Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » UAW Refused to Accept Deal to Save the Companies? « Previous Next »
Archive through December 12, 2008Sparty0630 12-12-08  9:57 pm
Archive through December 13, 2008Sumas30 12-13-08  7:18 am
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Turkeycall
Member
Username: Turkeycall

Post Number: 104
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 7:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sen. Jim DeMint quote: "Well, I’m not trying to get rid of the unions, but I am saying that they appear to be an antiquated concept in today’s economy."

I cannot conceive of the notion that any company - large or small - would do business without the benefit of having legal representation near at hand or even on retainer. Every business has a lawyer or has immediate access to one or more. The business that doesn't have a lawyer is setting itself up for trouble.

The ins and outs of doing business, especially a manufacturing concern where product liability is always a potential issue, demands access to legal counsel. Is the right to have an attorney an antiquated concept also? Of course not.

I don't want to hear about the "bad apples" the company can't fire because of the union. That's a straw man set-up.

It's not the union's fault that it does a better job of representing a member than the company does representing itself.

The right to representation is claimed also by workers on the factory floor for good reason. Where there is no agreement in place which addresses work hours, pay, benefits, vacations, seniority rights, and the like, management has - and will continue to - arbitrarily favor one employee over another. Favoritism may be based on nothing more than how an employee parts his hair or who's a friend of a friend. "I'm sorry. I know you've worked for me these past four years and you've really done a great job, too. But, you've got to go. My brother-in-law needs a job and he's gonna take your place."

With an agreement in place, management and labor know what's expected of them. Management has its lawyers and labor has its representation. Where's the problem there?

No one will ever convince me that employees gain or just maintain wages and benefits when their union is removed.

Sen. Jim DeMint is disingenuous. If he thinks the unions are an antiquated concept, then it follows that he really would like to get rid of them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gene
Member
Username: Gene

Post Number: 137
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 8:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote:

"Sparty,
The Big 3 already have new workers coming into the plants at $16 an hour so it's a fallacy that everybody's on a fat salary until 2010."

How can new workers be coming into the plants at $16 an hour when there are so many existing workers laid off?

Any union contract I have been involved in does not allow new workers to be hired until all the laid off workers are back or refused work.

At that rate it will take a generation to have workers at your $16 start rate.
Top of pageBottom of page

20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter

Post Number: 711
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 8:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's a two tiered pay system the uaw agreed too. Most long time workers have been bought out, too be replaced with $16.00 an hour workers. The uaw has made that concession already. In essence you could have 2 workers, side by side making 2 different pays. That's why they need to survive long enough replace the workers making less. This will make them profitable in a real hurry.
Top of pageBottom of page

Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft

Post Number: 1167
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 8:58 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nice, Sparty ...the National Review. Good way to signal your political leanings.

It all boils down to this: The Southern Republicans were willing to let an entire industry to go down, as a payback for organized labor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 2729
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 9:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"No one will ever convince me that employees gain or just maintain wages and benefits when their union is removed. "

As a career complaint investigator, I can vouch for the fact that people get treated unfairly by employers for all sorts of reasons. In non-union companies starting in the 80s, we were shocked to see the rise of something call 'at-will employment'. Workers were required to sign an at-will agreement on hire, which provided that they could be discharged at any time and no reason need be given. Employers felt that gave them immunity from complaints of unfair treatment [didn't quite work out for them, but it made everything more difficult as no records need be kept or reason be given].

That kind of arrangement has become so standard these days that no one blinks an eye at it, but when it started it seemed radically threatening to what had been the ideal career path, where one could be hired out of high school and work their way up the ranks, stay with the company for 30 years and retire with a pension.

Not long after that, Michigan Consolidated, as a cost cutting measure, fired some of its long term salaried workers and forced them to pack up and get out under guard in an hour.

It was the beginning of what has become a new way of employment, where the employer's bottom line dictates all, and loyalty and experience mean nothing. We have gradually become accustomed to this and it seems normal, but it sure changed the face of our communities and the family way of life. This attack on the middle class workers is just one more step along a perilous pathway that is changing our entire way of life to be measured by Wall Street methods. Welcome to the Machine.
Top of pageBottom of page

Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft

Post Number: 1168
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 9:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gaz,
I really think that brutal mode of employment is endangered; and those Republicans who stopped the auto bailout bill knew it. This was their last stand, they know Obama supports the card check legislation that lifts a road block for unions trying to organize workplaces.

The Republicans hate that possibility, and they'll fight it tooth and nail...but after January, they don't have the votes.

