Big 3 Bailout

[Simon]

why don't you take a gander. i can come up with numbers close to those and i know you're a smart guy so give it a try.

 

that's just crazy. don't you get the fact that even though americans are employed byt foreign car builders, the profits go out of the country thus actually draining the economy. giving discounts/vouchers on american made cars but with a foreign mark is actually even worse then bailing out the big 3.

At this point, does it really matter which fat cat's pockets get filled? Whether foreign or domestic? The fact of the matter is, it would keep North American jobs in North America. That's the whole point of stimulating the economy. If all the auto makers sell enough American made vehicles, they'll sustain themselves, which is the point of the bailout.

 

The fat cats will make their money no matter what, and no matter where.

[Simon]

I just can't help myself.

Agree with all of them but the first, plus there's so much more. Please see post #37 in this thread. That link brought up things i never thought about. Thanks. Oh, and the rebate thing, i don't know enough about that one to comment. There's allot going on there too.

Pete

I've read that post, and while I see the need for unions in the past, I no longer believe their relevant. Speaking in a broad sense (not just the UAW) unions typically protect the lazy. There's no need for them in todays society.

 

I agree 100% that the shrinking middle class is a big problem with Western society, as that pushes us further towards a white collar society. Who's left to do the work?

[GrimGreg]

Wow, after what B just wrote, anything I would point out would be redundant.

 

I would like to add a comment to one though:

Nearly 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year alone – with another 2.5 million to follow over the next two years

I highly doubt that all those jobs will go poof and disapear completely never to be seen again. While I am sure if GM closes it's doors, they will be initially lost, there will be some company to buy up certain segments if not the company as a whole and make use of the manufacturing capabilities in some way. Whether that be one of the Japanese makers buying up the plants and expanding their production (wider range of Titans or Tundras to fill the void left by Chevy GMC trucks being no more... ), or making use of the facilities and retooling to produce shipping crates (etc, etc). Either way, though I am sure not all plants and jobs would come back, I am pretty positive a majority would. That also doesn't mean that it will be a UAW job any longer, nor does it mean that they will have the ability to make what they are making through UAW, but I am sure that the wages would be fair and enough to live on.

[GrimGreg]

and gg, i really don't even want to comment on your smart ass comments but i'll laugh about your "it won't hurt me" comment in the near future.. hahahahahaha.. all buckeyes are freaking nuts after all.

 

Yeah, "my" comments were smart ass, your's were just plain ass. Tell me how I'll be hurt because the "Big 3" fail? The only thing that could hurt me about it would be finding spare parts for my van, but I doubt NAPA and other part houses will stop making non-OEM parts that will work. If not, then oh well, it was free anyway. My job won't be hurt, because most of my work is for either white collars not related to the auto industry, or commercial (retail) repairs. So, unless there is a miricle and things no longer break or go bad then I'll be working. If prices for things go up, then I'll pay more big woop, I am as good now paying $1.50 for my gas as I was paying $4.00. I'm sure I would bitch and moan about higher prices, but I won't be crying.

 

(BTW, I'm not a suckeye, I'm an import, so stick that ass comment up your's.)

[PDCCD]

I've read that post, and while I see the need for unions in the past, I no longer believe their relevant. Speaking in a broad sense (not just the UAW) unions typically protect the lazy. There's no need for them in todays society.

 

I agree 100% that the shrinking middle class is a big problem with Western society, as that pushes us further towards a white collar society. Who's left to do the work?

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe blue collar people functioning collectively is the only way we will get any representation or maintain fair treatment. Management sees us as tools, or inefficient machines to burden them till they can hire or buy something cheaper to replace us. Quality is irrelevant. I agree that current union structures are inefficient, and one reason why i've fought so hard to remain outside of them. The other is that unions are only as strong as the individuals they're made up of. We've become a weak people. Therefore, we have weak unions. Just another form of government to mismanage my money.

 

There are even bigger ramifications of a shrinking western middle class. There are always 3 classes in every society. The middle is the glue.

