Yeah GOP!

[da loser]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
UAW accepted major benefit cuts and agreed to reduce workers' wages.

Why? Because they wanted the federal government to forcibly reduce the wages of American workers within the next 12 months.

how does the UAW agree to major cuts, but won't agree to a reduction in the next 12 months? i don't get why this was such a sticking point.

also, i wonder if the UAW would accept competitive wages with other car companies, if their executives would also accept competitive wages.

but doesn't is sound ridiculous that these guys are demanding better than average pay when a company is going bankrupt? can't blame them, they just want what AIG got.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Here some more info on the GOP strategy from TPM

What Happened

A quick update from a knowledgeable source who works in that big building with the dome ...

I don't think it'll be hard to explain why Senate Republicans had the final say: that's what the Constitution and Senate rules require. How else would we have passed anything?

I do think it'll be hard for Senate Republicans to explain themselves.

They were invited, repeatedly, to participate in more than a week of negotiations with a Republican White House. They declined.

They were asked to provide an alternative bill. They refused.

Finally, one of their members - Senator Corker of Tennessee - participated in a day-long negotiation with Senate Democrats, the UAW, and bondholders. Everyone made major concessions. Democrats gave up efficiency and emissions standards. UAW accepted major benefit cuts and agreed to reduce workers' wages. Bondholders signed off on a serious haircut. But when Senator Corker took the deal back to the Republican Conference, they argued for two hours and ultimately rejected it.

Why? Because they wanted the federal government to forcibly reduce the wages of American workers within the next 12 months.

Heard this morning that President Bush may still use TARP money to rescue the automakers. He reportedly doesn't want to end up as the next Hoover.

Also from MSNBC

GOP: 'Action Alert - Auto Bailout'
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.

From:

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:12 AM

To:

Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout

Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:

1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.

2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.

The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.

Basically confirms what I have been saying. That the R senators who doomed the loan to the auto co's were about union busting rather than any rational opposition. It was all about ideology and perhaps striking a blow at traditional Democratic supporters.

They would happily let a domestic owned manufacturing base die to gain a few political points.

I hope the American public sees through their games.

:roll: OR you could look at this as a Democrat payback to unions to bail them out. But it really depends on your politics since both sides will claim political/ideological reasons for the other side's actions.
There was no rational reason for the bailout IMO, what we got from the UAW, the big 3, the political left, and the MSM was fear mongering. Just because one opposes that fear mongering doesn't mean they have to provide an alternate - especially since the alternative for businesses who can't make it is already there.

The senators were not about opposing fear mongering. It was about busting a traditional democratic base and about attracting more foreign car companies to their southern states. These car companies get huge subsidies by playing the states against each other for better breaks and then hardly pay any taxes (which is why the states want them in the first place) thank to transfer pricing and other accounting tricks to show little profit.

I personally believe a large and strong middle class is good for the country. Unions are a big factor in preventing a return to the robber baron days when the workers were paid very little. R's want to bust the unions so that ways can falls as low as possible and the top execs and owners can maximize their earning. Ultimately this will lead to a feudal society composed of have and have nots. Ironically this was one of the reasons people migrated to the US from Europe in the earlier centuries.

I don't expect you to see my point or even accept what is being reported of the R's strategy. Your viewpoints appear to be set in a narrow ideological bandwidth - thats the impression I get from reading your posts on this forum. Using cliches like fearmongering is not a rational discussion.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I hope the American public sees through their games.

It's not a game when it was the right decision. The Big Three and the UAW have yet to propose their plan for restructuring or adjusting to a sustainable and ultimately profitable business model.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I hope the American public sees through their games.

It's not a game when it was the right decision. The Big Three and the UAW have yet to propose their plan for restructuring or adjusting to a sustainable and ultimately profitable business model.

You mean like lowering wages, reducing benefits, cutting pensions, unrestricting job classifications, getting rid of pointless jobs/pay (non-union workers getting the same rate as union) or overseeing benefits?

