Delphi will probably die at the hands of the UAW

[imported_Shivetya]

Two stories regarding the UAW today. (now with more stories)

First up, UAW rejects Delphi proposals After all it is a substantial paycut. Yet at the same time some pay is better than none. In other words, its possible Delphi could collapse. Delphi has also threatened to void the contract in court if necessary creating a showdown where the UAW would strike. Needless to say GM would suffer and that is the real target here, the UAW wants GM to pay for Delphi being spun off.



Second is UAW hints it could unionize foreign automakers but of course doesn't commit to their own comments about it. In other words its just playing the press. Of course 'some' workers will have interest in the UAW, but don't expect the UAW to succeed unless their buddies in Washington change the rules on how a shop gets unionized... after all if they get their way intimidation will be back in style. Chrysler may be spun off simply because the German parent cannot handle the UAW being unflexible.


In the end the US automotive industry will shrink again because it cannot adapt to the real world. The costs associated with making vehicles has to come down and the quality must go up. The problem is is that the workers are used to the near free ride on many items and refuse to give them up. With China's automobile industry coming soon it may be a moot point, but the UAW better adapt for it may become a relic of the past along with US based automotive manfacturing.


Hmmmm Perhaps Chrysler is prepping for a long fight with the UAW. Their inventories are increasing to record levels, with what normally would be considered dangerous numbers of cars. With this many on hand they could sustain a long strike and be okay for much longer than normal.

One area for consideration in talks, at least from the manufacturer view is Job banks Basically you get paid for not working. Originally created to protect from outsourcing/etc they have become a financial liability on the automakers.

 

[Red Dawn]

You think you could live on a 40% pay cut? Would you even stay in your field of work?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You think you could live on a 40% pay cut? Would you even stay in your field of work?

Nope, I would change my field of work or seek another employer.

It isn't my employer's responsibility to ensure I can live on the wage provided, it is mine to find an employer who pays what I need to survive how I see fit or for me to adjust my standards to fit within the employment available to me with my skill set.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You think you could live on a 40% pay cut? Would you even stay in your field of work?

Nope, I would change my field of work or seek another employer.

It isn't my employer's responsibility to ensure I can live on the wage provided, it is mine to find an employer who pays what I need to survive how I see fit or for me to adjust my standards to fit within the employment available to me with my skill set.

Yeah and? The Union membership has nothing to lose by refusing Delphi's offer. If the company goes bottom up they'll be losing nothing because the money offered them is something they couldn't live on.

 

[IronWing]

Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

and where do you see that I wrote this? Oh, you didn't, you just made it up so as to excuse yourself from defending their actions. What I provided was information about how both sides are setting themselves up for a battle.

Then what should I expect, its far easier to debate the messenger than the message? Thats usually the route taken by those who have nothing to contribute, either because they are lazy or stupid.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah and? The Union membership has nothing to lose by refusing Delphi's offer. If the company goes bottom up they'll be losing nothing because the money offered them is something they couldn't live on.

This is the classic mindset that I see in unions. Unfortunately, I learned in about third grade math class that 0.6*wage>0.0*wage, which contradicts this line of reasoning.

edit: Actually, the only time the above inequality breaks down is if wage=0, which can only occur if the union drives its host company out of business. This suggests the role of a parasite for the union, which is seeming more and more appropriate.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Unfortunately, I learned in about third grade math class that 0.6*wage>0.0*wage,

If you would have made it to 4th grade, you would have learned that there's more than one employer in this country.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

You are correct that there is piss poor management, and they are piss poor for caving into union demands. The environment that a unionized shop creates, where unions blame management for all the problems, and management blames unions for all the problems, is not condusive to a good work environment, and is why the US automakers, steel producers, etc are failing. The unions need to be dismantled so these companies can survive, because one way or another, the union days are coming to and end, it's just a matter of whether they take the companies down with them. Liberals like to cover their ears and go lalalalalala when confronted with the realities of a global economy. American companies simply cannot remain competitive in a global economy when paying "experienced" floor sweepers 70K, and promising them a lifetime of pension payments and healthcare. This actually makes a good case, albeit not the full case, for some kind of nationalized healthcare, which I freakin hate to admit. The fact that a non-unionized domestic Toyota plant can pay their employees just as well, and produce better cars for cheaper, goes to show you how hamstrung American car companies have been by their union relationships. A company having to negotiate with a union in order to implement an efficiency measure is just absurd.