 

(gg's quote)I highly doubt that all those jobs will go poof and disapear completely never to be seen again. While I am sure if GM closes it's doors, they will be initially lost, there will be some company to buy up certain segments if not the company as a whole and make use of the manufacturing capabilities in some way. Whether that be one of the Japanese makers buying up the plants and expanding their production (wider range of Titans or Tundras to fill the void left by Chevy GMC trucks being no more... shrug.gif ), or making use of the facilities and retooling to produce shipping crates (etc, etc). Either way, though I am sure not all plants and jobs would come back, I am pretty positive a majority would. That also doesn't mean that it will be a UAW job any longer, nor does it mean that they will have the ability to make what they are making through UAW, but I am sure that the wages would be fair and enough to live on.(gg's quote)

 

Like the millions of jobs we've lost this last ten years, they'll be converted to service industry jobs. Poorly paying jobs with no health insurance subsidized by medicare and unemployment(you and me). Like i said already, see my rubbermaid vs. walmart example. This is happening every day. Until the realization that there is no money left, and all those service jobs will prove, well, obsolete. And as i said and backed up previously, UAW workers aren't making much more than domestic Japanese car employees. Primarily contributed to regional geography. They get paid what they do only because the UAW exists, even though they aren't UAW members. Read the link bud. It's all there.

 

Pete

Edited December 19, 2008 by PDCCD

[GrimGreg]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe blue collar people functioning collectively is the only way we will get any representation or maintain fair treatment. Management sees us as tools, or inefficient machines to burden them till they can hire or buy something cheaper to replace us. Quality is irrelevant. I agree that current union structures are inefficient, and one reason why i've fought so hard to remain outside of them. The other is that unions are only as strong as the individuals they're made up of. We've become a weak people. Therefore, we have weak unions. Just another form of government to mismanage my money.

 

There are even bigger ramifications of a shrinking western middle class. There are always 3 classes in every society. The middle is the glue.

 

I agree with that 90% of that statment. However I think that the labor force is weak BECAUSE of the unions. Example; My wife is a state employee and in a union (no choice not to be), the state can't fire people for poor preformance because the of the union. So while certain employees may not advance very easily because they don't do their job, they can not be removed and replaced with someone who is more efficient and willing to work.

 

I have been on both sides of the non-union goods and bads. I have been kept on with companies for being a hard worker and cheaper labor than others at the time, and also let go as one of the higher earners. Hell, I've been the scab called in because the union guys thought they were too good to work and sat unemployeed while I did the job for 2/3s the base pay. Buisness is buisness, you have to have something others don't to get ahead, or do what others won't or you won't get anywhere.

[GrimGreg]

They get paid what they do only because the UAW exists, even though they aren't UAW members. Read the link bud. It's all there.

 

Pete

 

 

How many times does it need to be said, yes the unions did (past tence) do good, no argument. They are obsolete now though, if UAW goes by by, and the wage for an autoworker drops, oh well.

 

There will always bee supply and demand, just the amounts of each are changing, adapt or become a fossil.

[Kingman]

 

There will always bee supply and demand, just the amounts of each are changing, adapt or become a fossil.

 

How can the Big 3 adapt if we allow them to tank? I think its highly unlikely the economy will go "oh, time to restart now, lets go!" and be perfectly happy-doo-dory like some people seem to think it magically will.

 

The economy is on a teeter-totter, this big of a collapse will bring many things down with it.

[GrimGreg]

How can the Big 3 adapt if we allow them to tank? I think its highly unlikely the economy will go "oh, time to restart now, lets go!" and be perfectly happy-doo-dory like some people seem to think it magically will.

 

The economy is on a teeter-totter, this big of a collapse will bring many things down with it.

 

While I won't push someone off a bridge, if they want to jump I'm not going to attempt to stop them if they just flipped me off. The UAW refused options that could quite possibly save their employers and workers. They just flipped us off and now want us to grab them as they jump. Bail them out, no thanks. Contrary to popular belief, cars and trucks aren't neccisary to the continuance of life, a big help, but not a NEED. Now if the farming industry needs a bailout, I'm all for it, we all need to eat. But, if UAW don't want to work, then it's their fault they can't eat.

[Kingman]

While I won't push someone off a bridge, if they want to jump I'm not going to attempt to stop them if they just flipped me off. The UAW refused options that could quite possibly save their employers and workers. They just flipped us off and now want us to grab them as they jump. Bail them out, no thanks. Contrary to popular belief, cars and trucks aren't neccisary to the continuance of life, a big help, but not a NEED. Now if the farming industry needs a bailout, I'm all for it, we all need to eat. But, if UAW don't want to work, then it's their fault they can't eat.

 

Too bad there's not a way for the government to step in and sever all ties between the UAW and the Big 3. If they could do that, we'd be getting somewhere.

[GrimGreg]

Too bad there's not a way for the government to step in and sever all ties between the UAW and the Big 3. If they could do that, we'd be getting somewhere.

 

Yeah, probably but the government needs to stay the hell out of private industry period. It will sort it's self out one way or another eventually.