I think a lot of the horrors of labor law in the Reagan/Bush years are about to be rolled back.
Top of pageBottom of page

Turkeycall
Member
Username: Turkeycall

Post Number: 105
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 9:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gene,
There are new employees in some of the GM and Delphi plants. They were hired as "temporaries" while the GM/Delphi attrition plan was being put into effect.

In my case, I worked at Marion (IN) Metal Fab from '85 to '92, then Coopersville AC Rochester [which became Delphi] from '92 to '06.

I, and about 31,000 other Delphi employees were offered a Mutually Satisfactory Retirement which paid immediate pension payments according to years of service and health care. While the process was taking place, temporary workers in production were hired and paid $12.50 per hour.

When the process was completed, almost all of the temps were made permanent employees but still received the $12.50 per hour, had health coverage with shared premiums deducted from their paychecks and lots of co-pays and deductables, no structured pension program, but were allowed to contribute to a 401k with no matching funds from the Company.

I was a skilled tradesman [Machine Repair]. My rate of pay in '06 was $32.50 per hour and I was worth every penny of it. My replacement, a Journeyman Machine Repairman hired as a temp, was paid around $21.00 per hour. He has since been made a permanent employee - still at the $21.00 to $25.00 level - and is working at the Delphi facility in Wyoming [Grand Rapids] plant.

Now, with a lot of lay-offs and plant closings in both GM and Delphi, it's pretty hard to say how many are working anywhere in the system. There are a bunch on the street.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 949
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 9:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"If Sen. Corker’s plan had prevailed, with UAW support, many believe it would have had 90 votes in the Senate."

This is simply BS. Have you read any of the coverage following the vote? Have you found any GOP Senator other than Corker saying that they would have changed their vote if the UAW had conceded that point? I haven't.

One other point that you seem to miss. The VEBA concession by the UAW is a huge concession and adds a huge risk factor to the health care for retirees (and VEBA was done by the unions in order to help the companies reduce their liabilities). So if you're going to accurately portray the givebacks, everyone was asked to give but only the UAW was asked to give more (wage concessions) and then give even more (specific date and wages).
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 950
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't believe I'm quoting McCotter but he's closer to the major players:

Even if the union gave in, Corker may not have been able to get the deal passed. There may have been too much opposition no matter what the union was willing to do. "Corker couldn't deliver the Senate even if the UAW agreed," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.)

http://www.businessweek.com/bw daily/dnflash/content/dec2008/ db20081212_593723.htm

Sparty06: It's pretty apparent that you're making a strawman argument. Your strawman is looking pretty tattered. If you can't come up with any of names of Republican Senators willing to change their position if the UAW had given up that point, I have to say that your original premise is false and your continued effort to hang this on the UAW is dishonest.
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 714
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We don't know if Gettelfinger had inside information (a claim even put forth publicly by Corker) that Bush would step in. If that is the case, the Gettelfinger might not have been "gambling" or playing "Russian Roulette" or whatever.

Further, Corker strikes me as having a lack of integrity. He had a deal with the UAW, and he obviously thought it was fair because he negotiated it and even brought it back to his own caucus. So it couldn't have been a bad deal. But the GOP added more strings to it. Now Corker is going on the media blaming the UAW for failing to accept the terms. That just strikes me as dishonest, that he would blame the UAW when it was his own side that reneged on the deal Corker negotiated.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 2730
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think Gettelfinger had it right, no matter what he agreed to, they would come back and ask for more. The evil side of giving a mouse a cookie...
Top of pageBottom of page

Daddeeo
Member
Username: Daddeeo

Post Number: 334
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:36 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

...or a rat a piece of cheese.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2943
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:40 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote: "If you can't come up with any of names of Republican Senators willing to change their position if the UAW had given up that point, I have to say that your original premise is false"

All the news agencies claimed the vote would have passed if Gettlefinger had agreed to a reasonable wage on par with the rest of the North American auto industry. Like it or not the UAW is the stumbling block in the negotiations. It would have been resolved by now. Bush will probably sign it anyway, judging by his willingness to sign whatever they put in front of him. Problem postponed until Obama takes office. Will be interesting to see if he feels the rest of the country should fund "Layoff rooms" etc.
Top of pageBottom of page

Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft

Post Number: 1169
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"All the news agencies" -- false. If you had proof, you would link it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Angry_dad
Member
Username: Angry_dad

Post Number: 285
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Instead of the UAW being horsewhipped by the likes of Corker and Shelby, why aren't those fine public represenatives going to Toyota, Honda, Nissan and the rest and telling them that since they got massive public subsidies courtesy the American public that they have to raise wages to the level of the UAW?