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

You are correct that there is piss poor management, and they are piss poor for caving into union demands. The environment that a unionized shop creates, where unions blame management for all the problems, and management blames unions for all the problems, is not condusive to a good work environment, and is why the US automakers, steel producers, etc are failing. The unions need to be dismantled so these companies can survive, because one way or another, the union days are coming to and end, it's just a matter of whether they take the companies down with them. Liberals like to cover their ears and go lalalalalala when confronted with the realities of a global economy. American companies simply cannot remain competitive in a global economy when paying "experienced" floor sweepers 70K, and promising them a lifetime of pension payments and healthcare. This actually makes a good case, albeit not the full case, for some kind of nationalized healthcare, which I freakin hate to admin. The fact that a non-unionized domestic Toyota plant can pay their employees just as well, and produce better cars for cheaper, goes to show you how hamstrung American car companies have been by their union relationships. A company having to negotiate with a union in order to implement an efficiency measure is just absurd.

The only reason Toyota pays nearly the same wages is because of the unions, Once they (unions) are gone watch how fast the wages drop.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

You are correct that there is piss poor management, and they are piss poor for caving into union demands. The environment that a unionized shop creates, where unions blame management for all the problems, and management blames unions for all the problems, is not condusive to a good work environment, and is why the US automakers, steel producers, etc are failing. The unions need to be dismantled so these companies can survive, because one way or another, the union days are coming to and end, it's just a matter of whether they take the companies down with them. Liberals like to cover their ears and go lalalalalala when confronted with the realities of a global economy. American companies simply cannot remain competitive in a global economy when paying "experienced" floor sweepers 70K, and promising them a lifetime of pension payments and healthcare. This actually makes a good case, albeit not the full case, for some kind of nationalized healthcare, which I freakin hate to admin. The fact that a non-unionized domestic Toyota plant can pay their employees just as well, and produce better cars for cheaper, goes to show you how hamstrung American car companies have been by their union relationships. A company having to negotiate with a union in order to implement an efficiency measure is just absurd.

The only reason Toyota pays nearly the same wages is because of the unions, Once they (unions) are gone watch how fast the wages drop.

And what proof do you have of this statement? When Toyota opens a plant in Mississippi, they are not competing against the domestic car makers for employees. The nearest domestic plant is probably 500mi away. I live here in Alabama, where they have opened Honda, Hyundai, and Mercedes plants. There are no domestic plants here, and they pay a great wage from what I hear. So how do you explain this?

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

You are correct that there is piss poor management, and they are piss poor for caving into union demands. The environment that a unionized shop creates, where unions blame management for all the problems, and management blames unions for all the problems, is not condusive to a good work environment, and is why the US automakers, steel producers, etc are failing. The unions need to be dismantled so these companies can survive, because one way or another, the union days are coming to and end, it's just a matter of whether they take the companies down with them. Liberals like to cover their ears and go lalalalalala when confronted with the realities of a global economy. American companies simply cannot remain competitive in a global economy when paying "experienced" floor sweepers 70K, and promising them a lifetime of pension payments and healthcare. This actually makes a good case, albeit not the full case, for some kind of nationalized healthcare, which I freakin hate to admin. The fact that a non-unionized domestic Toyota plant can pay their employees just as well, and produce better cars for cheaper, goes to show you how hamstrung American car companies have been by their union relationships. A company having to negotiate with a union in order to implement an efficiency measure is just absurd.

The only reason Toyota pays nearly the same wages is because of the unions, Once they (unions) are gone watch how fast the wages drop.