[PDCCD]

Alright, i can't sleep, so even though i shouldn't at this hour, i'm going to try to elaborate on a point i'm trying to make.

 

I'll call it, how do we define slavery?

 

There are Historians, typically called revisionists, that argue the Civil War had very little to do with the slavery of blacks. They claim that the Civil War was an inevitable result of the conflict our founding fathers created with the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. You see, our country is essentially a contradictory entity, much like our species itself. Anyway, the conflict that was born between the Republicans and the Federalists boiled up into the Civil War. The revisionists put forth that pre-civil war slavery was a poor business model that couldn't compete with industrial advances developing in the North and Europe. It would have died on its own. To purchase the slave, cloth them, feed them, shelter them, it was expensive. Took too much off the profit margain. I know the conditions they lived under, but irregardless, it was too expensive and not efficient enough.

 

So, an interesting thing happened after the Civil War. The "freed" slaves were know to sign contracts with their previous "owners" that essentially made them sharecroppers. And lo and behold, they agreed to buy their supplies from plantation owned stores. See, here's where the genius kicks in. Now the newly freed slaves still worked the land, but they were responsible for their own needs (food, clothing, shelter/rent, medical care, seed, tools). Their profits were dictated by what the plantation owners agreed to pay them, and then, they're profits were further taken away by the inflated prices they were paying at the company stores. It's a tactic used in mill, mining, and other sharecropper communities for several years during the industrial revolution (until unions), on poor and working class whites, blacks, and immigrants but i digress. So eventually, as the newly freed slaves grew their families, they're profits weren't growing for obvious reasons, and lo and behold again, they couldn't afford what they needed. So now what do we do about that? CREDIT!! LOL. I love this part. Now, the slaves worked the land, payed all the bills, and just to be sure they never got ahead, the gracious company owners provided credit.

 

That's what actually ended up causing the depression. When banks realized they could make more money using a tractor to work land that 100 share croppers farmed, they used the negative asset values (debt owed) to push the share croppers of land they'd "owned" for generations, creating a huge mass of migrant works, and changing the soul of our nation.

 

Now the relative part, sorry, but i needed to paint a background.

 

Now, here's my example of Post Civil War slavery. It's important to realize that after the civil war, slavery wasn't a matter of color, but class.

So i'll use an abstract company for my example, i'm sure everyone knows of a company in their community that will fit the bill. So Bob works at Acme Widgets in Ohio, making, well widgets duh. And Acme is doing awesome, pays bob a fair working wage for his trade and regional geography, and produces quality widgets. But there's been a shift in the widget world, and a new big company called widget mart has made some aggressive moves in the market, and now controls a majority of widget distribution and end user sales. This company has gotten it's control of the market by using it's size to undercut it's competition and by selling widgets produced in third world countries that don't have child labor laws, workers health organizations, or environmental restrictions, and has even been know to support violent political movements to insulate it's position in these countries.

Now Acme can't and ethically doesn't want to compete with these tactics, so when widget mart demands acme sell their widgets to widget mart at a specific low cost (dictated by third world costs), Acme can't afford to do business at those costs (because they employee Americans) and eventually folds. A third world manufacturer of widgets comes to the states, buys up Acme's equipment/assets and ships them back to the third world, while bob begins to look for work. But guess what? The only job left in the whole region that bob lives in is a distribution center of Widget marts, for half the money and no benefits! What's bob to do, he's got a family, so off to widget mart he goes.

So now that bob isn't making as much money, but prices are rising and his family is growing, he gets strapped. His savings amount plummets, he borrows against the supposed equity in his home (that he doesn't own but rents from the bank at 100%+vic and he pays upkeep), and runs up his credit card bills, shopping at the only retailer in the area. Widget Mart.

 

So Widget mart pays bob half his previous wages after destroying his previous career, bob spends those wages at widget mart, and since he can't make ends meet, ends up getting in debt and relying on public forms of assistance like food stamps and medicare.

 

I argue that Bob is a modern slave. I wager that all of us are either Bob, or know one or more bobs. National statistics reflect this. Soaring unemployment, inflation, negative savings averages, rocketing debt, plummeting property values. Now the next logical question is how long can we continue with this cycle, and what's the goal of the industrial slave owners? I speculate it will continue till one of two things happen. The little remaining capital that remains in our control exists in our retirement instruments, primarily in the baby boomers savings, company pensions, and retirement funds/bonds. That's why you've seen in the past 5-8 years a huge push by politicians backed by corporate lobbiests for us to invest in 401k's. Move our money from secure and untouchable savings and bonds or other tangible assets and into their hands in the stock market, where, surprise surprise, we'll lose them (sound just a little familiar?). Bankrupt population.

