UAW response to bailout

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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:

OR maybe he found an example or two people who had "good" credit but were otherwise unqualified. It's pretty damn laughable with all the financing options that anyone with "good" credit isn't getting loans. Sure, they might not get the loan they want or the special financing deals but that doesn't mean they can't get loans. I'd really love to see some examples before I'd believe his BS especially given my experience.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You live in a x+y=z universe, don't you?

Yes, I live in a land governed logic and math - it's called "the known universe." If people can actually buy 500 cars, why should GM manufacture 5000? That's absolutely retarded.

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.

You agree, finally, that they need to cut production. They should cut production to the point where they can make ends meet, just like any other company. Here is an example. If I am running a plant producing pumpkin pie filling, should I produce the same amount of product year-round, assuming that it can only be shelved for one month? Or should I produce more around Christmas and Thanksgiving? Hopefully, the answer is obvious. If I decide to produce at holiday levels year-round, should I then complain that I can't keep my company's head above water? No. I should be ridiculed for making a ridiculous business decision. Moreover, I should be allowed to fail for this decision. Rewarding people, or even alleviating their financial distress, after they have made a series of poor decisions is an unsustainable, reckless policy that should be offensive to anyone with half a brain. If a company screws the pooch, it has to fail. The alternative is that we prop up a failure which is doomed to fail again and again. The size of the company is irrelevant. If the company is too big and unwieldy to maneuver its market, then its failure will inevitably result in a rise of smaller, more mobile, responsive companies to take its place. This will, of course, be a short-term problem for those in the old company, but it will also result in a net benefit for everyone in the long run.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You live in a x+y=z universe, don't you?

Yes, I live in a land governed logic and math - it's called "the known universe." If people can actually buy 500 cars, why should GM manufacture 5000? That's absolutely retarded.

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.

You agree, finally, that they need to cut production. They should cut production to the point where they can make ends meet, just like any other company. Here is an example. If I am running a plant producing pumpkin pie filling, should I produce the same amount of product year-round, assuming that it can only be shelved for one month? Or should I produce more around Christmas and Thanksgiving? Hopefully, the answer is obvious. If I decide to produce at holiday levels year-round, should I then complain that I can't keep my company's head above water? No. I should be ridiculed for making a ridiculous business decision. Moreover, I should be allowed to fail for this decision. Rewarding people, or even alleviating their financial distress, after they have made a series of poor decisions is an unsustainable, reckless policy that should be offensive to anyone with half a brain. If a company screws the pooch, it has to fail. The alternative is that we prop up a failure which is doomed to fail again and again. The size of the company is irrelevant. If the company is too big and unwieldy to maneuver its market, then its failure will inevitably result in a rise of smaller, more mobile, responsive companies to take its place. This will, of course, be a short-term problem for those in the old company, but it will also result in a net benefit for everyone in the long run.

I've dug back through all the posts here twice on two different occasions trying to figure out what prompted your posts about how many cars they're building. This argument, if one wants to call it that, seems to have appeared out of nowhere.

Your assertion is they build too many cars. GM alone sold 9.3 million cars last year. So how many extras did they build?

You've got a whole series of arguments (albeit the same thing re-hashed) based on over-production. Now, it's very obvious that you have no earthly use or need for what the domestics produce, that's fine. But do you have any figures to support that they are making all these cars that aren't selling? Because last I saw they were shutting down all or nearly all of their production facilities. Some for as long as 6 weeks as of the time of their announcement.

I know that the imports are storing literally boatloads of cars on the West coast. Please provide some information showing the overproduction of the domestics versus the overproduction of the imports. Show us how they're doing things so much worse than the imports.

Sooner or later I would hope that you would realize that these loans are really happening. It's a done deal. If it causes you grief or distress, find a way to deal with it. Then, you should realize that you are not running any of the car manufacturers, either domestic or foreign. They're not listening to your theories and speaking for myself, neither am I until I see some cold-hard numbers. For a guy that lives in a land governed by logic and math, that shouldn't be too hard for you to do.

Let's see some numbers for 2008 as that's when the shit hit the fan.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: 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.