Everyone wants to blame the unions, but let's point out a lot of basics on what has made their business model fail. Yes, the legacy costs are a huge problem, but you miss large parts of what hurt their business model. Chrysler doesn't really have anything truly competitive in the main segments (compacts, mid-sized etc). GM and Ford do, but due to bad business practices, those vehicles suffer. They produced low quality vehicles for years, sold to fleets heavily, relied mostly on SUVs and trucks and several other issues. They're now stuck trying to show that their vehicles are competitive; that they are quality vehicles; that they make good vehicles in every segment (GM is still working on that, if they can ever get the Cruze out) and they're worthwhile. Yet they suffer from a terrible perception. You can get huge deals on a new Ford or GM car, yet Toyota or Honda can get MSRP with ease.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Here some more info on the GOP strategy from TPM

What Happened

A quick update from a knowledgeable source who works in that big building with the dome ...

I don't think it'll be hard to explain why Senate Republicans had the final say: that's what the Constitution and Senate rules require. How else would we have passed anything?

I do think it'll be hard for Senate Republicans to explain themselves.

They were invited, repeatedly, to participate in more than a week of negotiations with a Republican White House. They declined.

They were asked to provide an alternative bill. They refused.

Finally, one of their members - Senator Corker of Tennessee - participated in a day-long negotiation with Senate Democrats, the UAW, and bondholders. Everyone made major concessions. Democrats gave up efficiency and emissions standards. UAW accepted major benefit cuts and agreed to reduce workers' wages. Bondholders signed off on a serious haircut. But when Senator Corker took the deal back to the Republican Conference, they argued for two hours and ultimately rejected it.

Why? Because they wanted the federal government to forcibly reduce the wages of American workers within the next 12 months.

Heard this morning that President Bush may still use TARP money to rescue the automakers. He reportedly doesn't want to end up as the next Hoover.

Also from MSNBC

GOP: 'Action Alert - Auto Bailout'
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.

From:

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:12 AM

To:

Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout

Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:

1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.

2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.

The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.

Basically confirms what I have been saying. That the R senators who doomed the loan to the auto co's were about union busting rather than any rational opposition. It was all about ideology and perhaps striking a blow at traditional Democratic supporters.

They would happily let a domestic owned manufacturing base die to gain a few political points.

I hope the American public sees through their games.

:roll: OR you could look at this as a Democrat payback to unions to bail them out. But it really depends on your politics since both sides will claim political/ideological reasons for the other side's actions.
There was no rational reason for the bailout IMO, what we got from the UAW, the big 3, the political left, and the MSM was fear mongering. Just because one opposes that fear mongering doesn't mean they have to provide an alternate - especially since the alternative for businesses who can't make it is already there.

The senators were not about opposing fear mongering. It was about busting a traditional democratic base and about attracting more foreign car companies to their southern states. These car companies get huge subsidies by playing the states against each other for better breaks and then hardly pay any taxes (which is why the states want them in the first place) thank to transfer pricing and other accounting tricks to show little profit.

I personally believe a large and strong middle class is good for the country. Unions are a big factor in preventing a return to the robber baron days when the workers were paid very little. R's want to bust the unions so that ways can falls as low as possible and the top execs and owners can maximize their earning. Ultimately this will lead to a feudal society composed of have and have nots. Ironically this was one of the reasons people migrated to the US from Europe in the earlier centuries.

I don't expect you to see my point or even accept what is being reported of the R's strategy. Your viewpoints appear to be set in a narrow ideological bandwidth - thats the impression I get from reading your posts on this forum. Using cliches like fearmongering is not a rational discussion.

Again, the other side is that you and the dems support paying off political allies(the unions) with this bailout. That seems to be their strategy and is just as plausible as what you and some others are claiming is the R strategy.

You see, you are just as narrow as you claim I am if you don't see that your side is doing the same( playing politics). Although, I must say that I see both side of the political argument whereas you seem to be missing it...

And yes, pointing out fearmongering can be part of a rational discussion. What we've heard from the D's, the UAW, and the execs is doom and gloom about how bad it's going to be if they don't get the bailout. I've yet to hear a RATIONAL argument for the bailout from those people - it's all chicken little BS.

 

[chess9]

Heres an historical perspective:

As a young boy, if I received a toy for xmas that was made in Japan I knew it was worthless because I'd had several and even at the tender age of 8 I knew good stuff from bad, at least in toys.