Exactly who are these southern buffoons working for anyways? Yeah I know the answer. So do you
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 715
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 10:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I remember the days when Bush was putting forth judicial nominees, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was on TV, blaming the democrats for not allowing an "up or down vote." If the GOP had followed their same mantra on this deal, and allowed an up or down vote, the White House/House compromise deal would have passed with 52 votes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 952
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 3:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"All the news agencies claimed the vote would have passed if Gettlefinger had agreed to a reasonable wage on par with the rest of the North American auto industry."

Yet none of the news agencies quoted one Senator other than Corker saying they would have supported such a deal. Or am I supposed to believe that suddenly none of these guys have an opinion on the vote? Right.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 155
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 5:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually it wasn't just Bob Corker. All of the above linked articles demonstrate that tons of lobbyists and Dem and GOP Senators were gathered on the first floor of the Capitol building going back and forth between rooms trying to figure out a solution. It's disingenuous to say it was just Corker proposing this solution.... it had the backing of other Senate Republicans. I don't know how many times I have to say this but I strongly disagree with the tactics the GOP used and I am a union supporter. However, just because I support the unions doesn't mean every single thing they do is right. It seems that if the UAW said that the earth was flat there'd be people on this forum defending them. I choose to put the truth above my union loyalties, obviously not everyone makes that same choice. In this instance it appears the UAW decided to play Russian Roulette with the fate of millions of people who rely on the Big 3 by not agreeing to take a pay cut in 2009, instead of 2011 (again this wasn't a fair compromise but it still doesn't make them in the right to kill the entire bridge loan deal because they don't think it's fair to them). As I said before, if the Obama were in power and he asked the CEOs to take a pay-cut and they refused, I would also be blaming them as selfish. I guess I just choose to place blame where it belongs as opposed to deciding which political party I like or dislike or whether I'm pro-union or anti-union and then making my decision based off of that.

On a semi-related note I really like this quote from today's Mitch Albom article - "Kill the car, kill the country. You tried to slam a stake into the chest of this business, and you don’t even realize how close to the nation’s heart you’re coming."



(Message edited by sparty06 on December 13, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 2734
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bottom line, UAW had already acceded to some of the GOP gang's wishes. Had they acceded to this one, the GOP would have still balked and demanded more. There was no way they were going to approve the loan, and they wanted to make the UAW look like the bad guy. It looks like it worked on some people. Luckily, some folks are have a little more savvy. Negotiating is not a picnic and it isn't for amateurs, that's for sure.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 156
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gazhekwe,
That may be true... that even if they had ceded the GOP still would've balked. But I guess we'll never truly know since they refused and never even gave it a chance. If this were any other situation I would say bargain away but this was truly the final hour for the auto-companies... there is no tomorrow if this doesn't work. I think it was like playing a deadly game of Russian Roulette and I just don't think that's responsible. Now I put tons of blame on the GOP Senators for playing Russian Roulette with our economy and lives but why can't some other rational person on this board also see that the UAW bears some responsibility for being the party on the other side playing the same game of Russian Roulette?

(Message edited by sparty06 on December 13, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 2735
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 5:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The UAW did not go in to play Russian Roulette. They went in to discuss it reasonably. That is the difference. When reason left, so did they, and I support them. Luckily, there is another way, maybe more than one other way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2944
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 6:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote: "All the news agencies" -- false. If you had proof, you would link it."

Ummm.. you might want to look at the title of this thread. The "news reports" are what started it.

Quote: "Yet none of the news agencies quoted one Senator other than Corker saying they would have supported such a deal."

I seen a list yesterday that showed how everyone voted. The media is to blame here? They are making stuff up to blackball the UAW?

Gettlefinger acts like he's in contract negotiations. Where it's an aggressive take all you can get approach. The people he is playing hard ass with could care less about Detroit. Also his actions have done more to alienate any support the UAW had prior among the rest of the country. Hence the several snarky posts lately.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 157
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 6:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How is it reasonable to refuse to agree to be paid a competitive wage? I mean it strikes me as the height of UAW arrogance to think that they should be paid more than the market price and to cling to this notion even as the companies they work for are about to go bankrupt.
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 716
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 6:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Part of the problem, Sparty, is how to define what a competitive wage is? Toyota is usually the benchmark for all things auto. Well, the Toyota workers in Kentucky actually bring home more than UAW Big 3 workers. So, if Nissan pays people less than Big 3 but Big 3 pay less than Toyota, is Big 3 competitive? I think so, on the face of it. But there is more to this. Jobs are classified differently, have different skill levels, and each company (and probably plant, too) has a different wage structure and level. So to tell a company they have to pay "market rate" requires a great deal of job analysis and sharing of confidential pay information, something I don't think the foreign automakers are going to want to do.