Or, they keep milking us long enough to be able to build middle classes in India and China (a nearly 3billion person consumer market versus our measly 300 million) to purchase the crap they're currently producing and selling to us.(and creating a whole new population of slaves to replace us) Think of the profit potential!! Either way it doesn't bode well for us. And, these speculations aren't complete until you also factor in the reality we live an age of Nuclear weapons (which china currently has pointed at us, and india at them) and dwindling resources. A 3billion member consumer population is going to need ALLOT of resources. Look how much our 300 million has used/abused.

 

Okey dokey GG, who are you gonna work for? the Chinese or the Indians? I'll wager neither, they think we're idiots. Can't figure why .

 

I'm a sick man. A sick lonely man. I wonder if i'm crazy?

 

goodnight again.

 

Pete

[PDCCD]

You guys are killing me. You won't click the link, so i'll post it and highlight parts relevant to our immediate discussion:

 

 

 

The New Republic

Assembly Line by Jonathan Cohn

Debunking the myth of the $70-per-hour autoworker.

Post Date Friday, November 21, 2008

DISCUSS ARTICLE [107] | PRINT | EMAIL ARTICLE

 

If you've been following the auto industry's crisis, then you've probably read or heard a lot about overpaid American autoworkers--in particular, the fact that the average hourly employee of the Big Three makes $70 per hour.

 

That's an awful lot of money. Seventy dollars an hour in wages works out to almost $150,000 a year in gross income, if you assume a forty-hour work week. Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out?

 

Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading.

 

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

 

More important, and contrary to what you may have heard, the wages aren't that much bigger than what Honda, Toyota, and other foreign manufacturers pay employees in their U.S. factories. While we can't be sure precisely how much those workers make, because the companies don't make the information public, the best estimates suggests the corresponding 2007 figure for these "transplants"--as the foreign-owned factories are known--was somewhere between $20 and $26 per hour, and most likely around $24 or $25. That would put average worker's annual salary at $52,000 a year.

 

So the "wage gap," per se, has been a lot smaller than you've heard. And this is no accident. If the transplants paid their employees far less than what the Big Three pay their unionized workers, the United Auto Workers would have a much better shot of organizing the transplants' factories. Those factories remain non-unionized and management very much wants to keep it that way.

 

But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

 

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted yesterday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

 

Of course, the cost of benefits for those retirees--you may have heard people refer to them as "legacy costs"--do represent an extra cost burden that only the Big Three shoulder. And, yes, it makes it difficult for the Big Three to compete with foreign-owned automakers that don't have to pay the same costs. But don't forget why those costs are so high. While the transplants don't offer the same kind of benefits that the Big Three do, the main reason for their present cost advantage is that they just don't have many retirees.

 

The first foreign-owned plants didn't start up here until the 1980s; many of the existing ones came well after that. As of a year ago, Toyota's entire U.S. operation had less than 1,000 retirees. Compare that to a company like General Motors, which has been around for more than a century and which supports literally hundreds of thousands of former workers and spouses. As you might expect, many of these have the sorts of advanced medical problems you expect from people to develop in old age. And, it should go without saying, those conditions cost a ton of money to treat.

 

To be sure, we've known about these demographics for a while. Management and labor in Detroit should have figured out a solution it long ago. But while the Big Three were late in addressing this problem, they did address it eventually.

Notice how, in this article, I've constantly referred to 2007 figures? There's a good reason. In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S.

 

The agreement sought to do so, first, by creating a private trust for financing future retiree benefits--effectively removing that burden from the companies' books. The auto companies agreed to deposit start-up money in the fund; after that, however, it would be up to the unions to manage the money. And it was widely understood that, given the realities of investment returns and health care economics, over time retiree health benefits would likely become less generous.

 

In addition, management and labor agreed to change health benefits for all workers, active or retired, so that the coverage looked more like the policies most people have today, complete with co-payments and deductibles. The new UAW agreement also changed the salary structure, by creating a two-tiered wage system. Under this new arrangement, the salary scale for newly hired workers would be lower than the salary scale for existing workers.

 

One can debate the propriety and wisdom of these steps; two-tiered wage structures, in particular, raise various ethical concerns. But one thing is certain: It was a radical change that promised to make Detroit far more competitive. If carried out as planned, by 2010--the final year of this existing contract--total compensation for the average UAW worker would actually be less than total compensation for the average non-unionized worker at a transplant factory. The only problem is that it will be several years before these gains show up on the bottom line--years the industry probably won't have if it doesn't get financial assistance from the government.

