UAW response to bailout

[EXman]

Sitting behind some 50yo something in a Black Lincoln Truck that was all bling and not really a truck I noticed his uber fancy Retired UAW sticker on the back window and wanted to puke.

 

[Zebo]

It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

There is no hate for the american worker. I would not complain about UAW wages or work rules if they were the industry standard in productivity. However they are not and there in lies the problem. They want to command premium wages without delivering premium quality and productivity.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I understand what you are saying, but we also have a financial hangover right now. That hangover is going to take a while to its course, for both banks and consumers. Consumers need to lower their debt load and banks need to increase their cash holdings. IT sucks, but it needs to be done.

Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.

So how many people with good credit, low debt, with the ability to pay are being turned away.

And I get the fact that lending institutions are nervous.

 

[L00PY]

I admit I'm a sucker for actual numbers. I found some for vehicle manufacturing in the Harbour Report. In it there's a HPV measure for hours worked by all plant personnel (salaried, direct hourly, and indirect hourly) per vehicle. The industry average for 2007 was 22.5 hours per vehicle. Going off an average of $30 per hour (that CNN agrees is the same for GM and Toyota), that's a labor cost of under $700 per vehicle. Chop wages by 10% and you're looking at a savings of $70 off the vehicle's cost. We're talking less than a third of a percent of cost of the average vehicle price of $25k.

And for kicks, want to know the difference in efficiency between Toyota and Chrysler? It's a whopping 1.04 hours. That's right, on average Toyota spends 1 hour longer to assemble a vehicle.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I understand what you are saying, but we also have a financial hangover right now. That hangover is going to take a while to its course, for both banks and consumers. Consumers need to lower their debt load and banks need to increase their cash holdings. IT sucks, but it needs to be done.

Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.

So how many people with good credit, low debt, with the ability to pay are being turned away.

And I get the fact that lending institutions are nervous.

lol, exactly. I don't have stellar credit, have a good amount of debt(house, 1 car, and maybe a couple grand on CCs due to work travel) but I had no problem running a deal yesterday at the dealership all the way to the final papers. I ended up not buying though but I was approved and everything went off without a hitch...unless you count me getting cold feet at the end since I want to wait until Jan/Feb to buy and the deal wasn't exactly what I wanted.

The point here is that no one is being turned away if they have what charrison is talking about because I had zero problems without them.

 

[Squisher]

Well, it looks like this thread finally has something substantive to talk about. Details are starting to emerge about the bailout package and like most suspected here, the issue of wages are an issue, but also involved is the funding of VEBA, the trust fund for retiree healthcare. Under the wording of package the UAW must accept half of the funds for this trust fund in the form of stock. I'm not sure just how this would work, considering the market capitalization of GM, let's say, is less than what was going to be required as the payments. Also, there seems to be an inherent lack of diversification of money destined fund something like you would want in what is essentially a retirement account, although I don't know if anything would stop the selling of the stock once it was put into the fund.

"The way it stands now, the health care of retirees is in jeopardy," said Gary Chaison, a labor professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "They may not only postpone the payments, but end up rearranging the terms of the VEBA as well." The trust fund payments probably are the "most substantive" issue being negotiated among the UAW and automakers, said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "Really the key to survival is high fixed costs and not the labor costs. Delaying the VEBA payments has real value," Cole said. Allowing half of the VEBA to be paid in stock would be a repeat of the "Enron debacle," warned Harley Shaiken, labor professor at University of California at Berkeley. "You don't put all of your 401(k) in one company. That's what they want here. It's very risky."

Personally, I think the biggest sticking point to the wage issue will be defining just what the wages at the transplants really are. I wonder just how forthcoming the foreign transplants have to be in stating their wage structure. It is not like the government has any right to compel them to disclose this.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb...UTO01/812200408/&imw=Y

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: EXman
Sitting behind some 50yo something in a Black Lincoln Truck that was all bling and not really a truck I noticed his uber fancy Retired UAW sticker on the back window and wanted to puke.

Jealousy can be a very powerful emotion.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Well, it looks like this thread finally has something substantive to talk about. Details are starting to emerge about the bailout package and like most suspected here, the issue of wages are an issue, but also involved is the funding of VEBA, the trust fund for retiree healthcare. Under the wording of package the UAW must accept half of the funds for this trust fund in the form of stock. I'm not sure just how this would work, considering the market capitalization of GM, let's say, is less than what was going to be required as the payments. Also, there seems to be an inherent lack of diversification of money destined fund something like you would want in what is essentially a retirement account, although I don't know if anything would stop the selling of the stock once it was put into the fund.