But even so, the Big 3 workers are more highly skilled and educated than the average foreign autoworker.

If all companies simply paid "market rate" then we wouldn't need HR specialists, and no company would be able to use HR as a source of competitive advantage.

Another point, relating to the deal itself. Corker blames Bush for tipping his hand to Gettelfinger. I wonder - if Corker knew all along that Bush would intervene, then maybe it was Corker the one playing Russian Roulette with the economy, by pushing a deal he knew the UAW would/could never accept?
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 158
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Frankg,
Yes I absolutely think Corker was playing Russian Roulette with the economy and I have condemned him and the other GOP Senators for that conduct. But as the old saying goes "it takes two to tango." The UAW was playing the same game only the results if they lost would be far more harmful to them than the GOP Senators. Also, I keep hearing all this about "What is the market rate"? That's a great question but as I've said... the UAW could've agreed to the market rate in principle then haggled over the small details of how you calculate that rate later on. Many articles in the New York Times and other left-leaning papers have published articles with average wages for the foreign companies and UAW workers so I'm sure that a number can be reached.

Frank -- If Obama asks the CEOs (of any industry) to be paid a "market rate" will you promise to come on this forum and say it's unfair because calculating the market rate involves uncertainties and confidential information?

Just for the record. He is a non-partisan Reuters article that calculates the wage rates for UAW and non-UAW workers. http://www.reuters.com/article /americasDealsNews/idUSTRE4BB6 VB20081212
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 717
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 7:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are so many considerations to pay and benefits levels. As I've said, job analysis, skill levels, job hierarchy, entry level, maximum level, regional differences in pay, regional differences in cost of living, even the regional cost of health care differences. I am just saying that wage and benefits levels are very complex. It might sound OK like you say, to agree in principle to a "market rate" with details to be worked out later. But if I were Gettelfinger I wouldn't agree to that either, unless we agreed on the methodology to determine what that market rate is. Again, this is a very complex determination, and the methodology used can have a great effect on the final results. These are things that skilled professionals need to haggle about in contract negotiations.

I can hear this now, when the Employee Free Choice Act is being debated, that these same Senators are going to be crying that it isn't government's role to set wages! Mark my words!

I doubt Obama would tell CEO's they need to be paid "market rate." The problem with CEO pay is that companies are paying them market rate, and this market rate is what is ratcheting pay up and up and up. Every company wants to pay their CEO at or above market rate, and turnover is fairly high at that level. So with each new CEO, average pay goes higher and higher...
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 718
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 7:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh, regarding the link to the UAW and non-UAW worker's wages, the source was Ford. And it assumes entry-level wages for 20% of employees.

Again, the devil is in the details here. I am not sure how Ford gets a copy of Nissan's or Honda's or Toyota's compensation manual, or distribution of seniority dates. These are all approximations based on assumptions. The devil is in the details.

The reality is that the UAW wages are competitive, and the UAW has already taken, and agrees to take, even more hits. The fact that wages aren't "market rate" by someone's definition, they may be "market rate" by another's definition.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 956
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Another detail you seem to have overlooked Sparty06 is that approval by the Senate was not the end of the discussion. The legislation being discussed in the "compromise" did not reflect the negotiations that were required to get many House Democrats to vote for it. Many of them were angry that the funding was coming from money that was supposed to be for retooling for more energy efficient vehicles. The Senate Republicans also wanted to strip out language related to state emission standards which the House Democrats had insisted on keeping in the legislation.