The problem is, using actual facts and statistics, ruins a lot of arguments. While the retire benefits are a major issue and needed to be addressed, they weren't what caused numerous other problems (below average qaulity, need to sell for massive discounts, fleet sales, lack of diversity in their line). People would rather just say it's the UAW's fault.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Strk

The problem is, using actual facts and statistics, ruins a lot of arguments. While the retire benefits are a major issue and needed to be addressed, they weren't what caused numerous other problems (below average qaulity, need to sell for massive discounts, fleet sales, lack of diversity in their line). People would rather just say it's the UAW's fault.

And likewise people want to ignore the fact that UAW forcing the D3 to pay people not work, inflating manpower requirements with stupid work rules and excessive pay had no effect of the company at all. Instead of investing in product or technology, the D3 were forced to pay for labor that showed no value in return.

 

[L00PY]

Actually, being forced to pay people not to work is a good thing often for Detroit. As that CNN article I linked pointed out, "(a)utomobile sales are highly cyclical and even in good times, workers sometimes have to be idled for weeks as factories are retooled or inventory is sold off. Without some way to support themselves during that time, workers may look for other jobs, requiring automakers to go through a massive hiring and training process for new workers when the lines start back up." The article also points out that Toyota does something very similar, with a strong no layoff policy.

So the UAW "forces" the auto manufacturers to help themselves and apparently also "forces" Toyota to do the same. Not the best argument out there.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: L00PY
Actually, being forced to pay people not to work is a good thing often for Detroit. As that CNN article I linked pointed out, "(a)utomobile sales are highly cyclical and even in good times, workers sometimes have to be idled for weeks as factories are retooled or inventory is sold off. Without some way to support themselves during that time, workers may look for other jobs, requiring automakers to go through a massive hiring and training process for new workers when the lines start back up." The article also points out that Toyota does something very similar, with a strong no layoff policy.

So the UAW "forces" the auto manufacturers to help themselves and apparently also "forces" Toyota to do the same. Not the best argument out there.

And there is nothing wrong with that practice. However when you are industry that has a shrinking workforce, it is not a sustainable practice. Paying someone while a factory is being retooled is a no brainer. Paying someone not to work for years on end, is just stupid and that is what UAW has forced the D3 to do.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: boomerang
I've dug back through all the posts here twice on two different occasions trying to figure out what prompted your posts about how many cars they're building. This argument, if one wants to call it that, seems to have appeared out of nowhere.

Your assertion is they build too many cars. GM alone sold 9.3 million cars last year. So how many extras did they build?

You've got a whole series of arguments (albeit the same thing re-hashed) based on over-production. Now, it's very obvious that you have no earthly use or need for what the domestics produce, that's fine. But do you have any figures to support that they are making all these cars that aren't selling? Because last I saw they were shutting down all or nearly all of their production facilities. Some for as long as 6 weeks as of the time of their announcement.

I know that the imports are storing literally boatloads of cars on the West coast. Please provide some information showing the overproduction of the domestics versus the overproduction of the imports. Show us how they're doing things so much worse than the imports.

Sooner or later I would hope that you would realize that these loans are really happening. It's a done deal. If it causes you grief or distress, find a way to deal with it. Then, you should realize that you are not running any of the car manufacturers, either domestic or foreign. They're not listening to your theories and speaking for myself, neither am I until I see some cold-hard numbers. For a guy that lives in a land governed by logic and math, that shouldn't be too hard for you to do.

Let's see some numbers for 2008 as that's when the shit hit the fan.

I don't need numbers. They probably have sold all of the cars they made after reducing the prices to the point where they were no longer profitable. This is obvious because they are obviously not making a profit. Therefore, the specific numbers are completely irrelevant to my "theory," which is really just common sense. If you have another theory as to how a company loses money while selling all their inventory, please supply it here. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not. My ideas are what they are and can stand on their own merit. Your disbelieving has no bearing on whether or not they're correct.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

The problem is, using actual facts and statistics, ruins a lot of arguments. While the retire benefits are a major issue and needed to be addressed, they weren't what caused numerous other problems (below average qaulity, need to sell for massive discounts, fleet sales, lack of diversity in their line). People would rather just say it's the UAW's fault.