"The way it stands now, the health care of retirees is in jeopardy," said Gary Chaison, a labor professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "They may not only postpone the payments, but end up rearranging the terms of the VEBA as well." The trust fund payments probably are the "most substantive" issue being negotiated among the UAW and automakers, said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor. "Really the key to survival is high fixed costs and not the labor costs. Delaying the VEBA payments has real value," Cole said. Allowing half of the VEBA to be paid in stock would be a repeat of the "Enron debacle," warned Harley Shaiken, labor professor at University of California at Berkeley. "You don't put all of your 401(k) in one company. That's what they want here. It's very risky."

Personally, I think the biggest sticking point to the wage issue will be defining just what the wages at the transplants really are. I wonder just how forthcoming the foreign transplants have to be in stating their wage structure. It is not like the government has any right to compel them to disclose this.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb...UTO01/812200408/&imw=Y

So, the current administration essentially wants the workers to have more of an investment in the company by making their health care needs dependent on the stock price? Or, as you said, can the stock immediately be sold to realize those gains and then be invested in other ways? It's really a shame the financial markets did what they did. The VEBA would have essentially been a one time payment by the corporations and then the entire burden of retiree health care would have belonged to the union. It still will be the responsibility of the union, the funding is now the problem.

Quite obviously the terms are there to help alleviate the burden of the VEBA on the companies, something that truly needs to be done at this point. Any investment adviser will tell you to never own stock in the company you work for as an investment. It's just too risky to do so. This is a slippery slope. My gut feeling is that the union cannot be legally compelled to retain the stock.

As to wages, it's already been proven that domestic wages are below the wages of Toyota. You bring up an interesting point, because there is no way to determine the true compensation package of the imports, they are not going to provide that information and have no legal reason to do so.

They're about ten dollars an hour apart on wages and benefits right now based on the figures available in that article. I think that's doable. There are some minor benefits that could be done away with, and I think a pay cut could be floated rather easily. There's a difference between what the membership is willing to accept and the posturing of their leaders.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

There is no hate for the american worker. I would not complain about UAW wages or work rules if they were the industry standard in productivity. However they are not and there in lies the problem. They want to command premium wages without delivering premium quality and productivity.

A statement like this is nothing but pure bullshit. Putting aside that the majority of your 'reasons' are factually incorrect, why would you even care? What difference would it possibly make to you?

If you're not happy with the quality of their products, teach them a lesson and don't buy them - simple as that. Same with their wages - don't buy a domestic. You, as the consumer have the ultimate power. They're not the only game in town.

I think your issue with their wages runs deeper that you're telling us. I for one am not buying your rhetoric in the slightest.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

I have no problem if they make 100K a year. Good for them but why should there making 100K a year be subsidized by the government.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: EXman
Sitting behind some 50yo something in a Black Lincoln Truck that was all bling and not really a truck I noticed his uber fancy Retired UAW sticker on the back window and wanted to puke.

You should get a better job.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

I have no problem if they make 100K a year. Good for them but why should there making 100K a year be subsidized by the government.

They're loans. You really need to wrap your head around that and get happy with it. Any claims that they will not get paid back are nothing but conjecture at this point. Not worth getting one's panties in a bunch over right now.

If they go under and somehow manage to default on the loans, then scream to high heaven. The government has put protections in place to do everything possible to ensure the loans are repaid in the event these companies go under.

Nothing wrong with getting upset over things when based on the facts.

Edit: Spelling, as usual!!!!!

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: L00PY
I admit I'm a sucker for actual numbers. I found some for vehicle manufacturing in the Harbour Report. In it there's a HPV measure for hours worked by all plant personnel (salaried, direct hourly, and indirect hourly) per vehicle. The industry average for 2007 was 22.5 hours per vehicle. Going off an average of $30 per hour (that CNN agrees is the same for GM and Toyota), that's a labor cost of under $700 per vehicle. Chop wages by 10% and you're looking at a savings of $70 off the vehicle's cost. We're talking less than a third of a percent of cost of the average vehicle price of $25k.

And for kicks, want to know the difference in efficiency between Toyota and Chrysler? It's a whopping 1.04 hours. That's right, on average Toyota spends 1 hour longer to assemble a vehicle.

