Hey, GM: Can I retire at 48, too?

[Fern]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: alocurto

Originally posted by: palehorse
Gee... the unions are partially to blame for the downfall of our auto industry? Whodathunkit!?

:thumbsup:

-snip-

If they had funded the pensions like they were supposed to have done, then they wouldn't be the problem that they are now.

Not exactly.

They could've fully funded those Defined Benefit Plans up through 2007 and by today they would have lost half of the money (assuming they got an average return. God forbid the thing invested in GM stock).

DBP's are mofo to administer; you're at the whims of the stock market, or sucking wind in bonds. That's one good reason they're gone.

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
As for the healthcare benefits, I'd say that it is outside of GM's ultimate control. Our healthcare system is broken, and GMs troubles with health benefits (once considered quite reasonable) are a result. If we had some sort of UHC then it wouldn't be a problem for the company. That being said, I know UHC is a stigmatized word around here, but the fact is that our domestic auto companies are at a comparative disadvantage to other countries' auto industries, where the gvt handles the health issue. Whether one agrees we should do the same is another matter.

Plenty of industries/businesses have done very well versus their international competitors in spite of our lack of UHC, so using that as an excuse for GM's failure is total bullshit.

Union extortion + crap products + paralyzed management = fail. Period.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Great idea going forward. Meanwhile, exactly how many of those who already put in their thirty years and are too old to start over, along with their families, are you willing to shovel out on the streets? :shocked:

They have already done their time and should be gradfathered in and get their benefits, but at the expense of the execs and what not, not the taxpayers.