And likewise people want to ignore the fact that UAW forcing the D3 to pay people not work, inflating manpower requirements with stupid work rules and excessive pay had no effect of the company at all. Instead of investing in product or technology, the D3 were forced to pay for labor that showed no value in return.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that no one is forcing the Big 3 to do anything. Perhaps you can let me in on the secret negotiations where a gun was held to the heads of the CEO of each of the domestic automakers and they were forced to sign another contract with the UAW. Just like everything in a free economy, they can tell the UAW to go shove it if the terms don't meet their liking and go hire some non-union workers to do the job.

If these auto workers are as "unskilled" as many here seem to think, I'm sure it's a trivial matter to go find some monkeys to build their cars for minimum wage.

Frankly, as some one else in this thread pointed out, you (and others making the same lame arguments) just seem to have a real problem with a bunch of mechanics making good wages. You don't seem to have the same issue with corporate executive types, only the workers. I wonder why that is? Is it some sort of clinical condition? Perhaps they make medications that can help you? I just don't know.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey


You're conveniently ignoring the fact that no one is forcing the Big 3 to do anything. Perhaps you can let me in on the secret negotiations where a gun was held to the heads of the CEO of each of the domestic automakers and they were forced to sign another contract with the UAW. Just like everything in a free economy, they can tell the UAW to go shove it if the terms don't meet their liking and go hire some non-union workers to do the job.

The loaded gun is a strike. The D3 have been in a position that any strike will pretty much kill them.

If these auto workers are as "unskilled" as many here seem to think, I'm sure it's a trivial matter to go find some monkeys to build their cars for minimum wage.

They can be replaced, it is just a real difficult task to replace them all at once.

Frankly, as some one else in this thread pointed out, you (and others making the same lame arguments) just seem to have a real problem with a bunch of mechanics making good wages.

You just insulted a lot of mechanics. Assembly work is not a being a mechanic. I doubt most assembly workers could fix your car if it was broken.

You don't seem to have the same issue with corporate executive types, only the workers. I wonder why that is? Is it some sort of clinical condition? Perhaps they make medications that can help you? I just don't know.

I dont have a problem with anyones wages as long as they perform. A CEO that ruins a company is not worth being paid anything. If the UAW workers were the industry standard for quality and efficiency, I would not have a problem with their wages and bennies.

So if UAW are going to be the best paid, should they not also be the best performing?

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: charrison
I dont have a problem with anyones wages as long as they perform. A CEO that ruins a company is not worth being paid anything. If the UAW workers were the industry standard for quality and efficiency, I would not have a problem with their wages and bennies.

So if UAW are going to be the best paid, should they not also be the best performing?

2007 Company Assembly Labor Productivity
Industry average hours per vehicle: 22.50
Chrysler HPV: 21.31
GM HPV: 22.19
Ford HPV: 22.65

Looks to me like the UAW workers are essentially at the industry average for productivity.

Some of the non-UAW averages are worse than some of the UAW averages.
Toyota HPV: 22.35
Nissan HPV: 23.44
VW HPV: 41.33

A couple are better.
Hyundai HPV: 20.62
Honda HPV: 20.90

When you break it down to individual plants making specific vehicles, UAW plants have the best measured ranking for compact, midsize, minivan, compact CUV, midsize pickup, compact utility, large utility, and large pickup vehicles. Only Hyundai's midsize CUV plant for building the Santa Fe has better measured productivity than UAW plants.

One measure of quality could be recalls. A quick count for 2008 found 25 big 3 recalls, and 27 non-big 3 recalls on that list. Seems like by that measure, UAW is at the industry standard for quality. Looking at the NHTSA monthly recall list, I see the latest month has recalls for VW, GM three times, Chrysler, Bentley, Honda, BMW, Jaguar, and BMW. Granted, GM has numerically more vehicles being recalled, but that's a function of sales.

So basically, faced with the actual facts, would you agree that since they're at the industry standard for efficiency and quality, it turns out you really don't have a problem with UAW wages and benefits? Please provide some facts and links to support your position if you still feel otherwise.

And keep in mind that wages between GM (UAW) and Toyota (non-UAW) are essentially the same. The difference comes when you factor in benefits and health care, mainly for retirees.