And what proof do you have of this statement? When Toyota opens a plant in Mississippi, they are not competing against the domestic car makers for employees. The nearest domestic plant is probably 500mi away. I live here in Alabama, where they have opened Honda, Hyundai, and Mercedes plants. There are no domestic plants here, and they pay a great wage from what I hear. So how do you explain this?

There are alot of layed off, unemployed, former autoworkers more than willing to move to continue work. I read recently that Toyota was complaining about the wages they had to pay for their plants here to compete. If what you say is true, why is Toyota complaining about what they are paying? How many experienced workers do you beleive live in those areas where no domestic plants are now? Training isn't cheap.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Two stories regarding the UAW today. (now with more stories)

First up, UAW rejects Delphi proposals After all it is a substantial paycut. Yet at the same time some pay is better than none.

Umm... NO! Working for substantially less than it costs to live for any extended period is a self-defeating waste of time.

Are YOU willing to squander your time working for substantially less than enough to pay for your rent, food, health and general living expenses? If not, you're whining is a pile of bull, Shivetya.

 

[ProfJohn]

We can name unionized plant after unionized plant that has gone out of business.
As long as people want cheap stuff and aren't willing to pay extra for union built stuff this will continue to happen.

It seems obvious that Ford and GM can not exist as car companies unless they get control of their costs and that means getting a hold of their over sized union pay checks and benefits.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: ironwing
Yawn, yet another pathetic attempt to blame unions for piss pooor management. Easier to blame the weak than those in charge.

You are correct that there is piss poor management, and they are piss poor for caving into union demands. The environment that a unionized shop creates, where unions blame management for all the problems, and management blames unions for all the problems, is not condusive to a good work environment, and is why the US automakers, steel producers, etc are failing. The unions need to be dismantled so these companies can survive, because one way or another, the union days are coming to and end, it's just a matter of whether they take the companies down with them. Liberals like to cover their ears and go lalalalalala when confronted with the realities of a global economy. American companies simply cannot remain competitive in a global economy when paying "experienced" floor sweepers 70K, and promising them a lifetime of pension payments and healthcare. This actually makes a good case, albeit not the full case, for some kind of nationalized healthcare, which I freakin hate to admin. The fact that a non-unionized domestic Toyota plant can pay their employees just as well, and produce better cars for cheaper, goes to show you how hamstrung American car companies have been by their union relationships. A company having to negotiate with a union in order to implement an efficiency measure is just absurd.

The only reason Toyota pays nearly the same wages is because of the unions, Once they (unions) are gone watch how fast the wages drop.

And what proof do you have of this statement? When Toyota opens a plant in Mississippi, they are not competing against the domestic car makers for employees. The nearest domestic plant is probably 500mi away. I live here in Alabama, where they have opened Honda, Hyundai, and Mercedes plants. There are no domestic plants here, and they pay a great wage from what I hear. So how do you explain this?

There are alot of layed off, unemployed, former autoworkers more than willing to move to continue work. I read recently that Toyota was complaining about the wages they had to pay for their plants here to compete. If what you say is true, why is Toyota complaining about what they are paying? How many experienced workers do you beleive live in those areas where no domestic plants are now? Training isn't cheap.

Every time a new plant opens up here in Alabama, hordes of people with no experience in an auto plant rush in to take the jobs. I would venture to say that only a small fraction of them are people who relocated from Detroit, so trust me, they have no shortage of workers willing to take the job. Also, alot of layed off former autoworkers like you mention isnt exactly something that drives wages up, more like the opposite, so there are other factors at play. With the commitment to quality foreign automakers cling to, having high turnover of experienced people because they can get a higher paying job at the local grocery store wouldnt make the best business sense. They reach a happy medium with their employees. We'll pay you well, but if you suck we'll fire you, and if we find a way to automate your job, tough luck. That is the way my job, and the rest of the non-unionized work force works.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Two stories regarding the UAW today. (now with more stories)

First up, UAW rejects Delphi proposals After all it is a substantial paycut. Yet at the same time some pay is better than none.

Umm... NO! Working for substantially less than it costs to live for any extended period is a self-defeating waste of time.

Are YOU willing to squander your time working for substantially less than enough to pay for your rent, food, health and general living expenses? If not, you're whining is a pile of bull, Shivetya.