Make no mistake: The argument over a proposed rescue package is complicated, in no small part because over the years both management and labor made some truly awful decisions while postponing the inevitable reckoning with economic reality. And even if the government does provide money, it's a tough call whether restructuring should proceed with or without a formal bankruptcy filing. Either way, yet more downsizing is inevitable.

 

But the next time you hear somebody say the unions have to make serious salary and benefit concessions, keep in mind that they already have--enough to keep the companies competitive, if only they can survive this crisis.

 

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at The New Republic.

Edited December 19, 2008 by PDCCD

[GrimGreg]

Okey dokey GG, who are you gonna work for? the Chinese or the Indians? I'll wager neither, they think we're idiots. Can't figure why .

 

I'll go back to your story in a minute. To this you are correct, I don't work for any multi-national conglomerate, nor would I. I do contract work(through a third party) to work on places I am sure are owned by foriegn companies, but I don't turn around and spend that money I earn from them on their products, so I (for lack of a better term) actually swim up stream. I am one of the few that actually looks for the "made in" label and don't buy the China, Malaysia, Honduras, etc. I will buy made in Mexico, because if we can keep the Mexicans employeed in their country, hopefully less will sneak here to work under the table.

[Precise1]

Remember around 2003 when they flatly stated that they were not going to meet the legislation that required a percentage of all vehicles sold to be hybrid or EV? They said 'because people don't want them'. Funny, I see Prius's everywhere...

and i see hummers, pickups, Cadillac's...

Ok, but Toyota leads the field by a huge gap. How far behind Toyota are they, not Honda??

seems a bit petty this one.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atR4ArJR__OI&refer=us

Did we read the same article?? :blink The one that said

General Motors Corp. may build as many as 60,000

GM to sell the plug-in Volt for less than $30,000

Toyota's Prius can be bought for $22,175.

It will be difficult, though, because there are so many barriers to making this happen.

The Japanese company has a decade-long lead with its Prius

GM product chief Bob Lutz has said he wants to sell the first Volt by late 2010

 

Toyota has sold more than 800,000 Priuses, and the hybrid helped the Toyota City, Japan-based automaker earn a record $14 billion in its last fiscal year. GM lost $1.98 billion in 2006.

 

If anyone thinks the Prius of today is going to be the Prius of 2011 or 2012, they underestimate Toyota.

A 60,000-unit target ``is totally ridiculous at this point,'' Anderman said in an interview. ``To reach that level by 2010, they'd need to be placing the orders right now.

the Prius the 12th- most popular vehicle in the U.S.

 

What I get out of this article is that GM would like to have market share in a couple of years (yeah, I'd like things too) and Toyota has 10 years practical sales and totally dominates the market.

 

You should read this one. http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/Hybr...her-Record-Year

 

Toyota Motor Sales is the clear leader in the U.S. hybrid market. Its Toyota Prius, Camry and Highlander, along with the Lexus RX 400h, GS 450h and LS 600h L, account for almost four out of five hybrids sold in this country. Honda takes a little more than 10 percent of the market, mainly with its Civic Hybrid (and a few Accord Hybrids) and Ford about 7 percent (with the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner). The remainder of the market is split between Nissan (with its Altima) and GM (with the Saturn Vue and Aura), again according to hybridcars.com numbers based on R.L. Polk vehicle registration data.

 

100%-78%toyota=22%-10%honda=12%-7%ford=5% so 5% is split between Nissan and GM. GM has 2.5% of the market!! Now...

GM’s hybrid sales reached 1,975 in September 2008. According to Edmunds, this moves GM into third place in the U.S. hybrid market, just a few vehicles behind Honda.

So their hybrid sales have to be lower than 10% of the market. I would guess 5 to 8% MAX. Why don't they state numbers, not just rate against an unimportant competitor. Because they are putting a slant on the information, and this is why I don't believe much in that article... Does that make sense Pete (and everyone else)?

 

 

 

I'll have to get back to you about some of the other stuff and the response I missed.

 

B

[GrimGreg]

You guys are killing me. You won't click the link

 

I did, and read it when you posted it..

[Precise1]

You guys are killing me. You won't click the link

I haven't because I don't have the time to read, digest and reply to everything in this thread alone in a timely manner. I work full time, cook dinner, help run this site, respond to questions and have my own research/planning/work to do on my 5 vehicles. Maybe this weekend?

 

average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

 

Just for perspective, I am a machinist with 15 years experience (CNC and manual), have supervised crews, owned my own shop and currently do diamond turning (machining optical masters with diamonds). I don't make very much more than that, they probably have better benefits and live in cheaper areas. I'll bet my savings I far surpass the vast majority of their skill sets and could do many of their jobs with minimal training. General assembly line work is pushing the definition of 'skilled worker'.

 

$28/hr is over paid.

 

B

[Simon]

General assembly line work is pushing the definition of 'skilled worker'.

 

$28/hr is over paid.

 

B

That's the point I was trying to make, B. The unions have pushed the "blue collar" workers into the "white collar" pay ranges...effectively killing the middle class. These people don't want to actually do the work to earn the big dollars, and asking them to install 4 bolts instead of 3, results in a union fight until the automaker has to back down (this actually happened in the Chrysler plant in my home town).

 

I have no problem with auto workers making a living, and supporting their families. But I want them to earn it.

 

 

Pete, your quote about Toyota and Honda etc not paying their employees much less than the "Big 3" further proves my (and Ryan's) point about the union being obsolete. There are far fewer union workers in these plants, yet they still get paid a decent wage. The difference is that they have to work for it.

[GrimGreg]

I have no problem with auto workers making a living, and supporting their families. But I want them to earn it.

Pete, your quote about Toyota and Honda etc not paying their employees much less than the "Big 3" further proves my (and Ryan's) point about the union being obsolete. There are far fewer union workers in these plants, yet they still get paid a decent wage. The difference is that they have to work for it.

 

Not to mention, they DO have heathcare and other benefits available to them through their employers. (Mentioning because I got the distinct impression that some think they did not, being non-union.)

[94extreme]

around here honda and toyota pay around $14 while big 3 workers make another $10 on top of that so i sure wouldn't say that they make close to the same. someone's filling you guys full of something but it aint't he reality.

[Simon]

around here honda and toyota pay around $14 while big 3 workers make another $10 on top of that so i sure wouldn't say that they make close to the same. someone's filling you guys full of something but it aint't he reality.

Their temps probably make $14 an hour. Their full time workers make a decent wage.

[94extreme]

that's what the starting pay here is.

 

all of this is a mute point anyway:

 

Bailout approved: Automakers to get $17.4B

 

 

Email this Story

 

Dec 19, 10:15 AM (ET)

 

By DEB RIECHMANN

 

(AP) President George W. Bush makes comments on the auto industry, Friday, Dec. 19, 2008, in the...

Full Image

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing danger to the national economy, the Bush administration approved an emergency bailout of the U.S. auto industry Friday, offering $17.4 billion in rescue loans in exchange for concessions from the deeply troubled carmakers and their workers.

 

The government will have the option of becoming a stockholder in the companies, much as it has with major banks, in effect partially nationalizing the industry.

 

At the same time, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Congress should release the second $350 billion from the financial rescue fund that it approved in October to bail out huge financial institutions. Tapping the fund for the auto industry basically exhausts the first half of the $700 billion total, he said.

 

President Bush said, "Allowing the auto companies to collapse is not a responsible course of action." Bankruptcy, he said, would deal "an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans" across the economy.

 

 

One official said $13.4 billion of the money would be available this month and next, $9.4 billion for General Motors Corp. (GM) and $4 billion for Chrysler LLC. Both companies have said they soon might be unable to pay their bills without federal help. Ford Motor Co. (F) has said it does not need immediate help.

 

Bush's plan is designed to keep the auto industry running in the short term, passing the longer-range problem on to the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

 

Bush said the rescue package demanded concessions similar to those outlined in a bailout plan that was approved by the House but rejected by the Senate a week ago. It would give the automakers three months to come up with restructuring plans to become viable companies.

 

If they fail to produce a plan by March 31, the automakers will be required to repay the loans, which they would find very difficult.

 

"The time to make hard decisions to become viable is now, or the only option will be bankruptcy," Bush said. "The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake and make hard decisions necessary to reform."

 

 

(AP) President George W. Bush leaves after making a statement on the auto industry at the White House on...

Full Image

 

 

He said the companies' workers should agree to wage and work rules that are competitive with foreign automakers by the end of next year.

 

And he called for elimination of a "jobs bank" program - negotiated by the United Auto Workers and the companies - under which laid-off workers receive unemployment benefits and supplemental pay from their companies for 48 weeks. If they remain laid off beyond that, they move to a jobs bank in which the company provides about 95% of their pay and benefits. Until the most recent contract, people could remain in the jobs bank for years. Early this month, the UAW agreed to suspend the program.

