that works with the company (they aren't a partner, they are a stakeholder). If the company has an ESOP or something similar then you can say labor is a partner.

No one said that laborers dont assume risk. I think everyone agrees that laborers have some risks but you don't earn anything for not taking any risk. Part of your paycheck and benefits are a way of compensating you for taking the risk of working at company X (the major part being compensation for your skills/abilities, unless you are in a union then its compensation for how long you have been working). It is the same type of compensation with any subcontractor that works with the company.

Your last sentence in your first paragraph is where you show just how confused you are. Unions dont have ANY stake in ANY company. They didnt start the company, they didnt put up $ for the company, they didnt make the decisions that got the company to the point where it looked attractive for unions to organize it. All unions do for a company is turn a partner type relationship (laborers & management) into a subcontractor type relationship (unions & management). You may think im arguing semantics but what you are saying is just 100% wrong.

Onto your second paragraph. Who are you to say who can afford to take risks and who cant? The ones in your "cushy management/executive/board jobs" are paid the way they are because they have the skill set to direct what a multi-billion dollar company does. Being responsible for that amount of value warrants highly skilled, intelligent executives and they dont come cheep.

Again your last sentence is the one where you REALLY show how ignorant you are. The payment structure at most companies for management gives them a small guaranteed salary ~100k with bonuses for performance. They dont get the bonus if the company doesnt do well.

You need to stop blindly defending unions and take a long hard look at reality. That is of course if your interested in having an informed opinion and you dont have some stake in unions.

This. Just to clarify some points:

Labor gets paid based on production (hourly) with only minimal linkage to the company performance and no downside.

Equity stakeholders get paid solely based on company performance, which possible downside (losing money). As such, they are also entitled to the upside (profits) if the company does well.

Anyone that claims that Labor is a "partner" (aside from performance incentives paid from profits) just doesn't understand capital budgeting and finance. Since Labor faces no downside risk, they are entitled to NO upside.

A man by the name of Deming disagrees with that type of adversarial relationship presented above and has proven it over and over again.

9 Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.

All 14 points,Deming's 14 points

Deming offered fourteen key principles for management for transforming business effectiveness. The points were first presented in his book Out of the Crisis. (p. 23-24)[21]

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and stay in business, and to provide jobs.
2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move towards a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease cost.
6. Institute training on the job.
7. Institute leadership (see Point 12 and Ch. 8 of "Out of the Crisis"). The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company. (See Ch. 3 of "Out of the Crisis")
9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
11. a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute workmanship.
12. a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective (See Ch. 3 of "Out of the Crisis").
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
14. Put <everyone in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everyone's work. "Massive training is required to instill the courage to break with tradition.< Every activity and every job is a part of the process." [22]

too bad most companies are unwilling to implement them due to the short term profit mentality that has permeated most companies today.

It's also too bad that Unions tend to block such things as they are just another layer of "management" over the worker that is unneeded.