Harvey, I'm sure your intentions are good, but the fact is that it is unsustainable. They are losing their jobs, because what they demand out of their employers is economically unfeasible. See my posts in this thread about how the domestic automakers manage to pay equally as well, and build superior cars and make a profit. It is doable, but the UAW people are going to have to give up some of their job protections and lifetime benefits in order to stay employed. Companies have to be nimble to survive, and you cannot be nimble when burdened by the weight of these union contracts. The foreign automakers that have plants here are proof that the alternative to the union contracts is not a barely livable wage.

 

[sonoma1993]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Two stories regarding the UAW today. (now with more stories)

First up, UAW rejects Delphi proposals After all it is a substantial paycut. Yet at the same time some pay is better than none.

Umm... NO! Working for substantially less than it costs to live for any extended period is a self-defeating waste of time.

Are YOU willing to squander your time working for substantially less than enough to pay for your rent, food, health and general living expenses? If not, you're whining is a pile of bull, Shivetya.

Harvey, I'm sure your intentions are good, but the fact is that it is unsustainable. They are losing their jobs, because what they demand out of their employers is economically unfeasible. See my posts in this thread about how the domestic automakers manage to pay equally as well, and build superior cars and make a profit. It is doable, but the UAW people are going to have to give up some of their job protections and lifetime benefits in order to stay employed. Companies have to be nimble to survive, and you cannot be nimble when burdened by the weight of these union contracts. The foreign automakers that have plants here are proof that the alternative to the union contracts is not a barely livable wage.

If I was in uaw working for Delphi, I would tell the delphi executives to shove it. A Bankruptcy Judge last week approve, a 37 million in bonuses for the executives. Now why should a delphi employee and uaw be taking pay cuts when the executives are getting approve for a nice fat bonus when the company is in bankruptcy? The judge should have never approve of those bonuses.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Harvey, I'm sure your intentions are good, but the fact is that it is unsustainable. They are losing their jobs, because what they demand out of their employers is economically unfeasible. See my posts in this thread about how the domestic automakers manage to pay equally as well, and build superior cars and make a profit. It is doable, but the UAW people are going to have to give up some of their job protections and lifetime benefits in order to stay employed. Companies have to be nimble to survive, and you cannot be nimble when burdened by the weight of these union contracts. The foreign automakers that have plants here are proof that the alternative to the union contracts is not a barely livable wage.

No. The auto companies are in a serious competitive bind for two reasons:

1. American auto companies are fighting an ever growing burden of legacy retirement benefits. Those retired employees put in their time under a legally binding contract that obligated their employer to continue paying them after they retired.

2. Their revenues are down because they continued to build and market really poorly designed vehecles and ignore the challenge of market innovators.

American car makers are in a bind of their own making, and they have only themselves to blame. Something's got to be done if they're going to remain in business, and a lot of innocent people will be hurt as a result of their past poor business decisions, but as long as top company execs are pulling down millions of dollars per year for their bad decisions while the line employees who manufacture their products aren't covering living expenses, cutting worker compensation is not the first place to look to salvage the company's bottom line.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah and? The Union membership has nothing to lose by refusing Delphi's offer. If the company goes bottom up they'll be losing nothing because the money offered them is something they couldn't live on.

This is the classic mindset that I see in unions. Unfortunately, I learned in about third grade math class that 0.6*wage>0.0*wage, which contradicts this line of reasoning.

edit: Actually, the only time the above inequality breaks down is if wage=0, which can only occur if the union drives its host company out of business. This suggests the role of a parasite for the union, which is seeming more and more appropriate.

Yes, the workers should work for pay that qualifies them for welfare, etc. Perhaps they should eliminate all the health and retirement benifits too. Then you can have something else to piss and moan about.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah and? The Union membership has nothing to lose by refusing Delphi's offer. If the company goes bottom up they'll be losing nothing because the money offered them is something they couldn't live on.