 

Under terms of the loan, GM and Chrysler must provide the government with stock warrants giving it the option to buy GM and Chrysler stock at a specific price.

 

In addition, the automakers would be required to agree to limits on executive pay and eliminate some perks such as corporate jets.

 

Paulson said that with the help for the carmakers, the government will have allocated the first half of the largest government bailout program in history.

 

 

(AP) President George W. Bush pauses during a statement on the auto industry at the White House on...

Full Image

 

 

He said he was confident that the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. have the resources to address a significant market crisis if one should occur before Congress approves the use of the second half of the rescue fund.

 

Paulson said he would discuss the process with congressional leaders and Obama's transition team "in the near future."

 

The White House package is the lifeline desperately sought by U.S. automakers, who warned they were running out of money as the economy fell deeper into recession, car loans became scarce and consumers stopped shopping for cars.

 

The carmakers have announced extended holiday shutdowns. Chrysler is closing all 30 of its North American manufacturing plants for four weeks because of slumping sales; Ford will shut 10 North American assembly plants for an extra week in January, and General Motors will temporarily close 20 factories - many for the entire month of January - to cut vehicle production.

 

Bush said the auto manufactures have faced serious challenges for many years: burdensome costs, a shrinking share of the market and plunging profits. "In recent months, the global financial crisis has made these challenges even more severe," he said.

 

 

(AP) President George W. Bush pauses during a statement on the auto industry at the White House on...

Full Image

 

 

The president said that on the one hand, the government has a responsibility not to undermine the private enterprise system, yet on the other hand, it must safeguard the broader health and stability of the U.S. economy.

 

"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers," he said.

 

"Under ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is the price that failed companies must pay," the president said. "And I would not favor intervening to prevent the automakers from going out of business. But these are not ordinary circumstances.

 

"In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action."

 

Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli thanked the administration for its help.

 

In a statement Friday morning, Nardelli said the initial injection of capital will help the company get through its cash crisis and help eventually return to profitability. He said Chrysler was committed to meeting the conditions set by Bush in exchange for the money.

 

Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally said his company would not seek the short-term financial assistance but predicted the aid would stabilize the industry.

 

"The U.S. auto industry is highly interdependent, and a failure of one of our competitors would have a ripple effect that could jeopardize millions of jobs and further damage the already weakened U.S. economy," Mulally said.

 

General Motors said the short-term loans would help preserve jobs and "lead to a leaner, stronger General Motors."

 

"We know we have much work in front of us to accomplish our plan. It is our intention to continue to be transparent as we execute our plan, and we will provide regular updates on our progress," the automaker said.

[tekazgtr1984]

So it's official: Big 3 Bailout.

Let's see what these clowns can do... Viability by March 31st? Hmmm...

[PDCCD]

I'll go back to your story in a minute. To this you are correct, I don't work for any multi-national conglomerate, nor would I. I do contract work(through a third party) to work on places I am sure are owned by foriegn companies, but I don't turn around and spend that money I earn from them on their products, so I (for lack of a better term) actually swim up stream. I am one of the few that actually looks for the "made in" label and don't buy the China, Malaysia, Honduras, etc. I will buy made in Mexico, because if we can keep the Mexicans employeed in their country, hopefully less will sneak here to work under the table.

 

If you wear clothes or eat, you have purchased foreign produced products. Lots of them. I too hunt labels, but find it impossible to avoid foreign items. That's one reason i'm so angry. We passed an apex and i don't think we can return to it.

 

 

Did we read the same article?? :blink The one that said

What I get out of this article is that GM would like to have market share in a couple of years (yeah, I'd like things too) and Toyota has 10 years practical sales and totally dominates the market.

 

You should read this one. http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/Hybr...her-Record-Year

100%-78%toyota=22%-10%honda=12%-7%ford=5% so 5% is split between Nissan and GM. GM has 2.5% of the market!! Now...

 

So their hybrid sales have to be lower than 10% of the market. I would guess 5 to 8% MAX. Why don't they state numbers, not just rate against an unimportant competitor. Because they are putting a slant on the information, and this is why I don't believe much in that article... Does that make sense Pete (and everyone else)?

I'll have to get back to you about some of the other stuff and the response I missed.

 

B

 

We're fighting over a parachute on a sinking submarine. I agree with you that their poor management has failed to interpret inevitable market conditions. But they have been selling allot of what they make. Oddly, in China and Malaysia, a GM product is a status symbol, not the prius, which in time, will become Toyotas downfall like the gas guzzlers are GMs' currently (serious environmental problems ie. lead, acid,plastics). You can have the parachute, i'm done with this argument, your right

 

 

I haven't because I don't have the time to read, digest and reply to everything in this thread alone in a timely manner. I work full time, cook dinner, help run this site, respond to questions and have my own research/planning/work to do on my 5 vehicles. Maybe this weekend?

Just for perspective, I am a machinist with 15 years experience (CNC and manual), have supervised crews, owned my own shop and currently do diamond turning (machining optical masters with diamonds). I don't make very much more than that, they probably have better benefits and live in cheaper areas. I'll bet my savings I far surpass the vast majority of their skill sets and could do many of their jobs with minimal training. General assembly line work is pushing the definition of 'skilled worker'.

 

$28/hr is over paid.

 

B

 

I totally understand B. No worries. I understand the time constraints. Thank you for your contributions regardless.

I don't care if they are "overpaid". As I illustrated in previous posts, that money finds it's way back into their communities. They buy @!*%, employee other people with that money, educate, feed, shelter others with that money. They pay taxes on that money. Their corporate masters money isn't finding it's way back into the communities. Healthy cycle crap i already argued.

 

Pete, your quote about Toyota and Honda etc not paying their employees much less than the "Big 3" further proves my (and Ryan's) point about the union being obsolete. There are far fewer union workers in these plants, yet they still get paid a decent wage. The difference is that they have to work for it.

But somehow you fail to understand the dynamics. They pay those wages ONLY because the UAW exists. They don't want their employees to unionize. As soon as the UAW is eliminated, those wages/benefits will plummet. And they aren't "working" any harder, probably less so, because Europeans and Asians seem to care more for their employees health (ergonomics, safety) and i'll get to why later. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but i feel like i've done everything but come to Canada and read it to you eh.LOL.

 

 

Not to mention, they DO have heathcare and other benefits available to them through their employers. (Mentioning because I got the distinct impression that some think they did not, being non-union.)

LOL, in regards to auto workers, the health care costs i'm referring to are "legacy" costs. In as, Asian auto manufacturers don't have to bear the brunt of providing money for healthcare for their workers. Their countries provide national health care. This takes a HUUUUUUUGE overhead cost off of their shoulders, and enables them to re-invest this extra money that americans companies do not have. I can't overstate the importance of this one detail alone to how they do business, or are able to do business.By nationalizing healthcare, another cost gets paid by the slave, er, worker through taxes. Now in regards to domestic foreign auto employees, those companies have only been here since the 80's, and don't YET have the number of retirees that the big 3 (who've been here since the beginning) have. Yet another component of "legacy" costs that the big 3 simply can't control. And it has nothing to do with their business model, but more to do with National politics.I've illustrated this in the my previous posts, but you've read them already supposedly. This is simply a matter of trying to compare apples to oranges. Yes, we eat them both, but their two different things. Yes, they both make cars, but there is ALLOT more to consider. I didn't even get into how geography and international politics have dictated what cars foreign auto manufactures have traditionally produced. It's not so much they've changed anything their doing, or doing it soooo much better, but we as a nation are changing under similar economic/geographical pressures finally, and they're already there, but going the other way. Strangers in the night.Get it?

The other Health insurance issue i've been referring to (costs being put on taxpayers) is occurring in every other industry where unions have been eliminated (retail/service industries). And it will also eventually occur in the auto industry when unions are eliminated. It's happened over and over.

 

Hey, i wanted to thank you guys for this conversation. I appreciate being able to share thoughts and feelings with others that have different perspectives and experiences than i do without it degrading into a ego fest of attitudes that i see happen on other forums. I think mutual respect and communication are going to be the primary tools we'll need if we're going to find our way to something better.

[Simon]

But somehow you fail to understand the dynamics. They pay those wages ONLY because the UAW exists. They don't want their employees to unionize. As soon as the UAW is eliminated, those wages/benefits will plummet. And they aren't "working" any harder, probably less so, because Europeans and Asians seem to care more for their employees health (ergonomics, safety) and i'll get to why later. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but i feel like i've done everything but come to Canada and read it to you eh.LOL.

I do understand the dynamics, I just don't agree with your point. Laws, and competition have done just as much, if not more, for non-unionized salaries than the union has. If the union didn't exist today, salaries would be almost as high, only, folks would be working for them. I agree that Europeans and Asians typically treat their employeess better, but this is because they get more in return. These folks are well taken care of because they work hard. They work hard because they're treated well, and because if they don't, they will be out on their ass, replaced by someone willing to work hard.