 

[Zebo]

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.

Who says they are not industry standard? Pay them less and see how productivity goes down. And the CEO pay is outrageous compared to worker which creates even further discord, resentment and poor moral - shows poor leadership to boot - leadership - exactly why they get the big bucks. If you think you can pay someone peanuts and attract highly qualified and motivated people you have another thing coming. Same goes for worker up to CEO. Obviously GM's CEO, Paid 20x what Toyota's is, is not up to snuff when Toyota had 17 Billion in profit last year while GM had 39 Billion in loses. I think we all know who's not up to industry standards it ain't those line workers y'all seem to hate.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: charrison
I dont have a problem with anyones wages as long as they perform. A CEO that ruins a company is not worth being paid anything. If the UAW workers were the industry standard for quality and efficiency, I would not have a problem with their wages and bennies.

So if UAW are going to be the best paid, should they not also be the best performing?

2007 Company Assembly Labor Productivity
Industry average hours per vehicle: 22.50
Chrysler HPV: 21.31
GM HPV: 22.19
Ford HPV: 22.65

Looks to me like the UAW workers are essentially at the industry average for productivity.

Some of the non-UAW averages are worse than some of the UAW averages.
Toyota HPV: 22.35
Nissan HPV: 23.44
VW HPV: 41.33

A couple are better.
Hyundai HPV: 20.62
Honda HPV: 20.90

When you break it down to individual plants making specific vehicles, UAW plants have the best measured ranking for compact, midsize, minivan, compact CUV, midsize pickup, compact utility, large utility, and large pickup vehicles. Only Hyundai's midsize CUV plant for building the Santa Fe has better measured productivity than UAW plants.

One measure of quality could be recalls. A quick count for 2008 found 25 big 3 recalls, and 27 non-big 3 recalls on that list. Seems like by that measure, UAW is at the industry standard for quality. Looking at the NHTSA monthly recall list, I see the latest month has recalls for VW, GM three times, Chrysler, Bentley, Honda, BMW, Jaguar, and BMW. Granted, GM has numerically more vehicles being recalled, but that's a function of sales.

So basically, faced with the actual facts, would you agree that since they're at the industry standard for efficiency and quality, it turns out you really don't have a problem with UAW wages and benefits? Please provide some facts and links to support your position if you still feel otherwise.

And keep in mind that wages between GM (UAW) and Toyota (non-UAW) are essentially the same. The difference comes when you factor in benefits and health care, mainly for retirees.

Having read the harbour report, there is no doubt the D3 have made significant improvements over the last several years in productivity. However they are still behind when it comes to total labor per vehicle. Toyota still has the lead here. The increase in productivity from the D3 can be attributed to the massive buyouts to get rid of excessive workers. WHich can only mean UAW was making the D3 carry too many employees.


It should also be noted that the labor costs will not match the transplants until 2010 when the new contract goes into play, assuming the D3 last that long.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

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.

Who says they are not industry standard? Pay them less and see how productivity goes down. And the CEO pay is outrageous compared to worker which creates even further discord, resentment and poor moral - shows poor leadership to boot - leadership - exactly why they get the big bucks. If you think you can pay someone peanuts and attract highly qualified and motivated people you have another thing coming. Same goes for worker up to CEO. Obviously GM's CEO, Paid 20x what Toyota's is, is not up to snuff when Toyota had 17 Billion in profit last year while GM had 39 Billion in loses. I think we all know who's not up to industry standards it ain't those line workers y'all seem to hate.

The harbor reports say the D3 take more manhours to put a car together than the transplants. Toyota still hold this title, If the UAW is going to have the best pay in the industry, they should have the best productivity as well. That is not an unreasonable request.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: charrison
Having read the harbour report, there is no doubt the D3 have made significant improvements over the last several years in productivity. However they are still behind when it comes to total labor per vehicle. Toyota still has the lead here. The increase in productivity from the D3 can be attributed to the massive buyouts to get rid of excessive workers. WHich can only mean UAW was making the D3 carry too many employees.

I suggest you read it again because you seem to have things backwards. When it comes to vehicle assembly (hours per vehicle for body, paint, trim, chassis, and final assembly) Toyota doesn't have a lead over GM and Chrysler. The only way you can say that is if you consider Toyota's UAW plant that's a joint venture with GM (NUMMI).