This is the classic mindset that I see in unions. Unfortunately, I learned in about third grade math class that 0.6*wage>0.0*wage, which contradicts this line of reasoning.

edit: Actually, the only time the above inequality breaks down is if wage=0, which can only occur if the union drives its host company out of business. This suggests the role of a parasite for the union, which is seeming more and more appropriate.

LOL! You union haters are funny! The only reason that businesses fail is because of unions?

You need to stop thinking of things as a union issue. Think of the union as outsourced labor. Now imagine that you tell the outsourcer that you want work done at 60% of the rate that you previously said was fair. Who would you blame for the failure when they say no way?

 

[imported_Baloo]

Some of you have been listenting to way too much corporate propaganda. If Delphi fails, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the UAW - most of their employees are overseas, making very low wages.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Harvey, I'm sure your intentions are good, but the fact is that it is unsustainable. They are losing their jobs, because what they demand out of their employers is economically unfeasible. See my posts in this thread about how the domestic automakers manage to pay equally as well, and build superior cars and make a profit. It is doable, but the UAW people are going to have to give up some of their job protections and lifetime benefits in order to stay employed. Companies have to be nimble to survive, and you cannot be nimble when burdened by the weight of these union contracts. The foreign automakers that have plants here are proof that the alternative to the union contracts is not a barely livable wage.

No. The auto companies are in a serious competitive bind for two reasons:

1. American auto companies are fighting an ever growing burden of legacy retirement benefits. Those retired employees put in their time under a legally binding contract that obligated their employer to continue paying them after they retired.

2. Their revenues are down because they continued to build and market really poorly designed vehecles and ignore the challenge of market innovators.

American car makers are in a bind of their own making, and they have only themselves to blame. Something's got to be done if they're going to remain in business, and a lot of innocent people will be hurt as a result of their past poor business decisions, but as long as top company execs are pulling down millions of dollars per year for their bad decisions while the line employees who manufacture their products aren't covering living expenses, cutting worker compensation is not the first place to look to salvage the company's bottom line.

I will agree it is not the first place, or rather the only place, but it has to be dealt with nontheless.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Two stories regarding the UAW today. (now with more stories)

First up, UAW rejects Delphi proposals After all it is a substantial paycut. Yet at the same time some pay is better than none.

Umm... NO! Working for substantially less than it costs to live for any extended period is a self-defeating waste of time.

Are YOU willing to squander your time working for substantially less than enough to pay for your rent, food, health and general living expenses? If not, you're whining is a pile of bull, Shivetya.

and what do they do if Delphi ceases to exist? Your spewing the typical loser pile of bull.

Life isn't fair. It isn't up to your employer to make sure you earn enough to live how YOU want. Its up to you.

If the workers cannot live on those wages what prevents them from seeking employment elsewhere? WHAT?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Baloo
Some of you have been listenting to way too much corporate propaganda. If Delphi fails, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with the UAW - most of their employees are overseas, making very low wages.

and what about the employees here? Do they just evaporate? Your statement ignores the fact that they have US based employees. Now, what happens if they don't get the changes they need? Simple they move ALL of it overseas. Then what? Oh, I know, you can strut and preen about evil corporations while the former US BASED Delphi workers look at you over the counter of McDonalds.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
and what do they do if Delphi ceases to exist?

Then, they're probably better off looking for other employment that will pay them a living wage than wasting their time hoping the company they worked for in good faith for years will ever keep their end of their previous contracts, let alone any new contracts they sign.

Your spewing the typical loser pile of bull.

And you're still spewing your typican pile of BullShivetya.

Life isn't fair. It isn't up to your employer to make sure you earn enough to live how YOU want. Its up to you.

WRONG! Slavery was outlawed in this country over a century ago. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

If the workers cannot live on those wages what prevents them from seeking employment elsewhere? WHAT?

Talk to us about it when you're in your mid forties or fifties, you're responsible for a feeding, clothing and providing a home for a family, and the majority of your developed skill set is in what you've been doing well for your only employer for the last twenty or thirty years.

If you think you have an answer for that, tell us how the company's top execs justify their million dollar pay package earned on the backs of all those loyal workers. :roll: