  Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 135 Registered: 03-2007 |
Can we have some honest debate on what actually happened here? Now that I've gone through the news stories a little more it actually does appear that the Republicans were willing to agree to a bail out if the unions would just agree to bring their costs down to what every other auto worker was making by a date of their choosing in 2009. The union (not even the Democrat Senators) refused to bring their pay down to that of their competitors and decided it would rather let the bill die than save the auto companies. If true, how unbelievable is that? It shows how bad the problem was, even when given the option of a pay cut or almost certain failure for the Big 3 the union chose failure. If any posters have more info on what went down I'd love to hear it as I can't really believe that the UAW would be so selfish. Here's the relevant article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12 /13/business/13uaw.html?hp edit: Even if the union felt it was being singled out unfairly (and I'm almost sure it was) it still is crazy to think that they would rather see GM and Chrysler die than take pay cuts. Especially when those pay-cuts were just asking them to get paid what all the foreign automakers are getting paid and no less. (Message edited by sparty06 on December 12, 2008) | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 1878 Registered: 10-2003 |
That sounds like a complex issue that can't be agreed to in a phone call or two. Gettelfinger was correct in suspecting that the UAW was being set up. It worked and Crawford and Englishkills are proof. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 136 Registered: 03-2007 |
It sounds like someone put a gun to their head and said you need to restructure your contracts now or else we shoot. The UAW said "shoot." | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 1881 Registered: 10-2003 |
Maybe they said "shoot" or maybe they said "look, it's not that easy, I can't act unilaterally on behalf of the board or the membership. Can I get back to you?" | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 137 Registered: 03-2007 |
Mikem, I wish that were the case but factually it just doesn't appear to be true. I'm a union supporter but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they do. I'm very concerned about how they approached this bill yesterday. Corker specifically asked for Gettelfinger himself to be in the negotiations so he would have the power to act and Gettelfinger refused. http://www.politico.com/blogs/ thecrypt/1208/Corker_UAW_didnt _release_Dems.html | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 466 Registered: 10-2006 |
Careful, Sparty, the forumers will claim you are a "troll" if you think the UAW workers only deserve a middle class salary. For some reason, many forumers think it's anti-Detroit to think that GM shouldn't go under because a few bums want to be (very well) paid to do nothing... | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 1882 Registered: 10-2003 |
Who knows what was really said, but I have the feeling Gettelfinger was asked a question they knew he couldn't answer, and now the senators can wash their hands of it. On the other hand, Gettelfinger isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 138 Registered: 03-2007 |
Mikem, Well the record gives us some indication of what was said and it appears the reason this bill wasn't passed was because the UAW wouldn't agree just to be paid a competitive wage. | ||
Mikem Member Username: Mikem Post Number: 1883 Registered: 10-2003 |
"just to be paid a competitive wage." I know, but what does that mean? Was it really that simple? Was a simple yes or no answer required, and can one man give the answer that would change legal contracts for thousands of members? | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 887 Registered: 11-2007 |
Labor costs account for about 10% of the cost of making a car. Most people agree that the wage difference going forward is less than 10% between UAW and non-union workers (not including legacy costs) so you're talking about Congress letting the industry collapse rather than buy 6 months to allow the new administration to make an effort at long-term restructuring, over less than 100 bucks on the cost of building a vehicle. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1162 Registered: 12-2003 |
The Toyota wage in Kentucky is $30, more than the UAW's $28. So as Gettelfinger said, "which wage" are we to be competitive with? It's a complex issue. The Republicans had a knee-jerk, "you will take concessions" just to be punitive, they weren't really interested in facts vs. myth. Why, Sparty (PLEASE be a Wolverine), was this provision to cut wages ONLY for the UAW, not for management of the auto companies, not for the dealers, not for the suppliers. Why? Simple union-busting and support for the foreign transplants in their backyards. And a payback for the UAW for supporting the Democrats | ||
Turkeycall Member Username: Turkeycall Post Number: 103 Registered: 09-2008 |
Quote by Crawford :"For some reason, many forumers think it's anti-Detroit to think that GM shouldn't go under because a few bums want to be (very well) paid to do nothing..." Do you have names to attach to those who "want to be (very well) paid to do nothing..."? Have you ever actually been employed by an auto manufacturer or supplier? Have you spent any time on the factory floor or are you just parroting the unsubstantiated opinions of the rest of the anti-labor crowd? | ||
Frankg Member Username: Frankg Post Number: 712 Registered: 08-2007 |
Let's not forget that the UAW had a deal worked out with Corker. After Corker brought it back to the GOP caucus, Corker came back to the UAW with further conditions to the bill. So if Corker wasn't even authorized to negotiate for the GOP why should Gettelfinger waste his time there? So let's not put the blame on Gettelfinger for not being there. Corker was clearly a stooge in this stage set by the GOP to blame the failure on the UAW, rather where blame belongs, with the GOP. | ||
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2007 |
Why the hell should the UAW take the rap here? They've given several concessions over the years, to the point, noted here, that they are actually paid less than workers at some of the non-union auto plants. Why doesn't the rap go to the auto company execs, who ran the giants of American industry into the ground, and who lobbied to have any pay restrictions for them taken out of this bill? Why doesn't the rap go to the southern Republican senators who spearheaded the defeat of this bill in order to continue their cynical war against organized labor, and more importantly in the service of the state-subsidized plants that non-US auto makers operate in their states? Why? Because it's always easier in today's USA to make working men and women into scapegoats. The entire premise of the defeat doesn't hold water, but that doesn't matter if no one calls them on it, and especially if it works - as it did, Anyone who doesn't see this as one of the last acts in the Republicans war against the American working class (and the Democrats wholesale failure to stop that war), and any political or bargaining power they once had, hasn't been paying attention for the past 30 years. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5952 Registered: 08-2004 |
Crawford, you crack me up... with an Ivy League school degree(s), selling real estate in Latin America, and listening to your grandfathers anecdotes about a US auto factory... now you claim to be an expert in the auto industry. What makes your comments even more ironic is the fact that we have President Dubya... who got a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard!  | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 2942 Registered: 02-2007 |
Gettlefinger is trying to turn this into contract negotiations. What this moron doesn't realize, the people he is negotiating with could give a f less about the big 3 or Detroit. He is really doing the dance of death there. I agree with Sparty 100%. Quote: "Labor costs account for about 10% of the cost of making a car." No offense, but source? Quote: "Have you spent any time on the factory floor or are you just parroting the unsubstantiated opinions of the rest of the anti-labor crowd?" I have. It is better than it used to be. But it's a long way from being fixed. In the areas of skilled trades especially. I know one guy in particular that worked for Ford for 3 years and was only in the plant about 4 months total. The rest of his tenure was spent on vacation and voluntary medical that his department needed to burn up out of their budget (according to him). This guy took vacations, hunted, fished, you name it. He took the buyout and left. I know hundreds of stories like that. One guy in management was home everyday by 9:00 am and drew a full days pay. Oh and did I mention supplier "contributions" above and beyond normal pay? No I didn't.  I know some things in that area that are just crazy. Working for the big3 has been a really good deal for some people. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 576 Registered: 04-2008 |
Sparty06, the way I understand it is that part of the loan deal was the designation of a "car czar" who was supposed to work with the auto-makers to reduce costs across-the-board. When the Republican Senators called Gettelfinger to negotiate a side deal that involved concessions only by the UAW, Gettelfinger felt that the UAW was improperly being singled out. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 141 Registered: 03-2007 |
Retroit, I get what you're saying and I think that they were improperly singled out. In fact, let's just assume in arguendo that they were improperly singled out. Even so, they still decided they'd rather let the Big 3 die than take cuts to make them on par with other works (these weren't even cuts below other auto workers wages). Yes, it's unfair but to play russian roulette with millions of jobs because you feel something is unfair to your particular interest group just seems incredibly selfish to me. All they had to do was agree to the cuts and the bridge loans would've gone through (remember, these were cuts they were going to be taking anyways by 2011). | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5008 Registered: 06-2004 |
Here are Gettelfinger's comments about what happened. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 142 Registered: 03-2007 |
I think the reality is that Gettelfinger decided to play Russian Roulette. He figured that he could avoid taking the short term cuts and would bet on Bush coming through with TARP funds. Incredibly dangerous... as someone else said "a dance of death." | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 143 Registered: 03-2007 |
Pfft, You make a great point. Look, If the Dems had come up to Rick Wagoner and management and said take a pay cut now or else you don't get the bridge loans (and assume they required no pay cut or other sacrifices from the unions or anyone else) and the management said NO, this is unfair we won't do it unless everyone else does... then ABSOLUTELY yes I would say that what management did was selfish. That they would care about their own little bit of self-interest more than the millions of people who rely on the auto-industry for their livelihood. | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 926 Registered: 05-2006 |