That means that even IF the Senate Republicans had changed their vote (which I think is fantasy world thinking to believe would happen and you haven't been able to show one Republican Senator who would have changed their vote), the changed legislation would have had to pass the House Democrats, many of who were already angry with the compromises they had to accept to get the Bush White House to sign off it. Then who would you have blamed if the legislation didn't pass?
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 159
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 8:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine,
I'm not defending the GOP here. I'm just saying that I also think the UAW acted selfishly. This doesn't mean I don't recognize the significant cuts the union has already made or the problems in Senators dictating to a private business what they should pay their employees. I'm just trying to look at this rationally and in doing so I've come to the conclusion that the UAW acted irresponsibly in the last minute negotiations (as did certain members of the GOP).
Top of pageBottom of page

20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter

Post Number: 713
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 8:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think we have too much government! :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 957
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Best UAW response yet:

"I don't know what Sen. Vitter has against GM or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we've done, it's time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him, " said Johnson, president of Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, "He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers."
Top of pageBottom of page

Andyguard73
Member
Username: Andyguard73

Post Number: 285
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 1:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Just spent the last 30 minutes getting caught up on this thread. I'm very pleased that its managed to maintain a civil tone. Sparty, just so I understand correctly, you feel that the GOP was unreasonable and disingenuous, but that Gettelfinger, representing tens of thousands of workers and their families, should have done what they wanted anyways?
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 960
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 12:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Senator Ensign (R-Nevada) is on TV this morning with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer asked him directly - would you have voted for the bill if the UAW had agreed to a date certain. Ensign refused to say "Yes".
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2947
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote: "it was absolutely wrong for those Senators to think they could run the company and decide how it deals with labor."

Instead we've had labor deciding how the companies will deal with labor for years. Why we have companies with 115 billion dollars in liabilities and can be bought for 2 billion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikem
Member
Username: Mikem

Post Number: 1894
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Quote: "Labor costs account for about 10% of the cost of making a car."

No offense, but source?


http://www.uaw.org/auto/12_02_ 08auto1.cfm
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2967
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

UAW claims 10% labor cost. GM was claiming just a year ago that one thousand dollars of every car sold went toward healthcare alone. With dwindling sales, hard to say what it is now.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What _percent_of_new_car_price_is_l abor_cost

""The answer is an oversimplification. It appears to consider only assembly-line labor costs. Each of the other categories, research, development, parts, advertising, marketing, and management, also have labor costs (and these categories may be far more labor-intensive than final assembly), which must be taken into account. As well, the labor costs associated with extraction, refinement, and transport of the raw materials (and transport of finished vehicles to dealers) must be considered. Finally, the labor costs of energy required for all phases of auto manufacturing, from extraction through final delivery, must be considered. The real cost of any product is the total cost of labor and materials required to produce the product, plus profit, at all stages of production.""
Top of pageBottom of page

Otter
Member
Username: Otter

Post Number: 473
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stash,


While the point made in the quote is reasonable, I don't think it addresses what people are actually saying. Almost invariably, when people talk about labor costs as a fraction of the cost of a new car, they are talking about assembly labor.

O.
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 721
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Citing wikipedia is akin to citing a source from DYes. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll get. In any event, I would like to see a better source than Wikipedia to be convinced.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2969
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Do you agree that UAW demands regarding the price of labor drive up the costs across the board with their non-union counterparts?
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 722
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Management at non-union plants set the pay structure and pay level. Kind of hard to blame the UAW for what managers at non-union plants do? Ya think?
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 2930
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That 10% does not include all manufacturing to build and assemble the vehicle. That only includes the workers at Ford, Chrysler, GM.
Top of pageBottom of page

Turkeycall
Member
Username: Turkeycall

Post Number: 108
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 6:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Goat,
Speaking only in regard to GM, the only parts manufacturing that GM does directly are body stampings [at Metal Fab Division], and engines and transmissions [at Central Foundry and Powertrain Divisions].

Each of those divisions are responsible for their own sustainability. General Motors purchases engines, transmissions, and body stampings from them. Yeah, there is an actual exchange of money - on paper, anyway. The labor cost at the supplier divisions are not included in the cost of building the car. The cost of purchasing the finished parts is.

ALL other parts are purchased from independent suppliers such as Delphi, Dana, Textron, TRW, Hayes Lammerz - a scad-load of supplier companies which produce everything from seat belts, spark plugs, filters, drive train, alternators, fuel injectors, catalytic converters, seating, instrument clusters - you name it.

At one time GM made practically all their own parts. Delphi was the spin-off of the Automotive Components Group. It now competes for the GM business.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sparty06
Member
Username: Sparty06

Post Number: 173
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 10:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote "Sparty, just so I understand correctly, you feel that the GOP was unreasonable and disingenuous, but that Gettelfinger, representing tens of thousands of workers and their families, should have done what they wanted anyways?"