L00PY, I just wanted to quote your post to let you know that I for one, have read it and am not ignoring it. You've presented sobering facts that others may choose to ignore in pursuit of their agendas, but I read them, and appreciate the post.

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: L00PY
I admit I'm a sucker for actual numbers. I found some for vehicle manufacturing in the Harbour Report. In it there's a HPV measure for hours worked by all plant personnel (salaried, direct hourly, and indirect hourly) per vehicle. The industry average for 2007 was 22.5 hours per vehicle. Going off an average of $30 per hour (that CNN agrees is the same for GM and Toyota), that's a labor cost of under $700 per vehicle. Chop wages by 10% and you're looking at a savings of $70 off the vehicle's cost. We're talking less than a third of a percent of cost of the average vehicle price of $25k.

And for kicks, want to know the difference in efficiency between Toyota and Chrysler? It's a whopping 1.04 hours. That's right, on average Toyota spends 1 hour longer to assemble a vehicle.

Thank you for the info links. This answers some of the questions I have been having.

I also have to keep reminding myself that the auto company's are receiving loans not gifts.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

I have no problem if they make 100K a year. Good for them but why should there making 100K a year be subsidized by the government.

They're loans. You really need to wrap your head around that and get happy with it. Any claims that they will not get paid back are nothing but conjecture at this point. Not worth getting one's panties in a bunch over right now.

If they go under and somehow manage to default on the loans, then scream to high heaven. The government has put protections in place to do everything possible to ensure the loans are repaid in the event these companies go under.

Nothing wrong with getting upset over things when based on the facts.

Edit: Spelling, as usual!!!!!

What the hell are you bitching about?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

I have no problem if they make 100K a year. Good for them but why should there making 100K a year be subsidized by the government.

They're loans. You really need to wrap your head around that and get happy with it. Any claims that they will not get paid back are nothing but conjecture at this point. Not worth getting one's panties in a bunch over right now.

If they go under and somehow manage to default on the loans, then scream to high heaven. The government has put protections in place to do everything possible to ensure the loans are repaid in the event these companies go under.

Nothing wrong with getting upset over things when based on the facts.

Edit: Spelling, as usual!!!!!

What the hell are you bitching about?

Did I misinterpret this statement?

but why should there making 100K a year be subsidized by the government.

Perhaps I did, what did you mean by it?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Just remember at ford quality is job 1...not.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/10235271/index.html

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: L00PY
That's right, on average Toyota spends 1 hour longer to assemble a vehicle.

That's because the instructions are written in Japanese.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Just remember at ford quality is job 1...not.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/10235271/index.html

I don't understand what this has to do with the subject at hand?

Because there is thievery taking place at one of the companies involved in these bailouts how does that impact anyone's opinion on the bailout?

I'm sure you could find illegal acts taking place at every major corporation in the world whether it be stealing pens and pencils or fraud. If you are trying to portray this as commonplace then I fail to grasp at how finding 4 individuals doing something somehow casts doubt on 200,000+ other workers. In this particular situation I don't doubt that everyone of those workers were fired, permanently. There is no easier way to be fired in the Big 3 than to do something where there is incontrovertible evidence. In my 30 years as an autoworker I can say I've probably seen 10 people be fired for something involving things just like these individuals were doing. Your company ID clocks you in and out of a facility when you go through a turnstile. All turnstiles are are filmed 24/7. And, seeing how all your attendance has to be verified 100% by your supervisor daily I don't doubt that these people's immediate supervisor was also fired.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: L00PY
I admit I'm a sucker for actual numbers. I found some for vehicle manufacturing in the Harbour Report. In it there's a HPV measure for hours worked by all plant personnel (salaried, direct hourly, and indirect hourly) per vehicle. The industry average for 2007 was 22.5 hours per vehicle. Going off an average of $30 per hour (that CNN agrees is the same for GM and Toyota), that's a labor cost of under $700 per vehicle. Chop wages by 10% and you're looking at a savings of $70 off the vehicle's cost. We're talking less than a third of a percent of cost of the average vehicle price of $25k.

And for kicks, want to know the difference in efficiency between Toyota and Chrysler? It's a whopping 1.04 hours. That's right, on average Toyota spends 1 hour longer to assemble a vehicle.