That might be one way to measure the gain in productivity of UAW workers. Toyota without UAW labor takes 22.35 hours per vehicle. Toyota with UAW labor takes 18.96 hours per vehicle. Granted, that's a bit unfair as they're making different vehicles in each plant.

Then again, when you make the comparison of vehicles within the same class, Toyota doesn't appear to have any sort of lead. GM puts together their Grand Prix (16.17 HPV) faster than Toyota puts together their Camry (18.68 HPV). GM also puts together their Montana SV6 (22.54 HPV) faster than Toyota puts together their Sienna (24.06 HPV).

If you really read the Harbour Report, you'd see that even if you adjust for the labor cost difference between the big three and the Japanese plants in America (an estimated $606 on a $24k vehicle), GM and Ford still would have lost money for each vehicle they produced in 2007. Chrysler would have been profitable. Even if saddled with the additional labor costs, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan still would have made a profit on each vehicle.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
The harbor reports say the D3 take more manhours to put a car together than the transplants. Toyota still hold this title, If the UAW is going to have the best pay in the industry, they should have the best productivity as well. That is not an unreasonable request.

You don't bother reading things that disagree with your opinion on a given subject, do you?

I suggest you start with Loopy's HPV figures about 5 posts up and then come back and tell us again how Toyota has the title for best productivity.

:roll:

Frankly, as I've suggested before, you and the others arguing against the UAW seem to have some sort of violent reaction to hard-working folks who *gasp* dare to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits.

Face it, you despise unions and everything about them. Show us on this doll where the unions hurt you, Charrison.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
The harbor reports say the D3 take more manhours to put a car together than the transplants. Toyota still hold this title, If the UAW is going to have the best pay in the industry, they should have the best productivity as well. That is not an unreasonable request.

You don't bother reading things that disagree with your opinion on a given subject, do you?

I suggest you start with Loopy's HPV figures about 5 posts up and then come back and tell us again how Toyota has the title for best productivity.

:roll:

Frankly, as I've suggested before, you and the others arguing against the UAW seem to have some sort of violent reaction to hard-working folks who *gasp* dare to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits.

Face it, you despise unions and everything about them. Show us on this doll where the unions hurt you, Charrison.

:roll: You union apologists can keep trying to claim those of us who oppose the principle of Unions have a "violent reaction" if you wish but it's nothing but bullshit. You can try to claim unions are just for "fair wages and benefits" but if you were honest you'd know that it's only a small portion of what they are for these days.

Yes, I and other despise the unions of today because they have become what they used to fight against. They need to understand that they don't get to call the shots but unfortunately they seem to think and act like they control things.

 

[jonks]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...2/the-bailout-exp.html

heh

 

[Imdmn04]

UAW workers:

Link

Enough said.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: 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:

The problem is that the definition of "good" credit required to get a loan, in relation to auto loans, has obviously changed. Just because you could get someone 0% interest with a FICO of 550 a year ago doesn't mean a FICO of 550 is "good" credit. (I pulled 550 out of my arse)

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
The harbor reports say the D3 take more manhours to put a car together than the transplants. Toyota still hold this title, If the UAW is going to have the best pay in the industry, they should have the best productivity as well. That is not an unreasonable request.

You don't bother reading things that disagree with your opinion on a given subject, do you?

I suggest you start with Loopy's HPV figures about 5 posts up and then come back and tell us again how Toyota has the title for best productivity.

:roll:

Frankly, as I've suggested before, you and the others arguing against the UAW seem to have some sort of violent reaction to hard-working folks who *gasp* dare to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits.

Face it, you despise unions and everything about them. Show us on this doll where the unions hurt you, Charrison.

:roll: You union apologists can keep trying to claim those of us who oppose the principle of Unions have a "violent reaction" if you wish but it's nothing but bullshit. You can try to claim unions are just for "fair wages and benefits" but if you were honest you'd know that it's only a small portion of what they are for these days.

Yes, I and other despise the unions of today because they have become what they used to fight against. They need to understand that they don't get to call the shots but unfortunately they seem to think and act like they control things.