Yes, First, just because the GOP tactics were wrong, that doesn't make the UAW right to refuse to agree to be paid a competitive wage. Second, without bailout funds all the UAW contracts including the health care VEBA can be completely wiped out in bankruptcy. So Ron Gettelfeinger essentially bet tens of thousand of jobs on the fact that Bush would come through with TARP funds (which has shown to be a huge gamble as talk from the White House indicates bankruptcy may still be an option). If bankruptcy occurs the UAW and millions of other workers could lose everything.

If somebody points a gun to your head and says give me your money or I'll shoot you, you don't refuse because you find their offer unreasonable, this just means you get shot in the head.

edit: I've also been really pleased that this thread has turned into a pretty civil and substantive debate.

(Message edited by sparty06 on December 18, 2008)

(Message edited by sparty06 on December 19, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3931
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 11:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If someone's holding a gun to your head and asking you to cut off your arm, they are playing games with you, and will almost certainly shoot your in the head if you're dumb enough to cut off your arm. Corker was a dirty dealer plain and simple. If he wants to play a game of bait-and-switch he can do it with someone else willing to play the fool.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2980
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 11:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have to ask.. What are you folks going to say when they start (they already are) closing plants? Or close all the plants? If they go into bankruptcy, the UAW is more than likely gone, and it will definitely put the car companies out of business.

I seen this happen over and over in the south, the workers stand united and the company just moves or shuts down. Then they wish they had taken what the company had offered then it's too late.

The problem is, everyone is banking on the Bridge loan and thinking it can't happen here. I guess they never heard of Studebaker, Hudson and the plethora of others that went belly up.

I think Gettlefinger really blew it for you guys.
Top of pageBottom of page

Turkeycall
Member
Username: Turkeycall

Post Number: 109
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sstashmoo Quote: "I seen this happen over and over in the south, the workers stand united and the company just moves or shuts down. Then they wish they had taken what the company had offered then it's too late."

It's very difficult to second-guess what a company will do. It's even more dangerous to place much trust in a company's promises. A case in point:

In Walker, [Grand Rapids] MI, there was GM Inland Fisher Guide facility. It produced seating parts and assemblies. The facility became a Delphi plant in 1998, then was sold to Lear.

A year or so after Lear owned it, a meeting between management and the union reps was called. The Union was told that in order for the plant to remain open, a new contract would have to be negotiated.

The upshot: The union members accepted concessions of an across-the-board 20% wage cut, dispensing with cost of living increases, drastic reduction of health benefits, and reducing the number of hourly classifications to just a few. Several skilled trades were combined, also.

For their concessions, Lear promised to keep the plant open and running.

Six months later Lear closed the plant and moved the operation to Mexico.

So much for above-board, honest negotiations.

The UAW, which represents thousands of workers, has no problem negotiating new terms for troubled times. It will not now, nor should it ever, allow itself to be the red-headed step-child who is made to be the scapegoat for every problem that an industry has.

Fair and equitable sacrifices are what is called for.

Stand firm, Gettlefinger.
Top of pageBottom of page

Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth

Post Number: 496
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 4:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gettlefinger was right to do what he did. Labor has no business (as it's been said here before) negotiating with government in terms of wages, unless it's government who is the employer.

All of this needs to be discussed with the companies in question, and the discussion needs to start now.

I have faith in the bargaining process, to be a fair and equitable settlement for all concerned.

What is troubling is the debt for equity swaps. Also the time frame involved. There's a lot to do between now and then, and they better get going.

It was interesting to hear Waggoner speak today, when he was asked whether he (paraprasing) was going to ask the Obama admin for a better deal, he said that he is concentrating on working within the framework. His face said otherwise.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 7322
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 5:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sstashmoo,

Any concern about those bonuses being paid out to non-union bankers from that bailout money?
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 980
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 7:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Six months later Lear closed the plant and moved the operation to Mexico."

Same thing happened at Electrolux in Greenville. Everyone involved, the unions, the city, county and state made concessions or offered abatements, etc. to keep them to stay. Electrolux said "See ya, we can build cheaper in Mexico."
Top of pageBottom of page

Mashugruskie
Member
Username: Mashugruskie

Post Number: 373
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We just had an Electrolux store close here in Livonia on Five Mile. I guess once everyone heard the factory here was leaving Michigan for Mexico, everyone stopped buying.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 2987
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 9:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote: "Sstashmoo,

Any concern about those bonuses being paid out to non-union bankers""

Of course. It's wrong. When an entity cries for help, they should at least be in trouble and when they get help, they should at least be responsible with it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3935
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to send Senator Shelby a big, fat "thank you" card. :-)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.