Well, that was true for about 15 years after WWII. The Japanese were lucky to be making crummy toys for a number of years, but slowly they improved the quality of ALL the products they made. But, Americans generally did not buy Japanese products because AMERICAN products were almost always better. This was true until the 1970's, when the Japanese imports started getting slight traction in the automobile market, following the lead of Volkswagen, in particular.

Meanwhile, American autos got worse and worse. Americans WANTED to buy American products, but they didn't want to get HOSED constantly by the shoddy workmanship, steep repair costs, and low resale value.

The Japanese products continued getting better and more socially responsible and stayed relatively affordable at a much faster pace than American cars during the '80's and '90's. While Detroit was fighting everythiing from seat belts to air bags, to fuel economy they were also building some downright awful cars.

So, what you see today with our auto industry is a classic case of failed management and leadership. If Detroit had been competing with Intel they would have been out of business in 1980.

DETROIT has sown what it is reaping. Why should we bail out such a stupid fucking industry? I'd rather pay the money to the workers for unemployment compensation and re-training than give a penny to support an industry that has thumbed it's nose at the American public for 40 years and has a history of building some of the worst cars ever made.

Also, I thought we were a nation of capitalists? Are we going to bail out every struggling business? Shouldn't weak businesses fail so we get better products, better service, and advancements in technology? I'm not willing to die for an ideology, but this point has SOME merit in this discussion.

Chrysler, in particular has had the worst management imaginable since Iaccoca left. GM and Ford really haven't done much better.

If you want crummy products in the future, then start bailing out failed businesses.

The unintended costs of bailing out Wall Street and Detroit are just now becoming apparent, but they will be much higher than anyone can imagine. Bailouts are the END OF AMERICA as we have known it if we continue down this path. If that's what you want, then let's disinter Kruschev, because he is the leader we now need. 🙂

As I've said before, it is ironic that Communism didn't bring America to its knees-poorly managed Capitalists were able to do it all by themselves.

Oh, and much of this goes back to our business schools, which have failed to teach the principles that make businesses succeed and strong. As the Japanese have refined business school principles of the 1950's, Americans have perverted them. Just look at CEO compensation's tie to stock performance. It's killed many companies....

-Robert

 

[Alistar7]

Japs also keep their currency artificially undervalued against the dollar, a nice hidden subsidy.

Why is anyone shocked the GOP would shoot down the bailout? They were so concerned about the economy they pledged a 700 billion dollar bailout to help it remain stable, but they don't want to give 35 billion to an industry that is left to fail would wreck our economy.

GOP more worried about breaking the UAW and the cash/votes it provides to the Dems. The rest is spin and bullshit.

The UAW has A LOT of nerve refusing to lower their wages until 2011 though. If they are not willing to take a pay cut show them the door, plenty of Americans would take those jobs even though they would "only" get @ $50 in total compensation.

I saw that "$73 per hour" average broken down though, and therein is part of the problem for the big 3. US workers only get a few dollars more in wages, and an extra 3-5 more in a better benefits package compared to employees working in US located foreign auto plants.
The extra $15 an hour goes to pay benefits for retired UAW workers, which is a huge amount of people. None of the foreign companies have 2 generations of retired workers they are obligated to support.

As a matter of fact the real reason they need 35 billion and are running out of $ is the payments they need to make to benefit accounts early next year. They owe between 7-10 billion each, although the UAW has agreed to make concessions on the amount/time of those payments. Still a HUGE disadvantage in the market for the big 3.



Can our auto industry be fixed, absolutely, but not by conducting business as they have been. I personally prefer to the "better place" system and would love to see any bailout contigent of industry wide compliance.

I would force the big 3 to merge as one company. The $ spent competing against each other could be used for the benefit of all, as would their collective research, technology, & knowledge.

I would let them keep their most profitable vehicles in production, especially any hybrids. Outside of that I would require them to reach a level of 30% overall production of better place compliant vehicles.

Obama says he wants to invest in infrastructure, actually a good idea considering our current economic situation. We could do that in part by building charging stations & battery swap stations from coast to coast. The number of jobs that would be created just for the required batteries would be enormous, it would lead to a significant new industry that would be instrumental in helping our economic recovery.

Right now we import oil for the energy our cars require. Japan & China dominate the battery market. If we don't make the conversion, in the future we will be importing batteries instead of oil, and sending all that $ overseas.


http://www.betterplace.com/