What a way to live your life. Harboring deep-seated resentment over something you have no control over. Being a control freak is sometimes a tough road, because there are a lot of things in this life that one can't control. Pssst, the UAW is one of those.

I hope that someday you'll be able to teach them a lesson and you'll have peace in your life.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
The harbor reports say the D3 take more manhours to put a car together than the transplants. Toyota still hold this title, If the UAW is going to have the best pay in the industry, they should have the best productivity as well. That is not an unreasonable request.

You don't bother reading things that disagree with your opinion on a given subject, do you?

I suggest you start with Loopy's HPV figures about 5 posts up and then come back and tell us again how Toyota has the title for best productivity.

:roll:

Frankly, as I've suggested before, you and the others arguing against the UAW seem to have some sort of violent reaction to hard-working folks who *gasp* dare to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits.

Face it, you despise unions and everything about them. Show us on this doll where the unions hurt you, Charrison.

:roll: You union apologists can keep trying to claim those of us who oppose the principle of Unions have a "violent reaction" if you wish but it's nothing but bullshit. You can try to claim unions are just for "fair wages and benefits" but if you were honest you'd know that it's only a small portion of what they are for these days.

Yes, I and other despise the unions of today because they have become what they used to fight against. They need to understand that they don't get to call the shots but unfortunately they seem to think and act like they control things.

What a way to live your life. Harboring deep-seated resentment over something you have no control over. Being a control freak is sometimes a tough road, because there are a lot of things in this life that one can't control. Pssst, the UAW is one of those.

I hope that someday you'll be able to teach them a lesson and you'll have peace in your life.

"deep-seated resentment"? lol, yeah, keep trying to throw out the union fluffer talking points against those who don't buy their BS. I don't resent anything - I actually pity those who have bought into it and who feel they need unions. Seems to me, they are the ones with some "deep-seated resentment" towards something so they feel they need the cover of thugs...

I already have peace in my life... but thanks for the concern.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
The harbor reports say the D3 take more manhours to put a car together than the transplants. Toyota still hold this title, If the UAW is going to have the best pay in the industry, they should have the best productivity as well. That is not an unreasonable request.

You don't bother reading things that disagree with your opinion on a given subject, do you?

I suggest you start with Loopy's HPV figures about 5 posts up and then come back and tell us again how Toyota has the title for best productivity.

:roll:

Frankly, as I've suggested before, you and the others arguing against the UAW seem to have some sort of violent reaction to hard-working folks who *gasp* dare to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits.

Face it, you despise unions and everything about them. Show us on this doll where the unions hurt you, Charrison.

:roll: You union apologists can keep trying to claim those of us who oppose the principle of Unions have a "violent reaction" if you wish but it's nothing but bullshit. You can try to claim unions are just for "fair wages and benefits" but if you were honest you'd know that it's only a small portion of what they are for these days.

Yes, I and other despise the unions of today because they have become what they used to fight against. They need to understand that they don't get to call the shots but unfortunately they seem to think and act like they control things.

I don't see anyone else standing up for the workers and negotiating living wages and reasonable benefits. No one. So hate them all you want, for whatever irrational reason you want, but someone needs to represent the average worker in this country. The corporations and outrageously compensated CEOs and executives certainly aren't. Unions and collective bargaining seem to be the only way for workers to get paid what they deserve, and so as long as unions continue to accomplish this goal for their members, they'll continue to exist.

BTW, I have no vested interest in unions whatsoever. I'm not a member of one, I don't know any members of a union and I don't benefit from unions one iota. I simply see it as a mechanism of the free market. Corporations hold all the power, individual workers hold none, and only by banding together can the workers hope to earn a fair wage in this country. There's no rational reason why you should object to folks working together to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
UAW workers:

Link

Enough said.

I made the original post with that link and it was locked within two minutes of my posting it...imagine that.


Did you not see the stickied thread on top of the forum about adding ones own input to the thread one starts?

I guess not, imagine that.

Anandtech Senior moderator
Red Dawn

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
UAW workers:

Link

Enough said.

I made the original post with that link and it was locked within two minutes of my posting it...imagine that.

Because the rules are you're supposed to have commentary with posts here. Duh!