-Wow looks like the UAW and the American worker just called the Dixie Republicans bluff, here, and the GOP will go down like a flaming t*urd on this one. I think it is time in the next congress for the "Nuclear Option" and remove the senate filibuster for two years. This declared war on Bi-partisianship. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 144 Registered: 03-2007 |
^^^^Yes, but did they really call their bluff? Because if they are wrong the consequences of their "bet" will be unbelievable bad not just for UAW workers but for all of us. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1164 Registered: 12-2003 |
Sparty, You're setting up a straw argument. Nobody asked ONLY Rick Wagoner and management to take a pay cut, while all other GM stakeholders got off scot free. That would have been equally ridiculous. And there are other issues here, that made the UAW back off. Clearly Gettelfinger felt he was being set up, asked to negotiate with a senator who, it turned out, represented only himself and not the Republican caucus. What a colossal waste of time for the UAW to negotiate with Corker (sp?), when the little handful of Dixiepublicans said "no way" to what he came up with anyway. This was all a setup so that the Dixiepublicans could blame the union. | ||
Urbanophile Member Username: Urbanophile Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2008 |
The bottom line, when Gettlefinger won't even commit to permanently eliminating the jobs bank (he's only on record as saying the union is willing to talk about "suspending" it), the UAW is not serious. As I've previously noted, there is a conflict of interest between older UAW workers who've got an incentive to string the big three along for a while and the idea of restructuring to have a sustainably successful domestic auto industry. As it turns out, the whole Congressional thing was a farce anyway, as the UAW probably knew, since Bush is going to unilaterally bail them out anyway. | ||
Daddeeo Member Username: Daddeeo Post Number: 330 Registered: 09-2008 |
Corker and friends offered the UAW a knife and asked them to castrate themselves. Nice negotiations. | ||
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 278 Registered: 05-2005 |
The UAW can't be the scapegoats in this whole mess...you can't compare wages between Toyota/Honda and the Big 3. It's much more complex than that and once again most of the GOP don't get it. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4047 Registered: 10-2003 |
This "wage concession" question seems to have arisen at the 11th hour. For that reason alone, I'm highly suspicious of our industrial masterminds McConnell, Shelby, and Corker. This is not a demand that a bank would make were they to extend a loan, and let's face it: the automakers are only before Congress because the banks are hoarding the taxpayer money intended to avert situtations just like this. I liken it to a building project. If I hire a contractor, it's none of my business how he schedules his crew, or what he pays them, just that he gets the job done at the price and schedule we agree upon. The means and methods are up to him, and so should be the case in this instance. Hypocritically, the "non-government intervention" crowd is trying to dictate the exact methodology of business that the Big Three must follow. Yes, there should be conditions attached to a loan, but I wonder if Kentucky, Alabama, and Tennessee are willing to prop up the Michigan unemployment system. Never mind that if this $14 billion loan doesn't go through in some form, the federal government loses $50 billion in revenue per year. That seems like a pretty damn decent rate of return, if you ask me. The fact that these Senators are ready to just cut 4% of the GDP is pretty indicative why their states are economic shitholes. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2727 Registered: 08-2007 |
Please note, the autoworkers do only make a middle class wage. That $80 per hour that everyone is waving about is bogus. It includes the wages of current workers, the benefits of current workers, and the retirement and benefits of retirees, all rolled into one and then divided by the number of workers. No one else is asked to calculate their pay like that, but if you did, how much would YOU be making? | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 145 Registered: 03-2007 |
Daddeo, No they didn't offer them a knife and ask them to castrate themselves. They only asked them to make concessions they had agreed to make already by 2011 sometime (at a date of their choosing) in 2009. Furthermore, these concessions were only to have pay at the level of other auto workers and no lower. They were simply asking them to stop using their power to force the auto companies to pay the above competitive wages. Now, I agree that this was a stupid move by the GOP and wasn't really necessary at this exact moment BUT, I can't believe the UAW wouldn't just agree as this is the final hour for everyone related to the auto-industry. It shows their arrogance and self-interest that they believed paying themselves above competitive wages was more important than saving the Big 3. And it gives us some glimpse into why the Big 3 are in such deep trouble (they have constituencies that care more about themselves than the overall health of the company). |