L00PY, I just wanted to quote your post to let you know that I for one, have read it and am not ignoring it. You've presented sobering facts that others may choose to ignore in pursuit of their agendas, but I read them, and appreciate the post.

I for one am not certain what's used in the HPV figure. I'm guessing that its a function of line speed, automation, and direct labor time. So, if a company spent a gazillion dollars on automation and had one person working on the line, then would the hours per vehicle be that one workers cycle time? If that's the case, then HPV by itself is not the end-all, say-all metric. Anybody can improve that metric by simply outsourcing labor intensive portions like the cockpit....at which point, GM has to buy out their line workers (or, they had previously gone into a jobs bank....at which point they were still collecting checks but not counting against the HPV metric).

Something isn't adding up here. Labor costs typically represent 10-15% of a vehicles cost, right? Does the HPV include an OEM's indirect labor costs, like material handling, skilled trades, team leaders, janitors (believe it or not, the position of janitor in an OEM UAW shop has been a highly sought after job because they typ. do so little), overstaffing for absenteeism, etc?

And a few points about some difficulties with the UAW:
Is the UAW solely responsible for the productivity gains resulting from improved processes? No, GM has to first engineer a better solution and then literally beg the UAW to play along (this is one of the problems). After which, the UAW takes the credit for the productivity gains (which is fine, they do the actual hands on daily work, but forcing the company to beg and plead to implement is WRONG).

Another issue is the inability for GM/Chrysler/Ford to be able to fire the dirt bags that drag productity down. Those people are definitely in the minority of the UAW, but stop protecting those useless f-'s. Seems to be a HUGE problem - the absolute protectionism that the UAW offers all of its members, regardless of performance.

That being said, though, there are problems that overshadow these: the absolutely absurd management pay/perks/bonuses, huge management structure that needs to be cut down to size, poor management practices, etc.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
It's amazing to me to watch the hate for the American worker. Don't any of you understand their good pay will invariably buy a good or service you sell? What do you get out of putting food on a Japanese or Chinese table? I personally which every American made 100K a year instead of sent overseas and a bunch of workers over the barrel over here, does me no good, bunch of poor people.

There is no hate for the american worker. I would not complain about UAW wages or work rules if they were the industry standard in productivity. However they are not and there in lies the problem. They want to command premium wages without delivering premium quality and productivity.

A statement like this is nothing but pure bullshit. Putting aside that the majority of your 'reasons' are factually incorrect, why would you even care? What difference would it possibly make to you?

If you're not happy with the quality of their products, teach them a lesson and don't buy them - simple as that. Same with their wages - don't buy a domestic. You, as the consumer have the ultimate power. They're not the only game in town.

I think your issue with their wages runs deeper that you're telling us. I for one am not buying your rhetoric in the slightest.

My statement about wages is what I meant. IF UAW was the industry standard for productivity and quality, I would have nor problem with their wages. BUt this is not the case.

That being said, quality and productivity has improved at the big 3. However they are still not industry leaders. It has taken massive buyouts to get rid of excess workers to big their productivity numbers up to where the transplants are. This just means that UAW work rules has kept the big3 over staffed to do the same job that the transplants have been doing. They have been milking the big 3 dry for the last several decades and the consequences for the big 3 is not pretty.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I understand what you are saying, but we also have a financial hangover right now. That hangover is going to take a while to its course, for both banks and consumers. Consumers need to lower their debt load and banks need to increase their cash holdings. IT sucks, but it needs to be done.

Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.

So how many people with good credit, low debt, with the ability to pay are being turned away.

And I get the fact that lending institutions are nervous.

lol, exactly. I don't have stellar credit, have a good amount of debt(house, 1 car, and maybe a couple grand on CCs due to work travel) but I had no problem running a deal yesterday at the dealership all the way to the final papers. I ended up not buying though but I was approved and everything went off without a hitch...unless you count me getting cold feet at the end since I want to wait until Jan/Feb to buy and the deal wasn't exactly what I wanted.

The point here is that no one is being turned away if they have what charrison is talking about because I had zero problems without them.

Riiiiight. Obviously Jackson, the CEO of AutoNation, is just lying through his teeth about the fact that people with good credit are being turned away at his dealers across the U.S. I'm sure he's somehow in on this UAW conspiracy to destroy the big 3 with their outrageous wages.

:roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, but people with GOOD credit with the ability to repay aren't getting loans. Things have completely swung the opposite direction and as much as you like to think that's a good thing, it's NOT. Not for the consumer, not for corporate america, not for the auto makers, not for anyone. Lending and available credit for people and companies who DESERVE credit, form the backbone of our economy, and without it, our entire economy is tanking.

I don't think you get it. I really don't.

Not gonna answer the simple question huh? Here it is again, in case you missed it:

If people want to buy 4*x cars but can only buy x cars, how many cars should the car companies build?

You live in a x+y=z universe, don't you?

Ultimately, this thread is about two things: 1.) Whether the big 3 should be assisted with bridge loans until they can get through this economic downturn/credit crunch, 2.) Whether the UAW (and by extension, unions in general) should be allowed to collectively bargain for good, decent, living wages.

I believe the answers to both of those questions is a resounding yes.

Of course the auto makers will scale back production, they already are. So what's your point again, because frankly I'm forgetting it.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: L00PY
I admit I'm a sucker for actual numbers. I found some for vehicle manufacturing in the Harbour Report. In it there's a HPV measure for hours worked by all plant personnel (salaried, direct hourly, and indirect hourly) per vehicle. The industry average for 2007 was 22.5 hours per vehicle. Going off an average of $30 per hour (that CNN agrees is the same for GM and Toyota), that's a labor cost of under $700 per vehicle. Chop wages by 10% and you're looking at a savings of $70 off the vehicle's cost. We're talking less than a third of a percent of cost of the average vehicle price of $25k.

And for kicks, want to know the difference in efficiency between Toyota and Chrysler? It's a whopping 1.04 hours. That's right, on average Toyota spends 1 hour longer to assemble a vehicle.

L00PY, I just wanted to quote your post to let you know that I for one, have read it and am not ignoring it. You've presented sobering facts that others may choose to ignore in pursuit of their agendas, but I read them, and appreciate the post.

I for one am not certain what's used in the HPV figure. I'm guessing that its a function of line speed, automation, and direct labor time. So, if a company spent a gazillion dollars on automation and had one person working on the line, then would the hours per vehicle be that one workers cycle time? If that's the case, then HPV by itself is not the end-all, say-all metric. Anybody can improve that metric by simply outsourcing labor intensive portions like the cockpit....at which point, GM has to buy out their line workers (or, they had previously gone into a jobs bank....at which point they were still collecting checks but not counting against the HPV metric).

Something isn't adding up here. Labor costs typically represent 10-15% of a vehicles cost, right? Does the HPV include an OEM's indirect labor costs, like material handling, skilled trades, team leaders, janitors (believe it or not, the position of janitor in an OEM UAW shop has been a highly sought after job because they typ. do so little), overstaffing for absenteeism, etc?

And a few points about some difficulties with the UAW:
Is the UAW solely responsible for the productivity gains resulting from improved processes? No, GM has to first engineer a better solution and then literally beg the UAW to play along (this is one of the problems). After which, the UAW takes the credit for the productivity gains (which is fine, they do the actual hands on daily work, but forcing the company to beg and plead to implement is WRONG).

Another issue is the inability for GM/Chrysler/Ford to be able to fire the dirt bags that drag productity down. Those people are definitely in the minority of the UAW, but stop protecting those useless f-'s. Seems to be a HUGE problem - the absolute protectionism that the UAW offers all of its members, regardless of performance.

That being said, though, there are problems that overshadow these: the absolutely absurd management pay/perks/bonuses, huge management structure that needs to be cut down to size, poor management practices, etc.

LOOPY's post directly says that HPV figure includes indirect labor costs. This includes EVERY metric you question.

Then you say there is a possibility that this metric is skewed through adept automation at the Big 3, yet say that the UAW fights this at every turn. I guess the UAW must fight this more, but not be very good at fighting automation if their HPV is better. I guess Toyota workers don't fight this at all, but Toyota is too stupid to implement automation????

What is even more amazing is there is this "huge" amount of "useless dirt bags" dragging down efficiency, because they can't be fired, yet they produce more vehicles per manhour. I guess this is again through these seemingly godlike engineers that are able to work around this problem. Just think what Toyota could do with these uber-engineers and managers. I hear you can get smarter just standing next to them.


Let me just say the work environment at the automakers has changed over the years. The days of people doing nothing are gone. The days of not being able fire people for poor productivity are gone. When your co-workers have to work harder to cover for your lack of work, you will be given no quarter.